User interface language: English | Español

Date May 2019 Marks available 6 Reference code 19M.1.BP.TZ0.11
Level Both SL and HL Paper Paper 1 - first exams 2017 Time zone TZ0
Command term Compare and contrast Question number 11 Adapted from N/A

Question

The sources and questions relate to case study 2: German and Italian expansion (1933–1940) — Responses: international response to German aggression (1933–1938).

Source K

Christian Leitz, an historian specializing in the Third Reich, writing in the academic book Nazi Foreign Policy, 1933–1941. The Road to Global War (2004).

Hitler’s quest to rearm Germany continued unopposed. During Anglo–French talks in London at the beginning of February (1935), Germany’s rearmament had received the blessing of the two West European powers even though they still hoped to convince Germany to join a multilateral Locarno-style pact guaranteeing the borders of Germany’s East European neighbours.

Hitler’s answer to these conciliatory approaches came quickly. He removed one of the major limitations of the Versailles Treaty and, on 16 March 1935, increased the size of Germany’s armed forces to 300,000 troops. This time, however, France, Britain and Italy seemed keen to react more firmly to the worrying growth in Germany’s strength. At Stresa in April, an attempt was made to establish a common front against Germany’s increasing attempts to revise [post-war settlements].

However, the reaction of the three former allies remained meek [feeble]. To the delight of the Nazi regime, the common front against Germany was both short lived and of limited impact. By June, Britain broke with Stresa when it agreed to a bilateral naval agreement with Germany.

[Source: reproduced from NAZI FOREIGN POLICY 1933 – 1941, 1st Edition by Christian Leitz, published by Routledge.
© Routledge Christian Leitz, reproduced by arrangement with Taylor & Francis Books UK.]

Source L

Henri Lichtenberger, a university lecturer, writing in the academic book The Third Reich (1937).

Confronted by the German desire for naval rearmament, England [Britain], after a brief suggestion of displeasure, quickly decided to come to terms. British leaders believed that the best way to safeguard this primary English [British] interest would be to conclude a direct and separate agreement with Germany which would set a maximum limit to German armaments acceptable to both countries. In agreeing to this transaction Germany not only received the right to begin, with English consent, an important programme of naval construction, but also potentially caused further disagreement among the signatories of the Versailles Treaty.

The naval agreement signed in London on June 18, 1935 between England and Germany aroused great concern in France. It was the occasion for outbursts in the press and for diplomatic manoeuvres intended to moderate the disagreement which had unexpectedly developed between the two allied nations, and hold together the Entente which was considered valuable. It was nevertheless obvious that by his bold initiative, Hitler had scored an amazing success which also strengthened his prestige in Germany. He had won the right to rearm officially both on land and on sea and this was accomplished without a violent break with France.

Compare and contrast what Sources K and L reveal about the attitudes towards German foreign policy under Hitler.

Markscheme

Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Comparisons:

Contrasts:

 

Examiners report

This question requires the comparison and contrast of two sources. Most candidates adopted the appropriate approach and were able to identify at least one comparison and/or contrast. For example, for Q11 highlighting that both sources stated that Germany approached rearmament with some level of international consent. However, there were several candidates that wrote lengthy descriptions of each source with limited direct linkage. Candidates are required to identify themes or points that can be compared/contrasted and write a running commentary rather than separate explanations of arguments given in each source. In addition, there were a number of responses that described or focused their commentary on the provenances of each source. To attain the top markband for this question, candidates need to offer more than one comparison and contrast, for example, two comparisons and two contrasts; although there need not be an equal number of each. Comparisons and contrasts should be clearly stated and the linkage points developed.

Syllabus sections

Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 3. The move to global war » Case study 2: German and Italian expansion (1933–1940) » Responses » International response to German aggression (1933–1938)
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 3. The move to global war » Case study 2: German and Italian expansion (1933–1940) » Responses
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 3. The move to global war » Case study 2: German and Italian expansion (1933–1940)
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 3. The move to global war
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017

View options