International relations, 1919–29: conflict and cooperation
Trace the movement from post-war settlements and unresolved grievances through the League’s mixed record, renewed crises and the partial détente of 1924–29. Compare diplomatic aims with enforcement, economic conditions and the experiences of states that gained or lost territory.
Section AS-2 · International relations, 1919–29: conflict and cooperation
Exam scope and assessment notes
Cambridge lists International History 9982 for schools in the United States only. It is assessed in 2027–2029, with June AS/A Level and November AS-only series, subject to administrative-zone availability. Original StudyForA teaching and practice. This is not an official Cambridge coursebook, question paper, mark scheme or grade prediction. Historical interpretations and source scenarios written for practice are invented and must not be treated as authentic historical sources or named historians’ work. Use the current Cambridge syllabus, specimen materials and class sources; teacher review of extended responses remains important.
Before you begin
- Keep events within the syllabus dates and distinguish sequence from explanation.
- Use precise evidence and explain how it supports a historical argument.
- Compare perspectives without treating a group or country as politically uniform.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which approach best prepares for international relations, 1919–29: conflict and cooperation?
What you will learn
- Why was there such extensive dissatisfaction with the peace settlements of 1919–20?
- Why was the League of Nations created and what challenges did it face in the 1920s?
- How and why did international tensions remain high after the Versailles settlement?
- How and why did international relations improve, 1924–29?
2.1 · Peace settlements and dissatisfaction
The Big Three—Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau—brought different aims to Versailles, while other powers had less influence. The treaties of Versailles, Trianon, Neuilly, Saint-Germain and Sèvres reshaped borders and empires. Self-determination was applied inconsistently, leaving minorities and rival claims within new or enlarged states.
Victors and defeated powers reacted differently: France sought security, Britain balance, the USA debated involvement, Italy and Japan contested rewards, Germany opposed the terms and Russia was isolated. Reparations and Article 231’s attribution of responsibility became politically charged. Evaluate dissatisfaction by its political effects, economic burden and the scope for revision rather than treating all countries as equally aggrieved.
2.2 · League of Nations
The League reflected Wilson’s Fourteen Points and was written into the peace treaties. Its aims and institutions supported collective security and cooperation, but restricted membership, the absence of key powers at different times, leadership problems, unanimity and weak enforcement limited its reach.
The League helped settle some disputes, including the Åland Islands, Teschen, Vilna, Upper Silesia, Memel and the Greco-Bulgarian border. These cases differed in strategic importance and in the parties’ willingness to accept a decision. Its agencies also addressed refugees, labour, slavery, disarmament and mandates. Assess dispute resolution and social work separately from the League’s inability to compel major powers.
2.3 · Tensions after Versailles
Fiume and Corfu revealed competing claims and the limits of collective action. The Ruhr occupation, German hyperinflation and reparations disputes intensified conflict. Successor states also faced ethnic, political and economic problems. The Little Entente, Washington Conference, Genoa Conference, Rapallo Pact and Treaty of Lausanne sought different forms of security, arms control or normalisation; they did not resolve every grievance.
Major-power relations shifted as Britain, France, Germany and Italy pursued changing interests, the Soviet Union and communism shaped policy, the USA debated isolation or involvement, and Japan expanded its influence. Compare the aims and effects of particular agreements rather than assuming that a conference automatically produced cooperation.
2.4 · Improved relations, 1924–29
The Dawes Plan eased immediate reparations pressure and supported German recovery; Stresemann’s policies and Germany’s League entry strengthened diplomacy. The Young Plan revised reparations. The Locarno Treaties improved France–Germany relations, but security guarantees were uneven across Europe. The Geneva Protocol, Kellogg–Briand Pact and 1929 Hague Conference had distinct aims and limitations.
Briand and Stresemann helped improve French-German relations, while Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan and the USA followed different paths. The Wall Street Crash quickly exposed economic vulnerability. Judge whether the late-1920s détente represented durable cooperation or a fragile improvement dependent on credit, leadership and unresolved grievances.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
What should a strong judgement about international relations, 1919–29: conflict and cooperation do?
