WWII : Causes and Consequences

2020-04-27 15:40 :17

WWII : Causes and Consequences

JP CN Relations

Invas{ion of Manchuria 1931 valuable trade outlet, considerable invest in Banking, Railways by JP in Manchu, B defended JP actions
1933 advanced toward NE CN, Peking under political, commercial control, civil war b/w Kuomintang, Mao
Anti Comintern pact 1936 JP-GER, invasion to other parts Shanghai, Nanking,
US resisting JP, BR FR busy w/ Hitler, LoN powerless JP not part of it

Factors that Led to Rise of Militarism in Japan

1. Expansion Of the Japanese military:

“The Japanese militarists had the support of the government and the emperor, and were determined to expand the Japanese military.” (Takashi Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan, 1998)
The expansion of the Japanese military during the two World Wars led to militarisation by providing the government with increased resources and manpower to pursue their military objectives.
The Japanese military was able to take advantage of the increased resources to build a larger and more powerful army and navy, develop new weapons and technology, and expand their territorial control.
This militarisation allowed Japan to become a major player in the international arena and to challenge the traditional powers of Europe and the United States. The militarisation of Japan also provided the government with the means to suppress internal dissent and to pursue its imperialist ambitions in Asia.

1. Nationalism And Imperialism:

“The rise of militarism in Japan was fueled by a combination of nationalism and imperialism.” (Yoshihisa Tak Matsusaka, The Making of Japanese Manchuria, 1904-1932, 2001)
Nationalism and Imperialism were two important factors that fuelled militarism in Japan during the late 19th and early 20th century. Nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism and loyalty to one’s nation, while Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. Both of these ideologies provided the Japanese with a sense of purpose and direction, and helped to fuel their militarism.
The Meiji Restoration of 1868 marked the beginning of Japan’s transformation from a feudal society to a modern nation-state. This shift was accompanied by a strong sense of nationalism, which was encouraged by the new government. This nationalism was based on a belief in the superiority of the Japanese people and a desire to build a strong and prosperous nation. The government also began to emphasize the importance of maintaining a strong military and expanding the country’s influence abroad.
The Japanese government also adopted a policy of imperialism, which sought to expand Japan’s influence in East Asia. This policy was based on a belief that Japan had a special mission to bring civilization to the region. This mission was seen as a way to spread the values of the Japanese nation and to protect its interests. The government also sought to acquire new territories and resources, which would help to strengthen the nation’s economy.
The government also began to promote militarism, which was based on the notion that the military was the only way to protect the nation and its interests. The government began to invest heavily in the military, which allowed it to rapidly modernize and expand its capabilities. The military was also given a greater role in politics, and began to play an increasingly important role in the decision-making process.
The combination of nationalism and imperialism fuelled militarism in Japan during the late 19th and early 20th century. The government’s policy of expansion and its emphasis on the importance of the military helped to create a strong sense of patriotism and a desire to protect the nation. This in turn led to the rapid militarization of Japan, which ultimately resulted in its involvement in World War II.

Fear Of Western colonization:

“The Japanese militarists saw the need to build a strong military to protect Japan from the threat of Western colonization.” (James I. Matray, Japan’s Emergence as a Modern State, 2002)
Fear of Western colonization was a major factor in the militarization of Japan during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This fear was driven by a number of factors, including the growing power of Western colonial powers, the increasing presence of their military forces in the region, and the potential threat of Western economic and political domination.
The first major event that sparked the militarization of Japan was the arrival of Commodore Matthew Perry in 1853. Perry’s mission was to open Japan to foreign trade and to establish diplomatic relations with the country. Although Perry’s mission was peaceful, it was seen as a sign of Western encroachment and a potential threat to Japan’s sovereignty. This event sparked a wave of nationalism in Japan, and the government began to take steps to strengthen the country’s military forces.
The next major event that contributed to Japan’s militarization was the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. This conflict, which was fought between Japan and China, saw Japan emerge victorious, giving the country its first taste of military success. This victory further strengthened the nationalist sentiment in Japan, and the government began to invest more heavily in its military forces.
In addition to these events, the growing presence of Western powers in the region was also a major factor in Japan’s militarization. The Western powers had a long history of colonizing and exploiting countries in the region, and this was seen as a direct threat to Japan’s sovereignty and independence. As a result, the Japanese government began to invest heavily in its military forces in order to protect the country from potential Western aggression.
Finally, the increasing economic and political power of the Western powers was also a major factor in Japan’s militarization. The Western powers had a long history of exploiting countries in the region for their own economic and political gain, and this was seen as a direct threat to Japan’s sovereignty and independence. Thus, the Japanese government felt the need to strengthen its military forces in order to protect the country from potential Western domination.
Overall, fear of Western colonization was a major factor in the militarization of Japan during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This fear was driven by a number of factors, including the growing power of Western colonial powers, the increasing presence of their military forces in the region, and the potential threat of Western economic and political domination. As a result, the Japanese government began to invest heavily in its military forces in order to protect the country from potential Western aggression.

1. Economic Factor:

“The rise of militarism in Japan was also driven by economic and social factors, such as the need to create jobs and the desire to create a more hierarchical social structure.” (Hugh Borton, Japan’s Modern Century, 1970)
The Meiji Restoration of 1868 had brought about the modernization of Japan and its economy. This modernization and industrialization had increased the country’s wealth, but also increased its need for resources and markets to sustain its growth. As a result, Japan began to look to its neighbors for resources and markets, leading to increased tensions with other countries in the region, particularly China and Russia.
The Japanese government sought to increase its military strength in order to protect its interests and to project its power in the region. The government began to invest heavily in the military, which led to an increase in militarism in the country.
The most immediate economic consideration fuelling militarism in Japan was the need to acquire resources. Japan had limited natural resources, and needed to acquire resources from abroad in order to sustain its economy. This led to the acquisition of Taiwan in 1895 and the annexation of Korea in 1910. These acquisitions provided Japan with access to resources such as coal, iron ore, and timber, which were essential for the country’s industrial development.
Another economic consideration fuelling militarism was the need to protect Japan’s interests abroad. Japan had established a number of trading relationships with other countries, and was eager to protect its investments. This led to the establishment of a strong military presence in China, as well as the establishment of a number of military bases in the Pacific region.
Finally, militarism was driven by the desire to strengthen the economy. Japan’s economy had been in a state of stagnation since the late 19th century, and militarism was seen as a way to stimulate economic growth. This was done by increasing military spending, which provided jobs and stimulated demand for goods and services. As a result, military spending increased from 2.7% of GDP in 1894 to 11.5% of GDP in 1937.
Militarism had a significant impact on Japan’s economy. It provided the country with access to resources, protected its interests abroad, and stimulated economic growth. However, it also had a negative impact, as the increased military spending contributed to Japan’s economic decline in the late 1930s and early 1940s. As a result, militarism was an important economic consideration in Japan, but one that had both positive and negative consequences.

The Japanese people also supported the militarisation efforts of their government. During this time, the Japanese society was highly militaristic, with militaristic values being widely accepted and encouraged. This was reflected in the education system, which taught students about the importance of honour and service to the nation. The Japanese people also embraced the concept of bushido, or “the way of the warrior”. This code of conduct emphasised loyalty, courage, and honour, and was seen as the ideal way of life for a Japanese soldier.
The Japanese people also provided the necessary resources for the militarisation efforts. During this period, the Japanese government increased taxes to pay for the military, and the people willingly paid them. They also provided the necessary manpower for the military, as the government introduced conscription in 1873. This allowed the military to rapidly expand its ranks, and by the end of the 19th century, Japan had one of the largest armies in the world.
The Japanese society also provided the necessary support for the militarisation efforts. This support was largely provided by the nationalist and militarist groups that emerged during this period. These groups sought to promote the idea of a strong and unified Japan, and they encouraged the people to support the government’s militarisation efforts. They also sought to promote the idea of a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, which was a Japanese-led empire in East Asia.
This allowed the Japanese government to rapidly build a modern military force. This force would eventually be used to launch a series of aggressive military campaigns in East Asia, ultimately leading to Japan’s involvement in World War II.

