Download Mother of all Study Guides

MOASG – 2012
Page
1
IB 20th Century Topics
Papers 1 and 2
This is:
THE MOTHER OF ALL STUDY GUIDES
Mr. Slater
Sumner Senior High School
Class of 2012
Paper 1: The Interwar Years – 1919 – 1939
Paper 2: Causes Practices and Effects of War
Paper 2: The Cold War – 1945 – 1991
This paper is not to be redistributed to any members of any school in the world, without written authorization of Bryan Slater.
MOASG – 2012
Topic 1: Causes, practices and effects
of wars
War was a major feature of the 20th century. In this
topic the different types of war should be identified,
and the causes, practices and effects of these conflicts
should be studied.
Major themes
Different types and nature of 20th century warfare
• Civil
• Guerrilla
• Limited war, total war
Origins and causes of wars
• Long-term, short-term and immediate causes
• Economic, ideological, political, religious causes
Nature of 20th century wars
• Technological developments, tactics and strategies,
air, land and sea
• Home front: economic and social impact (including
changes in the role and status of women)
• Resistance and revolutionary movements
Effects and results of wars
• Peace settlements and wars ending without treaties
• Attempts at collective security pre- and post-Second
World War
• Political repercussions and territorial changes
• Post-war economic problems
Material for detailed study
• First World War (1914-18)
• Second World War (1939 - 45)
Topic 5: The Cold War
This topic addresses East–West relations from 1945.
It aims to promote an international perspective and
understanding of the origins, course and effects of the
Cold War—a conflict that dominated global affairs
from the end of the Second World War to the early
1990s. It includes superpower rivalry and events in all
Page
2
areas affected by Cold War politics such as spheres of
interest, wars (proxy), alliances and interference in
developing countries.
Major themes
Origins of the Cold War
• Ideological differences
• Mutual suspicion and fear
• From wartime allies to post-war enemies
Nature of the Cold War
• Ideological opposition
• Superpowers and spheres of influence
• Alliances and diplomacy in the Cold War
Development and impact of the Cold War
• Global spread of the Cold War from its European
origins
• Cold War policies of containment, brinkmanship,
peaceful coexistence, détente
• Role of the United Nations and the Non-Aligned
Movement
• Role and significance of leaders
• Arms race, proliferation and limitation
• Social, cultural and economic impact
End of the Cold War
• Break-up of Soviet Union: internal problems and
external pressures
• Breakdown of Soviet control over Central and
Eastern Europe
Material for detailed study
• Wartime conferences: Yalta and Potsdam
• US policies and developments in Europe: Truman
Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO
• Soviet policies, Sovietization of Eastern and Central
Europe, COMECON, Warsaw Pact
• Sino–Soviet relations
• Germany (especially Berlin (1945‑ 61)), Korea,
Cuba, Vietnam,
• Castro, Gorbachev, Kennedy, Mao, Reagan, Stalin,
Truman
MOASG – 2012
Page
3
Mother of all Study Guides
I.
Types of war:
a. Total – All resources in a given country are committed to war.
i. All people are subject to destruction in total war.
ii. The whole society is mobilized for war, politically, ideologically, physically, mentally, production-wise and
fighting-wise.
iii. Intensely focused with strategic attacks on civilian targets. Most of the time, the entire industrial make up of a
country is controlled by the government.
b. Guerilla – Sun Tsu and The Art of War
c. Limited – Not inclusive of all facets of society. Typically no home front.
II.
Types of War Historiography:
a. Sir Basil Henry Liddel Hart –
i. Total War guy: “If both sides possess atomic weapons, total war is nonsense.”
ii. “Even the preparation for it is likely to carry more evils in its train, without bearing any good promise in the
event of victory.”
iii. “The more total the war, the more likely freedom is permanently lost.”
b. Sun Tsu –
i. Guerrilla War guy: “All warfare should be based on the principle of exploiting the weakness of the enemy.
ii. Wrote his book The Art of War.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
III.
Causes of WWI
a. MAIN – Sidney B. Fay
i. See Historiography Section Below.
Incidents which increased tension 1900-1914
In addition to the underlying causes of the First World War, the new century saw a number of incidents that only served to increase
tension further across Europe. From sub-Saharan Africa across to Eastern Europe, the major powers clashed in desperate bids to conquer
land, gain respect and secure superiority over each other.
The final straw was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in June 1914. Within six weeks, Europe was at war.
During 1900-1914, the great powers of Europe clashed a number of times. Each of these events increased international tension and rivalry,
and made war more likely. War was going to come sooner or later.
Some of the Short Term events leading to war:
First Moroccan crisis 1905
Kaiser Wilhelm promised to support the sultan of Morocco against France's attempts to take over the
country.
Bosnia 1908
Austria annexed Bosnia in the Balkans from Turkey. This annoyed Serbia, which had wanted to take over
the area. Russia wanted to help Serbia, but had to back down.
Dreadnought crisis 1909
Scared by the growing German navy, the British people demanded that the government build eight of the
new Dreadnought battleships.
Second Moroccan Crisis
There was a revolution in Morocco, so France sent an army to take over. Kaiser Wilhelm sent the gunship
'Panther', but Britain and France forced him to back down.
Assassination of Franz
Ferdinand 1914
The heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary was shot by Gavrilo Princip, a young Serb terrorist, in Sarajevo
in Bosnia.
Events and consequences
1.
2.
3.
4.
The first Moroccan crisis and Second Moroccan Crisis made France think that Germany wanted to destroy its empire.
The Dreadnought crisis showed that the British thought Germany wanted to challenge the British navy.
Bosnian Crisis and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand made Austria-Hungary determined to destroy Serbia.
Bosnia made Russia determined to support the Serbs.
MOASG – 2012
Page
4
5. The Second Moroccan Crisis made Germany determined to stand up to France and Britain.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Treaties signed prior to the War and Long Term Causes of the War
Treaty of London, 1837 – 1839
Germany asks Britain to ignore this document so they can reach Paris faster. Britain says nope. Takes them into war.
The 1839 Treaty of London derives its significance from Article 7, which bound Britain to guard the neutrality of Belgium in the event of
the latter's invasion.
The German Government, intending to do just that so as to reach France (specifically Paris) all the faster in the opening weeks of the First
World War, asked the British government in August 1914 to effectively ignore the "scrap of paper" committing Britain to the defense of
Belgium. Britain refused, Germany invaded Belgium anyway: and Prime Minister Asquith took Britain into the Great War on 4 August
1914.
Primary Documents: Ems Telegram, 1870
The Ems Telegram was ostensibly a telegram from the Prussian Kaiser, Wilhelm I, to his Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck which, when
published (and as anticipated by Bismarck) precipitated the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.
The telegram’s contents outlined the details of a disagreement between Wilhelm and the French ambassador concerning the succession to
the Spanish throne. Bismarck subtly doctored the telegram to give the impression that each side had insulted the other.
Primary Documents: Dual Alliance, 7 October 1879
The Dual Alliance treaty, signed by Germany and Austria-Hungary, promised aid to each other in the event of an attack by Russia, or if
Russia aided another power at war with either Germany or Austria-Hungary.
Should either nation be attacked by another power, e.g. France, they were to remain - at the very least - benevolently neutral. This
alliance, unlike others, endured until war in 1914.
Bismarck, the architect of the treaty, was keen to establish the first of numerous alliances to provide newly united Germany with allies
against a future possible attack by France.
Primary Documents: Three Emperors League, 18 June 1881
Having secured the creation of a united German Empire following the successful outcome of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, Bismarck
was keen to consolidate Germany's position via the construction of alliances with other major powers.
In so doing Bismarck was acknowledging that France would remain a threat, one set upon avenging her humiliating defeat in ceding
Alsace and Lorraine to Germany at the conclusion of the 1870-71 war.
Bismarck set about the establishment of numerous alliances with, in 1873, the creation of the Three Emperors League. This agreement
tied Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia to each other's aid in time of war. The agreement however only lasted until 1878 with Russia's
withdrawal; Bismarck then agreed a new Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879.
Primary Documents: Triple Alliance, 20 May 1882
Negotiated and signed in May 1881, the Triple Alliance brought Italy into the alliance previously agreed between Germany and AustriaHungary (in 1879) as a counterweight to France and Russia.
Under the provisions of this treaty, Germany and Austria-Hungary promised to assist Italy if she were attacked by France, and vice versa:
Italy was bound to lend aid to Germany or Austria-Hungary if France declared war against either.
Additionally, should any signatory find itself at war with two powers (or more), the other two were to provide military assistance.
One of the chief aims of the Triple Alliance was to prevent Italy from declaring war against Austria-Hungary, towards whom the Italians
were in constant dispute over territorial matters.
MOASG – 2012
Page
5
Although regularly renewed up until the outbreak of war in 1915, the Triple Alliance was essentially ineffective with regard to Italy’s
participation, for in 1902 (just five months after the latest renewal of the Alliance) Italy reached an understanding with France that each
would remain neutral in the event of an attack upon the other.
Primary Documents: Reinsurance Treaty, 18 June 1887
Bismarck, having achieved the creation of a united German empire in 1871, remained keen to protect against its possible break-up by a
combined two-front attack from French and Russia. Thus his alliance with Russia in 1887, the so-called Reinsurance Treaty, was intended
at avoiding that possibility, although under the terms of the agreement Russia was not bound to come to Germany's aid if the latter attacked
France (or if Russia declared war with Austria-Hungary, Germany's close ally).
Germany essentially paid for Russia's benevolence by recognizing Russia's sphere of influence in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia (now part
of southern Bulgaria), and by agreeing to support any Russian action to retain control of the Black Sea.
The treaty itself ran for three years, after which it was allowed to lapse. Subsequently Russia allied herself with Britain and France in the
Triple Entente.
Primary Documents: Franco-Russian Military Convention, 18 August 1892
Not published until 1918, the Franco-Russian Military Convention of 18 august 1892 drew France and Russia closer together, and together
with Britain, ultimately formed the Triple Entente.
The Franco-Russian Military Convention was signed two years after the German-Russian Reinsurance Treaty had been allowed by Russia
to lapse. Increasingly Russia's future alliance lay with France and Britain, in opposition to Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (who
ultimately formed the Central Powers).
In short, should France or Russia be attacked by one of the Triple Alliance signatories - or even should a Triple Alliance power mobilize
against either, the other power would provide military assistance.
Primary Documents: Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 30 January 1902
The Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902, which was to run for five years before being renewed, was primarily directed against the potential
shared menace posed, it was believed, by France and (most probably) Russia in the Far East. The alliance obligated either power to remain
neutral if one or other found itself at war. However, should either power be obliged to fight a war against two or more powers, the other
signatory was obliged to provide military aid.
The alliance was renewed in 1905 to take into account Japan's recent successful war against Russia.
Primary Documents: Entente Cordiale, 8 April 1904
The Entente Cordiale, an agreement between Britain and France, resolved a number of longstanding colonial disputes, and established a
diplomatic understanding between the two countries, which however stopped short of binding either to any military undertaking in support
of the other.
France, keen to build a buffer against possible German aggression, signed the agreement in a bid to encourage an Anglo alliance with
France. Similarly Britain was willing to encourage co-operation between the two countries with an eye on Germany's decision to expand
her naval strength in competition with Britain.
Germany, concerned over the signing of the entente agreement, determined to test its practical strength by provoking a crisis in Morocco in
1905, leading to the Algeciras Conference (1906).
The entente was extended in 1907 to include Russia, culminating in the alliance that formally took on the Central Powers during World
War One.
Primary Documents: Anglo-Russian Entente, 1907
With the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907, following the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale of 1904, the so-called Triple Entente of Britain,
France and Russia was established.
MOASG – 2012
Page
6
The Triple Entente stood in opposition to the Triple Alliance (otherwise referred to as the Central Powers) of Germany, Austria-Hungary
and Italy.
Primary Documents: Proclamation of the Young Turks, 1908
Reproduced below is the proclamation issued by the Young Turks in 1908 with their coming to power in Turkey.
With the coming of war in Europe in August 1914 the Young Turk administration proved far more receptive to German friendship than to
approaches from the Allies, and eventually ended a stance of neutrality at the end of August 1914 by declaring an alliance with Germany
(secretly agreed as early as 2 August 1914).
Primary Documents: President Woodrow Wilson's Inauguration Address, 4 March 1913
Reproduced below is the inauguration address of incoming President Woodrow Wilson, who won the Presidential election of November
1912. Wilson was subsequently re-elected as the President who kept America out of the First World War in November 1916. The U.S.
was obliged however to enter the war five months later in the wake of Germany's new (and provocative) policy of unrestricted submarine
warfare.
Primary Documents: Crown Prince Wilhelm on the Prospect of War, 1913
Reproduced below is an excerpt from Crown Prince Wilhelm's book Germany in Arms, published in 1913.
In the extract Wilhelm - the son of Kaiser Wilhelm II and heir to the throne - enthused about the prospect of war in Europe, arguing that
peace was un-advantageous to Germany.
IV.
Causes of WWI Historiography
a. The first formal Causes of WWI that was written down was the Treaty of Versailles, signed by the winners of the war.
i. The war was premeditated by Germany and its allies and resulted from ‘acts deliberately committed in order to
make it unavoidable.’
ii. Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately worked to defeat ‘all the many conciliatory proposals made by the
Entente powers to avoid war’.
iii. Article 231 of the Treaty: War Guilt Article blames Germany.
iv. Other Articles:
b. Historians
i. Fritz Fischer
1. German Historian
2. Wrote a book in 1961 called the Grab for World Power. This was eventually published in English.
3. Apportioned chief responsibility to Germany for preparing and launching WWI.
a. Germany encouraged Austria-Hungary to start a war with Serbia, and continued to do so,
even when it seemed clear that such a war could not be localized.
b. Once the war began, Germany developed a clear set of aims, already discussed before the
war, to gain large territorial gains in central and eastern Europe, very similar to Hitler’s later
craving for “living space” in Eastern Europe. – McDonough, 26.
4. Most famous for portraying Bethmann Hollweg as the prime mover of German policy during the July
Crisis once war began.
5. Until Fischer’s thesis, the most commonly understood cause of WWI was that of “Collective
Responsibility.” Fischer’s thesis blew up that theory and made the debate that much more
sophisticated through the 1960’s. By the 1970’s, people agreed with Fischer.
ii. Gerhard Ritter – McDonough, 28.
1. German Historian
2. Critic of Fischer’s Thesis
3. Called Fischer’s thesis “An act of National Disloyalty.”
iii. Sidney B. Fay
1. 1930 – published a study which argued that no European power watned war in 1914 and that all, to
greater or lesser degrees, must share the blame.
a. Germany did not plot the war and was a casualty of its alliance with Austria-Hungary.
b. Austria-Hungary was most responsible, but felt that it was acting in self-defesne against the
expansion of Serb Nationalism.
c. Serbia may not have wanted war, but believed that it would be forced to fight.
MOASG – 2012
Page
d.
e.
f.
7
Russia was partly responsible, for encouraging Serbia and mobilizing its troops in a
Militaristic fashion.
France can be blamed in a roundabout way for its determination to support Russia. Britain
did make efforts for peace, but did hardly anything to restrain Russia or France through the
Alliance System.
All countries had Imperialistic interests prior to the war and felt the need to protect those
interests.
iv. Paul Schroeder
1. “The disaster of 1914 did not derive from a failure of politicians, military men, various interest groups
and the broad public to appreciate the long-range advantages of peaceful international co-operation
over un-restrained competition and conflict. It lay rather in the structure of international politics – the
fact that individual states would not, and could not, either separately or together leap from a powerbased competitive system to a rule-based one.” Schroeder, 38.
a. In other words, structure of international power politics, not economic factors, was the central
determinant of the outbreak of WWI.
Practices of WWI
a. Weapons
b. Technological innovations
c. Trench Warfare
d. Censorship during times of war
i. DORA
ii. Sedition and Espionage Acts during WWI in both Europe and America – proves war may have been total.
e. Big Bertha
f. Aircraft
g. U-Boats
Effects of WWI
a. Treaty of Versailles
b. League of Nations
c. Read this article on Reparations:
V.
VI.
Extra World War I Facts: - Schlieffen Plan










