Shadows of War: Axis Expansion and the Failure of Peace
Created byBenjamin Fry
9 views0 downloads

Shadows of War: Axis Expansion and the Failure of Peace

Grade 10HistorySocial Studies5 days
This 10th-grade history project challenges students to evaluate the global shift toward conflict in the 1930s by investigating the expansionist ideologies of the Axis powers and the corresponding failure of international diplomacy. Students analyze primary sources related to the Rape of Nanking and the Stalin-Hitler Pact to understand the human and geopolitical consequences of aggressive imperialism. By examining the domestic distractions and policies of appeasement in Western democracies, learners construct a multi-perspective argument on whether World War II was an inevitable outcome or a preventable tragedy.
ExpansionismAppeasementGeopoliticsIsolationismDiplomacyImperialismAtrocities
Want to create your own PBL Recipe?Use our AI-powered tools to design engaging project-based learning experiences for your students.
📝

Inquiry Framework

Question Framework

Driving Question

The overarching question that guides the entire project.How can we evaluate the global responses to the 1930s 'drives for empire' to determine if World War II and its human atrocities were an inevitable outcome or a preventable tragedy?

Essential Questions

Supporting questions that break down major concepts.
  • How did the ideological and economic goals of Germany, Italy, and Japan drive their expansionist policies in the 1930s?
  • What were the human costs of imperial expansion, as evidenced by the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities in China?
  • How did the Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939 demonstrate the use of political pragmatism over ideology?
  • Why did the international community choose policies of appeasement and isolationism in response to global aggression?
  • To what extent did domestic economic and social challenges prevent the United States and European democracies from intervening in early 20th-century conflicts?
  • Could World War II have been prevented if the global response to the 'drives for empire' had been different?

Standards & Learning Goals

Learning Goals

By the end of this project, students will be able to:
  • Analyze and compare the ideological, economic, and political motivations behind the expansionist policies of Germany, Italy, and Japan in the 1930s.
  • Evaluate the human cost of military aggression by investigating historical atrocities, including the 1937 Rape of Nanking and other campaigns in China.
  • Analyze the strategic and paradoxical nature of the 1939 Stalin-Hitler Pact and its impact on the geopolitical landscape leading to World War II.
  • Critique the effectiveness and consequences of the policies of appeasement, non-intervention, and isolationism practiced by Western democracies.
  • Assess how domestic social and economic distractions (such as the Great Depression) influenced the foreign policy decisions of the United States and European nations.
  • Construct a multi-perspective historical argument regarding whether World War II was an inevitable consequence of expansionism or a preventable tragedy of failed diplomacy.

California History-Social Science Content Standards

CA.HSS.10.8.1
Primary
Compare the German, Italian, and Japanese drives for empire in the 1930s, including the 1937 Rape of Nanking, other atrocities in China, and the Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939.Reason: This standard directly matches the teacher's first project objective and forms the core historical content of the inquiry.
CA.HSS.10.8.2
Primary
Understand the role of appeasement, nonintervention (isolationism), and the domestic distractions in Europe and the United States prior to the outbreak of World War II.Reason: This standard covers the second half of the project's focus, specifically addressing the global response to aggression.
CA.HSS.10.7.3
Supporting
Compare the policies of various nations toward the League of Nations and the failure of collective security.Reason: Supports the investigation into why the international community's response was insufficient during the 1930s.

Common Core State Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1
Secondary
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.Reason: Students must use primary sources (treaties, eyewitness accounts of Nanking, political cartoons) to evaluate the driving and essential questions.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9
Secondary
Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.Reason: The project requires comparing the expansionist drives of three different nations and evaluating the different perspectives on 'inevitability' versus 'preventability.'