2. • Political Factors:

“The rise of militarism in Japan was also driven by political factors, such as the desire to increase the power of the military and to strengthen the emperor’s authority.” (Gavan McCormack, The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence, 1996)

Mussolini’s Foreign Policy

1923 -34 rivalry w/ FR, attended Locarno but no outcome, friendly towards GRE, HUN, ALB, BR, USSR, supported anti -Nazi chancellor Dollfuss
1934 onwards admiration of Hitler his achievements, Mad little clown,
- Mussolini condemned GER against forced conscription
- Invasion of Abyssinia Oct 1935, more rewarding, divert attention from depression, please nationalists
Demonstrated ineffectiveness of collective security
BR FR not prepared for war against ITL

Spanish Civil War Help to Franco Hope Estd Fascist State

1936-1939 b/w democratically elected gov vs alliance of Church and Francisco Franko coz of socio econ political crisis supported by GER, ITL
Demo govt in 1931, followed nationalisation of Big estates to counter econ crisis, Communist policy

Significance

Involved major powers USSR, GER, ITL directly
BR FR sympathies w/ SPA govt possibility of capitalist, communist alliance against Nazism, Fascism,
Used opportunity for GER to test its weapons, civilian targets deliberately bombed,
Franko’s victory emboldened Hitler, took Western democracies for granted, Foreign policy became aggressive
Prelude to WWII

Rome-Berlin Axis, Anti Comintern pact w/ GER JP
Munich Agreement
April 1939 capture Albania
Pact of Steel full alli}ance May 1939

Hitlers Foreign Policy

Make GER Great Power

Destroy Versailles, build army, recover lost terri, bring all German speaking people together, Lebensraum upto Urals, hatred for Jewish Bolshevism.

Series of Success

Withdrew from Disarmament conference LoN 1933 moved cautiously
Ten year non-aggression pact with Poles, ruined FR little entente, Poles neutrality on attack against A CZ
Dollfuss killed Mussolini moved troops to A border avoid GER taking over A - setback
Saar returned in 1935 after referendum some conciliation w/ FR
March 1935 reintroduced conscription upto 600,000
Anglo GER Naval agreement 1935 limit to 35% of BR
Sent troops to Demil zone of Rhineland no resistance offered by FR
Rome Berlin Axis, Anti Comintern pact w/ JP
Anschluss 1938

Appeasement

By BR later FR 2 phases
- 1920s -1937 avoid war at all cost
- 1937 - Chamberlain negotiations rather than by force
Not defend GER takeover of Polish corridor, FR BR presented Sudetenland - destruction of CZ

Justified?

Horrors of Spanish Civil War, 1st WW still haunted, BR supported by pacifist public opinion
Many felt grievance of GER ITL was genuine
Chamberlain believed personal contact b/w leaders to settle disputes
Eco coop b/w BR GER good for both
Fear of communism
Unprepared BR - defend empire, merchant shipping,
Mainly BR policy, FR not always agreed

Examples

No action against GER rearmament, Anglo GER naval agg
Half-hearted action against ITL invasion of Abyssinia
Rhineland occupation - 25 yr peace offered
BR FR not intervened in Spanish Civil War
Anschluss seen as natural union of German groups

Sept 1938 to Sept 1939

Czechoslovakia

propaganda campaign in Sudetenland under Konrad Henlein, unemployment, clashes, FR BR pressure CZ to grant concessions to Hitler who demanded more than Sudetenland, CZ built defences
Munich conference - Hitler invited Chamberlain, Daladier 4 power conference, scrap of paper b/w Hitler Chamberlain
CZ destroyed lost 70% industry, 1/3 pop, 1/3 area later GER troops occupied rest, Bohemia, Moravia declared protectorate under GER, Slovakia independent,

Poland

Hitler demanded return of Danzig, Polish Corridor, refused to give despite BR pressure fearing another Munich
Hitler non-aggression pact w/ USSR secret agree divide POL b/w GER RUS,

Who to Blame

Versailles treaty blamed, LoN collective security, world economic crisis

Appeasers

BR FR attack on occupation of Rhineland
Allan Bullock : success, absence of resistance tempted H to reach out further take bigger risk
Chamberlain actions, in his defence BR needed time to rearm, John Charmley - Ch had little options, Robert Self - had very few alternative credit for trying to prevent war
BR FR must share some blame per Richard Overy - their policy governed by national self-interest, moral consideration was secondary, GER also wanted to further econ interest like BR FR
USSR for signing non-aggression pact should have allied w/ BR FR

Was Hitler to Blame

Martin Gilbert : motive to remove stigma of defeat 1st WW
Trevor- Roper : H intended major war from beginning, hated communism, acquire Lebensraum; evidence in Mein Kampf, Hossbach memorandum
Taylor : not intend cause major war, continuing policy of Bismarck, Wilhelm II, Stresemann. GER occupation was result of events in Slovakia not planned, lured into war
Neil Gregor : H wanted racial war of destruction radically different from anything from before
Tooze : H knew he would eventually confront west powers, when he attacked POL he risked a wider war sooner than later
Richard Overy : 25% of industrial workforce on mil orders, shortage of raw materials.
Eberhard Jackel : war of conquest and elimination of Jews ultimate goal to estd greater GER
Ian Kershaw : H must take blame, GER future only determined through war, inevitable, timing and direction were at issue

The 2nd World War

4 campaigns Pacific, Far East, North Africa, deep hear of RUS

Opening Moves Sept 1939 - Dec 1940

Blitzkrieg POL defeated no motorised divisions, Sept 29 1939 POL divided
Phoney war - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania captures FIN invaded FR GER manned defences around Maginot Siegfried lines
Apr 1940 occupied DEN, invaded Norway for Narvik outlet Swedish iron ore, use fiords as U-boat hub attack naval base attack BR ships, surprise factor NOR lost, Churchill became PM
Holland, BEL, FR attacked May 10 Blitzkrieg, Dunkirk evacuation through Dover, Paris captured occupied North FR
Battle of Britain Aug Sept 1940 later called off, Luftwaffe
Mussolini invades Egypt, BR drove them out

Axis Offensive 1941 - Summer 1942

North Africa - Rommel drove BR out of Libya, invaded GRE
Op Barbarossa 22 June 1941 - fear of RUS attack, hope JP attack far east, more powerful JP less chance for US entering war, hatred of communism. Allan Bullock - attack for lebensraum, Trevor-Roperbe all end all of Nazism
US enters war Dec 1941 - Pearl Harbor, JP attack due to econ problems, US embargo on oil, gave JP control of Pacific, Hitler dec war on USA most serious mistakes
Brutality of GER JP

Summer 1942 - 1943

Midway Jun 1942 - US victory under MacArthur, broken JP radio code, JP overconfident split forces attacked from all 4 AC simultaneously,
El Alamein Oct 1942 - Afrika corps driven back by Montgomery due to massive reinforcement, Axis shortage of food, fuel, oil, ammo, prevented Suez from falling to GER hands, ended possible link of forces in ME and UKR, expulsion of Axis from North Africa
Stalingrad - crucial for Oil supply, shattered invincible myth of GER,

Allied Naval Forces

BR successsank half ITL fleet at Taranto bay, sank Bismarck, GER invasion transports destroyed in Crete, escorts for convoys, victory in Atlantic, made possible invasion of FR
Battle of Atlantic - won long range Liberator bombers, escorts and aircraft imp w/ experience, new centimetric radar sets in aircrafts

Axis Power Defeated

Fall of ITL inv from Sicily, GER lost air bases, troops occupied when they were needed to resist RUS
Op Overlord - 6 June 1944 D Day O,U,G,J,S
Unconditional Surrender - BR, Eisenhower against unconditional surrender
Battle of Bulge - Hitler died
Defeat of JP

Why Axis Lost

Shortage of raw materials, Allies learnt from their mistakes, Axis took too much to swallow, combined resources of US,USSR, BR, tactical mistakes by Axis, Nazi racial policy

