Educerie · IB Diploma · History
Paper 1 Prescribed subjects · PS3 The move to global war
What you must be able to do
| You must be able to | Case study | What it looks like in the exam |
|---|---|---|
| Explain the impact of Japanese nationalism and militarism on foreign policy | Japan | Q1a on a speech or army pamphlet (3 marks) |
| Explain how Japan's political and economic problems shaped foreign relations | Japan | Q4 (9 marks): "…the Depression was the main cause of Japanese expansion" |
| Explain how political instability in China invited expansion | Japan | Own knowledge in Q4 |
| Narrate Manchuria and northern China (1931), the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1941), the Tripartite Pact and Pearl Harbor | Japan | Q3 comparing Japanese and Chinese accounts (6 marks) |
| Explain the League's response and the Lytton Report | Japan | Q2 on the Lytton Report (4 marks); Q1b on a cartoon (2 marks) |
| Explain the Second United Front, US initiatives and rising US–Japan tension | Japan | Q4: "…US policy made war inevitable" |
| Explain the impact of fascism and Nazism on Italian and German foreign policy | Germany and Italy | Q1a on a speech; Q4 on ideology versus opportunism |
| Explain how domestic economic problems shaped foreign policy | Germany and Italy | Own knowledge in Q4 |
| Explain changing alignments, the end of collective security and appeasement | Germany and Italy | Q3 comparing British and French views; Q4 on appeasement |
| Narrate Germany's challenges to the settlement (1933–1938), Abyssinia, Albania, Italy's entry into the war, 1938–1939, the Pact of Steel, the Nazi–Soviet Pact and the outbreak of war | Germany and Italy | Own knowledge in Q4 |
| Explain the international responses to German aggression (1933–1938), to Italian aggression (1935–1936) and to both (1940) | Germany and Italy | Q2 on a government document; Q1b on a cartoon |
Before you start
Read this unit's Paper 1 method page first: it explains the four questions, the timing and what earns marks. Its worked examples use the Manchurian crisis and its practice paper uses Abyssinia, so this page practises Munich instead. The guide is specific about focus: domestic politics and ideology matter here only as causes of expansion, so every paragraph you write about the Depression, fascism or the Japanese army must end by linking it to foreign policy.
1The idea in one paragraph
Between 1931 and 1941 three states used force to overturn the order made after the First World War. Japan seized Manchuria in 1931, went to full-scale war with China in 1937, and in 1941, facing an American oil embargo, attacked the United States. Italy conquered Abyssinia in 1935–1936 and Albania in 1939, and joined the war in 1940. Germany tore up the Treaty of Versailles step by step from 1933, absorbed Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938–1939, and invaded Poland in September 1939. Three kinds of cause run through all three: ideology (militarism, fascism, Nazism), economics (the Great Depression and the search for resources), and opportunity, created by weak neighbours and by a League of Nations whose leading members would not risk war to enforce collective security, the idea that all members would act together against an aggressor. The exam asks how much weight each cause carries, and why the responses failed.
2Japan: the causes of expansion
Nationalism and militarism. Modern Japan was built by the Meiji state around the emperor, the army and the idea that Japan must be strong to avoid being colonised. By 1931 Japan held Korea, Taiwan and railway rights in southern Manchuria, guarded by the Kwantung Army. Nationalists resented the West: the League had rejected Japan's proposal for a racial equality clause in 1919, the US had shut out Japanese immigrants in 1924, and the Washington naval treaty (1922) held Japan below Britain and the US. The army answered to the emperor, not the cabinet, and the army and navy ministers had to be generals and admirals (from 1936, serving ones), so the services could bring a government down by refusing to supply one. Junior officers influenced by ultranationalists believed politicians and businessmen were betraying the nation. Officers who acted on their own initiative, in Manchuria and at home, were rarely punished; historians call this pattern gekokujō, "the lower overturning the higher".
