Source comparison: reasons for joining and hopes about its effects
Compare reported Soviet calculations before entry with an American assessment at admission, while retaining their different dates and evidential roles.
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
- Are both sources answering exactly why the USSR joined?
- What is the strongest specific similarity between the selected records?
- What further evidence would test their claims?
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: reasons for joining and hopes about its effects
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Compare reported Soviet calculations before entry with an American assessment at admission, while retaining their different dates and evidential roles.
Source A · Bullitt account relayed from Paris, 24 December 1933 · selected argument · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] Bullitt reports a 21 December conversation in which Litvinov connects possible League membership with French support and security concerns involving Japan and the western frontier. The arrangement under discussion remains preliminary and unsigned. This paraphrase represents a reported conversation, not an authorised verbatim Soviet transcript or proof that the feared attack would occur.
Source B · Grew, Tokyo, 18 September 1934 · selected assessment · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] Grew suggests that Soviet admission may add restraint in Japan’s relations with the Soviet Union and encourages attention to links between European and Far Eastern affairs. He cautions that generalisation may be premature. This paraphrase represents a qualified American assessment, not a Japanese pledge or evidence that the predicted effect had already been achieved.
1. Compare the reported Soviet reasons for considering membership with expectations about its effects.
Compare after trying
The two records connect Soviet entry with security across regions, but they address different stages. Bullitt’s relay reports Litvinov’s calculations in December 1933, linking concern about Japan with the search for support in the west. Grew’s September 1934 extract assesses what admission might do to Japanese relations with the Soviet Union. The similarity is therefore a specific connection between European and Far Eastern security rather than identity of question or purpose.
Their evidential roles also differ. The first conveys a Soviet official’s reasoning through an American reporter and relay; the second is an American ambassador’s qualified interpretation informed partly by press discussion. Neither provides unrestricted access to every government’s intention. A reported fear is not a completed attack, and a prediction of restraint is not proof that restraint occurred. The sources should not be treated as a direct exchange.
Institutional records are needed to establish admission and the Council role, while independent evidence and later conduct are needed to test motives and predictions. The longer Bullitt report can clarify his account without becoming a second independent witness. A reasoned comparison therefore identifies the shared security logic, explains the differences in stage and voice, and limits conclusions to what the selected passages support. Wider authentic reading and full assessment remain necessary.
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.
Identify the two different questions
The Bullitt relay of December 1933 concerns why Soviet officials might consider joining. Grew’s September 1934 extract concerns what entry might do to relations in the Far East. Reasons for a decision and expectations about its effects are related but different historical questions. The source cards are original paraphrases of selected passages, not quotations or complete contemporary documents. Reading them together is a teaching comparison, not evidence that the authors directly answered one another or used identical information. The changed date and stage of the process must remain part of the analysis.
Explain the geographical connection they share
Both records connect Soviet security with more than one region. Bullitt reported Litvinov linking concern about Japan with the search for support and security in the west. Grew assessed how membership in an organisation associated with Europe could influence Japanese calculations towards the Soviet Union. The similarity is a specific relationship between European and Far Eastern security, not merely that both mention the League. It suggests why entry could matter beyond a formal membership list, while leaving the accuracy of particular expectations to be tested separately.
Retain differences in voice and certainty
The first source presents a Soviet official’s reasoning through an American reporter and a diplomatic relay. The second presents an American ambassador’s qualified interpretation, partly based on Japanese press discussion. Neither is an unmediated record of every government’s intentions. Litvinov’s reported fear does not prove a future attack, and Grew’s forecast does not prove subsequent restraint. Their different perspectives can be informative precisely because they show the purposes and limits of diplomatic knowledge rather than supplying an omniscient explanation of the whole period.
Use corroboration appropriate to the claim
The admission date and Council role require institutional records, not inference from either source’s predictions. The longer Bullitt report can clarify his own account but is not an independent second witness to the same conversation. Later behaviour is necessary to evaluate whether membership produced the effects anticipated. A strong comparison therefore identifies a shared security connection, explains different questions and reporting layers, then states which further evidence would test motives, decisions and outcomes. These selected paraphrases develop comparative reasoning without replacing authentic wider reading or a complete four-source examination paper.
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
- Marriner relay from Bullitt, Paris, 24 December 1933, FRUS Soviet Union 1933–1939 doc.57 · report of Litvinov conversation on 21 December; private statements and predictions are attributed, not verified future events
- Bullitt, 4 January 1934, FRUS Soviet Union 1933–1939 doc.59 · selected passage on 21 December 1933 conversation with Litvinov; a longer record of the same conversation, not an independent second witness or a verbatim transcript
- Joseph C. Grew, Tokyo, 18 September 1934, FRUS 1934 III doc.216 · published extract of a contemporary assessment; explicitly qualified prediction of restraint, not a Soviet policy statement or proof of future conduct
- UN Geneva, Chronology of the League of Nations · selected 1933–1939 entries; conference departure, notice, admission and effective departure are different events
- Cambridge History 9489, 2027–2029, Version 2 · selected enquiry 9.2, printed p.35; named membership changes introduced without claiming complete enquiry or qualification coverage
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
Are both sources answering exactly why the USSR joined?
Show the worked solution
- Identify Litvinov’s reported pre-entry calculations.
- Identify Grew’s assessment at admission.
- State the connection without making the questions identical.
Answer No. The first concerns calculations before possible entry; the second assesses potential effects as admission occurred. They share a security context but answer different questions. Comparing them requires the stages and dates, rather than treating every statement as the same explanation of motive.
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: Are both sources answering exactly why the USSR joined?
Give me a hint
Distinguish a decision’s reasons from its expected consequences.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify Litvinov’s reported pre-entry calculations.
- Identify Grew’s assessment at admission.
- State the connection without making the questions identical.
No. The first concerns calculations before possible entry; the second assesses potential effects as admission occurred. They share a security context but answer different questions. Comparing them requires the stages and dates, rather than treating every statement as the same explanation of motive.
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 is the strongest specific similarity between the selected records?
Give me a hint
Identify the relationship between regions.
Compare my reasoning
- Locate concern about Japan and western support.
- Locate possible influence of membership on Japanese calculations.
- Explain the shared link between European and Far Eastern security.
Both connect Soviet security across regions: the reported search for western support responded partly to eastern danger, and Grew expected European institutional participation to affect Japan’s calculations. This is more precise than saying that both mention international affairs or the League.
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: What further evidence would test their claims?
Give me a hint
Match evidence to motive, institutional decision and outcome.
Compare my reasoning
- Use institutional records for admission and Council status.
- Use independent evidence for reported motives and threats.
- Use later conduct to test predictions of restraint.
Different claims need different evidence. Admission records establish the decision; independent reporting can test accounts of motives and perceived threats; later conduct can test predictions. The longer Bullitt account clarifies one reporter’s record, but does not supply independent confirmation by another witness.
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
- The cards are original paraphrases, not quotations or a complete authentic examination set.
- Admission records and later conduct are needed for claims about decisions and results.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Compare shared cross-regional security reasoning while distinguishing motives, decisions and predicted effects
Comparison is strongest when its conclusions match the different claims the sources can support.
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.