The plan was the work of the German army chief-of-staff Alfred von Schlieffen.
It took nine years to devise - it was started in 1897, presented in 1905, and revised in 1906.
The plan imagined a huge hammer-blow at Paris, using 90 per cent of the German army, swinging down through Belgium and
northern France, to take out France in a quick, decisive campaign.
It was a plan of attack - for Germany, mobilization and war were the same thing.
It was Germany's only plan for war.
It did not plan for a situation where Germany was at war with Russia, but not with France. When the German chancellor
Bethmann-Hollweg asked: "Is the Fatherland in danger?", the German general Moltke declared: "Yes".
In the event, Russia took only ten days to mobilize, and Moltke was forced to send some troops to the eastern front, which
weakened the main attack on Paris.
When the German army asked permission to go through Belgium on 2 August 1914, the Belgians refused, so the German army
had to fight its way through Belgium. This slowed it down and tired the soldiers.
Britain's decision to uphold the 1839 Treaty with Belgium amazed the Germans. "For a scrap of paper, Great Britain is going to
make war?" said the amazed Bethmann-Hollweg.
In the event, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) arrived to resist the Germans, and held them up at the Battle of Mons on 23
August 1914. With his army exhausted and many of his best forces killed, Moltke was defeated at the battle of the Marne on 6-10
September 1914. "Sir, we have lost the war," he told the Kaiser.
VII.
VIII.
Causes of WWII
LONG TERM:
The Sino-Japanese War 1894-1895
A number of factors had brought about a political situation favourable to Japan's militarists on this occasion. The need to defend Japan
against the threat of foreign military power had always been a high priority of the Meiji imperial government, and it viewed the continuing
political instability in Korea as a serious problem because of that country's strategic location on the western approaches to Japan's home
islands. The assertion by China, Japan's ancient enemy, of a prior right to intervene in Korea's internal affairs was viewed by the imperial
government as raising a threat to Japan's security. There was historical justification for this concern. Mongol armies from China had twice
MOASG – 2012
Page
8
used Korea as a launching point for invasion of Japan in the thirteenth century. Although the invasions were repelled, the invasions
undermined central government by the Hojo regency, and led to three centuries of increasing internal disorder.
Since 1885, Tsarist Russia had been showing increasing interest in Korea as a possible avenue for Russian access to the Pacific Ocean by
means of a continually ice-free port. This Russian interest in Korea had caused alarm in England, China and Japan. When Russia
announced in 1891 its intention to construct the Trans-Siberian Railway for the purpose of linking Moscow to the Russian Pacific port of
Vladivostok, Japan viewed this proposal as a threat to its interests in Korea. The Trans-Siberian Railway would bring the military power of
Russia to Japan's very doorstep.
In addition to these serious foreign policy issues, the imperial government was troubled by a major domestic problem. The national
parliament (Diet) inaugurated in 1890 had not proved as easy to deal with as the imperial government had expected. The Diet had been
repeatedly refusing to accept naval estimates presented by the government, and on each occasion, it had required an appeal to the Diet by
Emperor Meiji to resolve the deadlock.
In this climate of serious threats to Japan's interests in Korea and continuing parliamentary obstruction of defence budgets, the militarists
and bureaucrats in the imperial government joined forces to demand military intervention in Korea. They claimed publicly that this was
necessary to protect Japan's vital national interests in Korea, but they privately viewed a foreign war as a useful way to unite all Japanese
behind the government in bonds of patriotism, and their views prevailed.
The imperial government rejected China's claim to a special relationship with Korea, and rushed troops to the Korean capital Seoul, where
the Japanese and Chinese armies confronted each other. When the Chinese rejected an offer from Japan to work with China to solve
Korea's internal problems, Japanese troops seized the king of Korea and replaced his government with a government sympathetic to Japan.
The new Korean government then requested that Japanese troops expel China's army from Korea.
Japan's army in Korea was smaller than China's, but it was better trained and organised. The Chinese army suffered successive defeats, and
eventually withdrew from Korea and retreated across China's northern region of Manchuria with the Japanese army in pursuit. Japanese
troops occupied China's Liaotung Peninsula which projects into the Yellow Sea between China and Korea. Military occupation of this
strategically vital peninsula could enable a hostile nation to impede or block access from China's capital Peking (now Beijing) to the
Yellow Sea and the Pacific Ocean. China's northern fleet was defeated in a naval battle in the Yellow Sea, and Japanese troops landed on
the coast of China's north-east Shantung region. With its capital menaced by Japanese troops from two directions, and its calls for aid from
Western powers ignored, China was forced to humble itself and beg Japan for an end to hostilities.
The Treaty of Shimonoseki - Japan imposes harsh Terms for Peace on China
Encouraged by the refusal of Western powers to aid China, Japan's imperial government felt that it could impose harsh terms for peace on
China. In 1895, at Shimonoseki on Japan's largest home island of Honshu, the humiliated Chinese government was forced to accept peace
terms which included: China to acknowledge Korea's independence; China to surrender to Japan the island of Formosa and the strategic
Kwantung Peninsula on the southern coast of Manchuria; heavy monetary compensation to Japan for its costs of the war; and China to
provide Japan with generous trading advantages.
The demand that China surrender to Japan the strategic Kwantung Peninsula was a bold one, but it had been forced on the reluctant
imperial government by the commanders of Japan's victorious army and navy who were determined to gain a strategic foothold for Japan
in this vital area between China and Korea.
Japan's military and naval triumphs against China produced a wave of patriotic fervour in the Japanese people who united in support of the
imperial government. Japan had proved itself to be a military power in East Asia. The Diet unanimously approved massive war budgets.
The territorial gains and national unity achieved by the imperial government in its first foreign war appeared to justify completely the
aggressive foreign policy that had been demanded by the militarists. Japan had taken the first successful step in what would be a vigorous
policy of territorial expansion in East Asia.
Russia intervenes to undermine Japan's gains by the Treaty
The party mood in Japan was quickly dispelled by Russian intervention. In its quest for year round access to the Pacific Ocean by means of
an ice-free port, Russia had its own secret designs on the Kwantung Peninsula, and in particular, Port Arthur, which was located at the
southern tip of the peninsula. Within a week of the Treaty of Shimonoseki being signed, Russia, posing as China's saviour, and with the
support of France and Germany, informed Japan that its acquisition of the strategic Kwantung Peninsula posed a threat to peace in East
Asia. The three Powers demanded that Japan renounce its acquisition of the Kwantung Peninsula. Despite Britain's refusal to participate in
this demand, the military power facing Japan was still formidable, and the imperial government submitted. When the amended Treaty of
Shimonoseki was finally ratified at the Chinese port of Chefoo, a menacing Russian naval squadron lay off-shore as a clear warning to
Japan's delegates.
When the Japanese public heard that their government had agreed to forgo Japan's claim to the Kwantung Peninsula at the insistence of
Russia and other foreign governments, a sense of national humiliation led to widespread public indignation. The fact that Japan's militarists
in the imperial government had been too greedy in their demands was lost on the public.
Having ousted Japan from the Kwantung Peninsula, the Russians then called on the Chinese to acknowledge Russia's intervention by
permitting the Trans-Siberian Railway to run across Manchuria. Fearing Japan more than Russia, the Chinese agreed. With China having
MOASG – 2012
Page
9
been ousted completely from Korea by the Japanese, and having their own secret designs on the whole of Korea, the Russians then insisted
that Japan and Russia become joint "protectors" of Korea. Japan had removed by military force the perceived threat of China as "protector"
of Korea, but an even greater menace to Japan in the form of Tsarist Russia had replaced China. While smarting under the continuing
humiliations imposed on Japan by Russia, the Japanese militarists would again bide their time until Japan had achieved the military
strength to deal with the Russian menace
Russia acquires the Territory in Manchuria from which it had ousted Japan.
Germany now took advantage of China's military weakness by demanding a lease of Kiachow Bay and the adjacent port of Tsingtao on the
coast of China's Shantung region for a naval base. These acquisitions would provide Germany with a naval base on the Yellow Sea directly
opposite the western coast of Korea. The Chinese government agreed to Germany's demands. The Russians were furious when they
discovered that Germany had secured the only good naval harbour on China's north-east coast, and they demanded from China a lease of
the southern tip of the Kwantung Peninsula, including Port Arthur. China agreed, and in 1898, it granted Russia a twenty-five year lease of
the strategic territory on the coast of Manchuria from which Russia, Germany and France had evicted Japan only three years earlier. The
Chinese also agreed to allow the Russians to run a branch line from their Trans-Siberian Railway to Port Arthur. This humiliating
development also realised Japan's worst fears. The military power of Russia had been brought to Japan's doorstep by means of an ice-free
port.
The Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902
During the Boxer Rebellion in China, Russian troops occupied China's region of Manchuria to protect Russia's railway line to Port Arthur.
When the rebellion was over, Russia did not withdraw its troops and attempted to take advantage of China's weakness by demanding
increased political and economic influence in Manchuria. This increasing projection of Russian power in East Asia alarmed Great Britain
and Japan. Britain was concerned to protect her commercial interests in northern China. Japan was concerned about the continuing
presence of Russian troops in Manchuria, and the threat that they posed to Japan's national interests in Korea. To protect those interests,
the two powers signed the first Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902. In a key provision of the alliance, Britain acknowledged Japan's special
relationship with Korea. The alliance was clearly directed at Russia, and caused the Russians to back down publicly over their claim to a
"sphere of influence" in Manchuria. Russia also agreed to remove Russian troops from Manchuria by September 1903.
However, Russia did not withdraw her troops, and secretly pressed demands at Peking for tighter Russian control over Manchuria.
Militarists were in the ascendancy in the Russian government. They had the ear of Tsar Nicholas II, and they were determined to maintain
Russian control of Manchuria and to challenge Japan's position in Korea, using military force if necessary. Japan had had enough of
Russian scheming, and with the backing of its alliance with Great Britain, the imperial government sought an understanding with Russia in
relation to both Manchuria and Korea in July 1903. While prepared to acknowledge Russia's special economic interests in Manchuria,
Japan wanted China's sovereignty over Manchuria respected, and administration of the region restored to China. For itself, Japan wanted
Russia to acknowledge Japan's political and economic interests in Korea. Backed by Japanese public opinion which was demanding an end
to the Russian occupation of Manchuria, the Japanese imperial government had already decided to resort to arms if negotiations with
Russia failed. When the Russians refused to agree to Japan's proposals, the imperial government broke off diplomatic relations with Russia
on 6 February 1904. War was now inevitable.
The Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905
On 8 February 1904, a Japanese naval squadron under the command of Admiral Heihachiro Togo launched a surprise attack on Russian
warships at anchor in Port Arthur. Two days later, on 10 February 1904, Japan declared war on Russia.
The land war between Japan and Russia was fought in Manchuria. On 1 May 1904, a Japanese army entered Manchuria from Korea.
Within a few days, two additional Japanese armies landed on the coast of Manchuria near Russia's leased Port Arthur naval base. On 26
May, Japan's armies succeeded in cutting the Russian lines and forcing the Russian army to fall back to Port Arthur. A number of
indecisive battles then followed. Fighting was halted by the bitter Manchurian winter, except at Port Arthur which was captured by the
Japanese at enormous cost on 2 January 1905. The largest battle of the war was then fought at Mukden (now Shenyang) between February
and March 1905. Again the Russians were forced to retreat, but the result was not conclusive. Although Japan had nearly half a million
troops in Manchuria, Russian resistance was stubborn, and Russia could call on massive troop resources. The war was close to stalemate
when a new factor intervened.
Following the destruction of its Pacific naval squadron at Port Arthur, Russia had despatched its Baltic Fleet to the Pacific to challenge
Japan's navy, and hopefully, destroy it and cut off the supply line to Japan's armies in Manchuria. After a long and leisurely voyage around
the Cape of Good Hope, the Russian ships were badly in need of repair and their speed was hampered by accumulated marine growth.
Even without these disadvantages, the Russians stood little chance. Their ships were either obsolete or obsolescent, crew morale was not
good, and their crews lacked the leadership, seamanship, and gunnery skills of the Japanese. The Baltic Fleet was intercepted by Admiral
Togo on 27 May 1905 as it was passing through the Strait of Tsushima which lies between Japan and Korea. With the advantage of British
naval training and more modern british-built ships, Vice Admiral Togo destroyed the larger Russian fleet.
Despite the crushing Japanese naval victory at Tsushima, Russia was not defeated, and both powers were pleased to accept an offer by the
American President, Theodore Roosevelt, to mediate. The war was proving to be a very heavy drain on Japan's human and financial
resources. Russia was facing the threat of revolution at home. Both nations were battle-weary. The war was ended by a peace settlement
arranged by President Roosevelt with the parties at Portsmouth, New Hampshire in 1905. The Treaty of Portsmouth saved Japan from
MOASG – 2012
Page
10
economic disaster, and gave Japan control of Port Arthur and part of the island of Sakhalin. However, the Japanese did not receive
financial compensation for the cost of the war. They felt cheated by this, and blamed the United States.
While both parties to this war were clearly pursuing imperialistic ends, it has to be acknowledged that Japan had reason to be concerned
about Russia's designs on Korea and the threat that those designs posed for Japan's security. The war left Japan with international
recognition that it was the dominant power in East Asia and that north-east Asia was its sphere of influence. Admiral Togo's victory at
Tsushima firmly cemented Japan's position as a major naval power in the Pacific.
Japan seizes the Kingdom of Korea
With international recognition that Korea fell within its sphere of influence, Japan now began to tighten its control over that unfortunate
country with annexation in mind. By 1909, extreme militarists were in control of the imperial government, and only a pretext was needed.
It came with the assassination of Prince Hirobumi Ito in the Manchurian city of Harbin by a Korean citizen on 26 October 1909. The
assassination produced public demand in Japan for annexation of Korea, and the imperial government was happy to oblige. With no
international support for his country's independence, the king of Korea submitted when Japan's Minister of War presented him with the
document of annexation to sign on22 August 1910.
Japan extends its Empire during World War I
World War 1 provided Japan with a golden opportunity to extend its territory far across the Pacific at little risk to itself. After siding with
the Allies against Germany, Japan took control of German commercial holdings in China and occupied the German-owned Mariana,
Caroline and Marshall island groups which lie in the Pacific Ocean between the Philippines and Hawaii. At the end of World War 1,
despite strong opposition from the United States, the League of Nations granted Japan trusteeship over these islands. Japan now had an
empire extending from the Asian mainland to the central Pacific, and had replaced Russia as the dominant foreign influence in Manchuria.
To back its expansionist foreign policy, Japan had the third largest navy in the world after those of Great Britain and the United States, and
the largest navy in the western Pacific.
Naval Limitation in the Pacific
The rapid transformation of Japan in the space of fifty years from a technologic-ally backward feudal country to an aggressive major naval
power set alarm bells ringing in Washington and those European capitals with interests in the western Pacific. The British were concerned
about Japan's intentions towards their colonies of Hong Kong, Malaya and British Borneo. The Americans were deeply concerned that
Japan's newly acquired mid-Pacific island possessions lay across their lines of communication between the Philippines and Hawaii. To
meet this possible threat, the Americans reorganised their navy into Atlantic, Pacific and Asian fleets, and stationed their most powerful
battleships in the Pacific.
With the intention of avoiding a naval arms race with the Japanese, and reducing the potential for naval conflict in the Pacific, the
Americans convened the Washington Naval Conference in 1921-22. The participating naval powers, including Japan, agreed to a tonnage
ratio of 5:5:3 for large warships of the United States, Great Britain and Japan respectively. The apportionment of ship tonnage produced by
the Washington Treaty was intended to prevent any one nation becoming a dominant naval power in the western Pacific, and recognised
the fact that England had to protect an empire that stretched across the globe, while America had lengthy coastlines on two oceans and the
Philippines to protect. The terms of the Washington Treaty were extended to 1936 by the London Naval Treaty of 1930.
For the naval limitation treaty to work, it was necessary for Great Britain and Japan to abandon their alliance of 1902, and they agreed to
do so. In 1921, Japan and Great Britain entered into an alliance with France and the United States. This Four Power Treaty required each
country to respect territory of the other members and provided for mutual assistance should any one of the four powers be attacked by
another country. The political problems created by foreign powers contending for commercial interests in China were addressed by the
Nine Power Treaty in 1922. Each of the nine powers, including Japan, agreed to respect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Rise of the Militarists in Japan
While Japan was giving the appearance of being a good neighbour in the western Pacific during the 1920s by involvement in treaties
designed to preserve peace, extremist elements in Japan's government, military and civilian population had privately never renounced the
use of force to expand Japan's territory. Towards the end of the 1920s a combination of economic, social, and political factors played into
the hands of the militarists.
Having been barely touched by World War I, Japanese industry and trade had expanded dramatically during that war to fill the gap left by
Europe's devastated industries. However, most of the raw materials needed to supply Japanese manufacturing industry had to be imported
because Japan possessed inadequate natural resources. This problem was compounded by substantial population increase. Between 1918
and 1930, Japan's population had expanded dramatically and outstripped the capacity of the nation's resources to support it. To sustain its
population blow-out, substantial food imports were essential, but foreign tariffs imposed on its exports of manufactured goods limited the
capacity of Japan to pay for its food imports. Japan had tried to deal with its population problem by encouraging emigration of Japanese to
countries such as the United States, but had met resistance from Americans who feared the loss of unskilled jobs to cheap immigrant
labour.
MOASG – 2012
Page
11
With China torn by revolution in the 1920s, Japan's militarists viewed China, and in particular, its resource-rich northern region of
Manchuria, as an obvious area for Japan to expand its territory by military force and thereby solve its raw material and population
problems. However, the Japanese imperial government was not responsive to proposals for military aggression against China at this time.
During the 1920s, Japanese militarists became increasingly distrustful of civilian party government. In 1922, the Washington Naval
Conference had allocated to Japan a smaller naval tonnage than that allowed to Great Britain and the United States. This caused resentment
in Japan, particularly in the ranks of army and civilian militarists who viewed it as a humiliation for Japan. In 1925, the Kato imperial
government cut the army and navy budgets and reduced the Japanese Army by four divisions.
Between 1925 and 1928, Chinese nationalists under the banner of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) had begun to unite all of China's farflung regions under a Kuomintang Nationalist government. Japan's militarists feared that a unified China under a Nationalist government
would block Japanese territorial expansion into Manchuria where Japan had massive commercial interests and had achieved significant
political influence. In 1927, Japanese militarists demanded action by the imperial government to block the Chinese Nationalist movement
reaching Manchuria. The militarist Prime Minister Tanaka responded by sending Japanese troops to China's Shantung province in 1928 to
block a union of Manchuria with the Chinese Nationalist cause.
Military extremists take control of Japan's foreign policy
When Japan acquired Port Arthur on the Kwantung Peninsular of southern Manchuria as one of the fruits of its victory in the RussoJapanese War of 1904-1905, a Kwantung Army was established to occupy the peninsula, patrol the Japanese-owned South Manchuria
Railway zone, and generally protect other Japanese commercial interests in Manchuria. The Kwantung Army included extremist officers
who were well aware that senior officers of their army harboured plans to extend Japan's boundaries on the Asian mainland by military
force. They were prepared to take direct action in Manchuria to force the Imperial government's hand
When Manchuria embraced Kuomintang nationalism in 1928, friction quickly developed between Chinese nationalists and Japan's
pervasive and heavy-handed bureaucrats in Manchuria. The Manchurians wanted to reduce Japan's political influence in their region of
China to a purely commercial presence. They also began to develop Chinese-owned railways to compete with the Japanese-owned and
controlled South Manchuria Railway. Japan's militarists viewed these developments as threatening Japan's "special position" in Manchuria
and their plans to seize for Japan this huge northern region of China. Extremist officers in Japan's Kwantung Army took steps intended to
dampen Nationalist enthusiasm by assassinating the Chinese warlord ruler of Manchuria in 1928, but his successor was an even stronger
supporter of Chinese nationalism. The murder of the Manchurian ruler was not authorised by the imperial government, but when the
Tanaka government tried to punish the culprits and re-establish discipline in the army, it was blocked by the Japanese Army General Staff.
The failure to punish the murder of a foreign political leader by officers of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria clearly demonstrated that the
imperial government had lost control of extremists in the Japanese Army, and the Tanaka government felt obliged to resign in July 1929.
From this time onwards, the course of Japanese foreign policy became increasingly hostage to army extremists, and imperial governments
and the Japanese Army General Staff were either unwilling or unable to curb them.
Intimidation and assassination destabilise Japanese politics
After 1929, the extreme nationalism encouraged by the Meiji imperial government combined with traditional Japanese militarism to make
life increasingly difficult, and often dangerous, for moderates in the imperial government, the Diet (parliament), and the armed services.
Army and civilian extremists pointed to Japan's samurai military traditions, and accused moderate bureaucrats, politicians, and armed
service leaders of disregard for Japan's national interests if they opposed increased military spending or territorial expansion by force.
Extreme nationalists branded democratic government as "un-Japanese", and called for territorial expansion and a return to traditional
Japanese ways. The views of extremists would become increasingly influential in Japan during the 1930s, and they would use intimidation
and assassination of politicians, businessmen and armed service leaders as means to achieve their aims.
The militarist-dominated Tanaka imperial government was followed by the more moderate Hamaguchi government which tried to curb the
power of military extremists. The extremists responded by plotting to overthrow civilian government, and Prime Minister Osachi
Hamaguchi was assassinated in 1930. In March 1931, a coup involving senior military leaders was planned but abandoned. Within months,
events in Manchuria would draw the focus of Japan's turbulent politics from Tokyo to that vast northern region of China.
Militarists launch Japan on the path of aggression by seizing Manchuria from China, 1931
Japan's economy was seriously affected by the Great Depression which began in 1929, and with revenues from Japan's commercial
interests in China's Manchurian region thought to be under threat from Chinese nationalism, military and civilian extremists found Japan's
imperial government now willing to listen to their demands for a move against Manchuria.
In 1931, militarists dominated the imperial government, and all that they required was a plausible excuse for military action in Manchuria.
Rather than wait for such an excuse to occur, the Kwantung Army extremists appear to have decided to create one. On the night of 18
September 1931, a bomb was exploded on the track of the Japanese-owned South Manchuria Railway. The explosion caused very little
damage, and no loss of life. The Kwantung Army immediately blamed "Chinese terrorists", and without waiting for approval from the
imperial government in Tokyo or producing any proof of its allegation, its troops seized the Manchurian city of Mukden. Proclaiming a
need to protect Japanese life and property, and again without approval from Tokyo, the Kwantung Army then undertook the full conquest
MOASG – 2012
Page
12
of Chinese Manchuria. The Kwantung Army simply ignored efforts by the imperial government in Tokyo to bring its military aggression
in Manchuria to a halt. When Prime Minister Inukai tried to secure Emperor Hirohito's intervention to bring the Kwantung Army back
under government control, he was assassinated by naval officers in May 1932.
When the Kwantung Army had completed its conquest of Manchuria, it converted this vast former region of China into a Japanese puppet
state called Manchukuo in September 1932. The last Manchu emperor of China, Henry Pu Yi, agreed to be enthroned as emperor of
Japan's puppet state, and he ruled Manchukuo under the control of the Kwantung Army.
Japan occupies and annexes China's Jehol Province in 1933
China complained to the League of Nations which called on member states to withhold recognition of Manchukuo. Japan used this mild
reprimand as an excuse to withdraw from the League, and freed from the restraints of the League's Charter, Japanese armies then invaded
areas of northern China adjoining the former Chinese Manchuria. Japanese troops occupied China's northern Jehol province and stopped
short of the former Chinese capital Peking when a truce was arranged. Under the terms of the truce, Chinese troops were barred from the
areas of northern China occupied by Japanese armies. In 1933, Japan formally incorporated China's Jehol province into its puppet state
