You are on page 1of 11

LON

2a Explain what Woodrow Wilson wanted to achieve at the Paris Peace Conference. [8]

L1 Discusses the event with no specific link to the question 1-2m


e.g. Woodrow Wilson wanted to achieve peace.

L2 Identifies or describes factors 3-4m


3m for identification without description
4m for a detailed description
e.g. League of Nations, Self-determination, lenient treatment
of Germany

L3 Explains reasons 5-8m


Award 5-6 marks for one explained factor
Award 7-8 marks for two explained factors

E.g. One goal Woodrow Wilson wanted to achieve at the


Paris Peace Conference was to establish the League of
Nations. Wilson thought the only way to maintain
international peace and prevent another world war from
breaking out was establishing an international body was
countries could have open discussions about disagreements,
subject to international law. This would create collective
security, where all countries agreed to uphold international
law and punish countries who violated it through aggressive
actions. Therefore, one goal Woodrow Wilson wanted to
achieve at the Paris Peace Conference was to establish
the League of Nations because of the need to prevent
conflict breaking out between countries.

E.g. Another goal Woodrow Wilson wanted to achieve at


the Paris Peace Conference was self-determination.
Wilson believed that all peoples should be given the choice as
to which country they belonged to. Groups of peoples like the
Polish or the Czechs that had been conquered by the
European empires should be able to rule themselves and
create their own nation states. Therefore, one goal
Woodrow Wilson wanted to achieve at the Paris Peace
Conference was self-determination because it would
provide ethnic groups with the ability to rule themselves.
1a. Explain why Clemenceau and Wilson disagreed over how to treat Germany after World
War One.

Suggested Answers

Both Clemenceau and Wilson had differing aims over the treatment of Germany
during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

Clemenceau, the Prime Minister of France, was determined to take revenge on


Germany after the war. This was because France had suffered huge losses and
was devastated by the lost generation of able-bodied men that died during the
war. This would have a long-term impact on the economy as the men, who were
traditional breadwinners of the family, could no longer support their families,
thereby slowing down the rebuilding of the French economy. Furthermore,
Germany had attacked France twice - once during the Napoleonic wars and
another during WW1. This strengthened Clemenceaus belief that Germany had
to be harshly punished by imposing heavy reparations and by forcing Germany
to disarm after WW1. This would ensure that Germany would never be able to
threaten Frances borders and this would also prevent Germany from becoming
aggressive, thereby minimizing the chances of a future war.

On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson, being an idealistic American President,


wanted to ensure that Germany received a just peace. Wilson was not in favour
of crippling Germany with a massive sum of reparations as he believed that
Germany should be given a chance of rebuilding its economy as well.
Furthermore, Wilson was more interested in ensuring that the system of secret
alliances would not prevail after WW1 and was more interested in establishing
the policy of self-determination after the war. While he was in favour of
disarmament, Wilson was advocating for aworld disarmament instead of simply
forcing Germany to disarm. Therefore, Wilson could not agree with
Clemenceaus aim of revenge during the Paris Peace Conference as he was
more interested in ensuring that the world would not see another devastating
world war, thus, he could not understand the harsh punishment imposed on
Germany as he felt that that would only serve to sow the seeds of hatred for
future conflicts.
This question is about the peace settlement after World War I.

(a) Explain the different motivations of Llyod George and Clemenceau at the 1919 Paris
Peace Conference. [8]

3 Explains factors 6-8

Award 5-6 marks for one explained factor


Award 7-8 marks for two explained factors

e.g. Clemenceau wanted Germany to be punished because


it wanted revenge on Germany, to make it pay for what it
had done to France during World War I and before. At the
same time, it also feared future aggression from it. He
desired Germany to be crippled so that it could not be a
threat to France again. Clemenceau had also fought in
German-Franco War before so his motivation is not
surprising.

Llyod George wanted punishment for Germany too but was


more moderate because it feared further antagonism from
Germany in the long run. Also, he had given the British his
word that he would see to it that Germany would pay for
what they did in World War I. He was thus under the
pressure from the British public to make Germany pay for
the damage and losses caused in World War I. However, he
did not want to seek revenge but looked forward to future
collaboration with Germany in terms of trade.
How far was the lack of authority rather than the limited membership of the League of
Nations the main reason for its weakness? Explain your answer.