Effects of War

Enormous destruction - 40 mil killed, Holocaust,
No all-inclusive peace settlement instead no of peace treaties signes
- ITL lost African colonies, claims on Albania Abyssinia
- USSR took east CZ, ar around Lake Ladoga from FIN, LAT, LIT, EST
- ROM got Transylvania
- JP surrendered all territories occupied in last 90 yrs

10 mil people from HUN, ROM, CZ went to West GER to avoid future claims
Urban redevelopment in USSR, GER
Production of Nukes
EU domination of world ended
Emergence of Superpowers
Decolonisation
UNO

PYQs

Between World War I and World War II

Account for the rise of militarism in Japan between the two World Wars. How did it affect the peace of the world? [1979, 60 Marks]
Economic growth and modernization in Japan following the Meiji Restoration in 1868 led to an increase in national pride and a desire to become a major world power.
The desire to create a larger empire and acquire resources led to territorial expansion in Asia, including the colonization of Taiwan and the annexation of Korea.
The influence of German militarism and the success of German arms in World War I had a strong impact on Japan’s military leaders and their desire to expand their own military capabilities.
The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which limited the size of Japan’s navy in relation to the naval powers of the United States, Britain, and France, led to resentment among Japanese militarists.
The rise of ultranationalism and the belief in the “divine destiny” of the Japanese Empire was promoted by the government and military leaders.
The economic depression of the 1930s led to increased public support for military expansion as a means of economic recovery.
The Chinese resistance to Japanese aggression in the Second Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1937, led to a further militarization of Japan as the war effort required more resources and soldiers.
The alliance with Germany and Italy in the Axis Powers further solidified Japan’s militaristic stance and aggression towards other nations.
The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, marked the formal entry of Japan into World War II and led to the United States and other countries declaring war on Japan.
Japan’s militarism and aggressive expansionist policies were a major contributing factor to the outbreak of World War II and the deaths of millions of people throughout Asia and the Pacific.

How militarism affected world Peace :

Japan’s militarism and aggressive expansionist policies led to the invasion and colonization of several Asian countries, causing widespread death and suffering among civilians.
Japan’s territorial expansion and desire for resources led to increased tensions and conflicts with neighboring countries, notably China and the Soviet Union.
Japan’s alliance with Germany and Italy as part of the Axis Powers further destabilized international relations and contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, led to the United States and other countries declaring war on Japan, drawing many more countries into the conflict.
Japan’s militarism and aggressive expansionist policies led to the deaths of millions of people throughout Asia and the Pacific, including the atrocities committed during the occupation of countries such as China, Korea, and the Philippines.
It also led to the forced labor and sexual enslavement of thousands of women and girls, known as “comfort women”, from occupied territories.
Led to the bombing of several cities in Japan, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
Led to the displacement and suffering of millions of people, both within Japan and in occupied territories.
Japan’s militarism and aggressive actions were a major contributing factor to the outbreak of World War II, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide.
Historian John Dower writes in his book “War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War” that Japan’s militarism was driven by “a deep and abiding sense of national humiliation” and a desire for “economic and territorial expansion”. (Source: Dower, John W. War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. Pantheon Books, 1986)
Historian Mark Peattie writes in his book “Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 1909-1941” that Japan’s militarism was fueled by a “sense of insecurity and inferiority” and a belief in their “divine destiny” as a world power. (Source: Peattie, Mark R. Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909-1941. Naval Institute Press, 2001)
Historian Herbert Bix writes in his book “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan” that Japan’s militarism was the result of a “fantasy of national destiny” and a desire to “assure Japan’s survival in a world of powerful nations” (Source: Bix, Herbert P. Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. Harper Perennial, 2000)
Historian Paul Kennedy writes in his book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” that Japan’s militarism was driven by a desire to “catch up with the Western powers” and to “secure access to the raw materials of Southeast Asia” (Source: Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. Random House, 1987)
Historian James B. Crowley writes in his book “Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy, 1930-1938” that Japan’s militarism was the result of a “clash of national identities” and a “sense of vulnerability” in the face of Western imperialism. (Source: Crowley, James B. Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy, 1930-1938. Princeton University Press, 1966)
“Japanese policy in relation to Manchuria reacted back upon Japan affecting her both economically and politically.” Comment. [1982, 20 Marks]

The Japanese policy in Manchuria (Manchukuo) was one of expansion and control. It was a policy of annexation and domination that was implemented by the Japanese Empire in the early 1930s.

Annexation: In 1931, the Japanese army invaded Manchuria and declared it a Japanese puppet state known as Manchukuo. The Japanese then proceeded to annex the region, which was formerly part of China.
Control: The Japanese sought to control Manchuria by establishing a puppet government and military forces. They also imposed a number of economic and social policies designed to benefit the Japanese, such as the creation of a new currency, the Manchukuo Yen.
Economic Exploitation: The Japanese sought to exploit the resources of Manchuria for their own benefit. This included the extraction of minerals and the exploitation of the local labor force.
Social Control: The Japanese sought to control the population of Manchuria by introducing a number of social policies. These included the introduction of Japanese-style education, the establishment of a Japanese-style legal system, and the introduction of Japanese-style family structures.
Cultural Assimilation: The Japanese also sought to assimilate the Manchurian population into Japanese culture. This included the introduction of the Japanese language and the adoption of Japanese customs and traditions.

How did the Japanese policy in Manchuria Backfire?

The Japanese policy in Manchuria backfired in a number of ways. First of all, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 created a great deal of international tension and hostility towards Japan. The League of Nations condemned Japan’s actions and imposed economic sanctions, which weakened Japan’s economy and forced it to rely on foreign aid. This in turn led to Japan becoming more aggressive in its foreign policy and eventually led to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Furthermore, the Japanese policy in Manchuria also backfired in terms of its effect on the Chinese people. The Japanese occupation of Manchuria caused a great deal of suffering for the Chinese people, who were subjected to harsh treatment, forced labor, and even mass executions. This created a great deal of resentment towards Japan among the Chinese people, and this resentment eventually contributed to the Chinese Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War of 1949.

Finally, the Japanese policy in Manchuria also had a negative effect on Japan’s own people. The Japanese people were subjected to a great deal of propaganda which glorified the Japanese Empire and its actions in Manchuria. This propaganda helped to create a sense of nationalism and pride among the Japanese people, which was ultimately used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What led to the formation of the Berlin-Rome Tokyo axis? Indicate its impact on international politics. [1986, 60 Marks]

The Berlin-Rome Tokyo Axis was an alliance formed in 1940 between Germany, Italy, and Japan. It was a military and political agreement between the three countries to cooperate against their common enemies in World War II. The Axis Powers, as they were known, fought against the Allied Powers in the conflict.

Reasons for formation :

Shared fascist ideologies between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.
Expansionist territorial ambitions, specifically the desire to acquire territory and resources in Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Anti-communist sentiment and a desire to counter the perceived threat of the Soviet Union.
The perceived weakness and appeasement of Western democracies in the face of fascist aggression.
Economic interests and the desire for access to markets and resources.
The formation of military alliances, such as the Anti-Comintern Pact, which aimed to counter the perceived threat of the Soviet-led Communist International.
The rise of authoritarian leaders in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
The desire to challenge the dominant position of the United States and the British Empire in world affairs.
The belief that the fascist powers represented a new and superior form of government and society.
The belief that the fascist powers represented a bulwark against the perceived threat of communism and Jewish influence in world affairs.

Impact on International politics :

The formation of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis in 1940 had a major impact on international politics. In the short-term, it allowed the three countries to form an alliance that allowed them to pursue their aggressive foreign policies without fear of interference from other world powers. This alliance allowed them to launch a series of invasions and conquests in Europe, Asia, and North Africa, resulting in the start of World War II. 1. The alliance between Germany, Italy, and Japan led to the outbreak of World War II, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people and the devastation of much of Europe and Asia. 1. The alliance also led to the persecution and murder of millions of Jews, as well as other minority groups, as part of the Holocaust. 2. The alliance led to the expansion of fascist regimes and the suppression of democratic and socialist movements throughout Europe and Asia. 3. The alliance led to the colonization and exploitation of territories and resources in Africa and Asia.

