The Move To Global War - Price and Senés - Pearson 2016

CASE STUDY
JAPANESE EXPANSION
IN EAST ASIA, 1931–41
1
A03_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_CS.indd 2 08/02/2016 11:39
JAPANESE EXPANSION IN EAST ASIA, 1931–41
Note on Japanese and Chinese names
In accordance with usual practice, all Japanese and Chinese names in this book have been written with the
family name first. Pinyin Romanization has been used for Chinese names and place names: for example,
Jiang Jieshi (not Chiang kai-shek), Nanjing (not Nanking), Guandong Army (not Kwantung Army). However,
depending on when they were written, you will find that some of the sources or names mentioned in the
chapter use Wade–Giles spellings.
On 7 December 1941, Japan launched an attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii,
leading to the outbreak of war in the Pacific. Japan’s ally Germany then declared war on the United States,
resulting in a global conflict that lasted until 2 September 1945 when the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was
signed aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
As with all wars, there were long- and short-term causes of this global conflict. However, the events leading up
to December 1941 can be linked back to the early 1930s – in particular, the Japanese incursion into Manchuria.
Focusing on Japan, this case study examines the nature of its imperialism and its expansionist policies to
understand the role Japan played in the run-up to World War II.
The case study is divided into three chapters, each dealing with a different aspect of
Japan’s role in events in the Far East and on the world stage up to the attack on Pearl
Harbor.
• Chapter 1 addresses the changes that transformed Japan from a feudalistic country controlled by the shogunate to a
modernized, democratic nation-state of international significance that was dominated, nonetheless, by the cult of the
emperor.
• Chapter 2 focuses on the domestic and international repercussions of Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and of China in
1937.
• Chapter 3 examines events that led to Japan’s military alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, its conquest of Southeast
Asia, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Key concepts:
The case study analyses all these decisive actions within the rapidly evolving context of international events during the period 1938–41.
As you read through the three chapters, consider the following key concepts we use when studying history and how they apply to this
case study:
● Change: Japan underwent immense change after the Meiji Restoration. Consider therefore the impact that social, cultural, and
economic change has upon the ordinary citizen. Think about how it may have changed the self-awareness of the Japanese as
subjects of the emperor, as well as the international opinion of Japan.
● Continuity: Despite the changes brought in after the end of the bakufu period, how far were the soldiers of the modern Japanese
army similar in ideology to the samurai?
● Consequence: How far was the Manchurian Incident of 1931 a consequence of the Great Depression?
● Causation: What were the causes the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937? Can we determine these without knowing the aims of
the military authorities who sanctioned it?
● Perspective: How does the passage of time influence our perspective of events? For example, how is the Japanese invasion of
China talked about today? How and why has this changed over the past 80 years?
● Significance: The Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo was built in the 1870s. Why is it so significant today? Consider how and why places
and events change in significance over time.

01
1853 1890 1918
• Commodore Perry sails into • 30 October: The Imperial • Takashi Hara is appointed the
Nagasaki harbour to open trade Rescript on Education is issued. first ‘commoner’ prime minister.
negotiations with the Japanese This document is distributed
emperor. to all schools. It emphasizes
1919
civic responsibility and imperial
1868 loyalty as the moral basis for • Paris Peace Conference takes
education. It will be displayed place.
• January: Restoration of Meiji rule together with a portrait of the • Japan lays claim to Shandong
is declared. emperor and read on ceremonial province in China.
occasions until its repudiation in
1870 1948. 1921–22
1894–95
• Commoners are allowed to • The Washington Naval
adopt surnames, a privilege Conference takes place leading
previously reserved for samurai. • The Sino-Japanese War breaks to the Washington Naval Treaty
out on 1 August 1894 and ends and the Nine-Power Treaty.
1871 with the Treaty of Shimonoseki
on 17 April 1895. 1925
• Samurai are allowed to cut their 1902
topknots, to lay down their • The Peace Preservation Law is
swords, and to intermarry with passed.
commoners. • The Anglo-Japanese Alliance is • Universal male suffrage is
signed. introduced.
1872 1904–05 1926
• Compulsory elementary
education is introduced. • The Russo-Japanese War breaks • Emperor Taishō (Yoshihito) dies.
out in 1904. It ends in 1905 with The Shōwa era begins with the
1873 the Treaty of Portsmouth being coronation of Crown Prince
signed in 1905. Hirohito.
• Mass conscription is introduced. 1912 1927
1874
• The Taishō era begins, following • Start of the banking crisis and
the death of Emperor Meiji onset of the Great Depression/
• Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society) (Mutsuhito).
is formed to promote what Wall Street Crash.
is called ‘civilization and 1914 1928
enlightenment’.
1889 • Japan enters World War I on the • The Assassination of China’s
side of the Entente powers. warlord, ‘Old Marshal’ Zhang
• 11 February: The emperor 1915 Zuolin.
presents the Constitution 1930
of the Empire of Japan. On
the same day, the House of • Japan presents the Twenty-One
Representatives Election Law is Demands to China. • The London Naval Conference
passed giving the vote to men takes place.
over 25 who pay at least ¥15 in • Prime Minister Hamaguchi
national taxes (which is just over Osachi is shot and critically
1 per cent of the population). wounded.

Japanese expansion in East Asia 1931–41
1931 1937 1940
• A bomb explodes in Manchuria, • Prince Konoe Fumimaro is • Konoe returns as prime minister.
leading to its takeover by the appointed prime minister. • Japan signs the Tripartite Pact
Guandong Army. This is known as • Italy joins the Anti-Comintern with Italy and Germany.
the Manchurian Incident. Pact. • The United States limits trade
• The Marco Polo Bridge Incident with Japan on materials such as
1932 leads to the Japanese invasion of cotton, scrap metal, and certain
China. types of oil.
• Manchuria is renamed • Japanese forces attack Nanjing. • Japan occupies northern
Manchukuo. • President Roosevelt of the United Indochina.
States delivers his Quarantine
• The League of Nations sends the
Speech.
1941
Lytton Commission to investigate
the incident. 1938
• 15 May: Prime Minister Inukai • April: The Soviet-Japanese
Tsuyoshi is assassinated during an Neutrality Pact is signed.
attempted coup by young naval • The National Mobilization Law is • June: Operation Barbarossa
officers. It becomes known as the passed. begins when Germany invades
May 15th Incident. the Soviet Union.
1939 • August: The Atlantic Conference
1933 takes place.
• Border conflicts take place on the • November: General Tojo Hideki
• Japan withdraws from the League Soviet border of Manchuria. is appointed prime minister; the
of Nations. • The Tianjin (Tientsin) Incident Hull Note is delivered.
• The Tanggu Truce is signed with takes place. • December: Pearl Harbor is
China. • The United States announces the attacked.
abrogation of the 1911 Treaty of
1936 Commerce and Navigation with
Japan.
• Ultra-nationalist officers carry • Konoe resigns as prime minister.
out an attempted coup in Tokyo.
• Japan signs the Anti-Comintern
Pact with Germany.
• The first of three Neutrality Laws
is passed by the US Congress.
• The Second United Front is
established between China’s
GMD and CPC.

01 Causes of expansion, 1868–1930
M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 6 08/02/2016 10:33

A group dressed as samurai
This chapter examines the background to the rise of Japan as a pose for a photograph that
modern military power in the period leading up to the invasion of was included in a booklet of
Japanese costumes published
Manchuria in 1931. Key events to be discussed include: in France in 1890. By that time,
● the dramatic changes undertaken during the period of the Meiji Restoration and the samurai were already part of
attendant emergence of the notion of national unity history in Japan and had been
● the emergence of Japan as a significant influence on international relations, both in the Far replaced by a modern army.
East and on the world stage
● the impact of World War I on the Japanese economy, politics, and its imperial ambitions.
The impact of Japanese nationalism and

1.1 militarism on foreign policy
During the 1930s, Japan expanded its territory into Manchuria; it withdrew from
the League of Nations; it invaded China; it signed a military alliance with Italy and
Germany; in 1941, it launched an attack on the United States. To some extent, such
aggressive policy-making was prompted by changes that Japan underwent after the
late 1800s when it opened its doors to Western influences, abandoned its traditional
military government, and elevated the emperor to a position of authority imbued with
god-like status.
These changes were meant to transform Japan into a strong and modern nation
able not only to defend itself against the encroachment of Western imperialism, but
also to compete with and establish itself as a first-class power equal to the United
States and the European Great Powers such as Britain, France, Germany, and Russia.
To accomplish this, Japan needed a prosperous economy to fund and equip a
strong military. It also needed to educate its population and instil a strong sense of
nationalism. Between 1868 and 1930, many of these aims were achieved as Japan
fought and won the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 and the Russo-Japanese War of
1904–05, signed a treaty of alliance with Britain in 1902, and entered World War I in
August 1914.
This period of momentous change can be traced back to the arrival of Commodore
Perry and what contemporary observers referred to as the ‘four black ships of evil’
in 1853 (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, p. 11), an event that led to a crisis
of seismic proportions as different political and military factions within Japan called
either for the country’s continued isolation or, alternatively, for the rapid absorption
of all knowledge that could be gleaned from the Western powers.
Before 1868, Japan was in theory ruled by an emperor but, in practice, power was
wielded by a military government known as the shogunate or bakufu. Since 1603,
the Tokugawa had been the dominant clan of military leaders. Its head was called the
shogun, a title that translates as ‘chief barbarian-quelling generalissimo’ (Livingston
et al, Imperial Japan 1800–1945, 1973, p. 13). Below the shogun in rank were the
daimyo, the feudal overlords with territory that they ruled. The daimyo, together
with samurai warriors who were loyal to them, lived by a strict code of honour known
as Bushido.
As with many European countries in the 19th century, Japan also experienced
economic changes that impacted the organization of its society and politics. The
feudalistic system with its very strict hierarchy had started to break down because:
7

During the shogunate,

● population growth created an increased demand for food and goods
Kyoto – where the ● the merchant class, considered inferior to the samurai, grew in wealth and
imperial court was importance
located – was the capital ● the various obligations of the samurai to attend the imperial court at Edo (later
of Japan. However, the
named Tokyo) led them into debt
real seat of power was
Edo, where the shogun
● the emergence of the Satsuma and Chōshū clans, ambitious rivals to the Tokugawa
lived. With the Meiji clan, who saw opportunities to seize power.
Restoration in 1868,
Edo was renamed Tokyo
(meaning ‘eastern capital’)
and became the capital;
Commodore Perry and the ‘black ships’
the imperial court
Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry of the United States Navy sailed into Edo
was moved there the
following year.
(Tokyo) harbour on 8 July 1853; under his command was a fleet referred to as the ‘four
black ships of evil’ by the Japanese. Perry came to demand open trade with a country
that, despite some early contact with Christian missionaries during the 17th century,
had retreated into isolation from the West.
CHALLENGE
According to Ian Buruma,
YOURSELF
Thinking, research, Japanese rulers, fearful of foreign aggression and worried that Christianity, promoted by
ATL communication, and European missionaries, would make their subjects unruly, had outlawed the Christian religion,
social skills expelled most foreigners and all priests, and forbidden Japanese to go abroad.
Working with a classmate, find From Ian Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, Modern Library, New York, 2004, page 11
out about Francis Xavier and
the Jesuits who went to Japan
in 1543. How did the Japanese
Activity 1 ATL Thinking and research skills
respond to the arrival of
Christian missionaries on their The source below is a contemporary Japanese print. Study the source and answer the question that
shore? Why was there such a follows.
hostile reaction to Christianity in
later years? Share your research
with the class.
This Japanese print from around

1930 shows Commodore Perry’s
marines ‘testing the girth’ of a
sumo wrestler.
1. What does this source convey about how the Americans were perceived at this time in Japan?
Perry brought the emperor a letter from US President Millard Fillmore demanding
that American ships be allowed to trade with Japan. However, it was the shogun and
not the emperor who would rule on such matters; this is just one example of how
little Japan was understood by the West at this time. Perry’s meetings were not very
8

1.1
successful as few Japanese could speak English, although some did speak Dutch, as the
Netherlands was the only nation whose merchants were allowed to trade directly with CHALLENGE
Japan. YOURSELF
Perry returned to Japan once more in 1854, more heavily armed this time. He ordered Thinking and
ATL
research skills
his fleet to fire cannons to impress upon the Japanese that resistance was useless, as the
United States had far greater force at its disposal. Concessions were made and, in 1858, In Chapter 2 of this case study,
a treaty giving further trading and residency rights to the United States was signed by you can read about the response
a representative of the bakufu. The signatory, however, would later be assassinated by a of militant young soldiers to the
signing of the London Naval
samurai critical of the submission of Japan to a foreign power.
Treaty of 1930 (see page 34). See
what comparisons you can draw
By the 1860s, it seemed that if Japan were to become not a colony but an equal of the
with the response of the samurai
Western powers, it would need to industrialize and modernize. To do so, it needed to the concessions made to the
to cast off the centuries-old rule of the bakufu, and to replace the deeply traditional United States in 1858.
samurai warriors with a well-equipped and well-trained army that would fight not
with swords but with guns. Not unexpectedly, factions emerged with some supporting
and others resisting this proposed shift in Japanese culture and values. Eager to seize
the opportunity to remove the Tokugawa shogunate, the Satsuma and Chōshū clans Names of emperors
joined forces; with a modernized army, they challenged the bakufu. This was made
The emperors of Japan
easier by the death of Emperor Kōmei (Osahito) in 1866, given that his successor, may be referred to
Emperor Meiji (Mutsuhito), was a young man of fifteen who could be influenced by either by their title
opponents of the bakufu. and personal name
(for example, Emperor
In 1867, the Tokugawa shogunate ceded political power, although what followed was Mutsuhito) or by the
a short and bloody civil war, from 1868 to 1869, between the bakufu and the imperial title and the name given
army. This ended with the defeat of the samurai and the ‘restoration’ of the emperor to their era (Emperor
whose place of residence was moved from Kyoto to Edo, now referred to as Tokyo. Meiji). Throughout
this case study, where
This two-year period was known as bakumatsu (which means ‘the end of the bakufu’).
the full name of an
As Mikiso Hane argues, the population needed to be convinced that this was not a emperor is mentioned,
new system of government but the restoration of imperial rule. As stated in a public his personal name will
declaration, it was the restoration of the indissoluble link between the emperor and appear in brackets, for
the common people: example, Emperor Meiji
(Mutsuhito).
Our country is known as the land of the gods, and of all the nations in the world, none is
superior to our nation in morals and customs… All things in this land belong to the Emperor…
From Mikiso Hane, Japan: A Short History, Oneworld Publications, 2015, pp. 68–69
The Meiji era signalled the introduction of an elaborate personality cult of the emperor
as the divine leader of the nation of Japan. He was to be revered as the descendent of
the sun goddess and thereby treated as a ‘living god’. Shintoism briefly became the
official religion of Japan; although this ceased in 1872, Shinto shrines remained under
state control and the Shinto belief that the imperial family was descended from the sun
goddess remained of great importance. In this way, religion, emperor worship, and What ways of knowing did
the Japanese population
nationalism were intertwined, and ‘… anyone who questioned the mythological origin use to reconcile the
of the imperial dynasty got into trouble’ (Hane, Japan: A Short History, 2015, p. 88). process of modernization
Among the new shrines erected was the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo where the souls of and the deification of
those who had died for the emperor were worshipped. the emperor?
CHALLENGE YOURSELF
ATL Thinking, self-management, social, and research skills
Today, the Yasukuni shrine remains controversial among the Japanese; it appears in the news almost every
year. See what you can find out about it. Share your research with the class.

The Meiji Restoration – a period of social and

political change
As the Tokugawa shogunate lost power, the authority of the emperor was enhanced.
A new constitution was promised and, when complete, was referred to as Bunmai Kaika
(meaning ‘Civilization and Enlightenment’). According to Ian Buruma, an elaborate
ceremony had preceded the presentation of the constitution to the people: Emperor
Meiji entered the Shinto shrine at the royal palace and explained the new constitution
to his divine ancestors, assuring them that it meant not the end but rather a restoration
of imperial authority. A small percentage (just over 1.14 per cent) of the population,
composed of men over 25 years of age who paid above a certain amount of tax, was
now given the right to vote for members of the National Diet, a bicameral system
made up of the House of Peers and the House of Representatives. The House of Peers
was made up of nobility, senior civil servants, and high-ranking military officers, while
the House of Representatives was made up of elected members. The purpose of the
Diet was to assist the emperor in his decision-making; he could both veto legislation
and enact his own imperial edicts when the Diet was not in session. In reality, the
emperor was expected to accept the advice offered by the Genrōin, a group of advisors
whose role was not outlined in the constitution but who were, nevertheless, very
influential and ‘acted as a link between the emperor and the government’ (Hunter,
Concise Dictionary of Modern Japanese History, 1984, p. 48). One very important aspect of
the new constitution was that the military was responsible directly to the emperor.
Supreme authority lay with the emperor, but as he was meant to be ‘above’ politics,
decisions would be made in his name. This meant that although all his subjects owed
him their loyalty, and although he held ultimate power, the emperor was not expected
to make political decisions.
Study the sources below and answer the questions that follow.
Source A
An image of Emperor Meiji of

Japan, from 1910.
10

1.1
Source B
A print of the Imperial Diet,

from 1890.
Thinking and ATL

research skills
After reading about the
new constitution, how
democratic, do you
think, was Japan at this
time? Begin by listing
the characteristics of a
1. When created, the cartoon in Source A would have been aimed at a European audience. What kind democratic state and
of image of the Japanese emperor do you think it was trying to convey? check these against what
2. Source B is a print of the Imperial Diet in 1890. What impression does this convey of the kind of you have learned about
body that governed Japan at this time? Meiji Japan. Compare
this with a contemporary
democratic state from a
different region.
The inspiration for the new Japanese constitution had actually come from Germany. Officials,
including Itō Hirobumi, president of the Privy Council (advisors of the emperor), were sent
abroad to ‘shop around’ for a political system. They looked at several examples but decided that
the US constitution was too democratic and ‘smacked of disorder’, and that the British system
was unsuitable. So they opted for the rather more autocratic German style of government. An
admirer of Bismarck, Itō not only imitated the way he held his cigar but also agreed with the
German chancellor’s opinion that ‘popular sovereignty would be a very dangerous thing’. Ian
Buruma describes the resultant constitution as ‘a mixture of German and traditional Japanese
authoritarianism’ (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, p. 38).
Social changes – education

Like Russia in the second half of the 19th century, reform was needed so that the
military could be trained and equipped to rival the armies and navies of Western
powers. Japan had to move quickly from centralized feudalism – with a privileged
caste of samurai warriors – to a state in which ordinary citizens would be conscripted
into its army. Soldiers would be recruited in large numbers and taught to obey only
the emperor and their nation. A basic level of universal literacy was necessary as
recruits needed to read basic orders and operate new technology. To aid this, a new
system of elementary schooling was introduced in 1872. It was not free and, at first,
attendance was relatively low. According to Mikiso Hane, by 1876, 46 per cent of boys,
(though only 16 per cent of girls) attended school (Hane, Japan, A Short History, 2015,
p. 85). Education would also be the means by which nationalism was instilled into the
population. In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on Education was introduced; the rescript
had to be memorized and recited each morning by teachers and pupils – an edict that
remained in place until World War II.
The rescript began with the assertion ‘Know ye, our subjects’ and outlined the various
obligations of Japanese subjects of the emperor including the following:
… should any emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the state; and thus guard and
maintain the prosperity of our Imperial throne, coeval with heaven and earth. So not shall ye be
good and faithful subjects but render illustrious the best traditions of your forefathers.
From Livingston et al, Imperial Japan 1800–1945, Pantheon, 1973, pp. 153–54
11

According to Hane, the purpose of the rescript was that ‘… the minds of young
children were moulded to ensure that when the time came they would go to battle
shouting, “Imperial Majesty Banzai”’ (Hane, Japan, A Short History, 2015, p. 90).
Children were also taught that the Imperial Dynasty dated from 660 bce – a date
commemorated each year on 11 February – when Jimmu, the first emperor, had
ascended the throne. The other important national holiday celebrated Emperor Meiji’s
birthday, on 3 November.
1. Based on what you have read so far, in what ways was the authority of the emperor enforced and
conveyed to the people of Japan?
The military
The armed forces of Meiji Japan swore loyalty solely to the emperor, which was a
significant departure from the way things were during the Tokugawa shogunate when
the samurai’s loyalty was to their daimyo or feudal overlord. Furthermore, with the
introduction of conscription, all Japanese men had to serve three years in the army and
four years in the reserves. Buruma argues that this was not only a way to defend the
country but also a way to instil unification: ‘National unity was armed unity. National
education was military education’ (Ian Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, p. 55).
The Rescript for Soldiers and Sailors was published in 1882 and this, like the Rescript
on Education, established absolute loyalty to the emperor. It read:
We (the Emperor) are your supreme Commander in Chief. We rely on you as Our limbs and you
look up to Us as your head.
Ian Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, p. 55
Soldiers and sailors were not allowed to express political opinions, nor could they
comment on imperial policies, even in private. Buruma sees this as the flaw in this
system of absolute loyalty to the emperor as, in the 1930s, eager young officers
could, and would, defy a civilian government if they suspected it of acting against the
imperial will. This interpretation is supported by Eri Hotta who states that:
… the 1882 imperial decree could be considered one of the latent underlying causes of Japan’s
militarisation of the 1930s and, eventually, its attack on Pearl Harbor.
From Eri Hotta, Japan 1941, Vintage Books, 2014, p. 79
1. When you have read through this case study, come back to Hotta’s statement and see if you agree
with its premise.
This, very briefly, has been an overview of the transition to the Meiji Restoration. It has
explained how Japan, along with other countries at this time, made use of the ideology
of nationalism and set in place a system that bound the people to their emperor. As
with many European countries at this time, Japan began to look for opportunities to
expand the territory under its control. It did so for a number of reasons:
● to elevate its status as an imperial power
● to access resources for a growing population
● to secure territory that might, otherwise, have fallen under the control of rivals,
especially Russia, Britain, France, or the United States.
12

1.1
First stages of imperialism
Study the map below and answer the question that follows.
Harbin
MONGOLIA
SIBERIA
MANCHURIA Vladivostock
CHINA
Mukden
Liaoyang
PEKING
Sea of
N
Port Arthur
PA
KOREA Japan This map shows the locations of
JA
Japan, Korea, China, and Asiatic
SEOUL
Russia during 1904–05.
F
O
Yellow E TOKYO
R
Sea PI
EM PACIFIC
OCEAN
1. How does this map help to explain the following:

a) Japan’s interest in Korea
b) Japan’s potential rivalry with China and Russia?
The First Sino-Japanese War, 1894

Japan had a long history of association with China dating back to 500–600 ce, when
Chinese writing and culture were more widely disseminated by way of Korea. During
the 19th century, China was weakened by its defeat in both of the Opium Wars with
Britain and by being forced into a series of ‘unequal treaties’ with European powers.
Korea lay between Japan and China, and, as Japan entered a new age of militarization,
it aimed to establish its control of the Korean peninsula. Inevitably, this would bring
Japan into direct conflict with China, seeing as Korea was a tributary state of the latter
(meaning that the emperor of Korea paid homage to the emperor of China). In 1894,
an uprising in Korea prompted its government to ask for assistance from China, but
Japan sent troops before the Chinese army arrived, leading to conflict between the
two armies. Ian Buruma argues that at the heart of this conflict was the question of
which army had modernized most effectively and, accordingly, which country would
dominate East Asia. Japan proved its dominance by pushing the Chinese back across
the Yalu River, the border between Korea and China, while its navy secured victory
in the Yellow Sea. The ensuing Treaty of Shimonoseki affirmed Chinese recognition
of Korean independence and the cession of Formosa (known today as Taiwan),
the Liaodong Peninsula, and the Pescadores Islands to Japan. China also granted
commercial and trading rights to Japan.
In Japan, this victory was seen as confirmation of Japan’s superiority over China,
cementing its status as a ‘higher civilization’. According to Buruma, this signalled
a new epoch in Japanese history and confirmed the popular belief that Japan was
now equal to the Western powers, living up to the Meiji slogan ‘Rich Country,
13

Strong Army’ (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, pp. 50–51). Victory led to
new tensions, however, as Russia also wanted control over Korea and the Liaodong
Peninsula. Under pressure from Britain, France, and the United States, Japan was
persuaded to relinquish the Liaodong Peninsula – an act that, to many Japanese
nationalists, proved Japan was still regarded as inferior to the Western powers,
despite its military prowess.
Activity 6 ATL Thinking skills
Study the source below and answer the question that follows.
This print shows the Chinese

surrendering to the Japanese.
Source: Art Object Photograph © 2016 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

1. What is the message of this source? Look carefully at the dress of the Japanese soldiers receiving the
surrender of the Chinese. What impression does this give about the differences between the two
groups?
The Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) and the Anglo-

Japanese Alliance (1902)
The outcome of the First Sino-Japanese War displeased Russia as it wanted to secure
its own interests in Manchuria and Korea. In 1898, Russia had secured permission
from China to extend the Trans-Siberian Railway to Vladivostok as well as to build the
South Manchurian Railway. Furthermore, it secured a 20-year lease on the Liaodong
Peninsula and Port Arthur, all of which led to worsening relations with Japan. It
seemed increasingly likely that conflict would break out; in anticipation of this, Japan
signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902. This stated that both Britain and Japan
would ‘maintain the status quo in the Far East’ and one party would remain neutral in
a conflict unless the other was attacked by more than one power (Hane, Japan, A Short
History, 2015, p. 109).
Efforts to negotiate an agreement with Russia (whereby Russia would recognize

Japanese interests in Korea, and Japan the interests of Russia in Manchuria) failed, and
the Japanese navy attacked the Russian Pacific Fleet on 8 February 1904, declaring
war on 10 February. The war was fought both on land and sea, with the sinking
of the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Tsushima Straits probably being one of the most
memorable events in this nine-month conflict that ended in October 1905. Famously,
this turned out not to be the ‘splendid little war’ anticipated by Tsar Nicholas II and his
advisors, and it made Japan a ‘major player in the Far East’ (Hane, Japan, A Short History,
2015, p. 110). Under the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth, negotiated by US President
14

1.1
Theodore Roosevelt, Japan acquired South Sakhalin, the leasehold over the Liaodong ‘A splendid little war’
Peninsula and Port Arthur, as well as control over the South Manchurian Railway.
This phrase has been used
Russia also recognized Japanese interests in Korea, which became a protectorate of many times in history to
Japan in 1906 and its colony in 1910. describe what belligerents
had hoped would be
As with the European powers at this time, nationalism was boosted by imperialism. a short and successful
Japan’s foreign policy was extremely successful in expanding its interests in Korea conflict. Vyacheslav
and Manchuria but, inevitably, this aroused a mixed response on the international Plehve, the minister of
scene. interior appointed by Tsar
Nicholas II, is reported
to have said that what
Activity 7 ATL Thinking, research, and self-management skills
Russia needed in 1904
Study the sources below and answer the questions that follow. was a ‘little victorious
war to stem a revolution’.
Source A Whether or not this is
accurate is a matter of
some speculation, but ‘a
splendid little war’ (as a
corruption of the above
phrase) is commonly
used to describe Russia’s
mistaken prediction of
how the war against Japan
would turn out.
This French cartoon is entitled

‘Le peril jaune’ (‘Yellow Peril’).
Source B
Here is an extract from ‘Why the Russians lost in the recent war’, from the New York Sun. (Transcribed
version reprinted in The Army and Navy Register, 11 August 1906.)
Our conclusion is that in the military operations of which Manchuria was the theatre the
Russians were not signally outgeneraled by the Japanese, otherwise their losses must have
been much greater than were actually experienced. As for the supposed superiority of the
Japanese in naval strategy, Mr. Jane, for his part, concedes that Rojestvensky’s [the
Commander of the Russian fleet] formation in Tsushima Straits, in view that he expected
only a torpedo attack, was not a bad formation at all, and that it is hard to conceive that
Togo, with Rojestvensky’s general orders and with the special problems to be solved by the
latter, would have done anything materially different up to the hour of battle. Nevertheless,
we cannot conceive of Togo as losing the ensuing fight, because every individual officer and
every individual seaman would have died rather than forfeit victory. This brings us to the
capital reason for the success of the Japanese. The Russians were not so much outgeneraled as
they were outfought, and they were outfought because they were lukewarm and not wrought
to desperation as they had been in the Crimea and in resistance to Napoleon’s invasion;
whereas every Japanese soldier and sailor believed, as was indeed the truth, that his country’s
fate was at stake and that his personal conduct might decide the issue.
15

Source C
The text in the cartoon reads

‘Roosevelt: Assez! Enough!
Genug!’ (All three words mean
the same in French, English and
German.)
Look carefully at every

part of the cartoon in
Source C, including the
caption. Try to identify
the main characters; pay 1. Source A is a French cartoon of the ‘Yellow Peril’, a term that was used to describe the perceived
attention to the heaps of threat of the Japanese as they grew in strength. What is the message of this cartoon? (See if you can
skulls in the background identify the figures in the beds.)
as well as the setting 2. According to Source B, why did the Russians lose the Battle of Tsushima Straits?
sun. All of these are 3. What is the message of the cartoon in Source C?
symbolic and help you
to understand what the
cartoonist was trying to
convey. Yamamoto Isoroku was a Japanese naval cadet who was seriously wounded at the Battle of
Tsushima. He went on to become one of the people responsible for planning the attack on
Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, p. 97).
Kanno Sugako
A socialist and feminist,
Kanno Sugako opposed
the Russo-Japanese War;
she wrote many articles
The Taishō era: World War I and its immediate
that criticized the status aftermath
of women in Japan, who
she felt ‘were in a state of The Meiji era came to an end with the death of the emperor in 1911. Emperor Meiji was
slavery’. Kanno also stated succeeded by his son Prince Yoshihito, who became Emperor Taishō, and the Meiji era
that, ‘(in) accordance with
long-standing customs,
gave way to the Taishō era, meaning ‘the era of great righteousness’ (Hotta, Japan 1941,
we have been seen as a 2014, p. 86). Japan had, seemingly, become a successful modern empire with a modern
form of material property … army, a constitution, and a democracy of sorts. There were indications, however, that
Japan has become an the changes were superficial: underneath this veneer of modernization Japan remained
advanced, civilised nation deeply traditional, with political power entrenched in the emperor and his circle
but we women are still of advisors. Freedom of expression was severely limited and political ideas such as
denied our freedom by socialism and demands for greater equality for women were swiftly suppressed.
an invisible iron fence’. In
1910, Kanno was involved In August 1914, almost immediately after the outbreak of World War I in Europe,
in a plot to assassinate
Japan, in keeping with the spirit of the 1902 alliance it had signed with Britain (though
the emperor. Along with
11 others, she was put not strictly necessary, as the latter had not been attacked by two powers) declared
on trial and sentenced to war on Germany. This was not entirely altruistic as the war offered opportunities for
death. She was executed Japan to stand in for Britain in the Far East and, in particular, to take over German-
in 1911 (Hane, Japan, A leased territory in the Shandong province in China. The Japanese army moved quickly
Short History, 2015, to surround the German port of Tsingtao and, after a two-month siege, received
p. 114). its surrender. Similarly, German colonies in the Pacific surrendered without many
16

1.1
casualties. When the Allied Powers asked for Japanese troops to be sent to Europe
however, this request was denied, although some destroyers were sent to act as convoy
escorts in the Mediterranean.
In 1915, Japan imposed what became known as the Twenty-One Demands on

China, insisting on the following concessions:
● that German interests in China be transferred to Japan
● that Japanese interests in Manchuria be recognized
● that Japan be given an increased role in the administration and policing of China.
These demands reflected not only Japanese ambition but also Chinese weakness
during this period of warlordism and weak central government. American and
British support helped China to resist some of the more aggressive demands to share
its governance, but the territorial demands were conceded. To some extent, this
backfired on Japan as it aroused Chinese nationalism as well as American suspicions
that Japan would seize any opportunity to impose its influence over China. Indeed,
when civil war broke out in Russia in 1918 in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution,
Japan sent soldiers to Siberia to halt the progress of the Bolshevik Red Army. The
United States also sent soldiers with the intention of ‘maintaining a limited Eastern
front against Germany and limiting Japanese gains’ (Stone and Kuznik, The Untold
History of the United States, 2013, p. 29).
The Paris Peace Conference

An armistice ended World War I in November 1918. It was followed by the Paris Peace May Fourth Movement,
Conference, during which the Japanese delegation sought occupation of the following 1919
German colonies in the North Pacific: the Mariana, Marshall, and Caroline islands. Of A student-led
even greater importance to its foreign policy was Japan’s request to take over German movement that sprang
interests in Shandong province, as had been outlined in the Twenty-One Demands. up in May 1919,
In China, the May Fourth Movement of 1919 protested vehemently against such a in response to the
violation of the principle of self-determination. treatment of China
at the Paris Peace
For US President Woodrow Wilson, whether to accede to Japan’s demands or Conference and its
(preferably for him) champion those of the Chinese was among the most difficult of acceptance of Japan’s
the dilemmas he faced at the conference. Japan did get Shandong but this decision demands.
was influenced by another event linked to the establishment of the League of Nations.
A number of people, including Prince Konoe Fumimaro, a member of the Japanese
delegation, were critical of the concept of the League, an organization that was
believed to preserve the economic and political supremacy of the Western powers.
The prince also railed against the racism inherent in the attitudes of the British and
the Americans, who seemed to consider Japan, despite its military prowess, to be
a second-class power. In particular, Japan was deeply offended by the treatment of
Japanese immigrants to the United States and now demanded that the League should
support racial equality. A proposal was made that the Covenant of the League of
Nations, which already mentioned the equality of all religions, should also make
Whites-only policy
reference to the equality of all races. In 1919, this was considered incendiary as it
Australia had a whites-
would have immediate repercussions in European colonies in Africa and Asia, as well
only immigration policy
as threatening the Australian whites-only immigration policy. Japan lost the debate from 1902 onwards.
and the racial equality clause was shelved. President Wilson also feared that denying This was finally ended in
Japan its claim on Shandong might result in Japan leaving the conference and refusing 1973 when it was stated
to sign the Treaty of Versailles; it was a risk he was not prepared to take. So Japan that race could not be
gained Shandong but, as Margaret Macmillan notes, it was not an easy decision for considered as a factor
Wilson, who complained to his doctor: ‘Last night, I could not sleep, my mind was so influencing immigration
into Australia.
full of the Japanese–Chinese controversy’ (Macmillan, Paris 1919, 2003, p. 338).
17

For question 3, don’t Activity 8 ATL Thinking and research skills

forget that the best way
to approach this type Study the sources and answer the questions that follow.
of question is to use a Source A
comparative structure.
Here is an extract from The Deluge (2014, p. 325), a book by British historian Adam Tooze.
For instance, don’t be
tempted just to describe The idea that Japan might be speaking on behalf of Africans would no doubt have caused
the content of Source A indignation in Tokyo. What was at stake were European–Asian relations and specifically the
and then that of Source right of Asians to join Europeans in the settlement of the remaining open territories of
B. It is better to have one
the world.
paragraph stating the
similarities in the views
Source B
and another stating the
differences. It is also quite Here is an extract from an article entitled ‘Illusions of the White Race’ (1921) by Okuma Shigenobu (1838–
helpful to use certain 1922), a leading Japanese politician who served as prime minister in 1898 and again from 1914 to 1916.
phrases, for example: It is, of course, true that there are still peoples in this world who are so backward in
● ‘Both sources agree that…’ civilisation that they cannot at once be admitted into the international family on an equal
● ‘Similarities between the footing… What is needed by them is proper guidance and direction… Although most
sources include…’ Asiatic nations are fully peers of European nations, yet they are discriminated against because
● ‘Whereas Source A
of the colour of their skin. The root of it lies in the perverted feeling of racial superiority
says…, Source B says entertained by the whites.
that…’
● ‘The sources differ on…’ 1. In Source A, what is meant by ‘the remaining open territories of the world’?
Beginning your answer 2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source B for a
with phrases like those historian studying the impact of the Paris Peace Conference upon Japanese public opinion.
above will help make it 3. Compare and contrast the views expressed in both sources on Japanese views on racial equality.
very clear to the examiner
what you are comparing
or contrasting. The Paris Conference and the Treaty of Versailles were followed by the Washington
Conference of 1921–22, giving rise to the term the ‘Versailles–Washington System’ to
describe the new international order that ‘had been organised to protect the interests
CHALLENGE of the two major victorious powers, Great Britain and the United States’ (Duus, The
Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 6: The Twentieth Century, 1995, p. 282). The outcome
YOURSELF of the conference resulted in a sense of increasing disillusionment in Japan and a
Thinking, research, deepening of its inferiority complex for the following reasons:
ATL communication, and
social skills ● It confirmed the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and with it, the loss of Japanese
Disarmament was one of the
control over Shandong.
most important aims of the ● It required the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Siberia.
world leaders who gathered in ● It imposed a 5:5:3 ratio in battleships (Britain: United States: Japan), thus limiting the
Paris in 1919. Work in groups size of the Japanese fleet in relation to that of the other two Western powers.
to research the following topics
and share your research with This was not all. In 1922, the Nine-Power Treaty ‘liquidated all existing treaties
the class: between the powers and China and replaced them with the Open Door principles
1. Why was disarmament so long espoused by the United States’ (Duus, The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume
considered to be so vital 6: The Twentieth Century, 1995, p. 283). Further limits on the Japanese navy would be
during the inter-war period? imposed at the 1930 London Conference, when a 10:10:6 ratio (Britain: United States:
2. What were the disarmament Japan) was agreed for heavy cruisers and a 10:10:7 ratio for destroyers, although parity
terms set out in the Treaty
between the United States and Japan was allowed for submarines. Mikiso Hane notes
of Versailles and the
Treaty of St Germain? that during the inter-war period, disarmament became a source of discontent among
3. Japan was a victor, not a the ultra-nationalists, and the signatories of the London Treaty were all targeted for
loser, in World War I. Why assassination by right-wing militants.
were Britain and the United
States so eager to limit the
growth of the Japanese
navy?
18

1.2
Japanese domestic issues and their
1.2 impact on foreign relations
Between 1918 and 1932, Japanese politics went through a period known as Taishō
democracy. In 1918, Hara Takashi formed the first party government as leader of the
Rikken Seiyūkai (the Constitutional Society of Political Friends), later known only as the
Seiyūkai, which had been established since 1900. The party’s support had come mostly
from rural areas and its aim, generally, was to improve the economy and Japanese
standards of living. It was the majority party in the Diet until 1914, when it became the
minority briefly; the party regained the majority in 1918, which was when it entered
a golden age. Its leader at the time, Hara Takashi, was the first ‘commoner’ prime
minister, so-called because he led the majority political party and sat in the House of
Representatives.
Hara was assassinated in 1921: allegations of corruption as well as his suppression of

left-wing groups were probably the main reasons for this, but his assassin claimed it
was both ‘to gain fame and to bring about revolutionary change’ (Hane, Japan, A Short
History, 2015, p. 120). Hara’s assassination, however, paled in comparison with the
catastrophe of 1923, when a severe earthquake led to the devastation of Tokyo and
the deaths of 100,000 of its inhabitants. Around 700,000 of Tokyo’s mainly wooden
houses were rapidly destroyed in the fire that raged. Rumours quickly spread that the
fire had been started deliberately by Tokyo’s Korean population, with an estimated
2,613 people being killed in the ensuing riots. In this mayhem of fear and hysteria,
labour leaders were also arrested and executed. Overall, this tragedy and its racist
aftermath led to the enforcing of right-wing ideologies and demands for greater
security.
Even so, the appointment of the leader of the majority party as prime minister
had been established; this practice continued up until 1932. In 1924, the Kenseikai
(Constitutional Government Party), a party that had long since called for universal
suffrage and civil rights, came to power and in the following year a legislation was
passed to grant universal suffrage to men over the age of 25. It also passed the Peace
Preservation Law, however, which was intended to ‘curb dangerous thought’ and was
directed against communists and anarchists. In 1927, a new party, the Minseitō (Liberal
Party), was formed. It supported more liberal policies and depended on urban rather
than rural support. It was closely allied with business interests, a conciliatory foreign
policy, and the enforcement of the London Naval Treaty. Thinking, social,
self-management, ATL
and research skills
Political developments – from Taishō World War I marked a
democracy to militarism transition point in many
different countries. For
victors and losers, the
Although in the period following World War I political parties did multiply, the cost of the war, both in
bureaucracy was so entrenched and the constitution so limited that they never economic terms and
established a strong presence in Japan’s political landscape. Furthermore, they were in human suffering, led
weakened by a ‘lack of popular support, rife factionalism, corruption, lack of any to much reflection on
clear political ideology and failure to cooperate with each other to oppose antiparty whether or not the war
elements’ (Hunter, Concise Dictionary of Modern Japanese History, 1984, p. 169). was ‘worth it’. Compare
the social and economic
As we shall see, as economic conditions worsened and relations with China over post-war conditions of
Manchuria reached a critical point, Japanese democracy also faltered; prevented by either Italy or Germany to
those of Japan. Share your
constitutional limitations, or perhaps a lack of will, the country found itself failing to
findings with your class.
challenge effectively the growing right-wing ultra-nationalism.
19

Left-wing movements
An interesting question to ask when looking at the political landscape in Japan after
World War I is: where was the Left? Despite military incursions into Siberia during the
Russian civil war, the Bolshevik Revolution did have an impact on Japanese politics: the
Japanese Communist Party (JCP) was secretly established in 1922 but was closed down
in 1924 after the arrest of its leaders. An attempt was made in 1926 to re-form the party,
but the movement was harshly suppressed: its members, if uncovered, were arrested
and often tortured. The JCP remained banned until after World War II. A socialist
party had been established in 1906 but was banned in 1907. In 1920, the Japanese
Socialist League was formed: it was split into different factions and finally emerged as
the Social Mass Party in 1932. Although the expansion of suffrage in 1925 did make
possible increased support for various labour-farmer parties, according to Christopher
Gerteis (‘Political Protest in Interwar Japan, Part 1’, Asia Pacific Journal, 2014), it came
at a time when political power was slipping away to the entrenched ‘constitutionally
independent state bureaucracy’. Also, the Peace Preservation Law of 1925 limited
freedom of speech and was intended to limit the impact of universal male suffrage
upon the status quo. The general election of 1928 did not see any significant increase
in the number of left-wing representatives in the House of Representatives either. One
reason for this was the financial backing of the zaibatsu for traditional parties; trade
union activity was allowed, although the right to strike was blocked by the powerful
business interests that were closely entwined with the major political parties. In 1940,
trade unions were banned altogether.
An election poster from 1928

for the Japan Labour-Farmer
Party (a radical left-wing party).
1. What is the message conveyed in the poster above?
20

1.2
Social and cultural change in the 1920s
During the 1920s, urban society was being particularly influenced by Western
culture and customs. Not unexpectedly, this led to a deepening rift between life in the
countryside and that in the city. Sophisticated city dwellers expressed contempt for
rural inhabitants, as the latter were considered to be ignorant people leading desperate,
poverty-ridden lives. Equally, for many rural farmers, the cities were dens of iniquity
mired in corruption, their inhabitants dismissive of Japanese culture and tradition.
Mikiso Hane notes that although literacy was improving across both groups as a result
of compulsory elementary education, those who lived in towns and cities inevitably
had better access to secondary and higher education. In the 1930s, ultra-nationalists
found support in the countryside whose conservative and highly traditional
inhabitants rejected Western cultural and political influences.
Economic challenges – industry and agriculture

