Submarines: 45%, parity and the overall ceiling
Use all three parts of the submarine provision instead of turning one percentage into the whole rule.
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 are the three illustrative tonnage amounts?
- Would 260,000 tons in other categories plus 100,000 submarine tons fit the illustrative overall ceiling?
- How should a historian explain the submarine concession accurately?
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 · Submarines: 45%, parity and the overall ceiling
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Use all three parts of the submarine provision instead of turning one percentage into the whole rule.
1. How should a historian explain the submarine concession accurately?
Compare after trying
The submarine provision was a concession with several connected conditions. It granted Germany a parity right relative to Commonwealth submarine tonnage, while an ordinary undertaking held the amount to 45%. The overall 35:100 relationship also remained. A description using only one percentage loses the distinction between the ordinary undertaking, the wider right and the aggregate limit.
Procedure mattered. Germany was to notify Britain and discuss the matter before exercising the higher right in the stated circumstances. The text does not expressly make that existing right subject to a fresh British veto, but nor does it remove the procedure. In the hypothetical example, 260,000 tons in other categories plus 100,000 in submarines would exceed the 350,000 total ceiling by 10,000. Mathematical redistribution would still need to meet the relevant category arrangements.
A judgement must then distinguish written permission from actual construction, readiness and wartime conduct. Critics could regard the submarine concession as dangerous while supporters defended negotiated restraint. Neither argument can be tested accurately by erasing the conditions. Possession and tonnage also did not settle the separate rules governing attacks on merchant shipping. Implementation and subsequent operations require their own evidence.
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.
Identify the special right and the ordinary undertaking
Paragraph 2(f) gave Germany a right to submarine tonnage equal to the aggregate Commonwealth submarine tonnage while retaining the overall 35:100 relationship. It also recorded a German undertaking ordinarily not to exceed 45% of that submarine reference. Those statements describe different parts of the arrangement. It is inaccurate either to call 45% an absolute limit that could never change or to treat parity as the ordinary immediate amount without considering the undertaking and procedure.
Keep notice and discussion distinct from a fresh veto
If Germany considered a situation made use of a higher percentage necessary, it was to give notice and discuss the matter with Britain before exercising the right. The wording does not expressly require fresh British consent as a veto over the existing parity right. Do not replace friendly discussion with either no procedure at all or a consent requirement absent from the text. The interpretation should follow the note’s actual conditions rather than a later commentator’s convenient shorthand.
Test the total as well as the submarine amount
Use a hypothetical Commonwealth total of 1,000,000 tons and submarine tonnage of 100,000 tons. The overall German ceiling is 350,000 tons, the ordinary submarine undertaking 45,000, and submarine parity 100,000. If Germany already has 260,000 tons in other categories, adding 100,000 would produce 360,000 and exceed the overall ceiling by 10,000. This illustration does not establish actual fleet figures or unrestricted freedom to reduce one category and add another. Relevant procedures and category arrangements remain necessary.
Explain why the provision was politically important
The submarine exception showed that the agreement was more complex than a uniform 35% across every category. Supporters could argue that a declared relationship was preferable to an uncontrolled programme; critics could stress the concession and risks associated with submarines. To assess those arguments, distinguish tonnage rights, construction, readiness and the separate rules governing wartime use. Permission to possess submarines did not itself authorise unrestricted attacks on merchant ships or prove how future operations would be conducted.
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
- UK Treaty Series 22 (1935), Cmd.4953, exchange of notes, 18 June 1935 · seven scanned pages inspected; English Hoare note pp.2–4 and printed English translation of Ribbentrop reply p.7 read; total, category and submarine conditions retained
- Treaty of Versailles, Part V · selected Articles 181, 190, 191 and 198, Avalon transcription · commissioning, replacement, submarine and air provisions distinguished; not a legal finding that every party accepted a later bilateral departure
- Sir Samuel Hoare, Commons, 11 July 1935 · selected opening naval-agreement argument, cols.511–513; contemporary ministerial defence and conditional claims about France, not a neutral compliance audit or proof of inevitable alternatives
- Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell, First Lord of the Admiralty, Commons, 22 July 1935 · selected ministerial response on alternatives, limitation and a reported French Senate committee chair’s view; forecasts and transmitted French views remain attributed
- Cambridge History 9489,2027–2029, Version 2 · enquiry 9.3, printed pp. 35–36; selected British foundations, not full appeasement coverage
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
What are the three illustrative tonnage amounts?
Show the worked solution
- Calculate 35% of 1,000,000.
- Calculate 45% of 100,000.
- Identify parity with 100,000 and retain the overall limit.
Answer The illustrative overall ceiling is 350,000 tons, the ordinary submarine undertaking 45,000 tons, and submarine parity 100,000 tons. They concern different denominators and conditions. These are hypothetical numbers, not an actual 1935 fleet dataset or three independent additions to German strength.
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 are the three illustrative tonnage amounts?
Give me a hint
Use the given hypothetical total and submarine reference separately.
Compare my reasoning
- Calculate 35% of 1,000,000.
- Calculate 45% of 100,000.
- Identify parity with 100,000 and retain the overall limit.
The illustrative overall ceiling is 350,000 tons, the ordinary submarine undertaking 45,000 tons, and submarine parity 100,000 tons. They concern different denominators and conditions. These are hypothetical numbers, not an actual 1935 fleet dataset or three independent additions to German strength.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the stated provision or evidence accurately
- Explains the reasoning and distinguishes conditions,claims and verified results
Independent: Would 260,000 tons in other categories plus 100,000 submarine tons fit the illustrative overall ceiling?
Give me a hint
Add the proposed tonnages before interpreting the special right.
Compare my reasoning
- Add 260,000 and 100,000 to obtain 360,000.
- Compare 360,000 with 350,000.
- Retain category arrangements and prior notice/discussion where applicable.
No. 360,000 exceeds 350,000 by 10,000 tons. The parity right did not remove the overall ceiling. A reduction elsewhere might address the aggregate arithmetic but would still have to comply with applicable category arrangements and the submarine procedure; it is not automatically authorised redistribution.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the stated provision or evidence accurately
- Explains the reasoning and distinguishes conditions,claims and verified results
Transfer: How should a historian explain the submarine concession accurately?
Give me a hint
Keep rights, undertakings, procedure and wartime use separate.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify ordinary 45% and the parity right.
- Retain notice, discussion and the overall 35:100 ceiling.
- Distinguish permitted possession from actual construction and rules of use.
The provision combined an ordinary 45% undertaking with a parity right subject to notice and discussion before exercise, while retaining the overall ceiling. It was not simply an absolute 45% cap, a fresh British veto, or unlimited submarine expansion. Its strategic effects require evidence of implementation, and possession did not itself authorise unrestricted wartime attacks.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the stated provision or evidence accurately
- Explains the reasoning and distinguishes conditions,claims and verified results
Common mistakes
- All tonnage examples here are hypothetical; parity is not an addition outside the overall 35:100 ceiling.
- Notice and friendly discussion are required before exercising the higher right; the text does not expressly state a fresh British veto.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Retain ordinary 45%, parity, notice and discussion, and the overall ceiling
The special submarine provision changed the category relationship without making the rest of the agreement disappear.
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.