Entry Events

Events that will be used to introduce the project to students

The Great Disconnect Simulation

Students enter a room divided into 'Crisis Zones' (China, Ethiopia, Poland) and 'Safety Zones' (USA, UK, France). While horrific headlines are broadcast from the crisis zones, those in safety zones are forced to focus on complex internal puzzles (simulating domestic distractions like the Great Depression), until a sudden 'pact' between the aggressors forces them to see the consequences of their inaction.
📚

Portfolio Activities

Portfolio Activities

These activities progressively build towards your learning goals, with each submission contributing to the student's final portfolio.
Activity 1

Blueprints of Ambition: The Imperial Drive Matrix

In this foundational activity, students will research the ideological and economic motivations behind the 1930s expansionism of the Axis powers. They will explore concepts such as Germany's 'Lebensraum,' Italy's desire for a 'New Roman Empire,' and Japan's 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.' The goal is to move beyond seeing these nations as a monolith and instead understand the specific domestic pressures (economic collapse, nationalism, resource scarcity) that fueled their 'drives for empire.'

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Divide into research teams, each focusing on one of the three nations: Germany, Italy, or Japan.
2. Identify and record three primary motivations for your assigned country (e.g., resource acquisition, racial ideology, or reversing WWI outcomes).
3. Trade findings with teams representing the other two nations to identify common themes like 'militarism' and 'economic self-sufficiency.'
4. Synthesize the information into a comparative matrix that highlights one unique motivation and one shared motivation for all three countries.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Triple-Threat Comparative Matrix'—a visual infographic or detailed chart that compares the ideological, economic, and political drivers for each nation, supported by specific historical examples.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity directly aligns with CA.HSS.10.8.1 by requiring students to compare the expansionist drives of Germany, Italy, and Japan. It also utilizes CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9 as students must synthesize information from multiple sources to identify similarities and differences in national motivations.
Activity 2

Voices of Nanking: The Human Cost of Empire

Transitioning from political 'blueprints' to human reality, students will examine the consequences of imperial expansion. Using primary source accounts from the 1937 Rape of Nanking and other campaigns in China, students will analyze the human cost of aggression. This activity emphasizes the role of evidence in historical inquiry, requiring students to handle sensitive material with academic rigor and empathy.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Analyze curated primary sources from the Nanking Safety Zone and eyewitness accounts of the occupation of China.
2. Identify specific 'claims' made by the sources regarding the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war.
3. Annotate the sources by highlighting evidence of the intersection between military ideology and human rights violations.
4. Write a 250-word synthesis explaining how the 'drives for empire' directly resulted in these specific human atrocities.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityAn 'Evidence of Impact' Portfolio consisting of three annotated primary sources (diaries, telegrams, or photographs) with written reflections that connect the atrocities to the 'drives for empire' studied in Activity 1.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with CA.HSS.10.8.1 (specifically the Rape of Nanking and atrocities in China) and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1 (citing specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary sources).
Activity 3

The Unholy Alliance: Pragmatism over Ideology

Students will investigate the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop (Stalin-Hitler) Pact, analyzing why two ideological arch-enemies (Fascism and Communism) would sign a non-aggression treaty. This activity focuses on 'political pragmatism'—the idea that strategic gain often outweighs ideology. Students will examine the secret protocols of the pact and how they paved the way for the invasion of Poland.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Review the public terms of the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact versus the 'Secret Supplemental Protocol' regarding the division of Poland and the Baltic states.
2. Analyze why Hitler and Stalin would choose to cooperate despite their public ideological hatred of one another.
3. Create a map visualization showing the planned 'spheres of influence' established by the pact.
4. Draft a brief memo from the perspective of a 1939 diplomat predicting how this pact will change the likelihood of a major European war.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Secret Protocol Strategy Map'—a physical or digital map of Eastern Europe in 1939 with an accompanying 'Diplomatic Brief' explaining the pragmatic benefits of the pact for both Hitler and Stalin.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis aligns with CA.HSS.10.8.1 (the Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939) and challenges students to evaluate the strategic/paradoxical nature of geopolitical alliances. It also supports CA.HSS.10.7.3 regarding the failure of collective security.
Activity 4

