Judge the response to Anschluss
Explain why independence was not preserved, then evaluate alternatives without turning fear, protest or hindsight into certainty.
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
- What result should an explanation of the response identify?
- Why is a list of constraints less persuasive than an interacting explanation?
- How far was non-intervention a failure of policy?
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 · Judge the response to Anschluss
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Explain why independence was not preserved, then evaluate alternatives without turning fear, protest or hindsight into certainty.
1. How far was non-intervention a failure of policy?
Compare after trying
Non-intervention was a failure in the important sense that Austria’s independence was not preserved. The takeover also exposed the limits of assurances and protest and carried serious human and strategic consequences. This verdict should not be reached by erasing diplomatic objections or treating the later controlled vote as an unrestricted prior authorisation. Defining the result precisely makes criticism more convincing.
The explanation lies in interacting decisions and pressures. Particular British commitments did not include an automatic Austrian military pledge, France sought partners, and escalating demands narrowed Austrian choices. Doubts about cooperation could increase the risks attached to action, while fear of force shaped the preferred instruments. These were assessments and choices, not proofs that every possible measure was inherently impossible.
The strongest evaluation therefore tests a specified alternative at a specified stage. Cooperation, capability, timing and likely reactions matter to a case for stronger pressure or intervention. Neither Chamberlain’s defence nor Attlee’s alternative was a completed experiment guaranteeing its own result. The failure can be judged seriously while later rearmament, further crises and broader policy outcomes remain matters for comparison rather than assumptions fixed by this event alone.
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.
Define the result before the explanation
Austria was incorporated into the Reich and its independent position was not restored by British or French military action. That is the result to explain. It is different from saying that no protest existed, that every government welcomed coercion, or that the later vote provided an unrestricted prior authorisation. Keep the chronology and the kind of response visible. A clear outcome allows an explanation to weigh choices instead of simplifying the evidence into one slogan about appeasement.
Connect the interacting reasons
The records show limited particular British commitments, willingness to consult and protest, concern about the use of force, and French reliance on partners. Austrian institutional pressure and the rapid escalation of demands also affected room for manoeuvre. These factors could reinforce one another: uncertain support increased the risks attached to resistance, while the threat narrowed the time available for decisions. Their interaction is more explanatory than a list of reasons, but perceptions and public defences still need evaluation rather than adoption as complete proof of impossibility.
Test a specified alternative
A claim that firmer action would have prevented the takeover must specify what action, by whom and at what stage. Earlier warnings, economic measures, collective pressure and military intervention raised different requirements. Test cooperation, capability, communication, timing and likely reactions through dated evidence. Chamberlain’s claim about force and Attlee’s confidence in collective action were arguments, not completed experiments. A strong judgement can criticise the result while keeping the success of an alternative conditional, rather than guaranteeing a different history.
Evaluate the case without swallowing the whole policy
The takeover exposed failures of assurances and limits to protest, intensified strategic concerns and brought grave human consequences. It also produced further argument and proposed preparation. That gives evidence for judging this response, not an automatic verdict on every earlier or later concession. Keep wider policy evaluation open to comparison with other crises and the actual course of rearmament, cooperation and opinion. An answer should reach a supported judgement about the case rather than claim that one event alone establishes all the causes of the later war.
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
- Treaty of Versailles, Part III · Article 80 · Avalon transcription
- Wiley, undated telegram received 11 March 1938 · report of Schuschnigg’s broadcast in substance · FRUS 1938, volume I, document 436
- Wilson, Chargé in France, telegram of 14 March 1938 · report of conversation with Léger · FRUS 1938, volume I, document 14
- Neville Chamberlain, Commons, 14 March 1938 · selected opening statement, columns 45–53
- Clement Attlee, Commons, 14 March 1938 · selected response to Chamberlain, columns 53–56
- J. A. Lyons to Neville Chamberlain, 17 March 1938 · cablegram and editorial notes, Australian Documents on Foreign Policy, volume I, document 139
- 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
What result should an explanation of the response identify?
Show the worked solution
- Identify incorporation and the failure to restore independent authority.
- Retain protests and proposed measures as actual responses.
- Avoid substituting silence or unanimous approval for the outcome.
Answer The result was incorporation and the failure to preserve or restore Austria’s independence. Protests existed but did not prevent it. This definition makes it possible to explain why the chosen responses fell short, without erasing diplomacy or claiming that every government approved coercion.
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: What result should an explanation of the response identify?
Give me a hint
Separate the loss of independence from the existence of diplomatic objections.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify incorporation and the failure to restore independent authority.
- Retain protests and proposed measures as actual responses.
- Avoid substituting silence or unanimous approval for the outcome.
The result was incorporation and the failure to preserve or restore Austria’s independence. Protests existed but did not prevent it. This definition makes it possible to explain why the chosen responses fell short, without erasing diplomacy or claiming that every government approved coercion.
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: Why is a list of constraints less persuasive than an interacting explanation?
Give me a hint
Show how one factor altered the effects of another.
Compare my reasoning
- Connect uncertain cooperation with the risks of acting alone.
- Connect escalating pressure with the time and choices available.
- Evaluate perceptions rather than make each one an absolute impossibility.
Uncertain support could make confrontation appear more dangerous, while the widening demands reduced room for delay or compromise. Those links explain how constraints affected choices. Merely listing weakness, fear and partners does not show the mechanism or establish that all the assessments were accurate and every alternative impossible.
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: How far was non-intervention a failure of policy?
Give me a hint
Define the aim and result, weigh the explanation and test a concrete alternative.
Compare my reasoning
- Assess the failure to protect independence and confidence in assurances.
- Explain the interacting decisions and constraints with dated evidence.
- Qualify alternatives and keep later implementation separate from intentions.
It failed to preserve Austrian independence and exposed limits in assurances and protest, with serious human and strategic consequences. The response must still be explained through commitments, partners, pressure and the risks decision-makers perceived. Criticism is strongest when it specifies an alternative and tests its feasibility; the records do not guarantee that one different measure would certainly prevent the takeover or the later war.
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
- Explain the failure to preserve independence without erasing the diplomatic response.
- A case-specific judgement does not complete the separate comparative success/failure strands of the wider appeasement enquiry.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Judge the stated aim, actual result and a specified alternative through interacting dated evidence
A serious policy failure can be explained and criticised without pretending that another course had a certain outcome.
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.