In the long-term, the Axis alliance caused a major shift in the balance of power in the world. It allowed the three countries to expand their territories and gain control of large parts of the world. It also caused a major shift in the international political landscape, as the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two major superpowers in the post-war era. The formation of the Axis also led to the development of the United Nations and the establishment of a new international order that was built on the principles of collective security and international cooperation. 1. The alliance led to the erosion of the international order established after World War I, and the emergence of a bipolar world dominated by the United States and Soviet Union. 1. The alliance led to the establishment of concentration camps, gulags, and other forms of mass repression, as well as forced labor and slave labor. 2. The alliance led to the displacement of millions of refugees and the creation of humanitarian crisis. 3. The alliance led to the emergence of the United Nations as a means of maintaining international peace and security. 4. The alliance led to the emergence of the Cold War and the division of the world into rival ideological spheres of influence. 5. The alliance led to the emergence of the United States and Soviet Union as superpowers and the decline of the British Empire, French empire and other colonial powers.

Some historians have described the alliance as a “fascist international” that sought to spread authoritarianism and militarism throughout the world.

For instance, historian Richard Overy describes the Axis as a “brutal alliance of totalitarian regimes” that brought about a “catastrophic war and genocide”

Another historian, Ian Kershaw, describes the Axis as a “murderous coalition” that was responsible for “some of the most heinous crimes in human history.”

Historian Robert Paxton describes the Axis as the “most aggressive and dangerous alliance of modern times,”

Other historians have emphasized the role of the Axis in contributing to the outbreak of World War II and the devastation and suffering that resulted from the conflict.

Critically examine the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Did he want to introduce a sort of socialism? [1987, 60 Marks]

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-world-power/great-depression/a/the-new-deal

The New Deal was a series of economic programs and reforms introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1936. The programs were designed to provide relief to those affected by the Great Depression, to reform the American economy, and to restore the confidence of the American people.

The New Deal included the establishment of the Social Security system, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It also included the passage of labor laws, increased public works spending, and agricultural subsidies.

Provisions of the New deal that could be viewed as socialist were :

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) provided employment and training to young men and helped to preserve and conserve the nation’s natural resources.
The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) provided direct relief to the unemployed and their families.
The National Recovery Administration (NRA) established codes of fair competition for various industries and sought to raise wages and reduce unemployment.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) sought to raise agricultural prices by reducing surpluses and paying farmers to reduce production.
The Public Works Administration (PWA) provided funding for the construction of public works projects, such as bridges, dams, and schools.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) built dams and power plants to provide electricity to the rural south and help promote economic development.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured bank deposits and helped to restore public confidence in the banking system.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulated the stock market and sought to prevent securities fraud.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages and helped to make home ownership more affordable.
The Social Security Act established a system of retirement benefits and unemployment insurance, aimed to provide a safety net for the elderly and unemployed.

Provisions that were not socialist

While some of the provisions of the New Deal, as mentioned earlier, were seen as socialist by some, there were also provisions that were not seen as socialist. These include:

The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) which sought to promote economic recovery by encouraging cooperation between businesses and the government, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935.
The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 which aimed to stabilize the value of the dollar by raising the price of gold.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which aimed to stabilize the banking system and prevent future economic depressions.
The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 which aimed to stabilize the banking system by closing insolvent banks and providing government support to sound banks.
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which aimed to separate commercial and investment banking and prevent future banking crises.
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act) which aimed to protect the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which aimed to establish a minimum wage and maximum workweek.
The Revenue Act of 1935 which aimed to increase government revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy.
The Revenue Act of 1936 which aimed to increase government revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy.
The Revenue Act of 1937 which aimed to increase government revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Historians have widely debated the socialist nature of the New Deal.

Those who argue that the New Deal was socialist include:

“The New Deal was a radical departure from American traditions, incorporating many elements of socialism.” - William E. Leuchtenburg, professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in his book Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1963).
“The New Deal was a form of socialism, a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.” - Howard Zinn, historian and author, in his book A People’s History of the United States (1980).
“The New Deal was a form of socialism, a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.” - Ronald Radosh, professor emeritus of history at the City University of New York, in his book Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism (1975).

Those who argue that the New Deal was not socialist include:

“The New Deal was not a socialist program. It was a program of reform and recovery within the framework of American capitalism.” - John D. Hicks, professor of history at the University of Minnesota, in his book The American Nation: A History of the United States (1955).
“The New Deal was not a socialist program. It was an attempt to save capitalism from itself.” - Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., historian and professor at Harvard University, in his book The Age of Roosevelt (1957).
“The New Deal was not socialist in any meaningful sense. It was not a revolutionary program aimed at overthrowing capitalism.” - Richard Hofstadter, professor of history at Columbia University, in his book The Age of Reform (1955).
Show how the Spanish Civil War was a prelude to World War II. [1991, 60 Marks]

• Spanish Civil War: a conflict that took place in Spain between 1936 and 1939 • It was a major conflict in the wider Spanish conflict known as the Spanish Revolution • Causes: o Political instability: Spain had been a monarchy until 1931 when a republic was declared. This led to a period of political instability, with numerous parties and factions vying for power. o Economic crisis: Spain was in the midst of an economic crisis, with high unemployment and poverty. o Ideological divisions: The country was divided between left-wing republicans and right-wing nationalists. o Social divisions: Spain was a deeply divided society, with the wealthy upper classes and the poor lower classes. o Foreign intervention: The Spanish Civil War saw foreign powers intervene on both sides, with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy supporting the nationalists and the Soviet Union supporting the republicans. o Popular uprising: In 1936, a popular uprising against the government sparked the civil war. o Military coup: In July 1936, a group of right-wing military officers led by General Francisco Franco launched a coup against the republican government. This was the start of the Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish Civil War, which lasted from 1936 to 1939, was a prelude to World War II in several ways:

It was a testing ground for military tactics and technology: Many countries, including Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, sent troops and arms to support the opposing sides in the Spanish Civil War. This allowed them to test new military tactics and technology, such as air power and tank warfare, in a real-world setting.
It provided a glimpse of the atrocities of the future war: The Spanish Civil War was characterized by brutal warfare, with both sides committing atrocities against civilians. This provided a grim preview of the horrors of World War II.
It served as a training ground for future military leaders: Many future leaders of World War II, such as General Francisco Franco, General Erwin Rommel, and General George S. Patton, gained valuable military experience during the Spanish Civil War.
It marked the first major international intervention in a civil war: The Spanish Civil War was the first major international conflict in which countries intervened directly on behalf of one side or the other. This set a precedent for the involvement of foreign powers in the internal affairs of other countries, which would play a major role in the outbreak of World War II.
It was a proxy war between fascist and democratic forces: The Spanish Civil War was seen as a struggle between fascist forces, led by General Francisco Franco, and democratic forces, who were supported by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. This struggle between fascist and democratic forces would continue in the years leading up to World War II.
It was a prelude to the Axis powers alliance: The Nationalists (led by Franco) in the Spanish Civil War were supported by Germany and Italy, who also signed the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1936. This was an early indication of the formation of the Axis powers alliance that would come to fruition in World War II.
It was a prelude to the Non-intervention agreement: The Non-intervention agreement was signed by many countries in an attempt to prevent foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War. This was an early indication of the appeasement policies that would be adopted by many countries in the years leading up to World War II.
It was a prelude to the rise of authoritarianism: The victory of the Nationalists (led by Franco) in the Spanish Civil War marked the rise of authoritarianism in Spain, and this victory was seen as a victory for fascism, which would be on the rise in Europe in the years leading up to World War II.

:::tip[Views]
Many historians view the Spanish Civil War as a prelude to World War II. Some notable historians and their views include:

1.  Paul Preston, a British historian, has argued that the Spanish Civil War was a "dress rehearsal" for World War II, in which many of the key players and issues of the later war were already present.