Worked example
How far did the League of Nations succeed in maintaining peace in the 1920s?
Show the worked solution
- Set a criterion: whether disputes were settled, whether major powers accepted outcomes, and whether enforcement was dependable.
- Use successful or partly successful cases such as Åland and Upper Silesia, then compare failures or limits such as Vilna and Corfu.
- Include structural weaknesses and distinguish the League’s agencies from its security role.
Answer The League contributed to peaceful settlement in some disputes, including Åland, while Upper Silesia required international oversight and partition. Its response to Vilna showed that it could not compel a determined major power; Corfu exposed the limits of enforcement. Agencies produced useful social work, but they were not the same as collective security. The League had a meaningful but conditional record, dependent on the parties’ cooperation and the interests of stronger states.
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.
Why did some international relations improve after 1924, and how durable was the change?
Give me a hint
Link economic recovery and leaders to specific agreements, then test how far problems remained.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain the Dawes Plan and German recovery.
- Connect Stresemann, Briand and Locarno to a concrete diplomatic change.
- Test durability against unequal security, unresolved disputes and the 1929 crash.
The Dawes Plan eased immediate economic pressure and supported German recovery, while Stresemann and Briand pursued cooperation. Germany joined the League and Locarno improved relations in western Europe. Yet security was not equal across all borders, political grievances remained and the 1929 crash undermined economic confidence. Relations improved, but the settlement was incomplete and vulnerable.
Look for these in your work
- Uses syllabus evidence
- Explains a causal or comparative link
- Keeps the response within the topic and period
Compare the League’s handling of Åland and Vilna. What does the comparison show about collective security?
Give me a hint
Consider the parties, the stakes and whether the League’s recommendation could be enforced.
Compare my reasoning
- Describe the dispute and outcome in each case.
- Explain how cooperation or resistance shaped the result.
- Make a qualified judgement about the League’s authority.
The League helped resolve the Åland Islands dispute through an accepted settlement that protected Finnish sovereignty and local arrangements. In Vilna, Poland retained control despite League involvement, exposing the limits of enforcement when a state rejected the outcome. The comparison shows that the League could facilitate agreement where parties cooperated, but it lacked reliable power to compel compliance.
Look for these in your work
- Compares relevant factors
- Supports analysis with precise examples
- Reaches a qualified judgement
Original practice claim: ‘A peace treaty prevents future conflict if its terms are legally clear.’ Evaluate it using the 1919–20 settlements and the 1920s.
Give me a hint
Separate legal wording from legitimacy, enforcement and the political incentives of affected states.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain one source of dissatisfaction with the settlements.
- Use a 1920s crisis to show how parties acted on or challenged the terms.
- Judge what else is needed for a treaty to support lasting peace.
Clear terms can define obligations, but peace also depends on perceived legitimacy, workable borders, economic conditions and enforcement. The Versailles settlement left grievances over reparations, responsibility and self-determination. Ruhr tensions and the reparations crisis show that legal terms alone did not produce agreement. The Dawes and Young Plans and Locarno later improved relations through revision and cooperation, suggesting that diplomacy and acceptance mattered alongside the treaty text.
Look for these in your work
- Tests a claim against evidence
- Considers another perspective or limitation
- Explains a balanced conclusion
Common mistakes
- Treating every peace treaty as identical
- Calling the League either wholly successful or wholly useless
- Assuming economic recovery ended political conflict
- Confusing the aims of a treaty with its actual effects
What can you explain now?
Why was there such extensive dissatisfaction with the peace settlements of 1919–20?
Compare with the explanation
Why was the League of Nations created and what challenges did it face in the 1920s?
Trace the movement from post-war settlements and unresolved grievances through the League’s mixed record, renewed crises and the partial détente of 1924–29. Compare diplomatic aims with enforcement, economic conditions and the experiences of states that gained or lost territory.
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
Recall a precise example relevant to why was there such extensive dissatisfaction with the peace settlements of 1919–20?, explain why it matters, and state one limitation or alternative explanation.
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.