Manchukuo. With two hostile armies facing each other on Chinese territory, the Japanese militarists had set the stage for further conflict
with China when a suitable pretext occurred.
Army extremists attempt to overthrow Japan's Imperial Government in 1936
By the mid-1930s, army extremists had become impatient with Japan's existing political and economic structures which they felt were
impeding Japan's progress towards military dominance of Asia. They resolved to destroy the power of the politicians and industrialists who
were the emperor's chief advisers. On 26 February 1936, fanatical army officers assassinated two of Emperor Hirohito's key advisers, and
army mutineers surrounded the Japanese Foreign Office and held much of Tokyo city for three days. Prime Minister Keisuke Okada
escaped the assassins' bullets when they killed his brother-in-law by mistake. The plot to overthrow civilian government failed when the
Army High Command refused to support the mutineers. The leaders of the mutiny were persuaded to commit suicide to avoid a trial which
would have embarrassed the army. The most extreme military leaders were then replaced by ones who were prepared to support civilian
government.
Despite the failure of the army mutiny, the imperial government was still dominated by militarists and committed to extension of Japan's
borders by military force. In pursuance of this aim, the imperial government formulated the following major foreign policy objectives for
Japan: Russian pressure on Japan's empire from the north needed to be resisted; the military conquest of the whole of China should be
undertaken; and further territorial expansion to the south should be undertaken to seize for Japan the wealth and raw materials available in
the South-East Asian colonies of Britain, France and Holland.
Japan aligns itself with Germany and Italy in the Anti-Comintern Pact 1936
In 1936, Japan's imperial government viewed the Soviet Union (formerly Tsarist Russia, and now Russia) as the main threat to Japan's
conquests on the mainland of Asia, and in particular, Japan's puppet state of Manchukuo. With further territorial expansion on the Asian
mainland in mind, and with China the primary target, Japan began looking for allies who would be comfortable with military aggression
and likely to support Japan in the event of a military confrontation with the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler was pleased to accommodate Japan,
and on 25 November 1936, Japan and Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. The ostensible purpose of the Anti-Comintern Pact was to
contain the spread of communism, but it contained a secret protocol which required both parties to consult with a view to safeguarding
their common interests if either Germany or Japan was attacked by the Soviet Union. The Japanese viewed the pact as a safeguard of
Manchukuo against the Soviet Union seeking to use Japan's puppet state as a means of access to an ice-free Pacific port. Fascist Italy
joined the pact in 1937.
Japan withdraws from the Naval Treaty
The Japanese Army never accepted the 5:5:3 naval ratio imposed by the Washington Naval Conference, believing that it symbolised
Japan's humiliation by Great Britain and the United States. By the middle of the 1930s, the Army's hostility to the naval limitation treaty
had been adopted by the majority of Japanese, and having acquired new allies in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Japan withdrew from the
naval limitation treaty in 1937. Japan then began to expand its navy, with particular emphasis on building aircraft carriers and huge
battleships, such as the Yamato and Musashi, which were twice the tonnage of the largest British and American battleships.
Japan's undeclared war on China 1937-1945
In July 1937, tensions between Chinese troops and Japanese troops engaged in military exercises on occupied Chinese territory produced
an exchange of firing near Peking (now Beijing). The Japanese used this incident as an excuse to wage all out war against China. Japanese
armies invaded China's northern provinces and quickly captured the former Chinese capital Peking. Although poorly trained and equipped,
the Chinese army and communist irregulars put up strong resistance to Japan's armies which enjoyed overwhelming superiority in numbers
and weapons. The Japanese encountered particularly strong resistance in the north-western Shansi and Shensi provinces where the Chinese
communists had established strongholds, and were able to employ guerrilla tactics successfully against the invaders of their country. At the
end of 1941, the Japanese had still made no head-way at all in north-western China against the Chinese communist armies which were able
to tie down large numbers of Japanese troops.
While fighting was continuing in northern China, the Japanese launched a second front at the city of Shanghai on the eastern coast of
China. Despite determined resistance by Chinese nationalist troops, the Japanese captured Shanghai in November, 1937. The Japanese
were then able to move up the Yangtse River and lay siege to the Nationalist capital Nanking (now Nanjing).
MOASG – 2012
Page
13
The Nanking (Nanjing) Massacre
The Japanese were infuriated by the strength of Chinese resistance to their invasion, and when China's Nationalist capital Nanking fell in
December 1937, Japanese troops summarily executed thousands of Chinese soldiers who had surrendered to them. Japanese troops were
then encouraged by their officers to loot the city and slaughter Chinese civilians.
Independent foreign observers of the Nanking (Nanjing) Massacre, including a German businessman and Nazi Party member named John
Rabe, were appalled to see Chinese civilians, both men and women, elderly and children, put to death by Japanese troops with horrifying
brutality. As if to make a point, foreigners were invited by Japanese troops to witness mass executions of Chinese prisoners of war on the
city quay. Smiling Japanese soldiers appeared to be quite willing to be photographed with raised swords beside their intended victims.
It is not appropriate to describe here the full extent of the atrocities inflicted on Nanking's civilian population, but the impact of war on
civilians is important, and historical researchers concerned to pursue this aspect of war may wish to examine the text and photographs at
the web-site History Information of China at the entry "The Nanjing Massacre". It is necessary to warn that this web-site contains very
disturbing photographs and text.
The atrocities committed by Japanese troops at Nanking were widely publicised by foreign observers, including newspaper
correspondents. Despite the fact that young Australian soldiers on the harsh Kokoda Track (or Trail) were always heavily outnumbered by
battle-hardened Japanese troops, and often poorly supplied with food and equipment, one can reasonably assume that horrific reports of the
Nanking Massacre stiffened their determination to resist the progress of Japanese troops towards Australia.
China's Nationalist Government moves to Chungking
China's Nationalist government was forced to abandon China's major coastal cities to the Japanese invaders and withdraw to the city of
Chungking in the undeveloped interior of China, where it continued to direct resistance to the Japanese invaders. The Nationalist
government was followed by hundreds of thousands of Chinese, of all classes and occupations, on foot, by cart, and by boat, and carrying
what possessions they could save from the Japanese. In the wartime capital at Chunking, the Chinese established factories, schools and
universities, and prepared for stubborn resistance and a lengthy war. Japan's undeclared, but savage war against China was still in progress
when World War II began in Europe with Hitler's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939.
The war in China would provide many Japanese soldiers with combat training for Japan's further military aggression in the South-west
Pacific. However, the stubbornness of Chinese resistance and the size of their conquered territory in China placed heavy demands on
Japan's army. Of the fifty-one infantry divisions making up the Japanese Army in 1941, thirty-eight of them, comprising about 750,000
men, were stationed in China and Manchuria. The drain on Japanese manpower produced by the continuing war in China would play an
important role in Japan's ultimate defeat in the South-West Pacific by reducing Japan's capacity to supply reinforcements for the New
Guinea and Solomon Island campaigns when the tide turned against Japan in those areas.
Japanese Aggression against China sours Relations with the United States
The Japanese invasion of China, and the brutal treatment of Chinese civilians by Japanese troops, quickly led to a souring of relations
between the United States and Japan. The Americans had substantial commercial interests in China which were affected significantly by
the drawn-out war. The first major cause of friction occurred in December 1937 when Japanese aircraft attacked an American oil tanker
convoy as it was being escorted up the Yangtse River by the American gunboat USS Panay. The Panay was sunk, and the Japanese aircraft
then fired on the survivors. Although the Japanese government apologised for the incident and the American lives that were lost, relations
between the United States and Japan were correct but never friendly afterwards.
Japan declares for itself a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"
As Japan's war in China continued through 1938, the United States hoped that the mounting costs of the seemingly unending war would
cause Japan to review its policy towards China and withdraw its troops. When this did not occur, the Americans began to take economic
measures against Japan. Those measures included denial of certain war-related raw materials, termination of trading privileges, and
assistance to China's Nationalist government at Chungking.
These economic measures only succeeded in hardening the attitudes of Japan's militarists, and increasing their hostility towards the United
States, which they felt was meddling in Japan's natural sphere of interest in East Asia. The Japanese imperial government responded to the
American economic measures by declaring its intention to found a "New Order" in Asia by establishing a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere.
The New Order would involve a Japanese-controlled political and economic grouping of countries for the purpose of supplying Japan with
the raw materials needed by Japan's industries, and in particular, its war-related industries, and accepting Japanese exports in return. The
list of countries included in Japan's New Order included Australia, Burma, the Netherland's East Indies (now Indonesia), Malaya, New
Guinea, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Thailand. The Japanese made it quite clear that any country resisting inclusion in their Greater
East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere would be treated as an enemy of Japan.
As tensions increased between Japan and the United States, the Japanese began looking for allies who would support aggression by Japan.
Hitler and Mussolini bring Japan into the Axis Partnership for world domination
MOASG – 2012
Page
14
By 1940, Adolf Hitler was well aware of the increasing tensions between the United States and Japan. The United States had embarked
upon a massive increase in the size of its navy, and the Nazi leader was also aware of the risk that the United States might enter the war in
Europe on Britain's side. Faced with this risk, Hitler decided to offer Japan a place in the German and Italian alliance for world domination
embodied in the Rome-Berlin Axis.
For its part, Japan recognised the threat to its plans for further territorial expansion in East Asia created by the expansion of the American
navy. The non-aggression pact signed by Germany and the Soviet Union in August 1939 made it essential for Japan to strengthen its ties
with Germany and Italy, and to take steps to remove the Soviet menace to Manchukuo.
On 27 September 1940, Germany, Italy and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact. The agreement recognised Japan's self-assumed role in
establishing a "New Order" in East Asia, and provided for mutual assistance should any one of the three powers be attacked by another
country not already involved in the European conflict or the war in China. The Germans and Italians wanted the pact to convey a clear
warning to the United States that it would face war with Japan if it entered the war in Europe on Britain's side.
The Americans move their Pacific Fleet from California to Hawaii
Recognising that diplomacy and economic sanctions had failed to persuade Japan to withdraw its armies from China, in 1940 the American
government decided to move its Pacific Fleet from California to Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian islands. It was designed to demonstrate the
naval power available to the United States in the Pacific region, and hopefully act as a deterrent to Japanese aggression against American,
British and Dutch possessions in East Asia. The action was not without significant risk, because it placed the fleet within striking distance
of Japan's own powerful navy.
Admiral Yamamoto plans the destruction of the United States Pacific Fleet
Admiral Yamamoto had initially been a strong opponent of war with the United States because he knew Japan could not match its
industrial strength and resources. When the alliance with Germany and Italy was signed in September 1940, and war appeared inevitable,
Yamamoto fell into step with the militarists. In early 1941, Yamamoto was appointed Commander-in-Chief of Japan's Combined Fleet,
and immediately took issue with the cautious plan of the Japanese Naval General Staff to limit naval operations to action against British
and Dutch naval forces defending their country's territory in South-East Asia. He did not believe that the Americans would stand idly by
while Japan attacked and seized British and Dutch possessions in South-East Asia. He also believed that Japan could not sustain an all out
war with the United States for more than one year.
With these firm convictions, Yamamoto began planning a surprise carrier-launched air attack on the United States Pacific Fleet to coincide
with Japan's move against British and Dutch possessions in South-East Asia. Yamamoto's plan for a surprise attack on the United States
Pacific Fleet at Hawaii would involve a strike force which included Japan's six largest and best aircraft carriers. His task was rendered
much easier by the United States government's decision to relocate its Pacific Fleet from California to Hawaii. As Yamamoto saw it, the
destruction of the American's Pacific Fleet would give Japan time to seize the Philippines, Malaya, British Borneo, Burma and the
Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia), and gain access to the oil, minerals, rubber and other resources that Japan lacked. He was hopeful
that, with its Pacific Fleet destroyed or crippled, the Americans would be willing to accept a peace settlement that would allow Japan to
keep its new conquests in East Asia.
The Japanese Naval General Staff initially rejected Yamamoto's proposal for an attack on Pearl Harbor as being too great a gamble. Japan
only had eleven aircraft carriers, and the admirals felt that Yamamoto's plan could put at risk their six best carriers. However, Yamamoto's
threat to resign if his proposal was not accepted persuaded the Naval General Staff to accept it.
Yamamoto's judgment about Japan's staying power in a protracted war with the United States was correct, but he was wrong about the
United States Navy's capability to intervene on behalf of Britain and the Netherlands in the Pacific in 1941. Japan had the largest and most
modern navy in the western Pacific in 1941. After the American navy had been split into Atlantic and Pacific Fleets in 1941, the American
naval commander at Hawaii, Admiral Kimmel, was left with a fleet of relatively old battleships, and only three aircraft carriers to pit
against Japan's eleven aircraft carriers and the huge modern battleships Yamato and Musashi.
It can be fairly argued that Yamamoto's plan to launch a surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was a brilliant
tactical first strike, but a major strategic error on the part of Japan to make a determined enemy of such a powerful nation without sound
reasons to do so.
Increasing tensions between the United States and Japan during 1941
Tensions between Japan and the United States increased dramatically when Japan seized French Indochina (now Vietnam) in July 1941.
President Roosevelt responded to that aggression by imposing an embargo on the sale of American oil to Japan, and freezing Japan's assets
in the United States. The British government and the Dutch government-in-exile followed the lead of the United States in imposing
economic sanctions on Japan. By August 1941, Japan faced an almost total embargo on the military-related imports it needed to continue
its brutal and undeclared war on China, including oil and rubber.
The Western economic embargoes had placed Japan in a very difficult position. While a large strategic reserve of oil had been
accumulated in Japan, this would only last two years without replenishment from outside sources. The Americans were only insisting that
Japan withdraw its invading troops from China and abandon its plan for forced incorporation of countries in its Greater East Asia Co-
MOASG – 2012
Page
15
Prosperity Sphere. The Americans were not insisting that Japan withdraw from the vast former Chinese territory of Manchukuo. However,
militarist hardliners in Japan were not prepared to give ground on China or their proposed New Order in East Asia.
Japan's militarists decide to launch a surprise attack on the United States
Once again, economic sanctions had failed. These measures only succeeded in hardening the attitudes of Japan's militarists, and increasing
their determination to attack the United States. The Japanese Prime Minister, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, hoped to avoid war and reach an
agreement with the United States that would acknowledge Japan's predominance in East Asia. However, the militarists wanted war not a
diplomatic settlement, and on 17 October 1941, they forced the replacement of Prince Konoye with a hard-line militarist, General Hideki
Tojo.
Japan then sent a special envoy, Saburo Kurusu, to the United States to assist Japan's Ambassador, Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura, in
engaging the attention of the Americans in diplomatic manoeuvring while the Japanese completed their preparations for attacking the
United States Pacific Fleet at its Pearl Harbor base. On 3 November 1941, Admiral Nagano, Chief of the Japanese Naval General Staff
gave his approval to Admiral Yamamoto's plan for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese carrier strike force departs for Hawaii
A strike force comprising six of Japan's largest fleet aircraft carriers and supporting warships left Japan on 26 November 1941. Preserving
strict radio silence, the strike force headed for a stand-by point located about 1,000 miles (1.600 km) north of Hawaii. At the stand-by
point, the strike force would either receive confirmation to attack the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor or be instructed to return
to Japan.
Japan's Prime Minister Hideki Tojo threatens Britain and the United States with war
In the last week of November 1941, the American Secretary of State, Mr Cordell Hull handed Japan's special envoy, Mr Saburo Kurusu, a
document outlining American proposals for resolving the serious differences that had arisen between the United States and Japan in East
Asia. The American document called on Japan to withdraw its troops from China and abandon its plan for forced incorporation of
countries into its proposed Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Three days later, at a time when Japanese aircraft carriers were already
sailing towards Pearl Harbor with hostile intent, Japan's Prime Minister and Minister for War, General Hideki Tojo, rejected the American
proposals and issued a sharp warning to Britain and the United States that Japan would "purge East Asia of US -British power with a
vengeance".
IX.
Causes of WWII Historiography
a. HISTORIAN #1: Akira Iriye
i. Underlying desire of Japanese foreign policy to gain a dominant position in Asia and the Pacific increasingly
came into conflict with the growing US desire to prevent Japanese expansion in the region.
1. US-Japanese relations had deteriorated during the 1930’s and even before the imposition of the oil and
trade embargo in 1941.
2. Attempts to prove that the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor was decided on in November of
1941.
b. HISTORIAN #2: Chihro Hosoya
i. China dominated Japanese foreign-policy objectives during the 1930’s, not hostility towards the USA.
ii. Expansion in SE Asia grew as an unplanned consequence of Japan becoming bogged down in its war with
China.
iii. Needed fresh supplies and raw materials
iv. Germany’s taking over of France and Holland opened the door to the possibility of major territorial gains for
Japan in SE Asia.
c. Overall View:
i. Japan’s attack on P.H. did not come out of the blue, but was part of a more complex series of events.
ii. It was not inevitable.
iii. Opportunistic Gamble on the part of the Japanese
iv. Caused as much by the US decision to introduce an oil and trade embargo as by Japanese Design.
v. The road to war in Japan was very complex as the foreign policy of Japan was not centralized. Army,
government, and Navy all had separate goals and policies.
American Historians and their perspective on the Asian-Pacific War:
2. Paul Schroeder:
a. War in the Pacific was “unnecessary and avoidable.”
b. Caused as much by “Roosevelt’s excessive moralism” against Japan and his fervent desire to join the European war, as
by any clear programme of Japanese Aggression.
3. Harry Elmer Barnes:
MOASG – 2012
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
Page
16
a. Most extreme argument:
b. FDR deliberately goaded the Japanese into war during 1941 and also exposed the US fleet at PH to a Japanese Attack.
Practices of WWII
a. Bushido Code – look at your resources regarding the Bushido code.
b. Consider your sources on Treatment of POW’s. Also consider your material on the Bataan death march. Technologies
included in this are:
c. Here were other tactics:
Practices of WWII Historiography - William L. O'Neill
a. Why the Japanese Army fought so well: - The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) fought so well because of the fanatical
loyalty of its troops, not because of its leadership. In theory, both of the armed services were commanded by Imperial
General Headquarters (IGH). In practice, the IGH Army Section and the IGH Navy Section operated independently of
each other and were in fierce competition. Some decisions were made jointly, but much of the time each service went its
own way.
b. Commanders were selected according to seniority, so the best men received the best jobs only by accident. Little
attention was paid to such vital areas as intelligence and strategy. Orders from Imperial General Headquarters were
frequently mistaken or unclear, which forced field officers to make their own decisions. These were often poor because
the Japanese military saw no difference between caution and cowardice. It also rated spiritual strength above material
strength, so Japanese soldiers were always being given tasks that they lacked the means to accomplish.
c. In the case of prisoners of war, there appears to have been no particular reason for cruel treatment. Prisoners often
possessed valuable skills and, since the Japanese used them as workmen, were a labor force with much potential. Yet the
Japanese starved, tortured, and murdered them from the start. Some have said that this was because the Japanese
regarded surrender as dishonorable, and prisoners of war were therefore viewed with contempt.
d. However, this does not explain much, because many of the prisoners the Japanese took—the Marines on Wake Island,
U.S. and native troops in the Philippines—had fought with great courage. Whatever the reasons for it, the Japanese
Army’s brutality was shameful. It not only damaged the Japanese war effort but also caused Allied troops to fight harder
than ever, to the death if necessary, rather than risk capture.
Effects of WWII
a. MacArthur as the SCAP: Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers:
i. Major limitations on freedom of speech in Japan.
ii. United States was not allowing any media to show the destruction in Japan
iii. Don’t forget about the Tokyo Trials.
iv. Long term effects – Japan and the US did not return to war – analysis on this means that the effects of the war
were successful. The treaties were great.
Effects of WWII Historiography
a. Was it necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan?
b. YES: J. Samuel Walker (Author of Prompt & Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan)
The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment. By the early summer of 1945,
Japanese leaders knew they could not win. But they fought on in hopes of securing better surrender terms. President
Harry S. Truman considered several ways to convince Japan to quit the war: 1) intensifying the already heavy
bombing of Japanese cities; 2) waiting for the Soviet Union, an ally in defeating Germany, to join the war against Japan;
3) allowing Japan's emperor, Hirohito, to remain on his throne; and 4) invading Japan.
c. The first three options were far from certain to compel a Japanese surrender quickly, however, and each posed serious
military, political, and diplomatic risks. More than 55,000 Americans had already died fighting the Japanese in the
Pacific. An invasion was certain to be very costly in American lives.
d. When the atomic bomb became available injury 1945, it appeared to be the most promising way to end the war as soon
as possible and without the drawbacks of the alternatives.
e. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki persuaded Emperor Hirohito, who had wavered for weeks, that the
war must end immediately. Combined with the Soviet entry into the conflict, the atom bombs brought about Japan's
surrender within a few days.
f. The bomb was necessary to accomplish Truman's primary objectives of forcing a prompt Japanese surrender and saving
American lives, perhaps thousands of them.
g.
NO: Gar Alperovitz (Professor of Political Economy University of Maryland)When General Dwight D. Eisenhower,
then the Supreme Allied Commander, was informed by the Secretary of War that the atomic bomb was going to be used,
he later recalled saying it was unnecessary because Japan was already largely defeated.
MOASG – 2012
h.
i.
j.
k.
Page
17
Eisenhower said the bomb was "no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." At one point after the war he
said bluntly, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Before the bomb was used, U.S. intelligence officials believed the war would likely end when two things happened:
When the U.S. let Japan know their Emperor could stay on as a figurehead, and when the Soviet army attacked. The U.S.
did tellJapan the Emperor could remain, and the Soviets declared war, as agreed, on August 8.
But U.S. officials chose not to test whether this intelligence was correct. Instead, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6,
and Nagasaki on August 9. Because of logistics, an invasion of Japan could not begin for another three months, so the
U.S. could have waited to see if Japan would surrender before dropping the atomic bombs.
Most top World War II military leaders are all on record agreeing with Eisenhower. Admiral William Leahy, President
Truman's Chief of Staff, later called the bomb a "barbarous weapon" that was unnecessary. Leahy wrote, "The Japanese
were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard
common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
Gar Alperovitz
"Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam" (1965).
Dropping the atomic bomb "was not needed to end the war or to save lives" but was Truman's means of sending a chastening message
to the Soviet Union.
He insists that without use of the bomb, Japan might still have been made to surrender before the first American landing on the island of
Kyushu, planned for November 1945. He notes that many American military leaders then and later felt that using atomic weapons against
Japan was unnecessary.
Truman and his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, were struck by the notion that ending World War II without dropping the atomic
bomb would not have brought added strength to American diplomacy against the Soviet Union in Europe.
Mr. Alperovitz insists that a decision not to drop the bomb could actually have bolstered American diplomatic objectives in Asia -- for
example, by helping to create the atmosphere for a more harmonious postwar American-Soviet relationship.
He criticizes Truman for failing to issue a more explicit warning to Japan about the bomb and for attacking Hiroshima rather than a
nonurban target, as his Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, had suggested.