The Great Distraction: Why the World Watched

Now looking at the 'safety zones' from the entry event, students will investigate why the international community (specifically the UK, France, and the USA) failed to intervene early on. They will analyze the Munich Agreement (appeasement), the US Neutrality Acts (isolationism), and the internal 'distractions' like the Great Depression that made foreign intervention politically impossible for many leaders.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Research the Great Depression's impact on the domestic politics of the US and UK during the mid-1930s.
2. Analyze the text of the Munich Agreement and Neville Chamberlain's 'Peace for our time' speech.
3. Identify three specific 'domestic distractions' (economic, social, or political) that led to the policy of non-intervention.
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the League of Nations during these crises by citing specific instances of its failure to enforce collective security.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Case File of Inaction'—a document that profiles three major 'moments of silence' (e.g., the invasion of Ethiopia, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Munich Agreement), explaining the domestic distraction that prevented a stronger response in each case.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with CA.HSS.10.8.2 (appeasement, isolationism, and domestic distractions) and CA.HSS.10.7.3 (failure of collective security/League of Nations).
Activity 5

The Inevitability Trial: Verdict on the 1930s

In this culminating activity, students use all their previous portfolio items to answer the driving question: Was WWII an inevitable outcome of expansionism or a preventable tragedy of failed diplomacy? Students will participate in a structured 'What If?' Summit, where they present arguments for and against the inevitability of the war based on the evidence they have gathered regarding imperial drives, atrocities, pacts, and appeasement.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Review the 'Evidence of Impact' Portfolio and 'Case File of Inaction' to find evidence supporting both sides of the 'inevitability' debate.
2. Identify at least two 'turning points' where a different global response might have changed the course of history.
3. Participate in a Socratic Seminar or Debate using the driving question as the central focus.
4. Draft the final 'Historical Policy Brief,' ensuring it cites specific textual evidence and addresses counter-arguments regarding the complexity of the 1930s.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Historical Policy Brief'—a formal 3-5 page argumentative paper or a recorded 'Historical Analysis Video' that uses evidence from all four previous activities to argue whether the war was inevitable or preventable.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis final activity serves as the summative assessment for the entire unit, hitting CA.HSS.10.8.1, 10.8.2, and 10.7.3. It requires students to construct a multi-perspective historical argument, fulfilling the highest level of the inquiry framework.
🏆

Rubric & Reflection

Portfolio Rubric

Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolio

WWII Origins and Global Response Rubric

Category 1

Road to Global Conflict: Assessment of the 1930s Drives for Empire

This rubric assesses the student's ability to analyze the complex interplay of expansionist drives, geopolitical strategy, domestic constraints, and human costs in the decade leading to WWII. It focuses on historical thinking, evidence-based argumentation, and the ability to synthesize multiple perspectives.
Criterion 1

Comparative Historical Analysis

Ability to compare and contrast the ideological, economic, and political motivations of Germany, Italy, and Japan, as well as the domestic constraints of Western democracies.

Exemplary
4 Points

Demonstrates sophisticated synthesis of national motivations; identifies nuanced commonalities and unique drivers. Provides a comprehensive analysis of how domestic distractions directly dictated foreign policy with specific historical examples.

Proficient
3 Points

Clearly compares the drives for empire across all three nations. Identifies major domestic distractions in the US and Europe and explains their general impact on non-intervention policies.

Developing
2 Points

Identifies motivations for the three nations but comparison may be surface-level. Mentions domestic distractions like the Great Depression without fully connecting them to policy outcomes.

Beginning
1 Points

Lists some motivations for expansion but fails to compare nations effectively. Minimal mention of domestic factors or reasons for non-intervention.

Criterion 2

Evidence-Based Inquiry

Skill in citing specific textual evidence from primary and secondary sources (e.g., Nanking accounts, Stalin-Hitler Pact, Munich Agreement) to support historical claims.

Exemplary
4 Points

Cites diverse, high-quality textual evidence with precision. Analyzes the origin and context of sources to reveal deeper meanings or biases, particularly regarding the human cost of empire.

Proficient
3 Points

Cites specific evidence from primary and secondary sources to support most claims. Attends to the date and origin of information as required by standards.

Developing
2 Points

Uses evidence from sources, but citations may be vague or poorly integrated into the argument. Shows emerging ability to distinguish between different types of sources.

