Only fools study whole syllabuses; the wise select prominent topics, which regularly form exam questions. The growth of international tension in Europe in the 1930s, culminating in the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, is certainly one such theme. But it is not a self-contained topic. Ideally, it should be studied in conjunction with allied issues, such as the Versailles Settlement; Appeasement; Fascism in Italy; and, above all, the history of the Third Reich. If you adopt such a broad-based strategy, you will be in a good position to tackle several questions in a typical exam. One topic will reinforce another, adding an air of authority to your work.

Try to gain an overview: if you can form a `mental map' of the key factors, events and personalities, you will find it much easier later on to add factual depth and to master the differing interpretations historians have put forward. Start with Versailles and the treaty provisions which gave Germany a sense of grievance but left her potentially very strong. At this stage it is a good idea to consult a decent historical atlas. Then examine the 1920s and the degree to which there was peaceful revision. For the 1930s, you should be more detailed: compile your own chronological table of key events, noting not only what happened but also its significance. Return to the atlas again to see the results of Hitler's territorial acquisitions. You also need a brief knowledge of the Second World War, including Hitler's invasion of the USSR from June 1941. Mastering the narrative of events is absolutely vital - it is a precondition to genuine understanding - even though you yourself will not need to reproduce such a narrative.

Now you must focus on important areas of analysis. These must include the following:

a) The effects of economic depression in Europe from 1929 onwards. Extend this to include an examination of the `weight' of the major European players: Germany, France, Italy, Britain, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

b) The reasons why Britain and France tried to appease Germany. You should be able to find dozens; but remember that these were not equally important at all times. Here is a chance to bring in extra-European affairs, including the isolation of the USA and the threat of Japan in the Far East.

c) The nature of Hitler's foreign policy. In particular, try to decide the degree of planning/conscious design in his actions, and also the degree to which he was opportunistic (a word whose meaning you need to be certain about). This is highly controversial. You will need to consider the evidence from Mein Kampf, from the Hossbach Memorandum and from other key sources. But you must also return to detailed accounts of the events in order to decide which interpretation best fits the facts. Many students tend to agree with Alan Bullock's neat formulation, that Hitler's foreign policy `combined consistency of aim with complete opportunism in methods and tactics'. This may well fit his devious policies towards the USSR. But does it explain, for instance, the Anschluss, where many would argue that Hitler seized an opportunity very much of his own making, so that he was not completely opportunistic?

There are many other questions with which you should grapple.

a) Are Nazi economic and rearmament policies a key to understanding Hitler's foreign policy intentions? Did he intend a series of short wars or a much larger war, perhaps starting in 1941-43?

b) Did Nazi ideology make war inevitable? Was the Second World War merely a tool to bring about the `final solution'?

c) How far was Hitler's foreign policy a continuation of that of William II in 1914? Would Stresemann have used aggressive tactics in the East once Germany had recovered her strength? What was distinctive about Hitler?

d) How should moral responsibility for starting the war be apportioned? How much blame should be allotted to Hitler, to the Nazis, the German nation and to the appeasers in Britain, France and the USSR?

There are good textbooks in the Access to History and the Seminar Studies

series. But Philip Bell's Origins of the Second World War in Europe

(Longman, 1986) is strongly recommended. Everyone should at least dip into A.J.P. Taylor's Origins of the Second World War (Penguin, 1964): provocative, one-sided, sometimes misleading, it is also brilliantly written and, at times, supremely witty. I doubt if anyone can read it without laughing aloud at least a dozen times.