2.  Antony Beevor, a British historian, has described the Spanish Civil War as a "testing ground" for the military tactics and technology that would be used in World War II.

3.  Eric Hobsbawm, a British historian, has argued that the Spanish Civil War was a "prefiguration" of the larger conflict that was to come.

4.  Gabriel Jackson, an American historian, has described the Spanish Civil War as a "precursor" to World War II, in which the fascist powers demonstrated their aggressive intentions and the democracies their weakness.

5.  Stanley Payne, an American historian, has argued that the Spanish Civil War was a "prelude" to World War II, in which the fascist powers demonstrated their aggressive intentions and the democracies their weakness.

However, there are also some historians who do not view the Spanish Civil War as a prelude to World War II. For example, historian Raymond Carr, has argued that the Spanish Civil War was a "uniquely Spanish" conflict that should not be seen as a prelude to World War II.
:::

1. "The perpetuation of the economic malaise was the main cause of the political instability of Europe during the next two decades (1919-1939)." Explain. [1994, 60 Marks]

The economic malaise that persisted in Europe during the years following World War I was a significant factor in the political instability of the continent during the next two decades. The economic instability was caused by several factors:

1.  The high levels of debt that many European countries had accumulated during the war. This debt made it difficult for countries to stabilize their currencies and led to hyperinflation in some countries.

2.  The disruption of trade and the decline of international commerce caused by the war. The economies of many European countries were heavily dependent on trade, and the disruption of these economies led to high unemployment and economic stagnation.

3.  The decline of traditional industries such as agriculture and manufacturing, which were not able to compete with the more efficient industries of the United States and other countries.

4.  The lack of investment in the economy due to the uncertainty caused by the war and the economic downturn.

These economic problems led to widespread poverty and unemployment, which in turn led to political instability and the rise of extremist movements, such as fascism and communism. These extremist movements promised to solve the economic problems and restore national pride, but their solutions were often authoritarian and aggressive.

Moreover, the economic malaise also contributed to the appeasement policies of the Western democracies that were unable to effectively address the economic issues and the rise of the fascist dictatorships in Italy, Germany, and Japan, who promised to solve the economic problems and restore national pride through aggressive expansionism and militarism.

In conclusion, the economic malaise that persisted in Europe after the end of World War I was a major cause of the political instability of the continent during the next two decades. The economic problems contributed to the rise of extremist movements, the appeasement policies of the Western democracies and the aggressive expansionism of the fascist dictatorships.

1. "The countries in the Middle East became, after 1919, the scene of constant effervescence and some striking changes." Comment. [1994, 20 Marks]


1.  The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of new nation-states such as Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and others.
2.  The establishment of British and French mandates in the Middle East, leading to the division of the region between these colonial powers.
3.  The emergence of nationalist movements, calling for independence and self-government in various Middle Eastern countries
4.  The rise of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and his adoption of various reforms, including the adoption of a new alphabet and the westernization of the country.
5.  The emergence of pan-Arabism as a political ideology, calling for the unity of the Arab peoples and the creation of a single Arab state.
6.  The emergence of the Hashemite dynasty in Iraq and Jordan, and the rise of King Faisal I.
7.  The rise of authoritarian leaders such as Reza Shah in Iran and King Farouk in Egypt.
8.  The emergence of religious and ethnic conflicts, such as the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq and the Palestinian Revolt in Palestine.
9.  The emergence of oil as a major economic resource in the region, leading to increased foreign investment and control over the region's oil resources.
10.  The emergence of political movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which aimed to promote Islamic values and political activism.
1.  The division of the Middle East by colonial powers: The Middle East was divided and controlled by European colonial powers, such as Britain and France, which established mandates in the region after the war. This division of the region led to resentment and resistance among the local populations, which contributed to political instability.
2.  Economic problems: The Middle East experienced significant economic problems after the war, such as high unemployment and inflation, which further contributed to political instability.
3.  The emergence of religious and ethnic conflicts: The Middle East is a diverse and multi-ethnic region and the emergence of nationalism movements and the division of the region by colonial powers led to the emergence of religious and ethnic conflicts.

Overall, these changes reflect the significant political, economic and social changes that occurred in the Middle East after the end of World War I, which set the stage for further political instability and conflicts in the region in


1. Show how the presence of a weak and helpless China next door brought about the rise of militarism and collapse of democracy in Japan. [1994, 60 Marks]


The presence of a weak and helpless China next door played a significant role in the rise of militarism and the collapse of democracy in Japan during the 1930s. Some ways in which this occurred include:

1.  The Chinese government's inability to effectively deal with internal conflicts and external pressures, such as the invasions by Japan, led to the perception of China as a weak and helpless country.

2.  The weakness of China was seen by many in Japan as an opportunity for expansion and conquest, and this perception led to the rise of militarist elements within the Japanese government and society.

3.  The militarists in Japan believed that the conquest of China would provide resources and markets for Japan's growing population and economy.

4.  The militarists also saw the conquest of China as a way to gain prestige and power for Japan in the international community.

5.  The militarists also believed that Japan's military expansion would be justified as a means of defending the country's interests in East Asia, and this belief was used to justify the invasions of China and other countries in the region.

6.  The rise of militarism in Japan was also driven by the belief that Japan was facing a "China problem" and that the conquest of China would be necessary to secure Japan's future.
1.  The militarists in Japan also believed that the conquest of China would be necessary to counter the influence of Western powers in East Asia.

2.  The militarists in Japan also used the Chinese threat to justify the suppression of civil liberties and democracy in Japan, arguing that the country needed strong leadership and a centralized government to defend against the Chinese threat.

3.  The militarists in Japan also used the Chinese threat to justify the expansion of the military and the strengthening of the military's role in government.

4.  The militarists in Japan also used the Chinese threat to justify the suppression of political opposition and the censorship of the media, arguing that this was necessary to maintain national unity and security.

- ! Answer based on the Japanese perception of the conditions in China and how they interpreted a weak China as threat to a rising Japan coupled with internal factors in Japan itself led to Sino-Japanese war on 1937.

The “China Problem” was the term used to describe the series of tensions, disputes, and conflicts that developed between Japan and China from the late 19th century until the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937.

The root of the problem was the growing presence of Japan in China, which began with the establishment of trading relations in the 1860s and intensified with the rise of Japan as a regional power in the late 19th century. Japan sought to expand its influence in China, and its imperialist ambitions were met with resistance from the Chinese government. This led to a series of conflicts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05).

The tension between Japan and China was further heightened by Japan’s demand for special concessions in Chinese territories, such as the establishment of Japanese-controlled “spheres of influence” in Manchuria and northern China. This was met with strong opposition from the Chinese government, which viewed Japan’s actions as a violation of its sovereignty.

The tensions between Japan and China reached a breaking point in 1937, when the Japanese launched a full-scale invasion of China. The conflict, which lasted until 1945, became known as the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war was a major turning point in the history of East Asia, and it led to the eventual defeat of Japan and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.


1. The Great Depression (1928 -- 34) was "attended by momentous consequences in the economic as well as in the political sphere." Comment. [1996, 20 Marks]



The Great Depression, which lasted from 1928 to 1934, had momentous consequences in both the economic and political sphere.

1.  Economically, the Great Depression led to a severe contraction of global trade and economic activity. The GDP of the United States, which was the largest economy in the world at the time, fell by more than 25%, and unemployment rates reached as high as 25%. Many other countries around the world were also affected by the economic downturn, and many experienced similar declines in GDP and increases in unemployment.

2.  The Great depression led to a significant decline in the standard of living for many people around the world. Many people lost their jobs and homes, and were unable to afford basic necessities such as food and shelter.

3.  The Great depression also led to a decline in consumer confidence and spending, which further exacerbated the economic downturn. As people became more cautious with their spending, businesses saw a decline in sales, which led to further layoffs and economic contraction.

4.  The economic downturn led to the failure of many banks and financial institutions, which further exacerbated the economic problems. The failure of these banks led to a loss of savings for many people and further reduced consumer spending.

