How have historian approached the success and failures of internationalist movement in the early20th Century

Hope to find a professional history writer who studies history as his/hers degree this is a Historiographical Essay. NOT A NORMAL history essay. Just a reminder, this essentially concerns how historians have debated whether peace movements and particularly internationalist institutions like the League of Nations were successful or not. A helpful introduction to internationalism may be David Long (ed.) Imperialism and internationalism in the discipline of international relations – focus on the introduction for an overview of the key features of the topic. This question revolves a lot about how interpretations of this topic have changed over time: the reading list covers texts from a long duration. Carr’s texts were originally from the 1930s, while there are clearly a lot more modern texts. Think about how historians arguments about pacifism/internationalism and the Leage of Nations have changed over time. What do you think has influenced this change (new methods, new approaches etc.). The Carr text itself is a bit wordy, but he is an important starting point. If it helps maybe find some other readings which mention his broad argument, but definitely check out the text itself Essentially, one of the key developments in this subject is that while earlier works from Hinsley and E.H. Carr tended to present internationalism as simply naïve and a failure, a lot of newer works present a more complicated picture: many have been critical of these early interpretations, or they study internationalism in a way which goes beyond simply interpreting it as either a success or a failure. I suggest you read Sluga and Calvin’s introduction for an overview of this field. E.H. Carr’s Twenty Years Crisis is also essential reading, as it really started off this debate. A new edition has an preface from Michael Cox that summarises Carr’s arguments (which is helpful as Carr’s book is quite dense!). You should probably focus more on the historical interpretations themselves. So you could do a broadly chronologically structure: start by taking the earlier historians like Carr and Hinsley and analyse their arguments. Then your later sections can show how and why historians have built upon this early works; you may do a section on historian who disagree with Carr; you could do a section on historians who don’t even bother repeating debates about internationalism being a success/failure, but take a completely new focus (for instance Helen McCarthy looks at how internationalism encouraged popular democracy in the UK, and doesn’t really concern herself with whether or not it was either a success or a failure). All books are able to read from Google Book. However, I will still upload some reading which provided by my seminar. Sluga and Calvin’s introduction: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oS-YDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Internationalisms:+a+twentieth+century+history&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM0IKE6unXAhXOa1AKHQIBDnoQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Internationalisms%3A%20a%20twentieth%20century%20history&f=false (introduction only) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9ZSkDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=The+Twenty+Years’+Crisis,+1919-1939+:+Reissued+with+a+new+preface+from+Michael+Cox+the+founders+of+the+League+of+Nations,%C2%A0some%C2%A0of+whom+were+men+of+political+experience+and+political+understanding&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDirDKnO_XAhUMLsAKHX4cDhoQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Twenty%20Years’%20Crisis%2C%201919-1939%20%3A%20Reissued%20with%20a%20new%20preface%20from%20Michael%20Cox%20the%20founders%20of%20the%20League%20of%20Nations%2C%C2%A0some%C2%A0of%20whom%20were%20men%20of%20political%20experience%20and%20political%20understanding