Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2022 May/June Paper 2 · Variant 3

1 France, 1774–1814 (a) Explain why the Assembly of Notables met in 1787. [10] (b) To what extent did Napoleon’s domestic policies change France in the period 1799–1814? [20]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain why the Assembly of Notables met in 1787. 10 Indicative content  There was an urgent need to deal with the precarious state of France’s finances. The deficit stood at 112m livres, a quarter of expected income and nearly half of annual revenue was absorbed by debt service. Government credit was exhausted, and the country faced bankruptcy.  Economies in government and court expenditure were popular, but would save only about 30%, at the most, of total expenses.  The problem for the government was to increase revenue without attacking the fiscal privileges of the clergy and nobility. This, however, was impossible as indirect taxes on consumer goods were insufficient. This meant that the fiscal exemptions of the First and Second Estates would have to be addressed.  Calonne, Controller-General of Finances since 1783, believed the solution lay with the calling of an Assembly of Notables. It was assumed that, as all the members were royal nominees, they would agree to rubber-stamp Calonne’s plan for a new graduated land tax.  This public show of backing from the leading men of the country for Calonne’s plan would result in further loans being available. Accept any other valid responses. 1(b) To what extent did Napoleon’s domestic policies change France in the 20 period 1799–1814? Indicative content In terms of government and administration, reforms such as the inauguration of the Empire and the Civil Code replaced the loosely controlled and devolved popular sovereignty of the Revolution with an authority which was more centralised and autocratic. The Civil Code did away with the confused legal and judicial system which had existed prior to, and persisted after, 1789. The establishing of the principle of equality before the law was something never sought by the Ancien Régime nor achieved by revolutionary groups after 1789. The Concordat with the Church did establish the principle of religious toleration and established a more exacting control over the Church than that by the Ancien Régime and the following revolutionary governments. Education was widened and there was some attempt at social mobility with the ‘careers open to the talents’. For most of this period France did not experience any serious unrest, unlike that seen between 1789 and the fall of the Directory in 1799. It was not until the bad harvest of 1811, plus the increased burden of conscription (1812–14), that serious threats to order arose. 1(b) However, the extent of change can be challenged. The use of censorship and the secret police seemed a continuation of the Ancien Régime. The Civil Code was based on the authoritarianism of Roman Law rather than personal freedom espoused after 1789. In addition, it curtailed the changes made to women’s right, gained after 1789, by emphasising male authority and the father’s rights. France experienced no agricultural revolution, with farming continuing to use the same subsistence methods. This was no doubt the result of the plentiful harvests up to 1811. In industry, Napoleon did provide subsidies to manufacturers, but it did not appear to be a priority for him. The establishment of the Empire seemed a return to the absolutism of the Bourbons. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What caused the rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte?

2 The Industrial Revolution in Britain, 1750–1850 (a) Explain why access to international markets helped to increase the development of industry after 1780. [10] (b) To what extent did working conditions improve for the lower classes after 1800? [20]

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why access to international markets helped to increase the 10 development of industry after 1780. Indicative content  It provided access to important raw materials, such as cotton, which drove the development of the cotton textile industry.  Access to large overseas markets was available. By 1801 exports were about 16% of national income.  As most of these exports were manufactured goods this meant that such exports were a much higher portion of manufacturing output. It has been calculated that net exports were about 45% of manufacturing, mining, and building.  The slave trade provided large amounts of investment capital for industrialisation – rail and steel industries.  The profits gained by industries through access to international markets allowed them to invest in their own and other industries. This led to expansion and continued industrial growth. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) To what extent did working conditions improve for the lower classes 20 after 1800? Indicative content A series of acts relating to the regulation of industry were passed by governments in 1819, 1833, 1842 and 1844. Thus, in the 1819 Act, children under-nine were not to be employed and the age group 9-16 was to work no more than 12 hours. The 1833 Act sought to improve on this when it stated that 9 to12-year-old should work no more than 48 hours per week, and 9 to13-year-old could only work if they had two hours of education per day. A Factory Inspectorate was to be established to carry out inspections, with the right to demand entry and to act as a magistrate. The 1844 Act forbade women and children from cleaning moving machinery in an attempt to improve factory safety. The 1842 Mines Act forbade women and girls of any 2(b) age from working underground and established the minimum age for boys underground as 10. However, the extent of improvement can be questioned. The reforms were limited. The 1819 Act was concerned with textile mills and factories not with industry as a whole. The Act of 1833 did not provide for a ‘ten-hour day’, which was what most factory reformers wanted. In addition, the focus was on women and children. Thus, 9 to 13-year-olds could not work for more than eight hours without a lunch break. This resulted in the use of two shifts of children, causing adults to have to work a 15-hour day. Whilst education was to be provided it was paid through a deduction of a penny-in-the-shilling from children’s wages. This, along with the reduction in hours, resulted, often, in a worsening of conditions for the lower-classes, and put more pressure on adult workers. Although there was some improvement in working conditions after 1800, it was limited and not without negative consequences for the lower classes. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What were the consequences of the rapid economic growth after 1870?

