The UN fixed the League's weaknesses
A study of CHANGE and continuity between two peace bodies. The League (1919/1920) and UN (1945) shared the aim of collective security, but the UN was built to fix the League's failures: it can authorise member states to provide armed forces (the League had no army); all great powers joined from the start (the USA never joined the League); and it runs a far larger humanitarian role. Continuity: both keep collective security and specialised agencies.
Both had successes and failures
Evaluative (c) questions need BOTH sides and a criteria-based judgement. The League worked in the 1920s - settling small disputes such as the Aaland Islands (1921) - but failed against aggressors in the 1930s: Manchuria (1931-33) and Abyssinia (1935-36) destroyed its credibility, and it collapsed by 1939. The UN acted more forcefully (Korea 1950-53, the Congo 1960-64) but is limited by the veto. Weigh how far peacekeeping improved.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
UN in Korea: aggression, not communism
Examiners flagged that many wrote the UN was fighting to stop communism in Korea. That is not the UN's stated basis: North Korea had committed aggression by invading the South in June 1950 - a collective-security response. Add two points: it was a US-led force under the UN flag, possible only because the USSR was boycotting the Council and did not veto.
Digest (B5, Jun 2024 P2, (B)): many believed the UN was fighting communism in Korea - technically NOT; better answers cited the US-led force and that the USSR did not veto.
Manchuria was the League's turning point
The best answers argued Manchuria (1931-33), not Abyssinia, was the turning point that destroyed the League's reputation - 'by the Italian invasion, the damage was done'. Manchuria exposed that the League could not stop a great power (Japan defied the Lytton Report and left); Abyssinia (1935-36) then confirmed the collapse, not caused it.
Digest (B5, Jun 2024 P2, (C)): best answers argued Manchuria (not Abyssinia) was the turning point - "by the time of the Italian invasion, the damage was done".
Describing each, not comparing directly
When a question asks you to COMPARE the League and the UN, make direct comparisons - use 'whereas', 'unlike', 'by contrast' - not two separate descriptions. For example: 'the League had no army, whereas the UN could call on members to provide forces'. Describing each in turn, leaving the difference to be inferred, does not score as a comparison.
Digest (B5, Jun 2024 P2, (C)): to establish difference between League and UN, make direct comparisons.
Naming a difference without detail
Section B (a) 'explain two ways' wants each point PLUS a specific detail, and you must give TWO. Do not just state 'the UN had an army'; develop it - the UN can authorise member states to provide armed forces, as in the US-led force in Korea. Add a distinct second difference with its own detail; signpost 'One way... a second...'.
Digest (Generic skills, Section B (A), Jun 2024 P2): give the way PLUS a supporting detail and cover the two required; naming is not enough.
Narrating instead of two explained causes
Section B (b) wants TWO causes, each EXPLAINED - say WHY it brought change, not narrate. On 'two causes of the League's collapse', a weak answer retells the 1930s crises; a strong one isolates two: Manchuria showed it could not stop a great power, and the absence of the USA left it too weak to enforce sanctions. Signpost 'One cause... A second...'.
Digest (Generic skills, Section B (B), Jun 2024 P2): always give two causes and explain WHY each brought change.
UN Korea was not an anti-communist war
A testable wrong belief: the UN did NOT frame its 1950 Korea intervention as a war on communism. Its basis was that North Korea had committed aggression by invading the South - upholding collective security. The force was US-led, and possible only because the USSR was boycotting the Council and did not veto.
Digest (B5, Jun 2024 P2, (B)): many believed the UN was fighting communism in Korea - technically NOT; the USSR did not veto because it was boycotting the Security Council.
The USA never joined the League
Students assume the USA led the League because Woodrow Wilson proposed it - but the US Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles, so the USA never joined. The USA did found the UN in 1945. And the League did not simply 'continue' as the UN: it collapsed by 1939, and the UN was founded in 1945 as a new body (League wound up 1946).
Digest (B5, Jun 2024 P2, (A)): handled well the League's lack of an army vs the UN's ability to raise one and their different membership - the USA's absence from the League is a core comparison point.
Structure the 16-mark answer
For Section B (c): set a criterion for 'significant' (e.g. how far peacekeeping changed); add a THIRD aspect beyond the obvious two; then judge by applying the criterion, not asserting. Precise support carries Level 3 into Level 4.
Make direct League-vs-UN comparisons
To show difference, make DIRECT comparisons with 'whereas', 'unlike' or 'by contrast': 'the USA never joined the League, whereas it was a founder member of the UN'. This scores where two separate descriptions do not.
Signpost two developed ways or causes
For 'explain two ways/causes', signpost explicitly - 'One... A second...' - and give each its own specific detail. Two clearly separated, developed points beat one long paragraph in which the second reason is buried.
This breadth study traces change and continuity in international peacekeeping across the 20th century — from the League of Nations (set up by the 1919 peace settlement, first met 1920) to the United Nations (founded 1945). Both were built on the idea of collective security: nations acting together against an aggressor. The exam focus is HOW and WHY the international role changed, and how far the UN was a stronger, reformed successor to the League.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
