User interface language: English | Español

Date May 2019 Marks available 9 Reference code 19M.1.BP.TZ0.12
Level Both SL and HL Paper Paper 1 - first exams 2017 Time zone TZ0
Command term Discuss Question number 12 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 I

Notes for the British Cabinet on conversations held in Berlin between John
Simon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Adolf Hitler, German Chancellor
and Führer (March 1935).

John Simon thanked the Chancellor for the opportunity he had had of meeting him and for the way in which the British Ministers had been welcomed. But, observing the rule of frankness to the end, he must say that the British Ministers felt somewhat disappointed that it had not been possible to get a larger measure of agreement. They regretted that such difficulties were thought to exist on the German side in connection with some of the matters discussed. He did not regret having come to Berlin. He was sure that this meeting was the best way of continuing this investigation into the various points of view. What he regretted was that they had not been able to do more in the direction of promoting the general agreement which he was sure both sides wanted.

It showed that these things were more difficult and complicated than many believed them to be from a distance…

Hitler was also grateful to the British Government for the loyal efforts they had made in the matter of the Saar vote, and for all the other matters on which they had adopted such a loyal and generous attitude to Germany.

[Source: contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.]

Source J

Bernard Partridge, a cartoonist, depicts Adolf Hitler and John Simon in the
cartoon “Prosit!” [Cheers!] in the British satirical magazine Punch (27 March
1935). The wording on the tankard is “Conscription” and in the caption it is:

Herr Hitler: “The more we arm together the peacefuller [more peaceful] we’ll be!”
Sir John Simon: “Well—er—up to a certain point—and in certain cases—
provisionally—perhaps.”

[Source: Punch Cartoon Library / TopFoto]

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.

Using the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the effectiveness of the international response to German aggression between 1933 and 1938.

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. While it is expected that there will be coverage of at least two of the sources, candidates are not required to refer to all four sources in their responses.

Indicative content

Source I

Although Anglo-German negotiations were held, agreement was limited since issues were complex. Hitler states he had received British support in some foreign policy issues, which indicates an ambiguous British reaction to German aggression.

Source J

The British response to German rearmament was hesitant.

Source K

Conciliatory approaches to Hitler contributed to further acts of aggression. The Stresa Front was a short-lived attempt to contain Hitler that ends with Britain’s decision to enter the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. The reaction of Italy, France and Britain towards German foreign policy is seen as “meek”.

Source L

The deterioration of Anglo-French relations is attributed to Britain’s response to German aggression. The signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement launched German naval expansion.

Own knowledge

Candidates may discuss the failure of British negotiations to return Germany to the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference and the international response to Germany’s reintroduction of conscription, rearmament and the development of the Luftwaffe. They may offer further analysis on how the Anglo- German Naval Agreement, by allowing Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles on the rearmament question, encouraged Hitler to further challenge it. They may offer further details on the international response to events in Austria in 1934 and argue there was some initial attempt to check German expansion at the time. Candidates may assess the impact of the collapse of Stresa and the changing nature of relations between Italy and Germany to assess their effects on German foreign policy up to 1938. They may also assess the effects of the lack of international response to the invasion of the Rhineland (1936). They may discuss the role of international powers in the Anschluss (1938), the Czech crisis leading to the Munich Conference and the occupation of the Sudetenland (1938) to, for example, gauge the effectiveness of the policy of Appeasement up to 1938.

Examiners report

As noted above, it was pleasing to find that many candidates offered a developed response for the final question. In addition, most responses were focused on the set question and had made some reference to, or use of, the sources to support the analysis. For example, many candidates effectively used the sources to argue that ultimately the international response to German aggression was ineffective for Q12. However, there were responses that lacked development which may suggest some continued issues with time management. Some candidates did not include any own knowledge to support their analysis, and conversely, a notable number responded relying only on their own knowledge and without reference to the sources at all. There were also responses that tended to list the content of each source without reference to the question. A few candidates wrote extensively on background material at the expense of a full discussion of the set question.

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