Key Idea: Wars don't just fizzle out — someone decides the fighting stops. To understand HOW peace is established, historians look at four things together: the military outcome (who won, or was it a stalemate?), the political decisions (what was signed?), the social factors (were people exhausted or resentful?), and the post-conflict peace-building (did new institutions make the peace stick, or was it left fragile?).
A decisive military victory usually lets the winner dictate harsh, imposed terms through a full treaty. A stalemate usually forces a weaker outcome — a ceasefire or armistice — that stops the fighting without ever resolving the underlying conflict.
How this topic is tested — Paper 2
Section A: a short concept mini-essay [6] — e.g. define/explain a term like 'armistice' or 'peace-building' using your examples. Section B(a): explain a specific factor in one region [4]. Section B(b): a 'to what extent' essay [15] that MUST use at least two examples from at least two different regions. Examiners reward genuine cross-regional comparison — don't just describe two wars side by side, actually compare them using the four-part framework (outcome → terms → society → peace-building).
Must-know facts — one line per micro
| Micro | What it covers | Key facts to recall |
|---|---|---|
| 6.4.1 — Four ingredients of peace | The analytical framework used across every peace settlement | Military outcome, political decision-making, social factors, post-conflict peace-building — apply all four to every example |
| 6.4.1 — Europe, 1918–19 | WWI ends in decisive Allied victory | Armistice 11 Nov 1918 (ceasefire, not a treaty); war-weariness (mutinies, blockade-starvation) pushed Germany to seek peace; Treaty of Versailles 1919 imposed without German negotiation — war guilt (Article 231), reparations, lost territory (Alsace-Lorraine, Polish lands, colonies), army capped at 100,000; weak League of Nations (no USA, Germany excluded till 1926) left the peace fragile, feeding resentment that helped bring Hitler to power by 1933 |
| 6.4.1 — Asia, 1950–53 | Korean War ends in stalemate | Front line barely moved after 1951; Korean Armistice Agreement signed 27 July 1953 — a ceasefire only, never a peace treaty; created the DMZ along the front line; no reconciliation or reunification process; technically still at war today — a 'frozen conflict' |
| 6.4.1 — Asia, 1973 (Vietnam) | A third comparison: negotiated ceasefire that collapsed | Paris Peace Accords 1973 signed under US and North Vietnamese pressure amid deep war-weariness at home; fighting resumed and Saigon fell in 1975 — shows an armistice can collapse completely if the underlying political conflict is never resolved |
Europe — Treaty of Versailles (1919): Followed a decisive military outcome (Allied victory). Full peace treaty — legally ended the war. Imposed terms: reparations, territory loss, war guilt clause. Fragile peace — resentment helped cause WWII by 1939.
Asia — Korean Armistice (1953): Followed a military stalemate (no clear winner). Ceasefire only — no peace treaty was ever signed. Fixed a border (the DMZ) roughly along the front line. Frozen conflict — technically still at war today.
Modelled exam question — Section B(b), 15 marks
To what extent does the way a war ends determine whether the resulting peace is lasting or fragile? Refer to at least two examples, from two different regions, that you have studied.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
A second angle — Section A mini-essay, 6 marks
Explain what is meant by an 'armistice', and why this matters for how lasting a peace turns out to be.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Don't just narrate the story of one war in isolation. A Section B(b) answer that only describes Versailles OR only describes Korea — without comparing them using the four-part framework and reaching a judgement — cannot reach the top markband, even if every fact is correct.
What is the difference between an armistice and a treaty? An armistice only stops the fighting — it does not legally end the war or fix final political terms. A treaty (like Versailles) is a full, negotiated legal settlement that formally ends the conflict and sets binding terms.
Why was the Treaty of Versailles considered 'fragile' despite being a full treaty? It was imposed on Germany without negotiation and included harsh terms (war guilt, reparations, territory loss). This created deep resentment, and a weak League of Nations (without US membership) failed to enforce the peace — resentment over Versailles directly fed the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of WWII by 1939.
Why is Korea still technically at war? Because the 1953 agreement was only an armistice (ceasefire), not a peace treaty. The military stalemate meant neither side could impose terms, so fighting stopped along the DMZ but the underlying political conflict between North and South Korea was never formally resolved.
What does the Paris Peace Accords (1973) example add to this topic? It shows that even a negotiated ceasefire agreement, reached under real war-weariness on both sides, can collapse entirely if the underlying political conflict is not resolved — fighting resumed and Saigon fell in 1975, just two years after the Accords were signed.
What are the four factors you must apply to any peace settlement? Military outcome (decisive win, stalemate, or ceasefire?), political decision-making (what terms were signed?), social factors (war-weariness or resentment?), and post-conflict peace-building (did new institutions and reconstruction make the peace durable?).
What's the strongest way to structure a 15-mark 'to what extent' essay on this theme? State a clear judgement upfront, apply the four-part framework to at least two examples from two different regions, explicitly compare them (not just describe each in turn), and return to a substantiated judgement in your conclusion.
Always name the exact date of the key agreement (11 Nov 1918 armistice; 1919 Versailles; 27 July 1953 Korean Armistice; 1973 Paris Peace Accords). Always use the term 'armistice' correctly — it is a ceasefire, not a treaty. For 15-mark questions, pick your two regions in the first 30 seconds of planning and stick to the four-part framework throughout — that structure alone earns you the top markband for organisation.