Mussolini's foreign policy aimed to restore Italy's power and make the Mediterranean under Italian control. His invasion of Abyssinia in 1935 marked a shift to a more aggressive approach as he sought domestic support. By 1939 he had allied with Hitler but had achieved little of real value for Italy. The disunity of Republican forces and support for Franco from Germany and Italy contributed to the Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil War. Hitler rapidly expanded German power by remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia. The Nazi-Soviet pact allowed the invasion of Poland but worried German generals as it expanded the war.

1. CAMBRIDGEAS
HISTORYREVISION
AGEOFEXTREMISM
QUESTIONSANDANSWERS

2. QUESTION1PAG78
WHAT WERE THE AIMS OF MUSSOLINI’S FOREIGN POLICY?
Mussolini’s style of government and his foreign policy were based on
ultra-nationalism. Italy had been disappointed and humiliated by its
failure to achieve any substantial gains from the Paris peace settlement.
Mussolini wanted to restore Italy’s glorious past, to make his country
‘great, respected and feared’, to turn the Mediterranean into ‘Mare
Nostrum (Our Sea)’. (see pages 71–7)

3. QUESTION2PAG78
WHY AND IN WHAT WAYS DID MUSSOLINI’S FOREIGN POLICY
CHANGE AFTER 1934?
Prior to 1934, Mussolini adopted a largely diplomatic approach to
foreign policy, which gained him the respect of other countries. After
1934, his approach became more aggressive. The 1923 incidents in
Fiume and Corfu provided Mussolini with good propaganda material in
Italy, but were of little real significance. Mussolini quickly realised that
Italy was in no position to challenge Britain’s naval supremacy in the
Mediterranean. His cautious approach to foreign policy between 1923
and 1934 can be demonstrated by his contributions to the Locarno
meetings, his determination to maintain good relations with Britain, his
agreement with the USSR and his successful attempt to prevent Hitler’s
Nazis gaining control of Austria in 1934. These actions were designed to
provide security for Italy…

4. QUESTION2PAG78CONT
WHY AND IN WHAT WAYS DID MUSSOLINI’S FOREIGN POLICY
CHANGE AFTER 1934?
… By 1934, however, Mussolini’s domestic popularity was in decline –
he needed a propaganda boost and this was provided by the invasion
of Abyssinia (1935). He knew that the League of Nations would take
little action against this, because Britain and France wanted Italy as an
ally against a resurgent Germany. The League did, however, impose
sanctions (albeit minor) and this angered Mussolini. As a result,
Mussolini forged closer links with Hitler, leading to the Rome–Berlin
Axis and the Pact of Steel. In 1939, Mussolini ordered the invasion of
Albania – another propaganda move. (see pages 72–7)

5. QUESTION3PAG78
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS MUSSOLINI’S FOREIGN POLICY?
As with all ‘how successful’ questions, it is necessary to establish
‘success criteria’. In this case, it is logical to use Mussolini’s aims as the
criteria by which to judge how successful he was:
• He restored Italy as a country of importance within Europe, as shown by the
respect he earned abroad for his contributions to the Locarno Conference and
his prevention of Hitler’s attempt to take Austria in 1934.
• He provided Italy with security by arranging a series of treaties with Britain,
France and the USSR.
• He successfully challenged the League of Nations over Abyssinia; Britain and
France viewed their alliance with Italy as more important than their
commitments to the League.
• He succeeded in Abyssinia where earlier Italian attempts had failed.
• By 1939, he had formed an alliance with Hitler’s Germany and Japan,
achieving his aim of making Italy great and feared.

6. QUESTION3PAG78CONT
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS MUSSOLINI’S FOREIGN POLICY?
In reality, he had achieved very little:
• The Fiume and Corfu incidents provided good propaganda material but little
else.
• Victory over Abyssinia had been inevitable from the start and provided Italy
with little of any real value.
• Albania had been effectively under Italian control long before 1939.
Effective answers must be balanced and contain a clear and consistent
argument, supported by appropriate and accurate factual material.
(see pages 72–7)

7. QUESTION3PAG78
LOOK AT SOURCES A (LEFT) AND B (RIGHT) WHICH SHOW TWO
DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS OF MUSSOLINI FROM AROUND THE
SAME PERIOD. EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY THESE SOURCES GIVE
DIFFERENT IMPRESSIONS OF MUSSOLINI.

