June 2008
17. International Relations 1919 -1941
a) Assess the view that the Locarno Treaties were the main reason why there were no major
international disputes in the1920’s.
b) Assess the reasons why the League of Nations failed to prevent Japanese and Italian
aggression in the1930’s.
Jun 2007
17(b) How successful was the League of Nations? Explain your answer with reference
to the 1920s and the 1930s. [45]
Consideration of the League’s relative successes during the 1920s with some examples can
be made. May refer to events such as the Aaland Islands, Greece/Bulgaria and
Yugoslavia/Albania to illustrate the successes, although better answers will suggest that
these involved only small nations. You may refer to events such as Vilna, Corfu and the
Ruhr to illustrate failure and suggest that this happened when they were dealing with larger
nations.
Answers will attempt to consider the evidence of the League’s increasing inability to deal
with the deteriorating international situation of the 1930s. A main focus might well be on the
two crises of the 1930s, over Manchuria and Abyssinia, as examples of the dilemmas faced
by the League and how these incidents influenced the growing challenges provided by
Japan, Italy and Germany. In discussing the success of the League candidates could
consider the work of the various agencies, particularly refugees and mandates, but may
consider any of the social achievements on health, labour and working conditions.
Jan 2007
17(a) How effective was international diplomacy in the 1920s in resolving international
disputes? Explain your answer.
You must address address the question.
The effectiveness of international diplomacy in these years should be the main emphasis.
Perspectives on the roles of the major powers could provide a useful way into evaluation.
Answers may evaluate the circumstances of treaties and agreements made. The focus of
Locarno on Germany’s borders with France and Belgium (not in the east), the diplomatic
rehabilitation of Germany and entry to the League, Stresemann, Austen Chamberlain and
Briand’s personal roles. Kellogg-Briand should also provide a contrast with Locarno. There
may be treatment of individual crises (e.g. Corfu and the Greece- Bulgaria dispute). Overall
evaluation of the effectiveness of diplomacy should be made.
(b) Assess the view that Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of war in
Europe in 1939.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Answers may focus on the developments of the 1930s, though a longer perspective,
certainly back to Versailles Treaty is possible. Clearly the foreign policy of Hitler after 1933 is
important, Challenges over the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia and Poland may be evaluated.
The role of Germany needs to be balanced against other factors such as: the legacy of
WW1, British, French and the League’s responses (appeasement), the context of
international aggression (Italy and Japan).
June 2006
17(a) Assess the reasons why there were no major international conflicts in the 1920s.
Focus: evaluation of the international situation.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to discuss a range of factors which resulted in there being no major
conflicts in the 1920s. Areas that might be covered could include: the legacy of the Great
War and the various Peace Settlements; the objectives of Britain, France and the USA; the
role of the new League of Nations; conferences like Locarno. Answers may consider what
would constitute a ‘major international conflict’, as opposed to ‘minor skirmishes’ – of which
there were rather a lot around the world in the 1920s.
(b) How far was British foreign policy to blame for the outbreak of war in Europe in
1939?
Focus: Evaluation of causes.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Evaluation of the impact of British foreign policy will form the focal point of an effective
answer. Answers could consider, for example: the development of post-World War I planning
(including disarmament), focus on imperial rather than continental concerns, the Ten-Year
Rule, attitudes to the USSR, appeasement (under Chamberlain, perhaps set in the longer
context of British policy from 1919 and the feeling that Germany had legitimate demands
after Versailles). The balance of discussion between the rise of aggressive nationalism in
Germany and Italy, and Britain’s response to them would provide effective context for the
assessment.