Truman's postponement of his Potsdam meeting with Stalin and Churchill until July 1945, when the new weapon would have
been tested
Truman told reparations negotiator, Edwin Pauley, that the bomb "would keep the Russians straight."
Mr. Alperovitz says that the timing of the Hiroshima bombing -- Aug. 6, 1945 -- was no accident. Two days later the Soviet Union
declared war on the Japanese and then crossed the border into Manchuria.

Stimson proposed that Truman allow the Japanese "a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty if it be shown to the
complete satisfaction of the world that such a government will never again conspire to aggression."
Mr. Alperovitz notes that in mid-August, after the bombs had been dropped and the Russians had entered the conflict, Truman and Byrnes
were willing to provide assurances about the Emperor. Doesn't the fact that these weren't provided earlier, when they might have helped
end the war, indicate an eagerness to drop the bomb?
Effects of the war continued:
SAN FRANCISCO PEACE TREATY
The Treaty of Peace with Japan, between the Allied Powers and Japan, was officially signed by 49 nations on September 8, 1951 in San
Francisco, California. It came into force on April 28, 1952.
This treaty served officially to end World War II, to end formally Japan's position as an imperial power, and to allocate compensation to
Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who had suffered Japanese war crimes. This treaty made extensive use of the UN Charter and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to enunciate the Allies' goals.
The Cold War – 1945 – 1991
XV.
Terms to Know
MOASG – 2012
Page
18
Yalta Conference – Held before the end of World War II – Poland was the major issue because the US knew it
would need to be allowed to hold free elections if it were to keep Stalin out of their business. Stalin promised at
Yalta to keep Poland free and allow elections to take place. The other issue was how to deal with Germany – the
leaders agreed to allow Germany to be split up into zones controlled by each of the allied powers, USA, Britain,
France, and USSR and then to split Berlin into sectors.
b. Potsdam – Solidified Yalta...happened after WWII ended. Set up borders for Germany. Set up the Allied
Control Council (ACC)
c. Sovietization – The spread of Communist influence throughout Europe – Stalin was responsible for this
d. NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization – Set up by the United States and other North-Western European
powers.
e. The Truman Doctrine – Established in March of 1947 when Truman announced a new policy of “containment” to
the rest of the world.
f. Containment – A formal strategy employed by the United States to try and stop the spread of Communism
around the world.
g. Marshall Plan – Also known as the “European Recovery Program - A successful plan devised by Truman’s Sec’y
of State George C. Marshall to attempt to “help Europe recover from WWII.” More importantly, it stopped the
spread of Communism around Europe. It was a 3 year grant of food, fertilizer, raw material, machinery, and
investment aid. Aid was offered to almost every European country to begin with, but then was later removed
from any country who decided to maintain Communist ties to the USSR
h. USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
i. Economic Co-Operation Administration – ECA – the Executive Branch’s formal administration responsible for
getting Marshall Plan aid out to the rest of the world.
j. Molotov Plan – Set up by USSR and was Stalin’s attempt to stop the spread of Capitalism/Democracy.
k. Communist Information Bureau – Cominform – The centralized Communist party where the Soviets could
essentially control other Communist parties around the world.
l. Council for Mutual Economic Assistance – Comecon – Integrated the Communist economies from around Europe
into one.
m. CIA – Central Intelligence Agency – Set up by the National Security Act of 1947 and had 4 purposes: Conduct
Espionage, Conduct Sabotage, Ensure obedience to client governments, and maintain the spread of US Power
around the world.
n. Percentages Agreement – a tongue-and-cheek agreement that would eventually determine the fate of the countries
surrounding the Soviet Union and who controlled them. Romania – Russia 90, US 10. Greece - US 90, Russia 10.
Yugoslavia – Russia 50, US 50. Hungary – Russia 50, US 50. Bulgaria – Russia 75, US 25.
o. Germany – split up into 4 zones. Would later be split into something called the Bi-zone in which the British and
American’s would control West Germany, and the USSR would control east germany.
p. Berlin Blockade – June 24th, 1948 – USSR cuts off all rail links to Berlin from West Germany hoping to corner the
American’s into attacking. Did not work.
q. Berlin Airlift – American response to the blockade – humiliated Stalin because he was forced to let it happen and
later was blamed for attempting to starve 2.5 million west-Berliners.
r. Sovietization – Red Army establishes control. Local Armies reconstituted under Soviet Control. Germany
populations expelled. Communists loyal to Stalin are imported to lead local Communist parties. Membership to
party grows. Popular Fronts are started who then form provisional governments. Communists take key
positions in those governments and are responsible for organizing and rigging future elections. After those rigged
elections are won, the Soviets would then take control of the Raw materials in that country and send them back to
the USSR for dirt cheap. The USSR would manufacture and sell goods back to the Sovietized nations for really
high prices.
s. Yugo and Tito – Stalin was not liked in Yugoslavia so the US was able to get control of Yugoslavia beyond the
Percentages Agreement. Stalin hated Yugoslavia so he cut off any aid and any help to them. Yugoslavia would
later provide the model for future 3rd world counties later in throwing off the shackles of the USSR.
t. Korean War – 1950 – 1953 – MacArthur in charge for the US. It was a de facto US vs USSR satellite war. The
first of the “hot battles” to happen during the Cold War. Limited War was unsuccessful for the Americans and
the 38th parallel was set up as the dividing line for Communism and Capitalism in the Pacific.
u. The Thaw – 1953-55 - tensions de-escalate for the time being.
v. Peaceful Co-existence – More peaceful climate between the Soviets and the American’s and was proposed by the
Soviets. We turned it down responding with:
w. Massive Retaliation – we said if you mess around, we will nuke you, no questions asked. This of course angered
the Soviets.
x. Domino Theory – the belief established by Eisenhower that if we don’t stop the spread of Communism, it will
tumble into the United States.
y. Warsaw Pact – established on May 14th, 1955 by the Eastern European Mutual Assistance Treaty. A Military
alliance of Soviet satellites to balance NATO initially comprised of USSR, Poland, Czech, Hungary, Romania,
Bulgaria, and Albania.
a.
MOASG – 2012
z.
aa.
bb.
cc.
dd.
ee.
ff.
gg.
hh.
Page
19
Brinksmanship – John Foster Dulles’ strategy of keeping the US and the USSR right at the brink of global
thermonuclear war.
ICBM – Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.
U2 Spy Plane incident – May 1960 – we had a spy plane shot down over USSR – we denied until the USSR showed
us the pilot who didn’t kill himself with cyanide. We were embarrassed, Khrushchev would never trust us again.
Berlin Wall – erected in 1961 after Khrushchev got fed up with the:
Brain Drain – The effect the splitting of Berlin had on Germans – the smart one’s came to West Germany because
they were free and had more money!
Cuban Missile Crisis – 1962 – almost went to full out war with the USSR using nukes. Pretty scary!
Fidel Castro – leader of Cuba during the crisis. Took it over by force and hasn’t let go since.
Vietnam war – 2 of them, first from 1945 – 1954. France and Vietnam fight. The big one was between the US and
Vietnam – 1964 – 1973.
Détente – Long term state of relaxing tensions between the Soviets and the US – started after the Cuban Missile
crisis and ended in 1980 when Reagan would come in to office.
MOASG – 2012
Page
The Cold War
New Words
Allies: countries working
together.
From Hot War to Cold War
During the Second World War, Britain and the USA were allies of
the Soviet Union, fighting together against Germany. After the war,
they became enemies.
Communists: believe that
industry should be stateowned.
Soviet Union: the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics
– the USSR –– i.e.
communist Russia.
Dictator: a ruler who has
total power.
Stalin
Capitalists: believe that
property and industry
should be privately owned.
Democracy: where the
people can elect their own
government.
Truman
Churchill
After Hiroshima, and particularly after 1949 when Russia
developed the atomic bomb, politicians realised that another ‘hot
war’ would kill all humankind – war would be MAD (mutually
assured destruction).
So they stopped short of war – the ‘cold war’. They didn’t
declare war. But they did everything to oppose each other short of
war.
It was called the ‘cold war’. It lasted until 1989.
Tasks
1. Write a paragraph to
explain the meaning of
the term ‘Cold War’.
20
MOASG – 2012
Causes of the Cold War
1


2


Beliefs
The Soviet Union was a Communist country, ruled by a
dictator, who cared little about human rights.
The USA was a capitalist democracy which valued freedom.
Aims
Stalin wanted huge reparations from Germany, and a ‘buffer’ of
friendly states to protect the USSR from being invaded again.
Britain and the USA wanted to protect democracy, and help
Germany to recover. They were worried that large areas of
eastern Europe were falling under Soviet control.
Page
Source B:
Events which caused the
Cold War
Yalta Conference (Feb 1945)
Potsdam Conference (Jul
1945)
Salami tactics (1945–48)
Fulton Speech (Mar 1946)
Greece (Feb 1947)
Truman Doctrine (Mar 1947)
3


