Paper 1 Revision: Conflict & Tension 1918-39
These are the exam questions and skills will be focusing on for this paper Question Type of Question Total Mark 11 Source analysis 4 12 How useful are these sources? 12 13 Write an account. 8 14 Essay question.how far do you agree? 16 + (4 SPAG)
Source questions on Treaty of Versailles Complete the quick-reference grid to use for your contextual knowledge on both source questions What did they want from the treaty? What did they get from the treaty? Georges Clemenceau France Woodrow Wilson USA Lloyd George Great Britain
1. Source D Opposes Germany. How do you know? (4 marks) Source content Knowledge Provenance Success Criteria Explain what the source is saying Refer to specific details in the source Link relevant knowledge to events described in the source Briefly discuss author, origin, date
Message This cartoon opposes Germany. How do you know? 4 marks Explain your answer using the source and your contextual knowledge K - Historical Context What do you know what happening at the time (think about the date of the source) S - Source detail What can you see? What is the meaning of this detail? A cartoon from Punch Magazine 1919. The original title was Giving him rope? P - Provenance Who drew the cartoon and when? What were they hoping to achieve? PURPOSE German criminal (to allied police) Here I say, stop! You re hurting me! Aside If only I whine enough I may be able to wriggle out of this
Model Answer The cartoon opposes Germany because it shows two police officers (Britain and France) tying up a criminal, who represents Germany. It is dated February 1919 when the Versailles peace talks were taking place and the British cartoonist is reflecting the mood at the time in Britain that people didn't want Germany to escape punishment or 'wriggle out' of the rope. That meant not escaping punishment for the damage the German armies had done, this is represented in the background with devastation and not escaping being blamed for starting the war - the war guilt clause. Read my feedback and improve your own answer
Source question: How do you know? (4marks) This source suggests that Germany has no choice but to accept the peace settlement How do you know? (4 marks) A cartoon published in Britain in 1919, it is commenting on the Paris Peace Conference Source content Knowledge Provenance Success Criteria Explain what the source is saying Refer to specific details in the sources Link relevant knowledge to events described in the source Briefly discuss author, origin, date Met
Source question: How do you know? (4marks) Compare the model answer with your own and annotate it The cartoon suggests that Germany had no choice in signing the Treaty of Versailles. Germany is portrayed as a scare man being forced off a plank into the water by a hand marked allies. The allies were the Big Three of Britain, France and USA who at the Paris Peace Conference decided the harsh terms of the treaty to punish and humiliate Germany. The German government were not even represented at the conference and they were threatened with restarting the war if they refused to sign the treaty. The cartoon was published in Britain at the time of the conference in 1919 and reflects public opinion at the time in favour of this harsh treatment. SOURCE DETAIL CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE PROVENANCE
1. Study Source A. Source A criticises Hitler s reoccupation of the Rhineland. How do you know? Explain your answer using source A and your contextual knowledge 4 marks Source A: a cartoon called The Goose-Step published in Punch magazine in 1936. The goose-step was a marching style used in the German army. The words Pax Germanica on the olive branch in goose s beak mean peace German style. Knowledge needed to be relevant and specific eg: why the reoccupation of the Rhineland was a significant step towards war
Model Answer Source A criticises Hitler s reoccupation of the Rhineland as it shows a German soldier, represented by the goose, fully armed and ready for war, marching into the Rhineland. The goose is stepping on the torn remains of the Locarno Treaty showing that Hitler no longer accepted it. Furthermore, the olive branch labelled Pax Germanica shows that Germany has no intention of making peace and wants war instead. Even, the rhyme mocks the so-called peaceful intentions of Germany indicated by the use of the word blunder. Marching into the Rhineland in March 1936 was clearly not a blunder by Germany. Hitler was determined to enlarge his military capability and strengthen his borders and taking the Rhineland was one way of doing this. Though. Hitler did say he would have backed out of the Rhineland if Britain and France had acted against him. The cartoon was published to show that the reoccupation of the Rhineland was the first small step towards Hitler reversing the ToV and another war. The cartoon was published by Punch magazine and was critical that of Britain not standing up to Hitler.