World War I had a strong impact on the expansion of the Japanese economy, as
the war offered immense opportunities to develop the country’s arms and export
industries. The preoccupation of the West’s producers with the war effort also meant
that there was less competition for Japanese producers. As a result, the consumption
of Japanese goods increased not only at home, but also in nearby Asian countries, as
well as across Europe and the United States.
Even though the production of industrial goods grew significantly in the 1920s, Hane
notes that over 50 per cent of workers were still involved in the primary industries of
farming, fishing, and mining (Hane, Japan, A Short History, 2015, p. 134). According to
a government survey conducted in 1927, family income among farming communities
was just 70 per cent of that of city office-workers, while urban workers’ incomes were
only slightly ahead of their rural counterparts. Even though urban and rural working
families together comprised 84 per cent of the population, they accounted for less
than 50 per cent of household income. What these statistics show is an unequal
distribution of wealth, with much of it being the preserve of the top echelons of the
business community, in particular the zaibatsu. At the top of this group were Mitsui,
Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, and Yasuda. The heads of these economic powerhouses, with
interests in everything from shipbuilding to mining, banking, and textiles, had close
ties with the government and the major political parties. According to Hane,
[government] leaders did nothing to curb the monopolistic thrust of the zaibatsu. In fact, they
were integral to the goal of building ‘a rich nation and a powerful military’, and military and
political expansion abroad went hand in hand with zaibatsu control of markets and resources
Hane, Japan, A Short History, 2015, p. 136
Indeed, the 1927 Banking Crisis demonstrated that the Japanese economy was becoming
more monopolistic. Many small banks went out of business, while control of much of
the country’s finances went to a few large and powerful banks, with the zaibatsu growing
in size and authority. Then came the Wall Street Crash of 1929, a calamity that impacted
not just the economy of the United States but that of all its trading partners.
The Great Depression and its aftermath

As with all other countries that depended upon the export markets for their livelihood,
Japan suffered from the collapse in world trade associated with the Great Depression.
The response of the government was an austerity programme, with a focus on
21

deflationary measures. Niall Ferguson argues that Japan’s decision to pursue austerity
and return to the gold standard in 1929, just before the Wall Street Crash, was ill-timed
and only worsened the situation. Exports fell by 6 per cent between 1929 and 1931;
unemployment rose to 1 million; and agricultural incomes slumped.
In the face of the overvalued Yen and increasing protectionism by the British Empire
and American markets, the Japanese government took the wise decision to come off
the gold standard in 1931. The Yen was allowed to float, meaning there would be no
fixed rate of exchange. At the same time, the government abandoned its austerity
programmes and started to spend money on military equipment. There was a shortage
of raw materials that continued through the 1930s, squeezing the small to medium-
sized producers, but benefiting the zaibatsu, whose political clout and economic
power enabled them to direct scarce resources their way. Hugely dependent on the
British Empire for imports of raw materials (such as jute, lead, tin, zinc, iron ore,
and cotton) and on the Americans (for cotton, scrap metal, and oil), Japan needed
good access to resources. As Ferguson notes, Japan’s exports needed a strong world
economy, but when protectionist measures led to a drawing in of world markets,
Japan had to reassess its political and military position.
The weak demand in a protectionist world economy adversely affected Japan. In

addition, Japan had a rapidly growing population that needed living space and more
access to food. All this added weight to a call for what Hane refers to as the acquisition
of its own ‘imperial market’ (Hane, Japan, A History, 2015, p. 153). According to
Ferguson, imperial expansion led to the emigration of around 315,000 Japanese
citizens between 1935 and 1940. However, Ferguson notes that the problem with
imperial expansion was that ‘… it required increased imports of petroleum, copper,
coal, machinery and iron ore to feed the nascent Japanese military–industrial complex’
(Ferguson, The War of the World, 2006, p. 297). In other words, the more imperialistic
Japan became, the greater its dependence on imported raw materials. At some stage,
presumably, its empire would both provide the resources and absorb the goods it
needed, but that time was yet to come.
The growth of ultra-nationalism and its threat

to democracy
After becoming the leader of the Seiyūkai in 1925, General Tanaka Giichi was
appointed prime minister in 1927. His policies were both repressive of left-wing
movements and aggressive abroad. An important event was the assassination in
1928 of Zhang Zuolin, a warlord of Manchuria (for more, see page 30). Emperor
Shōwa (Hirohito) had been angered by Japanese complicity in this event, and even
though Tanaka had not been part of the planning of this event, his failure to provide
an explanation for the emperor reflected the weakness of the government and made
him feel compelled to resign. Tanaka was succeeded by Hamaguchi Yūkō, leader of
the Minseitō whose government was responsible for signing the London Naval Treaty.
According to Hane, the military officers who objected most vehemently to the treaty’s
restrictions on Japan’s naval capability now accused the government of overstepping
its authority, claiming it did not have the right ‘to override the naval general staff in
matters of defence’ (Hane, Japan, A Short History, 2015, p. 139). Hamaguchi was shot in
an assassination attempt; although he survived, he resigned as prime minister and died
not long afterwards. Hamaguchi’s successor, Wakatsuki Reijirō, was caught up in the
Manchurian Incident (see Chapter 2, page 30) and resigned soon after; he was replaced
by Inukai Tsuyoshi, leader of the Seiyūkai. Although he criticized the London Treaty,
Inukai was also assassinated by ultra-nationalists in May 1932.
22

1.2
According to Hane, ‘Inukai’s assassination was the turning point in Japan’s move
towards militaristic extremism’ (Hane, Japan, A Short History, 2015, p. 145). Buruma,
similarly, equates this time with the end of party democracy and even compares it to
contemporaneous events in Germany where the Weimar Republic was being buffeted
by the combination of harsh economic circumstances and the rise of fascism. As
Buruma points out, although Japan had neither a Nazi party nor a führer, it had an
emperor whose political opinions are still, to this day, shrouded in mystery, while
its rival power-grasping factions ‘in the court, the military, the bureaucracy and the
Diet… fought each other with almost as much zeal as they displayed towards external
enemies’ (Buruma, Inventing Japan, 1853–1964, 2004, p. 91). The period of Taishō
democracy was drawing to a close.
Study the sources below and answer the questions that follow.
Source A
The following is taken from historian Mikiso Hane’s book Japan, A Short History (Oneworld Publications,
2015, pp.141–42).
One of the officers arrested and put on trial for Inukai’s assassination reflected the anguish felt by
many soldiers who saw an enormous gap between the seemingly extravagant lifestyle in the cities and
impoverished lives of the peasants in rural villages. He said,
In utter disregard of the poverty-stricken farmers, the enormously rich zaibatsu pursue their
private profit. Meanwhile, the young children of the impoverished farmers of the north
eastern provinces attend school without breakfast, and their families subsist on rotten
potatoes.
Source B
Jonathan N Lipman is a professor of history. The following is taken from his essay ‘Imperial Japan:
1894–1945’ (2008).
Young men, both military officers and their colleagues in civilian organizations such as the
Kokuryukai (Amur River Society), expressed their nationalist passions through assassinations
of politicians, industrialists, intellectuals, and others who did not conform to their rigid
standards of ‘pure Japanese’ behaviour and beliefs. Prime Minister Hamaguchi was murdered
at Tokyo Station in 1930, and Prime Minister Inukai was killed in 1932. Both assassinations
were perpetrated by ultranationalists impatient with the corruption of party politics and eager
for Japan to be driven by their own heroic values, which were expressed most obviously in the
military and the drive to dominate Japan’s neighbours, especially China.
1. With reference to the origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source A to
historians studying post-World War I politics in Japan.
2. To what extent does Source A support the reasons given in Source B for the assassination of political
leaders?
The Shōwa era

On the death of this father Emperor Taishō in 1926, and having served as regent for
the previous four years, Crown Prince Hirohito ascended to the Imperial throne and
became Emperor Shōwa. The new emperor was a young man who had rarely left
Japan, with one exception being in 1921 when, warned beforehand about the ‘poison
of European liberal thought’, he had been sent on a tour of Europe. According to
Buruma, educated to believe absolutely in ‘the myths of Japanese racial purity and the
divine provenance of his own blood lines as though they were historical facts’, the
young Crown Prince Hirohito was apparently impressed by the ‘informality of British
23

aristocratic manners, even at Buckingham Palace’ that contrasted with the elaborate
and strictly enforced code of behaviour at the imperial palace in Tokyo (Buruma,
Inventing Japan, 1853–1964, 2004, pp. 82–83).
If Hirohito had wanted to introduce some informality, however, he would have been
rapidly disabused of any such idea in a culture that had been built upon the veneration
of the emperor. In accordance with Shinto rituals, the coronation on 14 November
1926 took place after Hirohito spent the night at Ise, the holiest of Shinto temples,
communing with his ancestor, the sun goddess. The following morning, ‘reborn’ as a
living god, Hirohito could assume his role as emperor and take Japan from the Taishō
era to the Shōwa era, meaning ‘a time of illustrious peace’ (see Buruma, Inventing Japan,
1853–1964, 2004, pp. 83–84).
One of the side trips

made by Hirohito during
his European tour was
to the site of the Battle
of Ypres, which was said
to have contributed to
his ‘aversion of war’.
According to Eri Hotta,
the young prince was
taken on a tour of the
battlefield (remember that
this was only three years
after the end of World
War I) by a Belgian officer
who had lost a son in the
war. Upon hearing about
the plight of the officer,
Hirohito’s eyes ‘welled up
with tears’ (Hotta, Japan
1941, 2014, p. 87).
A photo taken in 1925 of
Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) in his
coronation robe.
Having read through this section, you can see how Japan emerged out of World War I
as a modern and ambitious country, growing in prosperity and moving towards a
more democratic system of government as it entered the Shōwa Era. Even so, there
CHALLENGE was a lingering disaffection with the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the
YOURSELF Naval Treaties. Many of its citizens felt that Japan was being denied its rightful place as
an equal of the Western powers. Within the Japanese military, which owed allegiance
Thinking, research,
ATL communication, and only to the emperor, there were groups of militant nationalists wanting to purify
self-management skills Japan. One such organization was the Sakurakai (Cherry Blossom Society), established
in 1930. Opposed to political corruption and disarmament policies, its intention was
See what you can find out to set up a military government and to rid Japan of its corrupt politicians. According
about the Ketsumeidan (Blood
to a society pamphlet produced by the Sakurakai,
Brotherhood Society), a
Japanese ultra-nationalist
… the poisonous sword of the thoroughly degenerate politicians is being pointed at the military.
society similar to the Sakurakai.
Compare the ideologies of these
This was clearly demonstrated in the London treaties. It is obvious that the party politicians’
Japanese societies with those sword that was used against the navy, will soon be used to reduce the size of the army. Hence…
of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) in we must arouse ourselves and wash out the bowels of the completely decadent politicians.
Germany. Share your research
Extract from a Cherry Blossom Society pamphlet, in Hane, Japan, A Short History, Oneworld
with the class. Publications, 2015, p. 142
24

1.3
1.3 Political instability in China
The demise of the Qing dynasty, the last of China’s empires, began on 10 October
1911 in what became known as the Double Tenth Rebellion. This was followed by a
long period of weak government known as warlordism, when regional leaders (largely
self-appointed) with their own private militias controlled whole provinces with scant
regard for the nominal government in Beijing. As mentioned earlier, Japan entered
World War I mainly to take over German interests in China, an aim it achieved and
attempted to build on with the Twenty-One Demands it presented to the Chinese
central government. Had it not been for the protection of the United States, motivated
by both a long-established link to China as well as concern over Japanese expansion, it
is likely that all 21 of the demands would have had to be conceded.
China and Japan, 1911–22

Sino-Japanese rivalry over Korea has already been discussed in the first section of this
chapter; relations between the countries did not improve as World War I came to an
end. Negotiations over the Shandong province and whether it should remain with
Japan or be returned to China (which had also entered the war on the side of the Allies
in 1917) led to heated debates in Paris. Presenting the case for China was Wellington
Koo, the Chinese ambassador to Washington. American-educated with degrees from
Columbia University, Koo was immensely engaging and erudite.
Taken from the book Paris 1919 (Random House, 2003) by Margaret Macmillan, below is a description of
Wellington Koo by Georges Clemenceau, the French prime minister:
[He is] a young Chinese cat, Parisian of speech and dress, absorbed in the pleasure of patting Wellington Koo and his wife in
a photograph taken in 1920.
and pawing the mouse, even if it was reserved for the Japanese.
1. According to the quotation above, what is the ‘mouse’ meant to symbolize? What impression does
this source give of Wellington Koo?
Despite his eloquence, Koo’s arguments could not overcome the fact that it was
pragmatic – at least in the short term – to give Shandong to Japan. This greatly incensed
public opinion in China and the supporters of the May Fourth Movement (the latter
mainly comprising students from Peking University), who condemned the Western
leaders for deserting China during what they claimed was a ‘life and death struggle’
(Macmillan, Paris 1919, 2003, p. 340). Despairing over the lack of support from the West,
many Chinese turned to an alternative system adopted by the Soviet Union; indeed, the
Communist Party of China, set up in 1921, grew out of the May Fourth Movement.
Very soon it was clear that the resolution of the Shandong question was seen as a
mixed blessing for Japan: it had aroused the hostility of many of its wartime allies,
underlining that this was a prize given grudgingly. According to Macmillan, in China,
resentment affected Japanese business, while Britain began to seriously rethink the
Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Unsurprisingly, this concerned Japan greatly; discussions
were initiated by the Japanese in 1920 to return Shandong to China, though China did
not respond. The matter was eventually resolved during the Washington Conference
in 1921–22, when it was agreed that Shandong should be given back China, albeit with
economic concessions to the Japanese. (For more on the Washington Conference, see
page 18).
25

According to Hane,
At the Washington Conference, a settlement between Japan and China was reached. Japan
agreed to return the German holdings in Shandong Peninsula to China but it got China to agree
to allow Japan to retain the railroad on the peninsula for fifteen years. Sino-Japanese relations
grew increasingly strained however, as Japanese authorities intervened in Chinese political affairs
during the 1920s when a power struggle between the different warlord factions was taking place.
From Mikiso Hane, Japan, A Short History, Oneworld Publications, 2015, p. 119
The countries that attended and signed the Washington Treaty also agreed on the Nine-Power Treaty
signed in February 1922, which guaranteed the sovereignty of China and an open-door trading policy.
Below is the first article of the treaty.
ARTICLE I
The Contracting Powers, other than China, agree:
(1) To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative
integrity of China;
(2) To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and
maintain for herself an effective and stable government;
(3) To use their influence for the purpose of effectually establishing and maintaining the
principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations throughout
the territory of China;
(4) To refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to seek special rights
or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States, and
from countenancing action inimical to the security of such States.
Addendum: [Elihu Root, a US statesman]… drafted the Nine Power Treaty. In the course of
that Hughes [prime minister of Australia] produced the secret promise made by Japan as part
of the Lansing–Ishii arrangement that she would not interfere with other nations in China
and without saying anything to anybody this secret agreement was put into the Root draft…
It became verbatim the corresponding obligation in the Nine Power Treaty. (File no. 500.
A4d/240 1/2.)
1. With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitation of this source to
historians studying the postwar settlements.
Study closely the The Guomindang and the Northern Expedition

content of this source, in
particular the addendum Despite some attempts at unity, China in the 1920s was riven with discord. Back in
at the end that refers to a 1923, following the advice of the Comintern, members of the Communist Party
‘secret’ agreement which of China (CPC) had joined the Guomindang (Chinese Nationalist Party, or GMD
Japan had accepted. This for short) to form the United Front, aimed at ridding China of warlords. The year
is an official document,
1925 saw the death of Sun Yixian, founder and head of the GMD; he was succeeded
but how reliable is this
source for understanding
by Jiang Jieshi, the vehemently anti-communist head of the National Revolutionary
what actually happened Army (NRA). In 1926, Jiang launched the Northern Expedition to end the rule of the
during the signing of the warlords, beginning in Guangdong province and heading north towards Shanghai,
treaty or what was agreed Beijing, and Manchuria. One of Jiang’s best-known sayings was to be ‘the Japanese
by the nations? are a disease of the skin but the Communists are a disease of the heart’: in 1927, he
While primary sources demonstrated the depth of his hatred of the CPC by launching a campaign known as
such as this may be useful the White Terror to purge the GMD of Communists.
in your studies, do not
assume they are always The GMD advanced northwards. By 1928, they were moving towards the territory
more reliable or valuable controlled by Zhang Zuolin (see page 22), who according to Jonathan Fenby was
than secondary sources!
‘China’s biggest warlord’ (Fenby, The Penguin History of Modern China; The Fall and Rise
26

1.3
of a Great Power, 2009, p. 183). Known also as the Old Marshal, Zhang had actively
cooperated with the Japanese who had controlled the South Manchurian Railway.
For the Japanese army in Manchuria, known as the Guandong Army (Guandong is
pinyin for Kwantung), the Northern Expedition posed a threat to Japanese interests in
Manchuria. Increasingly, the Japanese doubted the loyalty of Zhang Zuolin, preferring
to deal with his son Zhang Xueliang, known (unsurprisingly) as the Young Marshal.
A plot was hatched to dispose of the Old Marshal by first killing him and then waiting
for the his army to take to the streets to seek revenge; the Guandong Army would then
intervene to restore peace and, in doing so, establish control over Manchuria. The first
part of the plot worked: a bomb was dropped on the Old Marshal’s train carriage as he
returned to Mukden in 1928. The critically injured warlord was taken to hospital where
he died. Unexpectedly, however, Zhang’s army did not respond, thus presenting no
opportunity for the Guandong Army to ‘defend’ Japanese interests. To make matters
worse for the plotters, the Young Marshal came to an agreement with Jiang Jieshi and,
in return, was given autonomy over Manchuria. Fenby notes that, unlike his father,
Zhang Xueliang refused to cooperate with the Guandong Army and showed every
intention of seeking ‘further integration’ with China by building a railway to compete
with the Japanese-run South Manchurian Railway. The Guandong Army did not try
again to gain control until 1931 (Fenby, The Penguin History of Modern China, 2009, p. 232). ’Young Marshal’ Zhang
Xueliang (on the right) posing
in 1929 with General Connell,
an American officer, after he
A review of Chapter 1 had joined forces with Jiang
Jieshi against further Japanese
and Soviet incursions in
This chapter has focused on Japan’s rise as a modern nation state from the late 19th Manchuria. The United
States had offered aid to help
century through to the 1920s. In particular, it has examined how the Meiji restoration
combat Soviet and Japanese
established an economic and military basis for Japanese expansion and its aspiration to raids in Manchuria.
be regarded as a world power. It has also looked at the relationship between Japan and
its neighbours, including its response to the decline of the Chinese Manchu Empire and
growing rivalry with the Romanov Empire of Russia. The impact of World War I upon
Japan – and the opportunities it offered – has been outlined, as has Japan’s role in the
Paris peace-making of 1919. The chapter has ended with an overview of the political
and social changes that Japan underwent during the 1920s, as well as an analysis of its
growing tension with Nationalist China over the future status of Manchuria.
Activity 13 ATL Thinking and research skills To access websites relevant

to this chapter, go to
Now that you have read through this chapter, answer the following question. This is very similar to the kind www.pearsonhotlinks.
of mini essay that you would get asked to write in the fourth question of the Prescribed Subject exam paper. com, search for the book
Using the sources and the text in this chapter, examine the factors that influenced Japanese title or ISBN, and click on
foreign policy between 1919 and 1931. ‘Chapter 1’.
It isn’t a good idea to try and start your exam by answering the fourth question first (even though it carries the highest marks).
Always answer the questions in the order they are written in the exam: in other words, start with the first question and work
your way through to the last. By doing so, you become familiar with the sources and you are better prepared to tackle this
mini-essay question. Don’t forget that the question asks you to include references to the material in the sources as well as
your own knowledge. To write a good answer, you need to include references to all the sources (there are always four sources
included in the exam paper), and use your own knowledge as well as the sources to support your argument. Allow yourself
around 20 minutes of the exam time to answer the fourth question – don’t forget to plan your answer before you start writing.
For this particular question on Japanese foreign policy, you could list the following factors:
● the Treaty of Versailles and the treatment of Japan at the Peace Conference
● the Naval Treaties
● the Japanese economy that both prospered and faced crises in the 1920s.
Think of other factors you could add to this list. Once you have done this, go through the sources in the last section of this
chapter and see if you could use some of them in your answer. Don’t forget to include an introduction and a conclusion.
27

02 Japanese expansion and foreign
policy, 1931–38

Emperor Kangde (Puyi) of
This chapter examines Japan’s foreign policy from 1931 to 1938. In Manchukuo, photographed in
particular, it focuses on the ways in which it was perceived by the 1934.
following world powers:

● the United States and the Soviet Union: both considered Japan to be an ambitious
neighbour with interests that might potentially clash with their own
● Britain and France: both had imperial possessions in the Far East that made them wary of
Japanese expansion
● Germany and Italy: both would form closer relations with Japan during this period.
Chita
Map of East Asia (with location

of South Manchurian Railway),
MONGOLIA MANCHURIA
1931
Harbin
Beijing
Dalian KOREA JAPAN
CHINA
INDIA
PA CI FI C
OCEAN
N
FRENCH
INDOCHINA
INDIAN
0 1000 km
OC EAN Scale
The chapter begins with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and ends with the Battle of
Nanjing in December 1937, giving an overview of events that contributed to growing
tension as the world moved closer to war.
The Japanese occupation of Manchuria

2.1 and northern China, 1931
As you will recall from the previous chapter, in 1928 a faction within the Guandong
Army attempted to manufacture a casus belli in Manchuria by assassinating its warlord,
‘Old Marshal’ Zhang Zuolin. This act of terrorism had been motivated in part by the
northward movement of the Guomindang (GMD) under the leadership of Jiang Jieshi,
who wanted to unite all of China under a centralized government; if successful, it would
have compromised Japanese control over the South Manchurian Railway as well as its
trading interests throughout the region. Japan was also concerned about the growing
support offered to Jiang Jieshi by the Western powers and how this might strengthen
China. Furthermore, the Soviet Union was rapidly industrializing and, in time, might
prove a troublesome neighbour. Finally, perhaps most importantly, China was in
disarray and unlikely to have the military capacity to prevent a takeover of Manchuria.
29

02 Japanese expansion and foreign policy, 1931–38
South Manchurian Zhang’s assassination had been an attempt to provoke a hostile response from the
Railway warlord’s army, providing a pretext for the Guandong Army to intervene and secure
This railway was built its control over Manchuria. Although this act of murder roused anti-Japanese feeling
by Russia in 1898 as in Manchuria, there was no military response and the Guandong Army’s plan failed.
the southern extension Shocked by the murder of Zhang Zuolin and suspecting a plot, Emperor Shōwa
of the China Far East (Hirohito) demanded an explanation; Prime Minister Tanaka Giiji, though having
Railway. It was taken played no part in events, felt compelled to resign.
over by the Japanese
after the Treaty of Manchuria, however, remained of great economic and historical importance and,
Portsmouth that ended in 1931, the Guandong Army, acting once again on its own initiative, made another
the Russo-Japanese War
attempt to consolidate its control over this region of China.
in 1905 and renamed
the South Manchurian
Railway, with 50 per
cent owned by the The Manchurian Incident
Japanese government
and the remainder by On 18 September 1931, a bomb exploded on the South Manchurian Railway near
private shareholders. Mukden. ‘Young Marshal’ Zhang Xueliang, son of Zhang Zuolin, issued instructions to
The railway company his army not to intervene, but the Guandong Army immediately blamed the Chinese,
also built and ran asserted their right to defend Japanese interests against the Chinese bandits, and took
hotels in the main control of cities along the whole length of the South Manchurian Railway. This was
towns along its route
done without the authority of the emperor, the Japanese Diet, or the military chiefs in
as well as encouraging
the establishment of
Tokyo.
industry and business.
The Manchurian Incident had been planned by Lieutenant Colonel Ishiwara Kanji
It originally ran from
Harbin to Port Arthur, of the Guandong Army, an officer described by Eri Hotta as ‘magnetic and eccentric’
but under Japanese (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, p. 44), who was motivated by a fear that Jiang Jieshi, under
control it ran from Western influence, was becoming increasingly anti-Japanese. Ishiwara also worried
Changchun to Port about the looming presence of the Soviet Union, which had embarked on its first
Arthur. Five-Year Plan and was building up its military presence on the Manchurian border.
An invasion or an incident?
In Japan, the occupation of Manchuria was referred to as the Manchurian Incident, which made
it sound like a brief event that had been quickly dealt with. In history textbooks, however, it
Stalin’s first Five-Year is commonly referred to as the Manchurian Invasion. The use of the term is debated: on the
Plan one hand it could be argued that this was not an invasion as such, as the Guandong Army was
In 1928 (officially already present in Manchuria and had the right to protect Japanese interests. On the other
in 1929), Stalin hand, the army did invade Chinese territory, bringing it under Japanese control.
launched an economic
development plan
intended to provide
the Soviet Union
Activity 1 ATL Thinking and communication skills
with the basis for a Source A

programme of rapid Eri Hotta is a Japanese historian who was educated in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
industrialization. The following extract is taken from her book Japan 1941
The distribution of
resources and labour To many in Japan, the Western support garnered [gathered] by Jiang […] represented a
became under the betrayal […] By the end of the 1920s, Japan was equally obsessed with the rise of
control of the Soviet Bolshevism […] All these factors compelled Ishiwara and his followers to go far beyond the
government. call of duty and invade Manchuria. Their reckless initiative came as a surprise to most leaders
in Tokyo, though the plotters may well have had supporters in the higher ranks of the Army
General Staff. At the beginning of the campaign, [Japanese] Prime Minister Wakatsuki
Reijiro […] wanted to contain hostilities. Japanese public opinion, however, fuelled by a
jingoistic [nationalistic] media, keenly supported Ishiwara’s adventures.
Eri Hotta, Japan 1941, Vintage Books, USA, 2014, p. 45
30

2.1
Source B
Jonathan Fenby is a British writer, journalist, and analyst. Here is an extract from his book The Penguin
History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power.
A leading politician, Prince Konoe [he later became prime minister] thought it ‘only natural
for China to sacrifice itself for the sake of Japan’s social and industrial needs’. Rising
unemployment under the impact of the Great Depression, growing hardships at home and
food problems made expansion across the sea all the more attractive. For those who had
envisaged an anti-communist crusade, the north-east was an ideal springboard for an attack
on the Soviet Union.
Jonathan Fenby, The Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power,
Penguin, UK, 2009, p. 231
1. Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B on the reasons for the Manchurian
Incident of 1931.
Student answer – Sara
Both sources talk about the Soviet Union and how Japan reacted to it. Source B mentions Prince Konoe
but Source A doesn’t. Source B also talks about unemployment in Japan but Source A doesn’t. Both
sources talk about invading Manchuria.
Student answer – Ben
Both Source A and Source B refer to the importance of the Soviet Union as a reason for the Japanese
invasion of Manchuria. Source A mentions how Japan was ‘obsessed with the rise of Bolshevism’ and
Source B states that Manchuria (the northeast) ‘was an ideal springboard for an attack on the Soviet
Union’. Both Sources A and B also comment on how the politicians – in Source A, Prime Minister
Wakatsuki and in Source B, Prince Konoe – were both swayed by public opinion to support the invasion.
Source B places more emphasis on unemployment and other economic motives, however, while Source
A refers to the importance of nationalism (jingoism). Both Sources A and B refer to Japan’s attitude
towards China but in different ways: Source B states that China had to ‘sacrifice itself ’ for Japan’s needs,
while Source A refers to the frustration felt in Japan by the support given to China by the West.
Examiner’s comments
Ben has written a much fuller answer than Sara. His answer is also more clearly structured, as he refers
firstly to comparisons and then to contrasts, whereas Sara’s structure is less coherent. Ben has also
included short phrases, which are always helpful in enabling an examiner to see why certain points have
been made. Notice also that Sara has implied some contrasts but only by stating that Source B mentions
Prince Konoe and Source A doesn’t. Do try to avoid this kind of response as it is a bit like giving half an
answer. Ben handles this better by saying that Source B discusses unemployment while Source A focuses
on nationalism. It would be even better if Ben linked this to the question by emphasizing nationalism as a
reason for the Manchurian Incident.
The creation of Manchukuo

Once it had taken control of the region around the South Manchurian Railway, the
Guandong Army continued to march forward and, by March 1932, occupied the three
Manchurian provinces of Liaoning, Heilongjiang, and Jilin. The Guandong Army
claimed that the people of Manchuria had been liberated and had spontaneously
declared their independence; supported by Japan, Manchuria was renamed as the state
of Manchukuo.
The independence of Manchukuo was proclaimed on 1 March 1931, although it was

commonly referred to as a ‘puppet state’; it was also termed as a ‘client regime’ (Hotta,
Japan 1941, 2014, p. 40) as, in reality, it was administered by Japan. To rule over the
Manchu people, Japan nominated 28-year-old Puyi, the last of the Manchu (Qing)
emperors of China deposed in 1912, as regent in the new capital city of Changchun. In
1934, when the conquest of Manchuria was complete, Puyi was officially enthroned
as emperor. As was customary with Japanese emperors, Puyi was given a name that
also referred to the era of his reign: his was Kangde, meaning ‘prosperity and virtue’.
31

Regardless of his position and title, Kangde was head of state in name only as he took
his orders from the Japanese military.
Yoshioka Yasunori, an Activity 2 ATL Thinking and research skills

officer in the Guandong
Army, was appointed as Source A
a ‘minder’ for Emperor Taken in 1934, this is a photo of Empress Wanrong of Manchukuo. She became addicted to opium and
Kangde: in other words, died in 1945.
the former told the latter
what to do. According
to Jonathan Fenby, when
news came of Japanese
victories, Kangde was
instructed to bow in the
direction of the battlefield.
Japanese police were also
posted in the Imperial
Palace to keep a watch on
what went on there (The
Penguin History of Modern
China: The Fall and Rise
of a Great Power, 2009,
p. 249).
Source B
Emperor Kangde (Puyi) with Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) on a state visit to Japan in April 1935.
1. Looking at the photos in Sources A and B, what impression do they give of the status of the emperor
and empress of Manchukuo?
32

2.1
Some reasons behind the Manchurian Incident
Manchukuo, 1932.
0 500 km
USSR
Scale
N
Tsitsihar
MONGOLIA
MANCHURIA
Harbin
Vladivostock
Mukden
CHINA
Sea of
Japan
KOREA
Yellow JAPAN
Sea
● Jiang Jieshi was moving northwards with the GMD to bring all of China (including
Manchuria) under centralized control and this would have limited Japanese control
over its interests in the region.
● Chinese nationalism and anti-Japanese feelings were increasing in Manchuria and
other regions of China, which were important trading partners for Japan.
● There were growing concerns about the Soviet Union and the potential expansion of
communism into Manchuria.
● The Great Depression badly affected the Japanese economy; it needed cheap,
plentiful resources as well as a market for its goods.
● Officers in the Guandong Army believed that it was Japan’s destiny to expand its
empire to Manchuria and beyond.
Thinking, research, and communication skills ATL
The events of 1931 are referred to as either the Manchurian Invasion or the Manchurian
Incident; the Japanese government at the time preferred the latter. When you go on to
read about the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937, you will see that it too was referred
to in Japan as the Chinese Incident. Do the names we give to such events really make
a difference to how we think of them and respond to them? Can you think of other
conflicts that were/are given different names to arouse support or opposition?
33

The response in Japan and China to the

2.2 Manchurian Incident
It is fairly clear that the Guandong Army was controlling events in Manchukuo in
1931, but who had control of the events in Tokyo? Overall, it is quite difficult to
determine which factions (and there were many) within the military, the parliament,
and the imperial court supported or condemned the actions of the Guandong Army.
Japan – a political response

Hamaguchi Yūkō was appointed prime minister in June 1931. The year before, he
had been responsible for signing the naval agreement at the London Naval Treaty
(see Chapter 1, page 22) that further limited the growth of the Japanese navy, an
action that was deeply unpopular among the ultra-nationalists in Japan. Hamaguchi
was targeted by an assassin in November 1930 and was severely wounded; he was,
however, reappointed as prime minister in 1931, shortly before his death later that
same year. He was succeeded by Wakatsuki Reijirō (who resigned in December 1931).
Wakatsuki’s response to the actions of the Guandong Army was lukewarm, at best; a
‘credibility gap’ was developing in Japanese politics as the government reiterated its
policy of non-expansionism while the military in Manchuria continued to advance
(Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, Oxford, 1995 p. 549). Wakatsuki was succeeded by
Inukai Tsuyoshi, who also expressed misgivings about the creation of Manchukuo,
stating that it should not be recognized as an independent state from China. In 1932,
Inukai agreed to a ceasefire when fighting broke out in Shanghai: for this, he was
assassinated by right-wing nationalists. His assassination has been seen as marking
the end of the Taishō democracy and the start of a new era in which a government
by ‘national unity cabinets’ was ushered in, made up mainly of senior bureaucrats
with only some representation from the political parties. This was meant to restore
stability. Ian Buruma compares this to contemporary events in Germany, where
Weimar democracy came to an end in 1933 (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004,
p. 91).
ATL Research, communication, social, and self-management skills
With a classmate, carry out research on why democracy came to an end in Germany in 1933.
Draw up a list of comparisons and contrasts between what was happening in Germany and
events in Japan during this period, focusing on the economy, the ideology of the ruling party,
and the parliamentary system. See what other factors strike you as similar. Share your research
with the class.
Japan – a popular response

The legacy of the Russo-Japanese War (which in 1904 had cost the lives of
approximately 100,000 Japanese soldiers) had been an important reason for public
support for the takeover of Manchuria (Gong, Memory and History in East and South East
Asia, 2001, p. 52). Propaganda emphasized how much Japanese blood had already
been spilled over Manchuria, claiming that the Guandong Army was not seizing but
merely defending hard-won territory.
34

2.2
A photo taken in 1933 of a young girl holding dolls. These were made both to commemorate the first
anniversary of the establishment of Manchukuo and to foster good relations with Japan.
1. What impression, do you think, were these dolls meant to convey to the people of Manchukuo?
According to Ian Buruma, those who supported the takeover of Manchuria maintained In the early 20th
that the region was rich in resources (such as coal and iron ore) that were vital for century, the five main
ethnic groups living
Japan’s continued industrialization: without them, Japan would surely collapse.
in Manchuria were
For some, Manchuria was seen as an impoverished region, needing only economic Russian, Chinese, Korean,
investment and good (Japanese) governance so it could be turned into a paradise; it was Japanese, and the
believed that, under the benevolent rule of Japan, the different ethnic groups living in Manchu. The Manchu
Manchuria would coexist in peace (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, pp. 93– people formed only a
96). It is significant that by propagating this vision of harmony and justice, many small percentage of the
left-wing Japanese were enticed to go to Manchuria to be part of this social experiment. region’s population.
Conveniently, this rid Japan of some of its more troublesome left-wingers.
Ian Buruma is an Anglo-Dutch writer and academic. The following extract is taken from his book Inventing
Japan 1853–1964.
Japanese novelists and essayists flocked to Manchukuo to write about its remarkable modernity,
the speed of its trains, the fine parks of Dalian and the cosmopolitan nightlife of Harbin. Some
of the best filmmakers worked for the Manchu film studios, where they were given the most
advanced facilities to make films about brave Japanese pioneers helping their Asian brethren
[brothers]. Many of the artists and writers were in fact Marxists, whose sentiments were
anti-capitalist and thus anti-Western anyway. Pan-Asianism appealed to their sense of
idealism. All they had to do was switch from socialism to a brand of national-socialism.
Ian Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, Modern Library, New York. 2004, pp 96–97
1. According to the source above, for what reasons did filmmakers, writers, and artists go to Manchukuo?
Now read the following sample answers.
Student answer – Michelle
Filmmakers went to Manchukuo because of the up-to-date facilities they were given at the Manchu film
studios. Artists and writers often went there because they were anti-capitalist and its Pan-Asian ethos
appealed to their idealism. Also, Manchukuo was modern and living standards were good, with fast trains
and nice surroundings. Don’t forget that part A
of the first question in the
Student answer – Mike Paper 1 exam is worth 3
The reasons why writers and artists went to Manchukuo was that the trains were fast and the nightlife was marks – this means an
lively. Also, writers were Marxist and anti-capitalist. examiner will be looking
for three clear points in
order to award the full
Mike has mentioned two points but both could be a little more fully developed. Michelle has given a marks.
much fuller and nicely structured answer: she has made three clear points, using her own words.
35

As World War II in Asia Manchuria was also seen as an area with plenty of ‘living space’ for Japan’s growing
came to an end in August population, offering opportunities to relieve the poverty that blighted the lives of farmers
1945 – when the Soviet in the Japanese countryside. This policy was given official support in 1932 when the so-
Union declared war called Rural-Rescue Diet funded an investigation into how best to promote and support
on Japan and the Red the emigration of farmers to Manchuria. The aim was to send a million households to
Army crossed the border Manchuria; however, by 1945, only 320,000 Japanese emigrants had settled there.
into Manchuria – the
Japanese settlers were Takemaro Mori, a professor of economic research, notes that emigration to Manchuria
abandoned to their fate
was favoured not only for economic reasons but also to support militaristic aims, as
and an estimated 120,000
were killed. Professor
farmers were encouraged to settle along the route of the South Manchurian Railway
Takemaro Mori states that and on the border with the Soviet Union (‘Colonies and Countryside in Wartime
many settlers ended up Japan: Emigration of Manchuria’ in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, originally
in Siberian gulags (prison published in 2003).
camps) and would not
return to Japan until after Activity 5 ATL Thinking skills
1972, when diplomatic
relations between Japan This source is an extract from a conversation held in March 1936, between Katō Kanji (an
and the Soviet Union agronomist – a scientist who studies plants) and Tanaka Nagashige, a senior civil servant in the
were resumed. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
KATŌ: On the question of land, there’s plenty available [in Manchuria] now at one or two
Remember, reading a yen per tan. Worrying about what we’d do if the price rises, the way some people do, makes no
historical document sense at all. In my opinion, we should just get on with it as quickly as possible. The Chinese
in translation is not, and the Koreans don’t bother trying to find out who owns the land they want. They just move
necessarily, a limitation in and take it over. If we waste time trying to track down owners and agree prices, we’ll get left
to its value unless you behind. The first group of armed emigrants didn’t buy land before they left Japan, they bought
have a particular reason
it after they arrived. In Manchuria, no one knows who owns which parcels of land. If we
for saying so. If that is
the case, you need to Japanese don’t get cracking, the Koreans and the Chinese will grab all the land there is.
mention it. TANAKA (laughing): It sounds like theft to me.
KATŌ: The conditions over there are not like those here at home. If you call what I’m talking
about ‘theft’ then you’d have to be against war, too, because war also involves theft as well as
killing.
1. According to the origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of the source above
for a historian studying how the Manchurian Incident was viewed in Japan.
Source A
The cover of a tourist brochure for Manchukuo, January 1937.
36

2.2
Source B
A propaganda poster encouraging Japanese farmers to move to Manchukuo.
1. What is the message conveyed in Source A?