3 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why the Zollverein was created. [10] (b) ‘Prussia’s actions caused the Franco–Prussian War.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Zollverein was created. 10 Indicative content  The way for its creation had been prepared by earlier customs unions. In the south, Bavaria and Wurttemberg, in the north, the Prussian customs union and there was a Middle German Commercial Union (MGCU).  The MGCU was seen as purely anti-Prussian in nature. This lessened its economic attractiveness, and in 1831 Hesse-Cassel joined the Prussian customs union.  The MGCU collapsed whilst the Prussian customs union continued to prosper. Hesse-Cassel’s membership bridged the territorial gap between the eastern and western provinces of Prussia. In 1834 Bavaria and Wurttemberg joined the Prussians  The newly enlarged Prussian Customs Union, the Zollverein, was regarded as a means to achieve increased trade and prosperity by doing away with customs duties. The cost of securing tariff borders and tariff administration had cost 100% of Hesse-Cassel’s tariff income prior to 1830.  The Zollverein was seen as a way to isolate Austria, and such isolation would not only be economic but lead to a weakening of Austria’s political influence within the German Confederation. This would help Prussia’s status – states which had experienced a financial advantage in the economic union with Prussia might prove amenable to a similar arrangement in a political union. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Prussia’s actions caused the Franco-Prussian War.’ How far do you 20 agree? Indicative content In his memoirs, Bismarck saw the war as the result of his master plan to create a united Germany under Prussian leadership. The war with France was the final stage in this process of unification, begun with victories in wars against Denmark and Austria (1864 and 1866). In 1862, Bismarck had stated that ‘blood and iron’ (originally iron and blood) would decide issues, seeming to indicate that Prussia under Bismarck would use war to achieve its goals. It was Prussian machinations over the Hohenzollern candidacy for the Spanish throne through the re-working and publication of the Ems telegram that forced France into declaring war. Prussian manoeuvrings against France had been present since the Luxembourg crisis of 1867. French failure to make any territorial gains was a blow to its prestige and stocked up anti-German feelings, which were later exploited to provoke a French response for war in 1870. However, this argument can be challenged. France sought war in 1870 and was not helplessly controlled by Prussian actions. Napoleon III was facing domestic pressures in France. There was a growing demand for democratic reforms and revolution seemed likely to occur. Therefore, war would lead to gains in the Rhineland and restore unity in the country. The French felt the Prussian victories of 1864 and 1866 had diminished the international standing of France. The lack of any territorial compensation agreed to by Prussia meant that war seemed the only alternative. The failure of France’s Mexican expedition increased the pressure for war as the means to re- establish France’s standing in Europe. The military reforms of 1866 gave a sense of confidence that France had the means to achieve its aims through war. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on How and why was German unification achieved by 1871?

