Source comparison: whose security and what response?
Compare two uses of collective-security arguments six months apart without treating them as a direct exchange or removing their different circumstances.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Forty-nine original introductory lessons and 147 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 9.2: the Manchurian and Ethiopian responses, changing major-power participation, selected outside negotiations, Spanish non-intervention and all five named structural causes. Six selected source comparisons use labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic four-source sets. All seventeen editorial working entries have introductory teaching links; these are not an official Cambridge denominator or a completion percentage. Wider intervention/control history, sustained cooperation, historical depth, authentic reading, subject-specialist review, timed full papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Enquiries 9.3–9.4 and other Cambridge qualification gaps remain unfinished. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year coverage credit. International history, 1929–1939 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2029 and International Paper 2 in 2027 and 2028. Keep it separate from the 1919–1929 topic, imperialism rotation and 2026 material. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: both parts of one question use four sources totalling at most 600 words, at least three written and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section, both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are not complete papers or calibrated assessment.
Before you begin
- Distinguish a rule, a proposal, a referral, an agreement and actual implementation
- Identify the responsible institution and date; retain affected perspectives and separate contemporary statements from later editorial context
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you judge the League response?
What you will learn
- Were the sources a direct exchange responding to the same moment?
- What similarity goes beyond saying that both mention the League?
- How should purpose affect a judgement about the two arguments?
Compare selected sources on the League response
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Use dated evidence, identify actors and compare aims, obligations and practical outcomes. Attribute claims and distinguish contemporary texts from later editorial context.
Forty-nine original introductory lessons and 147 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 9.2: the Manchurian and Ethiopian responses, changing major-power participation, selected outside negotiations, Spanish non-intervention and all five named structural causes. Six selected source comparisons use labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic four-source sets. All seventeen editorial working entries have introductory teaching links; these are not an official Cambridge denominator or a completion percentage. Wider intervention/control history, sustained cooperation, historical depth, authentic reading, subject-specialist review, timed full papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Enquiries 9.3–9.4 and other Cambridge qualification gaps remain unfinished. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year coverage credit.
Two-source comparison workshop
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. A and B are separately labelled original paraphrases of selected identified passages, not complete authentic documents or a full four-source examination set. International history, 1929–1939 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2029 and International Paper 2 in 2027 and 2028. Keep it separate from the 1919–1929 topic, imperialism rotation and 2026 material. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: both parts of one question use four sources totalling at most 600 words, at least three written and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section, both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are not complete papers or calibrated assessment.
StudyForA teaching brief · original prose · Source comparison: whose security and what response?
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Compare two uses of collective-security arguments six months apart without treating them as a direct exchange or removing their different circumstances.
Source A · Hoare, Commons, 19 December 1935 · selected argument · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] Explaining his resignation, Hoare emphasises the danger of a wider conflict or an isolated British war with Italy. He argues that effective oil pressure would depend on nonmember participation and that reliable support for possible escalation was uncertain. He defends negotiations as an effort to find a settlement while maintaining cooperation. This is a defence of his policy choices, not an independently demonstrated guarantee of what an oil embargo would have achieved.
Source B · Haile Selassie, Assembly, 30 June 1936 · selected argument · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] The Emperor seeks justice and assistance for Ethiopia and asks the organisation to honour its commitments. He connects the security of his country with the credibility of protection for other states, arguing that successful aggression creates a dangerous precedent. This card paraphrases a selected English translated and abridged excerpt; it does not reproduce the full speech or claim a collation with the Amharic/French original.
1. Compare Hoare’s and Selassie’s security arguments, considering their purposes and the limits of the selected evidence.
Compare after trying
Hoare and Selassie both connected the Ethiopian crisis with the security of a wider international system, but they used that connection to press different priorities. Hoare’s December 1935 explanation defended his conduct after resignation, whereas Selassie’s June 1936 appeal sought assistance after further developments in the crisis. They should not be treated as a direct exchange or as speakers with the same circumstances and audience.
Hoare stressed the risks of isolated war and uncertain cooperation, using those concerns to explain attempts at negotiation. Selassie stressed the risks of abandoning a member and allowing successful aggression to weaken common commitments. The difference is therefore substantive: one focused on the danger of stronger action without support, the other on the consequences of insufficient protection. Their common interest in security did not make their requested responses identical.
Purpose helps explain emphasis without determining a blanket verdict on truth. A resignation defence and an appeal for assistance each select arguments likely to persuade their audiences. Diplomatic records, actual measures and Assembly decisions are needed to evaluate them. The selected paraphrases and the abridged translated speech also limit close textual claims. A strong comparison establishes the overlap, explains the policy difference and tests it against the wider record.
Why this response fits
- Build a reasoned answer with specific evidence and an explicit connection to international relations.
- Consider the source’s author, date, audience, purpose and limits; distinguish contemporary statements from later editorial context.
- This original self-check model is not an authentic examination script, calibrated mark or Cambridge grade.
Establish the different occasions
Hoare’s personal explanation to the Commons on 19 December 1935 defended his conduct after resignation over the Paris proposals. Selassie’s Assembly appeal on 30 June 1936 followed a much later stage of the crisis and sought assistance for Ethiopia. The two sources were not a direct exchange on the same day. The source cards here are original paraphrases of selected identified passages, not quotations or complete examination documents. Date, audience and changed circumstances are part of the comparison, rather than optional labels added after deciding that one author simply contradicts the other.
