Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. In My Learning the same topic also comes with:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Two ways to keep the peace, both failed: In the 1930s the democracies tried two ways to stop war. First collective security collective security, then appeasement. Neither one worked, and the world slid into a second world war.
Imagine you are a British leader in the 1930s. The last war killed millions and you are terrified of another one, so you are looking for any way to keep the peace.
This section tells the story of the two plans you would try, and why both let you down.
The first plan was collective security. It was the founding idea of the League of Nations: if one country attacked another, every member would answer together, first with strong words, then with sanctions, and only as a last resort with soldiers.
On paper this was brilliant. No dictator could win, because the whole world would gang up against him.
In real life, though, the big powers cared more about their own interests than about standing together, and that is where the plan fell apart.
The breaking point came in 1935, when Italy invaded Abyssinia. The League gave only weak sanctions, and Britain and France even cooked up a secret deal to hand the Italian leader Benito Mussolini most of the country.
After that, nobody believed collective security could stop anyone.
So Britain switched to the second plan, appeasement. This was the policy of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain: instead of threatening Hitler, you sit down and give him a few of his demands, hoping he will then be satisfied and stop.
The high point came at the Munich Agreement in 1938, when Britain and France let Germany take the Sudetenland. For a moment it looked like peace had been bought.
Then in March 1939 Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia by marching into Prague, breaking every promise he had made at Munich. That was the moment appeasement was exposed as a failure, and Britain finally changed course and promised to defend Poland.
Memory hook: SAME GIVE: Why did Britain choose appeasement? Remember SAME GIVE. Slaughter of WWI was still fresh, Armed forces were not ready, Money was short after the Depression, Empire was already stretched thin, German complaints about Versailles seemed fair, It feared the Soviet Union more, Voters wanted peace, and it would Earn time to rearm.
Examiners want two things from you here. Explain why collective security broke down, and explain why leaders then reached for appeasement instead.
The trick is to see them as one connected story, because each crisis pushed Britain and France further from the League and deeper into private deals with the dictators.
The story in four crises: The chain of events below is a sequence, so learn it as a chain, not as random dates. Each link made the next failure more likely.
Manchuria, 1931 to 1933: the first crack
Japan seized Manchuria from China. The League sent investigators and their Lytton Report blamed Japan, but no sanctions and no soldiers ever followed. Watching dictators learned the lesson early: the League would talk, but it would not fight.
Abyssinia, 1935: the death blow
Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. The League did impose sanctions this time, but left out oil, the one thing that could have stopped his tanks, and kept the Suez Canal open so his supplies kept flowing. Weak action against a real invasion showed collective security was hollow.
The Hoare-Laval Pact, 1935: the scandal
Behind closed doors, Britain's foreign secretary Samuel Hoare and France's prime minister Pierre Laval agreed to give Mussolini most of Abyssinia, hoping to keep Italy on their side against Hitler. When a newspaper leaked the plan, the public was furious and the deal was dropped, but the League's good name was already ruined.
The turn to appeasement, from 1936
With the League discredited, Britain and France stopped relying on it and started bargaining directly with Hitler. Appeasement meant satisfying his complaints one by one through talks, and it was driven by the SAME GIVE motives: fear of another war, weak armies, money troubles, and a belief that Versailles had treated Germany unfairly.
Manchuria cracked it, Abyssinia killed it, Hoare-Laval shamed it, so appeasement replaced it.
So the two policies were really two answers to the same question: how do you stop a dictator? Collective security said everyone should push back together, while appeasement said you should give a little to keep the peace.
Here is how they compare side by side.
Collective security (the League)
- Idea: every member confronts an attacker together, so no one dares start a war.
- Tools: strong words first, then sanctions, and soldiers only as a last resort.
- Where it failed: Japan in Manchuria and Italy in Abyssinia both got away with it.
- Fatal wound: the secret Hoare-Laval deal proved leaders cared more about self-interest.
- Verdict: finished as a believable policy by about 1936.
Appeasement (Britain and France)
- Idea: talk directly to the dictator and give a few demands to keep him calm.
- Tools: face-to-face diplomacy, signed treaties, and redrawing borders on the map.
- Where it peaked: Munich in 1938, handing Hitler the Sudetenland.
- Driving force: the SAME GIVE reasons, above all the fear of repeating World War One.
- Verdict: collapsed after Prague in 1939, replaced by the guarantee to Poland.
Mini-case: the Suez Canal stays open: Britain controlled the Suez Canal, which was Italy's supply route to Abyssinia. Simply closing it could have starved Mussolini's army of fuel and men.
But Britain was scared that shutting the canal would push Italy into Hitler's arms, so it kept the canal open. That one choice sums up why collective security failed: when it mattered most, national interest beat the shared principle.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
How this is tested (Paper 1): The fourth question on Paper 1 is worth 9 marks and asks for a mini-essay using the sources plus your own knowledge, often a judgement like whether appeasement caused the war. The big trap is just retelling events. You must weigh things up and reach a clear verdict you can defend.
Let's build a 9-mark answer together. The plan below shows you how to argue both sides and then judge, which is exactly what the top mark bands reward.
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the extent to which appeasement was responsible for the failure to stop aggression in the 1930s.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: Do not just retell what happened. The 9-mark question rewards judgement, not storytelling.
Do not treat appeasement as obviously stupid. Show you know the historians disagree over whether it was a sensible policy or a cowardly blunder.
Do not ignore the sources. You must blend them with your own knowledge, never use one without the other.