CORE CONTENT QUESTIONS:

WHY HAD INTERNATIONAL PEACE COLLAPSED BY 1939?

1. Little stood in the way of Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy.

(a) Describe the takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1938–39. [4]

After Anschluss, Hitler’s confidence was growing tremendously and hence he wanted to take over
Czechoslovakia. In 1938, Hitler made it clear that he would invade Czechoslovakia if necessary.
Moreover, Chamberlain and Hitler met, and Hitler demanded only parts of the Sudetenland in
Czechoslovakia. However, in a second meeting, The Munich Pact was signed on 30 September 1938,
giving Hitler all of the Sudetenland. Hitler demanded all parts of the Sudetenland and in 1939, German
troops invaded Sudetenland.

(b) Why did Britain react differently to Germany’s aggression towards Czechoslovakia and
towards Poland? [6]

Britain reacted differently to Germany’s aggression toward Czechoslovakia and towards Poland for
multiple reasons.

To begin with, the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia was ethnically German and had a large number of
Germans in the area. Therefore, Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain, felt that it was reasonable for
Hitler to desire the area of Sudetenland. To add on, he felt that if he grants this request, Hitler would be
satisfied and not demand anything more. However, in the case of Poland, the British had not only
promised to support them if Germany invaded them, but also the number of German populations in
Poland was not great either, therefore Britain felt there was not a strong enough reason to invade Hitler; it
was one step too far. Henceforth, they demanded that Hitler withdraw his forces from Poland.

(c) ‘The Nazi–Soviet Pact was the reason why Hitler invaded Poland.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.

Introduction:

- Context of the Nazi-Soviet pact – what was it, when was it signed who it consisted of
- Give a background about why Hitler wanted to invade Poland
- Other factors that allowed him to invade Poland  he wanted to invade them long before the
Nazi-Soviet pact –> one of his main aims in his foreign policy written in Mein Kampf  wanted
to give Germany living space in the eats and Poland was one of the targeted areas  believed
Germany needed living space for its survival  therefore he would have invaded Poland anyway
- Also, another reason is that Poles were persecuting Germans who lived in Poland, and therefore
we wanted to invade Poland in order to protect them
 PARA ONE: YES, NAZI-SOVIET PACT WAS REASON WHY HITLER INVADED POLAND

- The Nazi-Soviet pact was the was the primary reason because:
- Hitler felt that Britain and France would do very little if he invaded Poland; he was more
concerned about Russia as he knew he could not do anything about Poland without the
intervention of Russia.
- The pact therefore meant Russia would not attack Germany, saving Hitler from a two-front war
and stated that the land would get divided between the two countries, which was safer for Hitler
as could invade Poland with ease. However, he never promised Stalin to keep these territories and
hence by signing this pact, Hitler could ease into invading the entire land of Poland
- This was shown when the pact was signed on the 24th of august  Hitler invaded Poland a week
later

PARA TWO: NO, NAZI-SOVIET PACT WAS NOT THE REASON WHY HITLER INVADED
POLAND
- Hitler wanted to invade them long before the Nazi-Soviet pact –> one of his main aims in his
foreign policy written in Mein Kampf  wanted to give Germany living space in the eats and
Poland was one of the targeted areas  believed Germany needed living space for its survival 
therefore he would have invaded Poland anyway
- Also, another reason is that Poles were persecuting Germans who lived in Poland, and therefore
we wanted to invade Poland in order to protect them

A number of factors helped Hitler achieve his foreign policy objectives.

(a) What was the Nazi-Soviet Pact? [4]

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was an agreement between the leaders of Germany, Hitler, and USSR,
Stalin. They agreed to not attack one another and to divide Poland between them. Neither
country would ally itself to an enemy of the other party. It was signed on the 23rd of August 1939
and it cleared the way for Hitler to invade Poland and meant that Germany would not have to
fight a war on two fronts.