Source question: How useful are these sources? (12marks) Skill Success Criteria Met Assessing Usefulness Knowledge Source content Provenance Identify how useful the sources are Evaluate how useful the sources are at answering the question set Make a judgement as to which source is the most useful and why Link relevant knowledge to events described in the sources Explain how the sources give insight into what you already know about the topic Explain what the sources are saying Refer to specific details in the sources Discuss author, origin, date suggest how this helps or limits the sources usefulness Suggest why the source was written/made what was the author s purpose? Suggest how this helps or limits the source s usefulness
Source question: How useful are these sources? (12marks) A German newspaper cartoon published in July 1919 entitled Clemenceau the Vampire. The figure on the bed represents Germany How useful are these sources to a historian studying opinions about the Treaty of Versailles? Explain your answer using the sources and your contextual knowledge 12 marks Nations should not morally visit on the children of their enemies the wrongdoings of parents or of rulers. The Treaty includes no provisions for the economic recovery of Europe nothing to make the defeated Central Empires into good neighbours. The Big Three were preoccupied with other issues Clemenceau to crush the economic life of his enemy, Lloyd George to bring home something that would be acceptable for a week, the President (Wilson) to do nothing that was not just and right. From JM Keynes book The Economic Consequences of Peace published in 1919. Keynes was a leading economist who worked for the British government but resigned in protest three weeks before the Treaty of Versailles was signed.
How useful are these sources to a historian studying opinions about the Treaty of Versailles? Explain your answer using the sources and your contextual knowledge Compare the model answer with your own and annotate it Both sources are useful in studying differing opinions about the Treaty of Versailles in British and Germany. The German source provides insight into German public opinion. It suggests that the treaty is unfair and will literally suck the life out of Germany. The vampire represents the French leader Clemenceau attacking a defenceless woman representing Germany, who has put down her weapons. At the time of the Paris Peace Conference Clemenceau was determined to punish Germany by taking territory, limiting the size of her forces and imposing financial reparations. These punishments were so harsh that many people in Germany believed the country would be left unable to protect herself from her enemies and economically ruined. The British source also provides insight into the unfair and short-sighted aspects of the treaty. It criticises Clemenceau was only for only wanting to punishing Germany without thinking about the consequences for Europe. It also criticises Lloyd George and the British government for wanting a quick popular solution at the peace conference and Wilson for bring too idealistic. At the time the Big Three did had very different aims for the peace treaty and as a result the treaty was a compromise that did fully not meet any of their expectations. Clemenceau wanted to prevent Germany from ever being able to wage another war, Wilson in his 14 Points wanted a fairer and more peaceful world whilst Lloyd George looked above all to strengthen the British Empire. Although both sources are useful, the German source published in a newspaper at the time of the peace conference is very representative of the German public s anger at the treaty, the British source is not really representative of the view of the British public. JM Keynes was a government advisor who resigned because he did not agree with Lloyd George s policy. In fact the majority of the British public at the time did share his concerns and wanted a treaty that punished Germany. SOURCE DETAIL CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION (USING PROVENANCE/LIMITATION)
How useful are sources A and B for a historian studying opinions about the collapse of the League of Nations? (12 marks)
How useful are sources A and B for a historian studying opinions about the collapse of the League of Nations? (12 marks) Both sources are useful to a historian studying the opinions about the collapse of the League, as they each give different views as to why the League failed. Source A is useful as it suggests the League's collapse was due to its inability to stop invasions. Source A is a British cartoon, by Low, published in 1939, after Hitler had successfully invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, and then Poland. In the cartoon, the LoN is portrayed as a bus, which has broken down, and it is going nowhere. Therefore suggesting that the LoN had collapsed and WWII is imminent. The 'bus' also lists other countries that had previously been invaded, and which the LoN has failed to resolve. For example, Manchuria and Abyssinia, who were invaded by Japan and Italy respectively. Both of these countries appealed to the LoN, and yet the League only condemned Japan and Italy's actions, to which both Japan and Italy ignored. Thus, exposing the League's weakness. Another reason why source A is useful, is due to Low's suggestion that the League is no longer any use and cannot aid vulnerable countries. For example, the caption on the cartoon reads, 'Where is the bus going?', to which the reply is, 'Nowhere lady, but thanks for the compliment.' This suggests that the League has collapsed and cannot help any future countries that will undoubtedly be invaded in the 1940s. Therefore, Source A is useful in studying opinions about the collapse of the LoN, as its failure to stop countries' invasions, ultimately led to WWII. Source B is also useful for studying opinions about the collapse of the LoN, as the British foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, suggests that the 'incomplete membership' made the League weak, and therefore eventually led to the League's collapse. Due to the LoN's incomplete membership, sanctions placed on aggressive countries, were futile. For example, the absence of powerful countries, such as America, made the LoN sanctions and condemnation ineffective. Eden made the speech in 1936, and was responding to Italy's invasion of Abyssinia. Even though sanctions were placed on Italy, Mussolini was still able to trade war materials, such as oil and coal. Therefore, source B, is useful as Eden implies, '...that sanctions have not realised their purpose..' and this is due to the LoN missing key countries, such as America who did not want to join the LoN. The absence of powerful countries was evident since the League's formation in 1919, as countries where either not allowed to join, and others, such as Japan and Italy eventually left. Therefore, both sources are useful as they both explain that there were several reasons why the LoN failed. Ultimately, the lack of powerful countries being members, and thus making sanctions futile, and the League's inability or will to stop aggressive foreign policy.