5.  Politically, the Great Depression had momentous consequences as well. The economic crisis led to a loss of faith in democracy and capitalism, and many people began to look for alternative political and economic systems.

6.  The Great depression led to the rise of extremist political movements, such as fascism and communism, which promised to solve the economic problems and restore national pride.

7.  The Great depression led to the collapse of democracy in many countries and the rise of authoritarian regimes. In many countries, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, the economic crisis was used as a pretext for the rise of authoritarian leaders and the suppression of civil liberties.

8.  The Great depression also led to the rise of protectionist trade policies, as countries sought to protect their own economies by raising tariffs and limiting imports. This led to a decline in international trade, which further exacerbated the economic downturn.

9.  The Great depression also led to the rise of populist movements and leaders, who promised to provide relief for the poor and working class and to take on the wealthy and powerful.

10.  The Great depression also had a significant impact on international relations, as countries became more inward-looking and focused on protecting their own economies. This led to a decline in cooperation between nations and an increase in tension and competition, which was a significant contributing factor to the outbreak of World War II.


In conclusion, the Great Depression was a significant event in world history, which had momentous consequences in both the economic and political sphere. The economic downturn led to widespread poverty and unemployment, the collapse of democracy in many countries, the rise of extremist political movements, and a decline in international trade and cooperation. These consequences had a lasting impact on the global economy and political landscape, and continue to shape the world today.

1. President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "had the wit to start the political economy in a fresh, more promising direction." Do you agree? [1997, 60 Marks]

The New Deal, implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a set of policies and programs aimed at addressing the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression. Many historians and scholars have argued that the New Deal had the wit to start the political economy in a fresh, more promising direction.

1.  The New Deal policies such as the National Recovery Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps, helped to stabilize the economy and create jobs.

2.  The New Deal also created a number of social welfare programs such as the Social Security Act, which provided a safety net for the elderly, disabled, and unemployed.

3.  The New Deal also sought to address the issues of poverty, unemployment and inequality by creating programs such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the Civil Works Administration, which provided jobs and relief to the poor.

4.  The New Deal also took steps to stabilize the banking system and the financial markets, which helped to restore confidence in the economy and prevent further bank failures.

5.  The New Deal also helped to bring about significant changes in labor laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, which helped to improve the rights and conditions of workers.

6.  The New Deal also helped to promote economic recovery by implementing policies such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, which helped to revive the manufacturing sector and increase consumer spending.

7.  The New Deal policies also sought to promote greater economic equality and reduce poverty, by implementing policies such as the Works Progress Administration, which helped to create jobs and reduce unemployment.

8.  The New Deal also helped to promote greater economic stability and security by implementing policies such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which helped to protect the savings of ordinary Americans.

9.  The New Deal also had the wit to start the political economy in a fresh, more promising direction by implementing policies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, which helped to regulate the stock market and prevent financial fraud.

10.  The New Deal helped to bring about a significant shift in the role of government in the economy, by increasing its role in promoting economic recovery and social welfare, which laid the foundations for many of the social and economic policies that continue to shape the country today.


In conclusion, many historians and scholars agree that the New Deal had the wit to start the political economy in a fresh, more promising direction. It helped to address the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression and laid the foundations for many of the social and economic policies that continue to shape the country today.

1.  "Roosevelt's New Deal did help to revive the economy and restore some measure of prosperity and social justice to the nation." - Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in "The Age of Roosevelt"

2.  "The New Deal was a major success in addressing the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression." - Alan Brinkley in "The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War"

3.  "The New Deal was a bold and innovative effort to address the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression, and it laid the foundations for many of the social and economic policies that continue to shape the country today." - William E. Leuchtenburg in "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal"

4.  "The New Deal represented a significant shift in the role of government in the economy and society, and it helped to promote greater economic stability and social welfare." - Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy"

5.  "The New Deal represented a significant effort to address the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression, and it helped to lay the foundations for many of the social and economic policies that continue to shape the country today." - Robert S. McElvaine in "The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941"

Views against the New Deal being a success

1.  "While the New Deal did help to address some of the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression, it ultimately failed to bring about a full recovery and restore prosperity to the nation." - Amity Shlaes in "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression"

2.  "The New Deal was a failure in terms of addressing the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression, and it did more harm than good." - Thomas E. Woods Jr. in "Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse"

3.  "The New Deal was a step in the right direction in terms of addressing the economic and social issues caused by the Great Depression, but more needed to be done to bring about a full recovery." -Ben S. Bernanke in "Essays on the Great Depression"



1. Trace the growth of militarism in Japan in the inter-war years. What international reaction did it provoke? [1997, 60 Marks]

- ! The growth of militarism in Japan during the inter war years have been mentioned above

International Reaction to the Growth of Militarism

-   The League of Nations condemned Japan's invasion of China in September 1937, and imposed economic sanctions on the country.
-   The Soviet Union and Japan signed a non-aggression pact in April 1941.
-   The United States imposed economic sanctions on Japan in July 1941 in response to Japan's invasion of French Indochina.
-   Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which led the United States to declare war on Japan and enter World War II.
-   The British Empire, which had significant interests in the Far East, also expressed concern about Japan's expansionist policies and called for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
-   The Chinese government, which was the primary target of Japan's aggression, strongly condemned Japan's militarism and called for international support in resisting the invasion.
-   The European powers, particularly France and Great Britain, were worried about Japan's expansionist policies and its implications for their own colonial interests in Asia.
-   Other Asian countries, such as the Philippines, Korea, and Thailand, were also deeply concerned about Japan's expansionist policies and the threat it posed to their own security and sovereignty.
-   Australia, New Zealand and Canada were also worried about Japan's expansionist policies and the threat it posed to their own security and sovereignty, and they too, expressed their concern.
-   Many countries, particularly those in Europe, which were already facing the rise of fascism and militarism, were worried about the spread of these ideologies in Asia and the potential for increased global conflict.


1. Trace the rise and growth of the New European Society in the inter-war period. [1999, 60 Marks]

The term "New European Society" refers to the changes and developments that occurred in Europe during the interwar period (1918-1939) following the end of World War I. These changes and developments can be traced in several ways:

1.  Economic: The interwar period saw a significant increase in industrialization and urbanization, which led to the growth of a new consumer society and the rise of a new middle class. This was also accompanied by the development of new technologies and the rise of mass production and mass consumption.

2.  Social: The interwar period saw a significant shift in social attitudes and values, with a growing emphasis on individualism and consumerism. This led to the rise of new forms of leisure and entertainment, such as cinema and jazz music, and the growth of new youth subcultures.

3.  Political: The interwar period saw the rise of new political movements and ideologies, such as fascism and communism, which challenged the liberal democratic order that had existed in Europe since the 19th century. This led to the rise of authoritarian regimes in some countries and the decline of democracy in others.

4.  Cultural: The interwar period saw the emergence of new cultural movements, such as Surrealism and the Bauhaus, which challenged traditional norms and values and advocated for a new modernist aesthetic.

5.  Demographic: The interwar period saw significant changes in population patterns, including an increase in urbanization and the emergence of new ethnic and cultural groups. This led to the rise of new forms of nationalism and the growth of new minority rights movements.


1. The Great Depression (1928 -- 34) was "attended by momentous consequences in the economic as well as in the political sphere." Comment. [2002, 20 Marks]

The Great Depression, which lasted from 1928 to 1934, was a severe economic downturn that had momentous consequences in both the economic and political spheres.

Economically, the Great Depression led to a severe contraction of global trade and economic activity. GDP fell by more than 25% in the United States, the largest economy in the world at the time, and unemployment rates reached as high as 25%. Many other countries around the world were also affected by the economic downturn, and many experienced similar declines in GDP and increases in unemployment. The standard of living for many people around the world fell sharply as well as consumer confidence and spending also decreased which further exacerbated the economic downturn. The failure of banks and financial institutions further reduced consumer spending and led to a loss of savings for many people.