Jan 2006 b) To what extent did the structure and organisation of the League of
Nations contribute to its failure? No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to
address the question. Evaluation of factors causing League failures needs to be made,
within which League structures & organisation must be one element fully considered. Linking
League weaknesses specifically to League problems and successes in the 1920s and 1930s
would be one way of answering the question (so Manchuria and Abyssinia alone should not
be the only examples considered). In discussing the impact of structure and organisation
candidates may point to the need for unanimity, the inadequacies of the sanctions available
to the League, the limited membership of the organisation. Candidates may link these points
to actual crises and events to demonstrate their impact. Answers may also point to the
desire by some key states (e.g. Britain) not to be ‘world policemen’, and the idea that the
Council’s dominant members (Britain & France) had very different ideas on the League’s
role, and the reluctance of members to involve themselves in boycotts if these went against
national interests. To cover the issue of ‘To what extent …?’, wider perspectives may be
drawn, such as: the deteriorating state of international affairs and the rise of aggressive
states in Japan, Germany and Italy, the lack of will by France and Britain to use the League.
Candidates may point to successes in the 1920s and thus question whether the League
itself was flawed or whether it could only ever be hoped to keep the peace where both sides
in a conflict were willing to cooperate – which the Fascist dictators were not.
June 2005
17 International Relations 1919-1941
(a) How far were the Locarno Treaties (1925) the most important reason why there
were no major conflicts in the 1920s?
Focus: Assessment of reasons for relative peace.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
The emphasis is around the international impact of Locarno. Candidates will need to set the
significance of Locarno in the wider context of international diplomacy in the 1920s, for
example the Washington Naval Conference 1922, the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928, the Dawes
Plan 1924, the Young Plan 1929. The impact of the legacy of World War I and the universal
yearning for peace would provide a useful perspective in answers. Individual examples will
need to be related to the question, and thus used to help consider the significance of the
Treaties. Candidates may refer to disputes before 1925 to show that Locarno alone was not
the sole influence (e.g. the League’s successful arbitration over the Åland Islands, Upper
Silesia). Some may point out ‘main conflicts’ in the question and make clear that the 1920s
were not conflict free (e.g. Vilnius 1922, Corfu 1923). Many answers will probably argue that
the League itself promoted a greater degree of international cooperation (Kellogg-Briand
with 15 powers pledging to reject war as an instrument of national policy in 1928 is a good
example).
.
(b) ‘The crises over Manchuria (1931-33) and Abyssinia (1935-36) fatally weakened the
League of Nations.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?
Focus: Evaluation of the impact of 2 crises on the League.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to evaluate the impact these two crises in undermining the
effectiveness of the League. Answers might take the impact of each one separately. Some
might consider the impact of the one crisis on the other – the degree to which the League in
dealing with Italy was already weakened by Manchuria. The attitudes of the major powers,
especially Britain and France may be discussed, along with their desire to construct other
means of security. The issue of whether the League was doomed from these crises onwards
could usefully be discussed. Some may go on, specifically considering the
fate/role/significance of the League from 1936 onwards, e.g. over the Spanish Civil War,
subsequent Japanese aggression in China, during the crises with Germany in 1938-39.
Equally, some may question the strength of the League in the first place, arguing that
Manchuria and/or Abyssinia only confirmed fatal weakness inherent from its foundation. Its
Disarmament Conference (opened 1932) failed. It had not stopped the Italian invasion of
Corfu 1923. It failed to stop war between Bolivia and Paraguay in the early 1930s. The
Geneva Protocol had never been ratified (Britain had vetoed it 1925) so collective military
action was impossible.
Jan 2005
(b) To what extent did the foreign policies of Italy and Japan contribute to the
outbreak of the Second World War?
Focus: Evaluation of the impact of the foreign policies of two states.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. A wideranging approach could be applied. Appreciation of when a world as opposed to European
war could provide a good discriminator. Candidates could base their answers around the
problems which the League faced in the 1930s as a result of the foreign policies of these
countries, particularly the Manchurian and Abyssinian crises. Japanese expansionism to
Pearl Harbor could be discussed. Clear evaluation of the causation of these challenges will
need to be provided in relation to the development of the wider causes of World War II.