The lack of authority was an important reason for the weakness of the League of Nations.
The League of Nations lacked the authority and credibility to enforce its will because of its
close relationship with the Treaty of Versailles. It was established by the Treaty of Versailles
and soon came to be seen as a league for the victorious nations. Of the 40-odd nations that
joined the League, 31 hand taken part of the war on the side of the allies. As a result of this,
the League lost credibility as an international organisation that was supposed to
represent the interests of all. This caused the League to lose support and the loss of
credibility made it difficult to enforce its decision, making it weak. Furthermore, the
peace-keeping measures of the League were also inadequate. The Leagues peacekeeping
methods were also ineffective and did not stop Germany, Italy and Japan from pursuing their
expansionist goals in the 1930s. The lack of adequate peace-keeping measures meant
that the League was unable to make good its threats through the use of force. This
also allowed aggressive countries to abuse this weakness by refusing to comply with
its decision as there were no apparent repercussions. This made the league weak and
unsuccessful in carrying out its responsibilities as an international peace organization.

The limited membership of the League was another reason why the League was weak.
Initially, 42 countries joined the League, with Britain, France, Italy and Japan as permanent
member. However, many of the European countries were facing economic problems and
were militarily weak. Hence, each country sought to rebuild its own strength and did not want
to get involved in other conflicts. This was especially so for its permanent member. For
example, USA despite being the worlds largest economy and military power, did not join the
League because of policy of Isolationism. Due to the lack of big powers like USA, the
League did not have the resources and military strength to enforce its will.
Furthermore, the absence of big powers like Germany and USSR also caused the
League to lose prestige and status as an international organisation. Without the much
needed prestige as well as big powers to make collective security work, the League
could not enforce sanctions or major decision effectively. This caused the League of
Nations to be weak.

Evaluate the importance of the factors.

In conclusion, I think the limited membership of the League was more important than the lack
of authority as the reason for the weakness of the League. It was precisely due to the
absence of big powers like USA and USSR that affected the authority and credibility of the
League. These powers were able to provide the necessary peace-keeping measures and
with their presence, the League could move out from being seen as a League only for the
victorious members of the allied power. Hence, this factor was the fundamental reason that
brought about the Leagues lack of authority and credibility, making it the most important
factor.
2a. Explain why post-war attitudes of the major powers and structural
weaknesses led to the failure of the League of Nations.

L3 Explains factors
Award 5 - 6 marks for one explained factor. Award 7-8 marks for two explained factors.

One of the reasons for the weakness of the League was the post-war
attitude of the major powers. After the war, Britain and France adopted a
policy of pacifism, choosing negotiation in order to avoid wars. This was
largely due to the war weariness after losing an entire generation of able-
bodied men during the first war. Furthermore, both Britain and France had
to rebuild their economies after the devastation of the war, and this was
exacerbated after the 1929 Great Depression. Apart from verbal
condemnations, the major powers were unwilling to impose economic
sanctions or military sanctions on aggressive nations, fearing that this
would lead to negative repercussions on their own countries. Therefore,
this led to the policy of appeasement, where the major powers of the
League gave in to the demands of the aggressors like Hitler. This was
seen in the 1938 Munich Conference where Hitler was not stopped from
entering the Sudetenland, giving him motivation to further expand in
Czechoslovakia and Poland, thereby leading to the outbreak of WW2.
Without the support of the major powers in containing aggression, the
League became weak as a result. This made the League incapable of
fulfilling its objective of maintaining world peace after WW1, thereby
causing the League to become a failure.

Another reason that led to the weakness of the League was the structural
weaknesses of the organization. First, the League lacked authority and
credibility as it did not have a strong military force that could enforce
peacekeeping measures when conflicts broke out. It also lost the trust of
smaller nations especially, since it was linked strongly to the Treaty of
Versailles. Thus, many nations believed that the League would only protect
the interests of the victorious powers after the war. Second, the League
lacked the membership of important nations. One of them was none other
than the USA, who decided to practice isolationism after WW1 and not
involve itself in the affairs of the world. As the strongest nation -
economically and militarily - the absence of the USA weakened the League
significantly. Also, as the League was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson,
the absence of the USA led to a fall in the credibility of the League as an
international organization. In addition, Russia was not invited to the
League as it turned communist after 1917 and Germany was refused entry
until 1926 due to the aggressive role it played in WW1. Therefore, the
League was not viewed as an organization that would further the interests
of all nations fairly and this led to a weakening of the League in the 1930s.
2b. The League of Nations was a complete failure. How far do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer. [12]

Explains Yes OR No
Award 3 marks for an explanation and further marks for additional reasons or supporting detail for
reasons, up to a maximum of 6 marks.