4

Resentment about History
The Soviet Union could not forget that in 1918 Britain and the
USA had tried to destroy the Russian Revolution. Stalin also
thought that they had not given him enough help in the Second
World War.
Britain and the USA could not forget that Stalin had signed the
Nazi-Soviet Pact with Germany in 1939.
Marshall Plan (Jun 1947)
Cominform (Oct 1947)
Czechoslovakia (Feb 1948)
Events
Neither side trusted each other. Every action they took (see
Source B) made them hate each other more.
Who Caused the Cold War?
Russian historians blamed Churchill (the British Prime Minister)
and Truman (the American president, 1945–1953). They said
Truman and Churchill wanted to destroy the USSR, which was just
defending itself.
At first, western writers blamed the Soviet Union. They said
Stalin was trying to build up a Soviet empire. Later, however, some
western historians blamed the USA. They said Truman had not
understood how much Russia had suffered in the Second World War.
Nowadays, historians think BOTH sides were to blame – that
there were hatreds on both sides.
Source A
It is useless to try to discover who made the first move to break the
alliance. It is impossible to trace the first ‘broken promise’.
Written by the historian Isaac Deutscher, Stalin (1969).
Tasks
2. Write a paragraph to
explain the meaning of the
term ‘Cold War’.
3. Copy, then learn the five
causes and nine events
which caused the Cold
War, so that you know
them ‘off by heart’.
4. For each of the five
causes, explain how it
might have caused
relations between the USA
and the USSR to become
tense.
5. Working in twos, one
pupil plays the part of a
Russian historian, the
other a western writer of
the 1950s.
Talk about causes 1–4,
the ‘Russian historian’
arguing that the Cold
War was America’s fault,
and the ‘western writer’
saying that it was
Russia’s.
21
MOASG – 2012
Page
Did you know?
Churchill was so worried
about Soviet domination of
eastern Europe that he tried
to get the British armies to
advance faster. In 1944, he
dropped British paratroopers
behind enemy lines at
Arnhem – but they were cut
off and defeated by the
Germans.
This story was told in the
film, A Bridge Too Far.
The Big Three during the War
During the War, Britain and the USA were allies of the Soviet Union,
but the only thing that united them was their hatred of Germany.
In 1945, the Big Three held two conferences – at Yalta
(February) and Potsdam (July) – to try to sort out how they would
organise the world after the war. It was at these conferences that
the tensions between the two sides became obvious.
Yalta (Feb 1945)
On the surface, the Yalta conference seemed successful.
The Allies agreed:
1. Russia would join the United Nations.
2. divide Germany into four ‘zones’, which Britain, France, the
USA and the USSR would occupy after the war.
3. bring Nazi war-criminals to trial.
4. set up a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity
'pledged to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon
as possible'.
5. help the freed peoples of Europe set up democratic and selfgoverning countries by helping them to (a) maintain law and
order; (b) carry out emergency relief measures; (c) set up
governments; and (d) hold elections (this was called the
'Declaration of Liberated Europe').
6. set up a commission to look into reparations.
 Source A
The arrows show the Allied
armies advancing into
Germany in 1945 – the
British and Americans from
the west, the Russians from
the east. Notice the large
areas of eastern Europe
which fell under the control
of Russia.
But, behind the scenes, tension was growing. After the conference,
Churchill wrote to Roosevelt that ‘The Soviet union has become a
danger to the free world.’
 Source B
A British cartoon of 1945.
Churchill, Roosevelt (USA)
and Stalin are shown as
doctors, working together to
heal the world. Look at the
faces of the ‘Big Three’; what
do you notice?
Tasks
Tasks
1.
2.
Source B shows the ‘Big Three’ smiling. Does this prove that
Britain, Russia and America were friends?
Write two reports of the Yalta Conference: one for the British
newspapers, the other for the British government.
1.
2.
Describe the events and
decisions of the Yalta
and Potsdam
Conferences. Were
they different?
Using page 5, especially
Sources D and E,
explain why Potsdam
was less successful than
Yalta.
22
MOASG – 2012
Page
 Source C
The thief labelled ‘Russia’ is
caught stealing a bag labelled
‘territorial grabs’.
‘It’s alright – he’s with me’,
Stalin assures Roosevelt, who
meekly answers: ‘Oh, OK’.
Source D
The Russians only
understand one language ‘how many armies have you
got?’ I’m tired of babying
the Soviets.
President Truman, writing
in January 1946
Source E
What is surprising about the
fact that the Soviet Union,
worried about its future
safety, wants governments
friendly to it in Finland,
Poland and Romania?
Stalin, writing in March
1946
A map of how Germany
was divided into zones.
Potsdam (July 1945)
At Potsdam, the Allies decided
the post-war peace – Potsdam
was the Versailles of World War II
America had a new president, Truman, who was determined to ‘get
tough’ with the Russians. Also, when he went to the Conference,
Truman had just learned that America had tested the first atomic
bomb. It gave the Americans a huge military advantage over
everyone else. Moreover, in March 1945, Stalin had invited the
non-Communist Polish leaders to meet him, and arrested them.
So, at Potsdam, the arguments came out into the open.
The Conference agreed the following Protocols:
1. to set up the four ‘zones of occupation’ in Germany. The
government and laws and education ‘shall be controlled to
eliminate Nazi and militarist doctrines and to make possible
the development of democratic ideas.
2. to bring Nazi war-criminals to trial.
3. to recognize the Polish Provisional Government of National
Unity and hold 'free and unfettered elections as soon as
possible'.
4. Russia was allowed to take reparations from the Soviet Zone,
and also 10% of the industrial equipment of the western zones
as reparations. America and Britain could take reparations
from their zones if they wished.
But in fact the Allies had disagreed openly about:
1. the details of how to divide Germany.
2. the size of reparations Germany ought to pay.
3. Russian policy in eastern Europe.
Source D
In this ‘marriage of convenience’, the thought that a divorce was
inevitable had been in the mind of each partner from the beginning.
Written by the historian Isaac Deutscher, Stalin (1969).
Tasks
A map of how Berlin was
divided into zones.
3.
Looking at the information on this spread, when do YOU think
the Cold War started? Read Source F; when did Deutscher
think it started?
Salami tactics: the Soviet take-over of eastern Europe
23
MOASG – 2012
New Words
sinister: frightening, in an evil way.
totalitarian: where the government has total
power over the people.
imperialistic: wanting to build an empire.
Communists used it as an abuse-word to
describe the western powers.
During 1946–47, Stalin made sure that
Communist governments came to power in all
the countries of eastern Europe (the countries
which the Soviet Union had conquered in
1945).
The Communist description of this
process was ‘slicing salami’ – gradually
getting rid of all opposition, bit-by-bit (see
Source A). In this way, Russia gained control
of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Albania (1945) – the Communists took
power after the war without opposition
Bulgaria (1945) – a left-wing coalition
gained power in 1945; the Communists
then executed the leaders of all the other
parties.
Poland (1947) – a coalition government
took power in 1945, but the Communists
forced the non-Communist leaders into
exile.
Hungary (1947) – see Source A.
Romania (1945–1947) – a left-wing
coalition was elected in 1945; the
Communists gradually took over control.
Czechoslovakia (1945–48) – a left-wing
coalition was elected in 1945. In 1948,
the Communists banned all other parties
and killed their leaders.
East Germany (1949) – the Russian
turned their zone of Germany into the
German Democratic republic in 1949.
Tasks
1. Read Source A, and make a spidergram
showing all the factors that helped
Communists take power in the countries
of eastern Europe.
2. Explain how the case of Hungary on
Source A illustrates ‘salami tactics’.
Page
Source A
Hungary was invaded by the Russians, and in
1945 the allies agreed that Russian troops
should stay there. Stalin allowed elections,
and the non-communists won a big majority.
However, some communists were elected, led
by a pro-Russian called Rakosi.
Rakosi now started demanding that groups
which opposed him should be banned. If not,
he hinted, the Russians would take over the
country. Then he got control of the police, and
started to arrest his opponents. He set up a
sinister and brutal secret police unit, the AVH.
Soon Rakosi had complete control over
Hungary.
Rakosi’s work was typical of what was
happening all over eastern Europe.
The historian Jon Nichol, writing in 1990
 Source B
Russia saw it as protecting herself from future
attack. The West saw it as empire-building.
24
MOASG – 2012
Churchill’s Fulton Speech
On 5 March 1946, Winston Churchill gave a
speech at Fulton in America. He said ‘a
shadow’ had fallen on eastern Europe, which
was now cut off from the free world by ‘an
iron curtain’. Behind that line, he said, the
people of eastern Europe were ‘subject to
Soviet influence . . . totalitarian control [and]
police governments’.
Page
25
Source C
Mr Churchill has called for a war on the
USSR.
Stalin, writing in the Russian newspaper
Pravda on 13 March 1946.
Source D
. . . the Cold War set in. Churchill had given
his famous speech in Fulton urging the
imperialistic forces of the world to fight the
Soviet Union. Our relations with England,
France and the USA were ruined.
Nikita Khrushchev, writing in 1971. In 1946
he was a member of the Soviet government.
 Source E
A British cartoon of
1946. In fact, the
‘iron curtain’ was a
2,000-kilometre line
of barbed wire,
look-out posts and
road blocks.
Tasks
1. Read Sources C and D. Explain why
Churchill’s speech was a turning point
in the history of the Cold War.
2. Did Churchill cause the Cold War?
Essay!
[use this essay frame to write the following essay, using pages 2–6]
Why had the Superpowers become suspicious of each other by
March 1946, when Churchill made his important speech at Fulton?
They became suspicious of each other because they had different beliefs. The USA. . . . . . . . . . The USSR . . . . . . . . . . This caused
suspicion because . . . . . . . . . .
History made the USA and the USSR suspicious of each other. The Soviet Union . . . . . . . . . . The USA . . . . . . . . . . This caused suspicion
because . . . . . . . . . .
Both the USA and the USSR had very different aims. The USA . . . . . . . . . . The USSR, however, . . . . . . . . . . This caused suspicion because
..........
Finally, because neither side trusted each other, events made them hate each other more.
 The Yalta Conference (Feb 1945) caused problems because . . . . . . . . . .
 The Potsdam Conference (Jul 1945) . . . . . . . . . .
 Also, salami tactics (1945–48) caused suspicion because . . . . . . . . . .
MOASG – 2012
New Words
doctrine: a belief.
Congress: the American ‘parliament’.
Czechoslovakia
aggressor: someone who starts a quarrel.
Containment: holding something in –
stopping the USSR growing.
Source A
Every nation must choose between different
ways of life . . . We must help free peoples to
work out their own destiny in their own way.
President Truman, speaking in March 1947.
Source B
This ‘American duty’ is just a smokescreen
for a plan of expansion . . . They try to take
control of Greece by shouting about
‘totalitarianism’
The Russian newspaper Izvestia, March 1947.
Source C 
This Russian
cartoon shows the
Greek government
being ‘helped’ by
America.
Page
Opinion:
Churchill’s speech did not start the Cold War,
but he was the first person to stop pretending
to be friends with Russia. Thus, his Fulton
speech was the start of the Cold War; after it,
America and Russia got into a number of
conflicts.
Greece
By 1946, Greece and Czechoslovakia were the
only countries in eastern Europe that weren’t
Communist. Even in Greece, the government,
which was being supported by British soldiers,
was having to fight a civil war against the
Communists.
In February 1947, the British told Truman
they could no longer afford to keep their
soldiers in Greece. President Truman stepped
in. The USA paid for the British soldiers in
Greece.
The Truman Doctrine
In the 1930s, Americans had kept out of
Europe’s business.
Now, in March 1947, Truman told
Americans that it was America’s DUTY to
interfere (Source A). His policy towards the
Soviet Union was one of ‘containment’ – he did
not try to destroy the USSR, but he wanted to
stop it growing any more. This was called the
‘Truman Doctrine’.
26
MOASG – 2012
The Marshall Plan
In June 1947, the American general George
Marshall went to Europe. He said every
country in Europe was so poor that it was in
danger of turning Communist! Europe was ‘a
breeding ground of hate’. He said that America
should give $17 billion of aid to get Europe’s
economy going.
Cominform
The Soviet Union hated Marshall aid (see
Sources D and E). Stalin forbade Communist
countries to ask for money. Instead, in October
1947, he set up Cominform. Every Communist
party in Europe joined. It allowed Stalin
control of the Communists in Europe.
Page
Source D
The ruling gang of American imperialists has
taken the path of open expansion, of enslaving
weakened capitalist countries. It has hatched
new war plans against the Soviet Union.
Imitating Hitler, the new aggressors are using
blackmail.
GM Malenkov, a Soviet politician, speaking in
1947.
Czechoslovakia
At first, the American Congress did not want
to give the money for Marshall Aid. But
then, in February 1948, the Communists took
power in Czechoslovakia.
Congress was scared, and voted for
Marshall Aid on 31 March 1948.
 Source E
Communists in Germany oppose Marshall Aid.
Tasks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Using the dates in bold, make notes, in
chronological order, on the events from
February 1947 to 31 March 1948.
Read Source A. Talk about the events in
your list – as though you were an
American.
Now read Sources B–E. Describe the same
events – as though you were a Russian
Communist
Did the Truman Doctrine cause the Cold
War?
What was the first event of the Cold War?
Work out an argument that the creation of
Cominform was the first event of the Cold
War.
 Source F
A British cartoon shows Truman and Stalin as
two taxi-drivers trying to get customers.
The Berlin Blockade, 1948–49
The USSR had already disagreed with Britain and the USA at
Potsdam (July 1945, see page 5) about what should be done with
Germany. Germany had been split into four zones. Berlin, in
Russia’s zone, was also split into four zones.
New Words
What caused it?
1. Cold War
Currency: money.
Blockade: a siege.
Bizonia
27
MOASG – 2012
was just getting started (e.g. Czechoslovakia, March 1948)
2.
Aims
Stalin wanted to destroy Germany – Britain and the USA
wanted to rebuild Germany.
3.
Bizonia
The Russians were taking German machinery back to the
USSR. In January 1948, Britain and the USA joined their two
zones together to try to get German industry going. They called
the new zone Bi-zonia (‘two zones’).
4. American Aid
Congress voted for Marshall Aid on 31 March 1948.
Immediately, the Russians started stopping and searching all
road and rail traffic into Berlin.
5. New Currency
On 1 June, America and France announced that they wanted
to create the new country of West Germany; and on 23 June
they introduced a new currency into ‘Bizonia’ and western
Berlin. The next day the Russians stopped all road and rail
traffic into Berlin – Stalin was trying to force the USA out of
Berlin.
Source A
[The Americans had introduced a new currency into Berlin.]
Old money flooded into the Soviet Zone. Some restrictions were
placed on links between Berlin and western zones, but the Soviet
side was ready to supply food to all Berlin.
Yet every day 380 American planes flew into Berlin. It was
simply a propaganda move intended to make the cold war worse.
From a Russian history book.
Page
28
MOASG – 2012
Source B:
Airlift Facts
1. The blockade lasted
318 days (11 months).
2. In the winter of 1948–
49 Berliners lived on dried
potatoes, powdered eggs
and cans of meat. They had
4 hours of electricity a day.
3. 275,000 flights carried
in 1½ million tons of
supplies. A plane landed
every 3 mins.
4. On 16 April 1949,
1400 flights brought in
13,000 tons of supplies in
one day – Berlin only
needed 6,000 tons a day to
survive.
5. The USA stationed B29 bombers (which could
carry an atomic bomb) in
Britain.
Page
What happened?
The American Army wanted to fight its way into Berlin – that would
have caused a war. Instead, Truman decided to supply Berlin by air
(see Source B)
The situation was bad at first, but things got better as the
blockade went on. On 12 May 1949, Stalin re-opened the borders.
What were the Results?
1.
Cold War got worse
It almost started an all-out war.
2.
East and West Germany
Germany split up. In May 1949, America, Britain and France
united their zones into the Federal Republic of Germany (West
Germany). In October 1949, Stalin set up the German
Democratic Republic (East Germany) .
3.
NATO and the Warsaw Pact
In 1949, the western Allies set up NATO (North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation) as a defensive alliance against Russia.
NATO countries surrounded Russia; in 1955, the Soviet Union
set up the Warsaw Pact – an alliance of Communist states.
4.
Arms Race
After Berlin, the USA and the USSR realised that they were in
a competition for world domination. They began to build up
their armies and weapons.
Tasks
3.
4.
Copy the five causes of the Berlin Crisis.
The Berlin blockade and airlift was one of the first episodes of
the Cold War. Write an essay to describe what happened.
Start the story in Jan 1948, and finish it on 12 May 1949.
5.
Working as a whole class, draw a spidergram to show all the
reasons why the Berlin blockade failed.
29
MOASG – 2012
The Korean War, 1950–53
The Korean War was the time when the Cold War became a global
conflict.
What caused it?
President Truman was interested in the Far East:
 Cold War: Truman realised the USA was in a competition for
world domination with the USSR. Europe was not the only place
where Communists were coming to power. In the Far East, too,
they were getting powerful – China turned Communist in 1949.
 Japan: Truman was worried that, in the end, the Communists
would capture Japan.
 Domino theory: Truman believed that, if one country fell to
Communism, then other would follow, like a line of dominoes.
Stalin, also, was involved in the Far East:
 Kim II Sung visited Stalin. In 1949, he persuaded Stalin that
he could conquer South Korea. Stalin was worried that
America would get involved, but he gave his agreement. Kim
II Sung also went to see Mao Tse Tung, the leader of China, to
get his agreement.
In 1950, Syngman Rhee boasted that he was going to attack North
Korea. It was a good enough excuse – the North Koreans invaded
South Korea.
This started the Korean War.
The war had FIVE phases.
Page
Did you know?
In 1945, Korea was freed
from the Japanese. The
country was split in half at
the 38th parallel.
North Korea
 (led by Kim II Sung)
was Communist.
South Korea
 (led by Syngman Rhee)
was capitalist.
The two countries hated
each other.
Source B
Asia is where the
communist conspirators
have decided to make their
play for global conquest. If
we lose this war, the fall of
Europe is inevitable. There
is no choice but victory.
The US General
MacArthur, speaking in
1950.
New Words
global: whole world
38th parallel: a line of
latitude on the map.
Kim II Sung
Syngman Rhee
Mao Tse Tung
30
MOASG – 2012
The Events of the War, 1950–53
I
II
June 1950
The North Koreans attacked.
They were very successful.
They captured most of South Korea.
July 1950
The Americans were alarmed (see Source B).
They persuaded the United Nations to support South Korea.
The American Army, led by General MacArthur, went to Korea,
drove back the North Koreans and recaptured South Korea.
It invaded North Korea.
It advanced as far as the Chinese border.
I
III
IV
V
October 1950
Now the Chinese were alarmed.
They attacked MacArthur, and drove the Americans back.
They recaptured North Korea, and advanced into South Korea.
February 1951
The Americans landed more troops.
They drove the Chinese back (the Chinese lost 200,000 men).
March 1951 – 1953
MacArthur reached the 38th parallel in March 1951.
Truman told MacArthur to stop.
MacArthur was sacked when he publicly criticised Truman’s order.
In 1953, Eisenhower became American president. He made peace.
Tasks
1.Look at Source B. Why was Korea so important for the Americans?
2.Write notes on the causes of the Korean War.
3.Write an essay to describe the main events of the Korean War, 1950–53.
Page
31
MOASG – 2012
Revision Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
/75
Who was Prime Minister of Britain in 1945?
Who was president of the USA in February 1945?
Who became president of the USA in 1945?
Who was leader of Russia in 1945?
What is a ‘cold war’?
List FOUR causes of the Cold War?
What do Communists believe?
The USA is a ‘capitalist democracy’. What do these words mean?
Name TWO historical complaints that Stalin had against Britain and the USA.
What could Britain and the USA not forgive Stalin for (from 1939)?
Give TWO things that Stalin wanted from the peace.
What worried Britain and the USA about Stalin’s plans?
When did Russia develop the atomic bomb?
List NINE events leading up to the Cold War, Feb 1945 to Mar 1948.
Give FOUR things agreed at Yalta.
Explain TWO reasons why the Potsdam Conference was less successful than Yalta.
Name THREE things that the ‘Big Three’ disagreed about at Potsdam.
What were ‘salami tactics’?
Was is ‘totalitarianism’?
Was does the word ‘imperialistic’ mean?
What was Churchill’s Fulton speech (5 March 1946) about?
Why did Britain keep soldiers in Greece after the Second World War had finished?
What happened when the British could no longer afford to keep soldiers in Greece?
What did the Truman Doctrine say?
Why did Marshall propose the Marshall Plan?
How much aid did the Marshall Plan want to send to Europe?
Which country turned Communist in March 1948?
What rival to Marshall Aid did Stalin set up in 1947?
Give FIVE causes of the Berlin blockade.
How long did the blockade last?
How did the US and Britain supply the Berliners?
List FOUR results of the blockade.
What rival alliance to NATO did the USSR set up in 1955?
Why was the Korean War important in the history of the Cold War?
Name the ruler of North Korea in 1950.
Name the ruler of South Korea in 1950.
List THREE reasons why Truman was interested in the Far East.
When did China turn Communist?
Whose agreement to invade South Korea did Kim II Sung seek?
What excuse did Kim II Sung have for attacking South Korea?
Who was winning the war at its start in June 1950?
Who led the UN forced which landed in July 1950?
Why did the Chinese enter the war?
How many Chinese soldiers died in the war?
Why was MacArthur sacked?
Page
32
MOASG – 2012
Page
New Words
Q
Imagine a class with a really tough and nasty teacher. After a
while, that teacher leaves, and a more gentle, reasonable
teacher takes over. Will behaviour in the class get better, or
worse?
Stalin died in 1953. He was hated all over eastern Europe. When
they heard he was dead, people in East Berlin rioted.
After a short struggle for power, Khrushchev became the new
ruler in Russia.
Khrushchev
At first, the western powers hoped that Khrushchev would be the
start of a ‘thaw’ in the Cold War.
1.
2..
3.
4.
Khrushchev often met western leaders at ‘summit’ meetings.
Stalin had made all Communist countries do what he wanted
– and he had fallen out with President Tito of Yugoslavia.
But in 1955 Khrushchev went to Yugoslavia, telling Tito that
‘there are different roads to communism’. Western leaders
thought he would no longer insist that all communist
countries take orders from Russia.
In a speech in 1956, Khrushchev attacked Stalin, saying that
Stalin was a murderer and a tyrant. Khrushchev began to
‘de-stalinise’ Russia. Political prisoners were set free and
Beria (Stalin’s Chief of Secret Police) was executed.
Khrushchev said that he wanted ‘peaceful
co-existence’ with the West. Western leaders hoped this
meant the end of the Cold War.
summit: meeting of the
major world powers.
destalinisation:
dismantling Stalin’s
tyranny.
Co-existence: living
together.
capitalism: western system
of a free economy.
economic aid: money
given to a country to
help build up its
economy.
Did you know?
Even though he was a
poorly-educated peasant,
Khrushchev had insight
and a good turn of phrase.
He once said that
Communism and
capitalism would only
agree ‘when shrimps
learned to whistle’.
Source C
Source A
You do not like Communism. We do not like capitalism. There is
only one way out – peaceful co-existence.
Khrushchev speaking on a visit to Britain in 1956.
Source B
We may argue. The main thing is to argue without using
weapons.
Khrushchev speaking in 1959.
This Russian cartoon shows
Khrushchev destroying the
Cold War.
Peaceful Co-existence
If the rulers of the West hoped that there would be an end to the
Cold War, they were disappointed.
1.
‘De-stalinisation’ did not mean a change back to capitalism,
or freedom from Russia. When communist countries went too
far in their reforms, Khrushchev sent in the Red Army to stop
them.
2.
By ‘peaceful co-existence’, Khrushchev really meant
‘peaceful competition’. He started to build up Russian
power:
He visited countries like Afghanistan and Burma and gave
them economic aid if they would support Russia.
a)
Task
Make notes on the ways
Khrushchev seemed to
improve the Cold War.
Source D
EIGHT Countries in the
Warsaw Pact:

USSR

Albania

Bulgaria
33
MOASG – 2012
b)
c)
d)
3.
a)
b)
c)
Russia began the ‘space race’ with the America. In 1957
Russia launched Sputnik the first satellite. In 1961 Yuri
Gagarin became the first astronaut to orbit the earth.
Russia began an ‘arms race’ with America. In 1953, Russia
got the hydrogen bomb.
Khrushchev set up the Warsaw Pact – a military alliance of
Communist countries – to rival NATO.
Faced by this, America became just as aggressive:
In America, Senator McCarty led a ‘witch-hunt’ for
‘Communists’ in America (e.g. Charlie Chaplin was
accused of being a Communist.)
America had an ‘arms race’ with Russia. In 1955, NATO
agreed to a West German Army of ½ million men (this
led to the formation of the Warsaw Pact).
The Americans used U2 planes to spy on Russia.
As a result, the period 1955–1963 was the time of GREATEST
tension in the Cold War.
Page





Czechoslovakia
East Germany
Hungary
Poland
Romania.
Source E
Crises after 1955:
1956
Poland
1956
Hungary
1960
U2 crisis
1961
The Berlin Wall
1962
Cuban Missile
Crisis
Did you know?
Khrushchev was NOT a
gentle easy-going man; he
had been Stalin’s righthand man –
Stalin had used him to run
the terror purges after
World War II.
Khrushchev loved to
argue. This often caused
tension between leaders.
Task
Make notes on the ways
Khrushchev made the Cold
War worse.
In 1956, Khrushchev faced crises in two countries which were
destalinising.
New Words
Poland
In Poland, a number of political prisoners were set free. At the
same time, a bad harvest led to unrest.
patriotic: loving your
country.
censorship: where the
government controls
what the newspapers/
radio etc. say.
telex: an early form of fax,
connecting typewriters
down a telephone line.
Railway workers led a protest of people calling for ‘Cheap Bread’
and ‘Higher Wages’. When the police shot some of the marchers,
there was a riot. Government officials were killed. Mr Gomulka,
(who had been in prison) took power.
34
MOASG – 2012
Khrushchev sent Russian troops into Poland to put down the rebels.
But he left Gomulka in power – Gomulka continued the process of
destalinisation, but he kept Poland loyal to Russia and the Warsaw
Pact.
Page
Task
Make notes on the ‘The
Polish riots of 1956’.
Hungary – Causes
The basic cause of the Hungarian revolution was that the
Hungarians hated Russian communism:
1.
Poverty
Hungarians were poor, yet much of the food and industrial
goods they produced was sent to Russia.
2.
Russian Control
The Hungarians were very patriotic, and they hated Russian
control – which included censorship, the vicious secret police
(AVH) and Russian control of what the schools taught.
3.
Catholic Church
The Hungarians were religious, but the Communist Party had
banned religion, and put the leader of the Catholic Church in
prison.
4.
Help from the West
Hungarians thought that the United Nations or the new US
president, Eisenhower, would help them.
5.
Destalinisation
When the Communist Party tried to destalinise Hungary, things
got out of control. The Hungarian leader Rakosi asked for
permission to arrest 400 trouble-makers, but Khrushchev
would not let him.
Hungary – Events
On 23 October, there were riots of students, workers and soldiers.
They smashed up the statue of Stalin, and attacked the AVH and
Russian soldiers.
On 24 October, Imre Nagy took over as Prime Minister. He asked
Khrushchev to take out the Russian troops.
On 28 October, Khrushchev agreed, and the Russian army pulled
out of Budapest.
29 October – 3 November: The new Hungarian government
introduced democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion
(the leader of the Catholic Church was freed from prison). He also
announced that Hungary was going to leave the Warsaw Pact.
4 November: At dawn, 1000 Russian tanks rolled into Budapest.
By 8.10 am they had destroyed the Hungarian army and captured
Hungarian Radio – its last words broadcast were ‘Help! Help!
Help”!’ Hungarian people – even children – fought them with
machine guns. 27,000 people were killed.
Khrushchev put in Janos Kadar, a supporter of Russia, as
Prime Minister.
Task
Prepare a 15-minute essay:
‘Why was there a
revolution in Hungary in
1956’.
Source A
There were FIVE reasons
why Khrushchev acted
harshly in Hungary:

Nagy’s decision to
leave the Warsaw Pact
was the last straw –
Russia was determined
to keep its ‘buffer’ of
states.

China asked Russia to
act to stop Communism
being damaged.

Nagy had obviously
lost control; Hungary
was not destalinising –
it was turning capitalist.

Hard-liners in Russia
forced Khrushchev to
act.