4 The origins of the Civil War, 1820–61 (a) Explain why Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election. [10] (b) To what extent was Texas joining the Union the biggest challenge to the Missouri Compromise before 1850? [20]

Mark scheme: 4(a) Explain why Lincoln won the 1860 Presidential election. 10 Indicative content With four candidates in the field, Lincoln received only 40% of the popular vote and 180 electoral votes — enough to narrowly win the crowded election. This meant that 60% of the voters selected someone other than Lincoln.  Lincoln as a candidate - Lincoln emerged as the man who would symbolise the hard working self-made man of the frontier in these states. His choice was an astute political tactic by Republicans who realised the impact that the Democratic split would have.  Anti-slavery in Northern States – although Lincoln was not an abolitionist he attracted many voters who wanted to see an end to slavery. The Republican Party clearly ran on a ticket of Free Soil in new 4(a) territories and voters felt this was enough for Lincoln to win their support.  Splits in the Democratic Party – The Democrats nominated Douglas and Breckenridge because they could not agree. This sectional division within the party meant that votes were split and handed victory to Lincoln.  Smaller parties – Another group of politicians wanted slavery to not be the central issue of the election and so formed the Constitutional Unionist Party and nominated John Bell as their candidates. This further split the vote in some areas and helped hand victory to Lincoln. Accept any other valid responses. 4(b) To what extent was Texas joining the Union the biggest challenge to 20 the Missouri Compromise before 1850? Indicative content Possible discussion of Texas as a challenge to the Missouri Compromise: After gaining independence from Spain in the 1820s, Mexico welcomed foreign settlers to sparsely populated Texas, and a large group of Americans led by Stephen F. Austin settled along the Brazos River. The Americans soon outnumbered the resident Mexicans, and by the 1830s attempts by the Mexican government to regulate these semi-autonomous American communities led to rebellion. In March 1836, in the midst of armed conflict with the Mexican government, Texas declared its independence from Mexico. The citizens of the independent Republic of Texas elected Sam Houston president but also endorsed the entrance of Texas into the Union. The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state. The inclusion of Texas in the Union challenged the Missouri Compromise because it threatened to upset the delicate balance over slavery which was held in the Senate. Possible discussion of other challenges to the Missouri Compromise: Westward Expansion – the growth of the country Westwards (especially after 1840) became an increasing challenge to the Missouri Compromise as questions over the entrance of states to the union was posed. The 36°30’ ‘Dixie’ line became unworkable as people, goods and slaves were taken west. This was particularly problematic in the far west in places like California which saw huge population explosions. 4(b) Wider issues following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo – the treaty which followed the Mexican American War signed in 1848 offered particular challenges to the Missouri Compromise. The inclusion of large swathes of land in the South West of the country worried many Northerners because the territories technically fell under the Missouri Compromise and could thus become slave states. Northerners in Congress argued that these new territories should not be subject to the Compromise whereas Southerners argued vigorously that slavery should be allowed. These discussions eventually resulted in the Compromise of 1850. The nullification crisis of 1828 also offered a challenge to the Missouri Compromise because John Calhoun and his supporters proposed that it was legal for States to overrule or ‘nullify’ federal law. Although the argument was particularly over tariffs rather than slavery it was a clear challenge to the established order of the Missouri Compromise that federal government was supreme. Southern dissatisfaction with the failure to apply Slave Act of 1793. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why was there increasing tension between the North and the South before 1860?