(b) Why was Mussolini’s support over Anschluss important to Hitler? [6]

Mussolini’s support over Anschluss was important to Hitler because he looked upon it great
interest unlike in 1934. Mussolini had stopped Hitler from invading Austria in 1934 as he was
worried that Hitler would demand the return of Italian territories that had been ruled by Austria
once. Mussolini was as powerful as Hitler and if anyone could stop Anschluss, it was Mussolini.
Thus, his support was extremely important as Hitler could invade Austria without any objections.
To add on, Mussolini’s support meant that Hitler could ger away with other aspects of his
foreign policy. If Italy did nothing about Anschluss, Britain and France would subsequently not
do anything either.
(c) ‘The Munich Agreement made war more, not less, likely.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.

e.g. ‘It made war more likely. The agreement showed Hitler that the European countries were not
going to stand up to him. He could continue to demand more and powers like Britain and France
would give in every time. This encouraged him to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia and then in
September 1939 he invaded Poland. Britain and France had said they would declare war on
Germany if Poland was invaded. Hitler did not believe them because of the way they gave in
over the Munich Agreement. When they did declare war Hitler was shocked. As a result of the
Munich Agreement, Hitler thought he would get away with anything.’ OR e.g. ‘I think it made
war less likely. Hitler was ready to invade Czechoslovakia and take the Sudetenland. War
seemed imminent Trenches were even being dug in Hyde Park in London in preparation for a
war. The agreement meant that war was averted at this point since Hitler had got what he
wanted. Chamberlain said the agreement had brought ‘peace in our time’, and others agreed with
him. It is clear that the agreement made war less likely.’

- Both Iran and Iraq saw much violence in the period 1970 to 1991.
(a) What was Operation Desert Storm? [4]

- (b) Why were Iran and Iraq at war by 1980? [6]

By 1980, Iran and Iraq were at war for multiple reasons, which began with Saddam’s invasion of
Iraq. Firstly, there was rivalry between the leaders of Iraq and Iran. Ayatollah Khomeni, the
leader of Iran, had called upon the Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. This was
due to a religious dispute; the majority of the Iraqi population were Shiite muslims whereas
Saddam and his allies were Sunni muslims. Hence, Saddam saw Khomeni’s influence at threat;
giving way to his invasion of Iran. To add on, Saddam Hussein saw a war with Iran as a great
way to gain valuable territory. Iraq’s access to the sea was very narrow while Iran had a long
coastline and several ports through which they could export oil. In specific, Iraq wanted to gain
complete control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway to gain a secure outlet to the sea. Henceforth,
Iran and Iraq were at war as Saddam wanted to gain Iran’s valuable territory. Lastly, Saddam
has evidence that Iran was involved in the assassination of the leading members of the Baathist
Party in Iraq. He feared that they were plotting to overthrow him as well. Thus, Iran and Iraq
were at war by 1980 due to Saddam’s fears of his regime being overthrown by the Iranians. In
conclusion, the main reasons as to why Iran and Iraq were at war by 1980 was due to the
Iranian revolution, threats to the Iraqi regime, and valuable territories.

‘I think the main reason was the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This brought Khomeini to power and a strict
Islamic regime was established, ruled by Shiite Muslims. Iraq, on the other hand, was a secular state ruled
by Sunni Muslims. Khomeini regarded the regime in Iraq with contempt because of this and encouraged
Shiites in Iraq to overthrow the regime. There were riots in Iraq and this worried Saddam, so he decided
he had to do something about this threat from Iran.’

(b) Was the Shah a reforming or a repressive ruler of Iran? Explain your answer. [10]

In 1953, the USA and Britain had replaced the Mohammed Mossadeq, the anti-western Prime
Minister of Iran, with a more pro-western one, which was the Shah. Most of the Iranian
population were unhappy with this decision, as they opposed the Western powers for the
exploitation of their oil profits; and Mossadeq was the hero to millions when the Iranian
Parliament nationalized the oil industry under his administration. However, even though the
Shah was a pro-western leader, it can be said he brought about great reformations such as
improved education, equality and economic growth. But there was also much repression, which
can be seen through his secret police force.

When the Shah was placed as the Prime Minister of Iran, it grew incredibly rich on income from
the oil industry, which the National Iranian Oil Company now controlled. To add on, the Shah
brought about education reforms such as increasing the number of schools and raising literacy
rates. Also, the Shah transferred some of Iran’s land from the biggest landowners to the poorest
farmers, which reduced the financial inequality in Iraq. The Shah also gave women the
permission to vote. Lastly, there was also the acceptance of non-muslims in the Iranian
government. All of these reformations where known as the White Revolution Reforms as they
were all associated with the Western World. Though reformative; most Iranian people looked
upon these reforms as unIslamic and repressive. This opposition led the Shah to using further
repressive methods, which we will explore.

