Study this source. Source E 'The League of Nations is often dismissed as a complete failure, but this view ignores its genuine achievements. In the 1920s, i...

Source analysis

Source E is from a modern history textbook published in 2008. It presents a balanced view of the League of Nations, arguing that dismissing it as a 'complete failure' ignores 'genuine achievements.' The source identifies successes in the 1920s (resolving disputes, specialist agencies improving health, refugee welfare, and working conditions) and attributes the League's failure in the 1930s partly to the absence of the United States. As a secondary source written with hindsight, it benefits from access to evidence from multiple perspectives, but its textbook format means it simplifies complex debates. The source suggests the League should be judged as a partial failure rather than a total one.

Contextual knowledge

To support the view that the League was not a complete failure, consider its successes in the 1920s: it resolved the Aaland Islands dispute between Sweden and Finland (1921), settled the Upper Silesia dispute between Germany and Poland (1921), and its Refugee Commission under Fridtjof Nansen helped 400,000 prisoners of war return home after World War One. The Health Organisation worked to combat diseases including malaria and leprosy. The International Labour Organisation improved working conditions worldwide.

To support the view that the League did fail, consider its inability to stop aggression by major powers in the 1930s: Japan's invasion of Manchuria (1931), Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (1935-36), and Germany's remilitarisation of the Rhineland (1936). Sanctions against Italy were half-hearted and ineffective, excluding oil. Structural weaknesses were fundamental: the USA never joined, the League had no armed forces of its own, decisions required unanimity, and Britain and France were unwilling to act against aggressors when their own interests were at stake. The World Disarmament Conference (1932-1934) collapsed when Germany withdrew.

Mark scheme (Levels of Response) [12 marks]

• Level 1 [1-4 marks]: Simple statements from the source or general knowledge. For example, stating that the source disagrees with the statement and mentions 'genuine achievements.' Limited development or explanation.
• Level 2 [5-8 marks]: Uses the source OR own knowledge to build an argument on one or both sides. Identifies specific successes (specialist agencies, dispute resolution) and failures (inability to stop aggression) but may not fully integrate both the source and own knowledge, or may lack a clear evaluation.
• Level 3 [9-12 marks]: Uses BOTH the source AND own knowledge to construct a balanced, evaluated argument. Considers evidence for and against the statement, provides specific historical examples on both sides, evaluates the source's perspective, and reaches a supported conclusion. A top-level answer might conclude that the League was a partial failure: it succeeded in humanitarian work and minor disputes but failed in its central purpose of preventing war, with the absence of the USA and the self-interest of Britain and France making it impossible to confront determined aggressors.

Exam reminder: For 12-mark 'how far do you agree' questions, you must argue both sides using both source material and your own knowledge, then reach an evaluated conclusion. Answers that only agree or only disagree cannot reach Level 3.