2. Study Sources B and C How useful are Sources B and C to a historian studying why Britain allowed Hitler to take the Sudentenland Explain your answer using sources B and C and your contextual knowledge 12 marks Source B: a British cartoon published in 1938 following the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain is dressed as a nanny and Hitler is in the crib Source C: part of a speech given by Hitler in 1938 to the people of Berlin
. Study Sources B and C How useful are Sources B and C to a historian studying why Britain allowed Hitler to take the Sudentenland Explain your answer using sources B and C and your contextual knowledge 12 marks Both sources are useful because they both give different reasons as to why Britain allowed Hitler to take the Sudetenland Source B is useful as it is a British cartoon published at the time of the Munich agreement that shows that Hitler was allowed to take the Sudetenland in order to stop his further territorial claims and to prevent another war. The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, is dressed as a nanny giving Hitler the baby in the crib who is having a tantrum a bottle to keep him quiet. Chamberlain believed that appeasement would give Britain time to rearm in case of war and by making small concessions to Hitler, such as the Sudetenland, it would stop him wanting big concessions like the whole of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain was convinced that after the Munich Conference he had made peace for our time. The comical way that Chamberlain has been represented and the pile of toy soldiers by Hitler s crib show that the cartoonist didn t believe this making this cartoon useful to historians. This is because at the time of the Munich Agreement nearly all the British public and politicians hailed Chamberlain as a hero who had saved Europe from another war. This cartoon does the opposite because it makes a joke out of Chamberlain and his decision to appease Hitler. The use of the word maybe also shows the cartoonist believes that Hitler will want more and more territory. Overall, this cartoon is useful as it shows that a minority of the British public didn t agree with appeasement and thought that Chamberlain was wrong to give in to Hitler. Source C is useful because it is a speech given by Hitler himself explaining why he wanted the Sudetenland. In the speech Hitler claimed that if the problem of the Sudetenland was solved then he would have no further territorial claims in Europe. In this speech Hitler is telling the German people what he had told Chamberlain. Chamberlain was convinced by these words and gave in to Hitler s demands believing he had settled all the border disputes created by the ToV and that war had been avoided. Chamberlain believed that Hitler was a reasonable man who exaggerated and went over the top in his speeches just to get attention. This source is also useful because of its purpose: Hitler has shown himself to be the peacemaker of Europe, a man who wants nothing more than what rightfully belongs to Germany. He even says we are not interested in breaking peace. This speech would have been published in Britain and would have further convinced the British public that appeasement and giving Hitler the Sudetenland was the right thing to do. Taken together both sources are useful because they both explain why Britain allowed Hitler to take the Sudetenland. Overall, Source B is more useful as it shows Britain did so out of weakness and a belief in Hitler s lies in the speech in Source C.