Political and economic issues at home. The Great Depression hit Japan hard. The American market for raw silk, the income of millions of farm households, collapsed, and rice prices fell; rural poverty fed support for the army, which recruited heavily from the countryside. Party governments looked weak and corrupt. Prime Minister Hamaguchi was shot in 1930 by a nationalist who blamed him for accepting the London Naval Treaty, and Prime Minister Inukai was murdered by naval officers in May 1932, after which party cabinets ended. An army rising in Tokyo on 26 February 1936 was crushed, but it left the army leadership stronger. Economically, Manchuria offered coal, iron, farmland and a protected market at a time when other powers were raising tariffs against Japanese goods. Japan depended on imports, above all American oil and scrap iron, and the military wanted an empire that could supply a long war.
Political instability in China. China was divided among warlords until the Guomindang (GMD) under Chiang Kai-shek set up a national government in Nanjing in 1928, and even then the GMD was fighting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Chiang's policy was to crush the Communists first and resist Japan afterwards. Chinese nationalism was rising, with boycotts of Japanese goods and plans to build railways competing with Japan's. For the Kwantung Army, China was weak enough to be pushed and strong enough to be dangerous later: the moment to act was now.
Figure 1 sets out the Japanese case study.
3Japan: the events
Manchuria and northern China (1931). On 18 September 1931 Kwantung Army officers, led by Ishiwara Kanji and Itagaki Seishirō, set off a small explosion on the South Manchurian Railway near Mukden and blamed Chinese soldiers. Without orders from Tokyo, the army occupied the main cities of Manchuria within months; the cabinet protested and then accepted it. Fighting spread to Shanghai in early 1932. In March 1932 the puppet state of Manchukuo was proclaimed, with Puyi, the last Qing emperor, as head. In 1933 the army took Jehol province, and the Tanggu Truce (May 1933) created a demilitarised zone south of the Great Wall; over the next two years Japan pressed into northern China.
The Sino-Japanese War (1937–1941). On 7 July 1937 a clash at the Marco Polo Bridge near Beijing escalated into full-scale war; Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro sent reinforcements rather than settle. Shanghai fell after months of fighting, and the capital Nanjing was taken in December 1937, followed by weeks of mass killing and rape of civilians and prisoners; estimates of the dead range from tens of thousands to more than 200,000 and remain politically contested. In 1938 Japan took Wuhan and Guangzhou and Konoe proclaimed a "New Order in East Asia". The GMD retreated to Chongqing and would not surrender; the war became a costly stalemate. In 1939 Soviet forces under Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army at Nomonhan, which turned Japanese planners away from the north and towards the resources of South-East Asia.
The Tripartite Pact, the outbreak of war, Pearl Harbor. After Germany's victories of 1940, the colonies of France and the Netherlands in South-East Asia looked undefended. Japan moved troops into northern French Indochina in September 1940 and signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy on 27 September 1940: each would help the others if attacked by a power not yet at war, a warning aimed at the US. A neutrality pact with the USSR followed in April 1941. When Japan occupied southern Indochina in July 1941, the US froze Japanese assets and cut off oil; Britain and the Netherlands followed. With oil stocks running down, an imperial conference decided on war unless diplomacy succeeded. Tojo Hideki became prime minister in October; the American terms of 26 November, the Hull note, demanded withdrawal from China and Indochina. On 7 December 1941 Japanese carrier aircraft attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, killing more than 2,400 Americans, while other forces struck Malaya, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Germany and Italy declared war on the US four days later, and the two wars became one.
4Japan: the responses
The League of Nations and the Lytton Report. China appealed to the League in September 1931. The League sent a commission under Lord Lytton, whose report (October 1932) found that Japan's action was not self-defence and that Manchukuo was not the product of a genuine independence movement, but also accepted that Japan had real interests in Manchuria and proposed an autonomous Manchuria under Chinese sovereignty. The Assembly adopted the report in February 1933 by 42 votes to 1, Japan voting against; the Japanese delegation walked out, and Japan announced its withdrawal from the League in March 1933. No sanctions followed. Britain and France had no forces to spare in the Far East and their own economies in crisis, and the US was not a member. When war came in 1937, the League condemned Japan and passed the matter to a conference in Brussels, which achieved nothing.
