Exam Tips for the League's Failures

🎯 Question Types for This Topic (Paper 1, Section C):

• Source utility — "How useful is Source A to a historian studying...?" (12 marks, ~20 minutes) — Evaluate using NOP: what is it (nature), who produced it and when (origin), why was it produced (purpose)? Use own knowledge to test accuracy. Do not just describe what the source says.
• Write an account — "Write an account of how [failure] showed the weakness of the League" (8 marks, ~15 minutes) — Analytical narrative linking each failure to its cause. Show the mechanism: the weakness → how it operated → the consequence in a named case (Corfu, Vilna, disarmament).
• How far do you agree that [specific weakness] was the main reason the League failed? (16 marks, ~30 minutes) — Extended essay with argument, counter-argument, and sustained judgement. Note: this essay is 16 marks with NO separate SPaG allocation in Section C.

📈 How to Move Up Levels — This Topic Specifically:

• Write an account — Level 1 (1–2 marks): "The League failed because it had no army and the USA wasn't a member." — States weaknesses without causal connections to specific failures.
• Write an account — Level 2 (3–5 marks): "The League failed during the Corfu Incident because Mussolini refused to accept its ruling and the Conference of Ambassadors overruled it." — Specific case with an outcome, but no explanation of WHY this happened.
• Write an account — Level 3 (6–7 marks): "The Corfu Incident (1923) revealed a critical structural weakness: when a major power refused a League ruling, the League had no mechanism to enforce it. Mussolini knew Britain and France would not risk confrontation with Italy. By appealing to the Conference of Ambassadors, he bypassed the League entirely — showing that the League's authority was conditional." — Clear analytical narrative with mechanism.
• Write an account — Level 4 (8 marks): Sustained narrative linking Corfu to a broader pattern: "The Corfu failure was the first demonstration of a pattern that would destroy the League in the 1930s. The League's authority rested entirely on Britain and France's willingness to enforce decisions. When their national interests conflicted with League principles — as at Corfu — the League's authority was worthless."
• Essay — Level 4 (13–16 marks): Complex evaluation linking multiple weaknesses with a sustained judgement: "The fundamental weakness was not the USA's absence but Britain and France's consistent prioritisation of national interest over collective security."

Grade mapping: Level 1-2 answers score roughly Grade 4-5. Level 3 ≈ Grade 6-7. Level 4 = Grade 8-9. To move from Grade 7 to Grade 9, you must sustain your argument throughout the answer, use specific evidence (named incidents such as Corfu 1923 or the Disarmament Conference, not vague references to "the League failing"), and make a clear judgement that weighs factors against each other rather than simply listing them.

⚠️ Common Mistakes to Avoid:

• Treating Corfu as a League success. The League's ruling was overruled. Greece — the victim — paid Italy. The aggressor was rewarded. This was a failure, not a success.
• Only mentioning the 1930s failures (Manchuria, Abyssinia). The question may specifically ask about the 1920s. Vilna and Corfu are the key 1920s failures. Know the dates.
• Explaining weaknesses in the abstract without linking to specific cases. "The League had no army — which meant that when Mussolini refused to withdraw from Corfu, the League could only issue a condemnation, which he ignored" is analytical. Always link a weakness to a named case.
• Saying the disarmament failure was entirely Hitler's fault. The Disarmament Conference was deadlocked before Hitler took power. France refused to disarm, Germany demanded equality. Hitler exploited a failure that had already happened.