2. Study Sources B and C How useful are Sources B and C to a historian studying opinions about the failure of the League of Nations Explain your answer using sources B and C and your contextual knowledge 12 marks Source B An American cartoon published in 1931, called, The Open Door. It shows Japan's seizure of Manchuria and disregard for the Kellogg-Briand pact Source C - Arthur Balfour, chief British representative Source at C the - League of Nations, speaking in 1920 The League of Nations is not set up to deal with a world in chaos, or with any part of the world which is in chaos. The League may give assistance but it is not, and cannot be, a complete instrument for bringing order out of chaos
Study Sources B and C How useful are Sources B and C to a historian studying opinions about the failure of the League of Nations Explain your answer using sources B and C and your contextual knowledge 12 marks Source B is useful as it explains the League s failures were due to being unable to stop aggressive foreign policy. Source B is a cartoon published in America in 1931, called, The Open Door. It is useful as it shows a Japanese soldier sticking a bayonet into a dummy, labelled, Kellogg-Briand. The source suggests that the League s failure was due to countries like Japan disregarding the pact, and the League s failure to stop Japan. The pact was signed by 65 nations that agreed to solve disputes by discussion, and not through war. It is also useful as above the Kellogg-Briand dummy, there is a sign that says, Manchuria. The source highlights another failure of the League, as it did not stop Japan s invasion of Manchuria. During the crisis Lytton wrote a report that was published a year after the invasion. The League condemned Japan s actions. However, it failed to stop further aggression, as Japan left the LoN and invaded further areas of China. Therefore, the source is useful, as it was produced to underline the League s failures by suggesting that the League could not stop, or do very little to stop invasions, and it reacted too slowly. Source C is useful to a historian studying opinions about the failure of the LoN because it provides insight to a member of the League s opinion, explaining the limitations of the League, which lead to its failure. Source C is a speech made by Arthur Balfour, in 1920, he was the chief British representative at the LoN. It is useful because from the outset, Balfour draws attention to the fact that the League was,.not set up to deal with a world in chaos Therefore, it was explained that the LoN would assist countries facing invasions, and yet, it would not bring order out of chaos. This is clear when crisis occurred during the 1930s. For example, the invasions of Manchuria and Abyssinia. Even though the League did condone Japan and Italy s actions, they did not intervene to the point where Japan and Italy left the invaded areas respectively. Therefore, this source is useful in studying opinions why the League failed, as even from the onset of the League, it seemed it would be unable to fulfil one of it s purposes of keeping peace. Another reason why the source is useful, is because, Balfour s explanation of not dealing with a world in chaos, highlights the fact that the League did not have an army to intervene in a manner that could prevent invasions, and chaos. Therefore, this source is useful in studying opinions about the League s failure as it was unable to prevent invasions, and especially without an army. To conclude, I think source is the most useful to a historian studying opinions about the failure of the LoN because..
Write an account of how events in Manchuria became an international crisis in the years 1931 to 1933 8 Marks Skill Key knowledge Success Criteria Identify three to four key points how Hitler achieved Anschluss with detailed knowledge Causation Consequence Link Explain causes of each event and how they link to the next cause Explain the consequences of each cause Link to the question throughout your answer Select 3-4 key moments in the crisis. Write about them in chronological order Include at least 1 specific facts for each key moment Explain how the key moments are connected to each other by using phrases such as this led to, as a result, the consequences of this were Link the story to the point in the question, eg how it led to an international crisis
Write an account of how events in Manchurai became an international crisis in 1932 8 Marks Event What is the consequence, how does this lead to international crisis in 1933 September 1931 - explosion on the South Manchurian Railway, the Mukden Incident February 1932 - Japan invades Manchuria, sets up a puppet government, bombs Shanghai. Army refuses to listen to civilian government League officials sailed around the world to assess the situation. September 1932 The Lytton Report is produced Feb 1933 Japanese refuse to withdraw, in fact invade more of China March 1933 Japan resigns from the League, continues to invade Increase in tension between Japan and China, Japan blames China for the explosion - China appeals to the LoN This is a serious test for the LoN, Japan is a permanent member of the League Serious delay in findings, but decides that Japan has acted unlawfully and should withdraw from Manchuria Japan refuses to accept the decision of the LoN, the LoN looks powerless and weak LoN is powerless to stop Japan s militarism, economic sanctions are discussed but countries refuse. Britain is unwilling to send troops so far away. Japan had used aggression and was not stopped, both Hitler and Mussolini looked on. International crisis as its exposes the LoN and their ability to maintain peace in the face of an aggressive foreign policy
Write an account of how events in Manchuria became an international crisis in the years 1931-33 Events in Manchuria that began in 1931 became by 1933 a full blown international crisis as it exposed the real weakness of the League of Nations. The events started in September 1931 when the Mukden incident occurred, an explosion on the south Manchurian railway owned by Japan. This caused tension between two major powers, China and Japan, as Japan blamed China for the bombing. As a result, Japan invaded Manchuria and in 1932 set up a puppet government and bombed Shanghai. This outright aggression, led to China appealing to the League of Nations for help and support. However, as Japan was a permanent member of the League, who had invaded another country, therefore blatantly defying the Covenant; this became a serious crisis for the League and the beginning of an international crisis. In response, the League sent officials around the world to investigate the situation and after a serious delay of a year they produced the Lytton report. This ruled that Japan had to withdraw from Manchuria due to their unlawful actions. However, the Japanese not only refused to withdraw but went on to invade more of China (Jehol). This resulted in the League looking powerless and weak as they were unable and unwilling to stop Japan s aggression with either force, arguing Manchuria was too far away, or economic sanctions due to self-interest. The final event occurred in March 1933; when Japan resigned from the League and continued to invade China. The situation had now become a full blown international crisis, as not only had Japan, a powerful country, left the League of Nations, but a signal had been sent to both Germany and Italy that the League was not able to maintain peace in the face of an aggressive foreign policy both Mussolini and then Hitler would then go on to defy the League.
