WHY DID THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS FAILOVER THE ITALIAN INVASION OF ABYSSINIA?
1. Study Sources A and B. How far do these two sources
agree with each other? Explain your answer. (6)
Sources A and B are accounts by historians about the events
that led up to the failure of the League over Abyssinia.
They disagree about the Hoare-Laval Pact because A says it
was a compromise which was intended to settle the dispute peacefully,
whereas B says it was designed to undermine Haile Selassie. The sources
also disagree about the oil sanctions. A says sanctions were introduced
but B says they weren’t.
Finally, the sources disagree about why the League failed
over Abyssinia. A explains that the League tried hard but was
unsuccessful, but B says Britain and France never had any intention of
standing up to Mussolini.
So Sources A and B disagree on almost all of the important
points about the Abyssinian Crisis of 1935-36.
2. Study Source C. What is the message of this cartoon?
Explain your answer, referring to details in the cartoon. (7)
Source C is one of many drawn by David Low, who frequently
criticised the League in the 1920s and 1930s. In this cartoon, he shows
Mussolini, a ferocious dog, pulling the League of Nations and its leaders,
Britain and France, on a downward slope to the mad dog world of war.
Because Britain and France, the leaders of the League of
Nations, are on roller-skates, they can’t stop Mussolini from leading
them to his chosen destination, even though the politicians seem convinced
they can talk their way out of the crisis.
The most important thing about the cartoon, however, is the
date. In August 1935, Mussolini hadn’t yet invaded Abyssinia. So the
cartoon is saying that Mussolini is ignoring the League of Nations and
continuing to prepare for war while the League talks. This is made even
clearer by the title, in which the word ‘proceeding’ means ‘leading
to’. Hence the message of the cartoon: discussions are leading to war.
3. Study Sources D and E. Does Source E mean that
Mussolini would have agreed with the cartoon (Source D)? Explain your
answer. (7)
In Source E, Mussolini explained that imports of oil were
needed if Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia was to succeed. This agrees with
the main point of Source D about the importance of oil to the Italian war
effort. But D is a British cartoon that is hostile to Mussolini: it
describes him as a madman and shows Italy as a warmongering nation, so
Mussolini is unlikely to have agreed with it!
However, because Mussolini had completed the assembly of his
invasion force by the time sanctions against things like weapons and
rubber had been introduced, it is surprising that he still needed to get
supplies of them after the invasion had begun. Furthermore, it is unlikely
that oil sanctions would have worked because America was not a member of
the League, so any ban on oil sales to Italy could not be enforced.
Consequently, it is dangerous to take Source E at face value,
and by suggesting that the League of Nations could have prevented the
invasion of Abyssinia within a week, perhaps Mussolini is seeking to
undermine it even further.
4. Study Sources E and F. Does Source F prove that Source
E was wrong? Explain your answer. (8)
Source F describes the effects of economic sanctions on
Italy, and suggests they were largely ineffectual. It explains how Italy
was able to overcome the ban on the exports of, for example, wheat and
coal simply by producing more itself.
In contrast, Source E suggests that economic sanctions could
have stopped the invasion of Abyssinia if oil had been included in them.
However, Source F can’t be trusted as a reliable source of evidence
because its purpose is to indoctrinate schoolchildren, not to give a
balanced explanation about the effects of economic sanctions imposed by
the League on Italy.
Therefore, F dies not prove that E was wrong. It merely
proves that Mussolini used the invasion of Abyssinia to cover himself and
the Italian people in glory.
5. Study Sources G and H. Would members of the League of
Nations have agreed with Haile Selassie (Source G) or with the Italian
Government (Source H)? Explain your answer. (6)
Members of the League of Nations would have agreed with much
of Source G because Collective Security was one of its cornerstones. In
contrast, they would have disagreed with almost all of Source H, because
the invasion of Abyssinia was a clear breach of the League’s Covenant.
Moreover, it was never an aim of the League to civilise independent
countries.
However, not all members of the League were always so
supportive of Haile Selassie, and Sources A and B show the lengths that
Britain and France were prepared to go to support Mussolini over
Abyssinia.
