March 1938: a planned vote, ultimatums and resignation
Reconstruct the escalating crisis without merging proposals, reports, broadcasts and military entry into one event.
Exam scope and assessment notes
One hundred and three introductory lessons, 309 explained tasks, 103 analytical models and seventeen selected comparison workshops address revised International AS enquiry 9.3. This is partial coverage, not full AS or A Level preparation. All 24 editorial working entries have introductory links; these are not an official denominator or a completion percentage. The sequence introduces British and French foundations, selected ideological arguments, rearmament and the Rhineland, Anschluss, the Sudetenland negotiations, Munich and the March 1939 occupation. Selected public-consent evidence, British opposition, German resource mechanisms and production forecasts, strategic expectations and Italian intervention conditions are introduced. This does not complete German or Italian resource balances, psychological or causal evaluation, or the wider effects of appeasement. Public opinion and opposition need wider sources, chronology, French perspectives and policy effects. Wider British, French and German comparisons, affected perspectives, economic costs, counterfactual alternatives and enquiry 9.4 remain unfinished. The eight-demand memorandum has been checked in the English documentary edition, not the full original speech or every translation. Prague, Runciman, negotiations and Munich still need fuller implementation and outcomes. Historical depth, wider authentic reading, subject-specialist review, full source sets, timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year coverage credit. International history, 1929–1939 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2029 and International Paper 2 in 2027 and 2028. Keep it separate from the 1919–1929 topic, imperialism rotation and 2026 material. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: both parts of one question use four sources totalling at most 600 words, at least three written and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section, both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are not complete papers or calibrated assessment.
Before you begin
- Distinguish a planning assumption, a stated preference, a proposal and an implemented decision
- Identify the responsible actor and date; separate contemporary arguments, later accounts and verified outcomes
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you explain changes in international relations?
What you will learn
- Were the planned 13 March plebiscite and the later Nazi vote the same event?
- How should the two telegrams’ clock times and the broadcast account be used?
- Why did cancelling the proposed plebiscite not settle the crisis?
Develop an International AS historical argument
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Use dated evidence, identify actors and compare aims, obligations and practical outcomes. Attribute claims and distinguish contemporary texts from later editorial context.
One hundred and three introductory lessons, 309 explained tasks, 103 analytical models and seventeen selected comparison workshops address revised International AS enquiry 9.3. This is partial coverage, not full AS or A Level preparation. All 24 editorial working entries have introductory links; these are not an official denominator or a completion percentage. The sequence introduces British and French foundations, selected ideological arguments, rearmament and the Rhineland, Anschluss, the Sudetenland negotiations, Munich and the March 1939 occupation. Selected public-consent evidence, British opposition, German resource mechanisms and production forecasts, strategic expectations and Italian intervention conditions are introduced. This does not complete German or Italian resource balances, psychological or causal evaluation, or the wider effects of appeasement. Public opinion and opposition need wider sources, chronology, French perspectives and policy effects. Wider British, French and German comparisons, affected perspectives, economic costs, counterfactual alternatives and enquiry 9.4 remain unfinished. The eight-demand memorandum has been checked in the English documentary edition, not the full original speech or every translation. Prague, Runciman, negotiations and Munich still need fuller implementation and outcomes. Historical depth, wider authentic reading, subject-specialist review, full source sets, timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year coverage credit.
Original teaching brief and analytical model
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. International history, 1929–1939 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2029 and International Paper 2 in 2027 and 2028. Keep it separate from the 1919–1929 topic, imperialism rotation and 2026 material. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: both parts of one question use four sources totalling at most 600 words, at least three written and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section, both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are not complete papers or calibrated assessment.
StudyForA teaching brief · original prose · March 1938: a planned vote, ultimatums and resignation
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Reconstruct the escalating crisis without merging proposals, reports, broadcasts and military entry into one event.
1. Why did cancelling the proposed plebiscite not settle the crisis?
Compare after trying
Cancellation did not settle the crisis because pressure extended beyond the proposed vote to the government’s composition. Schuschnigg had announced a plebiscite for 13 March as an attempt to regain initiative. On 11 March the demands developed from abandoning it to his resignation, Seyss-Inquart’s appointment and a Nazi-dominated Cabinet. Changing the vote was therefore no longer the whole issue.
The contemporary reports help reconstruct that escalation but do not provide a single verbatim record. Wiley’s successive telegrams carried changing information, while the broadcast account was transmitted in substance and has an undated dateline with a received date. Its account of yielding to force and ordering non-resistance is evidence of Schuschnigg’s public explanation and instruction, rather than a complete recording of all decisions.
A clear sequence then distinguishes resignation and non-resistance on 11 March from military entry on 12 March and incorporation on 13 March. Clock numbers need their categories and time standards before they are compared. Those distinctions explain why the crisis was a process of increasing coercion, while avoiding invented precision or the assumption that every proposal was already an accomplished outcome.
Why this response fits
- Build a reasoned answer with specific evidence and an explicit connection to international relations.
- Consider the source’s author, date, audience, purpose and limits; distinguish contemporary statements from later editorial context.
- This original self-check model is not an authentic examination script, calibrated mark or Cambridge grade.
Start with the proposed vote
Wiley reported on 9 March that Schuschnigg had announced a plebiscite for Sunday, 13 March. The programme stressed a free and independent Austria while also calling it German, social and Christian. It was an attempt to recover political initiative, not the same vote as the later Nazi plebiscite. The report described an age qualification and optional secrecy, and attributed expectations of success to particular observers. It cannot be treated as an actual result or proof that the proposed procedure was an unrestricted democratic poll.