5 The Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 1870s to 1920 (a) Explain why the Progressive Movement was successful in amending the Constitution. [10] (b) ‘The rise of organised labour was the most significant consequence of rapid economic growth in the late nineteenth century.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 5(a) Explain why the Progressive Movement was successful in amending 10 the Constitution. Indicative content  The four amendments were: a federal income tax; direct election of US Senators; prohibition; votes for women. These amendments implemented reforms long proposed by Progressives – even prohibition, it can be argued.  The number of amendments achieved in such a short time was unusual, and a sign of the movement’s strength.  The complex process of amending the US constitution required a broad base of support, led by Progressives, and Progressive movement was at its peak of influence in the 1910s, whether under the Republicans, i.e. Taft, or Democrats, i.e. Wilson.  Two amendments occurred only because of the wartime context: the eighteenth, prohibition and nineteenth, votes for women. Accept any other valid responses. 5(b) ‘The rise of organised labour was the most significant consequence of 20 rapid economic growth in the late nineteenth century.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Possible discussions around organised labour: Urban Unions – With the rapid expansion of cities and industrialisation in Northern cities many workers found themselves working in very poor conditions. Unions such as the Knights of Labor formed to help workers have a collective voice; they also allowed black and female workers to join. They argued for an eight-hour working day rather than the long shifts which some workers were being forced into. They also ran campaigns to end child labour as this led to many injuries and deaths amongst children working in factories. Other unions such as The American Federation of Labor founded in 1886 mainly supported skilled people in craft unions. Farming associations - The main farming associations of the time were the Granger Movement in the early 1870s, the Greenback Movement a few years later and the Populist movement of the 1890s. The centre of these movements was the Mid-west. These associations were formed to represent farmers’ concerns over a range of issues: Volatile prices were a serious problem: the prices of farm produce could vary greatly from year to year meaning that farmers had to borrow to buy materials and equipment before receiving income from sales. Thus, they were opposed to the power of commercial banks and of railroad companies, which farmers believed overcharged. Therefore, they aimed to regulate the railroads – with some success. The deflationary policy associated with the withdrawal of the US paper currency, the greenback dollar, and the refusal to expand silver-based money, i.e. bimetallism also caused problems. Possible discussions of other impacts of rapid industrialisation: Immigration – Between 1865 and 1900, some 13 million people emigrated to America, mostly from Europe. By 1900, one third of Americans were immigrants or children of immigrants. In some major cities the figures reached 70%. The peak was reached in the 1880s, a decade when the economy boomed. Candidates might discuss the impact of this immigration on cultural and economic conditions within cities and link it to the idea of economic prosperity waiting for immigrants arriving in the United States. Living conditions – Candidates may discuss the impact of rapid industrialisation on living conditions in major cities such as New York, Chicago or Pittsburgh. The impact of growing cities saw problems involving housing supply, sanitation and ill health. This was a major impact of rapid industrialisation and can of course be linked to other factors. 5(b) Development of Trusts and associated unfair practices – links to corruption in government Rise of Robber Barons domination of production and use of extreme measures to control labour and frustrate rise of organised labour Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What were the consequences of the rapid economic growth after 1870?

6 The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal policies, 1920–41 (a) Explain why the New Deal was criticised by those on the conservative right. [10] (b) ‘The policies of Republican governments were the main cause of weaknesses in the US economy in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree? [20] Section C: International option International history, 1870–1945

Mark scheme: 6(a) Explain why the New Deal was criticised by those on the right. 10 Indicative content  Right wing groups felt that the private enterprise was being eroded by the New Deal. Generally, the right felt that the New Deal involved too much government involvement in the economy.  The most organised and most public right-wing opposition to the New Deal was the American Liberty League, set up in 1934. It combined conservatives Democrats and some leading industrialists and some popular support for private enterprise. By 1936 it had a membership of 125 000. Its aim was to defend the Constitution and its rights and liberties. It criticised the Agricultural Adjustment Act as marking a trend towards ‘fascist control of agriculture’ and the idea of Social Security as marking the end of democracy.  In Congress some conservative Democrats started to work across the aisle with some Republicans. In December 1937, they published a Conservative Manifesto praising private enterprise. The right-wing opposition in the Senate blocked an anti-lynching bill approved by the House – this caused FDR a lot of embarrassment. Accept any other valid responses. 6(b) ‘The policies of Republican governments were the main cause of 20 weaknesses in the US economy in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree? Indicative Content Possible discussion of Republican policies: The laissez-faire policies of the Republican presidents of the 1920s meant that there was little regulation in the economy. Calvin Coolidge’s statement that “the chief business of the American people is business” was what guided the decisions of successive administrations. Harding’s Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon was also a key figure in the early decade. He was a multi-millionaire having made his money in aluminium and banking. He believed that the economy should be run like a successful business i.e. tax cuts and formal budgeting. Banks were unregulated and even before the crash many went out of business leaving customers with no way of getting their money back. Many banks were small and local rather than national which meant they had no way of dealing with a shock like the Wall Street Crash. Low interest rates encouraged share speculation and the practice of buying on the margin. Possible discussion on other factors: Overproduction – Candidates might discuss overproduction in both the agricultural and consumer sectors. Farmers suffered from the fall in demand for grain in America because of Prohibition and changes in tastes in food. There was also less demand from Europeans for food from America because they were growing their own crops and there was a tariff war. Mass production methods in consumer goods led to supply outstripping demand. People who could afford items, such as cars and household gadgets, had already purchased them. Shares and credit– some candidates might discuss the rise in personal debt enabled by the growth of credit and the popularity of investing in the stock market. These ideas can also, of course, be linked to other factors. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What were the causes of the Great Crash and the Great Depression?