2. What is the message conveyed in Source B?
3. What does each source tell us about the intended audience? Who were they meant to persuade and
how?
China’s response to the Manchurian Incident

By 1931, Jiang Jieshi had established an alliance with ‘Young Marshal’ Zhang Xueliang.
In the aftermath of the Manchurian Incident, Jiang had urged Zhang not to react to
provocation by the Guandong Army. According to Jonathan Fenby, Jiang had not
wanted to fight the Japanese; he had hoped that the seizure of territory would be
limited and that Western powers would step in to ‘reverse the situation’ (Fenby, The
Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 2009, p. 230).
1. Why, do you think, was Jiang Jieshi so confident about the involvement of foreign powers ‘to reverse
the situation’? How had the Western powers responded to Japanese expansion in the past?
The Guandong Army had proceeded to take over the whole of Manchuria, however,
meeting any resistance with force and carrying out bombing raids on cities. Additional
Japanese troops were sent from Korea, without permission being sought from Tokyo,
to assist in what Fenby calls ‘the biggest land grab in history’ (Fenby, The Penguin History
of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 2009, p. 234). Jiang also prevaricated
over whether or not to challenge Japanese expansion as he was also fighting the
Chinese Communists in Jiangxi province in southeast China.
Despite Jiang’s reluctance, there was popular opposition to the Japanese: demonstrators
in Shanghai called for a boycott of Japanese shops and the purchase of Japanese
goods; in Nanjing, men demanded to be sent north to fight and women volunteered to
accompany them as nurses. With demonstrators shouting slogans such as ‘Death before
Surrender’ and ‘Supreme Sacrifice’, Japanese banks were boycotted, workers in Japanese-
owned factories went on strike, and imports from Japan fell by 30 per cent by the end
of 1931 and 90 per cent in 1932 (Fenby, The Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and
Rise of a Great Power, 2009, p.235). Despite this outpouring of public anger, Jiang did
nothing. According to Fenby, this was ‘widely seen as the first episode of appeasement
of the revisionist Axis powers that would stretch up to 1939’ (Fenby, The Penguin History
of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 2009, p. 235). Furthermore, Japanese
reports stated that Jiang had been heard to say, ‘If Japan will be satisfied with Manchuria,
37

well, we aren’t happy about it, but we can pretend they aren’t there’ (Fenby, The Penguin
CHALLENGE History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 2009 p. 23).
YOURSELF Jiang’s decision not to confront the Japanese was based on a number of reasons,
Research, thinking, including the following:
self-management skills ● The GMD army was no match for the well-trained Guandong Army and resistance
Do some research into the
would probably have ended in defeat.
policy of appeasement and how ● Sending his best soldiers to Manchuria would have weakened Jiang’s precarious hold
it was used by Italy, Britain, and on the rest of China, which still needed to be brought under centralized control.
France during the 1930s. Then, ● Defeating the Communists whom he referred to as ‘the disease of the heart’ remained
read through the reasons given
his priority.
in this chapter (and any others
you can find) for Jiang’s policy
● Many senior GMD officials and officers were from southern China, so Manchuria was
of non-resistance. Having done a region unfamiliar to them and of limited importance.
this, how far would you agree
that this was, indeed, the ‘first According to Immanuel Hsu, Jiang’s reaction was ‘a combination of non-resistance, non-
episode’ of appeasement? compromise and non-negotiation’. Hsu also suggests that some organized resistance
might have boosted the moderates in Tokyo, who could have used it to call for an end to
the conflict (Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, Oxford, 1995, p. 550). Instead, Jiang chose to
The description of approach the League of Nations, hoping that it would step in to solve the problem.
Japanese soldiers as
‘human bullets’ was
not new; it was first The Shanghai Incident
coined during the
Russo-Japanese War. Since the mid-19th century, Shanghai, a densely populated and prosperous city on the
In 1932, this term estuary of the Yangtze River, had been a centre for international trade. Around 50,000
would have resonated foreigners lived there, in the French Concession, the Japanese Concession, and the
with the Japanese International Settlement that combined the British and American Concessions.
public and reminded
them (as intended) of In January 1932, a series of anti-Japanese riots and disturbances broke out in Hongkou,
the successful war of an area of Shanghai known as Little Tokyo. Japanese marines were sent to restore order;
1904–05. A lieutenant
they were, however, supported by a Japanese cruiser and 12 destroyers that proceeded
in the Japanese army
called Tadayoshi Sakurai to bombard the Chinese section of Hongkou. Extensive aerial bombing also destroyed
also included the term in houses and factories. A local warlord fought back against the Japanese with the
the title of his memoirs assistance of the Green Gang, a triad gang that ran the drugs trade in Shanghai. Jonathan
Human Bullets: A Soldier’s Fenby asserts that Jiang Jieshi also sent in GMD troops, but only after he realized there
Story of the Russo-Japanese would be no support from the Western powers that had allowed the Japanese to use
War. the International Settlement as a base. A ceasefire was agreed on 3 March 1932, making
Shanghai (outside of the International Settlement) into a demilitarized zone.
Inukai Tsuyoshi, the Japanese prime minister who agreed to this truce was
assassinated. According to Ian Buruma, however, propaganda back home in Japan
glorified the bravery of its soldiers who were described in the media as ‘human bullets’
(Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, p. 93).
International Settlements
The British government had been given access to a number of treaty ports in China in
accordance with the Treaty of Nanking (Nanjing), signed after the First Opium War in
1842. In Shanghai, this led to the establishment of the British Concession, an area of the
city that came under British control. Later, having been combined with the American
Concession, the area became known as the International Settlement. It was run by an
Anglo-American municipal council and was independently administered with its own
soldiers and police. There existed also a French Concession, administered from French
Indochina, and a Japanese Concession. Outside of these areas lay what was known as
the Chinese Municipality. In 1937 the entire Chinese Municipality came under Japanese
control. In December 1941, after attacking Pearl Harbor, the Japanese forces attacked
and took over the International Settlement.
38

2.3
A propaganda poster from

1933, illustrating how anti-
Japanese Manchurians would
go to hell, while pro-Japanese
Manchurians would go to
heaven.
The international response to the

2.3 Manchurian Incident
Despite Jiang’s hopes that the Western powers would condemn the actions of the
Guandong Army in Manchuria, the response from the international community was
quite muted. According to Immanuel Hsu,
The London Times stated that, ‘Japan had a strong case but had put herself regrettably and
unnecessarily in the wrong’. The United States took the easy position that Tokyo could not be
held responsible for the violation of the Paris Pact since the Kwantung Army had acted without
its authorisation. The Soviet Union also took no action as long as its Siberian border remained
unviolated. Thus China was left to face the enemy alone.
Immanuel Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 1995, p. 529
The League of Nations and the Lytton

Commission
Even so, Jiang asked for assistance from the League of Nations and also from the
United States, as it had signed the Nine-Power Pact defending Chinese sovereignty and
was a signatory of the Kellogg–Briand Treaty of 1928.
The League of Nations

This was an organization set up in Geneva in 1920 to provide collective security
for its member states. It was meant to make alliances unnecessary and to provide
guarantees against aggressive actions, such as the invasion of Manchuria,
because League members would present a united front against aggressors. Both
China and Japan were members of the League. The United States, however, was
not a member.
39

Article 11 of the Covenant of the League

Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the
League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the
League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the
peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on
the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp
The Kellogg–Briand Treaty, 1928

Named after Frank B Kellogg (US secretary of state) and Aristide Briand (French
foreign minister), this was an agreement made between the United States and
France to renounce the use of war to solve disputes between countries. By 1929,
there were over 62 signatories, including China and Japan.
Events leading up to the Lytton Commission proceeded in the following order:
1. On 22 September 1931, the Council of the League of Nations debated the

Manchurian Incident, only days after the bomb blast in Mukden. The Japanese
delegate was described as ‘conciliatory’. It was proposed that an enquiry be held
into the events in Manchuria and for both Japan and China to stop fighting.
2. The League hoped for American support (the United States was not a member
of the League) but Henry Stimson, the US secretary of state, sent a note advising
against an enquiry, given that Japan did not agree with the proposal. The non-
involvement of the United States at this stage may have influenced the Japanese
army’s decision to move further into Manchuria.
3. In mid-October, the League gave Japan a deadline of 16 November to withdraw

from all occupied territory, which was ignored.
4. Japan now changed its mind and requested a commission of enquiry, a proposal
that the League accepted while suspending any ‘coercive measures against Japan’.
A commission was then formed chaired by Lord Lytton, the acting viceroy of
India.
5. At the start of January 1932, China asked the League to impose economic
sanctions on Japan but the worldwide economic depression made it difficult for
member states to accept a reduction in trade and this was not done.
6. On 7 January 1932, Henry Stimson published a note that came to be known as

the Stimson Doctrine. It stated that the United States would not recognize ‘any
treaty or agreement between Japan and China that violated US rights or treaties
to which the US subscribed’. This meant the United States would not accept any
changes to the open-door policy that guaranteed free trade and would also refuse
to recognize the state of Manchukuo. Furthermore, as Japan had violated the Nine-
Power Pact, the US no longer considered itself bound by the naval limitations that
had been agreed to. Historian AJP Taylor pointed out that the United States did
not, however, intend to ‘curtail its trade with Japan’ (Taylor, The Origins of the Second
World War, 1962, p. 63).
7. For now, Britain rejected the Stimson Doctrine, stating that Japan had given
assurances that there would be an ‘open door’ for trade in Manchuria and so did
not intend to violate the Nine-Power Pact. Furthermore, when the question of
recognizing the state of Manchukuo was debated in the British parliament, the
government stated that Japan had not requested this and that any such decision
would be made after the Lytton Commission had presented its report.
40

2.3
8. In October 1932, the Lytton Report was published and, although sympathetic to The Hoover–Stimson
Japan’s grievances over Manchuria, it condemned Japanese aggression, indicating Doctrine (Herbert
that Manchukuo was no more than a puppet state where ‘the territory was de facto Hoover was the US
under Japanese occupation’ (Turns, ‘The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition’, president between
Chinese Journal of International Law, 2003, 2 (1): p. 126). 1929–33, Stimson his
secretary of state) is also
9. In February 1933, the report was accepted by the League, prompting Japan known in international
to withdraw its membership from the League. At the same time, Japan began law as the doctrine
of ‘non-recognition’
occupation of Jehol province (known as Rehe today), beyond the borders of
as it established the
Manchuria. precedent of one state
refusing to recognize
10. In May 1933, Japan and China signed the Tanggu Truce: it attached Jehol province to
the legality of another.
Manchukuo; it handed over the control of the Shanhaiguan Pass between Manchuria Previously, states either
and China to the Guandong Army; and it declared the region to the north of Beijing recognized each other
a demilitarized zone. According to Jonathan Fenby, on reading the terms of the or not without making
truce, the Chinese response was to say it was purely military and without political a specific declaration of
significance but ‘they were told “to shut up and sign”, which they did’ (Fenby, The ‘non-recognition’. After
Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 2009 p. 247 – also the League of Nations’
acceptance of the
based on Mowat, Britain Between the Wars, p. 420, 1976; Hane p. 147, 2015).
Lytton Report, no state
recognized Manchukuo
The League of Nations had been slow to react to the Japanese takeover of Manchuria,
other than Japan.
but Japan was admonished for its bad behaviour and instructed to withdraw from the
territory it had occupied. The government in Tokyo did not appear to have authority
over the Guandong Army, however, and Japanese popular opinion was unlikely to According to AJP Taylor,
support any submission to the demands of the League. the League did not
condemn Japanese
In defence of the League, AJP Taylor points out that it had acted as it had been designed ‘aggression’ but, rather,
to do, in that it ‘limited the conflict and… brought it to an end’. Furthermore, although criticized it for ‘resorting
the League’s response was limited to ‘moral sanction’, it was the Manchurian Crisis to force before all
that prompted the creation of a process to impose economic sanctions and these were peaceful means of redress
applied against Italy in 1935 (Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, 1962, p. 64). were exhausted’ (Taylor,
The Origins of the Second
Jiang Jieshi proceeded to coexist with the Japanese presence in Manchukuo until World War, 1962, p. 64).
an upsurge of popular opposition compelled him to oppose them and to agree to a
United Front with the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1936.
CHALLENGE
YOURSELF
Research, thinking
communication, and ATL
self-management skills
Write a short summary of how

the international response to
the Manchurian Incident could
be seen as weakening the aims
outlined in both the League of
Nations and the Kellogg–Briand
Pact.
Henry Stimson, secretary

of state in the Hoover
administration and author of
the Stimson Doctrine.
41

Source A
Here is a cartoon on the Lytton Report, published in Punch.
1. What is the message conveyed in the source above?
Soviet Union’s response to events in the East

The Soviet Union shared a border with Manchuria; Japan’s possible encroachment on
Soviet territory was Stalin’s ‘greatest fear’ (Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War,
1962, p. 78). Meanwhile, the GMD’s continual attacks on the CPC’s Red Army at a time
when Jiang was unwilling to fight Japanese troops in Manchuria provided excellent
propaganda for the Chinese Communists. Acting on an initiative formulated by Mao
Zedong, the Chinese Soviet government declared war on Japan on 15 April 1932
(Pantsov and Levine, Deng Xiaoping: A Revolutionary Life, 2015, p. 103). The CPC was
further supported in its opposition to Japan when, on 1 August 1935, the Comintern
instructed all Communist parties to cooperate with all anti-fascist parties to form
united fronts against the fascists in the West and against Japan in the East. In 1936, as
we shall see, this led to the creation of the Second United Front, formed by the CPC and
42

2.3
the GMD against Japan; despite Stalin’s initial concerns, following ‘the formation of a
united Chinese Communist–Nationalist front in 1936 and the Soviet fortifications of
the Manchurian–Soviet border, both China and the Soviet Union began to stand their
ground’ (Chickering and Forster (eds), The Shadows of Total War, 2007, p. 330).
A move to global war?

Although the response of the Japanese government in Tokyo to events in Manchuria
was muted, Japan’s moral standing in international affairs was damaged by the
behaviour of the Guandong Army. Rather than being seen as a cooperative and
peaceable member of the League of Nations, Japan was criticized as expansionist and
unwilling, or maybe unable (due to governmental weakness), to abide by treaties it had
signed in the 1920s. With hindsight, it is possible to view the Manchurian Incident as
a step towards the isolation of Japan, a country that was determined to take its place
among the elite of world powers.
Meanwhile, Italy and Germany were observing events in the Far East and the weak
response of the League towards Japan. In January 1933, Hitler was appointed
chancellor of Germany and moved quickly to end democracy and to establish a
single-party state. He withdrew Germany from the League of Nations in October
1933, citing the unfairness of demands made of Germany in the Geneva Disarmament
Conference. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles, he proceeded to rearm Germany
The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations (shown here) in 1945, after the League failed
to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War.
43

and to remilitarize the Rhineland in March 1936. In Fascist Italy, Mussolini challenged
collective security by invading Ethiopia in October 1935; by 1937, Italy had also
withdrawn from the League. (You can read more about these events in Chapters 5 and
6 of Case Study 2 in this book.)
All these actions were to further divide global powers into two sides: those that
continued to hope for collective security, and those intent upon challenging it,
including, it seemed, Japan.
This cartoon is from the 25 February 1933 edition of the New York World-Telegram. Its caption reads
‘Moral Isolation’.
1. What is the message conveyed in the source above?
The Second United Front

Despite the emergence of the ‘fascistic Blue Shirt movement’ within the GMD
(Ferguson, The War of the World, 2006, p.305), Jiang Jieshi declared in 1934 that China
was not yet ready for war with Japan, predicting (accurately) that a much wider
global conflict was brewing. In order to improve the training of his soldiers, Jiang had
enlisted the services of General von Seeckt, a German veteran of World War I, who
helped train 80,000 GMD soldiers, mainly to combat the Communists. The Guandong
Army, however, continued to make incursions into China’s northern provinces and
to tighten its grip on Manchuria. Matters came to a head when Jiang was persuaded to
44

2.3
halt his campaigns against the ‘Red Bandits’ (the Communists) and to focus instead on
the ‘Dwarf Bandits’ (the Japanese) by agreeing to a Second United Front.
The First United Front was established in 1923, when the CPC was instructed by the
Comintern to join forces with the GMD (see Chapter 1, page 26). This union came
to a bitter end during the White Terror when the GMD turned on the Communists
and attempted to eradicate them. Conflict between the Communists and the GMD
continued up until 1936 when, for different reasons, both the CPC and the GMD once
again agreed to work together, this time to defeat the Japanese.
The Blue Shirts Society

You may have come across the terms ‘Brownshirts’ (Hitler’s militia) and ‘Blackshirts’
(Mussolini’s militia). These were private armies identifiable by their uniforms and insignia. In
China, a secret organization called the Blue Shirts Society emerged from within the GMD.
Its members were committed to anti-communism and a determination to fight the Japanese;
they held the belief that only a strong dictator could unite and rule China. Historians differ on
whether the society had elements of fascism. It was disbanded in 1938.
Why was the Second United Front established?

Most of the Communist Red Army was driven out of Jiangxi province in 1934 when
it began the Long March to Yan’an, where it would be safe from attack by the GMD
and better situated to wage guerrilla war against the Japanese in Manchuria. In 1935
instructions came from the Comintern that, once again, the CPC were to ally with the
GMD. This had been a public declaration and Jiang was willing to consider better relations
with the Soviet Union, even if it meant ending his campaign against the CPC, because he
believed that if global war were to break out, he would need Soviet support to fight Japan.
In public, Jiang maintained that no such union was needed as the GMD had more or less
succeeded in suppressing the CPC; but secret negotiations took place, resulting in a verbal
agreement that the Red Army would be renamed the Eighth Route Army and brought
under the control of the GMD (Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 67).
The Xi’an Incident

A twist to this story came when ‘Young Marshal’ Zhang Xueliang – unaware of the secret
talks, afraid that he was about to be removed as commander of the northeast army,
and frustrated by Jiang’s lack of action against the Japanese – plotted the kidnapping of
Jiang Jieshi. Zhang was joined in this exploit by another former warlord, General Yang
Hucheng, who was also fearful of losing his command. In December 1936, on a routine
inspection in Xi’an, Jiang was taken prisoner by his two generals and held hostage. Jiang
was only released when the Second United Front was publicly announced, stating that
the Communists and the GMD would join forces to defend China against Japan.
A short time after the Xi’an Incident, Jiang arrested Zhang Xueliang and put him under house
arrest. In 1949, when the GMD was defeated in the Chinese civil war, Zhang was transferred to
Taiwan where he remained as a prisoner of the regime until 1990. He remains a hero to many
Chinese who believe he was responsible for making Jiang agree to the Second United Front.
According to Rana Mitter, Stalin was anxious that Jiang Jieshi was not killed during the
kidnapping. (Mao Zedong later made much of how he could have had Jiang killed but, in the
interests of Chinese unity, chose not to.) Stalin’s concern was that if Jiang were removed as
leader of the GMD he could be replaced by someone more inclined to join the Anti-Comintern
League, and the Soviet Union would therefore be surrounded by its signatories, namely,
Germany, Japan, and China (Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 67).
45

This is an extract from China’s War with Japan 1937–1945 by Rana Mitter, published in 2014. A historian
who has written extensively on Chinese history, Mitter is a professor of history at St Cross College, Oxford,
in the UK.
Zhang Xueliang is today seen in China as a patriot who was shocked by the Generalissimo’s
unwillingness to face the ‘real’ threat of Japan, and his insistence on fighting his fellow
Chinese, the CCP. In this version of events, Zhang kidnapped Chiang [Jiang] in order to force
a change of direction. In fact, Zhang’s motive may have been more straightforward: Jiang
was likely to deprive him of his military command.
1. According to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of this source for
historians researching the Second United Front.
Political tensions within Japan

In February 1936, political tension increased in Japan when a group of young military
officers attempted a coup to remove what they perceived as obstacles preventing a
closer union between the emperor and his people.
Known as the February Coup, this event emphasized the division of the military into
two factions:
● The Imperial Way Faction (Kōdōha) wanted a revolution to remove the zaibatsu,
overthrow capitalism, assist the poverty-stricken countryside, and establish a
military dictatorship loyal only to the emperor.
● The Control Faction (Tōseiha) envisioned a future war against the West. Pragmatically,
this would require cooperation with the bureaucracy that, to a large extent, governed
Japan, as well as the zaibatsu in order to ensure a build-up of armaments to make
Japan a formidable military and naval power.
In 1935, a military officer, given the task of demoting some of the Imperial Way
officers, was attacked and ‘slashed to death by a young officer wielding a samurai
sword’ (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, 2004, p. 99). This was a disturbing event
and although the Control Faction was able to retain its authority within the army,
the Imperial Way remained popular. On 26 February that year, over a thousand
of Imperial Way’s supporters attempted to take over central Tokyo. Three senior
government ministers were assassinated. The prime minister was saved only because,
in a case of mistaken identity, his brother-in-law was killed instead. Emperor Shōwa
(Hirohito), anxious to stem this tide of unrest, condemned the attempted coup but
disturbances continued until 29 February, when the navy was called in to restore order
and the rebels surrendered.
The Control Faction within the army was now fully in control and, to assert its
authority, demanded that the army and navy ministers would have the right to
approve all civilian appointments to the cabinet. This was an important step towards
the increase of military authority in Japan. Prime Minister Kōki Hirota proceeded
to increase the military budget to finance rearmament. He also signed the Anti-
Comintern Pact with Germany (Italy joined in 1937).
46

2.3
The Anti-Comintern Pact, 1936
According to Mitter, the Anti-Comintern Pact was not intended as a precursor
to a military alliance, or even a fascist alliance: Japan signed the pact because it
was increasingly concerned about the threat of the Soviet Union to its interests in
Manchuria and northern China. Furthermore, Japan tried, unsuccessfully, to get both
Britain and Poland to join the pact. Nevertheless, a secret clause stipulated that if one
of the co-signatories went to war with the Soviet Union, the other(s) would not aid
the Soviet Union (Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 67). Whatever the
intention, to all outward appearances, it looked as though Japan was aligning itself
with the fascist powers of Europe.
One of the ironies of the Anti-Comintern Pact and, later, the Tripartite Pact was that
Aryan Germans now had a link to non-Aryans. To overcome any difficulties that
might arise, the title ‘Honorary Aryans’ was bestowed upon the Japanese. Meanwhile,
the Italians had already been ‘Aryanized’ by Mussolini, who had declared that they
were the Mediterranean branch of the Aryan race.
An American cartoon published in November 1938 at the time of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Its caption
reads ‘Up “Nordics” and at ’em’.
1. What is the message conveyed in this source?
47

2.4 The Sino-Japanese War, 1937–41
Also referred to as the Second Sino-Japanese War (the First Sino-Japanese War took
place in 1894, see Chapter 1, page 13), this conflict was known in Japan as the ‘China
Incident’ as there was never an official declaration of war. It was clear to Japan that
control over China was of great importance, especially if, as was feared, it were to
move closer to the Soviet Union.
The Marco Polo Bridge Incident, 1937
The Marco Polo Bridge

(Lugouqiao in Chinese) is lined
with 500 carved statues of
guardian lions.
The Marco Polo Bridge

in the town of Wanping,
15 kilometres to the
southwest of Beijing, was
so named because the
Venetian explorer Marco
Polo had once described
it as ‘one of the finest
bridges in the world’.
Some historians have compared the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to the shooting of
the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, claiming that the former
marked the true outbreak of World War II. Certainly, for China, this was a momentous
step towards full-scale war with Japan. The incident took place in 1937 on the Marco
Polo Bridge, which was located in an area where, according to an agreement made at
the turn of the century, Japanese soldiers could be stationed. On the evening of 7 July,
the Japanese commanding officer discovered one of his soldiers had gone missing
(most sources state that the soldier had gone to relieve himself and then wandered
away into the demilitarized zone) and immediately called for a search, implying that
the man had either been kidnapped or killed by Chinese forces. There was an exchange
of fire with Chinese troops and a two-day standoff ended with a truce being signed
on 9 July. When informed of the incident, Jiang Jieshi had to decide whether this was
yet another skirmish with Japanese troops or whether it signalled an attack on Beijing
and the heartland of China. This was the point at which he had to decide whether to
concede northern China to the Japanese or to fight back. In his diary, Jiang wrote:
‘This is the turning point for existence or obliteration’ (Mitter, China’s War with Japan
1937–1945, 2014, p. 76).
In June 1937 Prince Konoe Fumimaro, an aristocrat and close confidante of the
emperor, was appointed prime minister of Japan. He was a very popular choice and
his response to the incident proved very significant. Despite the truce of 9 July, Konoe
used the media to stir up nationalism and showed strong support for the military by
48

2.4
sending additional troops to northern China. It is uncertain how much control he
actually had over the rapidly worsening situation as, later, he tried to shift the blame
elsewhere.
Rana Mitter is a British historian who specializes in the history of Republican China. This source is taken
from his book China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, Penguin (2014).
’Japan is destined sooner or later to clash with the Soviet Union’, said Itagaki Seishirō (then
chief of staff of the Kwantung Army) to foreign minister Arita Hachirō, ‘and the attitude of
China at the time will gravely influence operations’.
1. According to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of this source for
historians studying the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
Source A
This source is taken from Japan 1941 (Vintage Books, 2014, p.31) by Eri Hotta. Hotta is a Japanese
historian educated in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
The truce had become a dead letter by July 20th with Chiang (Jiang) taking his time to give it
his official approval. As the war spread and intensified, Japan bombed Nanjing, Shanghai,
Hangzhou and other major cities – Konoe blamed it on others, especially, the army’s bellicose
[warlike] elements who were conveniently nameless and faceless.
Source B
Below is an extract from The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 6: The Twentieth Century (Cambridge UP,
1995, p. 305), edited by Peter Duus, an American historian who specializes in the history of Japan.
It was a reflection of the split in army circles that decisions to mobilise were made and
cancelled four times before a decision was made to send three divisions to northern China on
July 27th. Neither Prime Minister Konoe nor Foreign Minister Hirota had clear views about
what to do. In the final analysis, they simply followed the lead of the expansionist faction
within the Japanese army.
1. According to Source A what reasons were there for the escalation of hostilities in China?
2. Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B on how decisions were made to
mobilize Japanese troops for China.
The Battle for Shanghai, August–October 1937

On 26 July 1937, the Chinese forces were issued an
ultimatum by the Japanese demanding that they withdraw
from Wanping within 24 hours, although attacks had
already begun before the ultimatum had expired. The
Chinese government in Nanjing officially declared war on
Japan on 7 August, stating a week later that this was a war of
self-defence; meanwhile, according to Jonathan Fenby, the
emperor in Tokyo called for a ‘war-ending’ battle (Fenby, The
Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power,
2009, p. 275).
Business as usual at the Chartered Bank I.D. Only

(a British overseas bank) in 1937, despite
the spread of the conflict to Shanghai.
49

Although there was no intention to compromise the neutrality of the International

Settlement, on Saturday 14 August Chinese planes aiming for Japanese destroyers
anchored on the Yangtze River accidentally dropped bombs on the crowded Bund
(riverfront), killing over 1,000 people. Despite this tragic error, the Chinese forces
fought desperately to prevent the fall of Shanghai and, by showing that he no longer
tolerated Japanese aggression, ‘Jiang forced the world to take notice’ (Mitter, China’s
War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 94). The world did take notice but action was
limited, and the League did little, other than condemn the bombing of civilians.
The Brussels Conference

Seeking support for its struggle against Japan, China appealed to the signatories of the
Nine-Power Pact who agreed to hold a conference in Brussels in October 1937. Britain
was especially concerned, as British investment in Shanghai at the time ‘exceeded
that of any comparable area outside the United Kingdom’ (Crozier, The Causes of the
Second World War, 1997, p. 135). However, it was reluctant to risk conflict with Japan
given that tension was already building within Europe. Economic sanctions against
Japan were considered, but Britain would not risk those unless the United States
also participated. Given that the latter seemed unwilling to depart from its policy of
isolationism, no action was taken in the end. Other countries offered little support: the
foreign minister of Spain sent a note to China that read ‘Spain sends the great Chinese
people the warmest expression of their solidarity’ (Mitter, China’s War with Japan
1937–1945, 2014, p. 97).
1. Why did the Spanish foreign minister express ‘solidarity’?
The Panay Incident

CHALLENGE
YOURSELF An incident took place in December 1937 that could have sparked a global war: the
bombing of the American patrol boat USS Panay by Japanese forces. A British gunboat,
Thinking, research, HMS Ladybird, also came under fire while anchored in the Yangtze River. The British
self-management skills government was willing to ‘make a display of force’ and send up to nine capital ships
on the condition that the United States would do the same. However, the British
For British dominions such as Ambassador in Washington was told that the United States would ‘only participate
South Africa, whether or not to in the most modest gestures… [if] Japan did something really outrageous to provoke
support British views on matters
American opinion’ (Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997, p. 136).
of war became a political issue
during the late 1930s. See what
By now, the British government was increasingly aware that it could expect little direct
you can find out about the
foreign policies of some of the
assistance from an isolationist United States (for more on American foreign policy,
British dominions between 1937 see Chapter 3, page 68). Furthermore, there had been minimal support coming from
and 1939. Share your research Britain’s dominions, such as South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: at the
with the class. Imperial Conference held in London in May–June 1937, representatives from each
of these dominions expressed reservations about entering into another war. Given
the apparent lack of support from the dominions, Crozier believes it is unsurprising
that Neville Chamberlain, who became prime minister of Britain in 1937, was of the
opinion that ‘further attempts at conciliation with Germany and Italy were better
advised than confrontation’ (Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997, p. 137).
One country that did offer more than words of comfort to Jiang Jieshi in 1937 was the
Soviet Union. On 1 August, a non-aggression pact was signed between the Nationalist
government of China and the Soviet Union; by mid-1938, significant aid was delivered
to China in the form of 300 military aircraft, ammunition, and US$250 million.
50

2.4
Social, thinking,
communication, ATL
This is an extract from The Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor, a British historian who first and research skills
published this book in 1960. Taylor was a professor at Oxford University but also wrote on current events
for newspapers as well as presenting televised lectures on history. He was well known for having argued, With a classmate,
controversially, that Hitler did not plan World War II but that it arose out of the confused polices of the consider the international
European powers, especially those of Britain. context for the Brussels
As before [during the Manchurian Crisis] the Americans would do nothing. They wanted the Conference. Carry out
moral satisfaction of non-recognition and also the material satisfaction of their profitable research on events taking
trade with Japan. Non-recognition was an American device, unconscious no doubt, for place in Germany, Italy,
and Spain in 1937, as
pushing others, particularly the British, forward against the Japanese. The Americans would well as on Stalin’s purge
express the indignation; the British would provide the opposition. This was not an attractive of the military in 1937.
offer. The Brussels Conference did nothing to help China […] How, and why, do you
AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1962, p. 127 think, these events would
have influenced Jiang’s
1. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of the source decision-making about
above for historians researching the international response to the Sino-Japanese War. going to war with Japan?
2. Compare and contrast the American response as viewed by AJP Taylor in the source above with that Bear in mind Japan’s
of the Stimson Doctrine of 1932. relations with Germany
and Italy at this time.
Outline the case for and
against war with Japan.
The photo below shows refugees fleeing across the bridge to the relative security of the International
Settlement, Shanghai, in November 1937.
Amid tensions between

Britain, China, and
Japan during this period,
celebrations were held
in London over a new
Japanese world record.
On 6 April 1937, a
Mitsubishi aircraft named
Kamikaze (Divine Wind)
set off from Tokyo and
reached London after
a flight of 51 hours, 93
minutes, and 53 seconds.
1. What is the message conveyed in this source? According to The Times,
the two pilots were
greeted by a crowd of
By the end of November, the Nationalist forces retreated from Shanghai and Jiang
4,000 ‘shouting Banzai
announced that his capital would be transferred from Nanjing to Chongqing (Mitter, (meaning “live forever”)
China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 100). and decked with garlands
of flowers’.
Refugees try to get into the

French concession in Shanghai
to escape the bombing.
51

The fall of Nanjing, December 1937

Nanjing was the capital of Nationalist China and this became Japan’s next target.
Known also as the Rape of Nanjing, this was probably the most horrendous battle
of the Sino-Japanese War. After capturing the city in mid-December 1937, the
Japanese forces rounded up and killed males of military age, raped and killed
women and girls; the soldiers behaved with extreme brutality towards the Chinese
population.
For decades, there has been much speculation as to why Japanese soldiers carried
out acts of such appalling cruelty towards a civilian population. Rana Mitter suggests
that the length of time it had taken to end Chinese resistance in Shanghai had led
to frustration among the Japanese officers and soldiers, which made them ‘deeply
angry’ (China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 138). Other historians offer different
explanations. Racism was certainly a factor in the brutality demonstrated in Nanjing.
Jonathan Fenby notes that one Japanese soldier wrote of the Chinese as being
equivalent to ‘ants crawling on the ground’ (Fenby, The Penguin History of Modern China:
The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 2009, p. 282).
Source A
In his book Inventing Japan 1853–1964, Ian Buruma argues that prevailing racist views in Japan towards
the Chinese caused the victims to be stripped of their humanity.
For years, the Japanese had been told that the Chinese were inferior and the Japanese a divine
race. Contempt for the Chinese goes back to the Meiji prints in which the Japanese are tall,
white and vigorous and the Chinese are cowering yellow cretins; Government propaganda,
parroted by the jingoistic Japanese press, told soldiers they were fighting a holy war.
Anything they did in the name of the emperor, no matter how savage, was sanctioned by the
holiness of their cause. An American chaplain in Tokyo’s Sugamo prison, where Japanese
prisoners were held after the war, concluded […] that they ‘had the belief that any enemy
of the emperor could not be right, so the more brutally they treated their prisoners, the more
loyal to the emperor they were being.’
Ian Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, Modern Library, New York, 2004, p. 105
Source B
Mikiso Hane (1922–2003) was renowned scholar of Japanese history. Below is an extract from his book,
Japan, A Short History, which was published in 2015.
The inculcation [teaching by repeating endlessly] of the samurai spirit in which brutal
behaviour was idealised was an integral part of military training. Absolute submission to
authority and harsh treatment of those lower in rank governed military life. The tight
discipline enforced in the military keeps the solider in line but what happens when the bonds
of discipline are loosened? […] In society in general respect for the strong and contempt for
the weak prevailed. People identified themselves narrowly with members of their own circle
and village. Thus concern and compassion towards others were not likely to be fostered. A
sense of individuality and individual responsibility were not values stressed. Thus when mob
violence breaks out, people may become part of the mob.
Mikiso Hane, Japan, A Short History, Oneworld Publications, UK, 2015, p. 156
1. According, to Source A, why did Japanese troops behave with such violence in Nanjing?
2. To what extent does Source B agree with Source A about the behaviour of the soldiers?
52

2.4
Thinking, research, and communication skills ATL
Iris Chung recounted a number of survivor tales in her famous book, The Rape of
Nanking, first published in 1997. According to Chung, the purpose of the book was
to bring to light a largely forgotten massacre that was rarely mentioned in school
textbooks. In the Introduction, she asserted that, unlike Auschwitz and Hiroshima,
in Nanjing ‘the victims remained largely silent’. Chung wondered why this was so,
suggesting that ‘[it] soon became clear to me that the custodian of the curtain of silence
was politics’, and attributing the silence to the Cold War and the shifting alliances that
transformed Japan from an enemy into an ally and post-war Communist China from an
ally into an enemy. She also quoted George Santayana’s warning: ‘Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Perhaps this could also be written as
‘those who do not learn about the past are condemned to repeat it’?
How important is it, do you think, that present-day students in Japan are taught about
the Rape of Nanjing?
By the time the Japanese soldiers entered Nanjing, Jiang Jieshi had already left and was
setting up a new capital in Chongqing, in the interior of China.
Popular response to Nanjing

In February 1938, a conference of the International Peace Campaign was held in
London. Protesting against a Japanese invasion of China, the conference called for a
boycott of Japanese goods. Although it was accepted that governments were unlikely
to support such a boycott, it was argued that ‘private boycotts’ could be effective. In
the British city of Southampton, dock workers refused to unload cotton bales from
Japan. In Le Havre, French workers refused to load munitions destined for Japan
(The Adelaide Advertiser, 14 February, 1938). In the United States, the Washington
Commonwealth Federation spearheaded a campaign to boycott Japanese goods
coming into Seattle and, in October 1937, women were urged to wear stockings made
of cotton rather than imported Japanese silk.
To coincide with the London

conference of the International
Peace Campaign in February
1938, marchers in London call
for a boycott of Japanese goods.
53

Japanese reaction to the ‘China Incident’
Japanese schoolgirls wave flags

in front of the Imperial Palace in
Tokyo to celebrate the victory in
Nanjing, December 1937.
Although celebrations were held across Japan to mark the fall of Nanjing, the Japanese
government was still frustrated by the failure to secure the surrender of the Chinese
government, despite having taken control of the capital city. The fighting had dragged
on; even though Japan had occupied the most densely populated coastal region, it had
failed to end what was still referred to as the ‘China Incident’.
In the next chapter, you will look at the diplomatic response to the Sino-Japanese War
and how the period between 1938 and 1941 forms the backdrop to the outbreak of
war between the United States and Japan.
World War II and the Olympic Games

In 1936, Tokyo won the right to host the 1940 Olympic Games. When the Sino-Japanese War
broke out in 1937, there were hints of a boycott by countries that were deeply concerned by
what was perceived as Japanese aggression. In 1938, however, a demand for resources for
arms production meant that the government strictly controlled the use of timber and cement,
for example, and Tokyo had to forfeit its offer to host the Games. Although the International
Olympic Committee then awarded the Games to Helsinki, the outbreak of World War II meant
that in 1940 and 1944 they had to be cancelled. The summer Olympics, held in London, were
resumed in 1948.
54

2.4
A review of Chapter 2
Outlining events from 1931 to 1938, this chapter set the scene for the descent into
global war. You saw how, prompted in part by the apparent disarray of the Chinese
government, Japan extended its control over Manchuria in 1931. You also looked at
the repercussions of the invasion both at home and abroad, as the military steadily
gained strength in Tokyo, and Japan became increasingly isolated on the international
stage. By 1938, Japan had left the League of Nations, joined Italy and Germany
in the Anti-Comintern Pact, and abandoned the limitations imposed on it by the
Washington and London naval treaties. However, despite extending its control in
China along the coastal provinces, Japan had yet to secure a decisive victory. Events
in Europe would soon have a dramatic impact upon the Far East and Japan’s foreign
policy.
Now that you have read through this chapter, answer the following question.
Using the sources and the text in this chapter, discuss the reasons why Japan decided to expand
its control over China between 1931 and 1938.
This question is typical of the fourth question you will get in the Paper 1 exam. It is worth returning to the
final hint for success at end of Chapter 1 for tips on how best to approach this type of question. Think of
this particular question as a short essay where you need to combine the content of some of the sources To access websites relevant
(but not all of them – just the ones you decide are relevant) with what you have read here about Japan’s to this chapter, go to
motives for increasing its control over Manchuria and then China. Don’t forget that events happening www.pearsonhotlinks.
both in China and in Japan are significant. Also, you may consider the extent to which the Guandong com, search for the book
Army was a law unto itself, and whether the government in Tokyo was therefore responding to, rather than title or ISBN, and click on
controlling, events. ‘Chapter 2’.
55

03 The road to war, 1937–41

Taken in December 1941, this
The final chapter of this case study focuses on events leading to the photo shows a Mitsubishi
outbreak of war between Japan and the United States, with analysis A5M fighter plane being
blessed before take-off by a
of how and why Tokyo and Washington finally made the decision to Shinto priest holding a branch
go to war. from a holy tree.
Topics to be investigated in this chapter include:

● the impact of the China Incident/Sino-Japanese War of 1937–39; the New Order in East Asia
● Japan’s relations with Europe between 1938 and 1939, in particular the outbreak of war in
Europe and its impact on Japan
● Japan’s relations with the United States and Britain
● the signing of the Tripartite Pact
● an overview of US foreign policy after 1936
● the move to global war – the final stages
● a historiography focusing on various interpretations of the outbreak of war.
In Chapter 1, we saw the emergence of Japan as a nation ambitious to take its place as a
world power, establishing its interests in Manchuria as well as in China by 1929.
In Chapter 2, we learned how Japan extended its control over Manchuria and northern
China and, by 1937, over much of coastal China. By 1938, where Chapter 2 ended, we
saw the ways in which Japanese foreign policy was being influenced by the following
factors:
● The Sino-Japanese War was continuing with no decisive victory in sight.
● The Soviet Union was ready to confront Japanese expansion along the Manchurian
border.
● Both Britain and the United States were wary of Japanese aggression because, at this
stage, neither wanted to end up at war with Japan (although Japan could not be sure
of this).
● Nazi Germany officially recognized Manchukuo in 1938, heralding a weakening of
support for China and closer relations with Japan.
● Fascist Italy had joined Japan and Germany in the Anti-Comintern Pact and was also
looking for better relations with Japan.
Japan was being courted by Germany and Italy, while becoming increasingly isolated
from Britain and the United States. Meanwhile, inside Japan itself there were many
different factions at work within the government, the court, and the military: one
wanted to wage war against the Soviet Union, another wanted to wage war against the
United States, and then there were those who wanted peace.
3.1 The impact of the Sino-Japanese War
That the events of 1937 and the invasion of China did not end in a quick, decisive
victory for Japan caused some consternation in Tokyo; there was also concern as
to how far Japan could go in extending its occupation of China before provoking a
response from Britain and the United States.
As was so often the case during the 1930s, the Japanese government was not making
policy so much as responding to events. The military continued to grow in power and
57

influence, while Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro made every effort to build up public
support for the war in China. It could be said that, with the passing of the National
Mobilization Act of 1938, Japan now entered a period of total war: labour unions
were dissolved and the government was given total control over the economy and the
distribution of resources; workers were urged to work hard for the war effort; school
children were given textbooks that instilled nationalism; and censorship of the media
was enforced to ensure that news from the war front was always positive.
Prime Minister Konoe announced Japan’s war aims, stating its intention to struggle against
what he called ‘the old order of Western imperialism and its principle Chinese agent,
Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi)’ and to establish a ‘New Order in East Asia led by Japan’ (Duus
(ed), The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 6: The Twentieth Century, 1995, p. 134).
Source A
This photo, taken in January 1939, shows a group of schoolchildren who had been mobilized to work in
the factories.
.1>
Source B
This photo shows a Japanese soldier looking at a wall of anti-Japanese cartoons in the captured city of
Wuhan, 1938.
58

3.1
Source C
This photo, published in a German newspaper in July 1939, shows young Chinese peasants bringing a gift
of a young pig to Japanese soldiers as a gesture of peace.
1. What is the message conveyed in Source A?

3. What is the message conveyed in Source C?
A New Order in East Asia The Imperial

Conference
This new stage in Japanese policy was decided at a meeting of the Imperial Conference. This term was used
A number of moderates, even within the Japanese army, had hoped for a negotiated to describe official
meetings with the
end to the China Incident, but they were unable to influence events, and the
emperor. Policies would
establishment of the New Order demonstrated a significant shift of power towards the be discussed and,
Imperial Way faction that wanted a ‘subjugation of China’ (Crozier, The Causes of the according to Eri Hotta,
Second World War, 1997, p 211). In essence, the New Order envisaged that Japan would ‘the imperial approval
cease to recognize Jiang Jieshi’s Chinese government unless the latter accepted an was a mere formality
ultimatum that demanded: with no constitutionally
binding power. Yet
● the formal recognition of Manchukuo it bore the stamp of
uncontested authority,
● the establishment of neutral zones in northern China and Inner Mongolia
and there was no
● the payment of reparations to Japan historical precedence
● Sino-Japanese cooperation in the areas of central China occupied by Japan at the time. of it having been
overturned. By acquiring
Rapidly, Japan was being drawn into a war that was to drain its resources and its imperial sanction,
economy. policy decisions
would become divine,
The New Order for East Asia was announced officially in November 1938. Jiang Jieshi suddenly apolitical,
had refused the ultimatum and continued to resist, so a substitute government for and political leaders
the GMD was set up – a puppet regime (officially recognized by Japan in 1940) based would be collectively
relieved of any personal
in Nanjing and led by Wang Jingwei, one-time rival of Jiang Jieshi. The New Order
responsibility for the
also stated that Japan would become China’s main trading partner (although Britain, newly approved policy’
France, and the United States could continue to trade with it); this was a departure (Hotta, Japan 1941,
from the Washington System of 1922 that had guaranteed the sovereignty of China 2014, p. 131).
and the open-door trading policy. Prime Minister Konoe had hoped that ‘China and
59

Manchukuo would cooperate, politically, economically and culturally’ to defeat

communism and to establish a new economic union in the region (Crozier, The Causes
of the Second World War, 1997, p. 213). In reality, in spite of the establishment of the New
Order, Sino-Japanese relations remained intractable; Konoe, unable to bring the China
Incident (Sino-Japanese War) to a satisfactory conclusion, resigned in 1939.