Write an account of how Hitler had achieved Anschluss with Austria by 1938 8 Marks In 1936 Hitler and Mussolini signed the Rome-Berlin Axis, this meant that if Germany were to invade Austria then its former ally Italy would do nothing, this gave Hitler the confidence to annex Austria. As a consequence of this Hitler was able to put increasing pressure on the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg to include more Austrian Nazis in the government. Schuschnigg hoped that this would appease Hitler but he was wrong. As a result, Hitler ordered Austrian Nazis to create as much trouble and destruction as possible in order to put pressure on Schuschnigg. If Hitler could claim that Austrian law and order had broken down he could justify marching German troops into Vienna to restore peace - despite the fact that he was responsible for the chaos in the first place. This made Anschluss more likely. On the 9 March 1938, in a desperate act, Schuschnigg announced a referendum whereby the Austrian people would decide for themselves if they wanted to be a part of Hitler's Germany. As a consequence, Hitler was furious. If the Austrians voted against joining Germany his excuse for invasion would be ruined. Therefore, Hitler had to act and annex Austria swiftly. On the 10 th March Hitler told his generals to prepare for the invasion of Austria. He ordered Schuschnigg to call off the referendum. Knowing he would receive no help from Italy, and that France and Britain would not interfere in Hitler's plans, Schuschnigg conceded. He called off the referendum and resigned. Therefore making Anschluss inevitable. As a result, German troops marched into Austria unopposed. Hitler now had control of Austria. A month later, Hitler held a rigged referendum. The results showed that the Austrian people approved of German control of their country. Hitler had achieved Anschluss with Austria by April 1938.
Write an account of how events in Abyssinia became an international crisis in the years 1934-36 Select 3-4 key moments in the crisis Write about them in chronological order Include at least 1 specific facts for each key moment Explain how the key moments are connected to each other by using phrases such as this led to, as a result, the consequences of this were Link the story to the point in the question, eg how it led to an international crisis Skill Key knowledge Causation Consequence Success Criteria Identify three to four key points of the Abyssinian crisis with detailed knowledge Explain causes of each event and how they link to the next cause Explain the consequences of each cause Link Link to the question throughout your answer
Plan Write an Account of how the Abyssinia crisis between 1934-1936 led to the end of the League of Nations Event What is the consequence, how does this lead to the end of the League by 1936 December 1934 a dispute between Italian soldiers and Abyssinian soldiers at Wal-Wal Dec 1934 Haile Selaisse (Emperor of Abyssinia) appeals to the LoN for support Early 1935 Britain and France get Mussolini to sign the Stresa Pact (protesting at German Rearmament) 4 th September 1935, LoN reports that neither side is responsible for the Wal Wal incident October 1935 Mussolini leads a full scale invasion using aeroplanes and poisonous gas December 1935 - The Hoare Laval Pact is agreed by Britain and France at a secret meeting March 1936 Hitler marches into the Rhineland/ May 1936 Italy takes the capital of Abyssinia and annexes the country November 1936 The Rome-Berlin Axis is signed between Italy and Germany
Event What is the consequence, how does this lead to the end of the League by 1936 December 1934 a dispute between Italian soldiers and Abyssinian soldiers at Wal-Wal Dec 1934 Haile Selaisse (Emperor of Abyssinia) appeals to the LoN for support Early 1935 Britain and France get Mussolini to sign the Stresa Pact (protesting at German Rearmament) 4 th September 1935, LoN reports that neither side is responsible for the Wal Wal incident October 1935 Mussolini leads a full scale invasion using aeroplanes and poisonous gas December 1935 - The Hoare Laval Pact is agreed by Britain and France at a secret meeting March 1936 Hitler marches into the Rhineland/ May 1936 Italy takes the capital of Abyssinia and annexes the country November 1936 The Rome-Berlin Axis is signed between Italy and Germany Mussolini claims that the area was Italian territory, demands an apology prepares for invasion Britain and France play for time, desperate to maintain good relations with Mussolini and Italy, even though a majority of British people support action against Italy Mussolini assumes that Britain and France are not going to act against his aggression in Abyssinia, even though Hoare( British) speaks out against him, nothing is done LoN puts forward a plan to give some of Abyssinia to Mussolini but it is rejected by Mussolini The League imposes an immediate ban on arms sales to Italy (but not to Abyssinia) and exports of rubber, tin and metals. Decision to ban oil exports is delayed (fear that the USA would not support and Britain argued it would cost 30,000 miners jobs) Britain decides not close the Suez Canal to Italy as it fears a war, this is a blow for Abyssinia as Italy can transport weapons and troops. Britain and France proposed that Abyssinia would be split up giving Italy land in the north and south. The Hoare-Laval Plan was never put in place as its details were leaked to the press causing a public outcry. America doubles oil exports to Italy as a result of this Hitler knew the LoN talked tough but had no real power, in fact, it seemed as if Britain and France wanted to reward Mussolini s aggression. Haille Selaisse forced into exile and condemns the League The League had failed to stop Italian aggression, collective security had been proved to be a false promise and Hitler had been strengthened and continued on his road to war. The LoN was no longer taken seriously and played no real part in international events.