Politically, the Great Depression had momentous consequences as well. The economic crisis led to a loss of faith in democracy and capitalism, and many people began to look for alternative political and economic systems. The rise of extremist political movements, such as fascism and communism, which promised to solve the economic problems and restore national pride. The collapse of democracy in many countries and the rise of authoritarian regimes in many countries, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, the economic crisis was used as a pretext for the rise of authoritarian leaders and the suppression of civil liberties.

The Great depression also led to the rise of protectionist trade policies, as countries sought to protect their own economies by raising tariffs and limiting imports. This led to a decline in international trade, which further exacerbated the economic downturn. This also led to a decline in cooperation between nations and an increase in tension and competition, which was a significant contributing factor to the outbreak of World War II.

In conclusion, the Great Depression was a significant event in world history, which had momentous consequences in both the economic and political sphere. The economic downturn led to widespread poverty and unemployment, the collapse of democracy in many countries, the rise of extremist political movements, and a decline in international trade and cooperation. These consequences had a lasting impact on the global economy and political landscape, and continue to shape the world today.


1. "The War's (First World War's) most permanent contribution to the spirit or the post War years was disillusion." Comment. [2007, 60 Marks]

The war ended with a sense of disappointment with the peace settlement. The Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war, imposed harsh penalties on the defeated Central Powers and led to the emergence of new borders and the displacement of millions of people. Many felt that the treaty was unjust, and that it had not brought about the "peace to end all peace" that had been promised.

Secondly, the war also led to a deep sense of disillusionment with the idea of progress and modernization. The war had been touted as a modern, industrial conflict, but it had resulted in staggering levels of death and destruction. The use of new technologies such as tanks, submarines, and chemical weapons had led to unprecedented levels of suffering.

Thirdly, the war also led to a sense of disillusionment with the idea of nationalism, many soldiers and civilians had fought and died for their country, but the end result was a peace settlement that left many feeling betrayed.

Lastly, the War also led to disillusionment with the idea of heroism and sacrifice. The soldiers who had fought in the war had been hailed as heroes, but many returned home to find that they were not welcomed as heroes, but rather as disabled veterans, struggling to find work and rebuild their lives.

The First World War had a profound and lasting impact on the spirit of the post-war years, and one of its most permanent contributions was disillusionment. The war had resulted in disappointment with the peace settlement, disillusionment with the idea of progress and modernization, disillusionment with the idea of nationalism and heroism, and a deep sense of trauma and loss.

This disillusionment led to a questioning of the values and beliefs that had been held prior to the war and a rejection of the optimistic and idealistic worldview that had existed before 1914. It was a major factor in the rise of new ideologies, such as fascism and communism, and the emergence of new political and social movements. It also contributed to the sense of unease and uncertainty that characterized the post-war period, and set the stage for the turbulent events of the interwar years and the outbreak of World War II.

Furthermore, disillusionment was also reflected in literature, art, and culture of the time, with a growing sense of cynicism and skepticism towards traditional values and beliefs.


1. "In the long run, the **Locarno Treaty** (December 1925) was destructive both of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Covenant." Comment. [2008, 2002, 20 Marks]


The Locarno Treaty was a series of treaties signed in the Swiss city of Locarno in 1925. These treaties aimed to ensure peace in Europe by settling territorial disputes between Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy. The treaties also provided for the mutual recognition of Germany and its neighbors, and the establishment of an international arbitration system.

1. The Main Treaties: The Locarno Treaties consisted of two main treaties. The first was the Treaty of Locarno, signed by Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy. This treaty provided for the mutual recognition of Germany's western borders and the renunciation of any claims to Alsace-Lorraine. The second treaty was the Rhineland Pact, which provided for the demilitarization of the Rhineland.

2. The Guarantee System: The Locarno Treaties also provided for a guarantee system. Under this system, Germany's western borders were guaranteed by France, Belgium, and Italy. In return, Germany guaranteed the borders of its eastern neighbors, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

3. The Locarno Pact: The Locarno Pact was an additional treaty signed in 1925. This pact provided for the establishment of an international arbitration system for disputes between Germany and its neighbors.

4. The Dawes Plan: The Locarno Treaties were closely linked to the Dawes Plan, which provided for the reorganization of Germany's reparations payments. The Dawes Plan was seen as an important step towards German reintegration into the international community.

5. The Kellogg-Briand Pact: The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an international agreement signed in 1928. This pact outlawed war as an instrument of national policy and provided for the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations.

6. The Stresemann Era: The Locarno Treaties marked the beginning of the Stresemann era in Germany. Gustav Stresemann was a German statesman who served as Chancellor and Foreign Minister between 1923 and 1929. Stresemann was a strong advocate of German reintegration into the international community and the Locarno Treaties were a key part of his foreign policy.

7. The League of Nations: The Locarno Treaties were closely linked to the League of Nations. The League was an international organization formed in the wake of World War I. Its main aim was to maintain international peace and security. The Locarno Treaties helped to strengthen the League's role in international affairs.

8. The Young Plan: The Young Plan was an international agreement signed in 1929. This plan modified the terms of the Dawes Plan and provided for a further reduction in Germany's reparation payments.

9. The End of the Locarno Treaties: The Locarno Treaties were rendered obsolete by the rise of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler's regime rejected the treaties and sought to revise Germany's borders. This led to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.

10. Legacy of the Locarno Treaties: The Locarno Treaties had a lasting impact on European politics. The treaties provided for the mutual recognition of Germany's western borders and the establishment of an international arbitration system. These agreements helped to create a more stable and peaceful Europe. The legacy of the Locarno Treaties can still be seen in the European Union today.

While the Locarno Treaty was initially seen as a means of promoting peace and stability in Europe, in the long run, it was seen as a way of legitimizing and consolidating the existing power structures in Europe, and legitimizing the existing territorial settlements imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which many felt was unjust. This was seen as being destructive both of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The Locarno Treaty allowed Germany to re-arm, which was in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles and by creating a separate peace between Germany and its western neighbours.

World War II

1. One of the most important impacts of the Second World War was the "division of Europe", eastern and western. Comment. [1998, 20 Marks]

The Second World War had a profound impact on Europe, including the division of the continent into two distinct spheres of influence: the Western capitalist countries, led by the United States, and the Eastern communist countries, led by the Soviet Union. This division, known as the Iron Curtain, lasted for several decades and had a significant impact on the political, economic, and social development of Europe. The division also led to the Cold War, a period of intense political and military tension between the Western powers and the Soviet Union. The division was marked by the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, which separated East and West Berlin, and served as a symbol of the divide between the two sides. It was not until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the Iron Curtain was lifted and the division of Europe came to an end.

• The primary cause of the Cold War and the “division of Europe” was the ideological differences between the Soviet Union, a communist country, and the capitalist countries of the western world.

• WWII ended with the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945 and the victory of the Allied powers.

• This victory was shortlived, however, as the tensions between the western and Soviet blocs quickly emerged.

• The two cultures clashed over the divided countries of Europe and the contrasting ideologies they represented.

• The United States and the United Kingdom wanted an economically unified Europe with a democratic and capitalist government, while the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism throughout the continent.

• As a result of the deepening political tensions between the two sides, the Iron Curtain was erected, separating the eastern and western blocs and resulting in the “division of Europe” into two distinct regions.

• Western Europe, under the control of the US and UK, would become known as the Western bloc and comprise countries such as France, the Netherlands, and West Germany.

• The Eastern bloc was controlled by the Soviet Union and comprised countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.

• The two sides were now divided by a system of alliances, created to counter each other, with the United States and its allies on one side, and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies on the other.

• This divide further enforced the ideological and political differences between the two powers, leading to mutual mistrust, suspicion, and conflict.

• The United States, the United Kingdom, and France launched the Marshall Plan to provide economic aid to the struggling nations of western Europe, while the Soviet Union maintained tight control over the Eastern bloc, leading to the formation of the Eastern Bloc's version of the Marshall Plan, COMECON.