Follow the escalation on 11 March
Demands first focused on abandoning the plebiscite and then extended to Schuschnigg’s resignation, Seyss-Inquart’s appointment and a Nazi-dominated Cabinet. Wiley’s 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. reports captured changing information and the uncertainty over outside support. Cancellation did not end the pressure. This sequence matters because it tests a claim that Germany sought only an adjustment to the voting arrangements. A reported ultimatum is also different from proof that every requested personnel change had already occurred.
Identify what the broadcast establishes
Wiley’s undated telegram, received on 11 March, summarised Schuschnigg’s radio announcement in substance. It reported his claim that Austria had yielded to force to avoid bloodshed and his instruction that the troops offer no resistance. This is a contemporary transmitted account, not an independently collated recording or a verbatim transcript. It provides evidence of the public explanation and military instruction given, while the claim that German accounts of disorder were false remains attributed to Schuschnigg.
Keep clocks and kinds of event separate
A telegram’s dateline time, its received time and a deadline quoted within it are not interchangeable. Chamberlain’s later account also explicitly used Greenwich time for some deadlines. Do not reorder events simply by comparing unconverted clock numbers from different records. The meaningful sequence is the proposed vote, escalating demands and resignation on 11 March, German military entry on 12 March, and the incorporation announced on 13 March. Timing clarifies the process without pretending that these selected sources settle every minute of it.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 · enquiry 9.3 pp. 35–36 · official Version 2 PDF retrieved; selected enquiry and rotation pages checked with the April 2025 update
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 update · Version 2 changes, April 2025
- Wiley, telegram of 9 March 1938, 11 p.m. · FRUS 1938, volume I, document 427
- Wiley, telegram of 11 March 1938, 6 p.m. · FRUS 1938, volume I, document 434
- Wiley, telegram of 11 March 1938, 7 p.m. · FRUS 1938, volume I, document 435
- Wiley, undated telegram received 11 March 1938 · report of Schuschnigg’s broadcast in substance · FRUS 1938, volume I, document 436
- Neville Chamberlain, Commons, 14 March 1938 · selected opening statement, columns 45–53
- Austrian Federal Chancellery, Jahr 1938 · modern institutional chronology, including takeover, persecution and the controlled April plebiscite
- Cambridge History 9489, 2027–2029 · Version 2 · enquiry 9.3, printed pages 35–36
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
Were the planned 13 March plebiscite and the later Nazi vote the same event?
Show the worked solution
- Identify Schuschnigg’s announced vote and independence programme.
- Identify its cancellation under pressure.
- Distinguish that proposal from the later post-takeover vote.
Answer No. Schuschnigg announced a vote for 13 March to support his independence programme, but it was cancelled. The Nazi vote followed the takeover. A proposed poll has no completed result, and neither its description nor observers’ hopes establishes unrestricted procedures or a national outcome.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Were the planned 13 March plebiscite and the later Nazi vote the same event?
Give me a hint
Keep the sponsor, purpose and stage of the vote attached to its date.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify Schuschnigg’s announced vote and independence programme.
- Identify its cancellation under pressure.
- Distinguish that proposal from the later post-takeover vote.
No. Schuschnigg announced a vote for 13 March to support his independence programme, but it was cancelled. The Nazi vote followed the takeover. A proposed poll has no completed result, and neither its description nor observers’ hopes establishes unrestricted procedures or a national outcome.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the identified date, actor and kind of evidence accurately
- Explains the connection while distinguishing intention, coercion, choice and outcome
Independent: How should the two telegrams’ clock times and the broadcast account be used?
Give me a hint
Distinguish event time, dateline, received time and form of transmission.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify the category attached to each clock time.
- Retain the broadcast summary’s undated dateline and received date.
- Build a supported sequence without inventing time-zone conversions or verbatim wording.
The times locate different stages of communication and must keep their labels. Received times do not automatically identify when an event occurred. Wiley’s broadcast report says in substance, so it should be cited as a transmitted summary, not a complete recording. The selected records establish escalation more securely than an exact minute-by-minute chronology.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the identified date, actor and kind of evidence accurately
- Explains the connection while distinguishing intention, coercion, choice and outcome
Transfer: Why did cancelling the proposed plebiscite not settle the crisis?
Give me a hint
Compare the initial demand with the later demands and instruction.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify pressure over the vote.
- Identify the extension to leadership and Cabinet composition.
- Connect resignation and non-resistance with the continued threat.
The demands escalated beyond voting arrangements to control over the government. Schuschnigg’s cancellation did not satisfy the subsequent pressure for his removal and a different Cabinet. The reported decision to yield and order non-resistance therefore belongs to a coercive sequence, rather than proving a freely agreed administrative change or that nothing further happened after cancellation.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the identified date, actor and kind of evidence accurately
- Explains the connection while distinguishing intention, coercion, choice and outcome
Common mistakes
- The proposed Schuschnigg vote was never held; do not assign it the result of the later Nazi plebiscite.
- The broadcast telegram is undated and reports the speech in substance; its received date is not a licence to invent a verbatim transcript.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Reconstruct escalation through dated proposals, demands and a carefully identified broadcast summary
The widening demands help explain the collapse of autonomy; each record retains its date and evidential form.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.