Thinking, research,
ATL and communication The following is an extract from a statement about the New Order by General Tojo Hideki, made after the
skills war was over when he was in prison for war crimes. Tojo had been vice-army minister in 1938 and prime
minister from 1941 onwards.
A number of
‘collaborationist The basic intention was that the raw materials which China possessed in abundance would be
governments’ were set contributed by China and the technique, capital and skilled personnel [would be] contributed
up during World War by Japan for the mutual benefit of both countries. Manchuria would come into the picture
II. Do some research
similarly […] The idea of profit or loss did not enter in. The idea of mutual benefit was the
to find out more about
the governments set up main one. It had a moral basis.
by Nazi Germany in a) From Andrew Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, Blackwell, 1997, p. 213
Slovakia and b) France.
Share your research with 1. According to the source, what were the reasons for the application of a New Order in China?
the class. Student answer – Jenny
The source states that China had ‘raw materials’ and that there was ‘mutual benefit’.
Student answer – Kyla
The source mentions that whereas China could contribute a lot of resources such as raw materials, Japan
would provide the skills and the expertise that would then allow both countries to benefit. The source
also emphasizes that this would not be carried out in order to make a ‘profit’ but that it was based on a
moral purpose such as helping each other.
As you can see, Jenny’s response is a little too brief and it also quotes rather than paraphrases the source.
The points she makes are quite accurate, but she doesn’t really show that she understands the source. Kyla,
however, tries to put the main points into her own words and so an examiner would see that she has not
only understood the question, but that she also understands the source. She states two points very clearly.
This is a Japanese propaganda poster meant to

show how life would improve under the Japanese.
It was published in January 1939. You can just about
read the comments where the Chinese script has
been translated. These include:
● ‘This is what China will be like if you let us take
over.’
● ‘If you keep on fighting, all the Chinese will die.’
● ‘It’s all colony (sic) propaganda.’
1. What is the message conveyed by this source?
An arch is being built to

commemorate the first
anniversary of the Japanese-
supported collaborationist
government in Nanjing,
29 March 1941; a banner
containing the portrait of
Wang Jingwei is being hung.
60

3.2
3.2 Japan’s relations with Europe, 1938–39
Hitler’s annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia between 1938 and 1939 violated the
sovereignty of both countries, but the League of Nations failed to respond. The British
and French policy of appeasement had now taken over from collective security. (In
Case Study 2 you will analyse the European context of these events.) All these changes
are very important for your understanding of Japan’s decision-making in matters of
foreign policy during this period. One reason that European affairs affected Japan so
much was because of their impact on Britain (which had been Japan’s greatest rival for
influence in China) and on the Soviet Union (a neighbouring country which Japan had
feared would expand into Manchukuo).
Japan and the Axis powers

In 1936, Mussolini and Hitler met and agreed to a pact of mutual understanding
known as the Rome–Berlin Axis, from which the term Axis powers was derived. In
1938, Hitler issued instructions for all German advisors in China to return home and
Germany formally recognized the state of Manchukuo. In 1939, the Pact of Steel was
signed between Germany and Italy, making them military allies; Japan joined this
alliance in September 1940. The growing ties between Germany and Japan greatly
disappointed Jiang Jieshi. According to Rana Mitter, although ‘there was no affinity’
between China and Nazi Germany, Jiang had nonetheless hoped to ‘persuade Germany
to choose China and not Japan as its principal East Asian, anti-Communist partner’
(Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, p. 163).
Hitler, however, had noticed how rapidly the Chinese army had retreated in 1937
and in turn noted Japan’s greater potential as a powerful ally. It is also likely that, for
Hitler Youth members

meeting Prime Minister Konoe
Fumimaro on 27 August 1938.
61

An Italian delegation visits

Japan in March 1938.
Hitler, an expansionist Japan would be a useful thorn in the side of both the Soviet
Union and Britain, thus leaving Germany free to pursue its own expansionist policies
in Europe (Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997, p. 208). In 1938, a group
of Hitler Youth members visited Japan; they were photographed with Prime Minister
Konoe. Representatives of Italy’s Fascist government also made a visit, even visiting a
Japanese temple. These were important indicators of Japan’s growing affiliation for its
co-signatories of the Anti-Comintern Pact.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact

Signed on 23 August 1939, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was confusing to most politicians and
strategists outside of the chancellery in Berlin and the Kremlin in Moscow. Having
spent most of the decade fulminating against each other, it was not expected that
Stalin and Hitler should now sign a treaty that pledged ten years of non-aggression,
secretly divided Poland, and later gave Stalin a free hand in the Baltic States and
Bessarabia.
Later, in Chapter 6 of this book, you will assess the European response to the
pact and the impact it had on the move to global war in the region. Historian AJP
Taylor suggests that this was an ‘epoch-making event’, signifying Russia’s ‘return to
Europe’. The Tianjin (Tientsin) Incident (for more, see page 64) had convinced Stalin
that Britain would not stand up to Japan, so he felt he had better throw in his lot
with Hitler. According to Taylor, ‘the Soviet Union sought security in Europe, not
conquests; and it is surprising that she did not seek it earlier by a deal with Germany’
(Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, 1962, p. 241).
62

3.2
Having signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, Japan had hoped for German support against CHALLENGE
the Soviet Union; the Nazi-Soviet Pact therefore came as a bitter disappointment,
isolating Japan and further strengthening the supporters of a ‘strike south’. Overall,
YOURSELF
the Nazi-Soviet Pact ‘shook the basic foundation of Japan’s earlier anti-Soviet, anti- Thinking, research
Communist agreement with Germany’. According to Eri Hotta, Prime Minister communication, and ATL
Hiranuma Kiichirō (who had succeeded Konoe) was flabbergasted, saying, ‘The self-management skills
European state of affairs is too complicated and bizarre’ (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, Go back through this case study
p. 25). and, by making a note of each
event that involved Japan and
Within Japan, opinions remained divided regarding the direction Japan’s foreign Russia/the Soviet Union, write
policy should take. In the army, there was support for a military alliance with an account of how and why
Germany. In the navy, there were concerns that such a step would further alienate their relationship changed up
Britain and the United States, causing them to draw closer and direct their enmity to 1941.
against Japan. Having said that, there were also groups within the navy that saw the
benefits of calling for war against the United States, as this would justify increases in
the budget for naval expenditure (Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997,
p. 170). Despite the lack of a clear direction for Japanese foreign policy, events in
Europe were heading towards war and so Japan had to prepare for the impact this
would have on the Far East.
The outbreak of war in Europe and its impact

on Japan
The invasion of Poland in September 1939 led to a six-month hiatus known as the
Phoney War. Despite a declaration of war by Britain and France against Germany,
Poland was quickly defeated. In the Far East, Japan was buoyed by the fall of France in
June 1940 and the apparent isolation of Britain. This offered opportunities for Japan to
expand in the Far East and it was able to apply pressure on Britain to close its supply
route through Burma to China. Vichy France (the collaborationist regime established
under the leadership of Marshal Pétain) would also be pressured into accepting
Japanese control over Indochina. Japan set its sights on the Dutch East Indies with its
valuable resources of oil, rubber, and tin. In this way, the German conquest of much
of Western Europe opened up opportunities for Japan and – as mentioned earlier –
despite the Nazi-Soviet Pact, brought Japan closer to a formal military alliance with the
Axis powers.
In Japan, Konoe returned as prime minister in 1940; he brought into his cabinet
Matsuoka Yōsuke as foreign minister, Tojo Hideki as war minister, and Yoshida
Zengo as navy minister. With Germany winning the war in Europe, Matsuoka called
for a military alliance that would, he was convinced, make the United States more
‘respectful’ of Japan. By mid-1940, several important decisions had been made to shape
Japan’s foreign policy with the following aims:
● to strengthen ties with Germany and Italy
● to create the New Order in Asia (to be known as the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity
Sphere)
● to sign a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union
● to bring the British, French, and Dutch colonies in East Asia under Japanese influence
● to reach an agreement with Jiang Jieshi and bring China into the New Order.
63

Japan’s relations with the United States

3.3 and Britain
Although Japan was very much affected by the turn of events in Europe, it was also
preoccupied by its failure to bring the China Incident to a close, a situation which
continued to seriously affect relations with Britain and the United States.
The Tianjin (Tientsin) Incident

One of the most significant events to impact Anglo-Japanese relations in 1939 was the
Tianjin (Tientsin) Incident, an event that also fuelled Britain’s fears that it would have
to wage war against Japan in the Far East as well as against Germany in Europe.
An important Chinese centre for trade, Tianjin was home to around 3,000 British
citizens, who lived in the British Concession. In April 1939, a Chinese national
working as a Japanese bank manager was murdered; in June, demands were made
by the Japanese authorities for the handover of four Chinese suspects residing in
the British Concession. While the British ambassador to Japan advised that Britain
comply with Japanese demands, the British ambassador to China argued that
any British show of weakness should be avoided. The Japanese responded to this
British non-compliance by imposing a blockade and humiliating British residents
by strip-searching them as they travelled in and out of the concession. War could
Scrap metal easily have broken out if Britain had retaliated, especially as Japan was applying
Scrap metal is basically pressure in Rome and Berlin for an outward show of support. After some careful
iron and any other diplomacy, Britain agreed not to undermine Japanese authority in occupied
metal that can be China, although it refused to relinquish its control of the British Concession to the
melted down and Japanese police. Even so, they did eventually hand over the four suspects who were
recycled. Towards the then executed.
end of the 1930s, Japan
needed sources of The Tianjin Incident made it clear to Britain that it needed US support if it was to
iron for shipbuilding, maintain its presence in China. While President Roosevelt of the United States did
armaments, and so
on. One major source
not send military aid, he did show support by announcing that he would abrogate the
was the United States, 1911 American–Japanese trade agreement within six months. According to Robert
which sold 2 million Dallek (Dallek, Franklin Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932–45, 1981, p. 195), this
tons of scrap metal had a triple effect:
to Japan in 1939. In
March 1939, Chinese ● it encouraged Britain to respond more firmly to Japanese aggression
workers in Astoria, ● it bolstered Chinese morale
Oregon, picketed the ● it met with widespread approval in the United States, affirming the popularity of a
sale of scrap iron to
Japan. Their action strong stand against Japan.
was supported by the
longshoremen (dock
As we shall see, Japan’s decision to sign the Tripartite Pact in 1940 and, the year after,
workers) and the to occupy all of Indochina prompted the United States to take the following actions:
protest then spread to
Portland. By July 1940,
● move its fleet to Pearl Harbor
the export of certain ● sign a lend-lease deal with Britain
kinds of scrap metal was ● end the sale of aviation fuel and certain types of scrap metal to Japan, which was later
stopped; by September extended to prohibit the sale of all scrap metal to Japan.
1940 this extended to
all types of scrap metal. Meanwhile, for Japan, the New Order remained elusive, as did its conquest of China.
64

3.3
Source A
A photo taken on 8 December 1941, when the owner of this grocery store in Oakland California put up
this notice. The newspaper that published the photo stated that he was a ‘University of California graduate
of Japanese descent’.
Source B
This captured image from April 1941 shows a Japanese man sitting on top of a heap of scrap metal to be
recycled.
1. What are the messages conveyed by Sources A and B?
Student answer - Katherine

Source A is a photograph of a grocery store in California that was taken the day after Pearl Harbor. The
big sign across the front of the shop is meant to tell customers that the owner is an American citizen,
even though the store is called ‘Wanto Co.’, which they would probably have assumed was a Japanese
(or Asian) name. It looks like the store has been sold so maybe the owner has to leave. The photo shows
us that it didn’t matter if you were an American citizen, you were still considered to be Japanese. It is
interesting that the newspaper also mentioned that the store owner was a graduate of the University of
California, probably so that readers could sympathise with him.
Source B is a ‘captured picture’ so it was probably not published in Japan. It shows how desperate the
people were to collect all kind of metal things, some of them look like railings. The man is sitting on top,
maybe he is guarding it, as it was of value.
The shortage of metal in
Japan was acute and, by
Examiner’s comments 1941, its use by civilians
In the Paper 1 exam, you will not be asked to comment on two photographs for part B of the first was greatly limited, with
question, but it is quite useful here to see how Katherine has explained the message of the two sources. substitutes being used.
For Source A she has picked up on signs in the store front and explained that they show how it didn’t Most notably, according
matter if you were an American citizen if you were also ethnically Japanese. She goes a bit further by to Eri Hotta, ‘all metal
referring to the way that the newspaper described the owner. You will not always be provided with this buttons on school
kind of detail but do remember to read all the information you are given about the source as it may uniforms were confiscated
help you to determine the message. Katherine also mentions the SOLD sign and suggests this may be and replaced by ones
connected to the theme of the picture. Overall, she has been quite thorough and certainly earned the full made of glass’ (Hotta,
marks that would be awarded for this kind of question. Japan 1941, 2014, p. 109).
For Source B, Katherine describes the heap of scrap metal and suggests that all kinds of objects were
being collected. She could have developed this by saying that it shows there was probably a desperate
need for metal to make arms. Katherine does comment on the man and comments on why he may be
sitting there. Again, she makes two points but could have developed them a little more.
65

3.4 The signing of the Tripartite Pact
Although some degree of factionalism continued over foreign policy decisions, on 27

September 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. According
to the pact:
● Germany and Italy recognized the leadership of Japan in Asia.
● Japan recognized the leadership of Germany and Italy in Europe.
● All agreed to support each other by all means (militarily, economically, and
politically) if attacked by a power not ‘involved in the European war or in the Sino-
Japanese conflict’.
The unnamed power mentioned above was, of course, the United States. For Japan,
the agreement would have alleviated its concern that Britain would move towards
an accommodation with the United States (which would disadvantage Japan) in the
event of defeat by Germany. For Germany, however, the pact was meant to dissuade
the United States from aiding a ‘soon-to-be-defeated’ Britain (Crozier, The Causes of the
Second World War, Blackwell, 1997, p. 170).
0 500 km
Scale
Map of Khalkhin-Gol.
N
Hulun USSR
Lake
MANCHURIA
OUTER
MONGOLIA Khalkin-Gol
INNER
MONGOLIA
L i a o He Vladivostok
CHINA r
ve
Ri
lu
Peking Ya
Sea of
Japan
Pyongyang J A PA N
KOREA
The border conflict between Japan and the

Soviet Union
The establishment of the Second United Front led to a flow of aid from the Soviet
Union to China, but relations between the two powers worsened in December 1939,
when the Council for the League of Nations condemned the Soviet invasion of Finland.
Known as the Winter War of 1939–40, this act of aggression led to the expulsion of the
Soviet Union from the League. As a member of the Council of the League, China could
have prevented this by meeting Stalin’s request to use its veto to prevent the resolution
from passing. Jiang, however, instructed the Chinese representative to abstain. Aware
66

3.4
that this would damage relations with the Soviet Union and endanger the flow of
further aid, Jiang was prepared to risk this rather than alienate the other members of
the Council.
Besides, Jiang suspected that Stalin was less committed to helping China defeat the ‘Strike north’ and
Japanese than to prolonging a war of attrition that reduced the risk of Japan launching ‘strike south’
a full-scale attack on the Soviet Union (Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, 2014, ‘Strike north’ refers to
p. 214; Yu, The Dragon’s War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937–1947, 2013, a strategy popular with
p. 30). For some time, there had been border skirmishes between Japan and the Soviet the Japanese army that
Union, and, in 1939, these became more serious, culminating in the Battle of Khalkhin- favoured preparing for
Gol (Nomonhan in Japanese) when over 20,000 Japanese troops died, not only on the war against the Soviet
battlefield but also from hunger, thirst, and disease. Along with the disappointment Union. ‘Strike south’ was
a strategy adopted in
over the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the cost of this campaign in resources and lives convinced
1941, when the Imperial
the Imperial Japanese Army to abandon the ‘strike north’ strategy and to support the Japanese Army headed
‘strike south’ strategy favoured by the Japanese navy (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853– south into Indochina,
1964, 2004, p. 108). Malaya, and the Dutch
East Indies while the
The conflict with the Soviet Union rumbled on for the next two years. By April 1941, Imperial Japanese Navy
however, both the Soviet Union and Japan had more urgent threats to their own headed into the Pacific.
security. For the Soviet Union, relations with Germany were no longer as cordial as
they had been; for Japan, the risk of war against Britain and the United States was
increasing. With these factors in mind, the Soviet Union and Japan signed a neutrality
pact that would last until August 1945. Soviet aid to China thus came to an end.
In a show of confidence, now that its northern border with the Soviet Union was
secure, Japan moved to take over French Indochina. The closer Japan became to
realizing its foreign policy aims, however, the further it moved away from any hope of
improving relations with the United States.
Below are the terms of the Soviet–Japanese neutrality pact signed in April 1941. (http://avalon.law.yale.
edu/wwii/s1.asp)
ARTICLE ONE
Both Contracting Parties undertake to maintain peaceful and friendly relations between them
and mutually respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of the other Contracting Party.
ARTICLE TWO
Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one
or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the
duration of the conflict.
ARTICLE THREE
The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties
and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact
one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for
the next five years.
ARTICLE FOUR
The present Pact is subject to ratification as soon as possible. The instruments of ratification
shall be exchanged in Tokyo, also as soon as possible.
In confirmation whereof the above-named Representatives have signed the present Pact in
two copies, drawn up in the Russian and Japanese languages, and affixed thereto their seals.
Done in Moscow on April 13, 1941, which corresponds to the 13th day of the fourth month
of the 16th year of Showa.
1. According to its origin, purpose, and content, what are the value and limitations of this source for
historians studying Soviet-Japanese relations before and during World War II?
67

An overview of US foreign policy after

3.5 1936
During President Franklin D Roosevelt’s first term in office (1933–37), US foreign
policy was guided by isolationism. In part, this was a response to public opinion that
was vehemently opposed to any further US involvement in European conflicts, fuelled
by the work of revisionist historians such as Sidney B Fay, who argued that World
War I was not solely Germany’s fault. Furthermore, the Nye Committee hearings
of 1934, led by Senator Gerald Nye, revealed huge profits made by US munitions
manufacturers and financiers during World War I. The United States had already
rejected membership of the League of Nations, but it also rejected membership of the
International Court of Justice in 1926 (which isolationists feared would lead inexorably
to membership of the League).
The Neutrality Acts of 1935–37 reflected US policy at the time by stipulating the
following:
● The First Neutrality Act 1935: When a state of war existed, the president was required
to declare an arms embargo against all belligerents and to warn American citizens
not to travel on belligerent ships. (When the League imposed sanctions on Italy after
its invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, the United States did not join in the sanctions,
though Roosevelt did call for a ‘moral embargo’ – in other words, for American
businesses to voluntarily refuse to trade with Italy.)
● The Second Neutrality Act 1936: The United States would refuse war loans and
credits to belligerent nations.
● The Third Neutrality Act 1937: Travel on belligerent ships was now made unlawful.
This act also brought in the ‘cash-and-carry’ rule, whereby the president could
require belligerent nations to pay in cash for all purchases and to transport them on
their own ships (Jones, The Limits of Liberty, American History 1607–1992, 1995, p. 488).
Although Roosevelt was not keen on the fact these acts didn’t differentiate between
belligerent countries, popular opinion made it impossible for him to oppose them.
According to Maldwyn Jones, Roosevelt ‘for the first time gave his undivided attention
to foreign affairs’ when Japan invaded China in 1937, though even then he did not
apply the embargo on arms sales to China because there was no official declaration of
war (Jones, The Limits of Liberty, American History 1607–1992, 1995, p. 489).
The Quarantine Speech

On 5 October 1937, in Chicago (a city considered to be at the heart of isolationism),
Roosevelt gave a speech that indicated a shift in American policy. In what became
known as the Quarantine Speech, Roosevelt spoke of a growing ‘international
anarchy and instability’, suggesting that there was a need to quarantine aggressor
nations. When asked whether or not this meant an imposition of sanctions, Roosevelt
responded by telling the world that America was looking for a way to preserve peace.
Even so, soon after the speech was made, the United States participated in the Brussels
Conference of 1937 (see chapter 2, page 50).
68

3.5
Below is an extract from the Quarantine Speech given by President Roosevelt in Chicago on 5 October
1937. (http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3310)
War is a contagion, whether it be declared or undeclared. It can engulf states and peoples
remote from the original scene of hostilities. We are determined to keep out of war, yet we
cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement.
We are adopting such measures as will minimize our risk of involvement, but we cannot have
complete protection in a world of disorder in which confidence and security have broken down.
If civilization is to survive, the principles of the Prince of Peace [Roosevelt was referring to
Jesus Christ] must be restored. Trust between nations must be revived. Most important of all,
the will for peace on the part of peace-loving nations must express itself to the end that
nations that may be tempted to violate their agreements and the rights of others will desist
from such a course. There must be positive endeavours to preserve peace. America hates war.
America hopes for peace. Therefore, America actively engages in the search for peace.
1. According to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of the source for
historians studying Roosevelt’s foreign policy.
Student answer – Jacob
The origin of this source is the Quarantine Speech given by President Roosevelt in October 1937, when
the Spanish Civil War was taking place in Europe and the Sino-Japanese War was about to break out in
China. Roosevelt gave this speech in Chicago. The purpose of the speech was to convey some idea of
American foreign policy at this time. The value of the speech is that it is given by the president and so it
tells us about US policy. Also, it says that America wants peace and that it hates war. There are limitations
to the source because Roosevelt was giving a public speech and so may not have been expressing his real
thoughts about this.
Student answer – Frederick
The origin of the source is the Quarantine Speech that Roosevelt gave in Chicago in October, 1937, when
there was growing tension in Europe and in the Far East. The purpose of the speech was to reassure
Americans that he was not intending to go to war. He says, ‘America hates war’, ‘America hopes for peace’,
but he also says that ‘peace-loving nations’ have to be ready to say that they oppose war. So, one value of
this speech is that it shows us how Roosevelt tried to reassure Americans that he would not take them into
war, but, at the same time, that America must be aware of the dangers of war because ‘war is a contagion’
and so it can spread. Another value is that this is the president of the United States speaking and so
this would be the policy of his administration. The limitations are that we do not know how people
responded to this speech and whether they supported him. Also, Roosevelt had to try and persuade
people to support him and so he cannot say just what he thinks. We can see this in how he doesn’t come
right out and say that America may have to go to war, he only very vaguely suggests this.
Both Frederick and Jacob refer to the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of the source and this is a
good way to approach the question. They make it very clear that they have considered each part of the
question, although Frederick is also very explicit about using the content and he uses it very effectively to
support both a value and a limitation of the source. Jacob is a little more superficial in his answer, as he
doesn’t really develop the points that he makes. Jacob does give quite a lot of background to the origin
of the speech by setting it in context, but you would not be expected to give this amount of detail and
Frederick’s comment that the speech was made when there was rising tension is quite sufficient to set the
scene. Do make sure that you link the origin, purpose, and content to the value and limitations rather
than just listing them separately.
69

Britain is often mentioned After the sinking of the USS Panay in 1937 (see Chapter 2, page 50), further pressure
as the only country in was applied to Roosevelt. Public reaction was muted, but isolationists seized the
Europe that was fighting opportunity to put forward a constitutional amendment stating that the US Congress
the Axis powers by the could declare war only after a national referendum had given approval. Roosevelt
summer of 1940; in fact, vehemently objected to this amendment, arguing that it would ‘cripple any president
until its defeat in May in his conduct of our foreign relations’ (Quoted in Jones, The Limits of Liberty, American
1941, Greece was still
History 1607–1992, 1995, p. 490). The amendment failed to pass through Congress by a
fighting Italy and then
Germany. very narrow margin of 188 in favour and 209 against.
Despite the worsening situation in Europe in 1938 and 1939, the United States
remained tied to a policy of isolationism, although the Naval Expansion Act of May
Franklin D Roosevelt 1938 provided $1 billion for naval rearmament over the next decade. It was planned to
stood for a third term build a navy equivalent in size to that of Germany, Italy, and Japan combined, a clear
as president in 1940.
intent to match the capability of the Axis powers.
Traditionally, it was
possible, within the
American constitution, The end of American isolationism
for a president to stand
for third or a fourth term. In 1939, on the outbreak of war in Europe, the United States issued a Declaration of
This finally changed in Neutrality, but it also passed another Neutrality Act in November that repealed the
1947, when the 22nd
Amendment stated that
arms embargo and allowed belligerents to buy arms on the basis of paying in cash
a president could run for and carrying the arms in their own ships. It was understood that the customers for
only two terms. American arms would be Britain and France. For the majority of Americans, supplying
arms to Britain and France (so they could do the fighting) would make it unnecessary
for the United States to go to war. The events of 1940 proved this assumption to be
erroneous as France surrendered in June. Even so, Britain had not yet fallen to the Axis,
and Roosevelt was able to get approval from the Congress in 1941 for the transfer
of ‘surplus’ planes, guns, and ammunition to Britain and to begin the Lend-Lease
programme.
3.6 Final stages of the move to global war
According to Niall Ferguson, ‘The sole obstacle to Japanese hegemony in South-

East Asia was America’ (Ferguson, The War of the World, 2006, p. 487). Indeed, by
1941, Japan’s continued occupation of China, as well as its occupation of French
Indochina, led to a worsening of relations with the United States. This was significant
because Japan was short of resources with which to produce arms: around a third of
its imports, including cotton, scrap iron, and oil, came from the United States. The
Japanese army had supported a strategy of striking north against the Soviet Union but
had been unable to secure a definite victory in the land war in China, so it depended
on the Imperial Japanese Navy to secure control of the coastal cities. This had
strengthened the influence of the navy over decision-making in Tokyo, while the Nazi-
Soviet Pact made war against the Soviet Union unlikely. However, Japan still needed
resources, and if these could not be secured through trade with the United States, then
other sources had to be found in Asia, which would mean an extension of hostilities
against the oil-rich Dutch East Indies.
70

3.6
ALASKA
CANADA
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
Bering Sea
ALEUTIAN
Watch the USSR ISLANDS
OUTER MONGOLIA
Map showing Japanese war
MANCHURIA
objectives and planned
Peking
opening attacks.
Win the war JAPAN
In China Tokyo
TIBET CHINA Cut US lines of
Shanghai communication to
the Philippines
Isolate China Destroy/neutralize
the US Pacific fleet
INDIA HAWAIIAN
Calcutta BURMA FRENCH Hong Pearl Harbor ISLANDS
Kong
Rangoon INDOCHINA
Establish a
THAILAND MARIANAS
Manilla ISLANDS defense perimeter
Bangkok PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS
CAROLINE MARSHALL
ISLANDS ISLANDS
MALAYA
SINGAPORE
Equator
SU
BORNEO
MA
GILBERT
TR
NEW SOLOMON ISLANDS

A
GUINEA ISLANDS
Balavia PACIFIC OCEAN
JAVA
Honiara
Secure the Port

Southern resources Moresby
area NEW
HEBRIDES
NEW
CALEDONIA
INDIAN AUSTRALIA
OCEAN Brisbane
N
Perth
Sydney
Melbourne Auckland
NEW ZEALAND 0 2000
TASMANIA Wellington km
Operation Barbarossa, June 1941

The German invasion of the Soviet Union (codenamed Operation Barbarossa)
changed everything, as it brought the Soviet Union towards an alliance with Britain
and the United States. For Japan, this opened up the possibility of reviving the ‘strike
north’ strategy. Prime Minister Konoe, however, was cautious and thought it wiser to
look for improved relations with the United States, although he understood that to do
so would require the abandonment of the New Order (or Greater Asian Co-Prosperity
Sphere, as the New Order was now called), a policy that would be totally unacceptable
to the army as it would entail retreating from China.
Meanwhile, the United States warned Japan not to invade the Soviet Union, as this
would ‘endanger peace in the Pacific’. Furthermore, by July, the United States was
keeping itself well-informed about Japan’s policies through Magic, the name given to
its code-breaking device, which provided access to all encrypted Japanese diplomatic
correspondence.
71

Richard Sorge, a German

journalist working in
Tokyo, was a spy for 0 1000 km
the Soviet Union and
Scale USSR
he sent many warnings
to Moscow about the N
impending German
attack on the Soviet
Outer
Union. These, however,
Mongolia
were dismissed by Stalin
Peiping Tokyo
as ‘untrustworthy’. Even
CHOSEN J A PA N
so, once the invasion (KOREA)
had begun, Stalin C H I N A
instructed Sorge to look
for any information Shanghai
regarding Japanese troop
Chongqing
movements on its border
with the Soviet Union. He INDIA
was arrested soon after Calcutta Kunming PACI FI C
OCEA N
giving Stalin assurances
in September 1941 that BURMA Hong Kong
Japan was not planning B ay
of Rangoon
an invasion. He was
B en g al
executed in 1944 (Hotta, THAILAND South
Japan 1941, 2014, p. 119). FRENCH Chi na
INDOCHINA Sea
PHILIPPINES
Map of Southeast Asia
showing the extent of
Japanese occupied territory
(in orange) by 1942.
The emergence of the ABCD Bloc

Matsuoka Yōsuke, the Japanese foreign minister, spent much of the early part of 1941
coming to an agreement to end the long-running dispute over the border between
Thailand and French Indochina. Japan offered itself as a mediator and a treaty was
signed accepting a new border in May 1941. Akire Iriye suggests this event was
an important one, because Japan was establishing itself as the dominant power in
Southeast Asia in accordance with its aim of creating the Greater East Asian Co-
Prosperity Sphere (Iriye, The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific, 1995,
p. 131).
The response to this agreement, however, came in the form of the ABCD Bloc,
an alliance between the United States (A), Britain (B), China (C), and the Dutch
government-in-exile (D). The idea was to apply economic pressure on Japan,
supplementing it with the presence of the US fleet in the Pacific. Although this
was only forward planning among military officers rather than a formal alliance, it
established the basis for future cooperation. Throughout 1941, this alliance (especially
between Britain and the United States) was further strengthened by the meeting
between Churchill and Roosevelt off the coast of Newfoundland in August 1941 and
the writing of the Atlantic Charter, which affirmed the common interests of the two
nations. Akire Iriye notes that, inside Japan, this was seen as an ultimatum (it would be
one of many) to either accept the status quo of the ‘Anglo-American world view’ or to
oppose it (Iriye, The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific, 1995, p. 156).
72

3.6
Niall Ferguson argues that Japan did not think it possible that the United States would
be rash enough to declare war when Japan was allied to the seemingly victorious Italy
and Germany, and when the Soviet Union had also stood alongside the Axis powers
(Ferguson, The War of the World, 2006, p. 310). Furthermore, the American public
seemed resolutely isolationist.
The strategists in the Japanese navy, nonetheless, planned for war: they believed that
victory was possible, but only if a surprise attack on the US navy was carried out
successfully – thus began Admiral Yamamoto’s initiation of the plan to strike Pearl
Harbor in April 1941.
Meanwhile, the Roosevelt administration was committed to peace and this had been
the basis of the president’s campaign for re-election in 1940 – and, indeed, plans were
being made to delay, or even prevent, war in the Pacific by using economic sanctions
and the build-up of the Pacific fleet to deter Japan from further aggression.
Indochina and the US embargo on oil, 1941

Indochina, made up of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, had been a French colony
since 1887. The Japanese occupation of this territory had been prompted in part by
Operation Barbarossa, which made it less likely that a Japanese ‘strike south’ might
result in a Soviet incursion into Manchuria. At first, Vichy France resisted Japanese
demands to take over Indochina but it acceded to these on 22 July 1941. Eri Hotta
notes that control over Indochina gave Japan access to tin, rubber, and other raw
materials, as well as eight air bases and two ports (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, p. 143).
The United States responded to this further expansion of Japanese occupied territory
by freezing all Japanese assets held in the United States. On 1 August, it applied an
embargo on the sale of oil. For the Japanese army and navy this was ‘tantamount to
an act of war’, making the ‘strike south’ seem a matter of survival, as it was feared that
unless the embargo was lifted, oil supplies would begin to run out by December that
year (Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997, p. 221). Admiral Yamamoto, the
Japanese naval chief of staff, still hoped that war would not be necessary if oil supplies
were resumed. For the army, however, war was seen as inevitable as the United
States would surely demand the withdrawal of Japan from China and Southeast Asia,
something Japan would consider non-negotiable.
According to Eri Hotta, some compromise was reached between the war and peace
factions by September 1941, as outlined in the Guidelines for the Implementing
National Policies that stated:
● Japan should be ready for war by the end of October
● negotiations with the United States would proceed, but if these were unsuccessful by
mid-October, war would follow (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, p. 171).
For Japan, ‘successful’ negotiations would include the end of all Anglo-American aid to
China, no further increase in Anglo-American military strength in Southeast Asia, and
the end of economic sanctions against Japan.
73

This American cartoon, published in 1941, illustrates Japanese expansion into Indochina.
CHALLENGE
YOURSELF
ATL
Thinking and
research skills
Based on what you have read

so far, how likely was it that
Japan’s negotiations with the
United States, as outlined in the
guidelines, would be successful? Source: Special Collections Research Center, The George Washington University
Give reasons for your answer. 1. What is the message conveyed in this source?
The failure of diplomacy

Negotiations between Japan and the United States took place all through the autumn
of 1941; however, Cordell Hull, the US secretary of state, made it clear to Nomura
Kichisaburō, the Japanese ambassador, that any agreement would have to be
supported by Britain and China – something Japan knew was going to be unlikely.
Japan’s naval minister Oikawa Koshirō remained opposed to war as he knew the
navy would bear the brunt of the fighting against the United States. However, for
Tojo Hideki, a general of the Imperial Japanese Army and minister of war, military
action was inevitable, and the sooner it happened the better given his belief that a
delay would favour the United States. Having failed to persuade Roosevelt to engage
in direct talks, Konoe resigned as prime minister and was replaced by Tojo on 1
November. The newly appointed prime minister set 30 November as the absolute
final deadline for negotiations to succeed or fail, a fact known to the United States
due to its interception of Japanese diplomatic correspondence. Furthermore, with no
progress being made, Prime Minister Tojo ended up sending Kurusu Saburō, a more
experienced diplomat, to support Ambassador Nomura in the negotiations.
74

3.6
In Washington, the unexpected arrival of Kurusu was seen as a positive indication of Kurusu Saburō
Japanese desire to reach agreement. Together, Kurusu and Nomura met with President
As former Japanese
Roosevelt on 17 November. Among other things, Kurusu was asked to discuss the ambassador to Germany,
possibility of Japan leaving the Tripartite Pact. Knowing full well that Prime Minister Kurusu had signed the
Tojo would never consent to this, Kurusu declined to do so. According to Hotta, this Tripartite Pact. He was not
was a decision that Kurusu would come to ‘regret deeply’, as events soon spiralled out a supporter of the Nazis,
of control (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, p. 252). By 20 November, the Pearl Harbor task however, and had been
force was ready to sail; a final note for consideration was presented to Cordell Hull, but dismayed by his posting
to Berlin in 1936. Kurusu’s
the United States insisted that Japan withdraw from China (including Manchuria) and
arrival in the United
Indochina. States in November 1941
was seen, at first, as a
positive move but was
later interpreted as part
of an elaborate deception
woven by Japan as it
prepared for war. Eri
Hotta refutes this and
argues that Kurusu had
always been of the utmost
sincerity in looking for a
diplomatic solution.
(left to right) Nomura, Hull

and Kurusu arrive at the White
House for a conference in
November 1941.
The Hull Note

An important stage in the countdown to war was the Hull Note presented to
Ambassador Nomura on 26 November 1941, which stipulated that Japan should
withdraw from Indochina and China as the first step to any easing of the embargo. In
fact, the previous day, Hull had written a different note proposing that Japan withdraw
its troops only from southern Indochina, reduce its troops in northern Indochina
to 25,000, and, in return, the United States would lift some economic sanctions.
According to Eri Hotta, the earlier note was cancelled because the United States had
found out that Japan had mobilized troops in Taiwan and in the South Seas (Hotta,
Japan 1941, 2014, p. 265). So, when Tojo read the final version of the Hull Note, he
interpreted it as a declaration of war by the United States.
75

Source A
Below is an extract from The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 6: The Twentieth Century (Cambridge UP,
1995, p. 338), edited by Peter Duus, an American historian who specializes in the history of Japan.
As a basis for Japanese–American agreement, it [the Hull note] listed such terms as a complete
withdrawal of Japanese military, naval, air and police forces from China and Indochina; a
mutual surrender of extraterritorial rights in China; and recognition of only the Nationalist
government. Nomura and Kurusu told Hull that they found the note unacceptable. In Tokyo
the crestfallen Togo [foreign minister] conferred immediately with the prime minister and his
stupefied colleagues, who all agreed that there was nothing further to do. Many of the army and
navy leaders were elated by the Americans’ uncompromising attitude.
Source B
Below is an extract from Japan 1941 (2014, p. 269) by Japanese historian Eri Hotta.
The Hull Note did not impose a specific deadline, but it was taken as an ultimatum when it
reached the Japanese government around noon on November 27. Togo was shocked by its
content. ‘I was struck by despair,’ he later recalled. ‘I tried to imagine swallowing whole [the
demands], but there was no way to force them down my throat.’ He felt the note rejected
General Tojo Hideki, Japanese wilfully and categorically all the efforts that the two countries had been putting into their
minister of war (1940–41) and discussions, as though they had never taken place. For those restlessly itching for military
prime minister (1941–45). action, the note was ‘nothing short of a miracle!’ noted one bakuryo [a word used to describe
an officer whose task it was to plan for war] officer on the Army General Staff. It now seemed
that no diplomatic settlement was possible.
1. Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B in relation to the Hull Note of
November 1941.
Student answer – Mei
In both sources, it is stated that the Hull Note was taken as a step towards war; in Source A, it says ‘there
was nothing further to do’ and in Source B that ‘it was taken as an ultimatum’.
Also, both sources agree that Togo was affected by the note – in Source A, he is described as ‘crestfallen’
and in Source B as ‘struck by despair’. In addition, both sources mention that some of the Japanese were
pleased with the note, as it meant they would go to war. In Source A, it says, ‘the army and navy leaders
were elated’ and in Source B that ‘for those restlessly itching for military action’, the note was ‘nothing
short of a miracle’.
The two sources are also different in some ways. Source A outlines what the note demanded but Source B
mentions only that the note was written as though discussions ‘had never taken place’. Also, Source B only
mentions that a ‘diplomatic settlement’ was not possible, while Source A states that ‘there was nothing
further to do’.
Student answer – Karl
Source A makes a list of what the United States wanted Japan to do, but Source B does not do this.
Also, Source A says that the Hull Note did not impose a deadline, but Source B does not mention any
deadline. They do say some similar things, however. Source A and Source B agree that this note was like a
declaration of war for the Japanese. Also, that Togo was unhappy when he received the note. In addition,
some people supported the note, because they wanted to go to war with the United States.
Both Karl and Mei organize their answers well by comparing and contrasting the sources. It is a good idea
to employ a comparing-and-contrasting method here as it helps the examiner to see the points they are
trying to make. They both use quite appropriate phrases, such as ‘both sources’ to indicate a comparison,
and ‘Source A says… but Source B says…’ to make it clear that they are pointing out a contrast.
76

3.6
However, notice how Karl resorts to saying, ‘Source A says… but Source B does not…’ Try to avoid doing
this, as it doesn’t develop your point sufficiently. Mei develops her points more effectively and includes
short phrases from each source as supporting evidence. For example, she mentions how Source B says
that a ‘diplomatic settlement’ was not possible, and then contrasts this with Source A where, instead of
mentioning a ‘diplomatic settlement’, it just says that ‘there was nothing more to do’. By doing this, Mei
shows that she has understood the sources.
If you look at the markbands that examiners use for the third question in the paper (see chapter on exam
tips, page v) where do you think Mei’s and Karl’s answers belong? What marks would you give them?
The descent into war

On 29 November 1941, Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) was told that war was inevitable,
and on 1 December, the Japanese naval force was informed that the attack on Pearl
Harbor was to take place on 7 December. The United States knew by then an attack
was imminent but didn’t know where or when it would take place; President Roosevelt
made one last effort at peace by sending a message to Tokyo on 6 December asking for
the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Indochina.
According to Niall
Eri Hotta notes how, due to the censorship now imposed on all incoming telegrams, Ferguson, the US aircraft
the Japanese emperor did not receive Roosevelt’s message until 3 p.m., by which time carriers were away from
the task force could not be recalled. Likewise, because of the time taken to decipher and their base in Pearl Harbor
rewrite the declaration of war against the United States, Nomura and Kurusu were not on 7 December but the
able to deliver it, as planned, to the White House 30 minutes before the attack on Pearl following were put out of
action as a result of the
Harbor but did so 50 minutes after the attack had started, at 1:50 p.m. As such, Nomura
attack: 8 battleships, 3
and Kurusu were unaware that the attack had already started until they returned to the destroyers, 3 light cruisers,
Japanese Embassy where angry crowds had already gathered to protest (Hotta, Japan 3 auxiliaries, and 177
1941, 2014, p. 280). According to Hotta, neither Kurusu nor Nomura knew about the aircraft; 3,297 Americans
Japanese deadline of 30 November and Prime Minister Tojo had not told them about lost their lives. The
the fleet sailing for Hawaii. If this was indeed the case, then Kurusu and Nomura could Japanese, on the other
not be accused of duplicity, despite Roosevelt’s feeling that the ‘stealth of the Pearl hand, lost 29 aircraft and
55 men (Ferguson, The
Harbor strategy and the accompanying use of diplomacy as its cloak were the most
War of the World, 2006,
abominable part of Japan’s conduct’ (Hotta, Japan 1941, 2014, p. 283). p. 492).
On 8 December 1941, as a result of the invasion of Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong,
Britain declared war on Japan. On the same day, the government of the Netherlands (in
exile) also declared war on Japan. This was followed, on 11 December, by a declaration
of war on the United States by Germany and Italy.
Source A
Below is an extract from a statement made by US secretary of state Cordell Hull in response to the
declaration of war.
I must say in all my conversations with you [Ambassador Nomura] during the last nine
months I have never uttered one word of untruth. This is borne out absolutely by the record.
In all my fifty years of public service I have never seen a document that was more crowded
with infamous falsehoods and distortions on a scale so huge that I never imagined until today
that any Government on this planet was capable of uttering them.
From Andrew Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, Blackwell, 1997, p. 224, quoting
R.C. Butow, ‘Tojo and the Coming of War’, p. 125
77

Source B
Here is an anti-US propaganda poster published in Japan in 1941.
Source C
This is an anti-Axis propaganda poster published in the United States in 1943.
78

3.6
Source D
Here is a Chinese poster from 1944 showing an American airman stamping on a Japanese soldier.
1. According to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source A for
historians studying the outbreak of war between the United States and Japan. Why was Cordell Hull
so angry?
3. What is the message conveyed in Source C?
4. What is the message conveyed in Source D?
79

ATL Thinking and communication skills
Propaganda was used extensively during World War II in order to motivate the civilian
population to support the war effort. Study Sources B to D in Activity 9 and discuss how they
differ in terms of content and style. What kinds of emotional response were they intended to
trigger in the people who saw them? What are the ethical limits to what can be portrayed in
propaganda?
An American cartoon
published on 19 October
1941. The caption reads:
‘The old daisy game’.
Source: Special Collections Research Center, The George Washington University
ATL Thinking, research, and self-management skills
Now that you have read through this final chapter, draw up a table (like the one below) that
shows how events in Europe and Asia affected the United States in the run-up to World War II.
Date Events in Europe Events in the Far East Response of the United
States
1937 ● Hossbach ● Marco Polo Bridge ● Quarantine Speech
Memorandum Incident
● Italy signs Anti- ● Tianjin Incident
Comintern Pact
80

3.7
Historiography – different interpretations
3.7 of the outbreak of war
Many reasons have been suggested to explain the outbreak of war in the Far East. They
include the following:
● Japan wanted to establish a system that would allow it to be the dominant economic
power in China and the Far East, and was willing to go to war to achieve this.
● Japan wished to end European imperialism in Asia.
● Japan was pushed to go to war because the US trade embargos were crippling its
economy.
● Japan was concerned that the longer it delayed going to war, the more time the
United States would have to arm itself.
● Events in Europe and Operation Barbarossa made Japan more confident about
waging war with the United States.
● Roosevelt imposed trade restrictions on Japan, even though he knew these would
greatly harm Japan.
● Roosevelt insisted that Japan withdraw from China but must have understood that
this was would be seen as an ultimatum and thus lead to war.
Below are the views of a number of historians regarding the main factors of war during
this period:
● Rana Mitter is a British historian and professor of history. He argues that the United
States’ insistence in 1941 that Japan withdraw from China was a crucial factor. He
considers that a diplomatic solution could have been reached if Konoe had remained
prime minister of Japan but that his successor, General Tojo Hideki, was already
planning war and thought it was ‘inevitable’ (Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945,
2014, p. 235).
● Ian Buruma, a writer who specializes in the Far East, states that Tojo grasped the Hull
Note as a pretext for war, but that ‘the Hull Note was just an excuse. The plan for the
attack on Pearl Harbor had already been made’ (Buruma, Inventing Japan 1853–1964,
2004, p. 119).
● Robert Dallek, an American historian and professor of history, argues that the
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor ‘greatly distressed’ Roosevelt, but ‘it also relieved him’
because he no longer had to make decisions as ‘Japan had now made the decision for
him’ (Dallek, Franklin Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932–45, 1981, p. 311).
● Antony Best, a British historian, argues that Britain has to take some responsibility
for war, because it wanted to maintain its authority in the Far East and chose to
ignore the rise of Japan as a regional power. In particular, he notes that ‘the sheer
complexity of the events… shows that the idea of Japanese guilt is hard to apply in
the Pacific War – it was rather a never-ending struggle between those who “have”
and those who “have not”’ (quoted in Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997,
pp. 247–48).
● Andrew Crozier, a British historian, suggests that Japan and the United States
had a ‘mutual misunderstanding’ that resulted in ‘mutual underestimation’. Crozier
maintains that while ‘the causes of the war in Europe can be studied virtually without
reference to the Pacific war, the causes of the war in the Pacific cannot be treated in
isolation from Europe’ (Crozier, The Causes of the Second World War, 1997, p. 256).
81

● Niall Ferguson is a British historian and a professor of history in America. His view
is that Japan went to war because it believed it was better to ‘gamble on immediate
war, rather than submit to relative decline in the near future’ (in other words, to risk
being dominated by the United States) (Ferguson, The War of the World, 2006, p. 490).
CHALLENGE YOURSELF
ATL Thinking and research skills
Read both lists above. See if you can match up the historians’ interpretations (list two) with the reasons
given for the outbreak of war (list one).
You may recall that, near

the start of Chapter 2, In Japan, World War II has many names. In 1990, Bandō Hiroshi from the National
there is a TOK box that Committee of Japanese Historians wrote an article in which he pointed out how, in
discusses the use of the 1956, Japanese historian Tsurumi Shunsuke referred to this period as the Fifteen-
term ‘incident’ (as in Year War (1930–45) comprising the Manchurian War, the China War, and the
Manchurian Incident) Asia-Pacific War. According to Bandō, Shunsuke had argued that ‘[they] were not
to describe the conflict
incidents unrelated to each other’ and that each war was fought because of Japanese
in 1931. It asks you to
consider the significance
imperialism (Historical Studies in Japan (VII): 1983–1987, 1990). This claim is supported
of how we name wars. by other Japanese historians who claimed that the Tanggu Truce, intended to end the
Now that you have read Manchurian Incident in 1933, was referred to by sections of the Japanese army as the
more about the naming North China Truce, meaning that it applied only to part of the conflict that had started
of World War II in in 1931. Another compelling argument is that 41,000 Chinese were killed in battles
Japan, do you think this fought between 1933 and 1936, suggesting that this was, indeed, a time of continual
knowledge affects the (if not continuous) warfare. During the war itself, the name used in Japan was Greater
way you respond to the East Asian War, but this was prohibited by the US authorities who occupied Japan in
question on page 33?
1945, stating that the correct (and only) name for the conflict was the Pacific War.
The 70th anniversary of the Japanese surrender was commemorated on 15 August

2015. In his speech, Prime Minister Abe Shinzō expressed ‘deepest remorse’ and ‘sincere
condolences’ to Japan’s wartime victims. However, he added:
We must not let our children, grandchildren, and even further generations to
come, who have nothing to do with the war, be predestined to apologise. Even so,
we Japanese, across generations, must squarely face history. We have a
responsibility to inherit the past, in all humbleness, and pass it on to the future.
Commenting on Abe’s speech, President Park Geun-hye of South Korea said the
following:
It is hard to deny that Prime Minister Abe Shinzō’s statement of yesterday,
marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, did not quite live up to our
expectations. History cannot be hidden, but rather lives on through the testimony
of surviving witnesses.
Whose view do you agree with? Do you think it is better to draw a line under the past
and to move forward, or is it more important to remember?
82

