Unit 1: Aspects of International Relations, 1919-2005

Unit 1: Aspects of International Relations, 1919-2005

Chapter 1: Were the peace treaties of 1919-1923 fair?

Page 16

1. How far were the German people dissatisfied with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles? (10 marks)

Sample answer:The treaty presented to the German Delegation was imposed on them. They had not been allowed to take part in the Conference and considered the Treaty a ‘Diktat’. Some German delegates even considered refusing to sign it.

There were many aspects of the treaty that were hated. The Loss of territory including Alsace-Lorraine, for example angered many ordinary Germans. Other countries were allowed self-determination but the Treaty of Versailles forced some Germans to live under foreign rule (e.g. Polish rule in the East). Germany was also not allowed to unite (Anscluss) with Austria. Military restrictions were also placed on Germany and many Germans felt vulnerable to future attack as well as loss of pride. Members of the German armed forces felt particularly angry about this aspect of the Treaty.

The new Weimar Government had to pay the Allies huge reparations. Many Germans, including business leaders and politicians thought this was unfair and designed to bankrupt the German economy and keep it weak. Germany was also not allowed to join the League of Nations (finally joined in 1926) and many Germans considered this a further insult to their pride.

Germany was forced to accept responsibility for starting the War. Most Germans did not accept this and many in the German Army did not think they had been beaten but betrayed by politicians in Berlin who seemed to accept defeat and signed the Treaty of Versailles. This was possibly the most hated part of the treaty.

Finally, most of the German people hated the treaty of Versailles and many blamed their own politicians for signing. Most of the German Army thought that France had had its revenge and some even wanted to restart the war. Germany had been forced to take responsibility for starting the war, been humiliated by the victorious powers, made to pay reparations, lost one tenth of its territory, most of its military strength and could not unite with Austria.

Comment:The candidate shows that the Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles but is able to demonstrate how different groups in German society resented certain aspects of the treaty more than others – e.g. the loss of territory, or reduction in armed forces.

Chapter 2: To what extent was the League of Nations a success?

Page 28

1. How far can the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s be blamed on the Great Depression? (10 marks)

Sample answer:The Great Depression created severe economic problems across the world and leading democratic countries such as Britain and France felt unable to spend money on military actions supporting the League. The world-wide economic problems caused by the Wall Street crash and the Depression that followed meant that millions of ordinary people lost their jobs and ability to support their families. Many blamed the democratic system of government for the problems and turned their support to extreme political parties such as the Nazis in Germany and militarists in Japan who did not support the League of Nations.

There were several key factors which severely weakened the League. Japan, for example was badly affected by the Depression. It has no natural resources and heavily relied on world trade which had collapsed by the early 1930s. Facing ruin, the government ordered the military to invade Manchuria (part of China), to distract the Japanese population and find new coal reserves to solve their economic problems. The League failed to act against Japan and this encouraged Mussolini to attack Abyssinia.

Britain’s self-interest was also a factor in the League’s failure. The Italian dictator Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1935 in order to distract the Italian people from the effects of the Depression, find new sources of wealth and show that Italy was one of the great powers who could ignore the League. Britain opposed sanctions on coal supplies to Italy despite the Abyssinia crisis because Britain wanted to protect jobs in the coal industry. In addition, Britain and France were concerned about Hitler in 1935. They had already agreed the Stresa Front with Mussolini and did not want to clash with him in case he joined forces with Hitler. They even tried to make another deal with Mussolini (Hoare Laval Pact) but this failed. Since the USA never joined the League, Britain and France did not feel they could act alone in opposing Italy, Japan and later Germany.

Finally, fascist governments, particularly in Germany, Italy and Japan used the effects of the Depression to expand their territories or areas of influence confident that the League would not act to stop them. The League could not stop these actions because by not acting against Japan over its invasion of Manchuria, its key members had shown that they were not willing to go to war in order to protect member countries who had been attacked or invaded. The Depression, therefore, created the climate for extremists to take advantage of the League’s weaknesses.

Comment:The candidate explains the reasons for the failure of the League and is able to evaluate the importance of the Depression in its failure.

Chapter 3: Why had international peace collapsed by 1939?

