Compare referral in Upper Silesia and the report on Vilna
Compare two short contemporary records without turning a procedural announcement into completed success or a forecast into consent.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Thirty-two introductory lessons and 96 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 8.2: Wilson’s programme, inclusion of the Covenant in the treaties, aims and structure; restricted and changing membership, leadership, voting processes and enforcement; all six named disputes—Åland, Teschen, Vilna, Upper Silesia, Memel and the Greek-Bulgarian border incident; and the five named agency fields—refugees, the ILO, slavery, disarmament and mandates. Four selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic four-source sets. These are introductions, not verified full historical depth or full AS or A Level preparation. Thirty-nine further introductory lessons and 117 explained tasks address enquiry 8.4 through the Dawes and Young proposals, German recovery and League entry, Geneva Protocol support and opposition, Locarno, Kellogg–Briand, the Hague settlement and evacuation, Stresemann and Briand, Italian ambitions, Soviet relations, European and Pacific limits and the immediate impact of the Wall Street Crash. Four further selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases. Enquiries 8.1–8.4 now have introductory routes; fuller historical depth, specialist review and assessment remain unfinished. Thirty-six further introductory lessons and 108 explained tasks address enquiry 8.3: Fiume, Corfu, the Ruhr crisis and German hyperinflation; ethnic, political and economic problems in successor states and the Little Entente; Washington, Genoa, Rapallo and Lausanne; Britain, France, Germany and Italy, Soviet diplomacy and communism, US involvement and Japan’s internal and international concerns. Four further selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases. Thirty-nine further introductory lessons and 117 explained tasks address enquiry 8.4 through the Dawes and Young proposals, German recovery and League entry, Geneva Protocol support and opposition, Locarno, Kellogg–Briand, the Hague settlement and evacuation, Stresemann and Briand, Italian ambitions, Soviet relations, European and Pacific limits and the immediate impact of the Wall Street Crash. Four further selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases. Enquiries 8.1–8.4 now have introductory routes; fuller historical depth, specialist review and assessment remain unfinished. Wider authentic reading, subject-specialist review, timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year coverage credit. International relations, 1919–1929 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2028 and International Paper 2 in 2027 and 2029. Keep it separate from the 2026 League topic and the imperialism rotation. 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 evaluate the League’s work in the 1920s?
What you will learn
- What similarity exists despite the different disputes?
- Why compare the two speakers’ expectations carefully?
- How far do these records show that League involvement settled disputes?
Compare selected League sources
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Use dated evidence, identify each institution and compare rules, state cooperation and practical outcomes. Attribute claims and distinguish source passages from later editorial context.
Thirty-two introductory lessons and 96 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 8.2: Wilson’s programme, inclusion of the Covenant in the treaties, aims and structure; restricted and changing membership, leadership, voting processes and enforcement; all six named disputes—Åland, Teschen, Vilna, Upper Silesia, Memel and the Greek-Bulgarian border incident; and the five named agency fields—refugees, the ILO, slavery, disarmament and mandates. Four selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic four-source sets. These are introductions, not verified full historical depth or full AS or A Level preparation. Thirty-nine further introductory lessons and 117 explained tasks address enquiry 8.4 through the Dawes and Young proposals, German recovery and League entry, Geneva Protocol support and opposition, Locarno, Kellogg–Briand, the Hague settlement and evacuation, Stresemann and Briand, Italian ambitions, Soviet relations, European and Pacific limits and the immediate impact of the Wall Street Crash. Four further selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases. Enquiries 8.1–8.4 now have introductory routes; fuller historical depth, specialist review and assessment remain unfinished. Thirty-six further introductory lessons and 108 explained tasks address enquiry 8.3: Fiume, Corfu, the Ruhr crisis and German hyperinflation; ethnic, political and economic problems in successor states and the Little Entente; Washington, Genoa, Rapallo and Lausanne; Britain, France, Germany and Italy, Soviet diplomacy and communism, US involvement and Japan’s internal and international concerns. Four further selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases. Thirty-nine further introductory lessons and 117 explained tasks address enquiry 8.4 through the Dawes and Young proposals, German recovery and League entry, Geneva Protocol support and opposition, Locarno, Kellogg–Briand, the Hague settlement and evacuation, Stresemann and Briand, Italian ambitions, Soviet relations, European and Pacific limits and the immediate impact of the Wall Street Crash. Four further selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases. Enquiries 8.1–8.4 now have introductory routes; fuller historical depth, specialist review and assessment remain unfinished. Wider authentic reading, subject-specialist review, timed papers and calibrated marking 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 relations, 1919–1929 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2028 and International Paper 2 in 2027 and 2029. Keep it separate from the 2026 League topic and the imperialism rotation. 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 · Compare referral in Upper Silesia and the report on Vilna
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Compare two short contemporary records without turning a procedural announcement into completed success or a forecast into consent.
Source A · Commons exchange on Upper Silesia, 15 August 1921 · selected reply · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] The prime minister confirms that the Council has been invited to express an opinion on the frontier to be laid down by the principal powers, and expects interested parties to have opportunities to present their cases. This is a procedural announcement and expectation, not a report that all later safeguards already worked.
Source B · Young’s telegram from Riga, 16 May 1922 · selected account · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] Young distinguishes the unheld Vilna plebiscite from assembly elections, describes Polish administration and a neutral zone, and anticipates possible unofficial Lithuanian accommodation. His description and forecast do not establish formal Lithuanian consent or a completed plebiscite.