The Second United Front. In December 1936 Chiang was seized at Xi'an by his own general Zhang Xueliang, whose father had been killed by Japanese officers in 1928, and pressed to stop fighting the Communists and resist Japan. After the Marco Polo Bridge, the GMD and CCP formally agreed the Second United Front (September 1937); the Communist armies became nominally part of the national army. It kept China fighting, but it was a truce between enemies; after GMD forces attacked the Communist New Fourth Army in January 1941 it barely existed. China received Soviet aid from 1937 and American aid from 1938.
The international response and US–Japan tension. Figure 2 shows how American policy hardened.
The Stimson Doctrine (January 1932) refused to recognise Manchukuo: words without force. Roosevelt's "quarantine" speech of October 1937 hinted at collective action but led to none, and when Japanese aircraft sank the American gunboat Panay in December 1937 the US accepted an apology. The US Neutrality Acts of 1935–1937 reflected a public that wanted no war. From 1939 pressure became economic: notice to end the 1911 commercial treaty (July 1939), embargoes on aviation fuel and then scrap iron (1940), loans to China, and in July 1941 the freezing of assets and the end of oil. Britain, weaker, gave way under pressure in July 1940 and closed the Burma Road supply route to China for three months. Each American step was meant to deter Japan. Japanese leaders read them as a choice between giving up the empire in China and seizing the oil of the Dutch East Indies, which meant knocking out the US fleet first.
The historians. The Tokyo war crimes tribunal (1946–1948) described a long conspiracy for aggression. Later historians see less plan and more drift: Michael Barnhart stressed the military's search for economic self-sufficiency for a future total war, Louise Young showed how popular enthusiasm for Manchukuo pushed governments along, and Herbert Bix argued that Emperor Hirohito was more actively involved than the post-war picture allowed. Japanese nationalist writers still present 1941 as self-defence against encirclement.
5Germany and Italy: the causes of expansion
Fascism and Nazism. Mussolini, in power since 1922, preached that war was the test of a nation and promised a new Roman empire around the Mediterranean (mare nostrum, "our sea") and in Africa. Italy had also never forgotten its defeat by Ethiopia at Adwa in 1896, or the "mutilated victory" of 1919, when it gained less than it had been promised. Historians disagree about how consistent he was: Denis Mack Smith saw an opportunist and propagandist; MacGregor Knox argued that expansion abroad and revolution at home were a single programme. Hitler's aims, set out in Mein Kampf, went beyond revising Versailles: uniting all Germans in one state, then conquering Lebensraum ("living space") in the east from peoples he regarded as racially inferior, and destroying Bolshevism. A. J. P. Taylor (1961) argued that Hitler was an opportunist who exploited chances others handed him, much like earlier German statesmen; Hugh Trevor-Roper replied that the programme was there from the start, and Andreas Hillgruber described it as a plan in stages (Stufenplan).
Domestic economic issues. The Depression left Germany with about six million unemployed by early 1933. Rearmament and public works cut unemployment but created shortages of foreign currency and raw materials. In 1936 the Four-Year Plan, under Göring, set out to make the economy and army ready for war within four years, pushing for self-sufficiency (autarky). Tim Mason argued that by 1939 economic strain pushed Hitler into war sooner than he planned; Richard Overy disputed that the economy was in crisis enough to force the decision; Adam Tooze stressed Hitler's race against the growing economic power of Britain, France and above all the US. Italy's economy was weaker: the Depression, a state rescue of industry in 1933, and after 1935 an autarky imposed partly by sanctions. Abyssinia promised land for settlers and a distraction at home, and it drained the treasury; in 1939 Mussolini had to tell Hitler that Italy could not fight without vast supplies.