7 Empire and the emergence of world powers, 1870–1919 (a) Explain why the sinking of the Lusitania led to US involvement in the First World War. [10] (b) How successful was the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 in resolving conflicts over imperial expansion in Africa? [20]

Mark scheme: 7(a) Explain why the sinking of the Lusitania led to US involvement in the 10 First World War. Indicative content Answers will need to set the sinking in the wider context of US response the war in Europe, establishing the sinking as a short-term cause, possibly ‘trigger’, to US declaration of war by crystallising public opinion against Germany. At the start of the war Wilson was strongly opposed to US involvement and was supported by the majority of US public opinion but:  Even before the war US opinion towards Germany was generally more negative than towards other European countries.  US banks made huge loans to Britain and France allowing them to buy war materials from US producers.  In April 1915 Germany warned against US citizens boarding British ships suspected of carrying these good to Britain and on May 7th sank the Lusitania with the loss of 128 US lives – this outraged public opinion but not enough to lead to war. However, it marked a turning point and Wilson only narrowly won the 1916 election.  It took all-out submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram to finally push US into war. Accept any other valid responses. 7(b) How successful was the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 in resolving 20 conflicts over imperial expansion in Africa? Indicative content Effective responses will probably set consideration of the achievements of the Berlin conference against the continuing appearance of crises and conflicts over the European Powers’ involvement in African colonial expansion. The idea of success revolves around the outcome of the conference. Called predominately to discuss the issue of access to the Congo basin it also created a general framework for expansion in Africa as well as settling a number of individual conflicts. It confirmed Belgian ownership of the Congo but allowed freedom of navigation along the Congo river for other nations. It defined specific areas for each country’s further expansion and established the ‘principle of effectivity’ which meant that countries could not just claim lands that thy might have explored, they had to demonstrate that they had effectively occupied those areas. In exploring the limitations of the treaty candidates are likely to cover a range of conflicts that arose after 1885 despite the Treaty. Anglo French conflict over sub-Saharan Africa was not finally resolved until after the Fashoda incident in 1898. The Boer Wars was effectively a war between rival groups of European settlers and also raised Anglo German tensions. The two Moroccan crises raised tensions between rival powers in Europe which were not fully resolved despite the negotiations that ended them and may eventually have contributed to the outbreak of the First World War. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why was imperialism a significant force in Africa from 1870?