3.7
This chapter completes Case Study 1: Japanese expansionism in East Asia, 1931–41.
As with the previous chapters, the focus of this chapter has been on linking events in
the Far East to those in Europe. We have seen how Japan responded to the outbreak
of European war in September 1939 and also how Europe and the United States
responded, in turn, to events in the Far East. The events in China had significant
repercussions on both British and American policy with decisions having to be
made on how best to support China. Meanwhile, the failure of Japan to swiftly and
irrevocably end the war in China dragged it into further clashes with the Soviet Union
and, most likely, with Britain and the United States. Japan desperately wanted to secure
China under its control but Chinese resistance, supported by Britain and the United
States, prevented this. For Japan, the choice quickly became whether to abandon its
desired New Order (hegemony over China) or accept the challenge of war against the
emerging ABCD Bloc. At the heart of this dilemma was whether the United States had
the will to fight: if it didn’t, Japan could dominate the Far East; if it did, war would be a
huge gamble. As we saw, there were competing forces within Japan calling, on the one
hand, for a pre-emptive attack on the United States and, on the other, for a negotiated
peace. In the end, both gambits were tried but war was the outcome.
Activity 10 ATL Thinking, research, self-management, and communication skills
Now that you have read through this chapter, answer the following question:
Using the sources and your own knowledge, to what extent would you agree that Japan
attacked Pearl Harbor because of the trade embargo imposed by the United States?
This question is typical of the fourth question you will get in the Paper 1 exam. You can check back
to the end of the previous chapters to see the suggestions for how best to approach this kind of mini
essay. Don’t forget: although it may be tempting to answer this question first (because it carries the
most marks), you are better off working through each question in order as this will help you think
about what may or may not be relevant for the fourth question. As long as it isn’t during the five-
minute reading time, you could also highlight possible quotations as you come across them in the
various sources.
This particular question asks about the reasons that Japan went to war. The command term is ‘to
what extent’, so you need to consider not just the impact of the trade embargo on Japanese policy, To access websites relevant
but also other reasons that may have been relevant. For example, did Japan intend to expand its to this chapter, go to
empire into Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and use the trade embargo as an excuse to go to war? www.pearsonhotlinks.
Was Japan genuinely intending to ‘liberate’ Asia from the grip of European colonialism and ready to com, search for the book
risk war for this? Don’t forget to plan your answer and to time how long you spend on it. You have title or ISBN, and click on
only one hour to answer all four questions so estimate around 20 minutes for this. ‘Chapter 3’.
83

CASE STUDY
GERMAN AND ITALIAN

EXPANSION, 1933–40
2
GERMAN AND ITALIAN EXPANSION, 1933–40
The end of the Great War in 1918 produced a brief period of peace in Europe. The Versailles Peace Settlement
of 1919 strived to solve the many problems that had caused the outbreak of war in 1914. Despite the attempts
to promote open diplomacy and collective security, Europe – and then the world – became involved in World
War II (1939–45) only 20 years later.
The rise of Benito Mussolini in Italy and of Adolf Hitler in Germany are key to explaining the events leading to
World War II. Their ideologies defended military expansionism as a right of their countries as well as a method
of addressing postwar economic and geopolitical issues.
This case study examines the contributions of German and Italian expansionism
between 1933 and 1940 to the move to global war. It is broken down into three
chapters:
• Chapter 4 focuses on the causes of Italian expansion under Mussolini, and the international response to Italian aggression.
• Chapter 5 analyses the causes of German expansion under Hitler, challenges to postwar settlements, and the international
response to German aggression.
• Chapter 6 examines German and Italian foreign policies from 1938 onwards, the international response to the actions of
Hitler and Mussolini, and the extent to which events during this period contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
Key concepts:
The case study analyses all these decisive actions within the rapidly evolving context of international events during the period 1933–40.
As you read through the three chapters, consider the following key concepts we use when studying history and how they apply to this
case study:
● Change: This period saw significant changes in the diplomatic relations in Europe. What factors contributed to these changes? For
example, did the changes respond to ideological factors? Did economic problems, like the Great Depression, play a role? Did they
relate to issues arising from the Versailles Peace Settlement?
● Continuity: Consider the extent to which the aims of Hitler’s and Mussolini’s foreign policies were similar to the ones of the
governments that ruled their countries after 1919. Think, for example, of their views on the Versailles Peace Settlement or on the
fear of Bolshevism.
● Causation: Think about the reasons that can explain the outbreak of war in 1939. Why had war not broken out before the German
invasion of Poland? Why couldn’t war be averted?
● Consequence: This case study assesses the international response to German and Italian aggression. What were the consequences
of their actions? Did they help or hinder German and Italian expansion?
● Significance: This case study addresses some domestic aspects of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany such as their economic policies.
How significant was the impact of domestic economic issues in explaining the expansionist foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini?
● Perspective: As you work though the case study, try to come up with your own explanation as to how important German and
Italian expansionist policies were to the move to global war. What role did other factors, such as the failure of collective security,
play? Do you consider some of these causes more important than the others? Why?
85

02
1915 • 1933 • 1937
• Italy enters World War I as an • Adolf Hitler is appointed • Italy and Britain sign the
ally of France and Britain. chancellor of Germany. ‘gentleman’s agreement’.
• Italy, Britain, Germany, and • The Hossbach Conference takes
1919 France sign the Four-Power place in Germany.
Agreement. • Italy becomes a member of the
• Germany abandons the League Anti-Comintern Pact.
• The Treaty of Versailles is signed. of Nations and the World • Italy abandons the League of
1922 Disarmament Conference. Nations.
1934 1938
• Mussolini is appointed prime
minister of Italy. • German–Polish Non-Aggression • The Anschluss (German
1923 Pact signed. annexation of Austria) takes
• Mussolini mobilizes the Italian place.
army to the Austrian border after • The Manifesto on Race, revoking
• French occupation of the Ruhr. the assassination of the Austrian citizenship to Italian Jews, is
• Mussolini orders the occupation chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss. passed.
of Corfu. • The Soviet Union becomes • The Munich Agreement is
a member of the League of signed.
1924 Nations.
1939
1935
• Mussolini seizes Fiume.
• The Dawes Plan is signed. • Hitler marches into Bohemia and
• The Saar plebiscite takes place. Moravia.
1925 • Hitler announces rearmament • Mussolini occupies Albania.
and the reintroduction of • Hitler denounces the Anglo-
• The Locarno Pact is signed with conscription in Germany. German Naval Agreement.
Germany as a signatory nation • The Stresa Front between Italy, • Italy and Germany sign the Pact
and Italy as one of its guarantors. Britain, and France is signed. of Steel.
• Britain and Germany sign the • Germany and the Soviet Union
1926 Anglo-German Naval agreement. sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
• Italy invades Abyssinia (Ethiopia) • Germany invades Poland.
and the League of Nations • Britain and France declare war
• Albania becomes an Italian imposes sanctions. on Germany.
protectorate. • Italy declares herself non-
• Germany joins the League of 1936 belligerent.
Nations.
1940
1928 • German remilitarization of the
Rhineland.
• Mussolini and Hitler sign the • German occupation of Denmark
• The Briand–Kellogg Pact is Rome–Berlin Axis. and Norway.
signed. • The fall of France. Occupation
1936–39
1929 of Belgium, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands.
• Italy and Germany become • The Battle of Britain.
• The Young Plan is signed. involved in the Spanish Civil War. • Italy enters World War II and
• Wall Street Crash. invades southern France, Egypt,
and Greece.
• Germany, Italy, and Japan sign
the Tripartite Pact.
86

German and Italian expansion, 1933–40
CHALLENGE YOURSELF
ATL Thinking, self-management, social, communication, and research skills
In preparation for this case study, let’s start by looking at some of Europe in 1940
the issues arising from the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
This is a map of Europe in 1940.
Europe in 1919
Study the map below, which shows the territorial divisions in

ICELAND Europe after North
the Paris
Sea Peace Conference. 0 400 km NORWAY
Scale SWEDEN
N
NORWAY
0 400 km FINLAND
SWEDEN
Scale DENMARK
N o rth
N ESTONIA Sea
North
SCOTLAND Sea
DENMARK Baltic LATVIA
RUSSIA
Sea LITHUANIA GREAT
EAST PRUSSIA BRITAIN NETHERLANDS
ENGLAND GERMANY
RUSSIA GERMAN-CONTROLLED
IRELAND NETHERLANDS
WALES BELGIUM TERRITORY
GERMANY POLAND
BELGIUM
CZEC North France:
LUX. HOS
LOVA Direct Occupation
KIA HUNGARY
AUSTRIA HUNGARY AT L A N T I C
ATLANTIC FRANCE SWITZ.
OC E A N
OCEAN ROMANIA Vichy France:
ITALY YUGOSLAVIA
German
N YUGOSLAVIA Puppet State
ITALY Black
BULGARIA Sea
Corsica
ALBANIA
0 50
SPAIN
km SPAIN Sardinia GREECE
TURKEY
Mediterranean Sea
TUNISIA MALTA SYRIA
Study this map and the map of Europe in 1919. In groups, answer
In groups, answer the following. the following.
1. Compare the map above with a map of Europe in 1918 4. What were the most significant territorial changes in Europe
(see if you can find one from the internet or a book). What between 1919 and 1940?
significant territorial changes can you see on the 1919 map? 5. Assess the extent of German territorial changes between
2. Using both maps, plus any previous knowledge you may 1919 and 1940. What do these changes reveal about German
have, evaluate the territorial losses suffered by Germany as a foreign policy? Which countries were affected by German
result of the Treaty of Versailles. How significant were these expansion?
losses for the German economy? What were the German 6. Compare Germany’s territorial changes with those of Italy
government’s major objections to the territorial changes? between 1919 and 1940. Is there anything about these
3. Using both maps again, assess the impact that the territorial changes you find worth noting?
changes had on Italy. Find out why Italy was dissatisfied with
these changes.
87

04 Chapter 4: Italian expansion and its
consequences

The Italian dictator Benito
This chapter focuses on the causes, events, and responses to Italian Mussolini inspecting a regiment
expansion up to 1937. In particular, it will: of Blackshirts leaving for Eastern
Africa on April 27, 1936.
● examine the reasons why Italy had ambitions for new territory
● assess the impact of Italy’s foreign policy on European diplomacy and on the move to
global war.
4.1 Causes of expansion
When World War I (1914–18) broke out, Italy was a relatively new European country
facing many challenges; the concept of national identity was still in the making
and Italians were more loyal to their regions than to their new country. There was
conflict between the Catholic Church and the national government: as a result of
the annexation of the Papal States to Italy in 1870, the pope refused to recognize the
legitimacy of the Italian state. Italian Catholics, a vast majority of the population, saw
themselves torn between political citizenship and their religious beliefs. Industrial
centres had developed in the north, but agriculture continued to be the main
economic activity in the south, where the levels of poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition
were high. In order to gain access to more raw material and markets, Italy tried to
colonize parts of Africa before World War I but was limited to Libya, Eritrea, and part
of Somaliland. None of these territories provided Italy with relevant resources or with
prestige.
As a treaty partner of the Central Powers at the time of the outbreak of World War I,
Italy remained neutral in the conflict until it joined the side of the Allies in 1915, under
the Treaty of London (also known as the London Pact). The treaty had promised Italy
territories including South Tyrol, Istria, Trentino, Trieste, part of the Dalmatia coast,
plus indemnities corresponding to war efforts, and possible gains in Africa. Although
Italy did receive a big part of what had been agreed upon in 1915, the Treaty of
St Germain (1919) made Dalmatia a part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Furthermore,
although Germany was stripped of its colonies, none went to Italy. This lack of
colonial gains and the loss of Dalmatia became main sources of frustration for Italians,
who were dissatisfied with the treaty and claimed they had ‘won the war but lost the
peace’.
After the war, Italy demanded territories, such as the port of Fiume, which had not
been included in the Treaty of London. In protest against the postwar settlement,
Gabriele D’Annunzio led a group of war veterans to occupy Fiume by force in 1919,
thus sparking a wave of nationalism.
Gabriele D’Annunzio and the Blackshirts

Gabriele D’Annunzio was an Italian nationalist who opposed the postwar territorial
arrangements for Italy, and who referred to the situation as a ‘mutilated peace’. It was
also D’Annunzio who seized Fiume with Italian volunteers wearing black shirts, an
event that inspired the paramilitary group that came to be known as the Blackshirts.
The Blackshirts eventually played a part in bringing Benito Mussolini to power. The
occupation of Fiume was short-lived, however, as D’Annunzio was forced to abandon it
in January 1921.
89

04 Italian expansion and its consequences
GERMANY
SWITZERLAND AUSTRIA HUNGARY

South
Tyrol
Trentino
Trieste
FRANCE Fiume
Istria YUGOSLAVIA
Ad
A map of the Kingdom of Italy ITALY ria
tic
in 1919 and its surrounding Se
a
Rome
states.
ALBANIA
GREECE
Corfu
N Mediterranean Sea
0 300 km
Scale
Postwar Italy faced a number of other problems:

● Economic issues: Italy owed large sums of money to Britain and the United States –
money used to finance the war effort. Inflation and unemployment caused much
unrest across the country.
● Social issues: There were repeated workers’ strikes and riots as well as peasants’
attempts to take over land in the south.
● Political issues: As a country with limited democratic experience, the coalition
governments that ruled Italy after the war were inefficient. Industrialists and
landowners feared the influence of Bolshevism and turned to paramilitary
organizations, offering them financial support in exchange for protection from left-
The name of the National wing groups.
Fascist Party was inspired
by ancient Roman history. The period between 1919 and 1920 was a violent one in Italy. Former soldiers, who,
The term ‘Fascist’ derives like D’Annunzio, were discontented with the results of the war for Italy, organized
from the word fasces, themselves to intimidate communists and socialists. One of these groups in Milan was
meaning a bundle of led by Benito Mussolini, who was appointed prime minister in 1922 for the National
rods tied about a lictor’s Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista, PNF) under the principles of ‘order, discipline,
axe, a symbol of Roman hierarchy’.
authority. A bound
bundle is also a symbol
of strength through
unity, given that the rods
would be much stronger
CHALLENGE YOURSELF
when bundled together.
ATL Thinking, research, and social skills
Mussolini’s vision of an
ideal Italy was said to be Now that you have an understanding of Italy’s situation after World War I, carry out some research in
inspired by the ancient groups to find out how and why Mussolini came to power. You may wish to consider the following
Roman Empire at the questions: How did Mussolini propose to solve the problems facing Italy after the war? Which social
height of its prosperity groups felt represented by the Fascists and why? Explain how Mussolini came to power by analysing the
and glory. events leading up to his appointment as prime minister in October 1922, including the March on Rome.
90

4.1
Impact of Mussolini’s Fascism on Italy’s foreign
policy
As you work through this next section, analyse the continuity and change in Italian
foreign policy under Mussolini. To what extent were such changes a response to
Mussolini’s pragmatic considerations? What elements of continuity can you identify?
In order to understand the impact of Mussolini’s Fascist ideology on his foreign policy,
you should first analyse what Italian Fascism stood for. It is difficult to provide a single, Many children joined the Fascist
accurate definition of Italian Fascism from its establishment in 1922 to its collapse group Balilla. This photograph
in 1945. Mussolini himself considered Fascism a movement and a concept that was shows a group of children in
constantly changing. In the same way Fascism moved from being anti-monarchic to Rome, attending a speech by
working with the monarchy, or from being liberal to becoming highly protectionist; in Mussolini. What does this image
say about the significance of
foreign policy Italy experienced dramatic changes as Mussolini refused to compromise war to Fascist ideology?
to any set principle, acting at times as an ‘honest broker’ and at others like a ‘mad dog’.
Ideologically, war was considered a necessary stage in the development of great

nations. Mussolini himself claimed that,
War alone brings to its highest tension all human energy and puts a stamp of nobility
upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it […] Thus a doctrine which is founded
upon this harmful postulate of peace is hostile to Fascism.
My Autobiography, Dover Publications, 1996, p. 230
But Mussolini was also a pragmatic leader whose foreign policy was
shaped by considerations relating to domestic issues as well as changes in
the international situation.
Source A
Below is an extract from a speech delivered by Benito Mussolini in the Chamber, 16 November 1922.
The fundamental principle upon which our foreign policy is based is that treaties of peace,
once signed and ratified, must be carried out, no matter whether they are good or bad. A
self-respecting nation cannot follow another course. Treaties are not eternal or irreparable;
they are chapters and not epilogues in history; to put them into practice means to try them. If
in the course of execution they are proved to be absurd, that in itself constitutes the possibility
of a further examination of the respective positions.
Our foreign policy, which aims at the protection of our interests, respect of treaties and the
settling of our position in the Entente, cannot be described as adventurous and imperialist, in
the vulgar sense of the word. We want to follow a policy of peace that will not, however, be at
the same time suicidal.
Source B
Christopher Duggan is a British historian specializing in Italian history. Below is an extract from his book
Fascist Voices. An Intimate History of Mussolini’s Italy.
After the March on Rome, Mussolini was careful to indicate that he did not intend to embark
on any new or independent path in foreign policy. He had no experience on the international
stage […] He talked repeatedly of the need for overseas ‘expansion’ in order to meet the
requirements of Italy’s fast- growing population. He denigrated the recently constituted
League of Nations as little more than a ‘Franco-British duet’ […] And on the few occasions
that he travelled abroad, he made it clear that he was determined to uphold Italy’s right to be
regarded as a great power.
Christopher Duggan, Fascist Voices, 2012,Vintage Books, pp. 73–74
91

Question 2 asks you to 1. In Source A, what is the meaning of the sentence ‘we want to follow a policy of peace that will not,
analyse the value and however, be at the same time suicidal’?
limitations of a source 2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source B for a
by referring to three historian studying the aims of Mussolini’s foreign policy.
elements: its origins,
purpose, and content.
An effective structure for Activity 2 ATL Thinking skills
this question is to treat
the value and limitations Look at the following question:
separately and link each Compare and contrast what Sources A and B in Activity 1 reveal about the aims of Mussolini’s
of these to the origins, foreign policy.
purpose, and content. Below is an extract from a sample answer.
Student answer – Jane
Both sources show that Mussolini considered Italy to be a great power. In Source A he acknowledged Italy
to have a ‘place in the Entente’ and Source B says ‘he was determined to uphold Italy’s right to be regarded
as a great power’. Also, both sources show a certain readiness to cooperate at an international level. This
is shown when Source B mentions that Mussolini did not intend to embark on any new or independent
foreign policy, which is consistent with the message in Source A about Italy following a policy of peace.
However, Source B states that Mussolini denigrated the League of Nations, and Source A shows him very
willing to cooperate in the peaceful solutions of conflicts that may arise from treaties. Also, Source B
mentions Mussolini’s desire to expand overseas, while in Source A Mussolini seems to be more interested
in a peaceful revision of treaties that do not work.
Jane makes some explicit comparisons and contrasts between the sources. She has written two
paragraphs: one for comparisons and one for contrasts. It is an effective way to show the examiner she
has approached both parts of the question. Also, see how her points are supported with specific reference
to each source, either by briefly quoting from a source or by paraphrasing it.
However, Jane’s answer does not contain enough comparisons and contrasts to obtain full marks (6
marks). To gain full marks, you need to identify six points about the sources: you may include three points
for comparisons and three for contrasts, though if you find more of one than the other that would be fine.
Now, complete Jane’s answer by addressing any other comparisons and contrasts that have not yet been
mentioned. Once you have done this, find a partner and swap your answers. Mark each other’s work
using the markbands for the third question on page xv.
An expansionist foreign policy – a right and a necessity

It could be argued that Mussolini saw an expansionist foreign policy both as a right and
a necessity.
It was considered a right because of the following:

● Echoing the feelings of many Italians, Mussolini saw a need to revise the postwar
treaties in order to revert to the ‘mutilated peace’ of 1919.
● Mussolini believed in Italy’s ‘imperial destiny’: as heir of ancient Rome, Italy had a
historical right to the Mediterranean region.
● As his rule progressed, Mussolini defended Italy’s right to claim more territories with
racial arguments.
It was considered a necessity because of the following:

● Given that propaganda was an important characteristic of Fascism, territorial
expansion was used to increase Italy’s prestige and to enhance the cult of the leader.
● Mussolini claimed Italy needed colonies to provide arable land in order to expand the
economy as well as new territories to resettle a growing Italian population.
● As Mussolini’s regime met increasing challenges at home, a successful foreign policy
was sought as an opportunity to move attention away from his domestic policies.
92

4.1
How did Mussolini plan to achieve these aims?
Although Mussolini was appointed head of a coalition government, he obtained
dictatorial powers very quickly by using methods such as coercion and intimidation of
the opposition. He founded a secret police, implemented censorship, and reformed the
state with the aim of having direct control over all areas. By 1925, formal opposition to
Fascism was banned and Mussolini began to rule by decree the following year. Known
as Il Duce (meaning ‘The Leader’), Mussolini became the centre of a personality cult
campaign that encompassed education, propaganda, and indoctrination.
In the background of this

propaganda poster of the Fasci
di Combattimento you can read
the Fascist motto ‘Believe, Obey,
Fight’. What do you think the
significance of this poster was
in terms of communicating
Mussolini’s aims?
Impact of domestic economic issues on Italy’s

foreign policy up to 1929
Mussolini understood that, until Italy’s economic issues were solved, opportunities
for an aggressive foreign policy were limited. The Italian economy was relatively small
and depended on imports. When Mussolini came to power, Italy was burdened by
unemployment, a huge gap between the agrarian countryside and the industrial north,
and a dependency on foreign products.
Until 1925, Mussolini had implemented liberal economic policies to encourage

private investment and the reactivation of the economy. By 1925, unemployment had
dropped from 500,000 to 122,000, and Italy even enjoyed a budget surplus. After 1925,
the Italian economy became protectionist. Here, Mussolini’s aim was to make Italy
self-sufficient (that is, to achieve autarky) and not depend on imports. With the aim
of increasing national production, he placed import duties on many goods. He also
introduced the Battle for Grain and the Battle for the Lira. The Battle for Grain aimed
at increasing the production of cereals to achieve self-sufficiency; although Italy did
achieve self-sufficiency in wheat, it was at the expense of other agricultural products:
the exports of traditional Italian products, such as wine and olives, dropped. The Battle
for the Lira revalued the currency to increase Italian prestige, which also worked as
propaganda. While imports benefited from the new terms of trade, exports suffered as
93

they became more expensive to other countries. This contributed to a decline of Italian
exports and of tourism.
Activity 3 ATL Social, thinking, and communication skills
Source A
This is an extract from a public speech by Mussolini in Pesaro, 1926.
We will conduct the economic battle for the defense of the lira with the utmost resolve. From
this square to the entire civilized world I say that I will defend the lira to the last breath, to the
last blood... The Fascist regime is ready, from its leader to its last follower, to require all the
necessary sacrifices needed. Our lira, the symbol of our nation, the mark of our wealth, the
symbol of your struggles, our efforts, our sacrifices, our tears, our blood, must be defended and
will be defended.
Source B
John Pollard is a British historian. Below is an extract from his book The Fascist Experience in Italy (1998).
What Fascist foreign policy lacked in the 1920s was not ambitious aims but the means and,
above all, the opportunity to achieve them […] Economic difficulties also played a part. Until
the 1930s, Italy was too closely tied into the world economic system, and in particular too
dependent on other powers, notably the United States and Britain, for its financial stability,
to be able to indulge in military adventures. Above all, until the early 1930s, the
Question 1 is the type international situation was not conducive to the success of Fascism’s ambitious, expansionist
of question you will get foreign-policy aims. Thanks to American isolationism, the international boycott of Soviet
as the first to answer in Russia and the weakness of Weimar Germany, Britain and France ruled the international
your exam. It is worth 3
roost, dominating European affairs and effectively controlling the League of Nations; hence
marks. Find three points
that could be made about
Mussolini’s suspicion, sometimes hostility, towards that organisation. Forced to continue
the source in relation to playing the junior partner to the Western powers, Mussolini had little room for diplomatic
the question and state manoeuvre or to flex his international muscles.
them briefly. You will
1. What does Source A say about the reasons for the revaluation of the Lira?
not receive any marks
for outside knowledge, 2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source A to a
so limit yourself to the historian studying Mussolini’s aims.
material within the 3. In pairs, identify the reasons provided in Source B to explain why Mussolini did not execute an
source. aggressive foreign policy in the 1920s.
Commununication CHALLENGE YOURSELF

ATL
skills ATL Research and social skills
Think of other examples In groups, find more information about the Italian economy and Mussolini’s policies up to 1929. In
you have studied that particular:
proposed an expansionist
foreign policy to solve
• What did Italy import and what did it export? How does this information help you understand the
their economic problems. challenges of the Italian economy?
For example, what did • Consider other battles, such as the Battle for Land and the Battle for Births. What were their aims and
you learn in Case Study results?
1 about the relations • What was the ‘corporate state’? To what extent did it contribute to the organization of the Italian
between the Japanese economy?
economy and its foreign
policy? What are the
similarities and differences Mussolini’s Italy never became self-sufficient. This was partly due to a combination of
between what happened both the nature of the Italian economy and Mussolini’s policies. Later in this chapter,
in Japan and what you will analyse the influence of another important event on Italy’s economy and
happened in Italy?
foreign policy: the Great Depression of the 1930s.
94

4.2
Italian expansion and international
4.2 response
In the previous section you have studied Mussolini’s aims in foreign policy. You have
also read about the methods he implemented to consolidate power, and the ways in
which the economic policies of Italy related to Mussolini’s foreign policy. This section
analyses Mussolini’s foreign policy and assesses the responses of the international
community. As you work your way through it, think of the key concept of significance.
Which events in this section do you consider as having contributed the most to the
move to global war? Also, consider the key concept of perspective. How far did the
changes in the diplomatic alignments respond to Mussolini’s foreign policy? What
other explanations have you been able to find?
Italian foreign policy between 1922 and 1933

Although the case study focuses on events from 1933, it is useful to have some
background information on Italy’s foreign policy in the 1920s. Mussolini had limited
opportunities to expand before the 1930s, but he attempted to gain some territory in
the Mediterranean by attacking Corfu (1923) and Fiume (1924). As mentioned in the
previous section, Mussolini believed Italy had a right to control the Mediterranean Sea;
he therefore challenged Britain and France, which also had interests in the region.
The Corfu Incident, 1923

In 1923, Mussolini blamed Greece for the murders of four Italian diplomats working
for the Conference of Ambassadors on the Greek–Albanian border. When Greece
refused to offer official apologies and pay economic compensations to Italy, Mussolini
bombarded and invaded the Greek island of Corfu. The League of Nations attempted
to settle the dispute but its terms were rejected by Mussolini, who threatened to leave
the organization if his demands were not met. The Conference of Ambassadors then
ruled that Greece had to pay reparations to Italy, and, after threats of intervention
by the British, Mussolini finally withdrew from Corfu. Although the invasion was
advertised in Italy as a huge success, the country was forced to withdraw from Corfu;
relations with Britain and France were damaged.
Activity 4 ATL Thinking, communication, and social skills
Source A
Here is an extract from a speech by Mussolini to the Italian Senate, November 1923.
You must not believe that the occupation of Corfu was carried out only as a sanction; it was
also carried out to increase the prestige of Italy… Italians have never been much interested in
the League of Nations; they believed it was a lifeless academic organization of no
importance… In point of fact, the League is an Anglo-French duet… Italy’s position so far
has been one of absolute inferiority.
Source B
The following cartoon was published in Punch. It shows Mussolini setting foot on Corfu. The caption
reads: ‘The Latest Caesar. Sig. Mussolini (a bit above himself). “I do bestride the narrow world like a
colossus.” After Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2.’
95

1. What is the message of Source B?

2. To what extent does the message in Source B
support the view in Source A?
A cartoon caption can
offer much valuable
information to help you
understand the message
of the cartoon. Make sure
you consider the captions
when answering cartoon-
based questions. In pairs,
explain the meaning
and significance of this
particular caption. Discuss
how it relates to the
cartoon. Then write up
your answers individually.
The term ‘Little Entente’ Fiume, 1924

was coined by the French.
The use of ‘little’ implied Earlier in the chapter you have read about the Italian claims to Fiume, a territory under
that France did not think Yugoslavia, and about Gabriele D’Annunzio’s brief occupation of it. Shortly after the
the alliance of Romania, Corfu Incident, Mussolini invaded Fiume. The king of Yugoslavia handed over Fiume
Czechoslovakia, and
to Italy and signed the Pact of Rome with Mussolini. Both countries promised mutual
Yugoslavia was as strong
as the Triple Entente,
neutrality in case of an attack by a third party.
an association between France disliked Mussolini’s intimidation of Yugoslavia and how he tried to expand
France, Russia, and Britain
formed before World
in the Balkans. In the 1920s, France signed military and political agreements
War I. with the members of the Little Entente – a defensive alliance between Romania,
Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia – to prevent them undermining the Paris Peace
Settlement in the Balkans. Britain, for its part, did not want Mussolini to extend his
influence in the Mediterranean. Mussolini kept Fiume, but clashes with France and
Britain over the Mediterranean and the Balkans were to continue.
Italy and collective security in the 1920s

In the mid-1920s, the European nations came to the conclusion that it was impossible to
expect the postwar treaties to be upheld by the use of force. Consequently, they promoted
international treaties to maintain collective security. Several treaties were signed to
guarantee the frontiers established at Versailles, and to reject using war as a means to
solve conflicts. Mussolini, aware of the alarm raised in Europe by his attacks on Corfu and
Fiume, chose this opportunity to show himself as a more conciliatory character.
There were two reasons why Mussolini became more conciliatory after Fiume:
● Joining the efforts of collective security was perceived as a good way of diffusing
British and French suspicions.
● Neither the Italian economy nor the Italian armed forces were ready to engage in an
armed conflict.
The Locarno Pact, 1925

The Locarno Pact was a series of treaties signed in 1925 by France, Germany, Britain,
Belgium, and Italy. The pact guaranteed the frontiers between Germany, France,
96

4.2
and Belgium as set up by the Treaty of Versailles. Britain and Italy acted as the
underwriters, agreeing to defend any signatory that became the victim of a violation of
the terms of the pact. Although Italy was able to sit at the high table among the great
powers, Locarno was not the diplomatic success Mussolini had hoped for: since the
pact did not guarantee Germany’s eastern frontiers, it did not allay Italy’s concerns
over a potential expansion of Germany into neighbouring Austria.
The treaties signalled the beginning of a decade in which Mussolini appeared to

behave as a ‘good European’: in 1928, he signed the Kellogg–Briand Pact to ban war
as an instrument to resolve conflicts. However, while promoting collective security in
Europe, Italy secretly supported separatist forces in the Balkans, such as the Croats in
Yugoslavia, in stirring up unrest among the Little Entente members and, consequently,
offsetting French influence.
The paragraph below tells us Mussolini’s view of the Locarno Treaty.

It would have been a colossal blunder not to have underwritten the Locarno guarantees. Had
we abstained, we should have had no part in the agreement which is at the basis of the
relations between the great European Powers. In the second place, we should have been
isolated. In the third, we should have lost an opportunity to put ourselves on an equal footing
with England on a memorable occasion.
From Gaetano Salvemini, Prelude to World War II, Gollancz, 1953, p. 67.
1. According to the source, why did Italy sign the Locarno Treaties?
2. What does the source reveal about a) the aims and b) the methods of Mussolini’s foreign policy in
the late 1920s?
Student answer to Question 1 – Rhidian
Italy signed the Locarno Treaties firstly to be part of the great European powers; secondly, to avoid Italian
diplomatic isolation; thirdly, so it could be on an equal footing with England.
Rhidian has identified three reasons why Italy signed Locarno. The answer is brief but addresses the
question effectively. The reasons are clearly signposted, using linking words like ‘secondly’ and ‘thirdly’.
This is an effective way of showing you are addressing different points.
Italian foreign policy in the 1930s

The 1930s saw a series of significant changes in European relations – changes that
influenced Italy’s foreign policy and accelerated the move to global war.
Firstly, Europe was hit by the Great Depression. This world economic crisis had a
negative impact on international trade, affecting Italy and cutting its access to foreign
loans. In an attempt to solve economic problems, Mussolini’s foreign policy became
more aggressive than it had been in the 1920s. A second factor that modified the
European state of affairs was the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933. Even though
Hitler and Mussolini were to fight on the same side in World War II, Hitler – at the
time of his appointment as German chancellor – was viewed by Mussolini with much
suspicion; the latter had feared that Germany would try to revise the Treaty of Versailles,
in particular with regard to Germany’s ambition to unite with Austria, Italy’s neighbour.
Italian foreign policy in the 1930s could be roughly divided into two periods, with
1935 as the turning point. Before 1935, Italy continued to show some cooperation
with Britain and France. In 1935, its foreign policy became openly aggressive and the
country remained in a state of constant war until the end of World War II.
97

The impact of the Great Depression on Italy’s economy

and foreign policy
The Italian economy was already experiencing some difficulties as a result of
Mussolini’s policies (such as the revaluation of the Lira), when the Great Depression
created an additional burden. International trade was severely affected and Italian
exports were no exception. Like the rest of Europe, Italy lost international financial
support from the United States. Mussolini first saw the crisis as an American problem
and considered that Italian policies aiming at autarky would protect his country
from the Depression. But the revaluation of the Lira, as well as high levels of public
spending, had not prepared the Italian economy well. With a decrease in international
demand, industrial production fell by 25 per cent between 1929 and 1932. This had
a negative impact on wages and employment levels: by 1932, unemployment had
reached 1 million.
Mussolini responded to the effects of the Depression by increasing state intervention.

He introduced policies to limit unemployment, such as the expansion of public works
and rearmament. The navy and the air force rapidly expanded as a result. Mussolini
also saw the Depression as an opportunity for expansion since the foreign powers
were preoccupied with finding solutions to overcome the crisis. He believed that a
successful revision of the postwar treaties – by expanding Italian territory – could help
mitigate the effects of the Depression on Italy; additionally, short and successful wars
could divert attention away from Italy’s domestic problems.
Activity 6 ATL Thinking and social skills
The following extract is from a speech by Mussolini addressing the workers of Milan in 1934. It highlights
the relationship between a Fascist economy and a Fascist foreign policy.
This is not a crisis in the traditional sense of the term. It is the passage from one phase of
civilization to another. It is no longer an economy aiming at individual profit, but an
economy concerned with collective interests […] The future cannot be planned like an
itinerary or a timetable. One must not take out a mortgage too long into the future. Indeed,
as we have said before, we are absolutely convinced that fascism is bound to become the
standard type of civilization of our century for Italy and for Europe.
1. What does this source reveal about Mussolini’s views of the 1930 crisis?
2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of this source for
a historian studying the impact of the Great Depression on Mussolini’s foreign policy.
Below is an answer to Question 2 from Jim. Read it and see what you think.
Student answer – Jim
This is a contemporary source as it is from a speech by Mussolini to Italian workers given in 1934.
It is therefore a useful document in providing insight into the impact of the Depression in Italy. It
shows Mussolini is aware that the crisis imposes the need to make changes in Italian foreign policy. It
demonstrates his ambition to expand Fascism beyond Italy. Because he is addressing Italian workers, it
also shows he is aware of the need to have the support of Italian men if Italy is to embark on a more
aggressive policy.
However, because this is a public speech, it may be intended as propaganda and may not reveal
Mussolini’s real plans for Italy after the Depression. It does not offer any indication of the reactions of the
workers or of foreign countries to the speech. Additionally, Mussolini does not explain how he intends
to bring about the necessary changes. Finally, because the speech is from 1934, it can only focus on the
short-term effects of the Depression on Italian foreign policy.
3. In groups, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Jim’s answer above.
98

4.2
The rise of Hitler in Germany
Hitler’s appointment as chancellor of Germany in 1933 contributed to a number
of changes in diplomatic alignments in Europe. Many nations reacted to the rise of
Hitler by reinforcing collective security. In order to curb Hitler’s ambitions, Mussolini
proposed a treaty between Italy, Germany, France, and Britain in June 1933. The Four-
Power Pact, an agreement of understanding and cooperation, was signed to promote
collaboration and maintenance of peace. Although the pact contributed to the cult
of Mussolini as a successful international leader within Italy, it did not last long. In
October that year, Hitler withdrew Germany from the League of Nations and the
Disarmament Conference; cooperation between the four countries thus became more
difficult to sustain.
Activity 7 ATL Communication and thinking skills
This is a cartoon published by Punch in 1933. The caption reads: ‘Dealing with Gulliver. The Leading
Lilliputians (all at once): “Now, boys, if the Geneva strings burst before we’ve finished with him we’ll use
this rope to tie him down.”’
CHALLENGE
YOURSELF
Thinking and
ATL
research skills
The cartoon in Activity 7 is
based on Jonathan Swift’s
novel Gulliver’s Travels. Find
information about the story.
Who was Gulliver? What
happened during his trip to
Lilliput? In what ways do you
think the novel relates to the
cartoon?
As mentioned earlier, Mussolini had concerns over Hitler’s intentions in Austria. South
Tyrol, formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was handed to Italy in 1919
under the terms of the Treaty of St Germain. Although the union between Germany
and Austria (known as Anschluss) was banned under the terms of the Treaty of
Versailles, nationalism was strong and the rise of Hitler in Germany was becoming a
99

threat to Italy’s authority in South Tyrol. During the 1920s, Mussolini tried, with limited
Thinking and
ATL
research skills
success, to ‘Italianize’ this largely German-speaking territory by banning the use of the
German language and promoting the migration of Italians to the region.
What other examples in
history in which a group In July 1934 Austria’s chancellor, Engelbert Dollfuss, was murdered by Nazi agents
tried to impose its beliefs in an attempt to bring about an Anschluss between Austria and Germany. Italy
on others are you familiar quickly threatened to intervene in defence of Austrian independence by mobilizing
with? Can you think of a troops to the Austrian border, the Brenner Pass. Germany, not yet strong enough to
contemporary example face Italy, backed down. This was a great triumph for Italian diplomacy and served
of this? What is your
reaction to these events?
to put forward the idea of a strong Italian military. However, the murder of Dollfuss
How far can the study demonstrated the vulnerability of Austrian independence. When Hitler introduced
of history contribute to conscription and announced rearmament in 1935, Mussolini proposed a conference
the protection of cultural with Britain and France to discuss ways to control German revisionism. The three
diversity? countries signed the Stresa Front by which they reinforced their commitment to
the 1925 Locarno Pact of preserving the 1919 German western frontiers. They also
pledged to consult each other if the independence of Austria was threatened.
Activity 8 ATL Communication and social skills
Professor A William Salomone was a specialist in modern Italian history. Below is an extract from his
published work Readings in Twentieth-Century European History (1950).
At the beginning of 1935, despite the lack of any formal diplomatic agreements, there existed
among France, Great Britain, and Italy a certain solidarity of views in regard to the ‘German
Problem.’ […] The Nazi Putsch in Vienna in July, 1934, was checked by Italy’s quick and
perhaps decisive reaction through the dispatch of Italian divisions to the Brenner. On
September 27, 1934, had come the Three Power Declaration reasserting ‘the common policy’
of France, Britain, and Italy ‘regarding the necessity of maintaining the independence and
integrity of Austria.’ The question, however, remained for Italy: when would the next step of a
German drive for the Alpine frontier and Southeastern Europe come and for how long could
Mussolini alone stand in Hitler’s path? Germany seemed at present occupied with European
territorial questions. But for Britain the query was: when would naval and colonial problems
assume the form of a threat against her supremacy? […] The Stresa Conference of April,
1935, proved decisive but not as expected.
1. According to this source, why were Italy and France worried about Germany in 1935?
2. In pairs, study the map of Europe in 1919 on page 90. Identify the countries that would have felt
threatened by the political changes taking place in the 1930s.
Similar to the fate of the Four-Power Pact, the Stresa Front – the last attempt by Europe
to use collective security against German revisionism – collapsed. The failure of Stresa
can be attributed to the fact that by 1935 national interests were put above collective
security: for even before Stresa, Mussolini had started to mobilize troops in his African
colonies in preparation for an invasion of Abyssinia (see next section); as for Britain, it
actually helped Germany break the Treaty of Versailles by signing the Anglo-German
Naval Agreement in June 1935, which allowed the German navy to be one-third of the
size of Britain’s (see page 129). France and Italy were outraged by the fact that Britain
did not consult them before signing the agreement.
100

4.2
Here is an extract from a speech by Mussolini to the Italians, 11 October 1935.

For the past thirteen years I have been asking, begging, threatening so that the Italian people
get their own place within lawful boundaries. I want the Italians to be able to earn their own
bread and to be liberated from having to work for starvation wages at the arbitrary wishes of
foreign powers […] What I could achieve on Italian soil by improving this earth, I have
already done. This cannot be forced any further […] We need territories, otherwise we shall
explode […] We shall do everything in our power, we shall sacrifice everything we must, but
we shall not surrender our aims!
1. What does the source reveal about the relationship between domestic economic issues and foreign
policy in Italy in 1935?
2. What did Mussolini consider to be ‘Italy’s lawful boundaries’? On what grounds did this include
Abyssinia?
Italian expansion in Abyssinia, 1935–36

Abyssinia (known today as Ethiopia) was an independent monarchy located between
the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland. Attempting colonial expansion, Italy
invaded Abyssinia towards the end of the 19th century; it was defeated in 1896 at
the Battle of Adowa, during the First Italo-Ethiopian War. The ‘Adowa scar’ became
a source of national humiliation for Italians. Haile Selassie, who became emperor
of Abyssinia in 1930, ruled the country as an absolutist. The country’s constitution,
drafted after the model of the Japanese one, declared the emperor sacred. Haile Selassie
wanted to modernize his empire and initiated reforms such as the building of railways.
After the Great Depression, he strengthened trade with Japan.
Both Abyssinia and Italy joined the League of Nations after World War I. Article six of
the League Covenant had stated that, should any member declare war on a member
state, it would be treated as an attack on the entire organization requiring collective
action. Additionally, Italy and Abyssinia had signed the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of
Friendship and Arbitration in 1928, declaring that territorial disputes between the
two countries would be solved by impartial arbitration. However, neither the Treaty
of Friendship nor the League of Nations prevented Italy’s annexation of Abyssinia in
1935.
Here is a map of Abyssinia in 1934.
N
Re
EGYPT
d
Se
a
0 500 km
Scale
ERITREA
SUDAN
FRENCH SOMALILAND
BRITISH
Addis Ababa SOMALILAND
ABYSSINIA
ITALIAN
SOMALILAND
1. What can the map reveal about the reasons behind Mussolini’s interest in Abyssinia?
101

Why did Italy invade Abyssinia in 1935?