8. QUESTION4PAG78
Source A depicts Mussolini in military uniform, wearing medals
(symbols of bravery and military success). He appears to be proud,
determined and trustworthy. In 1933, Mussolini was highly respected
abroad, not least in France where this picture was published. To France,
an alliance with Italy was important in ensuring security against a
resurgent Germany – hence this picture stresses Mussolini’s strength
and power.
Source B shows Mussolini as the respected leader of Italian people, the
men following loyally and with confidence (note how all the men are
staring at Mussolini, trusting him implicitly and waiting for
instructions). Neither Mussolini nor his followers are in military uniform
as such, suggesting that Mussolini has the support of ‘real people’ and
does not rely on the army to maintain his power. It is a piece of
propaganda. (see pages 70–7)

9. QUESTION1PAG85
WHY DID A CIVIL WAR BREAK OUT IN SPAIN IN 1936?
Reasons include:
• Spain was a divided country in terms of geography, culture, religion, politics
and class.
• The constitutional monarchy was unable to provide effective government.
• Primo de Rivera’s benevolent dictatorship was brought down by economic
crisis and his failure to maintain the support of the army.
• The new republic (1931) was strongly opposed by right-wing groups, while it
was criticised by some left-wing groups for not being radical enough.
• The new right-wing government of 1933 ended the radical reforms of the
republic, leading to riots and a general strike. Escalating violence convinced
many right-wing groups that military dictatorship was the only way to preserve
order in Spain. (see pages 79–81)

10. QUESTION2PAG85
WHY DID ITALY, GERMANY AND THE USSR BECOME DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN
THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR?
Hitler and Mussolini had no real interest in Spain, but saw the advantage of
having a third fascist state in Europe, especially given Spain’s location on the
southern border of France. The civil war also provided Hitler with the
opportunity to test out his new military equipment and strategies. Mussolini
saw the civil war as an opportunity to restore Italian greatness and prestige.
Hitler encouraged Italian involvement as a way of distracting Mussolini from
Germany’s intentions regarding Austria.
Stalin felt the need to support left-wing groups in Spain. However, he wanted
to maintain good relations with Britain and France, and realised that they
would never tolerate a communist government in Spain. Stalin, therefore,
aimed to give the republicans just enough support to maintain their
resistance, but not enough to win the war. (see pages 81–5)

11. QUESTION3PAG85
THE DISUNITY OF THE REPUBLICAN FORCES WAS THE MAIN REASON
WHY THE NATIONALISTS WERE ABLE TO WIN THE SPANISH CIVIL
WAR?
It is essential that answers address the actual question rather than
merely listing the reasons for the nationalist victory. There needs to be
a balanced, clear and consistent argument.
In support of the statement: contradictory aims of the different groups
that made up the republican side; lack of military organisation and
discipline.
In challenging the statement: Franco maintained unity within the right-
wing groups that made up the nationalists. He had support from the
army, which was well-organised and equipped. He also had major
military support from Italy and Germany. The republicans lacked such
military support, relying on untrained volunteers from the International
Brigades. (see pages 84 –5)

12. QUESTION4PAG85
SOURCE A BELOW SHOWS
A POSTER ISSUED DURING
THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR.
WHICH SIDE ISSUED THE
POSTER AND WHAT WAS
ITS PURPOSE?

13. QUESTION4PAG85
THE DISUNITY OF THE REPUBLICAN FORCES WAS THE MAIN REASON
WHY THE NATIONALISTS WERE ABLE TO WIN THE SPANISH CIVIL
WAR?
The poster is republican. It is heavily critical of Franco’s decision to use
foreign weapons to destroy Spanish towns and cities. The ‘Angel of
Peace’ is a sarcastic heading. The skeleton (i.e. death) is actually a
German plane (note the swastika) dropping bombs on Spain. It depicts
Franco as the enemy of the Spanish people and encourages resistance.
(see pages 81–5)