Page 39

1. Study Source A carefully and then answer the questions which follow.

b. Explain why Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact in 1939. (6 marks)

Sample answer:The signing of the Nazi–Soviet non-aggressionpact (also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) on 23 August 1939 stunned the world. Britain and France had been negotiating an anti-German alliance with USSR throughout the late 1930s but they had not been able to agree terms.

There were major advantages for Stalin and Hitler to come to an agreement. Stalin saw an opportunity to divide Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR and in particular, regain part of Eastern Poland. A pact with his arch rival Hitler, also gave Stalin time to rebuild the Soviet army and expand its forces in case of future German attack.

Hitler had the most to gain from a pact with the USSR. Poland, whose government signed a defensive agreement with Britain in 1939, would be isolated and defenceless in the face of a Nazi–Soviet Pact. An agreement with Stalin meant Hitler would be able to invade Poland, restore German territory in Eastern Europe and destroy the Treaty of Versailles, without Soviet interference and a war on two fronts.

Finally, the signing of the Nazi Soviet non-aggression pact in August 1939 stunned a humiliated Britain and France and gave Hitler and Stalin key military and foreign policy successes and accelerated the prospects of a European War.

Comment: The candidate will explain several reasons why the pact had advantages for Hitler and Stalin and evaluate who had most to gain and why.

Chapter 4: Who was to blame for the Cold War?

Page 49

1. How far was the USSR able to dominate Europe by 1955? (10 marks)

Sample answer:Since the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union had attempted to dominate most of Eastern Europe and despite Stalin’s death in 1953, Soviet domination remained firm and secure.

The Soviets dominated Eastern Europe economically, politically and militarily. Whilst many British and American troops returned home at the end World War Two, the Soviet Union kept millions of its soldiers in countries it had liberated from the Nazis. In most of these countries, (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and East Germany) Stalin imposed communist governments that supported the USSR. In Albania, for example, Communists took power after the war. In Romania, a left wing coalition was elected in 1945 and Communists banned all other parties in Czechoslovakia in 1948. In Poland, the pro-Western government that had fled to London during the war was not allowed back into power by Stalin, despite opposition from the Americans and British. In Hungary, although elections took place, the Communist leader Rakosi had successfully gained power by 1947. Similarly, a Communist government turned the Soviet zone of East German into the German Democratic Republic in 1949.

Stalin’s creation of the Cominform in 1947 and Comecon in 1949 strengthened Soviet economic control over Eastern Europe. Stalin set up the Warsaw Pact military alliance in May 1955 in response the West’s creation of NATO which had just admitted West Germany. In a speech at Fulton Missouri USA in March 1946, Winston Churchill referred to the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in what became known as his ‘Iron Curtain’ speech.

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.” Winston S Churchill, Fulton, 5 March 1946. (You would not be required to quote from this speech in your answer)

The Soviets, however, were not always successful Communists attempted to seize power in Greece in 1948 but failed and the Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Austria in October 1955. In addition, Yugoslavia’s President Tito, a Communist, fell out with Stalin and even received some aid from America. Yugoslavia became a leading member of the non-aligned group of countries until Tito’s death in 1980. Despite occupying much of Eastern Germany, including Berlin, by the time the Nazis had surrendered in May 1945, Stalin allowed Britain, USA and France to set up military zones in West Berlin. Berlin would remain a ‘flash point’ throughout the Cold War and a focal point for Cold War tensions including the Berlin Airlift in 1948 when the Soviets tried unsuccessfully to stop supplies reaching West Berlin.

Finally, despite American and British successes in preventing communist control in West Berlin and Greece, by 1955, the Soviet Union had complete political, economic and military control of its satellites in Eastern Europe and there was no prospect that this would change in the immediate future.

Comment:The candidate explains and evaluates the extent of Soviet domination, politically, economically and militarily over Eastern Europe and gives examples to illustrate to support his/her argument.

Chapter 5: Who won the Cuban missile crisis?

Page 57

1. ‘The Cuban Missile Crisis was won by the United States of America?’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks)

Sample answer:The Cuban Missile Crisis was probably the most serious and dangerous incident of the Cold War because a nuclear exchange became a very real possibility. Whilst in public it seemed that President Kennedy forced the Soviet leader Khrushchev to back down, closer analysis shows that Khrushchev may have been the private victor.

Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro can all claim to have won the Missile Crisis.Kennedy was immediately seen as the winner. He had been seen to stand up to the Soviets by enforcing a blockade of Cuba making them back down and remove the missiles.Kennedy had also successfully stood up to some of his hard line military advisers who wanted to invade Cuba. The crisis showed how dangerous their ideas were. However,Kennedy also agreed in secret not to invade Cuba and more controversially, to remove NATO missiles from Turkey at a later date. Castro remained in power in Cuba and so the Communist threat remained. Kennedy had also made plenty of enemies. He was now distrusted by some key generals who thought he was not really prepared to fight the spread of Communism. He was hated by Cuban exiles in the US since Castro had survived the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis.

Khrushchev had prevented a US invasion of Cuba and had a guarantee that no further invasion attempts would take place. In public, he could claim to have acted reasonably and as a peacemaker by agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev had US agreement that NATO missiles in Turkey would also be removed although this was a secret agreement and unknown at the time. However, the USSR was shown to have lied to the UN about the existence of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev had been forced to back down in public in the face of US pressure. The Soviet missiles were removed and this was seen as humiliating by many in the Soviet military. Finally, Khrushchev was unable to make his secret agreements with the US public and in 1964 he was replaced as Soviet leader so historians consider the outcomes of the missile crisis contributed to his downfall.

Castro remained in power and the US promised not to attempt further invasions. Cuba remained heavily armed although not with nuclear weapons and became a focus for other Communists in South America. Moreover, the Cuban revolution survived and Castro maintained his control of former US industries. However, Cuba remained poor and isolated in the western hemisphere, unable to trade with the US and therefore more dependent on the USSR for supplies and equipment.

In conclusion, Khrushchev’s private agreement had secured the removal of obsolete Jupiter American missiles from Turkey, and Cuba was safe from American attack and a useful Soviet base in the western hemisphere. In public, however, Kennedy was the winner. His actions had seemingly made Khrushchev publically back down and the missiles from Cuba were withdraw. Khrushchev’s credibility was also damaged and he was removed from power in 1964.

Comment:The candidate explains and evaluates what Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro won and lost as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis and gives examples to support his/her argument.

Chapter 6: Why did the USA fail in Vietnam?

Page 60

1. Study Source A carefully and then answer the questions which follow.

1. Explain briefly why the USA became involved in Vietnam. (6 marks)

Sample answer:US foreign policy in the 1950 and 1960s was based on stopping the spread of Communism. The Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia (e.g. Korea) had caused more and more countries to become Communist. It was in order to prevent the domino theory that the US became involved in Vietnam.

There were other specific reasons for US involvement in Vietnam. During the early 1950s the fear of the spread of communism (Red Scare) swept across the USA and this was fuelled by the influential Senator Joseph McCarthy who led hearings in Congress trying to identify Communists in American society. With American troops fighting to prevent a Communist take-over in Korea, US advisers were sent to help French forces maintain control of Vietnam.

With the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu by the Communist forces of Ho Chi Min in 1954, President Eisenhower had the choice of abandoning Vietnam to the Communists or supporting the new government in South Vietnam. The US now became directly involved and despite the corruption of the South Vietnamese government lead by Ngo Dinh Diem, the number of American military advisers in Vietnam steadily increased to 12,000 by 1962. Diem was assassinated in a military coup in 1963 several weeks before US President Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas. Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was keen to show that he would stand up to the Communists attempting to take over South Vietnam and deployed US combat troops on the ground. By 1965, 500,000 US soldiers were actively fighting Communist guerrillas in the jungles of South Vietnam.

In conclusion, the USA saw the war in Vietnam as a war against Communism and a war fought to defend American pride and interests in South East Asia. The USSR and China were threatening to extend communist influence across the world and US policy was designed to prevent this, including in Vietnam.

Comment: The candidate explains the general and specific reasons for US involvement in Vietnam and how this linked to preventing the further spread of Communism anywhere in the world.

Unit 2: Studies in Depth

Chapter 7: Germany, 1918–1945

Page 75

1. ‘The main reason for the fall of the Weimar Republic was the rise of the Nazi party.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks)

Sample answer:The collapse of the Weimar government was caused by a combination of factors including the rise of the Nazi party. The severe economic crisis caused by the Great Depression, however, created the climate and opportunity for extremist parties such as the Nazis to thrive.