● Historical factors: Mussolini had an ambition to redress the humiliation of Adowa and
conquer an empire for Italy.
● Economic factors: Mussolini hoped that Abyssinia would provide access to raw
materials and markets, as well as creating new territory for a growing Italian
population. Evidence showing that plans to attack Abyssinia were ready as early as
1929 seems to support this argument. Also, the effects of the Great Depression had
put Italy under additional pressure to lift itself out of an economic crisis.
● Political factors: A successful campaign in Abyssinia would divert the attention
of Italians away from the economic problems and affirm Mussolini’s image as a
successful leader.
● The ‘Abyssinian’ factor: According to Piers Brendon (for more information, see page
103), Mussolini viewed Abyssinia’s attempts at modernization with suspicion. He
feared that unless he moved immediately, a modern Abyssinia could become a threat
to the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland. It is also true that that Mussolini
criticized the feudalism of Abyssinia and, above all, the prevalence of slavery.
● International factors: Mussolini thought Britain and France would give him a free hand
to do as he pleased in Abyssinia, as a way of keeping on good terms with Italy in view
of German rearmament. Also, given that Italy felt threatened by German ambitions
This is an official stamp from
1975 with the image of in Austria, a victory over Abyssinia would show the Germans the strength of the
Emperor Haile Selassie. Italian military.
The invasion
In December 1934, Italian troops provoked Abyssinia into a border clash with Italian
Somaliland near the Walwal oasis. These borders had never been clearly set. Both
Italian and Abyssinian nationals were killed in the confrontation and, like with Corfu,
Mussolini began preparations for an invasion and demanded compensation for the
Italian casualties as well as formal apologies from the Abyssinian government.
Often, a memorandum Activity 11 ATL Thinking and communication skills

can offer a more personal
This is an extract from a memorandum by Mussolini to Marshal Badoglio, Italian chief of general staff, 30
(or revealing) view on an
December 1934.
event or a situation than
a public speech. In this I decide on this war, the object of which is nothing more nor less than the complete
specific source, Mussolini destruction of the Abyssinian army and the total conquest of Abyssinia. In no other way can
explains to his chief of we build the Empire […] For our arms to achieve a rapid and decisive victory, we must deploy
general staff that Italy on a vast scale the mechanised forces, which are now at our disposal, and which the
needs to move against
Abyssinians either do not possess at all or do so in insufficient degree, but which they will
Abyssinia immediately, for
he is worried about the possess within a few years…
speed at which Abyssinia’s Anthony Adamthwaite, The Lost Peace: International Relations in Europe 1918–1939, The
forces are growing and Camelot Press, 1980, p. 165
developing. It is unlikely
that Mussolini would 1. According to the source, why did Mussolini decide to provoke Abyssinia in December 1934?
have used this argument 2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of the source for
to justify the invasion a historian studying the causes of Italian expansion.
before the Italian citizens.
Therefore, we may say
that the purpose of a Haile Selassie appealed to the League of Nations to mediate in the conflict, but the
source (in this case, to League refused to discuss issues of sovereignty as the borders between Abyssinia and
whom it is directed) Italian Somaliland were still in dispute. The League agreed to place an arms embargo
conditions its content on both countries in the hope that it would prevent an armed escalation of the conflict
and affects its value and while a diplomatic solution was sought. The embargo significantly affected Abyssinia
limitations. as it deepened the gap with Italy, a country that was able to produce most of its
armaments at home.
102

4.2
In October 1935, Italian forces launched an invasion of Abyssinia. Partly because of In his account of the
its economic limitations and partly because of the arms embargo, Abyssinia could Abyssinian crisis, historian
not confront the Italian army and air force. Once again, Haile Selassie appealed to Piers Brendon notes how,
the League of Nations, this time demanding the arms embargo to be lifted for his in 1934, Haile Selassie
country so that his troops could obtain weaponry to fight the Italian advance. He was asked Germany for
unsuccessful. supplies of conventional
and chemical weapons,
Despite the Italian forces being technologically superior (as shown by the use of tanks and how Hitler sent him
rifles and machine guns.
and aircrafts), they still employed illegal fighting methods, such as attacking civilians
How does knowing that
and ambulances and using chemical weapons against the Abyssinian population. Haile Selassie tried to
The League formed a special committee to investigate the use of chemical weapons obtain chemical weapons
but claimed to be unable to reach a verdict; Britain and France never confronted Italy from Hitler influence the
about this issue. way you evaluate this
event? To what extent
does the rightness of an
CHALLENGE YOURSELF action depend on the
context? What does this
ATL Research and self-management skills
reveal about the role of
emotions in the study of
Both Italy and Abyssinia signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of poisonous gas and
history?
other bacteriological methods of warfare. Find out why this protocol was signed, and how it proposed to
deal with members breaking it.
This is an illustration depicting the Battle of Amb Aradam (1936) by Achille Beltrame. It was published in
the Italian weekly newspaper La Domenica del Corriere on 1 March 1936.
1. What message is this source trying to convey?

a historian studying the nature of warfare in Abyssinia between 1935 and 1936.
Ending the conflict

In an attempt to end the conflict between Italy and Abyssinia, the international
community implemented two methods: economic sanctions and diplomacy.
103

Economic sanctions
After the invasion, the League declared Mussolini an aggressor and imposed a series
of economic sanctions on Italy to force him out of Abyssinia. However, the sanctions
were ineffective for the following reasons:
● The sanctions, which did not include trading of coal, oil, and steel (essential to the
Italian economy and war effort), took a long time to implement
● When finally implemented, the sanctions only lasted from November 1935 to June
1936 – not long enough a period to have a significant impact on Italy
● At the time, Britain’s naval priorities were focused on the protection of British
possessions against Japan in the Far East. Britain did not want to engage in a conflict
in the Mediterranean and, therefore, did not close the Suez Canal. This allowed Italy
to continue to send forces and supply the troops in Africa.
This is a Fascist poster against the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations, 18 November 1935,
following Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia. The poster reads: ‘November 18: Sanctions. Italians, remember!’
(translated by author).
1. What is the message of this source?

2. To what extent can this poster be considered as propaganda? How far can it be viewed as
government information?
104

4.2
Without the full commitment of non-member countries like the United States, Japan,
and Germany to economic sanctions, it was very difficult to cripple Italy’s economy.
Given the size of the Italian army and the resources it had access to, Italy would have
defeated Abyssinia regardless of the sanctions. The closure of the Suez Canal, on the
other hand, would have had a more immediate impact on the Italian supply lines.
Source A
Cristiano Andrea Ristuccia is an economics professor. This is an extract from his article entitled ‘1935
Sanctions against Italy: Would coal and crude oil have made a difference?’
An embargo on coal starting in November 1935 and ending in June 1936 would have had
little effect on the Italian economic condition [...] The standard of living would have been
lowered but probably not to a level that could have eventually forced the fascist leadership to
back down. Coal sanctions would not have altered the outcome of the war. If prolonged after
the Italian military victory over the Ethiopian army, the sanctions would have started to
produce results only by the end of 1936.
Source B
Here is an extract from a speech made to the House of Commons in May 1936 by Anthony Eden, British
secretary of state for foreign affairs.
There was only one sanction that could be immediately effective and that sanction was to deny
to Italy the use of the Suez Canal. That sanction must have inevitably entailed military
action; there is no doubt of it. That military action must, in my judgement, have led to war
[…] We imposed sanctions that could not be immediately effective, and we knew it; but if the
war had lasted a year they would certainly have played their part in the final settlement. If
Question 3 asks that
Honourable Gentlemen wish to take military action I must warn them that you cannot close you focus on the views
the Canal with paper boats. expressed in the sources.
From Steven Morewood, The British Defence of Egypt, 1935–1940: Conflict and Crisis in the Do not compare and
Eastern Mediterranean, Frank Cass, 2005, p. 80 contrast issues related to
the origins and purpose
1. Why, according to Source A, were the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations inefficient? of the sources but on the
2. What is the meaning of ‘you cannot close the Canal with paper boats’ in Source B? content of the sources.
3. Compare and contrast what Sources A and B reveal about the effectiveness of economic sanctions
on Italy.
Diplomatic negotiations
Acting independently of the League of Nations, Britain and France opened
negotiations with Italy to end the conflict by making territorial concessions in Africa.
This decision was due to a number of factors.
Firstly, as shown with the crisis following the murder of Austrian chancellor Dollfuss
in 1934, Italy had become strategically more important to Britain and France as Hitler
rose to power in Germany. By 1935, the German economy was recovering very
quickly and Hitler reintroduced conscription. In 1936, while the Abyssinian crisis was
taking place, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, alarming France and Britain. Good
relations with Italy ensured that France could assist the Little Entente allies quicker
through Italian territory, and could guarantee safety for the French Mediterranean
coast. Also, in the event of war against Germany, a neutral Italy would not require
France to protect the Alps.
Secondly, the willingness of these two countries to negotiate with Italy behind
Abyssinia’s back was in part a response to British and French public opinion, since
significant numbers of their citizens had refused to go to war for a country so removed
from what they considered their national interests. 105

The Hoare–Laval Pact

In December 1935, British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare and French Prime Minister
Pierre Laval proposed to offer Mussolini two-thirds of Abyssinia, partly through
direct political control and partly through economic influence. Abyssinia would also
gain some land from British Somaliland that contained an outlet to the sea. Before
negotiations began, however, details of the pact were leaked by the French press. This
caused a political crisis, one that forced Samuel Hoare to resign.
Activity 15 ATL Thinking and social skills
Here is a map outlining the proposed territorial division by the Hoare–Laval Pact.
N Key
Area to become Italian
Area of Italian economic influence
ERITREA
ANGLO-EGYPTIAN
SUDAN
FRENCH SOMALILAND
Addis Ababa BRITISH SOMALILAND

ABYSSINIA
Wal-Wal
ITALIAN 0 250 km
BRITISH SOMALILAND
UGANDA KENYA Scale
1. In groups, study the map and compare it with the map of Abyssinia in 1934 on page 101. Discuss the
potential impact of the Hoare–Laval proposal on both Italy and Abyssinia.
Impact of the invasion

Effects on Abyssinia and Italy
Abyssinia was devastated by the Italian campaign and eventually surrendered in 1936.
In May that year, Haile Selassie went into exile in Britain, from where he continued to
campaign for the liberation of his nation. Two months later, the League abandoned its
economic sanctions on Italy.
Here is an extract from a speech by Emperor of Abyssinia Haile Selassie to the League of Nations, 30 June
1936.
The very refinement of barbarism consisted in carrying ravage and terror into the most
densely populated parts of the territory, the points farthest removed from the scene of
hostilities. The object was to scatter fear and death over a great part of the Ethiopian territory.
These fearful tactics succeeded. Men and animals succumbed. The deadly rain that fell from
the aircraft made all those whom it touched fly shrieking with pain. All those who drank the
poisoned water or ate the infected food also succumbed in dreadful suffering. In tens of
thousands, the victims of the Italian mustard gas fell […] I… come myself to bear witness
against the crime perpetrated against my people and give Europe a warning of the doom that
awaits it, if it should bow before the accomplished fact.
a historian studying the effects of the invasion of Abyssinia on its population.
106

4.2
The Italian occupation had a significant impact on Abyssinia. Resistance groups fought Haile Selassie returned
the Italian forces with guerrilla tactics and the fighting extended throughout the country, to Abyssinia after the
impacting on the lives of Abyssinian civilians. Italy opened concentration camps for country was liberated by
the prisoners of war, which also kept opponents to Italian rule. Consistent with the the British in 1941. He
introduction of racial policies in Italy, Abyssinia became a racially segregated country. ruled his country with
mixed results, attempting
When Italy entered World War II in June 1940 it began attacking British colonies in to modernize it but
Africa but its success was short-lived; Abyssinia was liberated from Italian rule in 1941. refusing to grant citizens
political rights. In 1974, a
As for Italy, in May 1936, King Victor Emanuel III was proclaimed emperor of coup d’état ousted Haile
Abyssinia. Abyssinia, Eritrea, and Italian Somaliland became known as Italian East Selassie from power. He
died, in rather unclear
Africa. Although Abyssinia provided Mussolini with a domestic triumph, the cost of
circumstances, the
war had an impact on the Italian economy; Italian troops continued to clash with the following year.
guerrillas and were unable to go home; Abyssinia did not offer Italy the raw materials
it had been after; and the resettlement projects failed: disappointed by the conditions
in Abyssinia, many Italians soon returned home.
Effects on international relations and the Spanish Civil War

The invasion of Abyssinia proved that collective security was ineffective against
international aggression, and it confirmed that the League of Nations was unable to
solve disputes involving the bigger nations. Britain and France no longer perceived
Mussolini as a leader who could be trusted, and Italy sank into a kind of diplomatic
isolation. That being said, German–Italian relations developed: partly as a response
to Italy’s isolation, Mussolini drew closer to Hitler and both leaders signed the Rome–
Berlin Axis in October 1936 (for more, see page 131). In 1936, Italy and Germany both
intervened in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Nationalists.
The Spanish Civil War
The Spanish Civil War
(1936–39) started as a
military revolt against
the Popular Front
coalition government
by General Francisco
Franco, who led the
Nationalists against
the Republicans. Both
groups appealed to
foreign help for their
cause. The Nationalists
were supported by
Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy, while the
Soviet Union supported
the Republicans who
were also aided by
foreigners joining the
International Brigades.
The war came to an
end with a Nationalist
victory in March 1939.
This poster from 1937 reads:

‘Stand up against the Italian
invasion of Spain!’
107

CHALLENGE YOURSELF
ATL Research, social, and self-management skills
1. Divide the class into groups. Each group should make a brief presentation on one of the causes
leading to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War:
a. The weakness of the Republicans
b. The role of the Spanish army
c. The role of the Church
d. Economic causes
e. Regionalism
2. Each group should find out about the role of one the following in the conflict:
a. Italy
b. Germany
c. France
d. Britain
e. The Soviet Union
f. The International Brigades
3. Discuss the reasons why the Spanish Civil War is often referred to as a ‘dress rehearsal for World War
II’. To what extent do you consider this civil war a contributing factor to the move to global war?
Changing diplomatic alliances

Despite supporting opposing sides in the Spanish Civil War and despite
Italy allying with Nazi Germany, an opportunity to improve Italo-British
relations after Abyssinia arose. Throughout the 1930s, Britain was reluctant
to fight against Italy, given that Germany and Japan were both viewed as more
significant threats to British interests. Under the Gentlemen’s Agreement of
January 1937, Italy and Britain pledged themselves to maintain the territorial
status quo in the Mediterranean.
This photograph shows Later that year, however, Italy made a number of decisions that contradicted
Mussolini on board a train,
the Gentlemen’s Agreement:
bidding farewell to Hitler after
a meeting in 1937. By then, ● Mussolini increased Italy’s military presence in Africa, threatening both
both leaders had become allies
through the Rome–Berlin Axis
British and French colonies as well as Spain. Moreover, he announced that
and the Anti-Comintern Pact. he would not withdraw from Spain until Franco defeated the Republicans.
This was a source of concern as it threatened to change the status quo in the
Mediterranean.
● Mussolini made another attempt to approach Germany by joining the Anti-
Comintern Pact (1937), an anti-communist alliance.
● Italy left the League of Nations by the end of the year.
● Italy signed another treaty of economic cooperation with Yugoslavia that
guaranteed mutual neutrality in case of a conflict. This treaty threatened
France, which had been up until that point the leading great power in the
Balkans through its alliance with the Little Entente countries.
An Italian parade welcoming

Mussolini after an official visit to
Germany. You can see a banner
in the background that reads:
‘Europe will be Fascist’. What is
the message of this image?
108

4.2
Russian writer Leo Tolstoy believed that great men did not shape history according to their
own will; rather, he thought their actions were shaped by the course of history. In what ways
does Tolstoy’s view shape our thinking on the changing diplomatic alignments in Europe
between 1936 and 1937? For example, were Mussolini’s decisions in this period led by his
political views, or was he responding to an international context beyond his control? What are
the implications of Tolstoy’s view for the study of history?
To find out more about the works of Tolstoy and the circumstances in which he made the
point above, see Building Tomorrow’s Leaders Today: On Becoming a Polymath Leader by
Michael A. Genovese, Routledge, 2014, p. 7.
Activity 17 ATL Thinking, research, and social skills
Source A
The extract below is taken from Reynolds M. Salerno’s book, Vital Crossroads: Mediterranean Origins of
the Second World War, 1935–1940 (2002). In order to produce this work, the author carried out extensive
research in 28 archives in five different countries.
Italy’s new relationship with Yugoslavia, however, represented an overt attempt to install
Italian preeminence in the Adriatic region at France’s expense. The potential loss of
Yugoslavia as a French ally meant not only the sudden evaporation of France’s influence in
the Balkans but also the beginning of the end for France’s network of central European allies
and the eastern front – one of the most important deterrents to German aggression. By
defecting from the French-sponsored Little Entente, Yugoslavia could indirectly destroy
France’s relationship with Czechoslovakia and Romania.
Source B
Here is an extract from The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis (2004) by educator and writer
Bradley Lightbody.
Mussolini’s obsessive goal was the establishment of an Italian empire in North Africa and
the domination of the Mediterranean region. The power-brokers were Britain and France. At
first Mussolini assiduously courted both powers in attempts to win empire advances for Italy.
Mussolini also courted the smaller nations of Eastern Europe and assumed the mantle of a
Great Power in the Balkan region. Treaties of Friendship were established with Albania in
1926, Hungary in 1927 and Austria in 1930. The treaties acted as a counterbalance to
France’s ‘Little Entente’ treaties with Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
1. In groups, find out why the Balkans was strategically important to France.
2. Chose one country in the Balkans and research its situation in 1937. For example: What type of
ruling government did it have? What political and social issues did it confront? Why was this country
viewed as an important strategic ally to the West?
3. Why, according to Source A, were Italy’s relations with Yugoslavia a source of concern for France?
4. Compare and contrast what Sources A and B reveal about relations between Italy and France before
the outbreak of World War II.
The invasion of Albania, 1939

In 1912, Albania declared its independence from the Ottoman Empire. However,
after World War I many Albanians continued to live outside the borders of their
own country (in Greece, for example). Albania had limited arable land but had some
valuable resources, such as oil and minerals. Albania attracted the interest of a number
of countries: Yugoslavia and Greece, two neighbours that shared borders with Albania,
were both keen to expand their territories into Albania; France and Italy, two rival
powers in the Balkans, were aware of the importance of Albania for the control of the
Mediterranean. Unsurprisingly, Albania was involved in several border clashes with
109

both Yugoslavia and Greece. It was the conflict with the latter that led to the Corfu
Incident, as manipulated by Mussolini (see page 95).
Mussolini wanted to control Albania for a number of reasons:

● He wanted control of the oil and mineral deposits to assist in his policy of autarky.
● Albania had access to the Mediterranean Sea, which he saw as his ‘Italian lake’.
● Control of Albania would give Italy a foothold in the Balkans and would keep
Yugoslavia in check.
A map of the Balkans in 1920. AUSTRIA HUNGARY
ROMANIA
YUGOSLAVIA
(Kingdom of Serbs, Black
Croats & Slovenes) Sea
ITALY BULGARIA
dr
A
ia
tic
Se
a
ALBANIA
TURKEY
N GREECE
Mediterranean
0 300 km Sea
Scale
For most of the interwar years Albania was ruled by Zogu, a conservative chieftain
who, with Mussolini’s assistance, became King Zog I of Albania in 1928. Since 1925,
Mussolini had exercised a policy of economic and political penetration of Albania that
ended with its annexation in 1939.
In 1926 and 1927, Italy and Albania signed the Treaties of Tirana, establishing Italy’s
political influence over Albania in exchange for Italian economic assistance that
contributed to keeping Zogu in power. Italy gained access to Albanian minerals,
founded the Albanian national bank, and controlled several areas of the transport
industry. According to the pact of 1927, Italy also gained control over the Albanian
armed forces which continued to grow into the next decade.
During the Great Depression, Mussolini applied pressure on Albania to further

increase Italy’s control of the country. In the 1930s, Italy gained further access to
the much-needed Albanian oil and, in exchange, gave King Zog new loans. In 1934,
Mussolini even sent warships into Albania to pressure King Zog into accepting further
demands – a potential crisis that was averted with help from Britain: wishing to keep
in good terms with the British, Mussolini withdrew his navy.
Finally, in April 1939, Mussolini ordered the invasion of Albania and the deposition of
King Zog (who fled the country). King Victor Emmanuel of Italy succeeded Zog as the
new king of Albania.
110

4.2
Reasons for Mussolini’s invasion of Albania
Mussolini had a number of reasons to invade Albania in 1939. Firstly, he wanted a
military alliance with Hitler, and saw the situation with Albania as an opportunity
to showcase the strength of the Italian military (even though, as with Abyssinia, the
Albanian forces at the time were no match for the Italians anyway). Secondly, by the
time of the invasion in 1939, Hitler had regained control of the Rhineland, annexed
Austria, received part of Czechoslovakia at the Munich Conference, and moved into
the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia (you will find out more about these
events in later chapters) – Mussolini was therefore determined to demonstrate that he
could also build a Mediterranean empire. Thirdly, the fact that the world’s eyes were
on Hitler’s movements and the growing tensions between Germany and Poland meant
Mussolini could invade Albania without much intervention from the other nations.
Source A
This photograph shows Italian military troops entering Tirana, the capital of Albania, in April 1939.
Source B
Laura Fermi (1907–1977) was an Italian-born writer and political activist. Below is an extract from her
book Mussolini (1966).
The reaction of the Western democracies to the Albanian coup was mild, as was to be
expected after the moderate reactions to German action in Bohemia and Moravia. Mussolini
took upon himself the task of reassuring Greece and England. In his early years in
government he had once shelled and occupied the island of Corfu. Now both Greece and her
ally, England, feared that the occupation of Albania meant a second occupation of Corfu, if
not an invasion of Greece. Furthermore, the British thought the occupation of Albania a
breach of promise, for with a gentlemen’s agreement in January, 1937, and an Easter pact in
the spring of the following year, Italy and England had pledged to respect the status quo in
the Mediterranean. The foreign office, however, seemed to be satisfied with Mussolini’s
explanation that since Albania had been in the Italian sphere of influence for many years,
occupation had not changed matters at all.
111

Source C
Zara Steiner is a British historian specializing in 20th-century European and US histories. Below is an
extract from her book The Lights That Failed: European International History, 1919–1933 (2005).
[Austen] Chamberlain accepted Mussolini’s 1926 treaty with Zogu, the crafty Albanian
leader, preferring the Italians to the Yugoslavs as underwriters in Albania. There were,
however, limits to his willingness to countenance Italian revisionism. Chamberlain’s first
loyalty was to Briand, and he had no wish to see major conflicts in the Balkans. He took
umbrage [offence] at the second Treaty of Tirana in 1927 and the reduction of Albania to
the status of an Italian protectorate […] Chamberlain’s relations with the Duce turned cool.
There was an attempted reconciliation between the two men, but Anglo-Italian relations were
not restored to their former standing before the Labour victory in London in 1929.
Extract from Zara Steiner, The Lights That Failed: European International History, 1919–1933,
Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 499
1. To what extent can Source A help you to understand why it took Italy a week to take total control of
Albania?
2. Compare and contrast what Sources B and C reveal about Britain’s reaction to the Italian invasion of
Albania.
Results of the invasion

As you have seen, Italy had already had access to minerals, oils, and other Albanian
resources since the late 1920s, so in this regard, the invasion did not make a significant
contribution to the acquisition of resources for Italy. However, Mussolini did have
fortifications built on Albanian territory. These came into use when, in October 1940,
he launched an invasion of Greece from Albania – an attack that turned out to be a
disaster for Italy.
This chapter has focused on Italian expansion up to 1937. It has discussed the effects
of World War I and the peace treaties on Italy, and the rise to power of Benito
Mussolini and the Fascist Party, including the aims of Mussolini’s foreign policy. It has
also analysed the methods used to achieve these aims, including the role played by
domestic policies as well as the international response to events in Europe.
Activity 19 ATL Self-management and communication skills
Using the sources in this chapter and your own knowledge, evaluate the contributions of
Mussolini’s foreign policy to the move to global war between 1930 and 1937.
112

4.2
This is very similar to the kind of mini essay that you would get asked to write in the fourth question
of the Prescribed Subject exam paper. It isn’t a good idea to try and start your exam by answering
this question first (even though it carries the highest marks). Always answer the questions in the
order they are written in the exam: in other words, start with the first question and work your way
through to the fourth. By doing so, you become familiar with the sources and are better prepared to
tackle this mini-essay question. Don’t forget that the question asks you to include references to the
material in the sources as well as your own knowledge. To write a good answer, you need to include
references to all the sources (there are always four sources included in the exam), and use your own
knowledge as well as the sources to support your argument. You can use your own knowledge
to either support the message of a particular source, to argue against it, or even to start a new
argument. Allow yourself around 20 minutes of the exam time to answer the fourth question – and
don’t forget to plan your answer before you start writing. Always include a brief introduction and
conclusion that address what the question is asking.
Remember, your answer should only focus on the specific time period of the question. For this
particular question, a discussion on Corfu and Fiume is therefore not relevant. You will not have time
to discuss everything you have studied in this chapter, but here are some relevant points you may
wish to focus on:
To access websites relevant
● Mussolini’s aims in foreign policy to this chapter, go to
● Italy’s diplomatic alliances and treaties signed
www.pearsonhotlinks.
● the invasion of Abyssinia and Italy’s withdrawal from the League of Nations
com, search for the book
● the invasion of Albania.
title or ISBN, and click on
Are there other points you could add to this list? ‘Chapter 4’.
113

05 Chapter 5: German expansion and
its consequences

Adolf Hitler was a charismatic
When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany had been leader with a notable talent for
public speaking. These qualities
forced to accept responsibility for the outbreak of World War I and
proved crucial in helping him
to sign the Treaty of Versailles (1919); the country suffered territorial gain support for his rule of
Germany. In what ways do you
losses, it was asked to pay a colossal amount in reparations, and think such qualities may have
it had been disarmed. By 1940, however, Hitler had violated most also helped increase support for
his foreign policy?
of the terms of the treaty; Germany was in control of Denmark,
Norway, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
This chapter focuses on the causes, events, and responses
to German expansion between 1933 and 1940. In particular, it
examines:
● the aims of Nazi foreign policy and their impact on domestic issues
● German expansion and the international response between 1933 and 1937.
5.1 Causes of German expansion, 1933–37
In order to understand how and why Germany contributed to the move to global war
between 1933 and 1940, we need to return to the end of World War I and look at the
impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.
Historical background
In 1914, Germany was preparing to fight a short and successful war in order to expand
its territory and consolidate its position as the most powerful country in continental
Europe. However, the war shattered these plans and Germany emerged from it not
only defeated but also transformed. Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated, a democratic republic
was proclaimed, and Germany signed an armistice ending the war on 11 November
1918. In January 1919, the Paris Peace Conference was convened with the aim of
addressing both the problems that had led to the outbreak of war as well as those
created by its effects. The peace treaties imposed a series of territorial changes that
affected most of Europe, with the collapse of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian,
and Turkish empires leading to the creation of a number of multi-racial nations, such
as Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia.
Germany’s grievances related to the Treaty of

Versailles
The Germans initially thought that the peace treaty would be based on Wilson’s
Fourteen Points, which had constituted the basis for negotiations leading to the
armistice. However, Germany was presented with a peace treaty that made it fully
responsible for the war; the treaty took away territory both in Europe as well as
overseas; it limited the size of German military forces. How and why did this happen?
The widespread opinion outside Germany in 1919 was that responsibility for the start
of the war rested with Germany and its allies. This was also the view adopted at the
115

05 German expansion and its consequences
Peace Conference: holding Germany responsible for the start of the war provided the
legal argument to make Germany pay for its cost. However, because the final figure
for this was only decided in 1921, Germany claimed that it had been made to sign a
‘blank cheque’ when it signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. By holding Germany
responsible, the conference also stripped away the rights of the German delegates
to take part in the treaty negotiations. The Germans therefore felt that the Treaty of
Versailles was a ‘dictated peace’.
Other decisions made during the treaty negotiations included the following:
● Germany was disarmed to the lowest point compatible with internal security. It was
allowed to keep six battleships (made obsolete by the new dreadnought battleships)
and 100,000 soldiers. German conscription was banned.
● Germany was forbidden from creating a union (Anschluss) with German-speaking
Austria, which was now a separate nation from Hungary.
● Germany lost all of its overseas colonies as well as its trading rights in China and
Egypt.
● Germany’s frontiers in Europe were adjusted.
Activity 1 ATL Social, research, self-management, and communication skills
Divide the class into groups. Using the map of Europe in 1919 on page 90, each group should pick a
country from the list below, to find out its status in 1914 and how it had been affected by the peace
treaties by 1919.
● Alsace and Lorraine
● The Rhineland
● The Saar
● The Polish corridor
● Danzig
● East Prussia
● Eupen-Malmedy
● Upper Silesia
● Northern Schleswig
● Memel
Now read the following sources and answer the questions.

Source A
Below is an extract from The Origins of World War II, a book by Keith Eubank, a US professor of history.
Thus, the treaty of Versailles, contrary to the beliefs of early critics, left Germany’s potential
strength virtually untouched. In population, resources, and size, Germany was still the largest
nation in Central Europe, except for the Soviet Union. And the war had not turned its soil
into a wasteland as it had with French and Belgian land. Germany remained the industrial
powerhouse of Europe despite the loss of iron ore from Lorraine and Saar coal. Although
defeated, Germany suffered less damage in economic and human resources than the other
major European belligerents. In spite of defeat, Germany remained the greatest economic
power in Europe.
Keith Eubank (ed.), The Origins of World War II, 3rd ed., Harlan Davidson, 2004, p. 12
Source B
John Hiden is a British historian. The following is an extract from his book on the history of the Weimar
Republic and the Third Reich.
116

5.1
Germans felt that their territorial losses were harsh. As a result of the Treaty of Versailles more Some sources (such as
than 6 million Germans were left outside the new borders of the Weimar Republic. In the Source B) offer many
relevant points. However,
process 65,000 square kilometers of land were lost to the new Germany. The fact that union since you are working
between Germany and Austria was expressly forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles was also within a time limit, you
regarded with great bitterness since popular opinion in both countries was then running in cannot mention all of
favour of Anschluss. Territorial debits were completed with the loss of Germany’s colonies […] them; instead, you need
To the reparations burden must be added the depletion of Germany’s economic base through to be selective about
which points to mention
the loss of territories and possessions. A calculation of lost resources would include 14.6 per in your answer. One way of
cent of Germany’s arable land, 74.5 per cent of its iron ore, 68.1 per cent of its zinc ore, 26 per deciding how many points
cent of coal production, as well as the potash mines and textile industries of Alsace. to include is to consider
the marks available for the
John Hiden, Republican and Fascist Germany: Themes and Variations in the History of Weimar and
question. In the cases of
the Third Reich, 1918–45, Longman, 1996, p. 15
Questions 1 and 2 in this
activity, they are similar to
1. According to Source A, what was the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany?
what you get in part A of
2. According to Source B, why did the Germans think their territorial losses were harsh? the first question in your
3. Compare and contrast the two sources in terms of what they reveal about the impact of the Treaty of exam paper, which means
Versailles on Germany. they are worth 3 marks
each.
It was not only the German citizens who were outraged at the terms of Versailles.
Even within the new government there were disagreements among its members as
to whether Germany should sign. In the end, on 28 June 1919, Germany signed the
Treaty of Versailles, though this affected the new republic negatively in many ways:
a large part of the German population felt disillusioned and did not support the new
regime; the government was held responsible for accepting what was considered a
humiliating peace, one that few were prepared to abide by.
This photo shows a mass demonstration taking place in Berlin on 3 August 1919. The placard reads ‘down
with the violence of peace’. It was organized by the Independents and the Communists against the peace
terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
1. What does this image reveal about the Germans’ feelings towards the treaty?
117

CHALLENGE YOURSELF
ATL Social, research, and thinking skills
1. In groups:
a. find out who the ‘November criminals’ were and why they were called that.
b. explain the origins and significance of the ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth.
2. Divide the class into two groups. One group should argue that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh
on Germany. The other group should argue that Germany was not completely weakened by the
treaty.
CHALLENGE The Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler

YOURSELF The Treaty of Versailles was not the only challenge facing the Weimar Republic. There
Research and were also other problems in Germany at the end of the war. The change of political
ATL
communication skills system from monarchy to republic did not come about as a result of the German
population’s desire, but was decided by politicians. In November 1919, the kaiser
In pairs, find out about the main
abdicated and left the country. Almost overnight, Germany became a democratic
political parties in Germany
after World War I. Which ones republic as a result of a ‘revolution from above’. The republic had an elected president
were the most committed who was the head of state. He commanded the army and could appoint or dismiss the
to democracy? Which ones chancellor. In emergencies, the president could suspend the constitution and rule by
challenged the system? Provide decree.
one example of an uprising from
the right and one example of an The Weimar constitution was very democratic in theory but this made it difficult
uprising from the left. Show how to have political stability. Members of the Reichstag (parliament) were elected by
the Weimar Republic dealt with universal suffrage. The multi-party democracy meant that no single party ever gained
these challenges.
a majority of votes in the Weimar Republic. Coalitions were formed but were unstable
and quickly dissolved over disagreements on policies.
Attempts to bring down the republic came both from the left and the right. The
influence of the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of unrest from the left took the form
This German housewife is using
of waves of strikes and violent protests, some of which threatened to overthrow the
millions of deutsche marks (the
German currency at the time) republic. Opposition from the right came from the armed forces resenting the peace
to light a stove in 1923. What treaties, and the industrialists who complained about economic instability and who,
does this image tell you about like landowners, considered the government was not doing enough to control the left.
the problems of living under They were joined by the Freikorps. The challenges from both left and right contributed
hyperinflation?
to a negative perception of the republic’s ability to deal with crisis situations. However,
at the time neither the right nor the left were strong enough to overthrow the republic
by themselves.
In 1923, Germany ceased the payment of reparations. France and Belgium invaded
the Ruhr to extract payment in kind. The German government called for passive
resistance. This meant that the workers in the Ruhr went on a general strike and
production came to a halt. The government continued to pay the workers’ salaries
and compensated the industrialists for the loss. These decisions put the economy
under great pressure and led to hyperinflation. The crisis was blamed on the French
and Belgian occupation, the Treaty of Versailles, and reparations, but also on earlier
governments’ overspending and budget deficit.
When the Wall Street Crash hit the United States in 1929, Germany lost access to
US loans and investments. The Great Depression caused massive unemployment
in the country. Agricultural prices collapsed and producers went bankrupt. Unlike
1923, the main problem was not inflation but unemployment. But, like in 1923, the
crisis showed that the German government could not respond effectively and that
118

5.1
politicians were divided as to how best to tackle such problems. By the time the Prescribed Subject 3 does
government began to take measures to promote employment, one of every three not specifically focus on
German workers was already out of work. the Treaty of Versailles
and the Weimar Republic
It is very difficult to say whether the Weimar Republic collapsed as a result of the period. However, you may
economic crisis, which had deepened the political and social problems, or whether find the above section
it would have been able to survive – like in 1923 – had Adolf Hitler not entered the useful when answering
political scene. the fourth question
in the paper, as this
question usually focuses
Impact of Nazism on Germany’s foreign policy on the key concepts in
history (for example,
Adolf Hitler began his political career after fighting for Germany in World War I. causation, continuity,
Infuriated by the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles, he joined the newly formed and change) that require
German Workers’ Party in 1919 and became its leader in 1921. By then, the party your understanding of the
background to the move
was known as the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party and had made public
to global war.
a 25-Point Programme which combined nationalist and socialist principles with a
strong element of anti-Semitism.
Source A
This 1920s Nazi Party election poster is entitled ‘One Can Only Combat Terror from the Left with Sharper
Terror’.
Hitler making a public speech.
The Nazi Party had

approximately 55,000
members in 1923. It had
within it a paramilitary
organization called the
Sturmabteilung, which
engaged in violent clashes
with members of parties
of the left and was used to
intimidate opponents.
119

Source B
Below is an extract from the Nazi 25-Point Programme.
1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the
right of self-determination of peoples.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations;
abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and
colonization for our surplus population.
1. Study Source A. To whom do you think the poster appealed and why?
2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source B for a
historian studying the aims of Nazi foreign policy.
3. Find out which territorial clauses of the Treaty of St Germain the Nazis were opposed to and why.
Following the invasion of the Ruhr, Hitler tried to seize power in what became known
ATL Thinking skills as the Munich Putsch or Beer Hall Putsch. The aim was to seize control of the local
government and then march to Berlin. The Putsch failed and Hitler was tried and
Go back to the section
sentenced to prison. It was during his sentence that he wrote Mein Kampf, a book that
in this case study that
addresses Mussolini’s recorded his aims, particularly in foreign policy. Like the 25-Point Programme, Mein
March on Rome. To Kampf included strong elements of nationalism, anti-Semitism, and contempt for the
what extent could it be peace treaties.
claimed that the Beer
Hall Putsch was inspired
by Mussolini’s March on
Rome in 1922?
This photo shows Adolf Hitler

(to the left of the image,
standing higher up than the
other onlookers) in 1926
reviewing Sturmabteilung (SA)
troopers carrying a banner
reading ‘Death to Marxism’.
Who do you think SA parades
appealed to and why?
After the failure of the Putsch, Hitler decided he would try to rise to power using the
parliamentary system of the republic. But if the Nazis were to be voted into power,
then they had to extend their basis of support by becoming more pragmatic and
flexible. Hitler claimed he would end unemployment and re-establish law and order.
He promised to return to German traditional national values, protect Germany from
Bolshevism, and end the Treaty of Versailles.
120

5.1
CHALLENGE YOURSELF
ATL Thinking, research, and social skills
You now have some background on Germany’s problems after World War I. In groups, research how and
why Hitler came to power. You may wish to consider some of the following questions:
1. How did Hitler propose to solve the problems facing Germany after World War I?
2. Which social groups felt represented by the Nazis and why?
3. Explain how Hitler came to power by analysing the events leading up to his appointment as
chancellor in January 1933.
What did Nazism propose in foreign policy?

Both the 25-Point Programme and Mein Kampf can help historians understand
the Nazis’ aims in foreign policy. To what extent are these documents useful for
understanding Hitler’s aims? (Later in this chapter you will have the opportunity to
study another relevant historical document, the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937.)
Some historians, like K Hildebrand, have argued that Hitler had a plan, and that
documents such as Mein Kampf are the blueprint (see The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich,
1973). AJP Taylor, on the other hand, believed that Hitler’s foreign policy had not
been planned in advance and that it was the result of different internal pressures, such
as those created by the German economy. He also claimed Hitler took advantage of
opportunities presented to him by external factors, such as the role played by other
statesmen (see The Origins of the Second World War, 1961). Somewhere in between these
interpretations we find Allan Bullock’s explanation stating that Hitler had set out his
aims in Mein Kampf but that he also used opportunist methods to achieve them (Hitler:
A Study in Tyranny, revised edition, 1962, p. 315).
As you work through this chapter, think of these different interpretations. Which one
do you consider best explains Hitler’s foreign policy?
What were Hitler’s aims?

Hitler was determined to make Germany a great power again. To do this, he believed
he had to achieve the following:
Overthrow the Treaty of Versailles

Like many Germans, Hitler considered the Treaty of Versailles a humiliation and was
determined to have it repealed. But this was impossible as long as Germany continued
to be disarmed. One of the aims in Nazi foreign policy was therefore to rearm
Germany so that it could regain any territory lost as a consequence of Versailles.
A ‘Greater Germany’
The Treaty had left Germans living outside its borders, in countries such as Austria,
Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The incorporation of these into the Third Reich would
create a ‘Greater Germany’, formed only by those of common Aryan origin.
121

Lebensraum
Nazism did not only want to restore the map of Germany to its pre-1918 frontiers.
Lebensraum (meaning ‘living space’ in English) was based on the assumption that
post-war Germany was overpopulated and would not be able to feed its own people
in the short term. Hitler therefore aimed to gain more ‘living space’ by expanding
towards Eastern Europe and into the Soviet Union. This would also help to achieve the
destruction of Bolshevism, an enemy of Nazism.
Lebensraum was also based on the idea that the Aryan race was superior to other races,
such as the Slavs and the Jews. Hitler claimed that, as a master race, the Aryans had
a right to more territory and resources at the expense of what he called ‘subhuman’
races.
Activity 4 ATL Research and social skills
1. In pairs, find out more information about the racial beliefs of Nazism in 1933. How did they
influence the aims of Nazi foreign policy?
How did Hitler plan to achieve these aims?

Germany was in no condition to challenge the Treaty of Versailles by force in 1933.
In order to achieve his aims, Hitler needed to consolidate his power, strengthen the
economy, and rearm the country.
He destroyed German democracy by suspending constitutional civil rights with

the Decree for the Protection of the People and State. He was given the right to pass
decrees under the terms of the Enabling Law, which meant that he could bypass the
Reichstag and introduce laws without its approval. When President Hindenburg died
in 1934, Hitler combined the offices of president and chancellor and took on the title
of führer (leader).
With the policy of Gleichschaltung (coordination), Hitler consolidated his power further.
All political parties except the Nazis were declared illegal and Germany became a
single-party state. Trade unions were dissolved and were replaced by the Nazi German
Labour Front. New local governments were set up and Germany became a centralized
regime with no local elections. German organizations such as the Hitler Youth were
created to work for the Nazi cause.
In order to eliminate critics and consolidate his rule, Hitler purged the army as well
as the SA which, as you may remember, had been formed during the early days of the
Nazi Party. On the death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, the army was made
to swear a new oath of allegiance directly to Hitler rather than to Germany. A Ministry
for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda was created and controlled the media.
Education was reformed on Nazi principles and children were indoctrinated. Mass
rallies were frequently used by Hitler to show strength and encourage a personality
cult.
Nazi Germany became a police state. The Schutzstaffel (more commonly known as the
SS), which had started as Hitler’s personal protection force, and the Gestapo (secret
police) were used for the repression of political opponents. People were encouraged
to denounce each other. Concentration camps were created for political prisoners and
other ‘enemies of the state’ such as Jews.
122

5.1
Source A
This photo shows Hitler and members of his paramilitary forces attending a Nazi event in 1933.
Source B
This is a propaganda poster for the Nazi Germany Labour Service. The text reads: ‘We equip body and
soul’.
1. Study Source A. What is the message conveyed by the image?