14. QUESTION1PAG93
WHAT WERE THE AIMS OF HITLER’S FOREIGN POLICY?
Hitler’s style of government and his foreign policy were based on ultra-
nationalism. His immediate aim was to restore German pride and the
country’s place as a major European power. This required:
• ending Germany’s commitment to the Treaty of Versailles
• recovering lost territory
• developing the German army, navy, air force and military equipment
• forming a union with Austria
• bringing all German-speaking people under the German government.
There is debate amongst historians regarding Hitler’s longer-term aims.
Some argue that he intended to attack the USSR in order to gain
Lebensraum, others that he always intended a war against Britain and
France in order to redress Germany’s losses in the First World War. (see
pages 88–99)

15. QUESTION2PAG93
HOW SUCCESSFUL HAD HITLER BEEN IN ACHIEVING HIS FOREIGN POLICY
AIMS BY THE END OF 1938?
It is essential that, in addressing questions containing dates, students adhere to
the timeframe given. No credit will be given for any information relating to
events after 1938.
By the end of 1938, Hitler had largely achieved his aim of overturning the
Treaty of Versailles:
• Although he failed to gain union with Austria in 1934, this was achieved in March 1938.
• In January 1935, the Saar was returned to Germany by plebiscite. In March 1935, Hitler
introduced conscription. In June 1935, he began increasing the German navy (condoned
by Britain in the Anglo–German Naval Agreement).
• In March 1936, Hitler entered the demilitarised Rhineland without resistance.
• Signing the Rome–Berlin Axis in 1936 removed possible Italian objections to Hitler’s
plans for union with Austria.
• By the end of 1938, he had not yet achieved the restoration of all German territories,
and many German-speaking people were still living under foreign governments. (see
pages 89–93)

16. QUESTION3PAG93
HITLER COULD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED LONG BEFORE 1938,
WHEN HIS ARMY WAS STILL TOO WEAK TO FIGHT A WAR AGAINST THE
COMBINED FORCES OF BRITAIN AND FRANCE. WHY, THEN, BRITAIN AND
FRANCE TAKE NO DIRECT ACTION TO STOP HIM?
Reasons why Britain and France adopted the policy of appeasement
include:
• Public opinion was against another war.
• The world economic crisis meant that neither country wanted to spend money
on preparations for war.
• De facto trading links – Britain wanted a strong, resurgent Germany.
• Many British politicians believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh
on Germany and that Hitler was merely trying to rectify this.
• Communism was believed to be a bigger threat than Hitler, whose Germany was
seen as a buffer against Soviet expansionism.
• With Britain forging closer links with Germany, France was reluctant to act alone.
(see pages 92–3)

17. QUESTION4PAG93
EXAMPLES, THE METHODS THAT HITLER USED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE HIS
FOREIGN POLICY AIMS PRIOR TO THE END OF 1938.
Hitler’s methods were devious and carefully planned:
• He used a mixture of threats and conciliatory statements (e.g. the World
Disarmament Conference – Hitler argued that it was unfair for Germany to
have disarmed when other countries had not; this seemed reasonable). He
encouraged divisions between those countries that might oppose him (e.g. the
World Disarmament Conference – Hitler made France seem unreasonable,
causing a rift between Britain and France). He was prepared to gamble (e.g. the
Rhineland). He used underhand methods (e.g. attempts to gain control of
Austria in 1934).
• He lied (e.g. claiming that the return of the Saar put an end to all remaining
grievances between France and Germany). He was calculating (e.g. signing the
Anglo–German Naval Agreement in 1935 effectively condoned the fact that he
was breaking the Treaty of Versailles). He planned carefully (e.g. removing
Italian opposition to Anschluss by signing the Rome–Berlin Axis and
encouraging Mussolini to involve Italy in the Spanish Civil War). (pages 88–93)

18. QUESTION1PAG98
IN WHAT WAYS WAS HITLER’S CONQUEST OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA
DIFFERENT FROM HIS EARLIER FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESSES?
Hitler had justified his earlier actions by claiming that he was merely
righting the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles. His acquisition of
Czechoslovakia was different – he was taking territory to which Germany
had no justifiable claim. He was also breaking the agreements he had
made at Munich, so he could no longer claim that he had peaceful
motives. His actions in Czechoslovakia led to the end of appeasement.
(see pages 94–5)

