One of our main foreign policies is to develop the League of Nations. We have shown how important we think the League is by sending the Foreign Secretary to Assembly and Council meetings.
We welcome the progress being made towards disarmament and hope for more progress in this area after seeing proposals being put forward by the United States.
The development of the League of Nations is a cardinal principle of our foreign policy. The importance attached by the present Government to the work of the League is illustrated by the fact that Great Britain has been continuously represented by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the Council and in the Assembly of the League.
We welcome, as the fruit of this consistent policy, the advance made at Geneva towards an international agreement for the reduction of armaments and we greatly hope for a further advance in this direction on the lines of the proposals foreshadowed by the representatives of the United States of America.
This is an extract from Conservative Party leader Stanley Baldwin’s election address setting out the achievements of his government and his plans if he were re-elected in 1929. It is aimed at voters in Great Britain.
Throughout the 1920s Britain and France were the two most powerful and active members of the League. Despite the fact that the USA never joined, and that Britain and France actually undermined the League on some occasions, Britain was generally committed to making it work.
Although the USA never joined the League it sent observers to most of the League’s meetings. The British Government always sent its Foreign Secretary to League meetings and most other countries also sent their most senior Foreign Ministers as well.
Remember we are hoping that this source can be useful to us in investigating how far the work of the League of Nations mattered in the 1920s:
1 What is the attitude of Baldwin towards the League?
2 According to the source, how has Britain shown its commitment to the League?
3 What does Baldwin hope for?
Which of the inferences below can be made from this source?
|On a scale of 1-5 how far do you agree that this source supports this inference?||Which extract(s) from the source support your argument?|
|Britain takes the League of Nations seriously|| || |
|This is an election address so the source cannot be trusted|| || |