Syllabus Edition
First teaching 2016
Last exams 2025
Improving Foreign Relations, 1923-29 (Edexcel GCSE History)
Revision Note
Written by: Zoe Wade
Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett
Timeline - Stresemann's Foreign Policies
How did Stresmann improve Germany’s relationship with Europe? - Summary
By November 1923, Stresemann had lost his position as chancellor. The coalition government broke down when the SPD decided they no longer wanted to work with Stresemann’s party, the DVP. The next chancellor, Wilhelm Marx from the Centre Party, formed a coalition with the DVP and the DDP. Stresemann was appointed Foreign Minister by Marx.
As Foreign Minister, Stresemann pursued a number of treaties like Locarno and Kellogg-Briand. He aimed to build better relations with Europe and restore Germany’s reputation as a world power. Stresemann succeeded in his ambitions. In 1926, the League of Nations accepted Germany as a permanent member. In the same year, Stresemann won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Stresemann died in office on 3rd October 1929. His political policies brought stability to the Weimar Republic. Between 1924 and 1929, the public’s support of moderate parties increased. As public confidence in the Weimar government grew, the appeal of extremism weakened. It would take the economic crash in the USA in late October 1929 to undo Stresemann’s work.
The Locarno Treaties, 1925
The Locarno Treaties were a series of agreements between Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Belgium
The nations met in Locarno, Switzerland on 16th October and signed the pacts on 1st December 1925
All nations entered the agreements as equals. This was unlike the diktat of the Treaty of Versailles
The terms of the Locarno Pact were:
France and Germany promised to keep peace with each other
Germany accepted its western borders as stated in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles
This infuriated the extremist parties in Germany
All members promised to keep the Rhineland demilitarised
To explore the possibility of admitting Germany into the League of Nations
Stresemann considered the Locarno Treaties as his greatest achievement because they:
Reduced the possibility of future wars
Improved the reputation of the Weimar Republic nationally and internationally
In 1926, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Stresemann and French foreign minister Aristide Briand
Worked Example
Give two things you can infer from Source A about the Locarno Treaties of 1925
4 marks
Source A: A political cartoon called ‘Treaty of Locarno’ by David Low, 5th September 1925
Answers:
i) What I can infer:
I can infer that Stresemann was fully invested in the Locarno Pact (1)
Details in the source that tell me this:
Stresemann is extending both hands to shake the other two men (1)
ii) What I can infer:
I can also infer that not all the members entered into the pact with the genuine intention to keep peace (1)
Details in the source that tell me this:
Briand has his arm behind his back. It looks like his hand is a boxing glove (1)
Examiner Tips and Tricks
An inference is an educated guess based on evidence. It is acceptable to not fully understand what is happening in the source. Use what you can see to help you. The source gives you the names of Briand and Stresemann. How the cartoonist has drawn each person should give you clues about how the public viewed them as people and as politicians.
Germany Joins the League of Nations
The League of Nations was a forum where countries could discuss problems before resorting to armed conflict
Woodrow Wilson, the American President, played a leading role in the creation of the League of Nations. It was based on his 14 Points
Part 1 of the Treaty of Versailles established the League
The League did not formally meet until 10th January 1920
For a country to join the League of Nations as a permanent member, it had to receive two-thirds of the members’ vote
A country could leave the League if it gave two years' notice
Clemenceau, the French President, wanted revenge. He believed that Germany had started World War One
Due to Clemenceau’s anger, the Treaty of Versailles banned Germany from joining the League of Nations
As a result of the Locarno Treaties, the League of Nations met with Stresemann to discuss membership
The Council settled serious disputes between countries
In September 1926, Stresemann obtained German membership of the League
The League permitted Germany to sit on the League of Nations Council
The impacts of joining the League of Nations
Positive impacts | Negative impacts |
Boosted German citizens’ confidence in the Weimar Republic | Some people did not want anything to do with the League of Nations. It was associated with the hated Treaty of Versailles |
Gained support for moderate parties | Created anger among extremist parties |
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928
French foreign minister Aristide Briand met with US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg to discuss further steps towards world peace
The USA was not in the League of Nations. They still believed in achieving world peace
On 27th August 1928, they assembled Germany and 61 other countries to sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact
The Kellogg-Briand Pact stated that war should never be used as a means for resolving disputes between countries
Impacts of the Kellogg-Briand Pact on Germany
Positive impacts | Negative impacts |