In 1970’s, the Shah was facing increased opposition

e.g. ‘I think that the Shah was a reformer. He wanted to make Iraq into a modern state. He passed
lots of reforms such as giving women the vote and he reduced the power of the clergy. He
brought in labour laws that were fair to workers, Iraq’s economy boomed and for a time there
was a lot of toleration of Jews in the country. His White Revolution did improve people’s lives.
He gave small farmers more land, provided free meals for children at school. New elementary
schools and literacy courses were set up in remote areas. All of this shows that he was
definitely a reformer and was trying to make Iraq a modern state.’ OR e.g.
 ‘The Shah became more repressive the longer his regime went on. In the 1970s, he really
became a dictator. He abolished political parties and set up a one-party state and censorship
was introduced. Whenever there was any sign of opposition he destroyed it brutally. There were
thousands of political prisoners. In these prisons there was systematic torture and many were
executed.’

Events in the Gulf area were important to the West.

(a) Describe the rule of the Shah of Iran. [4]

The Shah of Iran encouraged westernization by implementing pro-western reforms such as

giving women the vote. To add on, there was rapid economic growth. Also, he banned the
communist party. Additionally, he encouraged secularization and his regime was supported the
USA and UK.

‘The USA got involved and gave limited support to Iraq. It did this because it was worried that if
it won then Iran would dominate in the Gulf. It believed Iran had ambitions to take over the
whole area. This was particularly worrying to the USA because of the nature of the regime in
Iran, its relations with the Soviet Union and its hostility to Israel.’

(b) Why did the West get involved in the Iran-Iraq War? [6]

During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, multiple Western powers got involved in the war for
multiple reasons. To begin with, France, Germany, USA, and the Soviet Union were all opposed
to the new regime in Iran. The thought of revolutionary Iranians controlling so much of the oil
and Khomeini being able to control the world prices in the Gulf terrified the Western powers,
especially the USA, and hence they got involved in the Iran-Iraq war in order to prevent this
from happening. To add on, the Western powers got involved in the Iran-Iraq war as they felt
that an Iranian victory may lead to the collapse of pro-western regimes in the Gulf, which means
much of their revenue from oil would no longer be available. This was also particularly worrying
to the USA because of the nature of the regime in Iran, its relations with a Soviet Union and its
hostility to Israel. In conclusion, the West got involved in the Iran-Iraq War due to their fear of
Iran’s potential ambitions to take over the whole Gulf region; threatening their own power in the
Gulf region.

(c) Which was the more responsible for the outbreak of war in January 1991, Iraq or the
USA? Explain your answer.

Iraq:
- Iraq was more responsible as they ultimately began the war by invading Kuwait.  they
had huge economic problems inside of Iraq and there was unemployment Saddam’s
invasion of Kuwait was completely unjustified according to the United Nations.
- The UN imposed serious trade sanction, but Saddam was defiant. He declared that
Kuwait was a province of Iraq
 - To add on, the Iraqi army committed atrocities against the innocent Kuwaiti citizens +
western hostages  The USA and other foreign powers would have to use excessive
force to stop Saddam as they had no other choice

USA:

- The USA could have made it clear from the beginning that it would not let Kuwait be
invaded, and maybe Saddam might not have invaded.
- . In July 1990 April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, gave Saddam the impression
that the US was not particularly interested in Kuwait. This made him think that if he
invaded, the US would not act.'
-

Politics, religion and economics were all important factors in the Gulf region.

(a) Describe the damage done to Iran and Iraq by the war of 1980–88. [4]

Firstly, Iran had suffered widespread destruction and huge loss of life. Secondly, nearly half a
million of Iraq’s population had been killed. Thirdly, life expectancy fell, and infant mortality
increased in Iraq. Fourthly, Iraq had to face major debts of $80 billion. Also, the value of Iraq’s
oil exports had declined.

(b) Why were relations between Kuwait and Iraq poor by July 1990? [6]

Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait in August of 1990, however, the poor relations
between Iraq and Kuwait go back many years.

In 1920, Iraq was created as a country and it refused to recognize Kuwait; they thought that
Kuwait was an artificial creation resulting from British meddling in Arab affairs and was really
part of Iraq. Several past rulers of Iraq demanded that Kuwait be incorporated into Iraq,
however, Kuwait disagreed. Therefore, Kuwait and Iraq had poor relations by July 1990 due to
their previous poor relations. To add on, Iraq did not like that Kuwait had much better access to
the Gulf, as Iraq was almost landlocked. This further made relations between Kuwait and Iraq
poor because of feuds over oil. Also, Saddam requested the leading members of the OPEC,
one of them being Kuwait, to increase oil production. However, they refused Saddam’s request
and Kuwait even demanded repayment of funds given to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Henceforth, relations between Kuwait and Iraq were poor by July 1990 due to conflict over oil.
All of this soured relation between the two countries.

