The Italian Conquest of Abyssinia: How far was the LoN to blame?

Source A – the cartoon entitled â€Å"Dogs of War† – has a message of the ways in which the League of Nations failed. This is depicted through the cartoon in numerous ways. Firstly, the woman (representative of the League of Nations) is shown holding the dog collars which have writing engraved on them. One collar reads Japan while the other collar reads Germany. The fact that they are empty indicates that they have both left the League. When relating that to real events, Japan left the league as a result of them being condemned after the invasion of Manchuria and Germany left through the actions of Hitler (as a result of him disagreeing with the disarmaments). Another way in which the cartoon shows the failure of the League is through the actions of Britain and France. During the conflict between Italy and Abyssinia, Britain and France are shown as just â€Å"looking over†. In simpler terms, Britain and France are shown as if they do not care or just wish to let things go by as if it doesn't matter. This, in effect, undermines the League's objective of dealing with conflicts such as those and creating peace. When relating that to real events, Britain and France didn't really do much as they thought that would be jeopardising their relationship with Italy. By doing so, they reckoned Italy would join forces with Germany and that would make matters worse. As a result, they just stood by and let Mussolini invade and take over Abyssinia. However, it is not just about what Britain and France did; it is also about if they had the ability to do it. The fact that Britain is represented as a bulldog and France as a poodle – stronger than the dogs representing Italy and Abyssinia – shows exactly how they could have dealt with the problem if they wanted to. This relates to how they had the use of collective security to deal with problems, if need be. My point here is that this strengthens my argument above of how Britain and France just didn't want to deal with the conflict. In addition, the League of Nations on the whole is shown as a woman who is not bothered about the conflict. That aside, the fact that the league is represented a woman depicts peace. This is also emphasised through the addition of a dove above her head, which also represents peace. The ironic thing here, though, is that the situation is not one of peace and that the argument has not been dealt with in order to create peace. Instead of actually doing something about it, she is just doing what Britain and France are. Using this, failure has been shown as the cartoon is critical of the league not doing anything about the matter. My final point on this matter relates to what the woman representing the league is actually doing. The cartoonist has shown the woman with her arms tied. It seems as if he/she wants to get across the fact that woman is struggling to control the dogs. In terms of real events, Britain and France signed a Hoare-Laval pact which allowed Italy to take 2/3 of Abyssinia. However, when the public found out about this, it had a bad name on the LoN and so Hoare and Laval denied any knowledge whatsoever. Italy saw this and invaded Abyssinia as they no longer trusted Britain and France. This is a reason for the league having its arms tied. On the other hand, it can be said to be struggling as the league struggled to look after both the members and the conflicts that were going on. This point is reinforced from what is said at the bottom of the cartoon: â€Å"JUST AS WE WERE ALL GETTING ALONG SO NICELY! I WONDER WHAT I HAVE TO DO THIS TIME. † There are a number of ways in which sources A and B differ and allow the viewer understand the problems of peacekeeping in the 1930s. Firstly, a major difference between the sources is how each country is represented. While source A uses dogs to represent countries, source B uses sacks. The fact that dogs are closer to humans than sacks allows source A to have a huge advantage over source B. What I mean by this is that dogs are living and really significant things such as facial expressions and movement can be shown through them. However, those significant aspects cannot be shown through sacks and that is what allows a viewer to understand the cartoon better. For example; Italy and Abyssinia are shown to be having an argument of some sort. We notice that it is an argument from the facial expression of Abyssinia. In addition, they are in each other's face and in positions that are most likely when in a fight. This cannot be done with sacks and so source A is more understanding in showing the problems in this aspect. Likewise, in source A, the LoN is represented as a woman and things such as her movements can be shown (she is shown with her hands tied) whereas, in source B, the LoN is represented as a cart and that cannot be shown here. However, like source A, source B does have aspects that help understand the problems. One good aspect in my opinion is the showing of which countries are more likely to leave than others. A great example of this is how Great Britain and France are solid up the top whereas Italy is on the verge of falling off. This relates well to how Italy