Agrees (YES)
e.g. The LON was unable to resolve political issues involving bigger and more powerful countries.
An example would be the Corfu incident. An Italian general was murdered in Greece. Italy
appealed to the League. The League decided that Greece should pay compensation to Italy. But
the League would hold the money until the issue was resolved. Mussolini worked behind the
League and got Greece to pay the compensation directly to Italy. Greece complied and Mussolini
openly boasted that he had managed to bypass the authority of the League. This was a failure of
the League as it undermined the Leagues credibility. Similarly, the League failed to prevent the
outbreak of war between Greece and Turkey. This was a failure. The League showed that it could
not handle disputes in troubled areas. The League was also unsuccessful in resolving conflict in
Ruhr because when Germany did not make reparations to the Allies and this resulted in France
and Belgium invading and occupying the German industrial area of Ruhr, the League remained
silent on this invasion, much to the anger of the Germans. This was a failure for the League as it
further confirmed the Germans belief that the League was biased against Germany.

The League was also a failure because of the exclusion of USA. USA was a very powerful country
at this time, both economically and militarily. The exclusion of USA greatly undermined the
effectiveness of the LON as it lacked the political and economic power to back it up. The other
countries in the LON were also too weak to take firm and decisive actions. This made the other
countries bolder and uninhibited as they knew that there was no one to question them or take
actions against them if they are aggressive. This made them bolder.

Disagrees (NO)
e.g. The League was successful in resolving social issues. For example, several committees were
created to carry out social aims such as International Labour Organisation, Mandates Commission
and Minorities Commission. These worked to improve welfare of workers and people living in
colonies and minorities. The Health Commission also helped to reduce the spread of diseases
through international vaccination programmes. This reduced the number of deaths. It prevented
the smuggling of cheap labour.

Explains Yes AND No


Award 7 marks for an explanation of Yes and an explanation of No and further additional reasons
or supporting detail for reasons, to a maximum of 10 marks.

L3 + reaches a balanced conclusion based on an explicit consideration of How far?


Award the higher mark in the level for more developed answers.

e.g. The main reason why the LON was mooted was to ensure that international problems were
resolved through negotiations, and to use military force as a last resort against countries that
committed acts of aggression against others. The social objectives were only secondary. In that
case, the LON had been a failure as it was unable to resort conflicts between countries.
2. (b) USA should be blamed for the failure in maintaining peace in the [13]
1920s. Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

Explains how USA was blamed OR USA was not blamed

USA should be blamed

The absence of the USA in the League was a reason for its failure in bringing about world peace.
The US senate had rejected the League as it supported the policy of isolationism. The absence of
the USA made the League less effective in carrying out its role of maintaining world peace by
resolving problems through negotiations as it lacked the support of a great power to carry out its
decisions. The Leagues reputation and credibility would have benefited from having the strongest
country in the world as a member. The support that the US could have given in terms of financial and
military support was thus missing. Without effective and powerful military support and funding from
these superpowers it was unable to carry out or enforce most of its decisions; economic and trade
sanctions, which were the most severe measure the League could implement short of military action,
were difficult to enforce and had no great impact on the rogue country. In addition, without the
backing of strong nations to enforce membership responsibility, members could leave the League
easily when their actions were objected by the League, such as the case of Japan and Germany
(give specific examples). Once these countries withdrew, it became even harder for the League to
exert any influence over them. The absence of the USA in the League was a reason for its failure in
bringing about world peace.

USA should not be blamed

USA played an active role in maintaining peace. In terms of the Washington Naval Conference, the
aim was to get major naval powers to disarm and put an end to the expensive naval arms race that
could potentially cause aggression towards other countires. The USA invited Britain, France, Italy
and Japan to attend the conference. They agreed to reduce the size of their navies. They signed the
Five Power Naval Limitation Treaty. The countries agreed to maintain a balance in their respective
fleets according to the ratio shown below. They also agreed not to build any new warships for the
next 10 years. Britain and the USA agreed not to improve their existing naval facilities (British base
in Hong Kong, USA base in the Philippines) in the Pacific region. Thus Japan would remain the
dominant naval power in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan also agreed not to develop bases on
Formosa and the Pacific Islands that it had received as mandates from the League of Nations. Thus
it was effective in the short-term but in the long-run, there were limitations as agreement only dealt
with the navy and not with air and land forces. Moreover, the Five Power Treaty was binding only on
battleships and did not cover smaller ships or submarines. Thus, it proved ineffective in the long-
term in maintain peace. (linking statement)