Saddam even accused Kuwait of stealing oil from the shared Rumaila oil field, and claimed
Kuwait owed Iraq $10 billion

(c) ‘Economic factors were the main cause of the Iranian Revolution of 1979.’ How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

Economic factors:
 - Iran imported heavily from the West, which caused farmers to go out of business and
become unemployed.
- The Shah also attempted to modernize the industry which often meant that many
laborers were put out of jobs.
- Whilst millions were struggling to feed themselves, the Shah threw a huge celebration,
claiming it was the 2500th anniversary of the Persian monarchy. This event cost $330
million, which angered the Iranians as they were already struggling economically.
- Despite some reforms most people still had a very low standard of living. Villages
lacked piped water, electricity and roads. There were few hospitals and many
new-born babies died. Levels of illiteracy were very high. What made all this
worse was that the gap between the rich and the poor was growing. The rich
lived in luxurious palaces and the conspicuous spending of the Shah’s family was
an insult to ordinary people. Iran was a rich country but most of the people did
not share in its wealth

Other factors:

- The Shah’s lifestyle was seen as extremely Islamic by a vast majority of Iranians. There
was a Persepolis celebration held in 1971 which included cars, planes, Hollywood,
womanizing and over 300 foreign dignitaries. This contrasted with growing popularity of
Ayatollah Khomeini, who seen as someone living a pious and simple lifestyle.
- The Shah introduced a number of Western reformations in Iran, which was known as the
White Revolution Reforms. Opposition which was led by the Mullahs, organized street
demonstrations which targeted banks with close relations to the West, or cinemas which
often showed sexual films which were felt to be unislamic.
- The Shah was a pawn in the hands of the USA, being exploited for American gain, which
angered the Iranians.
- The Shah underestimated the importance of Islam to his people by changing the
calendar from the Muslim one to one that began with the pre-Islamic Cyrus the Great,
angering his people. Also, his lifestyle contrasted with Islam.
- The use of oppression was also severely hated by the Iranian people. His secret police
force known as the SAVAK, would exile, arrest, and torture thousands of the government
critics, including Mullahs.
- A figurehead to unite the opposition was needed and this came in the form of
Ayatollah Khomeini. He lived in exile and sent simple and clear messages into
Iran outlining all the grievances. He was careful not to mention that he wanted to
establish an Islamic government. Instead, he focused on things that everyone
could agree about. This united the opposition against the Shah and made it
strong enough to overthrow him.’
-

7 Many issues divided the wartime allies after the end of the Second World War. (a) What was
the Berlin Airlift? [4] (b) Why was it harder for the Allies to reach agreement at Potsdam than it
had been at Yalta? [6] (c) Who was more to blame for the Cold War, the USA or the USSR?
Explain your answer. [10]
6 Between 1936 and 1939 Europe edged closer to war. (a) Describe how Hitler’s policies
between 1935 and 1938 broke the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. [4] (b) Why did Germany
become involved in the Spanish Civil War? [6] (c) ‘The Nazi-Soviet Pact was responsible for
war breaking out in Europe in 1939.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.

(a) What decisions about Germany were made at the Yalta Conference of 1945? [4]

Germany was to be divided into four zones, one for each of the allied powers. Also,
Germany’s eastern border was to be moved westwards. To add on, war criminals
were to be hunted down and punished. Germany also had to pay reparations and
there were to be free elections for liberated countries.

(b) Why was the wartime unity of the Allies beginning to break down by the time of the
Yalta Conference? [6]

The ideological differences between the USA and the USSR began to re-emerge. The USA was a
democracy with free, multi-party elections. The US economy was capitalist while the rights of
ordinary US citizens were laid out and protected by a written constitution. In contrast, the USSR
was based on communism with one party rule and no political opposition allowed. These
differences led to an uneasy relationship.’

(c) ‘The main reason for the formation of NATO was the Berlin Crisis of 1948–49.’
How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer

e.g. ‘The Berlin Blockade and Airlift completed the breakdown, since the end of the Second
World War, in relations between the superpowers. During the Blockade, war between the USA
and the USSR was a real possibility. The Western powers decided they must work together to
defend their territory from the advancement of the USSR’s powers.’

OR ‘Between 1947 and 1948, Stalin had created a ‘sphere of influence’ in eastern Europe to add
to his control of the eastern part of Germany. Stalin used a variety of methods to assert his
influence in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This concerned the
Western Allies as to Stalin’s future intentions and therefore they formed a defensive alliance.’