8 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1920s (a) Explain why the Treaty of Versailles was described as a Diktat by many Germans. [10] (b) ‘International conferences did little to improve international relations in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 8(a) Explain why the Treaty of Versailles was described as a Diktat by 10 many Germans. Indicative content The reasons for German dissatisfaction with the Treaty are the basis of a good answer to this question and should be well understood by good candidates.  The war guilt clause – Germans did not accept that they were responsible for the war but were forced to accept this clause as part of the Treaty.  German leaders were not invited to the conference but simple called to sign the agreement that had been made between the victorious powers.  Germany was the only country forced to accept limitations of its armed forces. 8(a)  They were stripped of all their colonies and even some areas that were seem as traditionally part of Germany.  They were forced to pay reparations. Accept any other valid responses. 8(b) ‘International conferences did little to improve international relations 20 in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Candidates will be expected to consider a range of conferences in the 1920s, all of which had both positive and negative aspects, in order to reach an overall judgement. Candidates may approach this either on a conference by conference basis or on a success vs failure basis, both of which could work providing there is a valid overall judgement at the end. Washington Naval Conference: Its purpose was to prevent a possible naval race between the major powers by setting comparative size limits for their naval development. It successfully achieved agreement in the Four-, Five-, and Nine Power Agreements. However, the US used it as an excuse to scrap obsolete ships whilst completing up-to-date battleships that had already been begun. Heavy cruisers were limited in size but not in number so there was a continued race to build more of these. Japanese in particular resented the Treaty as they felt it was western plot to limit the growing power of Japan The Genoa Conference: The Conference was a suggestion of Lloyd George in an attempt to promote ‘the reconstruction of broken Europe’ to bring the Soviet Union and Germany back into the international community and resolve issues between France and Germany. The conference ended in stalemate and recrimination with the only positive results being the agreement to re-establish the gold standard as a basis for currency valuations to aid trade. The treaty of Rapallo might also be identified as an indirect positive outcome, though it was also what led to the collapse in the end. The Locarno conference: The Conference was driven by the diplomacy of Gustav Stresemann which culminated in a meeting of European foreign ministers. It confirmed the permanent western borders of Germany backed by British and Italian guarantees. It was hailed as the beginning of a new era of peace in Europe (the spirit of Locarno). BUT it did not give similar guarantees on the eastern borders of Germany and created anger and disappointment especially in Poland. Extremist groups in Germany saw it as a way of confirming the status quo of Versailles and continued to reject it. Kellogg-Briand might be included but was not really the result of an international conference. 8(b) Accept the Dawes and Young Plans as the result of international conferences with a specific purpose of dealing with reparations. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on How and why did international relations improve, 1924–29?

9 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1930s (a) Explain why Stalin agreed to the Nazi–Soviet Pact. [10] (b) ‘Appeasement was the most sensible policy for Britain in dealing with Hitler.’ To what extent do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 9(a) Explain why Stalin agreed to the Nazi-Soviet Pact. 10 Indicative content The most effective answers will probably explore the wider context in which the Nazi Soviet pact was signed.  Did not trust Britain and France because of Appeasement - thought they hoped Germany would go to war against the Soviet Union and defeat communism.  After what happened over Czechoslovakia he did not believe Britain and France would honour treaty with Poland.  He knew Germany was about to invade Poland and was not ready for war against Germany if they continued and invaded the USSR.  He wanted to gain time to continue the rapid growth of Soviet industry and military to be ready to resist any future attack.  He offered an alliance to Brit and France in summer of 1939 but negotiations were half-hearted and Chamberlain in particular was reluctant to proceed.  Offered territorial gains at the expense of Poland. Accept any other valid responses. 9(b) ‘Appeasement was the most sensible policy for Britain in dealing with 20 Hitler.’ To what extent do you agree? Indicative content Balanced answers will need to consider the positive reasons for following a policy of appeasement and consider the possible alternatives in order to reach an effective judgement. Sensible: Britain could not act alone and the French were unwilling to support active opposition to Hitler’s moves in the Saar and the Rhineland or in support of Czechoslovakia. Following World War One it was believe that another war could not be expected for at least 10 years (the Ten Year Rule) so little was invested in British armed forces in the 1920s and the economic crisis following the Wall Street Crash had left little money available for developing them and so Britain did not have the military capacity to resist Hitler though a modernisation programme was begun from 1934 (supported by NC as 9(b) Chancellor of the Exchequer and later PM). The British public were strongly opposed to war as witnessed in the King and Country Debate (1933) and the Peace Ballot (1935). Many people had come to see Versailles Settlement as unfair on Germany and at first Hitler’s demands were seen as being within the limits of reasonable revision of the harsh terms. Not sensible: It made Britain appear weak and this had two effects. Firstly, it led Hitler to the belief that Britain would never be prepared to act in any circumstances – hence the invasion of Poland. Secondly it isolated Britain first from Italy over Ethiopia and later from a potential alliance with the USSR. Appeasement raised Stalin’s suspicions of the motives of the western powers and led to his signing of the Nazi Soviet Pact. Though it allowed for re-armament in Britain, Germany was building up its forces even faster. Ultimately no amount of negotiation would have satisfied Hitler’s ambitions. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why, and with what effects, did Britain and France pursue a policy of appeasement?