USA played an active role in maintaining peace. In terms of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which
was jointly initiated by the French Foreign Minister, Aristide Briand and the American Secretary of
State, Frank B. Kellogg. It was signed by 15 nations, including all the major powers, in August 1928.
In the following months, more than 60 countries joined in. It agreed that they would not resort to war
as an instrument of national policy that is, they would not start wars to achieve their political or
economic ambitions. Therefore, it was effective in the short-term in maintain world peace but in the
long-term; However, there were limitations as the Pact did not state how the countries could act
against any signatory who failed to abide by the agreed terms. Pact allowed wars in self-defence.
Loophole in the Pact allowed for undeclared wars since the countries involved would not be officially
at war. As such, it was ineffective in the long-term in maintaining peace.
b. The post-war attitudes of Britain and France were responsible for
the weaknesses of the League of Nations. How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
[12]

YES

Yes, Britain and France were the major powers and leaders of the League, but their half-hearted
attitude contributed to its weaknesses. Similar to most of the other member countries of the League,
Britain and France were devastated by the First World War and were war weary. Despite their losses,
Britains Royal Navy and the French Army would have still been powerful enough to deal with a
military threat. However, both were unwilling to impose any sanction or be involved in a military
conflict. For instance, when Italy invaded Abyssinia in 1935, instead of resolving the conflict through
the League, Britain and France sought to strike a bargain with Mussolini to end the conflict as the
western powers were hoping to secure an alliance with Italy. Thus, instead of leading the League in
resolving conflicts, Britain and France placed their own interests and concerns over the Leagues goal
of world peace and security. Likewise, in the face of military threat from Hitlers Germany in the 1930s,
Britain and France chose a policy of appeasement. It demonstrated to other member states that if
Britain and France were not serious about resolving conflicts through the League, then neither should
they. Thus, Britain and Frances half-hearted attitude towards the League made them responsible for
its weaknesses as a credible organisation.

NO
No, the League was hampered by structural weaknesses such as the lack of authority. The
Secretariat was understaffed and disorganised. The roles of the Assembly and the Council were also
not clearly defined. Any action required unanimous vote by the Council and majority vote in the
Assembly. The need for a unanimous decision meant members of the council had veto powers. This
meant that once a power vetoed a decision, the action could not be carried out. This made decision-
making difficult especially when it involved a dispute involving one of the permanent members. Some
decisions required the consent of the entire Assembly. With so many nations in the League, it was
almost impossible to come to a unanimous decision. Thus, the League found itself unable to come to
an agreement on how to resolve conflicts that arose. This made the League look incompetent and
slow in making decisions, thus destroying its credibility in resolving conflicts.

The League of Nations was also hindered by its limited membership. The US President Woodrow
Wilson had pushed for the formation of the League. However, the US Senate subsequently refused to
ratify the Versailles Treaty as it was unwilling to be involved in European affairs, preferring to engage
in foreign affairs on their own terms at their own pace, rather than committing themselves to the
League. Thus, despite being the worlds largest economy at the time and having her status as a
military power confirmed in World War 1, the US did not join the League. The absence of the US
meant that the League was deprived of a powerful member whose presence would have been of
great psychological, military and financial benefit in enforcing its will. Furthermore, there were also
countries which were not allowed to join the League as they were seen as threats. Germany was not
allowed to join the League until 1926 because of its role in causing World War 1. The Soviet Union
was also not allowed to join until 1934 due to its communist ideology, large population and size. This
meant that three major world powers were not in the League. This weakened the League greatly
because it needed strong nations as members in order to enforce sanctions effectively.

Weighing
In conclusion, the attitudes of Britain and France were a major determinant contributing to the
weaknesses of the League. Even though the League had structural weaknesses, Britain and France,
as leading members of the League could have led member states to co-operate in making decisions
instead of vetoing resolutions. Even if powerful nations like the US or the USSR had joined the
League, the League would still have failed if the members adopted half-hearted attitudes like Britain
and France, where each worked for their own interests rather than working together towards a
common goal. Hence, the post-war attitudes of Britain and France were crucial in determining the fate
and function of the League as a credible organisation.
2b The ineffectiveness of sanctions was the key reason for the failure of the 12m
League of Nations. To what extent do you agree with this? Explain your answer.

Explains the given factor OR other factor(s)

E.g. The ineffectiveness of sanctions enforced by the League of Nations was a reason for its
failure. The League was created in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 to enforce collective security and
maintain international peace. The League could use moral persuasion to prevent countries from acting
aggressively and could also levy economic sanctions such as trade embargos, with the final resort
being military action. However economic sanctions had very limited effects, especially as countries
could bypass sanctions by continuing trade with non-league members like the USA. For example,
during the 1935 Abyssinia Crisis where Italy invaded Abyssinia, Italy was banned from purchasing
arms and goods from the League. However, Italy was still able to purchase many crucial materials
such as oil from the USA and continued their invasion of Abyssinia. The league also did not have the
backing from Britain and France to enforce military sanctions, as they would not engage in battle on
behalf of the League. Therefore, the sanctions enforced by the League were not effective in
maintaining and enforcing collective security, causing the League to fail.