didn't have faith in the League after the pact because they felt betrayed by France and Britain and also because Mussolini was a fascist and disagreed with a lot of their views. Therefore, it can be said that this helps understand the problem of Italy being upset with the Council (Britain and France) of the LoN. In addition, the fact that the LoN is represented as a cart in source B indicates it is slow and needs to be pushed. This helps understand the slow aspect and an example of this would be how Lytton went out to Manchuria to sort things out really late in November. A good aspect in both sources that help understand the problems is that both show that Japan and Germany have left the league. Despite the fact that they are done in different ways, they both show and help understand the problem of not having 2 major forces in the league. On the other hand, a bad aspect in both would be that neither shows the â€Å"whys†. For example; both sources do not show why Japan and Germany have left the league. This is a major disadvantage as research or own knowledge is required to understand the source to full effect. Finally, something to note here is what the provenance states. Source A is a cartoon from a British magazine but is critical of the fact that Britain just looked on over the conflict between Italy and Abyssinia. On the other hand, source B is a cartoon from a British magazine and is saying that Britain is solely holding the league together, which is untrue as the help of France and other countries is also doing so. From this, we can say that source A is more reliable than source B as source B is biased. In conclusion to this answer, I feel that source A is more useful than source B for understanding the problems of peacekeeping in the 1930s for the sole reason that living creatures are used to represent countries as opposed to sacks. Despite the fact that source B shows how the league was slow and how Italy were about to leave, I still think that what the dogs and the woman show are more crucial in terms of understanding the problems. The fact that the conflict is shown and how Britain, France and the league is not interested are the core points justifies my point. There are ways in which source C would have worried members of LoN and ways in which the league would not be worried much at all. Benito Mussolini states that â€Å"once a decision is taken we march forward and do not turn back! In my opinion, this aspect of the speech would have worried the members of the league as it is implying how ruthless Italy can be/are. When that is put into perspective with the league's actions, things can become very concerning for the league. By mentioning that they will not turn back, whatever the league throws at them will, in effect, not stop Italy. Another reason for the league to be worried relates to what Mussolini says at the end of his speech. In his speech, Mussolini says that â€Å"It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep! I reckon this would worry members of the LoN because that last part shows how much power means to him. In addition, he may be implying that the sheep are countries of less power such as Abyssinia or other African colonies. The fact that lions eat sheep further indicates his intention of taking hold of the countries/colonies. A reason for the league not to be worried, however, is that Italy showed its weakness in 1920 when it came running to the league after the incident at Corfu. However, this can be counter-argued by the fact that Benito Mussolini did not come into power until 1922. What I mean by this is that Benito's option would have most likely not included the league and so Italy wouldn't seem as weak. Members of the league would not be as worried due to the fact that Italy was on their own at the time and would therefore mean less strength. Once again though, Mussolini was a fascist and would have probably gone to extreme lengths to get an ally. Overall, I think that the members of the LoN would have been worried at his speech for a number of reasons. Firstly, his ruthlessness would have concerned the league as they would not know how to deal with it on occasions. Secondly, the fact that the speech indicates his love for power would also worry the league as they often struggle with situations whereby a powerful country has done something. A perfect example of this is the incident of Vilna. Vilna was awarded to Poland solely on the basis that they were strong/big and the league could do nothing about it, although it originally belonged to Lithuania. Finally, the league would be worried because they would be unsure as to how Mussolini would act. For example; in 1920, Mussolini may have chosen for Italy to use force instead of go to the LoN and that would have worried the league much more. Britain's attitude to Abyssinia is shown in different ways through each source (D and E). In source D, we are given the impression that Britain does not really care much about Abyssinia. It states, â€Å"The suggestions favoured Italy, were acceptable to France, and Eden gave the impression that England might accept them as well. † The fact that the suggestions favoured Italy meant that they didn't favour Abyssinia. Baring