1. How far do these records show that League involvement settled disputes?
Compare after trying
The two records show League involvement more clearly than they prove complete settlement. The Commons exchange announces a referral concerning Upper Silesia, while Young describes a neutral zone and the political position around Vilna. Both therefore provide concrete evidence of institutional activity, but their functions and stages differ.
Their expectations also require qualification. The minister’s confidence about opportunities to present cases was not proof of every later protection, and Young’s interpretation of unofficial accommodation was not formal Lithuanian consent. Different authors and audiences help explain the emphasis of the passages, while the dates prevent later results from being read into the speakers’ contemporary knowledge.
The comparison supports a judgement about procedures and mechanisms that still needed acceptance and implementation. Later economic and minority arrangements in Upper Silesia and continuing claims over Vilna can help assess their effectiveness, provided those later developments keep their own dates. Neither record alone establishes a universal verdict on the League. The strength of the comparison lies in applying consistent criteria to different evidence and then connecting institutional work with the particular outcome of each case.
Why this response fits
- Develop a reasoned answer using specific, dated evidence.
- Compare purposes, procedures, state cooperation and practical outcomes.
- This original model is not an authentic source, calibrated examination script or Cambridge grade.
Identify different occasions
The Commons exchange of 15 August 1921 concerned referral of Upper Silesia to the League Council. Young’s telegram of 16 May 1922 described the situation around Vilna and interpreted possible Lithuanian responses. These were different disputes, dates, speakers and functions. The source cards are original paraphrases of selected passages, not quotations or a complete authentic examination set. Each passage must remain tied to the question it can actually answer.
Compare evidence of institutional activity
The parliamentary response records the Council being invited to give an opinion on a frontier, while Young records the continued existence of a neutral zone established through League control machinery. Both are evidence that international institutions were active. Neither simply measures the success of all League work. The nature of the activity differs: one is an announced referral and the other a description of an arrangement operating amid a continuing dispute.
Distinguish expectations and completed results
The minister expected opportunities for interested parties to present their cases, but that expectation did not establish every later safeguard. Young interpreted an unofficial tendency towards accommodation, but did not record a mutually accepted plebiscite or formal Lithuanian consent. Context can connect these statements with later outcomes without making those outcomes already known to the earlier speaker. A good comparison tests similar claims with the same standard of evidence.
Judge what the comparison can establish
The passages support an argument that the League supplied procedures and mechanisms without automatically resolving every issue. To assess effectiveness, add the later Upper Silesian arrangements and evidence of continuing Vilna claims, while retaining affected communities’ perspectives. Different results should be explained through power, acceptance and the proposed arrangements rather than assumed to follow solely from the institution’s name. One statement from each case cannot determine the entire history of either dispute.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 · enquiry 8.2 p. 33 · 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
- UK Commons, 15 August 1921 · primary debate on Upper Silesia referral, Hansard; an announcement is not proof of later outcomes
- Young to Secretary of State, Riga, 16 May 1922 · primary diplomatic telegram, FRUS; election and unheld plebiscite distinguished, forecasts attributed
- Polish official legal archive · German-Polish Upper Silesia Convention signed at Geneva, 15 May 1922 · primary treaty publication
- Voldemaras’s 5 September 1928 note, transmitted by the US minister on 6 September · primary Lithuanian diplomatic argument in FRUS; retrospective and interested, not an independent verdict
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
What similarity exists despite the different disputes?
Show the worked solution
- Identify referral in Source A.
- Identify neutral-zone machinery in Source B.
- Avoid equating activity with complete resolution.
Answer Both passages record League-related action, although of different kinds and at different stages. This establishes institutional involvement, not a common completed result or universal success.
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: What similarity exists despite the different disputes?
Give me a hint
Identify institutional activity at the stated stage.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify referral in Source A.
- Identify neutral-zone machinery in Source B.
- Avoid equating activity with complete resolution.
Both passages record League-related action, although of different kinds and at different stages. This establishes institutional involvement, not a common completed result or universal success.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal or comparative connection
- Distinguishes a rule, institutional action, state cooperation and practical outcomes
Independent: Why compare the two speakers’ expectations carefully?
Give me a hint
Identify what was observed and what was anticipated.
Compare my reasoning
- Locate the expected hearing opportunities.
- Locate the forecast of accommodation.
- Seek later implementation evidence.
The minister’s procedural expectation and Young’s interpretation of future accommodation were not completed outcomes. Both require later evidence before claiming effective safeguards or accepted sovereignty, even though the surrounding disputes developed differently.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal or comparative connection
- Distinguishes a rule, institutional action, state cooperation and practical outcomes
Transfer: How far do these records show that League involvement settled disputes?
Give me a hint
Compare action with the evidence needed for resolution.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify their concrete institutional evidence.
- Explain the limits of announcements and forecasts.
- Connect later outcomes without backdating them.
They show referral and a practical mechanism for managing confrontation, but neither by itself proves complete settlement. Their expectations and descriptions need later evidence of acceptance and implementation. The comparison therefore supports a qualified account of institutional contribution, while leaving the degree of success to case-specific outcomes rather than a simple count of interventions.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal or comparative connection
- Distinguishes a rule, institutional action, state cooperation and practical outcomes
Common mistakes
- The Commons referral record is 15 August 1921; Young’s telegram is 16 May 1922.
- The passages concern different disputes and functions, not a direct exchange or two identical final judgements.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Compare the institutional action and the limits of a dated announcement or forecast
A referral, an operating neutral zone, a procedural expectation and a forecast are different evidence. They need later acceptance and implementation checks.
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.