Why did the League fail? Build an argument from interacting causes
Weigh the five named causes through dated case studies, explaining why decisions and collective action mattered.
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
- Why should a judgement specify a criterion of importance?
- Why is Italy’s conduct a useful test of an absence-only explanation?
- How far was dependence on Britain and France the most important reason for the League’s failure to maintain peace?
Develop an International AS historical argument
- 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.
Original teaching brief and analytical model
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. 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 · Why did the League fail? Build an argument from interacting causes
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Weigh the five named causes through the cases while distinguishing introductory coverage from full depth and assessment.
1. How far was dependence on Britain and France the most important reason for the League’s failure to maintain peace?
Compare after trying
Dependence on Britain and France was a major weakness because common decisions needed governments willing to supply resources and accept risk. On 24 February 1933 the Assembly adopted recommendations on Manchuria without establishing their enforcement. In the Ethiopian crisis, British restrictions began on 18 November 1935 and ended on 15 July 1936 without securing independence. Hoare’s December 1935 concern about isolated war helps explain a limited commitment, while remaining his defence of policy rather than proof that stronger action inevitably meant war. The criterion for importance is whether a cause explains this gap between decisions and protection.
That dependence nevertheless interacted with other causes. American selective cooperation did not include an armed guarantee in Davis’s May 1934 statement. Unresolved security and equality claims impeded disarmament, while economic sacrifices made some smaller governments concerned about great-power compromise. Expansionist choices challenged common restraints: Italy resisted measures while still a member. Absence, arms and costs therefore shaped the commitments available, but formal membership alone did not determine compliance. These connections prevent treating Britain and France as the only actors or one structural weakness as sufficient.
The Spanish case strengthens a qualified judgement. The Council adopted a resolution on 12 December 1936, yet that diplomatic action did not establish the ending of intervention. Dependable implementation thus explains a recurring problem more precisely than total-inactivity claims. Dependence on leading contributors was especially important to that mechanism, but its effects varied with the other powers’ policies, resources and ambitions. A convincing conclusion weighs those interactions and the different cases rather than supplies a fixed ranking valid regardless of evidence.
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.
Choose an outcome and a criterion for importance
The enquiry asks why peace was not maintained, but particular outcomes still need definition:preventing aggression, stopping intervention, securing withdrawal or protecting independence. A cause is important if its mechanism explains the decisions and results under examination, not simply because its name appears in a list. Recurrence across several cases can strengthen an argument, while differences test its limits. Begin with a defensible criterion and use specific evidence. This permits more than one reasoned judgement without making every answer equally convincing or prescribing a universally calibrated ranking.
Connect conditions with choices and implementation
Disarmament failure, major-power absence, dependence on Britain and France, economic pressure and nationalism did not operate in separate boxes. Fear could impede reductions;unreliable support could deter stronger action;economic costs could make common measures harder to sustain;and expansionist choices could challenge rules. The chain still needs actors and decisions. A structural condition is not a complete substitute for explaining the appeal, the response and subsequent conduct. Show how the conditions affected a particular step rather than repeat a general weakness after every example without evidence of the connection.
Use qualifications to test the argument
The United States cooperated selectively despite nonmembership;the Soviet Union joined;Italy resisted decisions while still a member;and Saar contingents illustrate a particular cooperative arrangement. Likewise, the League and non-intervention machinery did take actions even when protection failed. These qualifications do not erase weakness. They show why membership totals, no-army slogans or assertions of total inactivity cannot explain every outcome. Compare Manchuria, Ethiopia and Spain to identify when a mechanism mattered most and when other choices or circumstances are needed to account for the result.
Test a judgement against different responses
On 24 February 1933 the Assembly adopted recommendations on Manchuria, but adoption did not establish enforcement or a Japanese withdrawal. In the Ethiopian crisis, British restrictions operated from 18 November 1935 before being terminated on 15 July 1936; the existence of measures did not secure Ethiopian independence. On 12 December 1936 the Council also adopted a resolution on Spain, without establishing that foreign intervention ceased. These were different responses with different costs and commitments. Comparing them supports an argument about dependable implementation, while requiring separate evidence for each result rather than treating every crisis as institutional silence.