Write an account of how events in Abyssinia became an international crisis in the years 1934-36 8 marks In December 1934 a dispute between Italian soldiers and Abyssinian soldiers at Wal-Wal resulted in Mussolini demanding an apology, whilst at the same time preparing to invade the country, rich in mineral wealth and fertile land. This led the Abyssinian President, Haile Selassie, to appeal to the League of Nations to help stop Italy s aggressive action. However, the League was desperate to maintain good relations with Mussolini so delayed taking action. As a result Mussolini signed the Stresa Pact and by doing so assumed he had the support of both countries in his actions in Abyssinia. When the League finally reported back, in 1934, on the crisis they did not blame any side, instead, desperate to keep Mussolini on side, they put forward a plan to give part of Abyssinia to Italy. In response, Mussolini launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia using aeroplanes and chemical weapons. In response the League was forced to act and imposed an immediate ban on exports of rubber and tin The League, fearing that the USA would not support them, refused to ban oil and coal sales to Italy, a sanction that could have stopped Mussolini in his tracks. Also, Britain refused to close the Suez canal, this meant that Mussolini could easily resupply his troops in Abyssinia. Finally in 1935, a secret deal between Britain, France and Italy was exposed. The Hoare- Laval Pact proposed that Abyssinia would be split up giving Italy land in the north and south. Though this was never put into place, the weakness of the League caused outrage in the USA. This led to international crisis as Abyssinia was final proof that that the League was unable and unwilling to stop aggression. The League, fatally wounded by this final blow, no longer played any role in international events. This meant that Hitler was strengthened by the League s failure and confidently marched into the Rhineland, unopposed in 1936, then continued on his road to war.
14. The Nazi Soviet Pact was the main reason for the outbreak of WW2. How far do you agree with this statement? (16 marks + SPaG 4 marks) Skill Evaluation Success Criteria Write a PEEL paragraph that agrees with the statement, that includes and develops two clear points and links back to the question at the end of the paragraph. Write a PEEL paragraph that disagrees with the statement, that includes and develops two clear points and links back to the question at the end of the paragraph. Knowledge Use relevant knowledge as evidence Knowledge is specific and very well selected to support your argument Judgement Reach a clear conclusion that explains how far you agree/disagree with the statement Use the most convincing piece of evidence to state why you have reached this conclusion SPaG Use accurate spelling and grammar throughout Use a wide range of specialist terms (vocabulary) throughout
The Nazi Soviet Pact was the main reason for the outbreak of WW2. How far do you agree with this statement? (16 marks + SPaG 4 marks) Question 3: Many good answers that were balanced, well explained and well evidenced. Much more K needed throughout specific knowledge! Follow structure a paragraph that agrees with the statement, 2-3 clear points that links back to the question. Some conclusions were impressive remember to make your final judgement absolutely clear by giving your killer piece of evidence with your killer sentences. Also, more K needed to develop the Ex of points given Brief introduction to state whether you agree/disagree 1 st Paragraph agrees with the statement Nazi-Soviet Pact was the main cause of WW2 2 nd Paragraph disagrees with the statement Other factors were the main reason WW2 Conclusion Judgement Overall, I agree/disagree with the statement Because.. (Use your most convincing argument don t summarise use a killer sentence!!)