Khrushchev though,
correctly, that the West
would not help
Hungary.
Source B
TWO reasons why the
35
MOASG – 2012
Source C
We are quiet, not afraid. Send the news to the world and say it
should condemn the Russians. The fighting is very close now and
we haven’t enough guns. What is the United Nations doing?
Give us a little help. We will hold out to our last drop of blood.
The tanks are firing now. . .
The last message – a telex from a newspaper journalist – from
Hungary.
Hungary – Results
1. 200,000 Hungarian refugees fled into Austria.
2. Russia stayed in control behind the Iron Curtain – no other
country tried to get rid of Russia troops until Czechoslovakia in
1968.
3. People in the West were horrified – many British Communists
left the Communist Party.
4. The West realised it could do nothing about the Iron Curtain
countries – but this made Western leaders more determined to
‘contain’ communism.
Page
West did not help
Hungary:

Britain and France
were involved in the
Suez crisis in Egypt.

Eisenhower did not
think Hungary worth a
world war.

When the UN
suggested an
investigation, Russia
used its veto to stop it.
Did you know?
What made the Hungarian
revolution so heart-rending
was the desperate bravery
of the rebels. One
journalist found a little girl
of 12, dead, armed with a
machine gun.
Tasks
1. Copy out sources A and
B and the section: Hungary
– Results.
2. Prepare a 15-minute
essay: ‘The events of the
Hungarian Revolution’.
After 1957, tension grew between Russia and America:
1. Russia’s Sputnik satellite (1957) and space orbit (1961) gave
them a psychological advantage. Many Americans believed
America was in danger.
2. In 1959, the Communist Fidel Castro took power in Cuba,
right next to America. In 1960, he made a trade agreement
with Russia.
3. China was very aggressive. When Khrushchev made a visit to
America in 1959, they accused him of going soft; this made
Khrushchev demand that America withdraw from West Berlin
A summit was planned for May 1960 to discuss Berlin and nuclear
weapons.
The U2 crisis
On 5 May 1960 – just 9 days before the summit – Russia shot down
an American U2 spy-plane.
At first, the Americans tried to claim that it was a weatherplane that had gone off-course. However, the Russians put the pilot
Gary Powers on trial for spying, and the Americans admitted it was
a spy-plane.
The summit met at Paris on 14 May 1960.
Khrushchev refused to take part in the talks unless the
Americans apologise and cancel all future spy-flights. President
Eisenhower agreed to cancel the spy-flights, but would not apologise
– so Khrushchev went home.
Did you know?
When Khrushchev visited
America in 1959, he was
taken round an Ideal Home
exhibition. At the kitchen
display, he had a very
public row with American
Vice-President Nixon
about which was better:
Communism or capitalism.
36
MOASG – 2012
The results were:
1.
Paris summit ruined; Cold War continues.
2.
Eisenhower’s planned visit to Russia cancelled.
3.
Khrushcev and the Russians grew in confidence.
4. Americans became angry with Eisenhower, who they said was
losing the Cold War. After the U2 incident, America became
more aggressive. They elected John F Kennedy, who
promised to be much tougher on communism.
Source A
Let every nation know that we shall pay any price, bear and
burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, for
the survival and success of freedom. Now the trumpet calls again
. . . against the enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war.
Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for
your country.
Inaugural speech of President Kennedy, 1961.
The Berlin Wall – Causes
1.
2.
a)
b)
3.
Growing tension
Kennedy tried to get tough on Communism.
He financed the forces fighting the Communists in Vietnam
and Laos, and in 1961 he helped an invasion of Cuba (see
page 8).
Refugees
East Germany was poor and under strict rule.
West Berlin was wealthy and free. Many East Germans
worked in West Berlin, and saw this.
By 1961, 3 million had fled to the west through Berlin. As the
Cold War tension grew, more left, fearing that the border
would be closed – by August 1961, the flow was 1,800 a day.
This was an embarrassment to Russia, which claimed that
Communism was better.
Also, many who left were skilled workers.
Sabotage
The Russians claimed that the Americans used West Berlin for
spying and sabotage (see Source B).
The Berlin Wall
At the Vienna summit of June 1961, Khrushchev again demanded
that the Americans leave West Berlin. Kennedy’s refused – and on
25 July increased America’s spending on weapons.
On 13 August, Khrushchev closed the border between east and west
Berlin – and built a wall.
Page
Tasks
1. Discuss with a friend
why the U2 incident came at
a very bad time for the
Americans.
2. Make notes on: ‘The
story of the U2 crisis’.
New Words
psychological: in the mind.
Nuclear weapons: atomic
and hydrogen bombs
and ICBMs – intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
Sabotage: causing damage
Source B
The Americans use West
Berlin as a base for
recruiting spies, sabotage
and starting riots. The
wall will keep East
Germany safe.
The Russian explanation of
the Wall, 1961
Source C
There were FOUR results
of the Berlin Wall:

Berlin was split in
two. Hundreds of East
Berliners died trying to
cross it.

America complained,
but did not try to take it
down – it was not worth
a war.

Tension grew: both
sides started nuclear
testing.

The West became
more anti-communist
(Source D)
Source D
Some people say we can
work with the Communists.
Let them come to Berlin.
President Kennedy, 1961.
37
MOASG – 2012
Page
 The Berlin Wall, 1961
Tasks
1. Prepare a 15-minute
essay: ‘Describe the events
1958–1961 which led to the
Berlin Wall’.
2. Copy Source C.
38
MOASG – 2012
Page
The Cuban Missiles Crisis – Causes
New Words
1.
nationalise: where the
government takes over a
business/ industry.
naval blockade: to not
allow ships to come or
go from Cuba.
2.
3.
Superpower Tension
All the tensions that had grown up between Russia’s assertive
‘peaceful competition’ and Kennedy’s promise to be tough on
Russia – including the space race, the arms race and nuclear
testing, American funding of anti-Communists in Vietnam
and Laos, the failed Vienna summit (1961) and the Berlin
Wall.
Fidel Castro’s Cuba
In 1959, the Communist Fidel Castro took power in Cuba.
This was very threatening to the USA because it was right next
to America. In 1960, Castro made a trade agreement with
Russia, whereby Cuba sent sugar to Russia, in return for oil,
machines and money. This frightened the Americans more,
and in 1960 they stopped trading with Cuba. In retaliation,
Cuba nationalised all American-owned companies
The Bay of Pigs.
In April 1961 the CIA encouraged, funded and transported an
attempt by anti-Castro Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. It failed
miserably, greatly embarrassing Kennedy. In September
1961, therefore, Castro asked for – and Russia publicly
promised – weapons to defend Cuba against America.
On 14 October an American U2 spy-plane took pictures of a nuclear
missile base being built on Cuba. Kennedy’s advisers told him he
had 10 days before Cuba could fire the missiles at targets in
America.
Kennedy decided he had to act (see Source A).
Source A
We will not needlessly risk
world-wide nuclear war in
which even victory would
be ashes in our mouths –
but neither will we shrink
from that risk when it must
be faced . . . I call upon
Chairman Khrushchev to
stop and dismantle this
secret, reckless and
provocative threat to world
peace.
Speech by President
Kennedy on American TV,
1962.
 The danger of the
missile bases.
Task
Prepare a 15-minute essay:
‘Why was there a crisis
about Cuba in 1962?
The Cuban Missiles Crisis
16 Oct:
22 Oct:
23 Oct:
24 Oct:
26 Oct:
Kennedy set up a Committee of the National Security
Council to advise him.
Kennedy announced that he was mounting a naval
blockade of Cuba.
Khrushchev accused America of piracy. He warned
that Russia would get ready ‘a fitting reply to the
aggressor’. 20 Russian ships were heading for Cuba.
The first Russian ship reached the naval blockade. It
was an oil ship and was allowed through. The other
Russian ships (carrying missiles) turned back.
However, Russia was still building the missile bases.
Khrushchev sent a letter to Kennedy, offering to
dismantle the sites if Kennedy would lift the blockade
Source B
Kennedy’s Options:
1. Nuclear Strike? It
would cause a nuclear
war.
2. Conventional attack?
There were Russian
troops in Cuba, and it
would probably lead to a
war with Russia.
3. Use the UN? Too
slow.
4. Do nothing? The
missile bases were too
dangerous.
5. Blockade? This
would stop the missiles
getting to the missile
39
MOASG – 2012
27 Oct:
28 Oct:
20 Nov:
and agree not to invade Cuba.
Before Kennedy could reply, Khrushchev sent another
letter, demanding that Kennedy also dismantle
American missile bases in Turkey. On the same day,
a U2 plane was shot down over Cuba.
It looked as if war was about to happen.
Kennedy ignored the plane incident. He also
ignored Khrushchev’s second letter – he wrote simply
that would lift the blockade and agree not to invade
Cuba if Khrushchev would dismantle the missile
bases.
Khrushchev agreed. The crisis finished.
Russian bombers left Cuba, and Kennedy lifted the
naval blockade.
The results were:
1. Khrushchev lost prestige – he had failed. Particularly, China
broke from Russia.
2. Kennedy gained prestige. He was seen as the men who faced
down the Russians.
3. Both sides had had a fright. They were more careful in future.
The two leaders set up a telephone ‘hotline’ to talk directly in a
crisis.
In 1963, they agreed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Cuba was
the start of the end of the Cold War.
4. Cuba remained a Communist dictatorship, but America left it
alone.
Page
bases, but it was not a
direct act of war.
Did you know?
Kennedy did not publicly
agree to dismantle missile
bases in Turkey. But in a
secret telephone call, he
told Khrushchev that –
while he couldn’t agree to
dismantle Turkish bases in
a ‘tit-for-tat’ agreement –
the USA did not see any
need for them and that they
would be dismantled soon.
Tasks
1. Prepare a 15-minute
essay: ‘Describe the events
of the Cuba Crisis of 1962.
2. Copy ‘The Results of the
Cuba Crisis’.
Revision Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
When did Stalin die? Who became the new leader of Russia
What were the meetings between the superpower leaders called?
What did Khrushchev tell Tito in 1955?
What did Khrushchev say about Stalin in 1956?
What was Khrushchev’s policy called? What did he really mean by it?
What was de-stalinisation? Why was it dangerous for world peace?
How did Khrushchev build up support in countries like Afghanistan and Burma?
What was the first satellite and when was it launched?
Who was the first astronaut to orbit the earth, and when did he do it?
When did Russia get the hydrogen bomb?
What was the military alliance set up by Khrushchev, and what countries were in it?
Which American senator led a ‘witch-hunt’ for communists in America?
What did NATO agree to in 1955 in West Germany?
How did America spy on Russia?
Name the FIVE crises after 1955.
Who led the Polish riots of 1956?
Which Polish Communist kept control of Poland?
List the FIVE reasons for the Hungarian uprising.
Who rioted in Hungary on 23 October 1956, and what did they do?
Who became the Prime Minister of Hungary?
40
MOASG – 2012
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Page
What FOUR reforms did the rebels order?
What FIVE reasons led Russia to send in the tanks? Of these, which was most important?
How many tanks invaded Budapest.
Why did Britain and France not help Hungary?
Who was the President of America in 1956? Why did he not help Hungary?
Why did the UN not help Hungary?
Who did Khrushchev put in charge of Hungary?
How many Hungarians fled to Austria?
What did Khrushchev demand from America in 1959?
With whom did Khrushchev argue about kitchens in 1959?
What crisis began on 5 May 1960.
Which summit meeting was ruined because of the crisis?
Who did the Americans elect as their President in 1961?
Which two places in the Far East did Kennedy finance anti-communist fighters?
How many refugees had fled to West Berlin by 1961? Why was this bad for Russia?
What did Khrushchev demand at the Vienna summit of June 1961?
What date did Khrushchev begin to build the Berlin Wall?
Why did Khrushchev say he built the wall?
When did Fidel Castro come to power in Cuba?
What did his 1960 trade agreement with Russia say?
What did Castro do to America companies in 1961 which angered America?
What was the name for the failed invasion of Cuba in 1961. Why was it an embarrassment for Kennedy?
What did a U2 spy-plane discover on Cuba in October 1962?
What were Kennedy’s FIVE options, and which did he choose?
What did Khrushchev accuse America of?
What deal was done between Kennedy and Khrushchev?
What event during the crisis (27 Oct) almost caused a nuclear war?
What did the two leaders set up after the Missiles Crisis to prevent another such crisis?
What agreement began the thaw in 1963?
41
MOASG – 2012
Page
42
Paper 1: The inter-war Period
Paper One Grade Boundaries
Mark
IB Grade
20 – 25
17 - 19
13 – 16
10 – 12
7–9
4–6
0–3
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Feedback
1. Timing is crucial: Everything you write must ‘score’ a mark. Every comment must focus directly to the question. 25 marks awarded in
1 hour = roughly 2.4 minutes per mark.
2. How to do the exam: [step a + b = 5 to 7 min]
a) Read each source, write& underline/ highlight key points: author (nationality), date, context, type source, key content. All of this is
“mad important yo.”
b) Begin to spot differences & similarities in sources – draw arrows
c) Answer the questions
3. You must appreciate the purpose/ point of each question before you enter exam room:
Some more….