Changing alignments, the end of collective security, appeasement. In 1934 Italy was Germany's rival: when Austrian Nazis murdered the chancellor Dollfuss in July 1934, Mussolini sent troops to the Brenner Pass to protect Austria. In April 1935 Britain, France and Italy formed the Stresa Front against German rearmament. Within two months Britain undercut it with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, and the Abyssinian crisis then drove Italy towards Germany: the Rome–Berlin Axis (1936), the Anti-Comintern Pact (Italy joined 1937), the Pact of Steel (1939). Collective security failed in Manchuria and died in Abyssinia; Belgium returned to neutrality in 1936, and the US stayed out under its Neutrality Acts. Into the gap came appeasement: the British, and more reluctantly French, policy of settling German grievances by negotiation and concession. Its reasons were real: memory of the Great War, public opinion, fear of bombing, a sense that Versailles had been too harsh, unready armed forces, an empire threatened by Japan and Italy as well as Germany, reluctant Dominions, and distrust of the USSR.
Figure 3 sets out the German and Italian case study.
6Germany and Italy: the events
German challenges to the post-war settlements (1933–1938). Germany left the Disarmament Conference and the League in October 1933, signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934 to break France's eastern alliances, and saw the Saar vote to return in January 1935. In March 1935 Hitler announced an air force and conscription, both banned by Versailles. On 7 March 1936 troops re-entered the demilitarised Rhineland, breaking both Versailles and the Locarno treaties. At a meeting in November 1937, recorded in the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler told his commanders that Germany must expand, starting with Austria and Czechoslovakia; Taylor doubted its importance as evidence of a plan. In March 1938 German troops entered Austria (the Anschluss), which a plebiscite endorsed.
Italian expansion. After a clash at the Walwal oasis in December 1934, Italy invaded Abyssinia on 3 October 1935, using aircraft and poison gas against Ethiopian forces, and took Addis Ababa in May 1936. In 1936–1939 Italian troops fought for Franco in Spain. On 7 April 1939 Italy invaded Albania, already an Italian client state, and annexed it. When Germany invaded Poland, Italy declared itself "non-belligerent". Only when France was collapsing did Mussolini declare war on Britain and France, on 10 June 1940; his attack on France in the Alps made little progress, and his invasions of British-held Egypt (September 1940) and Greece (October 1940) went badly.
German expansion (1938–1939) and the outbreak of war. Hitler then demanded the Sudetenland, the German-speaking border region of Czechoslovakia. At Munich on 29–30 September 1938 Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini and Hitler agreed its transfer; neither Czechoslovakia nor the USSR was present. On 15 March 1939 Germany occupied the rest of Bohemia and Moravia, the first seizure of non-German land, and Memel a week later. Britain and France guaranteed Poland on 31 March. Germany and Italy signed the Pact of Steel (22 May 1939), a full military alliance. Anglo-French talks with the USSR moved slowly, and on 23 August 1939 the Nazi–Soviet Pact stunned Europe: a non-aggression treaty with a secret protocol dividing Poland and eastern Europe. Germany invaded Poland on 1 September; Britain and France declared war on 3 September; the USSR invaded from the east on 17 September. In 1940 Germany took Denmark and Norway (April), then the Low Countries and France (May–June).
7Germany and Italy: the responses
To German aggression (1933–1938). Protest without action. Britain accepted rearmament and signed the naval agreement; France, divided and in an election campaign, would not act alone over the Rhineland, and Britain would not act with it. The Anschluss was accepted. Munich was the peak of appeasement: Chamberlain returned promising "peace for our time", and was cheered. France's alliance with Czechoslovakia was abandoned. The USSR, a League member from 1934 with pacts with France and Czechoslovakia, was left out, which fed Stalin's suspicion that the West wanted Hitler to turn east.
To Italian aggression (1935–1936). The League named Italy the aggressor within days and imposed sanctions, but not on oil, coal or steel, and Britain left the Suez Canal open to Italian shipping. Britain and France wanted to keep Italy as an ally against Germany, and in December 1935 their foreign ministers produced the Hoare–Laval Plan, which would have given Italy much of Abyssinia; its leak caused a public outcry and Hoare resigned. In June 1936 the Emperor Haile Selassie appealed in person to the League; in July the sanctions were lifted. Collective security had failed its test, and Italy had moved into Germany's orbit.