this in mind, the source later says â€Å"Eden gave the impression that England might accept them as well. † This meant that he thought England were going to accept the fact that Abyssinia were to be treated unfairly and so this quote indicates Britain do not really care much about Abyssinia. However, to counter-argue that, it can be said that Anthony Eden was a man who always used to try and impress people. This is evident from him being known as â€Å"Lord Eyelashes† – someone who always used to flutter his eyelashes in order to get on the good side of people or to get what he wanted. Using this, it can be said that the impression he gave didn't represent his true feelings or that what his views are may not be the same as the rest of Britain. Despite the fact that – from the provenance – Anthony Eden was charge of the LoN affairs of the British government, whatever he may think may not have been accepted by the public due to different viewpoints. Although Eden gave the impression that Britain may accept it, Britain, on the whole, may have not have actually done so. While Source D was written by an Italian historian, Source E was proclaimed by Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Secretary. Samuel's first sentence in his speech immediately questions my trust of Britain's attitude to Abyssinia. When Hoare states that â€Å"The League stands for collective support of its Covenant (rules)†, what suddenly comes to mind is the Hoare-Laval pact. This was a pact signed between Britain (Hoare), France (Laval) and Italy (Mussolini) that stated Italy could have 2/3 of Abyssinia. While it was considered a reasonable conclusion by Hoare and Laval, the Covenant opposed it and so it reflects Hoare's personality and as to whether he can actually be trusted. However, regardless of his actions, it can be said that Samuel Hoare was a man of high authority considering the fact that he was British Foreign Secretary. In addition, another trustworthy aspect to this speech would be that Hoare was talking to the public and could not lie. Once again though, that can be counter-argued by the fact that he is talking to the LoN and doesn't want to disappoint them by saying negative things about them. By doing so, he could have been the cause of the LoN having an even worse name, which he would then be blamed for. My final point in this question relates to the provenance/details about the source. Source D was written by an Italian historian in 1961. Here, the author and the time play a major part in the reliability of the source. The fact that the source was written many years after and the writer was Italian means that, if – for instance – Italy didn't really like Britain at the time, the writer may have referred to Anthony Eden as â€Å"Lord Eyelashes† instead of something a bit more positive. On the other hand, the speech (Source E) was said by a British person and was said just after the time of the incident. Therefore, if Samuel Hoare hated the LoN years later, nothing would be different in terms of the speech as it has already been made. As mentioned earlier, time plays a huge part in reliability. Time goes on and as it does, memory becomes a less clear vision. What I mean by this is that people tend to forget things or not see them the way they were at the time and so Source D may be different to what had actually happened. Source E, however, cannot be as the speech was actually made at the time. In conclusion to this question, I trust source D more when reflecting Britain's attitude to Abyssinia for a number of reasons. The way I perceive it to be – from what I have learnt/my own knowledge – is that Britain didn't care about Abyssinia all that much as it didn't concern them much. In other words, the consequences of them being invaded didn't really concern affairs with Abyssinia; it just really concerned Italy's power and what they were going to do next. And so, firstly, this is backed up by source D (from my point earlier). Despite the fact that Anthony Eden was a â€Å"weird† man and the provenance could cause unreliability, I feel source E isn't any better. Source E states that Britain (in the LoN) will help Abyssinia and does not tolerate bullying but that is not actually how I feel about the matter. From previous cases, such as the one of Manchuria, the League only condemned Japan and did not act in terms of collective security. And, although Samuel Hoare was talking to the public, can he really be trusted after the pact opposing the Covenant? I think not†¦ There are numerous ways in which sources F & G agree and likewise in ways they disagree. Source F shows an old man on the verge of exiting a small house. He is holding something that is emitting light and the cartoonist has done this to emphasise the fact that the old man/LoN is living in the dark. What can actually be done in the dark is limited and so the cartoonist is trying to show the viewer that the LoN is limited to what it can do. What's more, the LoN is made out to be an old man. When referring something to an old man, the point being made is that it is slow and feeble. So the cartoonist's point here is that the LoN was slow and feeble. A further way in which the cartoonist is