Examine the reasons why some 20th-century wars ended with a peace treaty while others did not.

Candidates are required to consider the factors that made peace treaties possible in some cases, but prevented peace treaties being signed in others. Answers may be organized around common factors, or candidates may examine wars separately. For an answer to be effective it is essential that there is at least one example of a war that finished without a treaty, and another of a war that finished with one. Candidates may also approach this question by referring to several wars as long as the focus remains on the demands of the question.

Indicative content

• Victorious powers did not always wish to make a peace treaty, regarded their victory as vindication of their cause and saw compromise as a betrayal of those who had fought.
• Some wars ended with a victory so crushing that there was no defeated party left with which to negotiate a treaty.
• In some cases UN Security Council resolutions took the place of peace treaties; or the presence of peacekeeping forces made a stalemate more acceptable.
• The issues that caused the war may have been intractable.
• In the case of the First World War the victorious powers were motivated by a desire to prevent such huge suffering in the future and a perceived need to revise European borders. There was sufficient common ground between the victors to make a series of peace treaties possible.
• In the case of the Second World War full peace treaties proved impossible as the victorious powers could not agree about key issues such as the treatment of Germany and the governance of Eastern Europe.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

[20 marks]