To German and Italian aggression (1940). Britain, led from 10 May 1940 by Winston Churchill, chose to fight on alone after the fall of France, evacuated its army from Dunkirk, and won the Battle of Britain. It struck back at Italy by sea at Taranto (November 1940) and on land in North Africa (December 1940), while the Greeks threw the Italian invasion back into Albania. The US moved from neutrality towards support: Roosevelt condemned Italy's entry in June 1940 as a stab in the back, traded destroyers for British bases (September 1940), introduced peacetime conscription and promised to be the "arsenal of democracy". The USSR used its pact with Germany to annex the Baltic states and part of Romania in June 1940. Vichy France accepted defeat and collaboration.
The historians on appeasement. Guilty Men (1940), written under a pseudonym by three journalists, blamed Chamberlain and his colleagues for weakness and blindness. Once the government papers opened, revisionists argued that appeasement was a rational response to real limits; John Charmley defended Chamberlain strongly. R. A. C. Parker replied that there were alternatives, above all a firm alliance with France and the USSR, and that Chamberlain chose not to take them.
8Where marks are lost
Writing domestic history for its own sake. The guide wants the Depression, the army or fascism only as causes of expansion. End each such paragraph with "so it pushed foreign policy towards…".
Treating the Japanese government as one actor. In 1931 the Kwantung Army acted against Tokyo's wishes. Say who decided.
Saying the League "did nothing" over Manchuria. It investigated, reported and condemned. It did not sanction or enforce, and you should say why.
Assuming sanctions on Italy failed because they were too weak by accident. Oil and the Suez Canal were left out deliberately; Britain and France valued Italy against Germany.
Treating appeasement as cowardice, or as obviously right. Give its reasons and its alternatives, then judge.
Stating one view of Hitler as fact. Planner or opportunist is a debate: name it, use it, and let the evidence decide.
Misdating the German-Italian case study. It ends in 1940, so Italy's entry into the war and the responses of 1940 are in; Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor are not (Pearl Harbor belongs to the Japanese case study).
9Write it right
- Know your source types. Speeches and propaganda (Hitler, Mussolini, Konoe), government records (the Lytton Report, the Hossbach Memorandum, Cabinet minutes), diplomats' memoirs written after the war, newspapers, and cartoons, above all David Low's in the London Evening Standard. Speeches show what a leader wanted an audience to believe; memoirs are written with hindsight and to defend a record.
- Q1a (3 marks). Three separate points in your own words. Diplomatic documents hedge: a report that condemns Japan and also recognises its interests gives you two points.
- Q1b (2 marks). Cartoons dominate this subject. Say who is drawn as powerful or foolish, what the labels say, and what the cartoonist argues; the second mark often needs the target of the criticism, which is frequently Britain, France or the League rather than the aggressor.
- Q2 (4 marks). Origin, purpose, content, each with a value and a limitation. Date matters: a source written after 1945 knows how the story ended.
- Q3 (6 marks). Linked comparison, both sources in every sentence. Governments of different countries usually agree on facts and differ on blame.
- Q4 (9 marks). Three or four sources cited by letter, precise own knowledge (18 September 1931, February 1933, 7 July 1937, 27 September 1940, 26 July 1941, 7 December 1941; 7 March 1936, 3 October 1935, 29–30 September 1938, 23 August 1939, 10 June 1940), and a judgement with a degree.
10Try it
A practice paper on the German case study, then a plan on Japan. All four sources are constructed by Educerie for practice. They are not real documents; the events are real.
Source A (constructed): from the private diary of a junior British government minister, 1 October 1938.
Relief everywhere. The Chiefs of Staff are plain that our fighter defences are not ready and that London could not be protected from the air this autumn. The Dominions would not have followed us into war over the Sudetens, and I doubt the country would either. We have bought time. Whether Hitler's signature is worth the paper is another matter; I would not stake much on it.
Source B (constructed): a British cartoon, October 1938. A tall man with an umbrella hands a map labelled "Czechoslovakia" across a table to a uniformed figure, who is already reaching past it towards a door marked "Next?". Outside a closed window marked "Conference: no entry", a small figure labelled "Prague" and a bear labelled "USSR" look in.
