Sample Q & A
1
(a) What difficulties did Britain and France face as the main leaders of the League of Nations? [4]
(a) What difficulties did Britain and France face as the main leaders of the League of Nations? [4]
- ‘Neither of the countries wanted to lead the League.’ ‘They thought the USA would be the leading power.’
- ‘Both powers had been weakened by the First World War.’
- ‘Both countries’ economies were hit by the Depression.’
- ‚They were reluctant to use military action.’ ´Especially after WW1’ - e.g The Peace movement in Britain was widespread
- ‘Both countries had other priorities. Britain wanted to re-build trade and look after the British Empire.’
- ‘France was willing to by pass the League in strengthening its position against Germany’
(b) Why did some major powers not join the League? [6]
Political reasons - e.g. ‘Wilson, who supported the League, was a Democrat and his opponents, the Republicans, opposed the entry of the USA into the League and made it an election issue which Wilson lost. Warren Harding, a Republican who became President, wanted the USA to ‘return to normalcy’. He wanted the USA out of European affairs and he wanted full trade, not hindered by the League’s economic sanctions.’
Consequence of the Treaty - Germany, as a defeated nation in the War, was not allowed to enter the League. It had to prove that it could be responsible. It was only allowed to join in 1926.’ - Also, The USSR was not invited to join because it was a Communist country, although it was allowed to join in 1934.
Political reasons - e.g. ‘Wilson, who supported the League, was a Democrat and his opponents, the Republicans, opposed the entry of the USA into the League and made it an election issue which Wilson lost. Warren Harding, a Republican who became President, wanted the USA to ‘return to normalcy’. He wanted the USA out of European affairs and he wanted full trade, not hindered by the League’s economic sanctions.’
Consequence of the Treaty - Germany, as a defeated nation in the War, was not allowed to enter the League. It had to prove that it could be responsible. It was only allowed to join in 1926.’ - Also, The USSR was not invited to join because it was a Communist country, although it was allowed to join in 1934.
(c) ‘The League failed because of the Abyssinian crisis.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
The failure over Abyssinia was certainly a significant moment in the League's downfall as it exposed a number of League weaknesses. For example it proved Britain and France were not completely supportive as they attempted desperately fa solution outside the League known as the The Hoare-Laval Plan. This. Plan was leaked to the press but this showed that Britain and France were not prepared to back tough action. It looked as if they were rewarding Mussolini for his aggression.’ Also, it proved that without the USA economic sanctions were weak. The USA actually continued trading with Italy, including oil. It also proved the lack of support from permanent members of which Italy was one. So all in all the Abyssinian crisis was a disaster and after this no one took the league seriously again.
However, it could be argued the failure of the League in Abyssinia was a product not a cause. The League had already failed badly over the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. Japan was also a permanent member of the League Council and in this incident the League was slow, taking a year for the Lytton Commission to make its report. (Expand of the detail)
However, perhaps the real reason for the failure of League was a lack of commitment from its key members, the absence of the USA which would have given it greater political, economic and military influence. It’s structure was arguably weak from the start and without an army it had no ‘teeth’ so it”s not surprising Japan and Italy could not be stopped.
The failure over Abyssinia was certainly a significant moment in the League's downfall as it exposed a number of League weaknesses. For example it proved Britain and France were not completely supportive as they attempted desperately fa solution outside the League known as the The Hoare-Laval Plan. This. Plan was leaked to the press but this showed that Britain and France were not prepared to back tough action. It looked as if they were rewarding Mussolini for his aggression.’ Also, it proved that without the USA economic sanctions were weak. The USA actually continued trading with Italy, including oil. It also proved the lack of support from permanent members of which Italy was one. So all in all the Abyssinian crisis was a disaster and after this no one took the league seriously again.
However, it could be argued the failure of the League in Abyssinia was a product not a cause. The League had already failed badly over the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. Japan was also a permanent member of the League Council and in this incident the League was slow, taking a year for the Lytton Commission to make its report. (Expand of the detail)
However, perhaps the real reason for the failure of League was a lack of commitment from its key members, the absence of the USA which would have given it greater political, economic and military influence. It’s structure was arguably weak from the start and without an army it had no ‘teeth’ so it”s not surprising Japan and Italy could not be stopped.
2
(a) Describe how collective security was intended to work. [4]
(a) Describe how collective security was intended to work. [4]
- ‘It was a way of keeping the peace.’ (1) 'By deterring a country from acting aggressively'.
- ‘It hoped to gain a successful result by working together (collectively).’
- e.g. ‘If one state attacked another, the member states of the League would act together collectively.’
- ‘They would condemn the aggressor hoping that it would make them feel so guilty the country would back down.’
- ‘If that failed, economic sanctions could be imposed on the aggressor.’