2. Study Source B. What is the message conveyed by the poster?
123

Impact of domestic issues on Germany’s

foreign policy
Hitler wanted the rearmament of the country. However, in 1933, the most urgent
problem was that of unemployment. As a result of the Great Depression, millions
of German citizens were out of jobs. It became a priority of the Nazi government
to solve this situation and ensure political stability. To reduce unemployment, the
Nazis executed a large programme of public works funded by the government
and served by the National Labour Service. This organization provided work for
unemployed men who were transferred around the country and were subjected
to military discipline. Public projects such as the renovation of the city of Berlin
and irrigation works in the countryside were executed. But one of most significant
features was the building of new motorways to connect the German territory more
efficiently. During the war, they ensured the quick transfer of troops across the
German territory.
This photograph, taken in 1938,

shows Hitler inspecting the new ATL Thinking and communication skills
Volkswagen Beetle, which he
called the ‘Strength-through- Official statistics claimed unemployment decreased from 5.6 million (before the rise of the
Joy Car’ (‘Kraft durch Freude- Nazis) to 1.6 million in 1936. These figures were used to show the success of the Nazis in
Wagen’). The man standing addressing unemployment. However, unemployment figures in Nazi Germany did not include
beside Hitler is the car’s the Jews who had lost their jobs as a result of anti-Semitic policies. Nor did they include the
designer Ferdinand Porsche. communists and other opponents of the regime who had also lost their jobs. Unemployment
figures were also reduced by the reintroduction of conscription in 1935 as many unemployed
joined the armed forces. The creation of a vast state bureaucracy also contributed to reducing
unemployment figures.
1. Is there any relationship between statistics and emotions? For example, how would you
have interpreted these figures if you had been a newly employed German at the time?
What would your opinion had been if you had been one of the 1.6 million who were still
unemployed in 1936? How would you have interpreted them if you had been part of the
‘invisible unemployed’, those who were not included in statistics?
2. What do the above reflections say about the value and limitations of statistics for historians?
Although unemployment was drastically reduced, this didn’t necessarily lead to an

The Volkswagen Beetle, improvement in the living standards or in the protection of workers’ rights. Industrial
the people’s car, was production was centrally planned and factories were required to meet production
designed to become an targets. After 1935, the armament industry became a priority. If Germany was to
affordable car for the
expand, the country had to be prepared for war. As the Nazi government put it, guns
average German citizen,
who could purchase one
were more important than butter and citizens were expected to make sacrifices.
by putting money into
In 1936, Hitler demanded that the economy be ready for war in four years. This four-
a government saving
scheme. However, no year plan called for increased government planning and control of the economy.
one received their Beetle Hitler believed that if Germany had to fight a war, it had to become self-sufficient. The
in the end and the sanctions against Italy following the invasion of Abyssinia (see page 102) convinced
money was put into the Hitler that Germany needed to produce substitutes for any products that could be cut
armament industry. What off by a blockade.
does this tell you about
the relationship between
domestic economic
factors and German
foreign policy?
124

5.1
Source A
The following is an extract from Larry Leu’s article ‘Economic Policy in Nazi Germany: 1933–1945’,
published in the Penn History Review, October 2013.
From an economic point of view, the preparations for war practically meant that more
resources should flow not toward consumption goods to raise the overall standard of living of
the Germans, but to military production in order to be ready for the war. Hitler also made it
clear that the private sector had to submit to the direct order of the economics ministry in
order to fulfill his armament goal. In order to prevent a negative fallout of trade blockades
resulting from war, Hitler also thought it was crucially important to build up domestic
production and quickly conquer central and eastern Europe to take advantage of their raw
materials.
Source B
Here is Richard Overy, writing in the academic article ‘An economy geared to war’, published in History
Today, November 2001.
Hitler’s commitment to excessive levels of war preparation stemmed from his desire to turn
Germany into a military and economic superpower before the rest of the world caught up. In
1938 and 1939 he authorised new military production programmes which were intended to
achieve the superpower status he wanted. In 1939 the German economy was not yet ready
for a major war. Germany was, of course, much more heavily armed in 1939 than in 1936,
and was capable, as it turned out, of defeating Poland and France and expelling Britain
from Europe in 1939 and 1940. But the large programmes of war production were not yet
complete, some barely started.
1. Compare and contrast what sources A and B reveal about the influence of Nazi foreign policy on the
economy of Germany.
Student answer – Tim
Both sources state that Germany was preparing for war. Both sources indicate that she was doing this by
increasing military production. Both show Hitler in command of the German economic plans.
However, Source A says that resources were not to be used to raise the living standards of the Germans
while Source B states that Germany was not ready for war and continues to explain the impact this had
on the Second World War.
Tim has identified similarities and differences between the sources but has not expanded on them. He
offers three comparisons but does not use the sources as supporting evidence. It is good practice to show
where in the sources you have identified the similarities you refer to. Think of how you would do that for
this answer.
Contrasts in this answer are less clear and Tim seems to be referring to two different issues. Perhaps he
could have argued, for example, that Source A states Germany needed to become self-sufficient in order
to be prepared for war, whereas in Source B the German preparation for war seemed to have been limited
to rearmament.
Activity 7 ATL Thinking and self-management skills
You now know about the causes of German expansion. Compare them with the causes of Italian
expansion you have read about in Chapter 4. How similar are they? Where are the differences between
the two sets of causes? As you move to the next section, consider whether or not German and Italian
aggressive policies between 1933 and 1937 also show similarities.
125

German challenges and international

5.2 response, 1933–37
This image shows Austrian
citizens in Salzburg celebrating
the Anschluss in March 1938.
Many Germans living outside
the borders of the Third Reich
desired to be incorporated into
Nazi Germany. However, there
were also those who resisted it.
The League of Nations and the World

Disarmament Conference
The League of Nations, together with Britain and the United States, set up a World
Disarmament Conference (which first met in 1932) with the aim of promoting
international disarmament to guarantee peace. Germany was a member of the
conference and had also joined the League of Nations in 1926. However Hitler
withdrew Germany from both organizations within months of becoming chancellor.
How and why did this happen?
Germany had violated the disarmament clauses of Versailles even before Hitler came
to power. In the 1920s, there were satellite armament production centres in the
Netherlands and Sweden, which manufactured artillery and tanks for Germany. Also,
by a secret clause in the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo between Germany and the Soviet
Union, the latter had provided weapons and facilities for German military training in
Treaty of Rapallo
exchange for German army training of Soviet troops.
Signed in 1922, this
was a treaty by which Hitler’s stance at the conference was that the disarmament of Germany was unfair
relations between because it was the only disarmed nation, which put it in a vulnerable position.
Germany and the
Soviet Union were
Germany’s neighbours, such as France and Poland, had offensive weapons while
re-established. It stated Germany was not even permitted to build fortifications on its borders. Hitler claimed
that both nations that Germany would continue to support disarmament if its neighbours also
would renounce all disarmed; if they refused to do so, then Germany should be allowed ‘equality’, that is,
the territorial and to rearm until parity with the rest of Europe was reached. When it became clear that
economic claims of neither of these options would be supported, Hitler, arguing that Germany had not
World War I. been treated as an equal nation, announced the withdrawal from the Disarmament
126

5.2
Conference and from the League of Nations. He had this decision ratified by 95 per
cent of the German citizens in a plebiscite.
Activity 8 ATL Thinking and communication skills When analysing the

content of a source, it
Below is an extract from an interview with Adolf Hitler in the British newspaper The Daily Mail, may be useful to think
19 October, 1933. not only in terms of what
the source says, but also
We are manly enough to recognize that when one has lost a war, whether one was responsible about how it says it. In
for it or not, one has to bear the consequences. We have borne them, but it is intolerable for us the source above, Hitler’s
as a nation of sixty-five millions that we should repeatedly be dishonoured and humiliated. tone plays an important
We will put up with no more of this persistent discrimination against Germany. So long as I part in the ways the
message is transmitted.
live I will never put my signature as a statesman to any contract which I could not sign with
How would you describe
self-respect in private life. I will maintain this resolution, even if it means my ruin! For I will the tone? In what ways
sign no document with a mental reservation not to fulfil it. What I sign, I will stand by. What does considering the tone
I cannot stand by, I will not sign. help you assess the value
and limitations of the
1. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of this source for source?
a historian studying Hitler’s attitude towards the Disarmament Conference.
International response and early changing

diplomatic alliances
Hitler’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations was
a clear indication of his decision to rearm in the near future. Even though Hitler did
not express this publicly in 1933, it was a decision that had been anticipated by other
European countries – an eventuality they had to start preparing for.
The Four-Power Agreement to promote international cooperation, which in June

1933 had brought together Britain, France, Italy, and Germany (see page 99), ended.
However, Britain could to some extent understand Germany’s demands for equal
treatment because both countries took the view that some revision of the Treaty of
Versailles would be required to maintain peaceful relations in Europe. Moreover,
Thinking skills ATL
Hitler’s early successes in dealing with political and economic problems were
interpreted as a sign that Nazi Germany could act as an effective barrier against the Referring to Case Study
1, can you think of any
expansion of Bolshevism – which at the time was seen as more dangerous.
other international event
Poland – encircled by Germany and the Soviet Union, both of whom had claims on that influenced Germany’s
withdrawal from the
its territory – entered into a 10-year non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934. Both League of Nations
countries promised to solve their disputes peacefully. Poland temporarily eased its and the Disarmament
encirclement. Additionally, the pact helped to show Hitler as a statesman willing to Conference? Consider,
work for peace. France feared German rearmament but could not find the support to for example, what was
prevent it in the international community. The non-aggression pact between Germany happening with the
and Poland further weakened France’s alliance with Poland of 1921. As for the Soviet Japanese expansion in
Union, it suddenly found itself faced with the risk of a joint German–Polish attack. East Asia at the time. How,
if at all, do you think these
Stalin therefore responded by signing treaties of mutual assistance against German events influenced Hitler’s
aggression with both France and Czechoslovakia in 1935. policies as well as the
international response to
them?
127

The Saar
The Saar was a German area rich in coal that France demanded to exploit
in 1919 as reparations for its damaged mines in the north. Because it
had a German population, the Saar was placed under the control of the
League of Nations. A plebiscite for the population to decide whether
they wanted to be French or German was held in January 1935. Ninety
per cent of the Saar electorate voted for a return to Germany. Although
this result had been expected given that the population was German, it
was interpreted in Germany as an overwhelming success for Hitler.
A 1935 Nazi propaganda poster
against French presence in the In 1934, prior to the plebiscite, a book called the Saaratlas was published in Germany.
Saar. It reads: ‘Get away from the It included facts and figures to support the idea that Germany was the dominating
German Saarland’. What is the
cultural and historical force in the Saar. For example, it showed the railway network
message of this poster?
extending into Germany but not France. What do you think was the message of this?
How useful do you think this book would have been to a) people travelling there at the
time and b) to historians today?
Dr Michael Zalampas is an American historian. The following is taken from his book Adolf Hitler and the
Third Reich in American Magazines, 1923–1939.
American magazines were divided in their interpretation of the events following the
plebiscite. Newsweek reported Hitler was ‘elated’ by the election results. In ‘a voice choked
with emotion’ Hitler had broadcast a speech thanking the Saar for its loyalty, expressing his
appreciation to the League for its impartiality, and hinting that Germany might return to the
League if given ‘equality of armaments.’ […] Time, on the contrary, reported the Saar was in
a turmoil. On January 28, Time reported Saarlanders were in ‘a mad rush’ to export French
francs to the Netherlands, Switzerland, and France. In one week, 1,650,000,000 francs were
shipped out of the Saar to avoid their conversion into marks. Time also asserted ‘Saar Jews
and other Saarlanders’ were emigrating to France ‘at a rate of one every 30 seconds.’ Most of
these refugees ‘told tales of terrorism which could not be checked’ as all non-Nazi newspapers
had ceased publication.
Dr Michael Zalampas, Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in American Magazines, 1923–1939,
Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1989, p. 65
1. What does this source reveal about the international response to events in the Saar?
a historian studying the United States’ reaction to events in Europe.
Student answer - Mariko
The origin of this source is valuable in that it has been written by an American historian in 1989. The
content of the book focuses on the Third Reich in American magazines and offers specific information on
the US reaction to events in Europe, so it is valuable. It states that there were differing opinions regarding
the events in the Ruhr and that can help a historian. The purpose is valuable because it aims at analysing
the reaction of the US press in detail.
The limitation of the source is that the historian does not offer his own opinion and that it only focuses
on the reaction of the press and not on US society. Also the book focuses only on the period up to 1939,
so we do not know how US opinion may have changed after the outbreak of war.
Mariko’s answer looks at the value of the source in more depth than its limitations. It is clear from the
first paragraph that she has attempted to discuss the origin, purpose, and content. However, more
detail is expected in the answer to this type of question. She could have explored further the value of
studying a source that was published in 1989 (as opposed to contemporary accounts), for example, by
considering the extent to which the writer would have benefited from hindsight and from gaining access
to information that wouldn’t have been available back in the 1920s and 1930s.
Furthermore, the limitations of the source are not discussed in depth. The only area Mariko has focused on
is the content; she needs to be more explicit in her evaluation in terms of the source’s origin and purpose.
128

5.2
German rearmament and international
response
Encouraged by the success in the Saar plebiscite in 1935, Hitler declared that Germany
would no longer observe the disarmament clauses imposed in 1919. Among the
measures that followed, he introduced conscription and increased the budget for the
military. The German aerial branch of the armed forces, the Luftwaffe, was created and
quickly became the most modern in Europe.
Alarmed by Hitler’s rearmament, Britain, France, and Italy formed the Stresa Front to
resist potential German challenges to the European frontiers (see page 100). However,
the Stresa Front was short-lived, as Britain entered a naval agreement with Germany
that same year. Britain’s partners in the Stresa Front interpreted the naval agreement
as a betrayal of Britain’s international commitments in exchange for its domestic
security.
Anglo-German Naval Agreement

Under the terms of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935, Germany was
permitted to build a navy up to 35 per cent the size of the British Royal Navy. With
this agreement, the British government aimed at allowing a revision of the terms of the
Treaty of Versailles on German rearmament, while guaranteeing that the British navy Most exam papers
include cartoons and
would always be larger than the German navy. The agreement also showed that, at the photographs as their
time, Britain’s priority was to obtain security without increasing armament spending. non-written sources.
However, you should also
Activity 10 ATL Thinking, social, and research skills be prepared to analyse
and interpret statistical
This table is taken from a book by John F Kennedy called Why England Slept (1940). It shows the defence tables and graphs.
expenditures in Europe between 1931 and 1936. Figures are indicated in millions of US dollars. When answering the
question, it is important
1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936
that you support every
France 694.8 509.2 678.8 582.7 623.8 716.4 argument with specific
examples drawn from
Great Britain 449.9 426.1 455.5 480.6 595.6 846.9 the source. For instance,
if you wanted to argue
Italy 272 270.6 241.2 263.7 778.1 870.8
that the Soviet Union
USSR 280.8 285.5 309.5 1000 1640 2936.1 and Germany were the
countries that increased
Germany 246.8 253.5 299.5 381.8 2600 2600 their military defence the
most, then you should
1. What does this source reveal about European rearmament between 1931 and 1936? make specific reference
2. In groups, choose one of the countries in the source other than Germany and find out additional to the 1931 and the 1936
information as to how they responded to German rearmament. Share your findings with the rest of figures for both countries
the class. and compare them.
The remilitarization of the Rhineland

The Rhineland was an industrial area of German territory that became permanently
demilitarized under the Treaty of Versailles. This meant that the Germans were
forbidden to station military forces there, and a barrier was formed between France
and Germany to protect the former. The Locarno Pact of 1925, which guaranteed the
frontiers between France, Belgium, and Italy, reinforced these provisions (see page 96).
Although Germany had agreed to respect the demilitarization of the Rhineland, in
1936 Hitler decided to reoccupy the area. There were a number of reasons why he felt
this was necessary and why the time was right for him to do this:
129

● Hitler’s aim was to regain control of the Rhineland to secure the borders with France
and protect the Ruhr, vital for German war supplies.
● Hitler had ‘tested the waters’: not only had he successfully announced rearmament
he had also obtained British endorsement for the increase in the size of the German
navy. By 1936, Hitler had also seen Japan and Italy successfully defy the League of
Nations – he was therefore confident that the League would not intervene.
● Early attempts to control Hitler through international understandings, such as
the Stresa Front, had collapsed, and Western nations were reluctant to go to war.
Moreover, Britain and France were undergoing a tense period in their relations as a
result of differences regarding Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia.
● At a domestic level, Hitler wanted to exploit another international success.
To justify marching into the Rhineland, Hitler argued that the 1935 Franco-Soviet
alliance – signed as a consequence of the non-aggression pact between Poland and
Germany – had already broken the terms of Locarno and threatened Germany with
encirclement. He therefore claimed that Germany was justified in seeking greater
security for itself. At the same time, Hitler offered Belgium and France non-aggression
pacts with Germany. This advocated the British view that Hitler was moving into
Germany’s own back garden and had no intentions to start a war. France, alone and
with upcoming elections, did not resist either.
On 7 March 1936 Hitler sent a force of 20,000 men into the Rhineland.
German soldiers marching
across the Cologne bridge,
March 1936.
Historical accounts of the

events in the Rhineland
are controversial. The
most commonly held
view is that Hitler had
ordered his troops to
retreat if their advance
was met with resistance.
The remilitarization of the Rhineland was a huge success for Hitler. It was, however,
However, Keith Eubank
states that this was not the another blow against Versailles and left France more exposed to German aggression.
case and that Hitler had Hitler interpreted French inaction as tacit permission for Germany to move against
no intention of calling France’s allies in Eastern Europe. After all, if France had been unwilling to protect the
the German troops back Rhineland, how likely was it that it would protect its Eastern European allies?
if they were attacked (The
Origins of World War II,
3rd ed., Harlan Davidson,
Activity 11 ATL Social, communication, and self-management skills
2004, p. 61). Organize a class debate to discuss the question: ‘Could Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland have been
Think of how historians stopped?’
work with conflicting Divide the class in two groups. Each group should find supporting evidence for their claim. The first
interpretations. What type group should argue that the Rhineland represented an opportunity for Britain and France to use force to
of research would help intimidate Hitler and prevent further German aggression. The second group should support the idea that
you find out which of it was unfeasible to stop Hitler in 1936 because both Britain and France were undergoing national crises
these views is true? and were unable to risk war with Germany.
130

5.2
Changing diplomatic alignments in Europe –
Mussolini and Hitler
Mussolini had already been in power for more than 10 years when Hitler became
chancellor. There were many similarities between these two statesmen:
● They were both hostile to democratic systems and ruled as authoritarian leaders.
● They were both anti-communist.
● Mussolini was known as Il Duce and Hitler as Führer – terms that emphasized their
belief in strong leadership.
● In foreign policy, they both desired a revision of the Treaty of Versailles.
Despite their ideological coincidences, their relationship started on cold terms. For
instance, Hitler’s early admiration for Mussolini was not reciprocated at first.
One reason for Mussolini’s initial mistrust of Hitler was that he was suspicious of
Hitler’s intentions in Austria. An Austrian by birth, Hitler aspired to lead the Anschluss
and integrate the German-speaking Austrians into the Reich. The murder of Dollfuss in
1934 (see page 100) brought Hitler and Mussolini into confrontation over the issue. As
you may remember, Mussolini had mobilized his troops to the Brenner Pass to prevent
a possible German advance. His decisive action gained him the respect of Britain and
France. However, Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1935 (see page 102) and Hitler’s
invasion of the Rhineland significantly changed the diplomatic alignments in Europe.
Events in Abyssinia had led to tensions between Italy, Britain, and France; Hitler
benefited from these as they ended the diplomatic encirclement of Germany. He was
also quick to recognize Italian rights over Abyssinia, which helped improve relations
between Germany and Italy. However, it was the Spanish Civil War (see page 107) that
offered Germany and Italy the opportunity to work alongside one another for the first
time in support of Franco’s forces. Both countries agreed to oppose communism in
This is a watercolour drawing,
Spain and to recognize Franco as the rightful head of the Spanish government. entitled ‘To Another – Asia and
the Pacific Ocean!’, of the US
Germany entered the Spanish Civil War for several reasons: First, it provided an filmstrip The Fruits of Aggression.
opportunity to test the strength of its armed forces, especially the Luftwaffe. Second, It depicts the Axis leaders dividing
if Franco won the war with Hitler’s support, Germany would gain a new ally against the world. What does this image
France, which would then be encircled by Germany, Italy, and Spain. Third, the suggest about the nature of the
Anti-Comintern Pact?
isolation of France was an important condition for a Nazi expansion into Eastern
Europe as an isolated France would find it difficult to
honour her alliances in the East. Finally, Spain’s mineral
resources (especially iron) could contribute to Germany’s
war efforts.
The Rome–Berlin Axis, a name coined by Mussolini for

the alliance between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, was
formally announced on 1 November 1936. This alliance
recognized mutual Italian and German spheres of influence.
For Italy, this was the Mediterranean Sea; for Germany, it
was Central and Eastern Europe. The axis was followed by
the Anti-Comintern Pact, which aimed to prevent the
expansion of communism outside the Soviet Union. On
page 47 you have read about the reasons why Japan signed
the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany in 1936. Italy joined
the pact in 1937. In Europe, the pact was a way for Hitler
and Mussolini to show themselves as protectors against
communism, which was to be broken by Germany in 1939.
131

1937 – A year of awareness?

On 5 November 1937, Hitler called for a secret meeting in which he presented his
military leadership with what he considered should become the next steps in German
foreign policy. We know about this meeting because of a document, the Hossbach
Memorandum, written by Colonel Hossbach five days after the event, based on
his personal records of the meeting. The memorandum revealed Hitler’s concerns
about Germany’s need for Lebensraum and his decision to move against Austria and
Czechoslovakia as well as into Eastern Europe at the expense of fighting a war against
Britain and France. According to Hossbach, Hitler saw a need for Germany to act
quickly due to concerns about its rivals catching up in terms of military development.
The Hossbach Memorandum has been used to support the idea that Hitler had a
detailed plan for war; it seemed to suggest that Germany would no longer limit its
foreign policy to the reversal of the Treaty of Versailles.
In pairs, read the three views below on the Hossbach Memorandum. Are these views in agreement
regarding the value of the memorandum as a historical source? What arguments have been used to
question its usefulness and reliability?
Source A
The following extract is from Nazism 1919–1945, A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts, Volume
II by Jeremy Noakes (a professor of history) and Geoffrey Pridham (a professor of politics).
1937 was also a ‘year of awareness’ in the sense that by the autumn Hitler appears to have
concluded that time was not on Germany’s side and that she must go onto the offensive
sooner rather than later. For the problem was that, by embarking on a massive rearmament
programme Germany had started an arms race. Moreover, because of her limited resources by
comparison with her rivals it was a race she was bound to lose if she went on for any length of
time. She thus came under growing pressure to act quickly, using her temporary superiority to
expand her resources by plundering her neighbours.
Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, Nazism 1919–1945, A History in Documents and
Eyewitness Accounts, Volume II, University of Exeter, 1988, p. 675
Source B
Here is an extract from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A History of Nazi Germany by historian William
Shirer.
As evening darkened Berlin on the autumn day of November 5, 1937 – the meeting broke up
at eight fifteen – the die was cast. Hitler had communicated his irrevocable decision to go to
war. To the handful of men who would have to direct it there could no longer be any doubt.
The dictator had said it all ten years before in Mein Kampf, had said that Germany must
have Lebensraum in the East and must be prepared to use force to obtain it.
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A History of Nazi Germany, New York,
Simon and Schuster, 1960, p. 307
Source C
Below is an extract from The Origins of the Second World War by historian AJP Taylor.
The memorandum tells us what we knew already, that Hitler (like every other German
statesman) intended Germany to become the dominant power in Europe. It also tells us that
he speculated how this might happen. His speculations were mistaken. They bear hardly any
relation to the actual outbreak of the war in 1939…
132

5.2
Hitler did not make plans – for world conquest or for anything else. He assumed that others
would provide the opportunities, and that he would seize them.
AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, 1961
1. According to source A, why was 1937 a year of awareness?

2. What evidence from your own knowledge can you provide to support the view in Source A that by
1937 ‘Germany had started an arms race’?
3. Compare and contrast what Sources A and B reveal about Hitler’s foreign policy up to 1937.
4. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source C for a
historian studying the significance of the Hossbach Memorandum.
This chapter has focused on German expansion up to 1937. It has discussed the
effects of World War I and various peace treaties on Germany, and the rise to power
of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, including the aims of Hitler’s foreign policy. It has
also analysed the methods used in achieving these aims, including the role played by
domestic policies, as well as the international response to events unfolding in Europe.
With reference to the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which you agree
with the view that Hitler’s foreign policy between 1933 and 1937 was more speculation than
planning.
This question is typical of the fourth question you will get in the Paper 1 exam. Always answer
the questions in the order they are written in the exam: in other words, start with the first
question and work your way through to the last. By doing so, you become familiar with
the sources and are better prepared to tackle this mini-essay question. Don’t forget that the
question asks you to include references to the material in the sources as well as your own
knowledge. To write a good answer, you need to include references to all the sources (there
are always four sources included in the exam paper), and use your own knowledge as well as
the sources to support your argument. Allow yourself around 20 minutes of the exam time to
answer the fourth question – and don’t forget to plan your answer before you start writing.
In order to approach this specific question successfully, start by defining what it means to
understand Hitler’s foreign policy as a product of speculation and what it means to view To access websites relevant
it as a product of planning. You could support these explanations with reference to some to this chapter, go to
historiography, but what is essential here is that you draw on supporting evidence for each of www.pearsonhotlinks.
these views from events between the years 1933 and 1937 only. To achieve a balanced answer, com, search for the book
analyse interpretation using both source material as well as your own knowledge before you title or ISBN, and click on
state your conclusion. ‘Chapter 5’.
133

06 Chapter 6: International responses
to Italy and Germany, 1938–40

This photograph shows
By analysing the German and Italian foreign policies from 1938 Neville Chamberlain (left)
onwards, the final chapter of this case study explores how and and Benito Mussolini (right)
at the Munich Conference in
why war broke out in Europe in September 1939. Topics to be 1938. It had been Mussolini
investigated in this chapter include: who proposed the conference
to determine the fate of
● the international response to the policies and actions of Hitler and Mussolini, and the
Czechoslovakia. What does
extent to which this contributed to the outbreak of war
this photo reveal about
● the first stages of World War II, from Hitler’s invasion of Poland to the end of 1940 the international responses
● a historiography focusing on various interpretations of the outbreak of war. to Italian and German
aggression?
6.1 Moving closer to war
FINLAND
ICELAND North Sea

SWEDEN
NORWAY
ESTONIA
North
Sea
Baltic LATVIA
DENMARK Sea LITHUANIA
UNITED EAST PRUSSIA
ATLANTIC KINGDOM GERMANY
UNION OF SOVIET
OCEAN IRELAND SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
NETHERLANDS (USSR)
POLAND
GERMANY
BELGIUM
LUX. CZECH
OSLOV
A KIA
SWITZ. AUSTRIA HUNGARY Map of Europe, 1938.

FRANCE ROMANIA
N YUGOSLAVIA
ITALY Black Sea
BULGARIA
ALBANIA
PORTUGAL GREECE
SPAIN
TURKEY
0 50 Mediterranean Sea
km
TUNISIA MALTA SYRIA
CYPRUS
The Anschluss
In the previous chapter you have seen the direction Hitler’s foreign policy was moving
in up until 1937. Whether he had a calculated plan or was just seizing opportunities
presented to him, the truth is that the year 1938 saw Germany executing a much more
aggressive foreign policy.
The changes in the diplomatic alignments after Abyssinia and the Rhineland enabled
Hitler to make plans for the Anschluss. He had considered it unlikely that either
Britain or France would enter a conflict against Germany to defend Austria; the
Rhineland episode had proved him right. Besides, Mussolini was now Hitler’s ally
and, in exchange for Hitler’s recognition of the Italian Abyssinian Empire, the Italian
leader stopped opposing the Anschluss. The fact that Austria included ethnic Germans
135

06 International responses to Italy and Germany, 1938–40
who spoke German was only one of the reasons why Hitler demanded the Anschluss.
German control of Austria also opened the way to Czechoslovakia and Eastern
Europe.
The Nazi movement in Austria, funded by Germany, had been working to destabilize
the government since 1934. Due to the increasing political influence gained by the
Austrian Nazis, Kurt Schuschnigg, the Austrian chancellor, played a very careful game
to avoid giving Germany an excuse to intervene directly. In 1936, as part of his policy,
Schuschnigg agreed to sign an Austro-German agreement that demanded that Austria
carried out its foreign policy in conformity with the ‘leading principles corresponding
to the fact that Austria regards herself as a German State’.
Despite this, German pressure on Austria increased in 1938 as Schuschnigg was

summoned to meet Hitler, with the latter presenting the former with a list of demands
that included the appointment of an Austrian Nazi, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, as interior
minister; a number of other Nazi Party members were also given roles in the Austrian
government.
This is an extract from a conversation between the Austrian chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg and the German
chancellor Adolf Hitler on 12 February 1938, as recorded by Schuschnigg from memory.
Schuschnigg: ‘Naturally I realise you can march into Austria, but, Mr. Chancellor, we are not
alone in this world. That probably means war.’
Hitler: [...] ‘Don’t believe that anyone in the world can hinder me in my decisions. Italy? I am
quite clear with Mussolini. England? She will not lift a finger for Austria. France? Well, two
years ago we marched into the Rhineland with a handful of battalions and at that moment I
risked a great deal. If France had marched then, we should have been forced to withdraw... but
for France it is now too late.’
From Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, Houghton Mifflin, 1948, p. 263
a historian studying the international response to German aggression.
Student answer – Jack
This source is valuable because it has been produced by a participant in the interview. However, given the
events, it may be limited. Schuschnigg’s aim was to record the conversation for the future but we don’t
know when he wrote it and how well he remembered it. The content tells us what Hitler expected the
international response to have been but it does not show us whether that is what he really thought.
Jack’s answer attempts to cover all the elements involved in the evaluation of sources. However, he does
not do so in depth. It is important that you state the origins and purpose of a source before you actually
explain how they contribute to its value and limitations. Although an examiner may understand what
Jack meant by the phrase ‘given the events, it may be limited’, Jack needs to expand on this in order to be
awarded more marks. For example, he could argue that Schuschnigg was put under significant pressure at
the time and, therefore, may only have had partial recollection of what happened.
How would you have responded to this question?
Unable to deal with the internal unrest promoted by the Nazi party, Schuschnigg
announced a plebiscite to be held on 13 March for the Austrian citizens to decide
whether they wanted an independent Austria. Despite many Austrians having German
roots, Schuschnigg assumed that many of them would not want to live under Nazi
rule. At the same time, Hitler encouraged Seyss-Inquart to promote political violence
while ordering preparations for the invasion of Austria. Unable to control the unrest
and having no foreign support with which to oppose the Nazis, Schuschnigg resigned.
136

6.1
On 12 March, the day before the plebiscite, the German army triumphantly marched
into Austria. The plebiscite was held as planned and, with 99 per cent of the votes in
favour of the Anschluss, Austria became a province of the Third Reich.
Source A
This photograph shows German tanks entering Vienna in March 1938.
‘Austrian Homecoming’, the title

of a 1938 poster welcoming
Austria into the Reich. What is
the message conveyed by this
source?
Source B
Below is an extract of a speech by Benito Mussolini, from 16 March 1938.
To those more or less official circles beyond the Alps which ask why I did not intervene to
‘save’ the independence of Austria, I reply that I had not assumed any obligation of the kind,
either direct or indirect, written or verbal. The Austrians, I feel bound to state, have always
had the comprehensible modesty not to ask for forcible acts to defend the independence of
Austria, for we should have answered that an independence which needs the help of foreign
troops, even against the majority of the nation itself, no longer deserves the name. Everyone
who is acquainted with the Austrians knows that they themselves would have been the first to
resist any intervention of ours. Italy had an interest in the independence of the Austrian
Federal State, but it was obviously based on the assumption that the Austrians, or at least a
majority of them, desired independence; but what has happened in the last few days on
Austrian territory shows that the profound aspiration of the people was for the Anschluss.
From A William Salomone, Readings in Twentieth-Century European History, ed. Alexander J.
Baltzly, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1950, p. 428
1. What is the message of Source A?

2. Why, according to Source B, did Mussolini not intervene to prevent the Anschluss?
Student answer to Question 2 – Tomas
Mussolini refused to intervene in Austria because Italy had never assumed any type of obligation to do
so. He also claimed Austria would have resisted Italian intervention. Finally, Mussolini claims Italy did not
intervene because the Austrians wanted the Anschluss.
Question 2 of this activity is a typical Paper 1 question; it is worth 3 marks. Here, Tomas offers three clearly
distinct and relevant reasons. He signposts them so that the examiner can clearly identify them. It is
important that you do not use too much of your time in this question. Remember: the fourth question in
the exam is always in the style of a mini essay, and so you should allow about 20 minutes for it.
137

The Sudeten crisis
GERMANY 0 200 km
Oct 1938 POLAND Scale
N
Oct 1938
Protectorate
of Bohemia
This map depicts the sequence and Moravia
of events following the Munich SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Agreement.
16 Mar 1939
15 Mar 1939
AUSTRIA Nov 1938

ROMANIA
HUNGARY
KEY
1. October 1938: Germany occupied the Sudetenland.
2. October 1938: Poland annexes Zaolzie, an area with a Polish plurality, over which the two countries
had fought a war in 1919.
3. November 1938: Hungary occupies border areas (southern third of Slovakia and southern Carpathian
Ruthenia) with Hungarian minorities in accordance with the First Vienna Award.
4. 15 March 1939: During the German invasion of the remaining Czech territories, Hungary annexes
Carpathian Ruthenia (which had been autonomous since October 1938).
5. 16 March 1939: Germany establishes the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia with a puppet
government.
6. At the time of Germany’s invasion of Czech territories, a pro-Hitler Catholic–Fascist government splits
off the remaining territories of Czechoslovakia and declares the Slovak Republic an Axis client state.
Czechoslovakia Like the Austrian Republic, Czechoslovakia was born out of the 1919 peace treaties
(see Treaty of St Germain). As a multi-racial state, it faced tensions with its neighbours
Founded in October
1918, Czechoslovakia Poland and Hungary. (The map above shows the regions in dispute.) There were also
comprised the approximately 3 million citizens of German ethnic origin living on the borders of
territories of Bohemia, Bohemia and Moravia, in a region known as the Sudetenland. It was rich in natural
Moravia, parts of Silesia, resources and Hitler wanted to incorporate it into Germany.
Slovakia, and Ruthenia.
It included industrial The Anschluss made Czechoslovakia more vulnerable. Even if Czechoslovakia had
areas that produced possessed an efficient army and border protections, like Austria’s, it would have been
armaments, cars, and difficult for it to resist a German invasion alone. But, after the Rhineland and the
chemicals among
Anschluss, there was limited hope that France would honour their alliance and defend
others. It adopted
a parliamentary Czechoslovakia.
democratic system
that enjoyed relative
As with Austria, Germany funded the Czech Nazi Party in the Sudetenland and
political stability. encouraged unrest. Leaders of the party demanded special rights and autonomy
for the German minority in the Sudetenland. They claimed that the Germans were
mistreated and, although there was some element of truth in this, incidents were also
manipulated to support the claim for autonomy.
The May crisis

Political agitation increased between March and May 1938 owing to rumours that
Germany was making military preparations to move against Czechoslovakia. Some
skirmishes took place near the German border, while Britain and France warned Hitler
138

6.1
against intervention and stated that if Germany attacked, France would defend its ally.
Although Hitler had not finalized plans to march on Czechoslovakia, the French and
British warning had made it look as if he had backed down. He was outraged by this
and increased the pace of military preparations.
Violence continued after the May crisis. Britain and France put pressure on the
Czech government to negotiate autonomy for the Sudetenland. In September, Czech
president Edvard Beneš granted the German Sudeten their autonomy, together with
the control of communication centres and industries. Despite this, Hitler broke off
diplomatic relations and mobilized troops to the Czech border. He also encouraged
agitation from other ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia, such the Slovaks, to the point
that the Czech government was forced to introduce martial law in some districts.
Both the violence in Czechoslovakia and Hitler’s reaction prompted British Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain to fly to meet Hitler in order to find a solution to the
problem. The French endorsed Chamberlain’s mission to escape their obligations
towards Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain agreed to Hitler’s demand on the Sudetenland
and the proposal was put forward to the Czechs. President Beneš was worried that
the handover of the Sudetenland to Germany could set a precedent for other nations,
such as Hungary and Poland, to demand territory on the grounds of their nationals
living within Czech borders; also, while the Sudetenland’s handover could lead to the
dismemberment of the country, refusal to comply could mean war against Germany.
Britain guaranteed the integrity of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and President Beneš
agreed to cede the Sudetenland.
However, by then, Hitler wanted more. He demanded the inclusion of the Polish
and Hungarian claims to Czech territory in the settlement of the dispute. It now
appeared as if Hitler’s aim was not to solve the problems of the German minorities in
the Sudetenland but to have points of contention with Czechoslovakia to justify an
invasion of the country.
Back in Britain, public opinion was divided between those supporting the defence
of the integrity of Czechoslovakia and those, like Chamberlain, who were prepared
to compromise with Hitler. Czechoslovakia was also unwilling to accept Hitler’s
increasing demands and, by the end of September, it looked as if war was unavoidable.
Study this source. It is an extract from a radio broadcast by Neville Chamberlain, 27 September 1938.
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas
masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know
nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in
principle should be the subject of war. […] However much we may sympathize with a small
nation confronted by a big, powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to
involve the whole British Empire in a war simply on her account. If we have to fight, it must
be on larger issues than that.
Keith Eubank (ed.), The Origins of World War II, 3rd ed., Harlan Davidson, 2004, p. 111
1. What does this source reveal about the British response to Nazi foreign policy?
The Munich Conference

Mussolini, unwilling to enter a war he was unprepared to fight, offered to mediate in
the conflict and proposed a four-power conference to Hitler. The Munich Conference
139

of 29 September 1938 was attended by the British Prime Minister Chamberlain; the
French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier; Hitler; and Mussolini. Neither the Czechs nor
their allies, the Soviets, were represented.
At the conference, an agreement was reached:

● Germany was allowed occupy the Sudetenland sooner than had previously been
agreed.
● Polish and Hungarian claims to Czech territory were to be settled, and the Czech
borders determined by an international committee.
● The integrity of what remained of Czechoslovakia was to be guaranteed by the Four
Powers.
In addition, Chamberlain and Hitler signed a separate declaration of friendship and

pledged to resolve any conflict between them by diplomatic consultations.
Source A
This is a Soviet cartoon from 1938 by Kukryniksy, entitled ‘Munich Betrayal’; it shows Western powers
handing over Czechoslovakia, on a plate, to Hitler. The inscription on the flag reads: ‘To the East!’
Source B
Below is an extract from Europe of the Dictators, 1919–1945 (Fontana Press, 1970, p. 147), a book by
journalist and historian Elizabeth Wiskemann.
The political importance of the Munich Agreement was immense. It was rather as if the
Central Powers had won the First World War twenty years later. For Hitler now controlled
the old Austrian territory, the core of the Pan-Germans’ Mitteleuropa; the Czech interior of
Bohemia and Moravia lay at his mercy and he was ready for his much heralded expansion far
to the East. The French had broken their long standing treaty with the Czechs and lost their
European standing.
140

6.1
Source C
Here is the front page of the British newspaper the Daily Express, 30 September 1938.

2. In what ways can Source A help a historian understand the view of the Munich Agreement in the USSR?
3. What, according Source B, was the impact of the Munich Agreement on international relations?
4. To what extent does Source C support the views held in Sources A and B?
Was the Munich Agreement a failure?

What happened at Munich could be interpreted as an attempt by the European powers
to gain time to prepare for war against Germany. Certainly, Britain and France needed
to increase armament production but this was not a popular policy. Citizens were
unwilling to see their taxes raised to finance rearmament and, above all, to enter a
141

war. The fact that Chamberlain and Daladier were welcomed back from Munich as
heroes seems to support this view. Additionally, in the case of Britain, events in the Far
East, with the rising challenges from Japan, were seen as more threatening to national
interests than Austria or Czechoslovakia.
On the other hand, it might have been better if Britain and France had confronted
Germany in 1938. The German army was not as prepared for a European war as
the British and French had been led to believe. In fact, Hitler faced a certain level
of domestic dissent as some of his advisors and generals had become increasingly
worried at the prospect of war.
As for the Soviets, whether they would have supported a war against Nazi Germany
in 1938 in defence of Czechoslovakia is uncertain. Although they were allies to
Czechoslovakia, it was unlikely that they would have been allowed into Polish and
Romanian territory to defend Czechoslovakia from Germany. Moreover, weakened
by Stalin’s purges, the Soviet Army in 1938 was not considered a reliable support by
Britain and France.
Activity 5 ATL Social and communication skills
1. In groups, discuss the extent to which the Munich Conference constituted a victory for Hitler. Do you
think Hitler would have preferred a military triumph rather than a diplomatic one?
2. Debate the motion: ‘The policy of appeasement alone increased the likelihood of war’. Divide the
class into two groups. One group should find documents and arguments to support this idea. The
other group should think of reasons to demonstrate why such a policy by itself would not have
increased the likelihood of war.
This is a 1938 propaganda card

showing the incorporation
into the Third Reich of the
Czech Sudetenland, the French
Saarland, and the Austrian
Republic. It reads ‘One People,
One Empire, One Führer’.
Chamberlain’s vision of peace did not last long. In March 1939, in a clear violation
of the terms of the Munich Conference, German troops occupied the west of
Czechoslovakia and, soon after, Hitler took the Lithuanian port of Memel.
142

6.1
The Polish crisis and the outbreak of war
Key
Germany (borders established 1919)
Rhineland (reoccupied in March 1936) SWEDEN
Austria (annexed in March 1938)
Sudetenland (occupied in October 1938) DENMARK
Czechoslovakia (occupied in March 1939)
LITHUANIA
Danzig
North
Sea
EAST
GREAT PRUSSIA
or
Polish
BRITAIN
Corrid
NETHERLANDS
G ER MA N Y
BELGIUM P OLA N D
Map showing the extent of
German expansion by March
land 1939.
Rhineland ten
de
Su
FRA NC E
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
N
AUSTRIA
SWITZERLAND
HUNGARY
0 400 km I TALY
YUGOSLAVIA
Scale
After World War I, an independent Poland was created from former German, Russian,
and Austro-Hungarian territories. As you can see in the map above, Poland was given
an outlet to the sea via the Polish Corridor, which divided German East Prussia from
the rest of Germany. At the mouth of the corridor, the port of Danzig (now renamed
Gdańsk) became an international city under the mandate of the League of Nations.
Over 800,000 Germans were living under Polish rule in the interwar period.
Germany resented the creation of Poland and was unwilling to see the settlement that
had carved out the country and divided it into two as permanent. In previous sections
of this case study, you have read about the 10-year German–Polish Non-Aggression
Pact that Hitler signed in 1934. So why did war break out between Germany and
Poland only five years later?
After Munich, Hitler began to demand the restoration of Danzig as well as the
construction of roads and railways through the Polish Corridor to connect East
Prussia and Germany. In exchange, he offered to renew the 1934 Non-Aggression
Pact with Poland. The Polish leaders, having seen the fate of Czechoslovakia, rejected
the German demands. In response, Hitler dissolved the pact and ordered plans for an
invasion of Poland. As a warning to Hitler, Britain and France announced that they
would guarantee Poland’s independence.
143

The following cartoon from 1939 is entitled ‘News Item: Hitler and Mussolini now Wear Glasses’. It shows
Chamberlain asking Hitler and Mussolini the question: ‘Is it clearer now, gentlemen?’

