'The remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 was Hitler's greatest foreign policy gamble.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [40]

This question asks you to evaluate whether the Rhineland remilitarisation was Hitler's greatest foreign policy gamble. "How far do you agree" requires you to assess the Rhineland action and compare it with other risks Hitler took.

Arguments that the Rhineland was Hitler's greatest gamble:

• On 7 March 1936, Hitler ordered German troops into the demilitarised Rhineland, violating both the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties (1925), which Germany had signed voluntarily.
• France had the legal right to respond with force, and the French army was vastly superior to the still-rebuilding German military in 1936.
• The German army was small and poorly equipped. Serious rearmament had only begun the previous year, and Germany could not have sustained a military confrontation with France.
• German generals were extremely nervous about the operation. Hitler reportedly ordered his troops to withdraw immediately if France mobilised, acknowledging that a French response would force a humiliating retreat.
• A forced withdrawal could have been a devastating blow to Hitler's prestige and might have weakened his hold on power domestically. His authority rested partly on the image of a leader who always succeeded.
• Hitler himself later described the 48 hours after the remilitarisation as the most nerve-wracking period of his life.
• The gamble paid off when France, preoccupied with domestic political crisis and unwilling to act without British support, did nothing. Britain regarded the Rhineland as Germany's "own backyard" and saw no reason to risk war over it.
• The success of the gamble had enormous consequences: it destroyed the Locarno settlement, exposed French weakness, emboldened Hitler for future risks, and shifted the strategic balance by allowing Germany to fortify its western border.

Arguments that later actions were greater gambles:

• The Anschluss with Austria (March 1938) carried the risk of Italian intervention. In 1934, Mussolini had mobilised Italian troops on the Austrian border to prevent a German takeover following the assassination of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss. By 1938, the Rome-Berlin Axis meant Italy was unlikely to intervene, but this could not be guaranteed in advance.
• The demand for the Sudetenland (1938) risked war with Czechoslovakia, which had a well-equipped army and border fortifications. France was treaty-bound to defend Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union had also pledged support. War involving multiple major powers was a real possibility until Chamberlain intervened.
• The invasion of Poland (September 1939) was undertaken despite British and French guarantees to Poland. Unlike earlier gambles, this one actually triggered a major European war. Hitler had gambled that Britain and France would back down again; this time, they did not.
• The Nazi-Soviet Pact (August 1939) was a diplomatic gamble that required trusting Stalin, an ideological enemy, to honour the agreement.
• Some historians argue that the invasion of the Soviet Union (June 1941), which opened a two-front war against the world's largest country, was a far greater gamble than any pre-war action, though this falls outside the 1933-1939 period specified in IGCSE History.

Assessing "greatest gamble":

The answer depends on how "greatest" is defined. In terms of the gap between Germany's strength and the risk of failure, the Rhineland was clearly the greatest gamble because Germany was at its weakest militarily relative to its opponents. In terms of absolute stakes, later decisions (particularly the invasion of Poland, which triggered a world war) carried greater consequences. Each successive gamble was made from a position of greater strength but with higher stakes.

How this question is marked (Paper 4, 40 marks):

• Level 5 (33-40): Balanced argument comparing the Rhineland gamble with other foreign policy risks, with specific evidence and a sustained evaluative judgement about which was "greatest" and why.
• Level 4 (25-32): Both the Rhineland and other gambles discussed with detail; some evaluation of relative risk.
• Level 3 (17-24): Detailed on the Rhineland or other gambles, but not effectively compared.
• Level 2 (9-16): Some relevant knowledge but limited analysis.
• Level 1 (1-8): Vague or general statements.

Examination approach: This question rewards students who define what "greatest gamble" means before answering. A strong conclusion might argue that the Rhineland was Hitler's greatest gamble relative to Germany's military weakness at the time, since failure would have been certain if France had responded. However, later decisions carried equal or greater risks in absolute terms because the stakes grew progressively higher. The Rhineland's significance lies not just in the risk taken, but in the fact that its success established a pattern: Hitler gambled, the democracies backed down, and each success made the next gamble seem less risky.