Study this question carefully. How far was the League of Nations successful in resolving international disputes during the 1920s? Explain your answer. [40]

This question asks you to evaluate the League of Nations' record in settling disputes during the 1920s specifically. You must assess both successes and limitations to reach a balanced judgement.

Successes in resolving disputes:

• Aaland Islands (1921): Sweden and Finland both claimed these islands in the Baltic. The League ruled in favour of Finland while guaranteeing the rights of the Swedish-speaking population. Both sides accepted the decision, and the dispute was resolved peacefully.
• Upper Silesia (1921): Germany and Poland both claimed this industrially valuable region. The League organised a plebiscite, and when results were mixed, it divided the region between the two countries based on voting patterns. Both nations initially protested but accepted the ruling.
• Greek-Bulgarian crisis (1925): After a border incident, Greece invaded Bulgaria. The League ordered Greece to withdraw and pay compensation. Greece complied, demonstrating the League's ability to act swiftly and effectively.
• Humanitarian work: The League's non-political agencies achieved significant results. The Health Organisation combated epidemics. The Refugee Commission under Fridtjof Nansen helped resettle over 400,000 prisoners of war and displaced people. The International Labour Organisation worked to improve conditions for workers worldwide. These successes were genuine and lasting.

Limitations and failures:

• Corfu incident (1923): After Italian officials were murdered on the Greek-Albanian border, Mussolini bombarded and occupied the Greek island of Corfu. When Greece appealed to the League, Mussolini refused to accept its jurisdiction. The dispute was settled by the Conference of Ambassadors (not the League), largely in Italy's favour. This exposed the League's inability to challenge a major power.
• French occupation of the Ruhr (1923): When Germany fell behind on reparations payments, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr industrial region. The League was completely bypassed, demonstrating that major powers acted unilaterally when their interests were at stake.
• Absence of key nations: The United States never joined, depriving the League of the world's strongest economic power. Germany was not admitted until 1926, and the Soviet Union remained outside. This severely limited the League's authority and universality.
• Structural weaknesses: The League required unanimous decisions in its Council, making decisive action extremely difficult. It had no armed forces of its own and depended on member states to enforce its decisions.

A pattern of selective success:

The League's successes shared a common feature: they typically involved smaller nations (Finland, Bulgaria, Greece) that were willing to accept international arbitration. When a major power was involved (Italy at Corfu, France in the Ruhr), the League proved ineffective. This pattern revealed a fundamental weakness that would prove fatal when the crises of the 1930s involved major powers such as Japan and Italy.

How this question is marked (Paper 4, 40 marks):

• Level 5 (33-40): Balanced argument with specific examples of both successes and failures; evaluates why the League succeeded in some cases but not others; reaches a sustained judgement.
• Level 4 (25-32): Both successes and failures discussed with detail; some evaluation but perhaps less developed.
• Level 3 (17-24): Covers one side well or both sides with limited detail.
• Level 2 (9-16): Identifies some relevant disputes but with limited explanation.
• Level 1 (1-8): Vague or general statements.

Examination approach: The key analytical point is the distinction between the League's record with small-power disputes (generally successful) and major-power disputes (generally unsuccessful). A strong conclusion might argue that the League had genuine but limited success in the 1920s, and that its inability to challenge major powers was a structural flaw, not merely bad luck. The 1920s were a relatively favourable period for the League, and even then its authority was incomplete.