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
- Cambridge History 9489, 2027–2029, Version 2 · selected enquiry 9.2, printed p.35; all named strands receive introductory links, not complete depth or assessment credit
- League Covenant, UN Geneva · selected Articles 1, 8–9, 16 and 18–21; national implementation, conditional withdrawal and peace-seeking arrangements distinguished
- Norman Davis public statement, 29 May 1934, FRUS 1934 I doc.76 · selected disarmament, security and explicit limits on American armed commitments; a proposal and policy statement, not an adopted convention
- Hoare personal explanation, Commons, 19 December 1935 · selected primary defence of policy, war risks and conditional oil pressure; not a neutral guarantee of a counterfactual outcome
- Gilbert, 11 December 1935, FRUS 1935 I doc.575 · primary immediate account of selected small-state concerns and economic sacrifices; not a representative survey or a full sanctions audit
- Simon, Commons, 10 December 1934 · primary account of British, Italian, Dutch and Swedish readiness to provide Saar contingents; an arrangement for this task, not proof of automatic deployment against every aggressor
- UN Geneva League chronology · selected 1933–1937 notices, effective departures and 1934 Soviet admission; dates and procedures differ
- Gilbert, 12 December 1936, FRUS 1936 II doc.555 · contemporary Council resolution summary; activity and expected restraint are not identical to effective protection
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
Why should a judgement specify a criterion of importance?
Show the worked solution
- Define the outcome.
- Identify the mechanism and the cases it explains.
- Test limits and alternatives.
Answer A criterion makes the ranking assessable:the cause must explain relevant decisions and outcomes rather than merely appear often in a list. Comparing reach and limitations permits a reasoned judgement while avoiding an unsupported universal ordering of causes.
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: Why should a judgement specify a criterion of importance?
Give me a hint
Connect importance with the result and explanatory reach.
Compare my reasoning
- Define the outcome.
- Identify the mechanism and the cases it explains.
- Test limits and alternatives.
A criterion makes the ranking assessable:the cause must explain relevant decisions and outcomes rather than merely appear often in a list. Comparing reach and limitations permits a reasoned judgement while avoiding an unsupported universal ordering of causes.
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: Why is Italy’s conduct a useful test of an absence-only explanation?
Give me a hint
Compare membership with compliance.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify resistance during membership.
- Identify later disengagement as a separate stage.
- Require political choices and implementation alongside absence.
It shows that noncompliance and failed protection could occur while an important state remained a member. Absence mattered, but membership alone did not guarantee cooperation. An explanation therefore needs the choices and commitments connecting status with conduct.
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 far was dependence on Britain and France the most important reason for the League’s failure to maintain peace?
Give me a hint
Judge importance by explaining implementation in the cases, then test other causes.
Compare my reasoning
- Use the 1933 Manchurian recommendations and the 1935–1936 Ethiopian measures to distinguish decisions from effective protection.
- Connect major contributors’ willingness with absence, arms, costs and expansionist choices.
- Use the December 1936 Spanish response and selective cooperation to test the reach and limits of the judgement.
Dependence was important where limited or divergent commitments prevented decisions becoming dependable common action. The Manchurian recommendations of February 1933 and Ethiopian measures of 1935–1936 show why action on paper or limited restrictions did not establish protection. Yet this dependence interacted with American limits, failed disarmament, economic costs and governments choosing force. Spain’s December 1936 Council response further challenges a claim of total inactivity. A reasoned ranking must explain those connections rather than make one cause sufficient in every case.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated cases to connect decisions, implementation and outcomes
- Weighs a named cause against alternatives and qualifies its explanatory reach
Common mistakes
- A recommendation or resolution is not proof of implemented protection.
- A single weakness does not explain every crisis without evidence linking actors, choices and outcomes.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Weigh implementation across dated cases and explain how the five causes interacted
A defensible ranking explains decisions and outcomes, tests alternatives and retains contrary evidence.
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.