You must identify key words in question and use them in your writing.
Stop repeating yourself. No superfluous comments.
You must quote from source BUT only key words. Do not waste time with whole sentences.
Pre reading must identify quickly the message of text, key words & context/ author. Never forget if you see an oddity (eg source
D was a modern source that gave a very traditional positive view of Stalin).
 If you are good, you should be able to identify which sources would be useful to which historical school. So learn them
(traditional, revisionist and post revisionist and the key dates in soviet historiography ie Glasnost impact).
 You must know the topic well to understand the sources properly. Focus on Détente, The Berlin Wall, Sino-Soviet Split, and
increasing tensions between the USSR, China, and USA.
 Precision of expression requires a lot of practice….. you cannot do it on the day for the first time.
XVI.
MOASG – 2012
QUESTION 1
= simple identification of lines from text
Page
43
Topics = Détente, Sino-Soviet Split, Eastern Bloc stuff. You know…
Using documents on Cold War 1960-1979 :
- write more precisely to save time
- don’t re-write question
- no analysis required
- number of marks = number points to make
- This question is meant to be an easy start for
candidates. State the obvious. Quote with key words.
- Students always spend too long on this question
a) Who, according to Source B, was instrumental in causing the sinosoviet split
2 marks
and
b) According to Source E, what did the Sino-Soviet Split achieve
3 marks
Q1 = 15 marks = 12 mins
QUESTION 2 = simple comparing of the content/
messages of 2 sources to show how far they
agree/ disagree.
To what extent do Sources B and E support the views expressed in
Source A?
6 marks
The second question will usually directed towards a task
such as comparison or application and analysis. The
question may relate to three documents.
This is simply comparing the content and themes of
each Source. It is NOT asking why the sources might be
different (eg author’s bias)
Note the key words. Extent suggests there are areas that agree and
disagree
Q2 = 6 marks 14.4 mins
- do not re-write the content of each source
- compare directly
- quotes must be short
- a tendency to repeat points wastes time. PRECISE
ANSWERS NEEDED PLEASE.
QUESTION 3= always a question about the value
& limitations of sources with reference to their
origin and purpose
With reference to their origin and purpose, assess the value and
limitations of sources C and D for historians studying Khrushchev’s
intentions.
The question will be worded directly towards
`evaluation` and `reliability` to avoid paraphrasing of
content. The question will address the underlying
historical use of the sources.
- You must look at date; author (& their involvement to
see origin and purpose); type evidence (to evaluate
purpose and value – if statistics then can they be trusted
; content (again to evaluate purpose); context etc.
- you must use the key words in answer as ‘pointers’ –
origin, purpose, value, limitation
QUESTION 4
[nb this question requires assessing the origin, author, purpose, bias,
context etc of the documents]
6 Marks
Q4 = always asks a question about the specific
Russian topic and you evaluate that against the
sources AND your own knowledge.
The final question requires a mini essay demanding the
use of both source material (the documents) and the
candidates own knowledge.
The marks will be awarded equally for ‘own
knowledge’ (4) and ‘sources’ (4). The best way is to
combine the two when you write. Or write own
knowledge first and then sources (or vice versa)
- You must combine both of these elements (equal
allocation of marks) and answer the precise question.
Most candidates lack ability to combine these two parts
and run out of time
All sources have good and bad points
Primary does not make it better than Secondary
The actual content is always of value ie what it tells us
Q3 = 6 marks/ 14.4 mins
Using the sources and your own knowledge, explain to what extent you
agree with the statement in Source D that “The Secret Speech was
delivered by Khrushchev to bring key Stalinists to his side.”
8 marks
Q4 = 8 marks/ 19.2 mins
MOASG – 2012
Page
44
Past questions asked on the Exam:
Paper Two Questions
Topic 1- Causes, practices and effects of war- World War I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Examine the part played by each of the following in the outbreak of the First World War: alliances, mobilization, Balkan
nationalism. (N2006)
How valid is the claim that in 1914 states went to war due to fear rather than for motives of gain? (2004)
Assess critically three causes of the First World War. (2003)
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system? (1999)
“Germany must bear the ultimate responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War.” How far do you agree with this
judgment? (1995)
How valid is it to claim that Europe “stumbled into” a world war in 1914? (1992)
Topic 1- Causes, practices and effects of war- World War II
1. Discuss briefly the immediate effects that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had on the progress
of the Second World War. Comment on how the existence of the “bomb” has subsequently affected the practices of war in terms
of global conflict. (1992)
Topic 1- Causes, practices and effects of war- General
1. With reference to specific examples, account for the adoption of guerrilla warfare and assess its effectiveness. (N2006)
2. In what ways, and with what success, did post-war peacemakers attempt to deal with the problems which produced the conflict?
Specific reference should be made to two peace settlements. (N2006)
3. Compare and contrast the reasons for, and impact of, foreign involvement in two of the following: Russian Civil War; Spanish
Civil War; Korean War. (N2006)
4. With reference to two wars, each chosen from a different region, explain to what extent the role and status of women was affected.
(N2006)
5. Compare and contrast the results of the First World War and the Second World War. (2006)
6. To what extent did technological developments ensure victory in twentieth century wars? (2006)
7. “No twentieth century war could be called a limited war.” To what extent do you agree with this assertion? (2006)
8. Analyze the causes of either the Spanish Civil War or the Korean War. (2006)
9. Assess the social results of two wars, each chosen from a different region. (2006)
10. Analyze the results of either the First World War or the Second World War. (2005)
11. Account for either the defeat of the Central Powers in the First World War or the Axis powers in the Second World War. (2005)
12. To what extent do you agree with the view that war accelerates social change? (2005)
13. Evaluate the contribution made towards the war effort by civilians on both the home front and the battle front in two wars, each
chosen from a different region. (2005)
14. Compare and contrast the reasons for, and impact of, foreign involvement in two of the following: Russian Civil War; Spanish
Civil War; Chinese Civil War. (2005)
15. “Peace settlements create conditions for new conflicts.” With reference to at least two settlements explain to what extent you
agree with this statement. (2005)
16. Assess the social and economic causes of one twentieth century war. (2005)
17. Compare and contrast the use of naval warfare in two wars, each chosen from a different region. (2005)
18. For what reasons, and with what results, was “limited” warfare a feature of the second half of the twentieth century? (2005)
19. Evaluate the social and economic consequences of two twentieth century wars. (2004)
20. To what extent did guerilla warfare determine the outcome of the Vietnam War? (2004)
21. Why did foreign intervention occur so frequently in civil wars of the twentieth century and what impact did this intervention have
on two civil wars each chosen from a different region? (2004)
22. Assess the role of air power in two twentieth century wars. (2004)
23. In what ways did the causes of the Second World War differ from the causes of the First World War? (2004)
24. Evaluate the importance of naval warfare in twentieth century wars. Specific examples must be given from at least two wars.
(2004)
25. Analyze the results of two wars, each chosen from a different region. (2004)
26. Assess the social and economic effects of one war on two countries involved, in the ten years following the end of the war. (2004)
27. Compare and contrast the causes of two wars (excluding the First World War) each chosen from a different region. (2003)
28. Analyze the reasons for the outcome of one civil war. How did the outcome affect the country in which the war was fought?
(2003)
29. “The most important military development of the twentieth century was the development of nuclear weapons.” To what extent do
you agree with this statement? (2003)
30. Assess the economic and social impact of either the Arab-Israeli Wars, or the Vietnam War, on the countries involved. (2003)
31. What were the most frequent causes of twentieth-century wars? Specific evidence from at least three wars should be used.
(2003)
MOASG – 2012
Page
45
32. How and why did technological developments play an important part in twentieth-century wars? (2003)
33. “War causes more suffering to women than to men.” “War liberates women.” Using evidence from at least two wars explain
which statement you consider is more appropriate. (2003)
34. Assess the aims of two countries entering the First World War. To what extent were they successful in achieving their aims?
(2002)
35. In what ways, and with what results for twentieth century wars, did tactics change? (2002)
36. Compare and contrast the causes of the Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War. (2002)
37. Analyze the use and effects of propaganda in two wars, each chosen from a different region. (2002)
38. Why were the intentions of those responsible for treaties rarely fulfilled? (2002)
39. Analyze the changes in the nature of warfare during the twentieth century. (2002)
40. Examine the effects of war and the fear of war on the civilian population of two countries, each chosen from a different region.
(2002)
41. Compare and contrast the causes of the First and Second World Wars. (2002)
42. Evaluate the successes and failures of one twentieth century treaty in addressing the causes if conflict, and restoring peace and
normality. (2001)
43. Using specific examples explain the popularity of war themes in (a) films and (b) films and/or plays. (2001)
44. Analyze the reasons for the outbreak of war either in Algeria in 1954, or Korea in 1950. (2001)
45. In what ways and for what reasons did foreign intervention play an important role in two civil wars, each chosen from a different
region? (2001)
46. Examine critically two treaties and evaluate their success in resolving the armed conflicts which necessitated the treaties. (2000)
47. Assess the importance of nationalism and of selfish ambition as causes of twentieth century wars. Reference must be made to at
least two wars. (2000)
48. In what ways have wars (a) caused suffering and hardship to women and (b) helped promote women’s equality? Specific
evidence must be given from at least two regions. (2000)
49. Assess the significance of either the Mexican Revolution (1910 to 1940) or the Vietnam War (1964 to 1975). (2000)
50. In what ways and for what reasons have tactics changed in twentieth century warfare? (1999)
51. Evaluate the role of ideological differences in two civil wars each chosen from a different region. (1999)
52. To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system? (1999)
53. How valid is the claim that treaties are not necessary to end wars? Support your answer with evidence from at least two regions.
(1999)
54. To what extent should Germany be held responsible or causing both the First and Second World Wars? (1998)
55. How and why has guerilla warfare been used in the twentieth century? Examples should be given from at least two different
regions. (1998)
56. Explain the impact of war on two of the following: women; the arts; the media. (1998)
57. “Each war has its own particular causes.” Is this the case, or can evidence be given that given that twentieth century wars have
common causes? Support your answer with evidence from at least two wars, each chosen from a different region. (1997)
58. What were the major developments in military technology from 1914 to 1945? (1997)
59. To what extent has war resolved the issues of conflict between Arabs and Israelis? (1997)
60. What do you understand by “total war”? Select one twentieth century war to illustrate your understanding. (1997)
61. “The First and Second World Wars were European civil wars that required outside intervention to settle.” How far do you agree
with this quotation? (SPC)
62. “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” How accurate was Marshall Foch’s assessment of the Treaty of
Versailles? (1995)
63. “Wars are caused by the miscalculation of the aggressor and the failure of politicians to exercise crisis management.” Discuss the
validity of this statement with reference to one twentieth century war. (1993)
64. Assess the significance and importance of air power in any two twentieth century wars. (1993)
65. “Peace settlements are ineffective unless accompanied by total military victory.” Does twentieth century warfare bear this out?
(1993)
66. “Wars create more problems than they solve.” Discuss this claim with reference to the causes and results of any two wars (each
chosen from a different region) during the twentieth century. (1992)
67. With reference to any civil war of the twentieth century, examine the social, economic and political background to the divisions in
the society involved. T Assess the importance of nationalism and of selfish ambition as causes of twentieth century wars.
Reference must be made to at least two wars. (2000) what extent were the problems which produced the war resolved in the post
war period? (1992)
68. To what extent has any twentieth century war changed the role of women? (SPEC)
69. “The First and Second World Wars were European civil wars that required outside intervention to settle.” How far do you agree
with this quotation? (SPEC)
IB History Paper 2 Past Questions and Markschemes
Topic 1 Causes, practices and effects of war
1. Analyse the results of either the First World War or the Second World War. (May 2005)
MOASG – 2012
Page
46
Candidates should understand by results, the actual results of the war – which side won, the effects upon both sides and the wider effects.
For the First World War, the winning side consisted of Britain and the Commonwealth, France, Italy, the USA and their allies. Both
winners and losers suffered financially, economically and socially, and the losers were subjected to the Treaty of Versailles and the other
treaties. Candidates could outline main clauses, and analyse their effects. The Ottoman, Austrian and German empires all ceased to exist.
No doubt many candidates will include the rise of Hitler, the Great Depression and the Second World War as results. For the Second
World War, again the allies of Britain, USA, France, and this time the USSR,
and their allies won the war. Results again were devastation and economic problems throughout Europe and in the Pacific region. The
main results to analyse could be: the defeat of Hitler and the Nazis; the Cold War; the rise of superpowers, the impetus to granting
independence to European colonies; the changing nature of Europe, perhaps leading to the European Union.
Candidates should know much and high marks will depend on analysis and selection.
[0 to 7 marks] for inadequate general comments.
[8 to 10 marks] for narrative with implicit analysis.
[11 to 13 marks] for suitable selection of material and explicit analysis.
[14 to 16 marks] for structured, analytical answers, focused on results.
[17+ marks] for balance, in-depth analysis and perhaps different interpretations.
2. Examine the impact of foreign intervention on either the Chinese Civil War or the Spanish Civil War. (May 2005)
Foreign intervention could be concerned with causes, course and results of the chosen civil war. As no dates are given, candidates can
either use the long term civil war in China, or concentrate on the period 1946 to 1949. Mao and the CCP received some assistance from
communist supporters, but their main strength was their own people, whereas the Kuomintang or KMT/GMD was aided by the USA
(which had tried to mediate between the two sides), and lost support because of this foreign element.
Both sides in the Spanish Civil War received foreign help, but the German and Italian support for Franco and the Nationalists was more
useful than the communist, socialist, anarchist etc. support given to the Republicans.
[0 to 7 marks] for general comments on the chosen civil war with no mention of foreign involvement.
[8 to 10 marks] for narrative which includes foreign intervention.
[11 to 13 marks] for explicit focus on foreign intervention.
[14 to 16 marks] for essays focused on foreign intervention which analyse impact.
[17+ marks] for perceptive interpretation of impact of foreign intervention.
3. Assess the social and economic causes of one twentieth century war. (May 2005)
This will probably not be a popular question, but candidates could use either of the world wars, assessing the social implications of
German (especially Nazi) social policies, such as Hitler’s wish for “living space” and anti-semitic policies. Economic factors were present
in causes of the First World War, with rivalry over colonies and financial implications of the arms’ race. Appeasement before the Second
World War was also the product to some extent of economic recession which prohibited rearming in Britain and France - and the Great
Depression was a factor in the success of Hitler in obtaining power.
[0 to 7 marks] for vague general answers.
[8 to 10 marks] for narrative/descriptive answers with implicit assessment.
[11 to 13 marks] for explicit assessment.
[14 to 16 marks] for well structured and focused analytical answers.
[17+ marks] for balance or different interpretations.
Topic 1 Causes, practices and effects of war
1. Evaluate the social and economic consequences of two twentieth century wars. (November 2004)
Emphasis should be on identifying and evaluating the types, nature, extent of changes produced as a result of war in social and economic
areas – supported by specific examples to substantiate claims. The relative emphasis given to each area of change may alter depending on
the conflicts selected, but responses should attempt to cover both areas as requested.
“Consequences” may be interpreted as occurring during the period of conflict or after such conflicts have ended. Social consequences
could refer to issues of – demographic imbalance as a result of deaths, infringement or curtailment of civil liberties – freedoms of speech,
press, assembly – changing roles/perceptions of females as a result of contributions made to a war effort, increased state control over the
life of the individual – conscription, requisition, rationing etc. Economic consequences could include – mobilization of work force behind
war effort,
industrial boom/slump, dislocation of pre-war trading and production patterns, agricultural disruption, inflation, increased taxation,
government borrowing, indemnities/reparations as a consequence of defeat, physical destruction/damage and post-war recovery needs. In
some cases profits could be made by individuals and the economic status of certain states improved
immeasurably – for example the USA as a creditor nation after both World wars.
N.B. If only one war is attempted mark out of maximum of [12].
[8 to 10 marks] for narrative/descriptive responses of two wars which cover the changes implicitly – but little evidence of an attempt at
evaluation or critical commentary. Likely to be an end-on account with insufficient focus.
[11 to 13 marks] will require a more explicit focus on the areas of change, providing specific examples – perhaps unbalanced in terms of
the areas and/or the treatment of the two wars selected. Evaluation present but not fully developed.
[14 to 16 + marks] will be awarded for a structured (possibly thematic) approach as opposed to end-on account. Evaluation will be present
and developed and evidence provided to support the arguments. Balanced in terms of the treatment of both areas and the two wars chosen.
MOASG – 2012
Page
47
At the top end of the band a high level of analysis/critical commentary, a strong supporting base of relevant and accurate information
concerning the types, extent, nature of changes will be present.
2. How valid is the claim that in 1914 states went to war due to fear rather than for motives of gain? (November 2004)
The question requires candidates to consider the motives of the various states in Europe (and their respective empires) for entry into the
First World War. A popular question no doubt, which could produce an avalanche of pre-learned or pre-planned responses on the Origins
of World War One: such responses are unlikely to score well. The question indicates two areas/issues for particular consideration i.e.
“fear” and “gain” and both areas should be addressed. The “How valid” invitation permits candidates not just to consider the relative
merits of “fear” and “gain” but allows for identification of other motives which they may feel to be significant. Stronger responses will no
doubt produce such an approach. Belgium, for example, had little time to worry about either issue in 1914 and found itself at war for quite
simple reasons. “Fear” could be linked to individual states – e.g. German fear of encirclement, Russian fear of diplomatic
failure/humiliation, Vienna’s fear of Pan-Slavism/Serb Nationalism and anxiety over imperial disintegration, British fears of
naval/economic challenges. “Gain” could be linked to desires (overt or covert) of various states by 1914 which, it was believed, might be
achievable through military means/war. Such gains might be territorial, economic, diplomatic, irredentist, etc.
N.B. The First World War provides much opportunity for investigation and examination of other motives and the problem will not be a
lack of detail in responses, but a plethora of indiscriminately selected and deployed material.
[8 to 10 marks] for answers which are largely descriptive but which do touch upon the issues of “fear/gain” albeit in little convincing depth
before moving on to other areas. Responses may in some cases give the impression of a learned response approach.
[11 to 13 marks] will consider the issues of “fear “ and “gain” explicitly, though specific examples of each may be limited and/or
unbalanced. The “How valid” element will be identified and tackled though the level of analysis and provision of alternative motives may
not be well developed.
[14 to 16 marks] may be awarded for responses that deal effectively with both issues of “fear” and “gain”, provide convincing, accurate,
substantiation of each and address the issue of “How valid” effectively. Investigation of other possible motives of the powers involved
(individually or collectively) may be apparent and once more, specific examples provided as evidence.
[17+ marks] as above but candidates will provide accurate detailed knowledge and reveal evidence of wide reading and/or different
interpretations concerning motives/motivation of the warring states.
Topic 1 Causes, practices and effects of war
1. In what ways did the causes of the Second World War differ from the causes of the First World War? (May 2004)
The best way to approach this question is probably to explain the causes of the Second World War, showing how each one differed from
causes in the First World War. Germany should be considered as a cause of both; for the Second World War it was Hitler’s aggression,
which was probably more important than the Kaiser’s policies and ambitions in the First World War. Nationalism in the Second World
War was mainly Hitler’s desire for “living space”, in the First World War it was mainly in the Balkans. Similarly Imperialism if present in
the Second World War, was different from the desire for colonies in the First World War.
Appeasement has been considered as a cause of the Second World War, whereas the arms race was important for the First World War. The
alliances and failure of diplomacy, could be discussed for both. It was Hitler’s invasion of Poland that sparked the Second World War,
whereas the assassination at Sarajevo began the events that led to the First World War. Versailles was a cause of the Second World War
only. No doubt many candidates will attempt to give the causes of both wars end-on, and this will take too much time. Candidates should
be selective and focus on differences.
[7 marks] and under if only one war is addressed.
[8 to 10 marks] for end-on accounts of both wars with implicit differences.
[11 to 13 marks] for a structure focused on differences or good linkage.
[14 to 16 marks] for focus on and analysis of differences.
[17+ marks] for different interpretations or perception of differences and similarities.
4. Analyse the results of two wars, each chosen from a different region. (May 2004)
The results of the wars will of course depend on the wars chosen, which could be global or limited, but should include the effects on and
for both, winners and losers, or at least the main participants in major wars. Areas to consider are political, social and economic results at
home, the ways in which the war has strengthened or weakened the country being analysed, its changes in status as a regional or world
power, and where relevant, Cold War politics. Candidates are probably more likely to concentrate on wider results and issues, than detailed
domestic circumstances and changes (except perhaps after the First World War). Allow the Second World War as two wars, Europe and
the Pacific, but candidates would probably be wiser to use conflicts involving fewer countries such as the Spanish Civil War or Korean
War, where analysis can be in greater depth.
[8 to 10 marks] for descriptive or narrative accounts with implicit analysis.
[11 to 13 marks] for more explicit analysis.
[14 to 16+ marks] for focus on and specific analysis of, results.
N.B. If only one war or one region is addressed, mark out of [12].
1. Assess critically three causes of the First World War. (Nov 2003)
Probably candidates will choose from three of the following causes of the First World War; alliances; the Balkans; imperialism; the arms’
race; naval rivalry between Germany and Britain; German militarism; the assassination at Sarajevo. Accept any other legitimate cause and
MOASG – 2012
Page
48
different wording from those above. Candidates need to explain each of their chosen causes and assess their part in causing the war, for
example how important they were relatively in causing the war.
Mark out of [7] for each cause approximately, or mark as a whole with:
[0 to 7 marks] for short or inaccurate attempts, or a brief general causes answer.
[8 to 10 marks] for basic accounts and at least implicit assessment of the chosen three causes.
[11 to 13 marks] for fuller accounts and explicit assessment.
[14 to 16 marks] for full analysis of the three causes.
[17+ marks] for a further dimension such as different interpretations of the selected causes.
2. Compare and contrast the causes of two wars (excluding the First World War) each chosen from a different region. (Nov 2003)
This is a comparative question requiring candidates to consider the similarities and differences of the causes of two wars. As the First
World War is the subject of the previous question it has been excluded. Candidates may well choose the Second World War together with
perhaps the Vietnam or Korean War, but of course allow any non European War, and as the Second World War developed outside Europe,
candidates could elect to answer both parts on it, the European aspect, and the war in the Pacific. Causes should include long term and
immediate.
[0 to 7 marks] for a vague inadequate attempt, or addressing only one war.
[8 to 10 marks] for end-on accounts with only implicit comparison.
[11 to 13 marks] for explicit comparison.
[14 to 16 marks] for acceptable details in a comparative structure.
[17+ marks] for excellent insight, or perhaps different interpretations.
Topic 1: Causes, practices and effects of war
1. What were the most frequent causes of twentieth century wars? Specific evidence from at least three wars should be used. (May
2003)
Candidates need to indicate the most frequent causes of twentieth century wars and give specific evidence from the wars in which each
cause was involved. They should also analyse why the causes were so prevalent in the twentieth century. Some causes to include would be:
 nationalism, wars to use as examples could include both world wars, Balkan wars, wars of decolonization, Arab-Israeli wars;
various suggestions for twentieth century nationalism could be suggested such as its use or misuse by rulers or would-be rulers, as
a political tool, as a result of the decline of imperial powers, etc.aggression and the wish for conquest, e.g. Mussolini’s invasion of
Abyssinia, Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, Hitler and the Second World War. The reasons for aggression by rulers and states need

fear, this could account for some participation in both world wars, Arab-Israeli wars, Korea and Vietnam, and is often a factor in
war and politics.
 religion, Arab-Israeli wars, an age old cause often used as a cover.
 East West rivalry or Cold War politics, e.g. Korea and Vietnam.
The above are some suggestions. No doubt others will also be used, and some candidates will tackle the question by selecting three wars
and discussing the causes.
[8 to 10 marks] for a mainly narrative account of the causes of three wars.
[11 to 13 marks] for causes of three wars with assessment of their importance and frequency.
[14 to 16 marks] for answers structured around causes with specific examples and analysis.
[17+ marks] for answers with detail, insight and perceptive comments.
2. In what ways, and to what extent, was the Second World War “total war”? (May 2003)
Candidates need to give a definition of “total war”, such as a war in which all the nation’s resources economic, financial, human and
ideological are mobilized in the war effort in order to win. This could be argued as true of Britain, Germany, Japan and USSR, but not
USA. Specific details should be given of the areas listed, and an assessment made on “to what extent”.In the past answers have tended to
be too general with insufficient detail on vital areas such as conscription, direction of labour and resources, legislation curtailing freedom
of action etc.
[7 marks] and below for unsubstantiated generalizations.
[8 to 10 marks] for descriptions of some of the above.
[11 to 13 marks] for better focus and detail.
[14 to 16+ marks] for specific coverage of most or all of the relevant elements.
3. How and why did technological developments play an important part in twentieth century wars? (May 2003)
The twentieth century probably saw the greatest changes in warfare in history, because of the century’s technological revolution. “How” –
would cover the changes in fighting methods, on land, sea, and in the air, with transport and weaponry developments, both offensive and
defensive, which led to different tactics and strategies. “Why” – would cover the reasons for development and changes, research,
resources, transference of peace time inventions to weapons of war, etc. There are many ways to tackle this open-ended question, but
selection and focus, as well as detail and analysis are necessary for good marks. Of course the point could be made that in some areas, such
as in guerrilla warfare, much remains the same.
[7 marks] and below for inadequate general answers.
[8 to 10 marks] for descriptions or narratives of key changes.
MOASG – 2012
[11 to 13 marks] for focus on how and why with specific examples.
[14 to 16 marks] for structured analytical answers which explain changes.
[17+ marks] for insight and perception.
Page
49
MOASG – 2012
Page
50
Subject 1 Study Guide
IB 20th Century World History Topics
Paris Peace Conference
The Paris Peace Conference was the meeting of the Allied victors in World War I to set the peace terms for Germany and other
defeated nations, and to deal with the empires of the defeated powers following the Armistice of 1918.

They met, discussed and came up with a series of treaties (Peace of Paris Treaties) in an attempt to maintain a lasting peace
throughout the world.

At its center were the leaders of the three "Great Powers": President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Prime Minister David
Lloyd George of Britain, and Georges Clemenceau of France. Russia and Germany were not allowed to attend, but thousands of others
came, each with a different agenda.
Georges Clemenceau

The chief goal of the French leader, Georges Clemenceau, was to weaken Germany militarily, strategically, and economically. In
particular, Clemenceau sought an American and British guarantee of French security in the event of another German attack.
Clemenceau also expressed skepticism and frustration with Wilson's Fourteen Points.
Vittorio Orlando

Vittorio Orlando was sent as the Italian representative with the aim of gaining as much territory as possible. The loss of 700,000
Italians and a budget deficit of 12,000,000,000 Lire during the war made the Italian government and people feel entitled to territories.
England


Goals of England: David Lloyd George wanted to maintain the British Empire's unity, holdings and interests, but it entered the
conference with the more specific goals of:

Ensuring the security of France

Removing the threat of the German Fleet

Settling territorial contentions

Supporting the Wilsonian League of Nations
with that order of priority.
Wilson’s Fourteen Points


1. Open covenants of peace.

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas.

3. Removal all economic barriers.

4. Reduce armaments.

5. An adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon popular soveriegnty.
Wilson’s Fourteen Points

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and settle all questions affecting Russia.

7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored.

8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored.

