Neuilly: Bulgaria, territory, access and obligations
Explain Bulgaria’s 1919 settlement without confusing renunciation to the Allies with the later transfer of Western Thrace to Greece.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Twenty-six introductory lessons and 78 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 8.1: the Big Three’s aims and other powers’ representation; the key terms and distinct status of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly and Sèvres; boundaries and inconsistent national self-determination; reactions in France, Britain, the USA, Italy, Japan and Germany, and Russia’s position; responsibility, the size of reparations and the problem of payment. Four selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases of identified passages, not quotations or complete authentic four-source sets. These are introductions, not verified full historical depth or full AS or A Level preparation. Thirty-two further introductory lessons and 96 explained tasks address enquiry 8.2: creation, membership, leadership, voting and enforcement; Åland, Teschen, Vilna, Upper Silesia, Memel and the Greek-Bulgarian dispute; refugee work, the ILO, anti-slavery work, disarmament and mandates. Four further selected comparisons distinguish rules, announcements, observations, proposed documents and actual scrutiny. 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 programme, a draft, a signed treaty, entry into force and actual implementation
- Compare aims and attributed arguments with provisions, local perspectives and outcomes; keep 1919–1920 and the 1921 assessment distinct
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you explain dissatisfaction with the peace settlements?
What you will learn
- Why should the 1919 renunciation and 1920 Greek agreement be separated?
- Why did an economic outlet not restore sovereignty?
- How did Neuilly create dissatisfaction specific to Bulgaria?
Develop an International AS historical argument
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Use dated evidence and specific treaty provisions. Attribute claims about justice or national opinion; compare aims, terms, consent and actual outcomes.
Twenty-six introductory lessons and 78 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 8.1: the Big Three’s aims and other powers’ representation; the key terms and distinct status of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly and Sèvres; boundaries and inconsistent national self-determination; reactions in France, Britain, the USA, Italy, Japan and Germany, and Russia’s position; responsibility, the size of reparations and the problem of payment. Four selected comparisons use labelled original paraphrases of identified passages, not quotations or complete authentic four-source sets. These are introductions, not verified full historical depth or full AS or A Level preparation. Thirty-two further introductory lessons and 96 explained tasks address enquiry 8.2: creation, membership, leadership, voting and enforcement; Åland, Teschen, Vilna, Upper Silesia, Memel and the Greek-Bulgarian dispute; refugee work, the ILO, anti-slavery work, disarmament and mandates. Four further selected comparisons distinguish rules, announcements, observations, proposed documents and actual scrutiny. 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.
Original teaching brief and analytical model
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. 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 · Neuilly: Bulgaria, territory, access and obligations
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Explain Bulgaria’s 1919 settlement without confusing renunciation to the Allies with the later transfer of Western Thrace to Greece.
1. How did Neuilly create dissatisfaction specific to Bulgaria?
Compare after trying
Neuilly created a particular Bulgarian combination of territorial, strategic and financial grievances. Signed in November 1919, it addressed a state whose ambitions and regional setting differed from Germany’s. The terms therefore need to be explained individually rather than treated as an interchangeable example of a harsh peace.
Western Thrace is a useful test of precision. Bulgaria renounced rights to the principal Allied powers under Neuilly; the agreement addressing Greek sovereignty came later, in August 1920. An economic outlet to the Aegean was also different from continued sovereignty over the coast. These stages and kinds of right explain why a provision for access did not necessarily satisfy territorial expectations.
Military limits, including a 20,000 army ceiling and abolition of compulsory service, added further restrictions. Financial liability was another issue, whose legal amount did not establish actual payment. Neighbouring interests and local populations also matter to the judgement. Neuilly reorganised relationships but left grounds for Bulgarian dissatisfaction whose practical extent requires fuller regional evidence.
Why this response fits
- Develop a reasoned judgement using dated and relevant evidence.
- Compare motives, means and outcomes; distinguish outside agreement and local consent.
- This original model is not an authentic source, calibrated examination script or Cambridge grade.
Identify the settlement
The Treaty of Neuilly was signed with Bulgaria on 27 November 1919. It was separate from the treaties with Germany and the former Habsburg states. Bulgaria’s military position, territorial aspirations and earlier regional conflicts formed its particular setting. A summary that transfers German or Hungarian terms to Bulgaria misses the differences that help explain the country’s reaction.