19. QUESTION2PAG98
WHY WERE BOTH HITLER AND STALIN WILLING TO SIGN THE NAZI-
SOVIET PACT, EVEN THOUGH THEY DISLIKED AND DISTRUSTED EACH
OTHER?
Hitler wanted to attack Poland and realised that this might lead to
opposition from the USSR (which had owned much of Poland). By
agreeing to ‘share the spoils’ with the USSR, Hitler was removing Stalin’s
opposition. He had no intention of honouring the promises he was
making, and Stalin was fully aware of this. The Soviet leader knew that
Hitler’s long-term aim was to attack the USSR. Stalin wanted to ‘buy time’,
to prepare for the German attack that would eventually come. (see pages
96–7)

20. QUESTION3PAG98
EXPLAIN WHY MANY OF HITLER’S GENERALS WERE CONCERNED BY HITLER’S
FOREIGN POLICY ACTIONS IN 1939.
Although Hitler had always been willing to gamble (e.g. the Rhineland), he had
also planned meticulously to ensure that his targets were isolated (e.g. the
Nazi–Soviet Pact). He was convinced that Britain and France would do nothing
to oppose his plans to invade Poland and, indeed, his later intention to attack
the USSR. Fearful of communism and determined to avoid war, Britain and
France, he believed, would be secretly pleased if he attacked the USSR. Having
met Chamberlain at Munich, he was convinced that the British were weak and
would do nothing to oppose him. Many of Hitler’s generals did not share this
conviction. They were concerned that the acquisition of Czechoslovakia could
not be justified by the claim that it was redressing the Treaty of Versailles, and
worried by the more belligerent comments coming from Chamberlain. They felt
that Hitler was leading Germany into a war with Britain and France, and were
concerned that Germany could, once again, be facing war on two fronts
(against Britain/France in the west, and the USSR in the east). (see pages 94–8)

21. QUESTION4PAG98
SOURCE A IS
A CARTOON
FROM A US
NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHED
IN 1939.
EXPLAIN
WHAT THE
ARTIST IS
TRYING TO
SAY.

22. QUESTION4PAG98
DATE: Published just after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact (23 August
1939) and just before the German invasion of Poland (1 September
1939).
CONTEXT: The agreement between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia came
as a shock to the rest of the world. Hitler AND Stalin had completely
different political ideologies and, indeed, hated each other. Stalin was
aware that Hitler’s long-term intention was to attack USSR. It was a treaty
of convenience – it enabled Germany to invade Poland, knowing that the
USSR would not intervene. It allowed the USSR time to prepare for any
future attack by Germany and the opportunity to regain former Russian
territory that was now part of Poland. The immediate implication of the
pact was that Poland was under threat.

23. QUESTION4PAG98CONT
PROVENANCE: Published in an American newspaper and, therefore,
intended for an American audience. At this time, the USA was still
following an isolationist policy. Although aware of what was happening in
the rest of the world, America remained determined to avoid direct
involvement. Therefore, the cartoon has been drawn from the
perspective of an observer rather than that of someone who is directly
involved in the events portrayed.
SYMBOLISM: The artist has combined characters from two children’s
stories: Poland is depicted as Little Red Riding Hood/Goldilocks – sweet,
innocent and vulnerable. Nazi Germany is represented as a wolf (with
Hitler’s hairstyle) – sly, cunning and licking its lips in anticipation of eating
Little Red Riding Hood. Soviet Russia is shown as a bear (Stalin) – big and
dangerous, if just a little sleepy and stupid, waiting for its share of the
feast that Goldilocks will provide.

24. QUESTION4PAG98CONT
MESSAGE: Cartoons are designed to amuse the audience, but can also
make profound political points. For example:
Little Red Riding Hood/Goldilocks (Poland) is clearly surprised to find a
wolf (Germany) and a bear (Soviet Russia) in her bed – hence the startled
pose and the word WOW! This reflects the widespread astonishment at
the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler and Stalin were considered
strange bedfellows.
The drawing implies that Little Red Riding Hood/Goldilocks is also afraid –
confronted by two such predatory beasts, who wouldn’t be? It is obvious,
therefore, that the artist was aware of the implications of the Nazi-Soviet
Pact: an invasion of Poland was imminent. This prediction proved
accurate when German troops entered Poland on 1 September 1939.