The Road to War, 1939

Why this demand and not the others?

You have probably already studied six years in which treaty after treaty was broken and nobody fired a shot, and the argument about whether appeasement was wise. ⚠️ THIS MODULE ASKS A NARROWER QUESTION, AND IT IS THE ONE THE PERIOD ACTUALLY TURNS ON. ⭐⭐ WHY DID WAR COME IN 1939, AND NOT AT ANY OF THE EARLIER MOMENTS THAT LOOKED MORE DANGEROUS AT THE TIME? Because on the face of it, 1939 was not the worst crisis. Earlier ones had involved armies moving into places they had no right to be, and none of them produced a war. ⚠️ SO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SIZE OF THE DEMAND MUST EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE. ⭐ TWO THINGS HAD BEEN HOLDING EACH CRISIS BACK FROM BECOMING A WAR, AND BOTH WERE REMOVED WITHIN ABOUT SIX MONTHS OF EACH OTHER. ⭐⭐ THE FIRST WAS A BELIEF: THAT EACH DEMAND WAS THE LAST ONE. Every settlement of the 1930s rested on the idea that the grievance being pressed was a real one about German-speaking people, and that meeting it would end the matter. That belief made concession look like a solution rather than a surrender. ⚠️ IN MARCH 1939 GERMAN FORCES OCCUPIED THE REST OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA, AND THAT ARGUMENT STOPPED WORKING. ⭐ THE PEOPLE NOW BEING TAKEN OVER WERE NOT GERMAN-SPEAKING, SO NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTION COULD BE PRESENTED AS COMPLETING A NATIONAL GRIEVANCE. Whatever else it was, it was not the last demand. The British response changed accordingly: instead of another conference, a guarantee to Poland that an attack would mean war. ⭐⭐ THE SECOND RESTRAINT WAS A FEAR: THAT GERMANY COULD NOT FIGHT BRITAIN AND FRANCE IN THE WEST AND THE SOVIET UNION IN THE EAST AT THE SAME TIME. That fear is what made the guarantee mean anything, because a guarantee only deters if the threat behind it is real. ⚠️ IN AUGUST 1939 GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION SIGNED A PACT OF NON-AGGRESSION, AND THAT FEAR WAS GONE. ⭐ WITH THE BELIEF GONE, BRITAIN WOULD NOT CONCEDE AGAIN. WITH THE FEAR GONE, GERMANY NO LONGER HAD TO CARE. ⚠️ GERMANY INVADED POLAND IN SEPTEMBER 1939 AND THE GUARANTEE WAS HONOURED. One question to carry through the rest of this module: what was stopping this crisis from becoming a war, and is it still there?

Two restraints, and what removed them

What had been preventing each crisis from becoming a war, what removed it, and what that made possible.

Tap what the two-restraint idea claims

Tap the TWO statements that follow from war coming when the restraints were removed.

• What changed in 1939 was not the size of the demand but what was left to hold it back
• A guarantee only deters while the threat standing behind it is believable
• War came in 1939 because that year produced the most serious crisis of the decade
• The pact of August 1939 is sufficient on its own to explain why war came when it did

Why not one of the earlier crises?

Several crises before 1939 involved forces moving into territory in defiance of treaties, and none produced a war. Why did the demand on Poland produce one?

• Because by then both of the things that had defused earlier crises were gone: nobody could believe this was the last demand, and Germany no longer faced the risk of a war on two fronts
• Because the demand on Poland was far larger than any of the earlier ones
• Because Britain and France had finally finished rearming and felt able to fight
• Because the League of Nations finally acted against an aggressor

Five terms for the final year

Five terms, each defined by what it is. Where each one sits in the sequence is the work of the steps that follow.

Match each moment to what was still holding

Two that follow from the sequence

Select the TWO statements that follow from both restraints having to go before war came.

• The order matters: the guarantee was only meaningful because the eastern risk still existed when it was given
• Neither the March occupation nor the August pact would have been enough on its own
• The pact of August 1939 is the single cause of the war
• War had been inevitable since 1919, so the events of 1939 made no difference

Explaining a year rather than listing it

You have already met the two moves this paper keeps asking for: explaining a reaction instead of describing it, and reaching a judgement the question actually invites. ⚠️ THIS PERIOD ADDS A THIRD, AND IT IS THE ONE THAT SEPARATES THE TOP BAND. ⭐⭐ WHEN ASKED WHY SOMETHING HAPPENED WHEN IT DID, DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT HAPPENED AT ALL. EXPLAIN WHAT HAD PREVIOUSLY STOPPED IT. Almost every weak answer on this topic explains why Germany wanted to expand. That is usually accurate and it is almost never the question, because the same explanation applies equally well to years in which no war broke out. A shape that works on nearly any stem here: NAME WHAT HAD BEEN HOLDING THE SITUATION BACK. For this period that is the belief that each demand was the last, and the risk of a war on two fronts. SAY WHAT REMOVED IT, AND WHEN. ⚠️ BE PRECISE ABOUT THE ORDER, because an event that would have been decisive in one order is harmless in another. ⭐ SAY WHY THE REPLACEMENT DID NOT WORK. A guarantee was offered in place of the lost belief, and it depended on the restraint that was removed next. THEN GIVE THE OUTCOME, AND SAY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DIFFERENT FOR IT NOT TO HAPPEN. ⭐ THAT LAST SENTENCE IS THE ONE MOST ANSWERS LEAVE OUT, AND IT IS WHERE A JUDGEMENT BECOMES AN ARGUMENT. ⚠️ THREE HABITS THAT COST MARKS ON THIS TOPIC. ⚠️ THE FIRST IS THE SINGLE CAUSE. Naming one event as the cause of the war is tempting and always weaker than showing how two or more had to combine. ⚠️ THE SECOND IS HINDSIGHT. Writing that a decision was obviously wrong uses information the people making it did not have. ⭐ SAY WHAT THEY BELIEVED AT THE TIME AND WHY IT WAS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE IT, THEN SAY WHAT THEY GOT WRONG. THAT IS A STRONGER CRITICISM, NOT A SOFTER ONE. ⚠️ AND THE THIRD IS INVENTING EVIDENCE. A date, a figure, or a quotation you half remember will be wrong often enough to cost more than it gains. ⭐ IF YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN OF A DATE, USE THE ORDER OF EVENTS INSTEAD: "after the occupation" and "once the pact was signed" are safe, creditable and often more useful than a year. Where historians disagree about responsibility, say that they disagree and attribute the positions rather than settling it yourself.