Skill Evaluation The Nazi Soviet Pact was the main reason for the outbreak of WW2. How far do you agree with this statement? (16 marks + SPaG 4 marks) Success Criteria Write a PEEL paragraph that agrees with the statement, that includes and develops 2-3 clear points and links back to the question at the end of the paragraph. marks + 4 SPaG Write a PEEL paragraph that disagrees with the statement, that includes and develops 2-3 clear points and links back to the question at the end of the paragraph. Knowledge Use relevant knowledge as evidence Knowledge is specific and very well selected to support your argument Judgement Reach a clear conclusion that explains how far you agree/disagree with the statement Use the most convincing piece of evidence to state why you have reached this conclusion SPaG Level 4 Use accurate spelling and grammar throughout Use a wide range of specialist terms (vocabulary) throughout Have written a sustained argument from your introduction, throughout the essay, culminating in an impressive conclusion
The Nazi Soviet Pact was the main reason for the outbreak of WW2. How far do you agree with this statement? (16 marks + SPaG 4 marks) Though the Nazi-Soviet pact was a cause of the outbreak of WW2 it was in fact only a trigger as there were other long term contributory factors which led to the outbreak of WW2 for instance the policy of appeasement and Hitler s aggressive foreign policy. The Nazi Soviet Pact was an important reason as to why war broke out because Hitler now knew that he could invade Poland without facing a war on two fronts. The Pact was signed in August 1939, between Germany and Soviet Russia and it ensured that neither country would attack each other. This non-aggression pact then meant that Hitler was able to invade Poland without fear of attack from Russia in the East. This also meant that when war did break out, Britain and France would face Germany without the support of Russia who instead would side with Germany, giving Hitler the upper hand. The pact also made war inevitable as it formalised Britain's previous agreement with Poland. Following on from the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Britain and France signed a formal alliance with Poland to defend it from attack from Germany. This meant that both countries were no longer able to back down in the face of aggression when Hitler invaded Poland shortly after. Overall, the Nazi Soviet pact was an important short term - reason as to why war broke out as it clearly signalled that war was imminent. However there were other important reasons as to why war broke out for instance the role of Hitler and the aims of his foreign policy. Once in power, Hitler was determined to overturn the Treaty of Versailles, create a Greater Germany to unite German speakers and to acquire Lebensraum, living space in the east, for Germans. From 1933, Hitler pursued these aims aggressively remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936, achieving Anschluss in 1938 and eventually invading Czechoslovakia in 1939. His final attempt to achieve Lebensraum, to invade and secure territory in Poland forced the Allies to declare war on him. Another important reason for the outbreak of war was that the policy of Appeasement, followed mainly by Britain, had come to an end after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939. Throughout the 1930s, Britain had allowed concessions to Hitler in order to avoid repeating the horrors of WW1 and also to allow them time to rearm. For instance, the Anglo-German Naval agreement 1935 allowed Hitler to build up his navy despite restrictions placed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and Anschluss were not stopped either. These missed opportunities to stop Hitler, gave him more and more confidence and gave him the green light to pursue his aims, knowing that he would not be stopped. By following this policy Britain and France alienated Russia and Stalin. The Munich Agreement was signed without him being present and this signalled that he could not trust Britain and France. Because of this he eventually turned to Hitler which and in 1939 agreed to the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Both of these factors were important underlying reasons as to why the second world war broke out when it did. Overall, though the Nazi-Soviet pact was an important reason as to why the second world war broke out, it was in fact only a trigger for war as there were principal underlying causes for war such as the aims of Hitler, for example Lebensraum, which could not be achieved without military conquest and which had already alienated Britain sufficiently to guarantee Polish Independence.
Hitler s aggression was the main reason for the outbreak of war in 1939. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer 16 marks + 4 SPaG Introduction should be a couple of sentences explaining how far you agree with the statement 1 st Paragraph agrees with the statement (2-3 developed points) 2 nd Paragraph disagrees with the statement (2-3 developed points) Conclusion Judgement Overall, I agree/disagree with the statement Because.. (Use your most convincing argument don t summarise use a killer sentence!! Try and choose one of your arguments USA or other factors lead to the failure of the LoN)