Boosted German citizens’ confidence in the Weimar Republic | The Kellogg-Briand Pact did not remove the military restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. This angered extremist parties |
The world saw Germany as a respectable and trustworthy state. They could enter into treaties as an equal to the other signatories | Many Germans thought other countries would move towards disarmament. Disappointingly, the pact did not promise this |
Impact on the Reichstag
When Stresemann became chancellor in August 1923, he aimed to reduce support for extremist parties
His success in financial and political affairs achieved this aim
By October 1929, the political atmosphere in Germany had radically changed
There were no political assassinations between 1924 and 1929
There were six coalition governments in the period of 1924-1929. This was much fewer than pre-1924
Friedrich Ebert died in 1925
Throughout his presidency, Ebert could not detach his reputation from the Treaty of Versailles
Paul von Hindenburg replaced Ebert as president
Hindenburg was the army chief of staff under the Kaiser
He was elected president at 77 years old
He had strong conservative, nationalist views
The right-wing middle class respected Hindenburg and, as a result, increased their support of the Weimar Republic
On 3rd October 1929, Stresemann died in office of a heart attack
The Republic lost one of the most capable ministers it had
The Wall Street Crash occurred at the end of October. This destroyed all of the progress Stresemann had made to stabilise Germany
Worked Example
Study Interpretations 1 and 2. They give different views about the impact of Stresemann on Weimar Germany in 1924-29
What is the main difference between these views?
Explain your answer, using details from both interpretations
4 marks
Interpretation 1: An extract from The Course of Germany History by A. J. P. Taylor. It was published in 1945 Stresemann did German democracy a disservice. Stresemann’s Republic was kept going by foreign success and the dose of success had constantly to be increased. Far from consolidating the Republic, Stresemann gave the Germans a taste for blood which the enemies of the Republic could more easily satisfy |
Interpretation 2: An extract from A History of Germany by William Carr. It was published in 1969 Chancellor Gustav Stresemann’s ‘hundred days’ as Chancellor marked a real turning-point in the Republic’s history. He took office when the Republic was at its lowest ebb politically and economically but by the time the ‘great coalition’ collapsed in November 1923, the Republic was well on the road to recovery… confidence in the economy was restored, and reparations put on a realistic footing. |
Answers:
Interpretations 1 and 2 differ about how positive Stresemann’s impact on Germany was. Interpretation 1 states that Stresemann damaged Weimar Germany (1). A quote that supports this is “Stresemann did German democracy a disservice” (1).
Interpretation 2 believes that Stresemann positively impacted the Weimar Republic (1). A quote to support this is “confidence in the economy was restored, and reparations put on a realistic footing” (1).
Worked Example
Suggest one reason why Interpretations 1 and 2 give different views about the impact of Stresemann on Weimar Germany in 1924-29
You may use Sources B and C to help explain your answer
4 marks
Source B: A Nazi cartoon published in 1923. The man behind the curtain represents the USA. The red words in the cartoon say ‘Here is your enemy’
AWAITING IMAGE
Source C: The front page of the German satirical magazine "Simplicissimus" in 1923. It shows Gustav Stresemann as a guardian angel of the German Michel. The caption reads: "He looks to the right, he looks to the left - he will save me!".
Answers:
Interpretations 1 and 2 differ because the historians have studied different sources.
Interpretation 1 states that Stresemann did not positively impact Weimar Germany (1). This historian may have studied sources like Source B as it shows his policies provoked hatred from extremist parties like the Nazi Party (1).
Interpretation 2 argues that Stresemann positively impacted the Weimar Republic (1). This historian may have used sources like Source C to support his point. Source C shows that Stresemann is protecting the boy, representing Germany, from falling. This shows Stresemann put Germany on the correct path to recovery (1).
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Question 3b will ask about the difference between two interpretations of an event. If you can understand the argument in Interpretation 1, Interpretation 2 will support the opposing side of that argument. Remember to use quotes from the interpretations. This will provide evidence to explain the difference between the interpretations.
Students struggle to answer the question in the final worked example (Question 3c). A common mistake is to repeat what has been said in the previous worked example (Question 3b). When approaching Question 3c, you need to explain why the interpretations are different. The question includes the wording “You may use Sources B and C to help explain your answer.” The sources in Part B will also show differing sides of the same event asked in Question 3. Historians use sources to create judgments on historical events.
One source will support one interpretation. The other source will provide evidence for the remaining interpretation. Once you have concluded which source matches which interpretation, the approach to Question 3c becomes a lot clearer.
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?