- ‘Hurting the country’s trade or economy might make it see sense.’
- ‘If necessary, military action against the aggressor could be taken by members joining forces.’
(b) Why was the American decision not to join the League a great blow to the organisation? [6]
- ‘The U.S.A. had suggested the League but never joined. This deprived the League of the most influential and powerful nation in the world and undermined its credibility.’
- ‘Without the U.S.A., economic sanctions would be ineffective because the U.S.A. could continue trading with the offending country.’
- ‘The U.S.A. could bring huge resources to the League. It was one of the few countries which had gained economically from the First World War.’
- ‘Britain and France were left as the dominant powers in the League. This made the League too Eurocentric. and both these countries had been badly hit by WWI so did not have the resources the US did.
(c) ‘The Depression had a greater impact on the League than did events in Manchuria.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer [10]
Which one to deal with first? Start with the one which had less impact.
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria certainly damaged the reputation of the League, mainly because the League was slow acting. This is highlighted by the length of time, a year, the Lytton Commission took to report. By the time the report was published, Japan had completed the invasion. This slow reaction proved how the League was eurocentric in its attitudes and incapable of preventing an obvious act of aggression. Manchuria seemed distant to many League members. It did not consider an Asian crisis as being vital to the countries in Europe. This significantly undermined the idea of a world peace organisation.
HOWEVER
Arguably the depression had a greater impact on the efficacy of the League - The Depression resulted in significant economic and political consequences that weakened the League. Many people lost their jobs and turned to extreme political parties, for example in Germany Hitler came to power - These extreme parties did not believe in democracy and international co-operation. They cared only about their own country and ignored the authority of the League. When Hitler came to power he left both the disarmament conference and the League and began rearming. Also, Britain and France suffered so did not want to became involved in disputes, which explains why they tried to do a deal over Abyssinia in 1935 (The Hoare - Laval Pact) and refused to include oil in any sanctions.
Overall, one can argue the depression had more of an impact because the Japanese invasion was just a product of worldwide economic instability - Japan may not have invaded Manchuria if the worldwide economic depression had not happened.
Which one to deal with first? Start with the one which had less impact.
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria certainly damaged the reputation of the League, mainly because the League was slow acting. This is highlighted by the length of time, a year, the Lytton Commission took to report. By the time the report was published, Japan had completed the invasion. This slow reaction proved how the League was eurocentric in its attitudes and incapable of preventing an obvious act of aggression. Manchuria seemed distant to many League members. It did not consider an Asian crisis as being vital to the countries in Europe. This significantly undermined the idea of a world peace organisation.
HOWEVER
Arguably the depression had a greater impact on the efficacy of the League - The Depression resulted in significant economic and political consequences that weakened the League. Many people lost their jobs and turned to extreme political parties, for example in Germany Hitler came to power - These extreme parties did not believe in democracy and international co-operation. They cared only about their own country and ignored the authority of the League. When Hitler came to power he left both the disarmament conference and the League and began rearming. Also, Britain and France suffered so did not want to became involved in disputes, which explains why they tried to do a deal over Abyssinia in 1935 (The Hoare - Laval Pact) and refused to include oil in any sanctions.
Overall, one can argue the depression had more of an impact because the Japanese invasion was just a product of worldwide economic instability - Japan may not have invaded Manchuria if the worldwide economic depression had not happened.
3
(a) Describe the role of the League in the Upper Silesia dispute of 1919–21.
Level 1 One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail
(a) Describe the role of the League in the Upper Silesia dispute of 1919–21.
Level 1 One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail
- The dispute was between Germany and Poland.’
- ‘In March 1921, the League organised a plebiscite.’
- ‘700 000 voted in favour of Germany, while 480 000 voted in favour of Poland.’
- ‘The League held six weeks of discussions with representatives of the German and Polish governments.’
- ‘The League decided that the territory should be shared.’
- ‘The League decided that Germany should have just over half the territory.’
- ‘The League decided that Poland would receive the mainly industrial area.’
- ‘The League safeguarded minority groups.’
- ‘The League safeguarded rail links between the two countries.’
- ‘The League made arrangements for water and power supplies from one side of the border to be supplied to the other.’
(b) Why did the absence of some countries from the League weaken it? Level 4 Explains TWO reasons
e.g. ‘The USA’s absence was a body-blow to the League as the organisation was deprived of the world’s most powerful, influential and wealthy country. Without the USA, economic and military sanctions were not effective. This meant that the ability of the League to take action against aggressive countries was much reduced and the general prestige of the League was significantly affected.’
Other reasons x require explaining:
e.g. ‘The USA’s absence was a body-blow to the League as the organisation was deprived of the world’s most powerful, influential and wealthy country. Without the USA, economic and military sanctions were not effective. This meant that the ability of the League to take action against aggressive countries was much reduced and the general prestige of the League was significantly affected.’