Identify a substantive similarity
Both authors invoked an international system whose credibility depended on more than isolated expressions of sympathy. Hoare warned about the effects of an isolated British war and uncertain support; the Emperor warned about abandoning a threatened member and the precedent for others. Both connected the particular crisis to wider security. This is a meaningful overlap, but it did not mean they sought the same policy. Comparison should specify the shared issue while retaining differences in what each regarded as the danger most urgently requiring action.
Explain the difference through requested action
Hoare used the danger of escalation and inadequate cooperation to defend attempts at negotiated settlement. Selassie used the danger of successful aggression to demand effective assistance and fidelity to commitments. The former emphasised the risks of stronger action without dependable backing; the latter emphasised the risks of failing to act for a member under attack. These were not necessarily opposite views on whether security mattered. They gave different priorities to security risks and different meanings to a satisfactory response, shaped by their positions and the stage of the crisis.
Evaluate purpose without a mechanical reliability verdict
A resignation explanation creates an incentive to defend earlier decisions, while an appeal creates an incentive to mobilise support. Those purposes help explain selection and emphasis; they do not establish that every factual claim is false. Compare the arguments with contemporary diplomatic reports, sanctions implementation and the later Assembly decisions. The translated and abridged status of the Emperor’s selected text also limits close wording claims. A reasoned comparison identifies agreement, difference and context, then states what the two selected passages can and cannot establish about policy and its consequences.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 · enquiry 9.2 p. 35 · official Version 2 PDF retrieved; selected enquiry and rotation pages checked with the April 2025 update
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 update · Version 2 changes, April 2025
- Sir Samuel Hoare, Personal explanation, 19 December 1935, Hansard vol.307 · selected primary explanation of resignation, oil conditions, war risks and proposed terms; a defence of policy, not a neutral guarantee
- Haile Selassie, 30 June 1936 appeal · selected English translated and abridged primary excerpt, document 7 in OER Project Internationalism source collection; translation not collated against the Amharic/French original; exclude the collection’s modern editorial chronology
- Wilson to Secretary of State, 12 December 1935, FRUS 1935 I doc.578 · primary report of a conversation with Eden; the terms are explicitly recalled from memory and do not establish every boundary
- Gilbert to Secretary of State, 4 July 1936, FRUS 1936 III doc.180 · primary report of Assembly action and Ethiopia’s requests; formal principles and practical assistance distinguished
- Cambridge History 9489, 2027–2029, Version 2 · selected enquiry 9.2, printed p.35; introductory strands do not complete the enquiry or qualification
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
Were the sources a direct exchange responding to the same moment?
Show the worked solution
- Place Hoare in December 1935 after resignation.
- Place Selassie at the June 1936 Assembly.
- Retain the intervening change in the crisis.
Answer No. They were produced more than six months apart for different audiences and purposes. Reading them together is a comparison constructed for study, not evidence that the speakers answered one another directly or faced identical information and circumstances.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Were the sources a direct exchange responding to the same moment?
Give me a hint
Compare both dates, audiences and purposes.
Compare my reasoning
- Place Hoare in December 1935 after resignation.
- Place Selassie at the June 1936 Assembly.
- Retain the intervening change in the crisis.
No. They were produced more than six months apart for different audiences and purposes. Reading them together is a comparison constructed for study, not evidence that the speakers answered one another directly or faced identical information and circumstances.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence to explain a causal or comparative connection
- Distinguishes economic pressure, political choice, declared aims and actual outcomes
Independent: What similarity goes beyond saying that both mention the League?
Give me a hint
Identify a shared causal concern.
Compare my reasoning
- Locate concern about wider security.
- Explain the risk each associated with inadequate cooperation.
- Retain differences in the response sought.
Both linked the particular dispute with the credibility and security of the wider system. Hoare feared isolated action without dependable backing; Selassie feared abandonment encouraging aggression. Their common concern did not entail agreement about which danger should take priority or what policy should follow.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence to explain a causal or comparative connection
- Distinguishes economic pressure, political choice, declared aims and actual outcomes
Transfer: How should purpose affect a judgement about the two arguments?
Give me a hint
Avoid replacing evaluation with a label such as biased.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify defence of prior policy and mobilisation of assistance.
- Explain likely emphasis.
- Test claims against independent contemporary decisions and outcomes.
Purpose helps explain why Hoare stressed escalation risks and Selassie stressed obligations and precedent. It does not automatically discredit either source. A judgement should test their claims against diplomatic records and implementation while retaining the limits of selected paraphrases and an abridged translation.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence to explain a causal or comparative connection
- Distinguishes economic pressure, political choice, declared aims and actual outcomes
Common mistakes
- These are selected original paraphrases, not quotations, a direct exchange or a complete authentic four-source paper.
- A persuasive purpose helps explain emphasis; it does not mechanically prove all statements false.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Compare shared wider-security concerns, different priorities, dates and persuasive purposes
The contrast concerns the priority and response attached to security, not simply whether security mattered.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.