Q2 How useful are the sources Practice Questions: Inter-War Years

Study Sources B and C below, then answer the question.

Source B: From a statement issued by the German government press office in Berlin on 12 March 1938, written for publication in German newspapers on the day German troops entered Austria.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

German troops crossed the frontier into Austria this morning at the request of the new Austrian government, in order to prevent disorder and bloodshed. Everywhere they have been met with flowers and with cheering crowds. For twenty years the German people of Austria have been held apart from the Reich by a treaty forced upon them. That injustice is now at an end. A vote will be held so that every Austrian may freely declare his support for union with Germany. No other nation has cause for alarm. This is a family matter between Germans.

Source C: From a letter written by a British teacher who had lived in Vienna for six years, sent to her sister in England on 27 March 1938.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

You would not know this city. Swastika flags hang from nearly every window, and thousands cheered the German soldiers as they came in. Many here genuinely believe that union with Germany will bring work and bread after years of hardship. But that is not the whole story. My neighbour, a Jewish bookseller, was made to scrub the pavement while a crowd stood and laughed. His shop is now shut and his son has been arrested. Friends of mine are desperate for visas. The welcome you read about in the newspapers is not shared by everyone.

Study Sources B and C below, then answer the question.

Source B: From an editorial in a British newspaper, 24 August 1939, the morning after Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact in Moscow.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

For six years Germany's rulers have told the world that communism is their deadliest enemy. Now their foreign minister has flown to Moscow and signed. Nobody should be deceived about what this agreement means. Hitler no longer fears a war on two fronts, and Poland stands in the gravest danger. Those who hoped that Moscow would join us in resisting aggression must accept that the summer's talks have come to nothing. Our pledge to Poland remains, and the government has declared that nothing agreed in Moscow alters it. If German troops cross the Polish frontier, this country will not stand aside a second time.

Source C: From an article in a Soviet newspaper, written for Soviet readers at the end of August 1939, explaining the government's decision to sign the pact with Germany.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

Our country has been patient. For months our representatives waited while Britain and France sent officials without the authority to agree anything, and while they refused to say how their armies would act if the Soviet Union were attacked. We remember Munich, where great states settled the fate of Czechoslovakia without inviting us to the table. A government must protect its own people. The agreement signed in Moscow removes the danger of war from our western frontier and gives us time to strengthen our defences and our industry. The Soviet Union has no quarrel with the German people, and we shall not fight other nations' battles.

(The Nazi–Soviet Pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939.)

Study Sources B and C below, then answer the question.

Source B: From an editorial in a British newspaper, 12 October 1935, published nine days after Italian forces invaded Abyssinia.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

The Covenant is now on trial. Italy has attacked a fellow member of the League without warning and without provocation, and nearly fifty nations have said so plainly. Sanctions must follow, and they must bite. If the League will not stop the sale to Italy of the oil and coal without which her lorries and aircraft cannot move, then its condemnation will be no more than words on paper, as it was over Manchuria. Opinion in this country is overwhelmingly behind the League. Our government should not shelter behind the excuse that firmness is dangerous.

Source C: From a private letter written by a senior official in the French foreign ministry to a colleague, 16 December 1935, after details of the Hoare–Laval plan appeared in the French press.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

The outcry in London and Paris is understandable, but those who shout loudest offer no plan of their own. Our proposals would have ended the fighting at once and left the Emperor a kingdom. To press Italy further — to cut off her oil, or to close the Suez Canal to her ships — would drive Mussolini straight into the arms of Berlin, at the very moment when Germany is rearming and France needs every friend she can find. France cannot face Hitler alone. The Covenant is a fine thing, but it will not defend us.

Study Sources B and C below, then answer the question.

Source B: From a letter sent by an official of the Lithuanian government to the editor of a British newspaper, November 1920, a few weeks after Polish troops seized the city of Vilna.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

Two years ago our nation was given its independence, and we were told that from now on disputes would be settled by discussion and not by armies. In October Polish troops marched into Vilna, our capital, and they remain there. We appealed to the League of Nations at Geneva. Its officials have been courteous; they have sent telegrams and have proposed a plebiscite. Meanwhile the soldiers do not leave. A small state has no coal, no money and no army with which to make itself heard. We ask the British public whether the new Europe is to be governed by the Covenant or by whoever is strongest.

Source C: From a report prepared for the members of the Assembly of the League of Nations, 1922, describing the League's work in settling disputes between states.

Written for practice: not a real historical source.

The Covenant has already been tested, and it has worked. When Sweden and Finland both claimed the Aaland Islands, the Council examined the case and awarded the islands to Finland, with guarantees for the Swedish-speaking islanders; both governments accepted the decision and not a shot was fired. In Upper Silesia, where Germans and Poles live side by side, a plebiscite was held and the Council then divided the province between the two countries. States that have only just drawn their frontiers now have somewhere to bring their quarrels. Patience and open discussion, not armies, are the instruments of the new Europe.