The inability of League of Nations to deal with aggressors was another reason for its failure .
The League was formed as a part of Treaty of Versailles to prevent future wars and aggression. In
1923 an Italian General was murdered in Greece. In retaliation, Mussolini invaded and occupied the
Greek island Of Corfu. Greece appealed to the League for help. The League decided that Greece
should pay compensation to Italy which would be held by the League till the issue was resolved.
However, Mussolini made Greece pay the compensation directly to Italy thus overruling the League.
Similarly in 1923 Germany stopped making payments to Allies so France and Belgium invaded and
occupied industrial area of Ruhr. League did not take any action. Therefore the inability of LON to
deal with aggressors was a reason for its failure because it did not have the means to impose
sanctions against its members who were strong enough to ignore the wishes of the LON.

E.g. The Structural weakness of the League of Nations was a reason for its failure. The various
parts of the League did not work well together and it was hard to take effective action. The Secretariat
was understaffed and disorganized. Moreover, with so many nations represented in the League, it was
extremely difficult to obtain unanimous consent for any decision. LON lacked the credibility because it
was established by the Treaty of Versailles and soon came to be seen as a league of victorious
nations. Besides this the limited representation of countries in the League also contributed to its
structural weakness. USA despite being worlds largest economy and strong military power chose not
to commit to the League and stayed away. Because of their policy of non-intervention, LON did not
have the necessary economic and military back-up to enforce its will. Therefore the structural
weaknesses of the League of Nations was a reason for its failure because the it made their
peacekeeping methods ineffective and many countries, especially newer nations did not trust
the LON to defend them if they were attacked.

L5 + Evaluation of the most effective strategy with criterion for importance.


Award 11 marks if 2 factors are ranked/linked using criteria
Award 12 marks if 3 factors are ranked/linked using criteria

E.g In conclusion, the ineffectiveness of sanctions was the most important reason for the
Leagues failure, followed by the inability to deal with its aggressors and then the structural
weakness. Ineffectiveness of sanctions was the most important reason, as even if the countries had
been more forceful in challenging aggressive countries, the powers of the League of Nations to
enforce collective security were too weak. Inability to deal with aggressors is the second most
important reason because with the help of its members LON would have been able to make collective
security a success if their attitude was correct. Structural weakness was least important because if the
members were willing to cooperate with the LON to achieve international peace, these weaknesses
could have been easily overcome.
2(a) Was the League of Nations a success in the 1920s? Explain your
answer.

Yes and explains why the League was a success OR No and explains why
the League was not a success.
Award 4 marks for an explanation, and additional marks for any supporting
detail, up to a maximum of 6 marks.

E.g. The League was a success because it achieved its social aims of improving
the standard of living of all people through enhancing their quality of life and
living conditions. For example, social committees were created to carry out the
social aims of the League, such as the International Labour Organization, the
Mandates Commission and the Minorities Commission, which worked to
improve the welfare of workers, people living in colonies and minorities. Thanks
to the work of these committees, significant progress was made after
World War I in several areas, such as when the League helped millions of
refugees to return home after the war. No organization had done this
before the League and the latters emphasis on social welfare and its
determination to help fellow human beings must be seen as a success.

OR

E.g. The League was not a success because it was unable to solve many of the
political disputes between countries, which happened in the 1920s, or when
countries committed acts of aggression against one another. For example, in
1920, when Poland seized Vilna, the former capital of Lithuania, the League did
not take action. Also, between 1920-1922, there was an outbreak of war
between Greece and Turkey, and the League was unable to prevent the war. In
1923, when Germany stopped making its reparation payments to the Allies,
France and Belgium invaded and occupied the German industrial area of the
Ruhr and the League also did not take any action. These examples showed
that the League lacked a lot of bite and was powerless to take actions
against countries which threatened peace. This shows that it was not able
to maintain peace, one of its stated objectives.

Constructs an explanation which considers the inter-relationship between


a range of reasons OR comparative importance.
L4 + weighs relative importance of different factors in an explanation, reaches a
balanced conclusion

E.g. In conclusion, the League of Nations cannot be seen as a success in the


1920s. Even though it attained its social aims and had some political success,
its political motives are however more important than its social ones. Seeing it
failed to prevent another world war, it must be judged as a failure overall.

You might also like