The agreement that changed the arithmetic

In the spring of 1939 Britain made a promise to Poland: an attack would bring Britain into the war. In the summer, Britain and France opened talks with the Soviet Union. In August, Germany and the Soviet Union announced an agreement not to attack one another. Within weeks Poland was invaded. ⚠️ THE USUAL MISTAKE IS TO TREAT THE AUGUST AGREEMENT AS A SURPRISE THAT CAUSED THE WAR. IT IS MORE USEFUL TO ASK WHAT IT CHANGED ABOUT THE ARITHMETIC. Start with the British promise. What was it actually worth? ⭐ A PROMISE OF THAT KIND WORKS BY MAKING AN ACTION LOOK TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE WORTH TAKING. AND IT COULD ONLY DO THAT BECAUSE GERMANY FACED ENEMIES ON BOTH SIDES. Fighting Britain and France while the Soviet Union stood armed to the east was a genuinely frightening proposition, and it had frightened German planners for twenty years. ⚠️ SO BRITAIN'S PROMISE WAS NOT REALLY BACKED BY BRITAIN. IT WAS BACKED BY GEOGRAPHY. Now look at the summer talks. Britain and France were negotiating with the Soviet Union, and moving slowly. There were real difficulties: the countries in between did not want Soviet troops crossing them, and there was deep mutual distrust. ⭐ BUT THE SLOWNESS MATTERED, BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE WAS NEGOTIATING TOO. And then the August agreement. ⭐⭐ IT DID NOT ADD ANYTHING TO GERMANY'S STRENGTH. IT REMOVED SOMETHING FROM BRITAIN'S PROMISE. With the eastern risk gone, the cost of attacking Poland fell to whatever Britain and France could do in the west, quickly, on their own. ⚠️ AND THE ANSWER TO THAT, IN 1939, WAS: NOT VERY MUCH, NOT VERY FAST. So the promise stopped deterring. It did not stop binding. ⭐ THAT IS THE PART WORTH UNDERSTANDING. A PUBLIC PROMISE CANNOT QUIETLY BE DROPPED WHEN IT STOPS WORKING - Britain had already been seen to give way once and could not do it again without the promise meaning nothing anywhere. So Britain was committed to a war it could no longer prevent by threatening one. ⚠️ NOTE WHAT THIS EXPLANATION DOES NOT DO. IT DOES NOT DECIDE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR, AND HISTORIANS DISAGREE ABOUT THAT. ⭐ IT EXPLAINS THE TIMING, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND OFTEN THE ONE ACTUALLY ASKED.

Order the removal of the restraints

Put these six stages into the order in which the barriers to war came down. This is the order of a change, not a full list of events.

• Both restraints hold: demands can be presented as final, and an eastern risk remains
• Territory is occupied whose people are not German-speaking, so no grievance is being completed
• The belief that each demand is the last one collapses
• Britain replaces conference with a public promise to fight if Poland is attacked
• Germany and the Soviet Union agree not to attack one another, ending the eastern risk
• The promise no longer deters but still binds, and war follows the invasion of Poland

Build the sentence about what stopped it

The question asks why it happened THEN. This is the sentence that answers that rather than the other one. Assemble it.

The road to war run

Five questions on what was removed, and in what order. Three lives.

Complete the road to war facts

A public promise by one state to go to war if another is attacked is a _____. An agreement between two states not to attack one another is a _____. Preventing an action by making its likely cost look too high is _____. A war fought against enemies on opposite sides at the same time is a _____.

Three answers to strengthen

Three student answers about 1939. In each case the history is accurate and the explanation is what needs work.

• Asked why war broke out in 1939, an answer explains at length why Germany wanted to expand eastwards. Everything it says is accurate. Why does it score poorly?
• A student writes that the August 1939 pact caused the Second World War. How would you improve it?
• An answer states that giving way at earlier conferences was obviously a foolish policy that anyone could see would fail. What is wrong with that?

Explain why the war came in 1939

Explain why war broke out in 1939 rather than during one of the earlier crises of the decade. Build your answer around what had been preventing war, not around what Germany wanted.

• Open by naming what had been holding earlier crises back from becoming wars
• Explain how one of those restraints was destroyed, and why that particular event destroyed it
• Explain what Britain put in its place, and why that replacement depended on the other restraint
• Explain how the second restraint was removed, and what that did to the value of the British promise
• Explain why the promise could not simply be withdrawn once it had stopped deterring
• Finish by saying what would have had to be different for war not to have come then, and avoid any date or figure you are not certain of