critical of the LoN is through the use of the Italian soldier. By making out the Italian soldier as big and armed, the message being sent across is that the old man/LoN cannot do anything about the soldier; all it could possibly do is go back inside and accept what has been said. In simpler terms, the fact that the matter has been settled by Italy should be of no concern to the league as absolutely nothing can be done about it. On the other hand, source G is a speech made by the emperor of Abyssinia, Haile Selassie. During his speech, Selassie stated that: â€Å"On many occasions, I have asked for financial assistance for the purchase of arms. That assistance has been constantly refused me. † This, once again, indicates how limited the LoN is in what it can do and so is a way in which they agree. Another obvious way in which they agree is the fact that they are both critical of the league in their own ways. A final way in which both sources agree relates to the first sentence of Selassie's speech, â€Å"I claim the justice which is due to my people and the assistance promised eight months ago. † Since the assistance promised had not been given to Abyssinia for 8 months, it would be fair to say that the LoN was slow. When put in comparison with the source F, the old man confirms this point. Although, there are a few points that prove the 2 sources agree, there are also a couple that prove the sources disagree. In source G, Haile Selassie says, â€Å"The problem is a much wider one than Italy's aggression. It is the very existence of the League of Nations. † This does not agree with source F as source F does not show the League of Nations being a problem or making matters worse; it just shows it as something that is not really powerful and nimble. In addition, at the end of Selassie's speech, Selassie questions the League of future actions through the last line of his speech, â€Å"Are you going to set a terrible example of bowing before force? † This disagrees with source F as source F does not show, in any way, the LoN actually bowing before force. In conclusion, I go somewhat but not too far in saying that sources F & G agree due to the fact that the points showing agreement between the sources have clearly outweighed the points showing otherwise. The fact that both sources agree in how the league acts (slow and in a limited way), in my opinion, is of more importance than whether the league made matters worse and so my conclusion to this question – from what I have seen from my arguments – is justified. Source H is a speech from Benito Mussolini in 1936. In this part to the essay, I will be answering as to how far I am surprised that the League of Nations did not ban oil sales to Italy. There are ways in which I am surprised and ways in which I am not. Immediately after reading the source, the first thing that surprised me was the fact that Mussolini had said, â€Å"The biggest worry was a ban on selling oil to us. If that had happened in 1935, the invasion of Abyssinia would have halted in a week. † This surprised me because; if we turn back to source C, we'll discover that Mussolini said there that â€Å"once a decision is taken we march forward and do not turn back! † The decision here was to invade Abyssinia but Mussolini just went against his speech in 1935 as he said he would have halted the invasion had the oil ban been imposed. On one hand, I was surprised with the League's actions while, on the other hand, I was not. The reason for me being surprised was that the LoN did not try out something different to prevent the invasion; it just imposed less serious bans. However, I am also not surprised at what the League did due to the fact that the league already had a bad reputation with Italy at the time. Since the Hoare-Laval pact had already been denied (a lie by both Hoare and Laval), Mussolini didn't trust Britain and France anymore and so people would see that imposing an oil ban, for example, would be a perfect way at getting back at them. A further way in which I am not surprised relates to the bad name the league possessed at the time. Had the league put oil bans on Italy, they could have put them in another depression. After the speech of Haile Selassie, putting another country in depression would just strengthen the point about the LoN existing being a problem in itself. What's more, a depression affects other parts of the world as well as Italy as trading becomes more of an issue and so my point here is that the world would have more reason to blame the league. Maybe if the league had a better name would it have imposed those bans. My final point in this question is about how Italy could have reacted if the bans were imposed on them. Since, Mussolini was a fascist; I do not believe the invasion would have halted in a week. Instead, I feel Mussolini would have endeavoured to get oil from other means. A perfect way in which to do so would have been to go to America, as both Italy and America would both be satisfied: Italy would get the oil required while America would see it as a profitable opportunity. In conclusion to this question, I am not really surprised that the LoN did not impose the oil bans on Italy for a number of reasons. Firstly, the