Other reasons x require explaining:
- The USA’s absence meant the League’s sanctions were not very effective.’
- ‘The League missed the USA’s influence and power.’
- ‘The absence of Germany made the League seem like a club for the victorious powers.’ ‘With the absence of Germany, the League could not influence Hitler’s foreign policy.’ ‘Italy and Japan left the League despite both being powerful and influential countries.’ ‘Not inviting Russia meant the League lacked a world power.’
- ‘Britain and France pursued their own interests.’
(c) ‘The humanitarian work of the League of Nations was the most successful of its activities in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
(Address the focus of the question directly in your opening sentence) There is no doubt that the League enjoyed a great deal of success with its humanitarian work in the 1920s. Perhaps most notable was the work of Fridtjof Nansen who headed the League’s Refugee Organisation and managed to help 425 000 displaced persons either to return home or find new homes between 1920 and 1922. This was vital work after Europe had experienced a great deal of disruption due to WWI. Many of these had been prisoners of war stranded in Soviet Russia, Poland, France, Germany and Turkey. His team found suitable transport, set up temporary camps, taught new trades and skills and issued identity documents. It was a great success. Moreover through the Health commissions it did much to deal with tropical diseases, such as yellow fever and malaria and it did a lot of work to combat leprosy. It also had some success with the International Labour Organisation which was set up to improve workers´ rights and working conditions across the world for example banning lead in white paint. Its main achievement was to limit child labour in some countries. This important work certainly improved the League's reputation.
However, the League also had some political successes in the 1920s. For example the League satisfactorily resolved the dispute between Sweden and Finland over the rival claims to the Aaland Islands in the Baltic Sea. Most of the islanders wanted to be ruled by Sweden, but the League investigated and awarded the islands to Finland with safeguards for the islanders. Sweden accepted the decision. It also assisted Austria when their state bank collapsed in organising loans and it prevented a war between Bulgaria and Greece in 1925.
In spite of these political successes, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that, in political terms (i.e. peace-keeping), the League was more of a failure than it was a success. Although there was a spirit on ‘internationalism’ developing in the 20s and there were some political successes (The Åaland Islands, Upper Silesia, the Grecian/Bulgarian border dispute, etc), all of the successes involved only minor nations. When it came to controlling major powers, the League was an absolute failure, take for example Italy’s invasion of Corfu in 1923. Italy was a permanent member and it simply ignored the mechanisms of the League.
Overall then. it is valid to say the main successes of the League were humanitarian as in political terms the League had mixed success and where there was success it was only with minor nations.
- Level 5 Explains with evaluation of ‘how far’ 10
- As Level 4 plus evaluation.
- Level 4 Explanation of both sides 7–9
(Address the focus of the question directly in your opening sentence) There is no doubt that the League enjoyed a great deal of success with its humanitarian work in the 1920s. Perhaps most notable was the work of Fridtjof Nansen who headed the League’s Refugee Organisation and managed to help 425 000 displaced persons either to return home or find new homes between 1920 and 1922. This was vital work after Europe had experienced a great deal of disruption due to WWI. Many of these had been prisoners of war stranded in Soviet Russia, Poland, France, Germany and Turkey. His team found suitable transport, set up temporary camps, taught new trades and skills and issued identity documents. It was a great success. Moreover through the Health commissions it did much to deal with tropical diseases, such as yellow fever and malaria and it did a lot of work to combat leprosy. It also had some success with the International Labour Organisation which was set up to improve workers´ rights and working conditions across the world for example banning lead in white paint. Its main achievement was to limit child labour in some countries. This important work certainly improved the League's reputation.
However, the League also had some political successes in the 1920s. For example the League satisfactorily resolved the dispute between Sweden and Finland over the rival claims to the Aaland Islands in the Baltic Sea. Most of the islanders wanted to be ruled by Sweden, but the League investigated and awarded the islands to Finland with safeguards for the islanders. Sweden accepted the decision. It also assisted Austria when their state bank collapsed in organising loans and it prevented a war between Bulgaria and Greece in 1925.
In spite of these political successes, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that, in political terms (i.e. peace-keeping), the League was more of a failure than it was a success. Although there was a spirit on ‘internationalism’ developing in the 20s and there were some political successes (The Åaland Islands, Upper Silesia, the Grecian/Bulgarian border dispute, etc), all of the successes involved only minor nations. When it came to controlling major powers, the League was an absolute failure, take for example Italy’s invasion of Corfu in 1923. Italy was a permanent member and it simply ignored the mechanisms of the League.
Overall then. it is valid to say the main successes of the League were humanitarian as in political terms the League had mixed success and where there was success it was only with minor nations.