Source C (constructed): from a statement broadcast by the Czechoslovak government, 30 September 1938.
The decision was taken at Munich without us and against us. Our allies have told us that if we resist we shall resist alone. We have chosen to submit rather than send our people to certain slaughter, but we say to the world that this is not peace. What has been done to us today may be done to others tomorrow.
Source D (constructed): from a study of British foreign policy by a historian, published in 1993.
Appeasement was not the product of blindness. Chamberlain faced three possible enemies, an unready air force, an economy that could not afford rapid rearmament, and a public that wanted peace. Yet it was a choice. He distrusted the Soviet Union and turned away from the one combination, a firm alliance with France and Russia, that might have deterred Hitler in 1938.
Q1. What, according to Source A, were the reasons for accepting the Munich Agreement? 3 marks
Q2. What is the message of Source B? 2 marks
Q3. With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source C for a historian studying the Munich crisis. 4 marks
Q4. Compare and contrast what Sources A and D reveal about the reasons for British appeasement. 6 marks
Q5. Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that appeasement was the main reason for German expansion between 1936 and 1939. 9 marks
Q6. The other case study. Plan (do not write out) an answer to: "Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that US economic pressure was the main reason for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor." Give a line of argument, the paragraphs and the own knowledge for each. 9 marks
11In one breath
Japan expanded because an army answerable to the emperor, not the cabinet, and a nationalism resentful of the West met a Depression that ruined the silk trade and discredited party governments, and a China divided between Chiang's GMD and the Communists. The Kwantung Army staged the Mukden incident on 18 September 1931 and took Manchuria; Manchukuo followed; the Lytton Report condemned Japan, which left the League in 1933 without sanctions. The Marco Polo Bridge (July 1937) began full war, Nanjing's massacre, and stalemate; the Xi'an incident produced a fragile Second United Front. Nomonhan turned Japan south; the Tripartite Pact (September 1940) and southern Indochina (July 1941) brought the American freeze and oil embargo, the Hull note and Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Italy expanded for fascist glory, revenge for Adwa and relief from economic weakness; Germany for Hitler's aims of revising Versailles, uniting Germans and winning Lebensraum, driven faster by rearmament's strains. Collective security failed over Manchuria and Abyssinia, Stresa collapsed, the Axis formed, and Britain and France appeased: the Rhineland (1936), the Anschluss and Munich (1938). Prague (March 1939) ended appeasement; the Pact of Steel and the Nazi–Soviet Pact preceded the invasion of Poland and war on 3 September 1939; Italy joined on 10 June 1940, and Britain under Churchill fought on while the US moved from neutrality towards aid.
Answers
Q1. Any three of: Britain's fighter defences were not ready, according to the Chiefs of Staff; London could not be protected from air attack; the Dominions would not have joined a war over the Sudetenland; British public opinion probably would not have supported war; the agreement bought time. 1 for each distinct point in the candidate's own words, to a maximum of 3. What scores zero: the writer's doubt about Hitler's signature, which is not a reason for accepting; any evaluation of the diary.
Q2. The cartoonist argues that at Munich Britain simply handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, who was already looking for his next victim, so the agreement would not satisfy him. The shut window also criticises the conference for excluding both Czechoslovakia and the USSR, deciding a small country's fate without it and turning away a possible ally against Germany. 1 for appeasement feeding rather than satisfying Hitler's ambitions, 1 for the exclusion of Czechoslovakia or the USSR. Description of the umbrella, table or bear scores 0 unless turned into a claim.