Distinguish territorial stages
Bulgaria renounced rights over Western Thrace to the principal Allied and Associated powers. A later agreement with Greece signed at Sèvres in August 1920 addressed Greek sovereignty there. This was not the same as a direct Neuilly cession to Greece completed in 1919. The loss of an Aegean territorial outlet and promises about economic access also need distinction: access arrangements were not the restoration of sovereign control over the coast.
Explain military and financial limits
The army was limited to 20,000 and compulsory service abolished. The treaty also imposed a reparation obligation expressed in gold francs, not the later German total in gold marks. Such terms could create concerns about security, resources and national status. An amount required by a treaty is not evidence that the whole sum was actually transferred, and later revisions or enforcement belong to their own dates.
Connect terms with dissatisfaction
Bulgarian grievances over territory and access could coexist with neighbouring states’ claims to security and recognition. A careful account follows each provision through the interest it affected rather than assuming all defeated states were dissatisfied for exactly the same reasons. Wider Bulgarian and local sources remain necessary to assess reception, minorities and practical access. This introductory lesson supplies the distinctions needed before those deeper enquiries.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 · enquiry 8.1 p. 32 · 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
- Treaty of Neuilly, 27 November 1919 · French primary text reproduced by Université de Perpignan; access limitations recorded separately
- Treaty concerning Thrace, signed 10 August 1920, UK Treaty Series 13 (1921) · primary published text; Neuilly renunciation and later transfer distinguished
- UK House of Lords, 23 February 1922 · contemporary discussion reproducing Neuilly articles 65–66; not a debate held in 1919
- Treaty of Neuilly, Part VII, article 121 · French primary text in a labelled independent treaty reproduction; monetary obligation is not proof of actual payment
- FRUS, Paris Peace Conference, Volume XIII, Introduction · editorial treaty chronology and source notes; signature and entry into force distinguished
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
Why should the 1919 renunciation and 1920 Greek agreement be separated?
Show the worked solution
- Identify renunciation to the principal powers.
- Date the later agreement with Greece.
- Reject backward completion.
Answer Neuilly recorded Bulgarian renunciation to the principal Allied powers. The later August 1920 agreement addressed Greek sovereignty, so the final relationship cannot simply be described as a direct cession to Greece already completed by Neuilly in 1919.
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 the 1919 renunciation and 1920 Greek agreement be separated?
Give me a hint
Identify the recipient and date at each stage.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify renunciation to the principal powers.
- Date the later agreement with Greece.
- Reject backward completion.
Neuilly recorded Bulgarian renunciation to the principal Allied powers. The later August 1920 agreement addressed Greek sovereignty, so the final relationship cannot simply be described as a direct cession to Greece already completed by Neuilly in 1919.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal connection
- Distinguishes negotiators’ aims, formal provisions, local perspectives and actual outcomes
Independent: Why did an economic outlet not restore sovereignty?
Give me a hint
Compare a right of access with ownership and government.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify transport or commercial access.
- Identify territorial authority.
- Keep the instruments distinct.
An arrangement for economic access could assist trade without returning the coastal territory to Bulgarian rule. Commercial opportunity and sovereign control are different, so one cannot automatically compensate every political grievance arising from the other’s loss.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal connection
- Distinguishes negotiators’ aims, formal provisions, local perspectives and actual outcomes
Transfer: How did Neuilly create dissatisfaction specific to Bulgaria?
Give me a hint
Use the terms rather than a generic defeated-state list.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain territory and the Aegean question.
- Identify military and financial limits.
- Compare neighbours’ interests.
The loss of Western Thrace and questions about access combined with a small permitted army and financial obligations to create particular grievances. Neighbouring states assessed security and territory differently. The terms therefore need a Bulgarian and regional explanation rather than a copy of the German reaction.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal connection
- Distinguishes negotiators’ aims, formal provisions, local perspectives and actual outcomes
Common mistakes
- Western Thrace was renounced to the principal powers in 1919; the Greek agreement came in 1920.
- A 20,000 army ceiling and gold-franc liability must not be replaced by German terms.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Distinguish territorial renunciation, later transfer, economic access and specific Bulgarian limits
The treaty and later agreement have different dates and parties. Army limits and the currency and status of financial obligations must also remain distinct.
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.