• The Second World War thus created a lasting legacy in Europe, resulting in political and ideological divisions that would last for decades until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

“Until December 1941 the battlefield of the Second World War was exclusively European and Atlantic; thereafter it became also Asiatic and Pacific.” Comment. [2000, 2018, 20 Marks]

Prior to December 1941, the Second World War was primarily fought in Europe and the Atlantic, with the major powers being Germany, Italy, and Japan. However, in December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, drawing the US into the war and extending the conflict to the Pacific and Asia. The war in Europe continued, but the entry of the United States and its immense industrial and military resources greatly strengthened the Allied powers and ultimately led to the defeat of Germany and Italy. On the other hand, the Pacific War was characterized by a series of brutal island-hopping campaigns, in which the US slowly advanced towards the Japanese mainland. The war in the Pacific was finally brought to an end in August 1945 with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan’s surrender.

Chornology of the war in the pacific

December 7, 1941: Japan launches a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States into the war
December 1941-1942: Japan rapidly expands its control in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, occupying parts of China, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies
1942: The United States and its allies begin a counteroffensive in the Pacific, launching the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo and the Battle of the Coral Sea
1942: The Battle of Midway, a decisive victory for the United States, marks a turning point in the war in the Pacific
1942-1943: The US and its allies launch a series of island-hopping campaigns, slowly advancing towards the Japanese mainland
1943: The Battle of Guadalcanal, a major Allied victory, marks the first time the US successfully defended its territory against Japan
1944: The US continues its island-hopping campaign, capturing key islands such as Saipan, Guam, and Tinian
1944-1945: The US launches a series of air raids on Japan, including the bombing of Tokyo and other major cities
August 6, 1945: The US drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima
August 9, 1945: The US drops an atomic bomb on Nagasaki
August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending the war in the Pacific.

Japanese Attacks on other Nations

The Asian theatre of World War II, also known as the Pacific War, began on December 7, 1941, when Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, drawing the US into the war. Here is a chronology of major events in the Asian theatre of World War II in which the United States was not a part from 1941 to 1945:

1941:

December 7: Japan launches a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, drawing the United States into the war.
December 8: Japan declares war on the United States and the British Empire.
December 10: Japan invades British Malaya, Hong Kong, and the Philippines.
December 25: Japan captures Manila, the capital of the Philippines.

1942:

January 2: Japan captures the British colony of North Borneo.
January 15: Japan captures the Dutch East Indies.
February 15: Japan captures Singapore, the largest British colony in Southeast Asia.
March 8: Japan invades and occupies Burma.
April 18: Japan invades and occupies the Andaman Islands.
May 6: Japan invades and occupies the Dutch East Indies.

1943:

February 2: Japan invades and occupies the Solomon Islands.
July 7: Japan invades and occupies the Aleutian Islands.
October 22: Japan invades and occupies the Treasury Islands.

1944:

January 4: Japan invades and occupies the Marshall Islands.
June 15: Japan invades and occupies the Mariana Islands.
October 21: Japan invades and occupies the Palau Islands.

1945:

January 9: Japan invades and occupies the Philippines.
February 19: Japan invades and occupies Iwo Jima.
March 26: Japan invades and occupies Okinawa.

One of the most important consequences of the Second World War was “division of Europe”, eastern and western. Comment. [2002, 20 Marks]
“Hitler did not really want a World War. His intention was only a short war with Poland.” (A. J. P. Taylor). Comment. [2009, 20 Marks]

The statement that “Hitler did not really want a World War. His intention was only a short war with Poland” was made by the British historian A. J. P. Taylor. This view, however, is not widely accepted among historians and is not supported by the evidence.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler outlined his plans for the expansion of Germany and his desire for Lebensraum or “living space” for the German people. He stated, “We National Socialists must hold unflinchingly to our aim in foreign policy, the acquisition of land and soil for the German people, and we, therefore, must not believe that a colonial policy or a policy of trade will enable us to achieve this aim”. He also stated that the conquest of Eastern Europe would be necessary for the survival of the German people.

In addition, Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy, his disregard for the Treaty of Versailles and his aggressive military expansion in Europe all indicate that he had a desire for a world war. He annexed Austria in 1938, and Czechoslovakia in 1939, and in the same year, he signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which allowed him to invade Poland without fear of Soviet intervention.

Furthermore, Hitler’s aggressive plans to invade and conquer many other European countries and his intention to exterminate the Jews and other groups deemed undesirable, which were outlined in his Mein Kampf, also indicate that Hitler was willing to start a world war to achieve his goals.

In an address to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, Hitler stated “If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”

In a speech given on 22 August 1939, Hitler stated: “I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewish race, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe’s Aryan peoples die of starvation, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means”

These quotes and many others, indicate that Hitler had plans to start a world war, and his intention was not just a short war with Poland but to conquer and control Europe and exterminate certain groups of people.

It is worth noting that Poland was not the only country Hitler wanted to attack, his plans also included the conquest of Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and eventually the Soviet Union. All of this indicate that Hitler had expansionist goals that would inevitably lead to a world war.

In conclusion, while A. J. P. Taylor’s view that Hitler did not really want a World War and his intention was only a short war with Poland may have been a popular opinion among some historians, it is not supported by the evidence. Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy, his disregard for the Treaty of Versailles and his aggressive military expansion in Europe, his aggressive rhetoric, and his plans outlined in Mein Kampf all indicate that he had a desire for a world war and his intention was to conquer and control Europe and exterminate certain groups of people.

Historians have different views on whether Hitler intended to start a world war or if his intention was only a short war with Poland. Here are three historians who support the idea that Hitler did not intend for a world war, and three who disagree with this view, along with their sources:

Supporting the idea that Hitler did not intend for a world war:

A. J. P. Taylor, a British historian, in his book “The Origins of the Second World War,” argues that Hitler’s goal was not to start a world war, but rather to have a short war with Poland to expand Germany’s territory and gain access to Lebensraum or “living space” for the German people.
Erich Eyck, a German historian, in his book “A History of the Weimar Republic” maintains that Hitler was not seeking a general war, but rather a limited war to expand Germany’s territory.
Gerhard Weinberg, a German-American historian, in his book “A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II,” argues that Hitler’s primary goal was to gain territory and resources, rather than to start a world war.

Disagreeing with the idea that Hitler did not intend for a world war:

Ian Kershaw, a British historian, in his book “Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris,” argues that Hitler had a clear intention to start a world war. He writes that Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy, his disregard for the Treaty of Versailles, and his aggressive military expansion in Europe all indicate that he had a desire for a world war.
Richard J. Evans, a British historian, in his book “The Third Reich in Power,” argues that Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy, his aggressive rhetoric and his desire for a Greater Germany, his disregard for the Treaty of Versailles and his aggressive military expansion in Europe all indicate that he had a desire for a world war.
Joachim Fest, German historian and journalist, in his book “Hitler” contends that Hitler had a long-term plan of conquest and extermination that would inevitably lead to a world war. He argues that Hitler’s aggressive plans to invade and conquer many other European countries and his intention to exterminate the Jews and other groups deemed undesirable, which were outlined in his Mein Kampf, also indicate that Hitler was willing to start a world war to achieve his goals.

1. "Until December 1941, the battlefield of the Second World War was exclusively European and Atlantic; thereafter it became also Asiatic and Pacific." [2018, 10 Marks]

WWII : Causes and Consequences

WWII : Causes and Consequences

JP CN Relations

Factors that Led to Rise of Militarism in Japan

1. Expansion Of the Japanese military:

1. Nationalism And Imperialism:

Fear Of Western colonization:

1. Economic Factor:

1. Social Factors :

2. • Political Factors:

Mussolini’s Foreign Policy

Spanish Civil War Help to Franco Hope Estd Fascist State

Significance

Hitlers Foreign Policy

Make GER Great Power

Series of Success

Appeasement

Justified?

Examples

Sept 1938 to Sept 1939

Czechoslovakia

Poland

Who to Blame

Appeasers

Was Hitler to Blame

The 2nd World War

Opening Moves Sept 1939 - Dec 1940

Axis Offensive 1941 - Summer 1942

Summer 1942 - 1943

Allied Naval Forces

Axis Power Defeated

Why Axis Lost

Effects of War

Stimulated Imp Social Change

PYQs