9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.
MOASG – 2012




Page
51
10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.
11. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure
access to the sea.
12. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty.
13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish
populations.
Wilson’s Fourteen Points


6-13. Specific territorial adjustments
14. A general association of nations (League of Nations) must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording
mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.
2. What were the terms of the Paris Peace Treaties 1919‑ 20: Versailles, St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sèvres/Lausanne 1923?
Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I. It ended the state of war between Germany and
the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919. Although the armistice signed on 11 November 1918 ended the actual fighting, it
took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty.

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept sole responsibility for
causing the war (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to the
Entente powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion marks ($31.5 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921.
Treaty of Versailles

Article 227 charges former German Emperor, Wilhelm II with supreme offence against international morality. He is to be tried as a
war criminal.

The Rhineland will become a demilitarized administered by Great Britain and France jointly.

German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.

Treaty of Versailles

German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships, 6 cruisers, 6 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats. No submarines are to
be included.

The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited.

Armed aircraft, tanks and armored cars are prohibited.

Blockades on ships are prohibited.

Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns and rifles.
Treaty of Saint Germain

The Treaty of Saint Germain, was signed on 10 September 1919 by the victorious Allies and by the new Republic of Austria. It was
not ratified by the United States.

MOASG – 2012
Page
52
The treaty declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was to be dissolved. The new Republic of Austria, consisting of most of
the German-speaking Alpine part of the former Austrian Empire, recognized the independence of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
and the State of Slovenes, Croatians and Serbs. The treaty included war reparations of large sums of money, directed towards the
allies, to pay for the costs of the war.
Treaty of Trianon

The Treaty of Trianon was the peace treaty concluded in 1920 at the end of World War I by the Allies and Hungary, seen as a
successor of Austria-Hungary. The treaty established the borders of Hungary. Hungary lost over 72% of the territory it had previously
controlled, which left 64% of the inhabitants, including 3.3 out of 10.7 million (31%) ethnic Hungarians, living outside Hungary.

In addition, the newly established nation of Hungary had to pay war reparations to its neighbors.
Treaty of Neuilly

The Treaty of Neuilly, dealing with Bulgaria for its role as one of the Central powers in World War I, was signed on Nov. 27, 1919
at Neuilly, France.

The treaty required Bulgaria to cede Western Thrace to Greece, thereby cutting off its direct outlet to the Aegean Sea. The
treaty also forced Bulgaria to return Southern Doubria, which had been captured during the war.

Bulgaria was also required to reduce its army to 20,000 men, pay reparations exceeding $400 million, and recognize the existence
of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
Treaty of Severes

The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allied at the end of World War I. The
treaty nullified the territorial gains of the empire during the war.

3. What were the geopolitical and economic impact of the treaties on Europe; the establishment and impact of the mandate system?
Impact of the Treaty of Versailles

Treaty of Versailles: Clemenceau had failed to achieve all of the demands of the French people, and he was voted out of office in
the elections of January 1920. French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, declared, "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty
years."

After Wilson's successor Warren Harding continued American opposition to the League of Nations, Congress passed the
Knox-Porter Resolution bringing a formal end to hostilities between the United States and the Central Powers.
Treaty of Versailles impact on Germany

Germans of all political shades denounced the treaty—particularly the provision that blamed Germany for starting the war—as an
insult to the nation's honor. They referred to the treaty as "the Diktat" since its terms were presented to Germany on a take-it-or-leaveit basis. Germany's first democratically elected Chancellor, Phillip Schneidmann refused to sign the treaty and resigned.

The German economy was so weak that only a small percentage of reparations was paid in hard currency. Nonetheless, even the
payment of this small percentage of the original reparations (132 billion Gold Reich marks) still placed a significant burden on the
German economy.

The economic strain eventually reached the point where Germany stopped paying the reparations agreed in the Treaty of
Versailles. As a result French and Belgian forces invaded and occupied the Ruhr, a heavily industrialized part of Germany along the
French-German border.
Impact of Treaty of Saint Germain

Treaty of St. Germain: The vast reduction of population, territory and resources of the new Austria relative to the old empire wreaked
havoc on the economy of the new nation.
Impact of the Treaty of Trianon


Although the treaty addressed some nationality issues, it also sparked new ones at the same time.
After the new borders had been established, a majority of the 3.3 million Hungarians who lived in now-foreign lands were
situated just outside the new border lines and were not given the option of self-determination and were unhappy.

MOASG – 2012
Page
53
Mandate System
A League of Nations mandate refers to certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World
War I. Which included a minority rights clause and an International Court. The mandate system was established under Article 22 of
the League of Nations.

All the territories subject to League of Nations mandates were previously controlled by states defeated in World War I,
principally Germany and the Ottoman Empire.
Class A Mandates

The mandates were divided into three distinct groups based upon the level of development each population had achieved at that time.

Class A mandates

The first group or Class A mandates were areas formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to have reached a
stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to a lead country until they
are able to stand alone.
Class B Mandates

Class B mandates

The second group or Class B mandates were all former German territories in the Sub-Saharan regions of West and Central Africa,
which were deemed to require a greater level of control by the mandatory power: "...the Mandatory must be responsible for the
administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion." The mandatory power was
forbidden to construct military or naval bases within the mandates.
Class C mandates

Class C mandates

A final group, the Class C mandates, including South-West Africa and the South Pacific Islands, were considered to be "best
administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory“.

They essentially became colonies of the Mandates.

The Class C mandates were former German possessions.

4. What were the mechanisms used for the enforcement of the provisions of the treaties: US isolationism—the retreat from the Anglo–
American Guarantee; disarmament—Washington, London, Geneva conferences.
US Isolationism

In the wake of the First World War, the isolationist tendencies of US foreign policy were in full force. First, the United States
Congress rejected president Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations.

Although the United States was unwilling to commit to the League of Nations, they were willing to engage in foreign affairs
on their own terms. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank
Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States
commitment to international peace.
Anglo-American Guarantee

The French still regarded the Germans as a major threat to their security after WWI. They wanted Germany divided into separate
states, or, failing that, they wanted extensive precautions against future German aggression. The French were promised an AngloAmerican guarantee of French borders.

Without consulting their militaries, Lloyd George and Wilson offered the Treaty to the French as a means to head off the
separation of the Rhineland from Germany. The Treaty of Guarantee achieved widespread bipartisan support in the United States
Senate and in the British Parliament. When the Versailles Treaty failed to achieve ratification in the Senate, however, the Treaty of
Guarantee sank with it. This led Lloyd George to renege on his commitment, too.
Washington Naval Conference

MOASG – 2012
Page
54
The Washington Naval Conference also called the Washington Arms Conference, was a military conference called by President
Harding and held in Washington D.C. from Nov. 12 1921 to Feb. 6, 1922. Conducted outside the auspices of the League of Nations, it
was attended by nine nations having interests in the pacific ocean and east Asia.

The Washington Naval Treaty led to an effective end to building new battleship fleets and those few ships that were built were
limited in size and armament. Numbers of existing capital ships were scrapped. Some ships under construction were turned into
aircraft carriers instead.
London Naval Treaty

The London Naval Treaty was an agreement between the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy and the United States, signed on
April 22, 1930, which regulated submarine warfare and limited naval shipbuilding.
Geneva Naval Conference


The Geneva Naval Conference was a conference held to discuss naval arms limitation, held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1927.
Badly needed restraints were applied to the naval arms race by the treaties stemming from the Washington Conference (192122), but those agreements were largely confined to limitations on battleships and aircraft carriers.

Talks dragged on for nearly six weeks during which tensions rose among the former Allies. In early August, the delegates
adjourned without reaching any agreement.

5. Explain the role of the League of Nations: effects of the absence of major powers; the principle of collective security and early
attempts at peacekeeping (1920‑ 5).
League of Nations

The League of Nations was an inter-governmental organization founded as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919–1920. The
League's goals included upholding the new found rights of man, rights of women, rights of soldiers, disarmament, preventing war
through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global quality of life.

The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift in thought from the preceding hundred years. The
League lacked its own armed force and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, keep to economic sanctions which
the League ordered, or provide an army, when needed, for the League to use.
Weaknesses of the League

The origins of the League as an organization created by the Allied Powers as part of the peace settlement to end the First World
War led to it being viewed as a "League of Victors". It also tied the League to the Treaty of Versailles, so that when the Treaty became
discredited and unpopular, this reflected on the League of Nations.

The League's supposed neutrality tended to manifest itself as indecision. It required a unanimous vote of its nine, later fifteen,
member Council to enact a resolution; hence, conclusive and effective action was difficult, if not impossible. It was also slow in coming
to its decisions as certain decisions required the unanimous consent of the entire Assembly.
Absence of Major Powers

Representation at the League was often a problem. Though it was intended to encompass all nations, many never joined, or their
time as part of the League was short. Most notably missing was America who was supposed to help ensure world peace and security but
also in financing the League.

Some have suggested that, had the United States been a member of the League, it would have also provided backup to France and
Britain, possibly making France feel more secure and so encouraging France and Britain to co-operate more regarding Germany and
so made the rise to power of the Nazi party less likely.

Some also acknowledge that if America had been a member of the League, its reluctance to engage in war with European states
and to enact economic sanctions may have hampered the ability of the League to deal with international incidents.
Failure of Collective Security

Another important weakness grew from the contradiction between the idea of collective security and international relations
between individual states. The collective security system the League used meant that nations were required to act against states they
considered friends, and in a way that might endanger their national interests, to support states that they had no affinity with.

MOASG – 2012
Page
55
This weakness was exposed during the Abyssinia Crisis when Britain and France had to balance attempts to maintain the security
they had attempted to create for themselves in Europe, in which Italy's support played a pivotal role, with their obligations to Abyssinia
as a member of the League.

On 23 June 1936, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin told the House of Commons that collective security had "failed
ultimately because of the reluctance of nearly all the nations in Europe to proceed to what I might call military sanctions ... The real
reason, or the main reason, was that we discovered in the process of weeks that there was no country except the aggressor country
which was ready for war.”
Resolving territorial disputes

The aftermath of World War I left many issues to be settled between nations, including the exact position of national
boundaries and which country particular regions would join. Most of these questions were handled by the victorious Allied in bodies
such as the Allied Supreme Council.

The Allies tended to refer only particularly difficult matters to the League. This meant that, during the first three years of the
1920s, the League played little part in resolving the turmoil that resulted from the war.

The questions the League considered in its early years included those designated by the Paris Peace treaties.
Upper Silesia

After the First World War, Poland laid claim to Upper Silesia, which had been part of Prussia. The Treaty of Versailles had
recommended a plebiscite in Upper Silesia to determine whether the territory should be part of Germany or Poland.

Complaints about the attitude of the German authorities led to rioting and eventually to the first two Silesian Uprisings (1919 and
1920).

In November 1921 a conference was held in Geneva to negotiate a convention between Germany and Poland. A final settlement
was reached, in which most of the area was given to Germany but with the Polish section containing the majority of the region's
mineral resources and much of its industry.

When this agreement became public in May 1922, bitter resentment was expressed in Germany, but the treaty was still ratified by
both countries.
Albania

The frontiers of Albania had not been set during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and had not yet been determined by
September 1921. This created an unstable situation with Greek troops repeatedly crossing into Albanian territory on military
operations.

The League sent a commission of representatives to the region and in November 1921, the League decided that the frontiers of
Albania should be the same as they had been in 1913 with three minor changes that favored Yugoslavia. Yugoslav forces withdrew a
few weeks later, albeit under protest.

The borders of Albania again become the cause of international conflict when Italian General Tellini and four of his assistants
were ambushed and killed on 24 August 1923 while marking out the newly decided border between Greece and Albania.

Mussolini was incensed, and demanded that a commission be set up to investigate the incident and that the Greek government
should pay Italy fifty million lira reparations. The Greeks said they would not pay unless it was proved that the crime was committed by
Greeks.
Albania Cont.

Mussolini sent a warship to shell the Greek island of Corfu and Italian forces occupied Corfu on 31 August 1923. Greece appealed
to the League to deal with the situation.

Greece was forced to pay fifty million lira to Italy even though those who committed the crime were never discovered. Mussolini
was able to leave Corfu in triumph.
Mukden Incident

The Mukden Incident, also known as the "Manchurian Incident", was one of the League's major setbacks and acted as the
catalyst for Japan's withdrawal from the organization.

MOASG – 2012
Page
56
Under the terms of an agreed lease, the Japanese government had the right to station its troops around the South Manchurian
Railway, in the Chinese region of Manchuria.

In September 1931, a section of the railway was lightly damaged by officers and troops of the Japanese Kwantung Army as a
pretext for an invasion of Manchuria.

The Japanese army, however, claimed that Chinese soldiers had sabotaged the railway and in apparent retaliation (acting contrary
to the civilian government's orders) occupied the entire region of Manchuria.

They renamed the area Manchukuo, and on 9 March 1932 set up a puppet government.
Mukden Incident Cont.

The League of Nations agreed to help the Chinese government, but the long voyage by ship delayed League officials from
investigating the matter.

The Lytton Report declared Japan to be the aggressor and demanded Manchuria be returned to the Chinese. Before the report
could be voted on by the Assembly, Japan announced its intention to push further into China. The report passed 42-1 in the Assembly
in 1933 (only Japan voted against), but instead of withdrawing its troops from China, Japan withdrew its membership from the League.

The League should have responded by placing economic sanctions on Japan, or gathered an army and declared war. Neither
of these actions was undertaken, however. The League could have assembled an army, but major powers like Britain and France were
too preoccupied with their own affairs, such as keeping control of their extensive colonies, especially after the turmoil of World War I.
Japan was therefore left in control of Manchuria, until the Soviet Union’s Red Army took over the area and returned it to China at the
end of World War II.


6. What was the Ruhr Crisis (1923); Locarno and the “Locarno Spring” (1925)?
Ruhr Crisis (1923-24)
The Occupation of the Ruhr, by troops from France and Belgium, was a response to the failure of the German Weimar Republic to
pay reparations in the aftermath of World War I.

By late 1922, the German defaults on payments had grown so serious and regular that French and Belgian delegates were
urging the seizure of the Ruhr as a way of encouraging the Germans to make more effort to pay, and the British delegate urging a
lowering of the payments.

As a consequence of an enormous German default on timber deliveries in December 1922, the Reparations Commission declared
Germany in default, which led to the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.
Ruhr Crisis Cont


French Prime Minister Poincaré decided to occupy the Ruhr in 11 January 1923 to extract the reparations himself.
Poincaré often argued to the British that if the Germans could get away with defying Versailles in regards to the reparations, then a
precedent would be created, and inevitably the Germans would proceed to dismantle the rest of the Versailles treaty.

Finally, Poincaré argued that once the chains that had bound Germany in Versailles had been destroyed, then it was inevitable that
Germany would once more plunge the world back into another world war.

The invasion took place on January 11, 1923, with the aim of occupying the centre of German coal, iron and steel production in the
Ruhr area valley, in order to gain the money that Germany owed. France had the iron ore and Germany had the coal.
Locarno Treaties

The Locarno Treaties were seven agreements negotiated at Locarno, Switzerland on Oct. 5 – 16, 1925 and formally signed in
London on Dec. 1, in which the Western European Allied powers and the new states of central and Eastern Europe sought to secure
the post-war territorial settlement, normalizing relations with defeated Germany (which was, by this time, the Weimar Republic).

Locarno divided borders in Europe into two categories: western, which were guaranteed by Locarno treaties, and eastern borders
(of Germany), which were open for revision.

MOASG – 2012
Page
57
The principal treaty concluded at Locarno was the "Rhineland Pact" between Germany, France, Belgium, Britain, and Italy. The
first three signatories undertook not to attack each other, with the latter two acting as guarantors. In the event of aggression by any of
the first three states against another, all other parties were to assist the country under attack.
Locarno Spring (1925)

The Locarno Treaties were regarded as the keystone of the improved western European diplomatic climate of 1924-1930,
introducing a hope for international peace, typically called the "spirit of Locarno". This spirit was seen in Germany's admission to the
League of Nations, the international organization established under the Versailles treaty to promote world peace and co-operation, and
in the subsequent withdrawal (completed in June 1930) of Allied troops from Germany's western Rhineland.


7. What were the effects of the Great Depression and threats to international peace and collective security: Manchuria (1931 ‑ 3)
and Abyssinia (1935‑ 6)?
Effects of Great Depression
The majority of countries set up relief programs, and most underwent some sort of political upheaval, pushing them to the left
or right. In some states, the desperate citizens turned toward nationalist demagogues—the most infamous being Adolf Hitler-setting the
stage for World War II in 1939.

Germany's Weimar Republic was hit hard by the depression, as American loans to help rebuild the German economy now
stopped. Unemployment soared, especially in larger cities, and the political system veered toward extremism.

The unemployment rate reached nearly 30% in 1932.
Effects of Great Depression

Japan


The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31.
Soviet Union

Having removed itself from the capitalist world system both by choice and as a result of efforts of the capitalist powers to
isolate it, the Great Depression had little effect on the Soviet Union.
Effects of Great Depression

United Kingdom


The effects on the industrial areas of Britain were immediate and devastating, as demand for British products collapsed.
By the end of 1930 unemployment had more than doubled from 1 million to 2.5 million (20% of the insured workforce), and
exports had fallen in value by 50%.
Manchurian Invasion

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army of Japan, beginning on September 19, 1931, immediately followed
the Mukden Incident. The Japanese occupation of Manchuria lasted until the end of World War II.

In violation of orders from Tokyo, Kwantung Army commander in chief General Shigeru Honjo ordered that his forces
rapidly proceed to expand operations all along the South Manchurian Railway.

The Japanese civilian government was thrown into disarray by this massive act of insubordination, but as reports of one quick
victory after another began to pour in, it was powerless to oppose the Army, and its decision was to immediately send three more
infantry divisions from Japan, beginning with the 14th Mixed Brigade of the IJA 7th Division.

A.J.P. Taylor wrote that "In the face of its first serious challenge", the League buckled and capitulated.
Abyssinia Crisis

The Abyssinia Crisis was a diplomatic crisis originating in the "Walwal incident." This incident resulted from the ongoing
conflict between the Kingdom of Italy and Ethiopia (then commonly known as "Abyssinia").

MOASG – 2012
Page
58
Both Italy and Ethiopia were members of the League of Nations. Italy was a founding member of the League. Ethiopia joined
September 28, 1923. The League had Article X, rules forbidding aggression among members.

On August 2, 1928, in addition to abiding by Article X, Italy and Ethiopia signed the Italo–Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship. This
treaty declared a 20-year friendship between the two nations.
Abyssinia Crisis

In 1930, Italy built a fort at Walwal. The fort was in clear violation of the Italo–Abyssinian Treaty of Friendship. The Italians
built the fort as part of a gradual encroachment into Ethiopian territory.

On September 29, 1934, Italy and Abyssinia released a joint statement refuting any aggression between each other. However, on
November 23, an Anglo–Ethiopian boundary commission discovered the Italian force at Walwal.

On December 5, 1934, for reasons which have never been clearly determined there was a skirmish between the garrison of
Somalis who were in Italian service and a force of armed Abyssinians. According to the Italians, the Ethiopians attacked the Somalis
with machine guns. According to the Ethiopians, the Italians attacked them. In the end, approximately 150 Ethiopians and 50 Italians
were killed.

On December 6, 1934, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia protested Italian aggression at Walwal. On December 8, Italy
demanded an apology and, on December 11, followed up this demand with a demand for financial and strategic compensation.

Abyssinia Crisis
On January 3, 1935, Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations for arbitration in the Walwal incident. But the League's
response was dull and sluggish.

On February 23, Mussolini began to send large numbers of troops to Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. These were the Italian
colonies that bordered Ethiopia to the northeast and southeast. There was little international protest to this build-up.

On October 3, 1935, shortly after the League exonerated both parties in the Walwal incident, Italian armed forces from Eritrea
invaded Ethiopia without a declaration of war. In response, Ethiopia declared war on Italy and the two nations were at war.

On October 7, the League of Nations declared Italy the aggressor and started the slow process of imposing sanctions. However,
these sanctions did not extend to several vital materials, such as oil and were not carried out by all members of the League.

Even actions such as the Italian use of chemical weapons and the massacre of civilians did little to change the League's passive
approach to the situation.
