International history, 1929–39: extremism and the road to war
Connect economic crisis and extremist politics to the weakening of collective security, the choices behind appeasement and the escalation of 1939. Keep long-term intentions, immediate decisions, military capacity and the actions of different powers analytically distinct.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Cambridge lists International History 9982 for schools in the United States only. It is assessed in 2027–2029, with June AS/A Level and November AS-only series, subject to administrative-zone availability. Original StudyForA teaching and practice. This is not an official Cambridge coursebook, question paper, mark scheme or grade prediction. Historical interpretations and source scenarios written for practice are invented and must not be treated as authentic historical sources or named historians’ work. Use the current Cambridge syllabus, specimen materials and class sources; teacher review of extended responses remains important.
Before you begin
- Keep events within the syllabus dates and distinguish sequence from explanation.
- Use precise evidence and explain how it supports a historical argument.
- Compare perspectives without treating a group or country as politically uniform.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which approach best prepares for international history, 1929–39: extremism and the road to war?
What you will learn
- How did the rise of extremism affect international relations?
- Why did the League of Nations fail to keep the peace in the 1930s?
- Why, and with what effects, did Britain and France pursue a policy of appeasement?
- Why did war break out in 1939?
3.1 · Extremism and changing alignments
The Great Depression weakened support for democracy in Germany, strengthened Nazism, contributed to the collapse of democratic government and the rise of militarism in Japan, pressured Mussolini to alter Italian policy, and increased US isolationist pressure. These developments differed by country and did not follow from economic hardship alone.
The World Disarmament Conference failed amid disagreements—especially between France and Germany—and changing international events. The London Naval Conference, Stresa Front, Rome–Berlin Axis and Anti-Comintern Pact reveal shifting relationships. The USSR responded to Nazism through security policy and the Comintern, while fear of communism shaped other governments’ choices.
3.2 · The League and the crises of the 1930s
The League’s responses to Manchuria and Abyssinia failed to reverse aggression. Japan, Germany and Italy withdrew; the USSR joined in 1934; and important negotiations increasingly took place outside the League. This reduced collective authority and made coordinated action harder.
The Spanish Civil War tested non-intervention. The agreement failed because Germany, Italy and the USSR intervened while Britain and France were reluctant to commit; volunteers and the International Brigades also entered the conflict. Wider causes included failure to disarm, the absence of major powers, reliance on Britain and France, the Depression and rising nationalism. Explain how these factors interacted rather than treating the League as the only cause of war.
3.3 · Appeasement
British policy was shaped by the Depression, the ten-year rule, public opinion, the 1933 Oxford ‘King and Country’ debate and the Peace Ballot. Some viewed fascism as a bulwark against communism or sympathised with aspects of Nazi policy. France faced economic difficulty, political division, fear of communism and military concerns reflected in the Maginot Line.
Responses to German rearmament, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Anschluss, the Sudetenland crisis, Munich and the occupation of Prague show stages of policy. Appeasement postponed war and bought time for rearmament, and could gain popular support; it also increased dictators’ resources and confidence and weakened opposition to further expansion. Judge each claimed success and failure in its context.
3.4 · The outbreak of war
Hitler’s expansionist aims were pursued through rearmament, the Rhineland, Anschluss, the Sudetenland and the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Britain rearmed aircraft and prepared for air raids, but capacity and progress took time. These events changed the strategic balance and the credibility of assurances.
The Anti-Comintern Pact and Pact of Steel aligned dictatorships; the Nazi–Soviet Pact had distinct short- and long-term motives for each side. Disputes over Danzig and the Polish Corridor escalated. After the occupation of Prague, Britain and France guaranteed Poland in March 1939. The attack on Poland, Hitler’s intentions and disagreement with the German High Command help explain why the crisis became war in September.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
What should a strong judgement about international history, 1929–39: extremism and the road to war do?
Worked example
Why did Britain and France continue appeasement, and did it achieve anything?
Show the worked solution
- Explain domestic, economic and military constraints in both countries.
- Use specific actions from rearmament and the Rhineland to Munich and Prague.
- Weigh time gained and public support against resources and confidence given to dictators.
Answer Britain and France faced economic constraints, military weakness, public opposition to another war and political divisions. Appeasement could buy time for rearmament and postpone conflict; Munich also had domestic support. Yet the policy allowed dictators to gain territory, resources and confidence, and the occupation of Prague damaged trust in Hitler’s promises. It achieved short-term delay but failed to secure a lasting peace, with the result depending partly on how leaders used the time gained.
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.
Did appeasement succeed?
Give me a hint
Define success by time, security and the strength of the states involved.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain why Britain and France delayed confrontation.
- Identify a short-term gain, such as time for rearmament.
- Compare that gain with the resources and confidence Hitler gained.
Appeasement postponed war and gave Britain time to strengthen its air defences; it also reflected public opposition to war and French political and economic weakness. However, Hitler gained territory and confidence, and the occupation of Prague showed that his aims went beyond uniting German-speaking populations. Appeasement achieved a short-term delay but did not create a secure settlement.
Look for these in your work
- Uses syllabus evidence
- Explains a causal or comparative link
- Keeps the response within the topic and period
Why did the League fail over both Manchuria and Abyssinia?
Give me a hint
Compare the aggressors, major-power interests, timing and the measures the League could use.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain the crisis and League response in each case.
- Compare Japan’s and Italy’s interests with the commitment of other major powers.
- Reach a judgement that links the cases to wider structural weaknesses.
In Manchuria, Japan used military force and withdrew from the League after criticism; the League could investigate but could not compel withdrawal. In Abyssinia, sanctions were limited and major powers prioritised their own diplomacy, allowing Italy to continue its invasion. The crises differed, but both exposed weak enforcement and the reluctance of Britain and France to bear the cost of collective action. The Depression, nationalism and absent or departing powers further reduced effectiveness.
Look for these in your work
- Compares relevant factors
- Supports analysis with precise examples
- Reaches a qualified judgement
Original practice claim: ‘War in 1939 was caused entirely by appeasement.’ Evaluate it.
Give me a hint
Compare the policy with Hitler’s aims, alliances, military choices and the Polish crisis.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain how appeasement affected Hitler’s calculations and the balance of power.
- Bring in German expansionism, alliances and the invasion of Poland.
- Distinguish a permissive condition from the immediate decisions that began war.
Appeasement weakened deterrence and allowed German resources and confidence to grow, so it contributed to the conditions in which war became more likely. It does not explain the whole outcome. Hitler pursued expansion, the Nazi–Soviet Pact altered the immediate strategic situation, and German forces invaded Poland after the Danzig crisis. Britain and France’s guarantee shaped their response. Appeasement was a significant enabling factor, but German decisions and the Polish crisis were central to the outbreak.
Look for these in your work
- Tests a claim against evidence
- Considers another perspective or limitation
- Explains a balanced conclusion
Common mistakes
- Blaming the League alone for the outbreak of war
- Treating appeasement as a single decision at Munich
- Assuming every leader had the same motives
- Confusing postponing war with preventing war
What can you explain now?
How did the rise of extremism affect international relations?
Compare with the explanation
Why did the League of Nations fail to keep the peace in the 1930s?
Connect economic crisis and extremist politics to the weakening of collective security, the choices behind appeasement and the escalation of 1939. Keep long-term intentions, immediate decisions, military capacity and the actions of different powers analytically distinct.
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
Recall a precise example relevant to how did the rise of extremism affect international relations?, explain why it matters, and state one limitation or alternative explanation.
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.