However, the outbreak of war in 1939 can be blamed on other factors such as the Nazi-Soviet pact. The pact depicted that neither Russia or Germany would oppose the other in case of a war, and that Poland would be split between them. This made invasion inevitable, as Hitler knew that Germany would only be fighting on the Western front. It also gave Russia some time to regain defences and its army. Also, another reason why the Nazi-Soviet pact led to the outbreak of war was due to that fact that Britain and France promised to defend Poland if they were invaded. Therefore, at that point, Britain and France would be at war with Germany and Russia. It could also be argued that war broke out in 1939 due to the policy of appeasement. Appeasement meant that Hitler grew confident and took greater risks. For example, when he remilitarised the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler s advisers warned him that if he was challenged Germany was not strong enough to win. If British and French soldiers had acted in any way to stop Hitler he would have had to withdraw. As Hitler was not challenged, he realised he could break international law, (the Treaty of Versailles) without punishment. This meant that he was able to go onto achieve Anschluss, and when Hitler was once more appeased he went on to the Sudetenland and then Czechoslovakia. Therefore appeasement was a factor in causing the war because by Britain and France appeasing Hitler, they missed opportunities to stop him when he was weak, which meant that he was able to grow more confident and to become more powerful. Or you could refer to any of the following The Great Depression The failures of the League of Nations The Treaty of Versailles Hitler s aggression was the main reason for the outbreak of war in 1939. How far do you agree with this statement? The outbreak of war in 1939 was due to the aggression of Hitler. In his book Mein Kampf, he made it very clear that he wanted to make Germany great again, reverse the ToV, rearm and unite all German speaking people. None of this could be achieved without aggression. Once in power, Hitler was able to fulfil these aims though aggression. The Anschluss with Austria in 1938 was an act of aggression despite the fact it was portrayed as peaceful and something the Austrian people wanted. This was because Hitler was determined to destabilise Austria and undermine its independence. Hitler ordered Austrian Nazis to create as much trouble and destruction as possible in order to put pressure on Schuschnigg. If Hitler could claim that Austrian law and order had broken down he could justify marching German troops into Vienna to restore peace - despite the fact that he was responsible for the chaos in the first place. As a consequence of this aggression, German troops marched into Austria unopposed. Hitler now had control of Austria. A month later, Hitler held a rigged referendum again using aggression. Aggression had clearly got Hitler what he wanted and bought Europe closer to war. Furthermore, Hitler used aggression to take over Czechoslovakia again bringing Europe closer to war. Germany entered the Sudetenland in October 1938. Hitler now had control of the Czech fortifications and this would make his next act of aggression much easier. By March 1939 Germany had seized control of the rest of Czechoslovakia. This put Europe on edge and many leading politicians believed that war was imminent. Overall, Hitler s aggression was the main cause of the outbreak of war because he used it to conquer other countries and eventually he would have to be stopped.
Killer Conclusions Overall, the outbreak of war was due to the aggression of Hitler. From as early as the 1920 s, in his book Mein Kampf, he had outlined his vision of a powerful Germany, a reversal of the Treaty of Versailles, the unification of German speaking peoples and the desire for lebensraum none of these could be achieved without aggression. Once in power he was able to act on this vision. He began rearming in 1933, the Saar Plebiscite gave him the confidence to go into the Rhineland. Even if Britain/France had tried to stop him at this point he would have waited when he was even stronger to further his territorial claims. Making an alliance with Italy and supporting the fascists in Spain were also aggressive acts. Aggression, disguised as pan-german nationalism and lebensraum, meant he could march into Austria and Czechoslovakia unopposed. Therefore, Hitler s aggression was clearly the main reason for the outbreak of war in 1939.
4. The League of Nations ultimate failure was due to the absence of America. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer 16 marks + SPaG 4 marks The League of Nations ultimate failure was due to the absence of America. This is because The USA could have provided the strength and power to support decisions made by the LoN and also had the economic and military might to enforce these decisions. For example, the USA could have provided the LoN men and weapons for an international army that could have prevented events in Manchuria turning into an international crisis especially as it would have been easier to deploy troops from the USA to Manchuria than from Europe. Another reason why the absence of the USA led to the ultimate failure of the LoN was because trade sanctions were not applied effectively to countries that had gone against the covenant of the LoN. They could still trade with the USA which at this time had the biggest export market in the world. For example, when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia part of his punishment were economic sanctions but this didn t work because he could still trade with the USA rendering the sanctions obsolete. Overall, the absence of the USA did lead to the failure of the LoN because it left the League with no proper army and no one to enforce economic sanctions properly. Plan paragraph 2 and your conclusion, what will you write
Plan paragraph 2 and a killer conclusion However, the ultimate failure of the LoN can also be blamed on other factors Structure No army Self interest of Britain and France Inability to enforce sanctions properly Inability to persuade countries to disarm Great Depression Conclusion:
Killer Conclusions The ultimate failure of the LoN was due to the absence of America. This is because without the USA the LoN had no proper army to respond to international crises and enforcing any kind of economic sanctions was pointless. The USA was the only country rich enough and powerful enough to provide an army that could have led to the swift resolution of situations such as the Manchurian crisis and the geographic position of the USA would have meant it could respond to any global situation. Furthermore, the fact that countries could still trade with the USA which provided virtually any type of good in a global market meant economic sanctions were pointless. Therefore, without the support, financial backing, military might and power of the USA the LoN was doomed to fail.