Student answer – Marcia
The cartoon shows that Chamberlain wants Mussolini and Hitler to know that Britain will fight. It also
shows Mussolini and Hitler as allies.
Marcia has identified two relevant messages. However, she could have improved the answer by
supporting each message with reference to the source. For example, what elements in the cartoon do you
think can be used to support the idea that Hitler and Mussolini were allies?
Even though Britain and France had guaranteed the independence of Poland, in reality
it meant that territorial changes affecting Poland’s integrity could still be made. In
other words, negotiations with Hitler had not necessarily been terminated: the
matter surrounding his claims on Danzig, based on the grounds of German nationals
living outside the borders, was still open to discussion. Moreover, after the Munich
Conference, Poland had occupied Teschen (see map on page 138) and was therefore
viewed with a certain amount of suspicion in Europe.
Furious at these diplomatic developments, Hitler ordered military preparations to

invade Poland. But peace was not only being threatened by German aggression. In
April 1939, Mussolini moved into Albania, breaking the 1937 Gentlemen’s Agreement
with Britain (page 108). One month later, he proposed a military alliance with Hitler.
144

6.1
German–Italian relations and the outbreak of
war
By mid-1939 it was evident that Germany had established itself as the dominant force
in Europe. In May 1939, Germany and Italy signed the Pact of Friendship and Alliance,
which Mussolini referred to as the Pact of Steel. Under the terms of the pact, both
countries pledged to support one another in case of attack. They were also supposed
to coordinate their military plans, though this was harder to achieve in reality: German
and Italian commanders would not have wanted to share plans with one another,
while Hitler and Mussolini themselves certainly would not have informed each other
of their foreign policy plans.
Despite being an Axis power, Italy was not ready to fight a war in Europe. The cost
of fighting in Abyssinia and in the Spanish Civil War (known as the ‘Spanish ulcer’
among the Italians) meant the Italian economy was ill-prepared for a full-scale
European war. This became evident when, at the outbreak of World War II, Italy
declared itself non-belligerent.
Here is a joke about the relationship between Hitler and Mussolini, taken from
Underground Humour in Nazi Germany by FKM Hillenbrand:
CHALLENGE
Hitler and Mussolini discuss whether Berlin or Rome should be the world capital
after the war. As there is no agreement between them Mussolini says, ‘None other
YOURSELF
than the Almighty has declared Rome to be the “Eternal City”—therefore Rome Thinking and
ATL
should be the world capital.’ To this Hitler replies, ‘When did I say that?’ communication skills
FKM Hillenbrand, Underground Humour in Nazi Germany, 1933–1945, Routledge, What does this joke reveal
1995, p. 17 about the nature of Hitler and
Mussolini’s relationship? In what
ways can political jokes be useful
to historians?
Source A
This is a cartoon by John Collins entitled ‘Straining the Axis’, published in 1939.
145

Source B
Stephanie Hodgson was a university student when she wrote an article entitled ‘Hitler and Mussolini: A
comparative analysis of the Rome–Berlin Axis 1936–1940’ (2011). Below is an extract from her article.
On paper, one would think that Nazi Germany and Italian fascism should complement each
other; however this theory failed to transpire into reality. After thorough research of this topic
one gets a sense of that the Rome-Berlin Axis was an alliance based on mistrust, animosity
and suspicion of each other’s motives. Each power flirted with the enemy as a means to
maximise their own interests, and this was seen most potently with the German signing of
the Nazi-Soviet Pact and equally with the Italian signing of the Anglo-Italian agreement.
Mussolini and Hitler, although [they] held [the] same leadership principles and
begrudgingly respected each other’s achievements, never gauged a true friendship.
1. What is the message conveyed by Source A?
2. According to Source B, what were the challenges faced by the alliance between Germany and Italy?
3. To what extent can the 1937 Anglo-Italian Agreement (Gentlemen’s Agreement) mentioned in Source
B be interpreted as a ‘flirtation with the enemy’?
The Nazi-Soviet Pact

Hitler concluded negotiations with the Soviet Union by signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact
on 23 August 1939. In Case Study 1 you have read about how this non-aggression
pact came as a surprise to the world (see Chapter 3, page 62), not least given Nazi
Germany’s views on communism and its participation in the Anti-Comintern Pact.
By the terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union pledged to each
other a 10-year non-aggression period during which they agreed not to support any
third power that might attack the other member, not to join in any alliance that could
threaten the other party, and to solve their disputes diplomatically. The pact was
important to Hitler for two reasons: it gave Germany Soviet neutrality in case of a
German–Polish war, and it prevented the Soviet Union from concluding negotiations
with Britain and France that might result in a war on two fronts for Germany.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact ended Soviet diplomatic isolation and postponed a

confrontation with Germany. Had Stalin entered an alliance with France and Britain to
protect Poland, one that made more sense from an ideological point of view, he would
have had to enter a war against Germany. An alliance with Germany therefore offered
the Soviet Union time to prepare better for war.
Source A
Entitled ‘Safety first’, this is a cartoon by Bernard
Partridge. It was published in Punch, 30 August
1939.
146

6.1
Source B
This cartoon appeared in the British newspaper the Daily Mirror, published on 21 September 1939.
Source C
Below is an extract from Poland, 1918–1945: An Interpretive and Documentary History of the Second
Republic, a book by British historian Peter D Stachura.
No Polish leader can be blamed for not envisaging the nightmare scenario where Nazi
Germany and the Communist Soviet Union, ideological opposites who had been conducting
violent propaganda wars against each other since 1933, came together in a formal alliance in
August 1939. In that context, there was no Polish foreign policy, military or political
strategy that could have prevented or repulsed the combined onslaught that ensued.
In face of the German invasion on 1 September and of the Soviet invasion on 17 September,
Poland stood alone. Britain and France declared war on Germany, but confined their action
to diplomatic protests and radio broadcasts to Poland – empty, futile gestures. True to
historical tradition and the national temperament, the Polish armed forces fought heroically
and well against overwhelming odds. The final outcome, however, could never have been in
doubt.
Peter D Stachura, Poland, 1918–1945: An Interpretive and Documentary History of the Second
Republic, Routledge, 2004, p. 117

2. What is the message of Source B?
3. What, according to Source C, was the significance of the Nazi-Soviet Pact for the events of
September 1939?
4. To what extent do you agree with the author of Source C in that ‘the final outcome could have never
have been in doubt’?
147

International response between

6.2 September 1939 and May 1940
On 1 September 1939, Nazi troops entered Poland. Two days later Britain and France
sent ultimatums demanding that Germany withdraw from Poland. When these
expired, the Polish crisis officially became a European war.
By the end of September, Poland was overrun and divided between Germany and
the Soviet Union. One of the reasons for the quick defeat of Poland was the German
blitzkrieg (lightning war), which combined air warfare with the use of tanks (panzers).
The German Luftwaffe destroyed the Polish railways and air force. Although the Polish
resisted bravely, they were unable to repel the German attack.
This photograph shows Warsaw

in the aftermath of the German
blitzkrieg.
The following extract comes from historian Marian Kamil Dziewanowski’s book Poland in the Twentieth
Century. The author had taken part in the defence of Poland during the German invasion.
The fact that in those tragic September days England and France abandoned Poland to face
German aggression alone could have been no surprise to Hitler. He had no fear of Poland’s
Western allies when he launched his attack and withdrew his troops and military equipment
from Germany’s western borders, leaving them almost unguarded […] Germany in
September 1939 had barely twenty poorly prepared combat divisions on its western frontier.
All the better troops, all tanks, and practically the entire air force had been thrown against
Poland. Facing these meager German forces in the west were more than ninety French
divisions, about 2,500 tanks, 10,000 guns, and 3,000 French and British aircraft, which
were soon joined by a dozen British divisions with several thousand tanks and guns. None of
this great force was used to mount an offensive. All the allies of Poland managed to do was to
send a few patrols and reconnaissance flights and drop an occasional pacifistic proclamation.
Marian Kamil Dziewanowski, Poland in the Twentieth Century, Columbia University Press,
1977, p. 108
148

6.2
1. What does this source reveal about the British and the French response to Nazi aggression? To successfully answer
2. With reference to its origin, purpose, and content analyse the value and limitations of this source for Question 2, it is
a historian studying the international response to Nazi aggression against Poland. important that you
use the information in
the source attribution
in your answer. In this
The response of the United States case, what impact does
your knowledge of the
During the interwar period, US diplomacy supported neutrality towards conflicts in author (that he helped to
Europe. The United States was not a member of the League of Nations and, as tensions defend Poland during the
mounted in both Europe and Asia throughout the 1930s, it increased the efforts to German invasion) have on
your interpretation of his
maintain neutrality. You have already analysed the significance of the US Neutrality account?
Acts in Case Study 1 (see Chapter 3, page 68).
When war broke out in Europe, the United States declared neutrality. However, in
November 1939 President Franklin Roosevelt lifted the embargo and modified the
terms of the Neutrality Act to allow belligerent nations to buy materials from the
United States and transport them in their own ships.
War in Europe, September 1939 to May 1940

Following the surrender and partition of Poland, as stated in the Nazi-Soviet Pact,
Stalin took over the Baltic States and invaded Finland. However, little happened in
the West between the start of the war and April 1940. These months were known
as the Phoney War, which ended only when Germany took over Denmark and
Norway in an attempt to secure access to Swedish iron ore through Norway. These
victories also guaranteed Hitler a sea corridor from Denmark to southern Norway. The
overrunning of Denmark and Norway contributed to major changes in British politics.
Chamberlain resigned as prime minister and was replaced by Winston Churchill. If
before May 1940 Hitler had hopes of negotiating with Britain, Churchill’s appointment
put a definitive end to them.
At the same time, Germany launched blitzkrieg attacks on Holland and Belgium;
it had also unexpectedly entered France through the Ardennes (a mountain range
covered by vast forests and uneven land), bypassing the French defence fortifications.
It was not long before Holland and Belgium surrendered. The British and French
troops, who had been mobilized into these countries for defence, became trapped by
the Germans along the English Channel in Dunkirk. The operation to evacuate them
was codenamed Operation Dynamo.
‘The Withdrawal from CHALLENGE

Dunkirk’ (1940) by
British painter Charles
YOURSELF
Cundall. Research and social
ATL
skills
In groups, use a map to locate
Dunkirk and explain the
significance of the evacuation.
Was Operation Dynamo a
military defeat or a moral
victory for the Allies?
149

Activity 10 ATL Communication and thinking skills
Source A
This cartoon was published in Punch Magazine in 1940.
ATL
Thinking and
research skills
This speech by Churchill
inspired many British
citizens to make sacrifices
to defend their nation at
a time of war. Can you
think of other historical
examples in which a
leader motivated the
Source B
people to support their
country in difficult times? Below is an extract from a BBC radio broadcast by Winston Churchill, 19 May 1940
What are the similarities Our task is not only to win the battle – but to win the war. After this battle in France abates
and differences in the its force, there will come the battle for our Island – for all that Britain is, and all the Britain
ways leaders motivate
means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take
their nations across
different cultures? every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch
of effort of which they are capable. The interests of property, the hours of labor, are nothing
compared to the struggle for life and honor, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed
ATL Thinking and ourselves […]
communication
skills [...] I have formed an Administration of men and women of every Party and of almost every
In ToK, we are required point of view. We have differed and quarreled in the past, but now one bond unites us all:
to reflect on the role of to wage war until victory is won, and never to surrender ourselves to servitude and shame,
faith – or trust – as a way whatever the cost and the agony may be. […] Behind the Armies and Fleets of Britain
of knowing. In what ways and France, gather a group of shattered States and bludgeoned races: the Czechs, the Poles,
did Churchill appeal the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians – upon all of whom the long night of
to the trust of British barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we
citizens in his speech?
must, as conquer we shall.
How significant do you
think it was for Churchill 1. What is the message conveyed by Source A?
to obtain their trust? In
2. What does Source B reveal about the British response to international aggression?
what ways was trusting
Churchill important for 3. With reference to its origins, purpose, and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source B for a
the British people at the historian studying the changes in the British response to international aggression between 1938 and
time? 1940.
150

6.2
The Fall of France
Despite attempts to halt the German advance, the French surrendered on 22 June
1940. The Germans had taken direct control of the northern part of the country,
which gave them access to submarine bases on the coastline along the Atlantic. A
puppet government (headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain) was set up under German
supervision to run what was now called the French State (also known as the Vichy
Republic). During this period, General Charles De Gaulle, from his exile in London,
led the ‘Free French’ movement and encouraged French citizens to resist the German
occupation.
Activity 11 ATL Thinking, communication, and research skills
Here is a photograph of Hitler in Paris, taken on 23 June 1940.
1. What is the significance of this source?

2. In groups, find out the reasons why France was defeated in June 1940. Consider the domestic
political tensions as well as the military factors.
3. Find information on the response of the United States and Britain to the news of the Fall of France.
Italy’s entry into the war

Although Hitler and Mussolini shared a determination for war, their countries’
capacity to fight it was clearly different, as Italian unwillingness to declare war in 1939
demonstrated. However, on 10 June 1940, when France was about to fall, Mussolini
declared war on the Allies. He was certain that the war would be over soon. Professor
Julian Jackson suggests that Mussolini did not enter the war to honour his alliances
with Hitler but as part of his plan to keep pace with him and avoid being Hitler’s
‘junior partner’ (Europe 1900–1945, OUP, 2002). In September 1940, Mussolini attacked
Egypt from the Italian colony of Libya. The following month, he attacked Greece.
151

Source A
Martin Kitchen is a British–Canadian historian specializing in European history. The following extract
is taken from his book A World in Flames: A Short History of the Second World War in Europe and Asia,
1939–1945 (Wiley-Blackwell, 1990, p. 51).
Germany’s relatively cautious policy in the Balkans was placed in serious jeopardy when Italy
attacked Greece on 28 October 1940. German military experts estimated that the Italians
would find it exceedingly difficult to defeat the Greeks. This raised the unwelcome possibility
of British intervention in the Balkans, something which Hitler was determined to avoid. The
German military estimated that the British would send at least three divisions to Greece.
Indeed, Britain had given Greece a guarantee of support in April 1940 and Minister
President Metaxas immediately requested assistance… Churchill insisted that the fall of
Greece would have a ‘deadly effect’ on Turkey. Churchill persuaded the Chiefs of Staff that aid
for Greece was essential, and Wavell was ordered to give ‘the greatest possible material and
moral support’ to Greece ‘at the earliest possible moment’.
Source B
This is a cartoon entitled ‘Haunted’. It was published in the British magazine Punch in December 1940.
1. What is the message conveyed by Source B?

2. According to Source A, what was the international response to Italy’s invasion of Greece?
However, Mussolini was unsuccessful in both Egypt and Greece: Britain rapidly drove
him out of Egypt and into Libya, sunk part of the Italian fleet, and occupied Crete.
Greece drove the Italians out and marched into Albania. The campaigns demonstrated
that Italy was ill-prepared to fight a war of such scale. Hitler implored Mussolini
to accept support from German forces. But it was not just Italian prestige that was
damaged in the Balkans. Germany’s involvement also delayed other military plans,
such as Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union), with catastrophic
effects.
152

6.2
The Battle of Britain CHALLENGE
With Britain being the only power standing against Germany in Europe, the German YOURSELF
Luftwaffe launched a preliminary bombing campaign to destroy the British Royal Air Thinking skills ATL
Force (RAF) between July and September 1940. The aim was to gain air superiority The failure of Nazi Germany to
by destroying the RAF along with its airfields and radar bases so that Germany invade Britain in the summer of
could control the English Channel. This would either allow an invasion of Britain or 1940 was a pivotal moment in
force it to surrender. However, Hitler could neither invade Britain nor force a peace the war, as this was the first time
negotiation. Later, the German bombings targeted major British cities to destroy the since 1933 that Hitler had been
checked. What do you think the
country’s industrial capacity and infrastructure as well as people’s morale, but they
significance of this was on the
also failed to achieve these aims. international community?
Although the Battle of Britain failed, by the end of 1940, Hitler dominated vast areas of Europe. Look at
this map of Europe and answer the following questions.
0 800 km FINLAND
Scale
N NORWAY
SWEDEN
2 3
North
Sea
GREAT
BRITAIN 1 USSR
7 5
POLAND
BELGIUM
GERMANY
4
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
HUNGARY
FRANCE
ROMANIA
ITALY
YUGOSLAVIA
PORTUGAL 6 BULGARIA
SPAIN
TURKEY
Mediter GREECE
ran
ea
n
S
e
a
MOROCCO ALGERIA TUNISIA 8
KEY
1. Poland had been divided between Hitler and Stalin by end of September 1939.
2. Over 200 Allied ships had been sunk (mostly by German U-boats and mines) between September and
December 1939.
3. Phoney War (October 1939 to March 1940); Germany invaded Denmark and Norway on 11 April 1940.
4. Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France were conquered by Germany between 11 May and 22
June 1940.
5. Allied troops were rescued from Dunkirk between the end of May and start of June 1940.
6. Italy declared war on Britain and France on 10 June 1940.
7. Battle of Britain took place over the summer of 1940. Germany called off invasion.
8. Italy occupied British Somaliland by August 1940 and invaded Egypt by September 1940.
1. Which territories had Germany and Italy gained before the outbreak of war in September 1939?
2. Which territories did they invade between 1939–40? What was the international response to each
campaign?
3. To what extent did the failure of the Italian campaigns up to 1940 interfere with the Germany’s successes?
4. Go back to Source B in Activity 7 (page 146). To what extent do you agree with the views its author,
Stephanie Hodgson, expressed about German–Italian relations? Support your views with reference to
specific examples drawn from this section.
153

Historiography – different interpretations

6.3 of the outbreak of war
Many reasons have been suggested to explain the outbreak of World War II in Europe.
They include the following:
● Nazism, with its aggressive foreign policy, was solely responsible for the outbreak of
a large-scale war – one that had been planned by Hitler from the start.
● Hitler did not plan a global war. The expansion of Germany was more a result of
Hitler opportunistically taking advantage of circumstances as they made themselves
available than a calculated plan.
● It was not only for territorial ambitions that Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign
policy. He had a relatively unstable power base in Germany, which forced him to look
for successes in foreign policy to strengthen his rule and maintain public support.
● Appeasement was to blame for the outbreak of war because the negotiations with
Hitler encouraged him to continue to take risks.
Below are the views of a number of historians regarding the main factors of war during
this period:
● Hugh Trevor-Roper was a British specialist on Nazi Germany who argued that
Hitler had a master plan of expansion that could be traced back to Mein Kampf. More
recently, the view that World War II was caused by Hitler’s determination to achieve
Lebensraum and defeat Bolshevism was echoed by Canadian military historians BJC
McKercher and Roch Legault.
● AJP Taylor was a British historian who argued that Hitler’s foreign policy was not
based on a calculated plan, but rather that Hitler was an opportunist. He also claimed
that the Nazi foreign policy was not too different from German foreign policy before
World War I.
● Richard Overy, a British historian, also sees Hitler as opportunistic. He claims that,
although Hitler wanted war, World War II broke out because by 1939 Britain and
France were determined to stop him after the invasion of Poland.
● Martin Broszat was a German historian who specialized in modern German history.
He placed more importance on the structure of the Nazi state than on Hitler. He
argued internal tensions and competitions within the Nazi state made Hitler more
radical in his policies as he looked for opportunities to increase his support.
● Winston Churchill, who served as British prime minister during World War II, wrote
a detailed account of British foreign policy in the 1930s in The Gathering Storm. Churchill
was highly critical of the policy of appeasement, both at the time as well as in his later
writings. He claimed that not standing against German aggression before 1939 had
made war more likely. In his own words: ‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile
hoping it will eat him last’ (from an address to the House of Commons, January 1940).
CHALLENGE ● Keith Eubank was an American history professor who believed the seeds of
YOURSELF World War II were planted in the peace treaties of 1919, which created grievances
among the Germans. Although Hitler took advantage of appeasement to revoke
Thinking and
ATL
research skills some of the terms of the treaty, Eubank did not place the main responsibility for
the outbreak of war on appeasement. He claimed that, although it was a rational
Read both lists above. See if you approach to the diplomatic problems of the interwar years, the fact that Hitler
can match up the historians’ wanted a war meant that the policy of appeasement would not have succeeded.
interpretations (list two) with the
reasons given for the outbreak of
● Adam Tooze, a British specialist in economic history, puts emphasis on the German
war (list one). economic limitations that led Hitler to believe that the sooner there was a war, the
better. Tooze argues that with Britain and France getting closer, Hitler wanted war
154

6.3
to break out quickly, even if the German economy and armed forces were not fully
prepared in 1939.
This chapter focused on events in Europe between 1938 and 1940. It first analysed
the role of German Nazism and Italian Fascism in the outbreak of World War II in
Europe, by focusing on the events in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and how
these contributed to the outbreak of war in September 1939. These events were not
only the result of increasing aggression on the part of the Axis powers but also of the
international response to them, such as the policy of appeasement and the changes in
the diplomatic alignments in Europe that led to the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939.
It also focused on the war in Europe in 1939 and 1940 by evaluating Nazi strategies
during that period, including the Fall of France and the Battle of Britain. It assessed the
contribution of Hitler’s initial victories to Mussolini’s decision to enter the war and
evaluated Italy’s involvement in the course of the war.
Finally, it provided assessments of different historical interpretations both of the

causes of the outbreak of war in 1939 and the question of the extent to which Hitler
had planned such a conflict before its outbreak.
This chapter concludes the case study on the causes of expansion, the key events, and
the international response to Italian and German aggression between 1933 and 1940.
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the contributions of Hitler’s foreign
policy to the move to global war between 1938 and 1939.
This question is typical of the fourth question you will get in the Paper 1 exam. You can check
back to the end of the previous chapters to see the suggestions for how best to approach
this kind of mini essay. Don’t forget: although it may be tempting to answer this question first
(because it carries the most marks), you are better off working through each question in order
as this will help you think about what may or may not be relevant for the fourth question. As
long as it isn’t during the five-minute reading time, you could also highlight possible quotations
as you come across them in the various sources.
Don’t forget that the question asks you to include references to the material in the sources as
well as your own knowledge. To write a good answer, you need to include references to all the
sources (there are always four sources included in the exam), and use your own knowledge
as well as the sources to support your argument. You can use your own knowledge to either
support the message of a particular source, to argue against it, or even to start a new argument.
For this particular question, consider the following points:
● Hitler’s aims in foreign policy
● his military actions between 1938 and 1939
● Nazi diplomacy between 1938 and 1939
● other contributing factors, such as specific alliances and treaties, the role of appeasement,
To access websites relevant
economic pressures, or events surrounding the invasion of Poland. to this chapter, go to
What other factors could you add to this list? For each argument, find some supporting www.pearsonhotlinks.
evidence from the sources and/or your own knowledge. Finally, write a brief introduction that com, search for the book
shows that you have understood the demands of the question and a focused conclusion to title or ISBN, and click on
summarize your answer. ‘Chapter 6’.
155

Theory of Knowledge
Introduction also help you to complete the reflection section of
the Internal Assessment component of the History
The Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course is part of
course.
the core of the IB Diploma Programme and, along
with the subject-specific courses, counts towards the You may also find that an understanding of history is
Diploma. History is both one of the subject-specific useful in your ToK course. It will help you to analyse
courses in the IB Diploma and an area of knowledge the real-life issue in your ToK presentation and
in ToK. This chapter aims to discuss the key concepts will provide a strong area of knowledge, with great
of ToK, showing the interaction between the History examples, to refer to in your ToK essay.
course and its function as an area of knowledge
within ToK.
There is a substantial overlap between history and Ways of knowing

ToK as both emphasize the importance of critical Both ToK and history ask the question, ‘How do we
thinking. Both ask the question, ‘How do we know?’ know?’ ToK answers this question by identifying
Both want you to understand that your cultural eight possible ways of knowing. Your knowledge
identity is rooted in the past. must come from somewhere, and by analysing where
it comes from, you are able to assess its reliability.
ToK uses knowledge frameworks as a concept to
differentiate between areas of knowledge. This table ToK identifies the eight ways of knowing as:
helps you see how a knowledge framework could
apply to IB History. ● Language
● Perception
Scope/ ● It is the study of the recorded past. ● Reason
applications ● It helps us to understand that our ● Emotion
cultural identities are rooted in the
past. ● Memory
Concepts/ ● It discusses change and continuity.
● Intuition
language ● It explores causation and ● Imagination
consequences. ● Faith
● It recognizes the power of language in
influencing thoughts and actions. You can use these concepts in ToK to assist in:
Methodology ● It has a clear, strong, and demanding
methodology.
● checking the reliability of first-hand testimony
● It has recognized ways of collecting ● analysing the way emotions influence the witness
evidence, questioning sources, and and the interviewer
constructing theories. ● determining the possible bias in the language used
● It tests significance.
assessing the fallibility of memory
Theory of Knowledge
●
● It asks, ‘How do we know?’
● analysing the desire to see a rational explanation for
Historical ● It recognizes that current values affect
events.
development our views of the past.
● It changes over time in subject matter
You can also use them in history to assist in
and interpretations.
establishing the origin, purpose, and content of
Links to personal ● It acknowledges the influence of sources, in order to assess their value and limitations.
knowledge individual historians on shared
knowledge. Language is one of the key ways of knowing, so here
● It allows for a range of perspectives.
is a case study exploring the use of language in the
● It recognizes the importance of a
accumulation and communication of knowledge in
shared history on a person’s identity.
history.
You will find that an understanding of ToK will help
you to evaluate sources in your History course. It will
156
156
M07_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_TOK.indd 156 08/02/2016 11:17

Case study: It’s all in the name
Below are two maps. The first is of Europe in 1919 and the Source C
second is of Europe in 1940.
The following quotation is taken from The New Doublespeak: Why
Source A No One Knows What Anyone is Saying Anymore (1996) by William
ICELAND This is a mapNorth
of Europe
Sea in 1919. Lutz, an American linguist.
Naming things – using language – is a very high level
NORWAY abstraction, and when we name something we ‘freeze’ it
0 400 km FINLAND
Scale
SWEDEN by placing it in a category and making a ‘thing’ out of it.
N ESTONIA
North Some of the political changes reflected in the maps you have
SCOTLAND Sea
DENMARK Baltic LATVIA used in this book demanded that the new countries changed
Sea LITHUANIA
EAST PRUSSIA their official language. Official languages have a special legal
ENGLAND GERMANY
status. They are used in government communications, in courts,
IRELAND USSR
NETHERLANDS
WALES at school. However, official languages are not necessarily the
GERMANY POLAND
BELGIUM language people speak in their everyday life. Foreign words,
CZEC
LUX. HOS
LOVA dialects, all contribute to the ways in which we transform and use
KIA
language to communicate.
AUSTRIA HUNGARY
ATLANTIC FRANCE SWITZ.
OCEAN ROMANIA
Source D
N YUGOSLAVIA
ITALY Black
BULGARIA
Corsica Sea This is an extract from an article by psychologist Gianluca Schiavo
ALBANIA
0 50
entitled ‘Language and National Identity: The “Revolution” of
km SPAIN Sardinia GREECE
TURKEY Italian Neorealism’ in the journal Fu Jen Studies: Literature &
Mediterranean Sea
Linguistics, 45, 2012.
TUNISIA MALTA
During the Fascist period the nationalism of the regime
SYRIA
considered dialects and particularly foreign languages as

Source B real obstacles to the process of nation building, which,
according to Mussolini and many other party officials,
This is a map of Europe in 1940. required a strict linguistic uniformity. A very drastic
campaign was carried out against the ethnic minorities,
which suffered a brutal process of Italianisation, and the
0 400 km NORWAY
usage of foreign words in the Italian language (including
Scale SWEDEN its literature) was also strongly discouraged.
N
DENMARK
North
Sea
USSR
GREAT
BRITAIN NETHERLANDS
GERMAN-CONTROLLED
BELGIUM TERRITORY
North France:
Direct Occupation
HUNGARY
AT L A N T I C
OC E A N
Vichy France:
ITALY YUGOSLAVIA
German
Puppet State
SPAIN
157

Activity 1 ATL Thinking, research, and self-management, skills
1. Study the maps of Europe in 1919 and 1940 (Sources A and 3. With reference to Source C, to what extent, in your opinion,
B). Consider the impact of the territorial changes on European do the names given to countries help or hinder the national
citizens between 1919 and 1940. Think, for example, of the identity of the groups that live in them? For example, do you
people living in Eastern Europe who, throughout this period, think the Germans in the Polish Corridor or the Austrians in
became subjects of different states. Identify two specific South Tyrol felt Polish or Italian as a result of the postwar
territories that experienced such political changes. What territorial changes?
different names were given to them? 4. Why do some groups reject the national identity of the larger
2. Now, find a contemporary map of Africa and study it. Can community they live in? Can you think of other contemporary
you find Abyssinia on it? What is the name given to this examples?
territory nowadays? What are the implications of the word 5. Find out the differences between an ‘official language’ and
Abyssinia being used only on historical rather than political a ‘national language’. Why aren’t they necessarily the same?
maps? What does this suggest about the value and limitations What does this reveal about language as an instrument of
of maps as physical representations of reality? power?
Areas of knowledge different ways. We recognize that a work of art is

not the same as a chemical formula or a historical
History is one of the eight areas of knowledge
interpretation. We test them using subject-specific
identified by the ToK course. A full list of the areas of
criteria, recognizing that a historical fact cannot be
knowledge is:
verified in the same way as a natural science fact.
● Mathematics History uses a rigorous methodology to test its facts,
● Natural sciences but it is not the same method as used in the natural
● Human sciences sciences.
● History
● The arts History and the arts
● Ethics There is an interesting interplay between history and
● Religious knowledge systems the arts. In one sense, the arts reflect the historical
● Indigenous knowledge systems forces at play in society, but in another sense, the
arts influence history. Here are a couple of examples
You can use these areas of knowledge to understand exploring the complex relationship between them.
why we approach different types of knowledge in
Case study: Remembering a war through film

World War II has been a popular source of material for There was little tolerance in some quarters [in the United
commercial films; in turn, these have also influenced the way that States] for anything portraying the Imperial military as
the War is remembered and written about. One example is Pearl
Harbor, a film that was released in 2001. On the whole, the film
anything but barbaric, and any interest in seeing the
was not well received by film critics and there was also criticism conflict from the Japanese side was eclipsed by feelings of
that it was not entirely accurate. discomfort. On a psychological level, seeing Asians
Theory of Knowledge
Source A cheering ‘Banzai’ as they defeat Americans didn’t feel

right, especially if one had a loved one fighting in
This quotation is taken from a film review by military historian Vietnam. Timing is everything but it’s possible that
Lawrence Suid.
there would never have been an optimal time for Tora!
[for] most historians the liberties the filmmakers took Tora! Tora! in America. On the other hand, it’s
with the facts render Pearl Harbor useless as a tool to obvious why the movie was a breakout success in Japan.
teach students about the Japanese attack. It even ends with a respectful shot of the Imperial Naval
commander Yamamoto.
Source B
Both Sources C and D are taken from an article by Marie Thorsten
The following is taken from a review of “Tora! Tora! and Geoffrey M White entitled ‘Binational Pearl Harbor? Tora!
Tora!” that appeared in the Turner Classic Movies Tora! Tora! and the Fate of (Trans)national Memory’ from the Asia-
(TCM) website. Pacific Journal, 8/52, No. 2, 27 December 2010.
158
158

Source C Source D
Perhaps the most scathing [critical] denunciation of Reviews and commentaries of these films inevitably
Tora! Tora! Tora! was delivered by critic Satake became opportunities for characterizing the other’s
Shigeru in Eiga Geijutsu in 1970. Cynically subjectivity (and, by implication, historical sensibility).
denouncing Tora! Tora! Tora! as an ‘enlargement of Americans especially wondered, ‘Just how does Japan
truth’ (shinjitsu no bōdai),… he assailed the film’s remember the war?’ But this attitude consistently
implications of conflicted innocence on the part of the overlooked internal Japanese protest against that
emperor and Admiral Yamamoto. In the film, diplomats country’s America-led (re)militarization, and the painful
speculate on the emperor’s anti-war stance by his irony of America’s own collusion with Japanese war
reading of the poem (actually written by his grandfather, amnesia in the project to build an anti-Communist
Emperor Meiji, and delivered on September 6, 1941): stronghold in Asia. The most uninformed critics often
‘Methinks all the people of the world are brethren. Then assumed that Tora! Tora! Tora! presaged
why are the waves and the winds so unsettled today?’ By [anticipated] Japan’s resurgent national pride. One US
denying the emperor’s culpability, and by agreeing to a politician stated that the Japanese would probably cut
security alliance that merely remoulded the emperor as a Tora! in half and rename it ‘The good old days.’
living being rather than a deity, the mentality of Tora!
Tora! Tora!, Satake felt, acquitted the imperialism of Source E
both America and Japan.… [Satake] claimed that The following extract is taken from an article in the Financial
Tora! Tora! Tora! missed the basic point of why Japan Times, 15 February 2015, by the British historian Simon Schama.
lost the war: it wasn’t a matter of might, but rather that The article is entitled ‘What historians think of historical novels’.
the war was basically inhuman: ‘Tora! Tora! Tora! Invention may compromise authority but then we don’t
rehashes [repeats] the “enormously false myths” over and go to great historical fiction or feature films for hard
over again; ergo [therefore], Japan-US relations are documentary truth. What they deliver, instead, is an
peaceful.’ imaginative impression but when that impression
emerges from rich research it is often capable of
delivering a much more vivid sense of the past than an
arrangement of unimpeachable data.
Activity 2 ATL Thinking, research, self-management, communication, and social skills
1. How far, do you think, do we watch films about historical 5. Are we more likely, do you think, to uncritically assume the
events (like Pearl Harbor and “Tora! Tora! Tora!”) for accuracy of a recently made war film as opposed to one that
information and knowledge? was made shortly after World War II? Give reasons for your
2. What do these reviews tell us about how war films may be answer.
used for political ends? 6. According to Alexander Pope, an 18th-century English poet, ‘a
3. Carry out a survey among your classmates asking them little learning is a dangerous thing’. Bearing this in mind, how
to name one war film they have seen and how far it has far would you agree with the view in Source E?
influenced their knowledge of that event. 7. What, do you think, are a) the benefits and b) the risks of
4. How far, do you think, do commercial films influence how making history entertaining?
history is taught in the classroom?
Historical development You can use this concept to explore how our
Historical development is one of the criteria on the approach to history changes, i.e. what subjects
knowledge framework that ToK uses to differentiate we study in history, how our views change as
between the areas of knowledge. Historical more information comes into the public domain,
development is part of all the areas of knowledge, and how our current values influence our view
recognizing that our knowledge and the way we of the past. Historians use reason to construct a
approach that knowledge changes through time. For logical interpretation of the past based upon the
instance, the way we approach natural sciences and available information. Sometimes there is so much
what we know about them today is quite different information that it is difficult to find a single thread
from a hundred years ago. of cause and effect in it. Sometimes there is too little
159

information. Occasionally new information becomes have an emotional and cultural context, so it is not
known, as official documents are released or research surprising that the interpretations change over time,
is completed. as society’s values change.
Historians are human beings with roots in their own Here are two case studies exploring how history and
time, place, and background. Their interpretations our view of history can change.
Case study: Dr Seuss and the war

In pairs, study the cartoon below and discuss its meaning. When you have finished discussing it, consider the following
information:
● The cartoon was published in the American newspaper PM
on 11 November 1941. It was created by a political cartoonist
called Theodor Seuss Geisel (1904–91), who was perhaps better
known as Dr Seuss, the children’s book author.
● Before the United States entered World War II, Geisel’s political
cartoons focused on showing why the country should abandon

isolationism. When his country entered the war, Geisel
produced a set of cartoons to encourage American citizens to
buy bonds to finance the war effort.
● During the war he supported the internment of the Japanese
living in the United States in camps. He visited Japan after the

war and, horrified at the effects of the atomic bombs, changed
his anti-Japanese views.
The only way we can know about the past is by studying and
interpreting sources. However, interpretations of events change
with time. In the case of Geisel, he changed his views on Japan
after he visited the country at the end of the war. Why do you
think this might have happened? What does it say about the
nature of historical knowledge?
1. Has your interpretation of the cartoon been affected by the 2. Which of the facts above have you found most useful in
information on the background of Geisel and his time? If so, assisting your interpretation of the cartoon? Which ones have
in what ways? If not, explain why. you found the least helpful? Discuss the answers with your
group.
Case study: Interpretations of war

Now, consider the following interpretations of the outbreak of World War II:
Theory of Knowledge
● Intentionalist historians (such as Allan Bullock and Hugh Trevor ● Structuralist historians (such as Martin Brozat) claim that Hitler
Roper) claim that Hitler’s foreign policy was planned and was an opportunist with no long-term plans. They stress the
intended for war from the onset. importance of internal pressures and external factors in shaping
Hitler’s foreign policy. In their view, opportunism would be a
better description of Nazi aggression.
160
160

1. In groups, consider the following facts. Write I or S next 2. Compare your answers with the rest of the class. Have you
to each one, depending on whether you consider it to had disagreements in your classification? What do they reveal
be supporting evidence for the intentionalist (I) or the about the way historians interpret evidence?
structuralist (S) interpretations. 3. Discuss the following questions:
a. Mein Kampf a. What constitutes a good interpretation?
b. The murder of Dollfuss b. How do we determine whether one historical
c. The reoccupation of the Rhineland interpretation is more valuable than another?
d. The Hossbach Memorandum c. Can this change through time?
e. The Anschluss 4. How significant is it to know about the time and place in
f. The Munich Conference which historical knowledge is produced?
Personal and shared knowledge the key concepts of ToK is that individuals should be
encouraged to think critically for themselves.
ToK is interested in the links between shared
knowledge and personal knowledge as it relates You can use the ToK concept of memory as a way
to history. You can use this concept to explore into this topic. On a personal level, memory is
the role of key historians in shaping our shared important in creating our personalities; on a cultural
knowledge, but you can also use it to investigate level, collective memory is important in uniting, but
how our shared knowledge helps shape our own also in dividing, people. Here is a case study exploring
identities. One of the key concepts of IB History is memory in history.
that multiple interpretations are possible, and one of
Case study: Shaping our collective memory of World War II

Source A
President Bill Clinton (C) at Felix De Weldon’s Iwo Jima memorial
during the ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
WWII US Marine landing at Iwo Jima. Feb 19th 1995.
Source C
Museums are an important source of historical knowledge and, at
Kure in Japan, one of the main attractions in its maritime museum
is a model of the battleship, Yamato, the largest ever built. It was
sunk in 1945 while attempting to defend Okinawa.
Source B Below is a description of the ship from the Yamato Museum
website.
A group of imperial envoys leave the controversial Yasukuni shrine
The one-tenth scale model of the battleship Yamato
in Tokyo as Japanese Emperor Akihito presents an offering at
the shrine’s autumn festival on 18 October 2014. Two Japanese (length: 26.3m) is duplicated as accurately as possible,
ministers visited this controversial Tokyo war shrine, becoming the based on original drawings, photos, and underwater
first cabinet-level ministers to join a pilgrimage by 100 lawmakers images done by submersible surveys. As the centerpiece
to the spot condemned by China and Korea as a symbol of of the Yamato Museum, this one-tenth scale model of
Japan’s wartime aggression.
the battleship Yamato conveys the importance of peace
and the potential of industrial technology to future
generations.
161

Source D
On 2 September 1945, Japan signed the formal declaration of
surrender aboard the USS Missouri. The battleship is now part of
a series of memorial sites to Pearl Harbor that can be visited in
Hawaii.
Activity 5 ATL Thinking, research, and communication skills
1. Study Sources A and B. How do these two photographs 3. Do some research to find out the significance of the
reflect present-day perceptions of World War II? battleship Yamato and why it is considered so important for
2. Which photo, do you think, is more controversial? Give how World War II is remembered in Japan.
reasons for your answer. 4. How do places like museums and memorials (Sources C and
D) help to shape a collective memory of World War II?
Conclusion section of your historical investigation. You can use

the methodology of history to address the real-life
There is a considerable overlap between history
issues that you discuss in ToK. By collecting evidence,
and ToK. The concepts of change, continuity,
weighing the value and limitations of sources, and
significance, causation, consequence, and
building a logical, consistent interpretation of the
perspectives are included in the IB History syllabus
facts you will be able to construct sound, well-
and they fit well into the knowledge framework in
supported arguments. History is one of the key areas
ToK.
of knowledge in ToK.
You can use skills you develop in history to add
For further information about the ToK course,
depth and meaning to your ToK presentations and
consult Pearson Baccalaureate: Theory of Knowledge, 2nd
essays. You can use skills developed in ToK to help
edition.
you evaluate sources and to write the reflection
Theory of Knowledge
162
162

FURTHER READING
Case Study 1
Best, Antony, Britain, Japan and Pearl Harbor: Avoiding War in East Asia, 1936–41, Oxford:
Routledge, 2001
Buruma, Ian, Inventing Japan 1853–1964, New York: Modern Library, 2004
Chang, Iris, The Rape of Nanking, UK: Penguin, 1997
Cheng, Per-kai, Lestz, Michael, Spence, Jonathan (eds), The Search for Modern China: A
Documentary Collection, New York: WW Norton, 1999
Chickering, Roger and Forster, Stig (eds), The Shadows of Total War, New York:
Cambridge UP, 2007
Costello, John, The Pacific War, Brattleboro: Rawson Wade, 1981
Crozier, Andrew J, The Causes of the Second World War, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997
Dallek, Robert, Franklin Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932–45, New York: Oxford
UP, 1981
Duus, Peter, (ed.), The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 6: The Twentieth Century, UK:
Cambridge UP, 1995
Fenby, Jonathan, The Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, UK:
Penguin, 2009
Ferguson, Niall, The War of the World, UK: Allen Lane, 2006
Hane, Mikiso, Japan, A Short History, UK: Oneworld Publications, 2015
Hsu, Immanuel CY, The Rise of Modern China, Hong Kong: Oxford UP, 1995
Hunter, Janet E, Concise Dictionary of Modern Japanese History, Los Angeles: U of California
Press, Los Angeles, 1984
Hotta, Eri, Japan 1941, USA: Vintage Books, 2014
Iriye, Akire, The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific, UK: Longman, 1995
Jones, Maldwyn A, The Limits of Liberty, American History 1607–1992, New York: Oxford
UP, 1995
Lawrance, Alan, China since 1919: Reform and Revolution, UK: Routledge, 2004
Livingston, J, Moore, J, Oldfather, F (eds), Imperial Japan 1800–1945, New York:
Pantheon, 1973
Lynch, Michael, China from Empire to People’s Republic 1900–1949, UK: Hodder &
Stoughton, 2003
Macmillan, Margaret, Paris 1919, New York: Random House, 2003
Mowat, Charles L, Britain between the Wars 1918–1940, London: Methuen & Co., 1976
Mitter, Rana, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945, UK: Penguin, 2014
Pantsov, Alexander V and Levine, Steven, Deng Xiaoping, A Revolutionary Life, New York:
Oxford UP, 2015
Stone, Oliver and Kuznick, Peter, The Untold History of the United States, UK: Random
House, 2013
Taylor, AJP, The Origins of the Second World War, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1962
Tooze, Adam, The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of Global Order, UK: Penguin,
2014
Yu, Maochun, The Dragon’s War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937–1947,
Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2013
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/1900_jp.htm#ww2 (Asia for Educators)

http://japanfocus.org/-Christopher-Gerteis/4159/article.html (Political protest in inter-
war Japan)
163
Z01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_FR.indd 163 08/02/2016 11:43

FURTHER READING
Case Study 2
Adamthwaite, AP, The Making of the Second World War, London: Routledge, 1989
Boyce, Robert, (ed.), French Foreign and Defence Policy, 1918–1940: The Decline and Fall of a
Great Power, London: Routledge, 1998
Bullock, Alan, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, New York: Harper & Row, 1962
Calvocoressi, Peter et al., Total War: The Causes and Course of the Second World War, Vol. 1,
London: Penguin, 1989
Churchill, Winston, The Gathering Storm, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948
Cowan, Laing Gray, France and the Saar, 1680–1948, New York: Columbia UP, 1950
Duggan, Christopher, Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini’s Italy, 2012
Dziewanowski, MK, Poland in the Twentieth Century, New York: Columbia UP, 1977
Ebenstein, William, Fascist Italy, New York: American Book, 1939
Eubank, Keith (ed.), The Origins of World War II, 3rd ed., Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson,
2004
Fischer, Conan, Europe between Democracy and Dictatorship, 1900–1945, Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011
Herb, Guntram Henrik, Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda, 1918–
1945, London: Routledge, 1997
Hibbert, Christopher, Il Duce: The Life of Benito Mussolini, Boston: Little, Brown, 1962
Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939
Jackson, Julian, Europe 1900–1945, New York: Oxford UP, 2002
Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936–1945, Nemesis, New York: WW Norton, 2000
Kitchen, Martin, A History of Modern Germany, 1800 to the Present, 2nd ed., Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2012
Lee, Stephen, Aspects of European History 1789–1980, London: Routledge, 1992
Lukes, Igor, Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler: The Diplomacy of Edvard Beneš in the
1930s, New York: Oxford UP, 1996
Mavrikis, Peter (ed.), History of World War II, Vol. 1, New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2005
McElwee, William, Britain’s Locust Years: 1918–1940, London: Faber & Faber, 1962
Morgan, JH, and MacDonogh, GMW, Assize of Arms: The Disarmament of Germany and Her
Rearmament (1919–1939), New York: Oxford UP, 1946
Offner, Arnold A, American Appeasement: United States Foreign Policy and Germany, 1933–
1938, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1969
Passant, EJA, Short History of Germany, 1815–1945, Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP,
1959
Perlmutter, Amos, Making the World Safe for Democracy: A Century of Wilsonianism and Its
Totalitarian Challengers, Chapel Hill, NC: U of North Carolina, 1997
Rich, Norman, Hitler’s War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion, Vol. 1,
New York: WW Norton, 1973
Rich, Norman, Hitler’s War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order, Vol. 2, New York:
WW Norton, 1974
Scheck, Raffael, Germany, 1871–1945: A Concise History, New York: Berg, 2008
Stachura, Peter D, Poland, 1918–1945: An Interpretive and Documentary History of the Second
Republic, New York: Routledge, 2004
Taylor, AJP, The Origins of the Second World War, London: Penguin, 1991
Zalampas, Michael, Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in American Magazines, 1923–1939,
Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State U Popular Press, 1989
164
Z01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_FR.indd 164 08/02/2016 11:43

The Move To Global War - Price and Senés - Pearson 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Move To Global War - Price and Senés - Pearson 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Move To Global War - Price and Senés - Pearson 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE STUDY

A03_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_CS.indd 3 08/02/2016 11:39

A03_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_CS.indd 4 08/02/2016 11:39

1931 1937 1940

A03_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_CS.indd 5 08/02/2016 11:39

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 6 08/02/2016 10:33

The impact of Japanese nationalism and

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 7 08/02/2016 10:33

During the shogunate,

This Japanese print from around

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 8 08/02/2016 10:33

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 9 08/02/2016 10:33

The Meiji Restoration – a period of social and

Activity 2 ATL Thinking and research skills

An image of Emperor Meiji of

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 10 08/02/2016 10:33

A print of the Imperial Diet,

Thinking and ATL

Social changes – education

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 11 08/02/2016 10:33

Activity 3 ATL Thinking and research skills

Activity 4 ATL Thinking and research skills

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 12 08/02/2016 10:33

1. How does this map help to explain the following:

The First Sino-Japanese War, 1894

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 13 08/02/2016 10:33

Activity 6 ATL Thinking skills

This print shows the Chinese

Source: Art Object Photograph © 2016 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

The Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) and the Anglo-

Efforts to negotiate an agreement with Russia (whereby Russia would recognize

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 14 08/02/2016 10:33

This French cartoon is entitled

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 15 08/02/2016 10:33

The text in the cartoon reads

Look carefully at every

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 16 08/02/2016 10:33

In 1915, Japan imposed what became known as the Twenty-One Demands on

The Paris Peace Conference

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 17 08/02/2016 10:33

For question 3, don’t Activity 8 ATL Thinking and research skills

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 18 08/02/2016 10:33

Hara was assassinated in 1921: allegations of corruption as well as his suppression of

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 19 08/02/2016 10:33

Activity 9 ATL Thinking skills

An election poster from 1928

1. What is the message conveyed in the poster above?

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 20 08/02/2016 10:33

Economic challenges – industry and agriculture

The Great Depression and its aftermath

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 21 08/02/2016 10:33

The weak demand in a protectionist world economy adversely affected Japan. In

The growth of ultra-nationalism and its threat

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 22 08/02/2016 10:33

Activity 10 ATL Thinking skills

The Shōwa era

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 23 08/02/2016 10:33

One of the side trips

M01_MGW_SB_IBGLB_2597_U01.indd 24 08/02/2016 10:33