Finally, while agreeing with the sentiments expressed by
Haile Selassie in Source G, members of the League knew there was no point
in giving money and arms to Abyssinia, because the Italian conquest was
complete by the time the speech was made, and all hope of resistance had
ended.
6. Study Source I. How useful is this cartoon to an
historian studying the League of Nations? Use details of the cartoon to
help you explain your answer. (6)
Source I is a very useful source of information because it
explains not only the failure of the League over Abyssinia, but also the
end of the League itself.
The cartoon shows a soldier, perhaps Mars, the God of War,
towering over a frail and weak old man, at the door of the League of
Nations. This suggests that war has triumphed over peace. Moreover, the
cartoon shows the man holding a candle and wearing night clothes, which
suggests that the League was sleeping while the conquest of Abyssinia was
carried out.
That’s why Mars tells the League that he’s sorry to
disturb its sleep, because the League delayed making its mind up over a
decision over Abyssinia until after the invasion had started, and even
then it only introduced limited and ineffectual sanctions, so it never
seriously attempted to prevent the conquest of Abyssinia or to stand up to
Mussolini.
Finally, because the cartoon was published in Nazi Germany,
it is a useful source of information about the attitudes of its leaders to
the League. As the title of the cartoon suggests, they believed the
Abyssinian Crisis marked the end of the League as an international
peacekeeper. As a result, Germany was prepared to follow the earlier
examples of Japan and Italy and ignore the League, thus paving the way for
the outbreak of war in 1939.
7. Study all the sources. How far do the sources show that
Britain and France were to blame for the League’s failure in the
Abyssinian Crisis? Explain your answer. (10)
Draw a table to show which sources support the statement and
which don’t
Show how the sources support the statement and how they don’t
Use the sources to show that Britain and France were and were not
to blame for the League’s failure in the Abyssinian Crisis
Include your own knowledge about the Abyssinian Crisis, especially if you
think some crucial information had been left out by the sources.
Remember to explain the how far element of the question in your
conclusion
IMPORTANT - In order to pick up the two bonus marks on offer, you must
also comment on the reliability of the sources (again if necessary)
in your answer.
The majority of the sources show that Britain and France were
to blame for the League’s failure in the Abyssinian Crisis.
Sources A and B, for example, show that Britain and France
undermined the League by trying to negotiate secretly with Mussolini (the
Hoare-Laval Pact) and that they failed to implement sanctions swiftly.
Similarly, Source C shows that the leaders of the League did
nothing to hinder Mussolini’s plans in the crucial months before the
invasion of Abyssinia took place.
In addition, Source D suggests that oil sanctions could have
ended Italy’s invasion plans, while Source G explains that the League
repeatedly refused to give financial support to Haile Selassie.
Furthermore, Source H reveals that Italy was clearly guilty
of breaking the Covenant of the League of Nations when it conquered
Abyssinia, and Source I shows that the League allowed war to triumph over
peace.
All of these failures can be blamed on Britain and France,
because they were the leaders of the League and therefore bear the
responsibility for its failure over the Abyssinian Crisis.
On the other hand, Sources E and F do not support the view
that Britain and France were to blame for the failure, although they are
not trustworthy sources because their purpose is to mislead rather than to
inform.
Nevertheless, they do suggest that the League had serious
weaknesses, and that the lack of American membership, the absence of
effective deterrents (such as economic sanctions and military force), and
the fiction of Collective Security, were not entirely due to poor
leadership.
However, the sources do not mention the failure of Britain
and France to close the Suez Canal. This would have prevented Mussolini
from getting essential supplies, and therefore would have been the most
effective way of stopping the Italian conquest of Abyssinia.
Moreover, closing the Suez Canal did not require
international agreement, so the League cannot be blamed for the failure to
close it. But Britain and France can be blamed, because they controlled
the Canal, and they didn’t close it because they didn’t want to upset
Mussolini.
In conclusion, the sources support the view that Britain and
France were to blame for the League’s failure in the Abyssinian Crisis.
But they do not show that Britain and France were totally to blame for the
failure, partly because the League was fundamentally flawed, and partly
because the sources do not mention the Suez Canal.