Beginning
1 Points

Provides minimal evidence from sources or relies primarily on unsupported generalizations. Fails to cite specific details from provided primary accounts.

Criterion 3

Geopolitical Strategy & Pragmatism

Understanding of the strategic, often paradoxical nature of 1930s alliances and the failure of collective security mechanisms.

Exemplary
4 Points

Offers a profound evaluation of political pragmatism over ideology, specifically regarding the Stalin-Hitler Pact. Expertly maps spheres of influence and predicts geopolitical consequences with high accuracy.

Proficient
3 Points

Correctly analyzes the pragmatic reasons for the Stalin-Hitler Pact and the failures of the League of Nations. Accurately maps the division of territory and its strategic importance.

Developing
2 Points

Shows basic understanding of the Pact and the League of Nations, but struggles to explain why ideological enemies would cooperate. Map or strategy brief may contain minor inaccuracies.

Beginning
1 Points

Struggles to identify the purpose of the Stalin-Hitler Pact or the role of the League of Nations. Significant misunderstandings of the geopolitical landscape.

Criterion 4

Historical Argumentation & Synthesis

Ability to construct a multi-perspective argument regarding the inevitability or preventability of World War II based on accumulated evidence.

Exemplary
4 Points

Constructs a compelling, sophisticated argument that anticipates counter-arguments and identifies critical 'turning points.' Synthesizes evidence from all activities into a seamless historical narrative.

Proficient
3 Points

Drafts a clear, evidence-based policy brief that takes a definitive stand on the driving question. Uses information from the imperial matrix, the Nanking portfolio, and the inaction case files.

Developing
2 Points

Presents a basic argument but may rely on one-sided evidence. Connection between earlier activities and the final verdict is present but could be strengthened.

Beginning
1 Points

Lacks a clear claim or fails to support the argument with evidence from the unit. The conclusion is a summary of facts rather than an analytical verdict.

Criterion 5

Ethical Inquiry & Human Impact

Demonstration of academic rigor and empathy when analyzing the human costs of expansionism, specifically the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities.

Exemplary
4 Points

Integrates a deep understanding of human rights violations into the broader historical context. Demonstrates exceptional sensitivity and ethical reasoning when analyzing accounts of atrocities.

Proficient
3 Points

Clearly explains the human cost of military aggression. Successfully connects specific historical atrocities to the ideological 'drives for empire.'

Developing
2 Points

Describes atrocities but with limited analysis of their causes or systemic nature. Reflection shows emerging empathy but stays at a descriptive level.

Beginning
1 Points

Provides incomplete or clinical descriptions of atrocities without acknowledging the human impact or connecting them to the expansionist policies.

Reflection Prompts

End-of-project reflection questions to get students to think about their learning
Question 1

After analyzing the 'drives for empire' and the 'case for inaction,' which factor do you now believe was the most significant hurdle to preventing World War II?

Multiple choice
Required
Options
The relentless nature of expansionist ideologies (Lebensraum, Co-Prosperity Sphere)
The crushing economic weight of the Great Depression on Western democracies
The unpredictable nature of political pragmatism (like the Stalin-Hitler Pact)
The systemic failure of the League of Nations and collective security
Question 2

How did analyzing specific human atrocities, like the Rape of Nanking, influence your evaluation of the diplomatic policies of appeasement and isolationism?

Text
Required
Question 3

Based on the evidence you've gathered, where do you land on the spectrum of historical inevitability regarding World War II?

Scale
Required
Question 4

How has this project changed your understanding of 'political pragmatism'? Is it a necessary tool for national survival, or is it a dangerous compromise of values?

Text
Optional
Question 5

Looking back at the 'domestic distractions' faced by the US and UK, which statement best reflects your final judgment on their policy of non-intervention?

Multiple choice
Required
Options
Economic survival during the Great Depression was a valid reason to avoid foreign war.
The trauma and loss of WWI made isolationism a morally understandable choice.
Internal social divisions were so great that intervention would have collapsed the home front.
No domestic distraction justifies the failure to intervene in the face of human atrocities.