Q3. Origin: an official broadcast by the Czechoslovak government on the day after Munich. Valuable as the immediate reaction of the state whose territory was given away; limited because it is one government's public statement, made in anger and humiliation, not a record of the negotiations it did not attend. Purpose: to explain surrender to its own people and appeal to world opinion. Valuable for how the victims of appeasement understood it and wanted it judged; limited because a statement meant to justify submission and shame the allies will stress betrayal and leave out Czechoslovakia's own options. Content: the claims that the decision was taken without Czechoslovakia and that its allies would not fight are specific and confirmed by other evidence, and the warning about "others tomorrow" is striking in view of March 1939; but it gives no detail of the terms and nothing of the reasons that led Britain and France to accept them. to the paper's scheme; 4 needs origin, purpose and content with both value and limitation. Cap at 2 if the answer never says what the source is valuable for. Hindsight used to "prove" the source right is not evaluation of the source.
Q4. Similarities. Both sources explain appeasement partly by military weakness in the air: Source A cites unready fighter defences, and Source D an unready air force. Both point to public opinion, since Source A doubts the country would have gone to war and Source D says the public wanted peace. Both suggest that appeasement was a considered policy rather than simple blindness: Source A sees it as buying time, and Source D says directly it was not blindness. Differences. Source A adds the reluctance of the Dominions, whereas Source D adds the danger of three enemies and the cost of rearmament. Source A presents Munich as the only realistic option, whereas Source D insists it was a choice and that an alliance with France and the USSR was rejected because Chamberlain distrusted the Soviets. And Source A is doubtful about Hitler's reliability but offers no alternative, while Source D's judgement is that an alternative existed. to the paper's scheme. Top marks need similarities and differences, roughly balanced, in a linked running comparison. Two separate summaries are capped at about half marks.
Q5. A top-band answer might argue: appeasement made German expansion easier and faster, but it was not the main reason for it; Hitler's aims and Germany's rearmament drove expansion, and appeasement shaped its timing and cost. First, the case for the claim: Sources B and C on Munich handing over the Sudetenland without resistance; own knowledge on the Rhineland (March 1936), the Anschluss (March 1938) and the lack of response to each. Second, Hitler's ideology and aims: own knowledge on Mein Kampf, Lebensraum and the Hossbach meeting (November 1937), with the Taylor and Trevor-Roper debate; Source B's figure reaching for the next door. Third, rearmament and economics: the Four-Year Plan (1936) and the race against Allied rearmament. Fourth, the wider collapse of collective security: Abyssinia, the Axis, US neutrality and, above all, the Nazi–Soviet Pact, which removed the Soviet threat and made the attack on Poland possible despite the end of appeasement in March 1939. Source D's point that Chamberlain rejected a Soviet alliance links appeasement to that failure. Conclusion with a degree. on the fourth-question markbands. 7–9 needs focus on the question, the sources used as evidence and cited by letter, accurate own knowledge, and synthesis. Summarising the sources one by one stays in 1–3; good own knowledge with no source references cannot pass 6.
Q6. Line: US economic pressure was the immediate trigger, but it forced a decision whose causes lay in Japan's war in China and its ambitions in South-East Asia. 1, the case for: the freezing of assets (26 July 1941) and the oil embargo, Japan's dependence on American oil, the running down of stocks, and the Hull note (26 November 1941) as terms Japan saw as unacceptable. 2, the China war: the stalemate since 1938, the refusal to withdraw, and army resistance to any settlement that gave up China. 3, opportunity and alignment: German victories in 1940 exposing French and Dutch colonies, the Tripartite Pact (September 1940), the neutrality pact with the USSR, Nomonhan turning Japan south. 4, decision-making: the imperial conferences of 1941 and Tojo's appointment, showing the military's grip. Conclusion: to a considerable extent as the trigger, to a limited extent as the underlying cause. In the exam each paragraph would cite a source by letter. a plan scores nothing in the exam; this is practice. It would support a top-band answer if every paragraph combined a source with precise own knowledge and the conclusion gave a degree.
Educerie · written from the published IB Diploma Programme History guide, first assessment 2017, Prescribed subject 3 The move to global war. Original text, examples and questions; all practice sources are constructed by Educerie. Diagrams drawn by Educerie. Last reviewed 25 September 2026.
Check your understanding
The main ideas of this note. Tick each one you could do now, in an exam, without looking back up. Anything you cannot tick yet is the part to read again.