fact that the league had such a bad reputation at the time meant that serious bans being put on Italy would have resulted in total blame on it if the consequences were outrageous. In addition, since the LoN did not really like Mussolini (his ideas went against it and the fact that he had found out their plan through the Hoare-Laval pact) meant that oil bans could have been an excuse to get back at Italy. As a result, it was further reason not to impose them! And despite the fact that I am surprised at what Mussolini said about halting the invasion, the League still took into account that Italy could have gotten oil from other means. The sources I have studied are all going to be put to use in the final part of this essay: how far do they collectively prove that the LoN was to blame for Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia? Source A shows a number of ways in which they prove that the LoN was to blame for the conquest of Abyssinia. Firstly, by having the collars of dogs â€Å"Japan† and â€Å"Germany† empty, the source is trying to get across the message of how the League lost 2 of its most important members that could have made a difference to the outcome of the conquest. In addition, source A shows how Britain and France are not doing anything and so is critical of the fact that they – as council in the LoN – didn't really do anything but look over the invasion. Likewise, source A shows how the entire league is just looking over the invasion as if not bothered and also shows how her hands are tied. The whole idea is to show how the league could not really take care of both its members and the invasion and so is showing how the league failed in this aspect. This is proved from a quote at the bottom of the source: â€Å"JUST AS WE WERE ALL GETTING ALONG SO NICELY! I WONDER WHAT I HAVE TO DO THIS TIME. † One way, in my opinion, in which the source is not critical is through showing that maybe Italy's aggression (and Abyssinia's) was hard to deal with as the league's (woman's) hands are tied. Source B is also critical of the League of Nations in a couple of ways. For starters, the league here is represented as a cart. The fact that this is the case shows how the league was slow and needed to be pushed to keep it going. This relates well to what actually happened as the league were slow in doing something about the invasion, as by the time they could do something, Italy had already invaded Abyssinia. Another way in which it proves the league is to blame is by having Italy almost falling off of the cart. The significance of doing so is to show that, with Italy not fully associated with the league anymore; the league had less control of it and so couldn't really stop future actions. This is as a result of the Hoare-Laval pact, which was – once again – Britain and France's faults. A final way in which source B is critical is through the use of Japan and Germany. By having them off the cart, it is indicating it is easier to push and this is a good indication of the fact that the league found it hard to deal with so many members and problems simultaneously. Therefore, by having members of the league leave, the league works much smoother. Source C, on the other hand, is showing how the league is not really to blame for the conquest. By Mussolini indicating how ruthless he can be, it gives an idea of what the LoN were dealing with. By using terms such as â€Å"it is better to live one day as a lion than hundred years as a sheep†, the message we are getting is that it was not all the league's fault; it was also Italy's aggression that was to blame for the Mussolini conquest. Source D is a source written by an Italian in 1961 and talks predominantly about Anthony Eden, a person in charge of LoN affairs for the British government. This source, in my opinion, shows that the league was to blame for the conquest of Abyssinia. By using the phrase â€Å"Lord Eyelashes†, the writer is trying to get across the message of how the league appointed someone who just did what they did to impress people. In other words, he may have made the wrong decision in agreeing to let the suggestions favour Italy and not Abyssinia just because he wanted to impress Mussolini and others. Therefore, it is showing how the league employed the wrong person for that job, which – most probably did, from the argument I have discussed – drastically change the outcome. Source E, meanwhile, shows supposed positive aspects to the league and so does not show any ways in which the league was to blame for the conquest. This source talks about how the league reacts to things such as â€Å"unprovoked aggression† and states that â€Å"The British government and nation is firm on this principle. † As a result, it can be said that this source does not go far at all in proving that the league was to blame for the conquest of Abyssinia. Source F is a German cartoon published in May 1936, depicting an Italian soldier talking to the LoN (an old man). The soldier says, â€Å"I am sorry to disturb your sleep, but I should like to tell you that you need no longer bother yourself about the Abyssinian business; the matter has been settled. † By stating that he is â€Å"sorry to disturb† the old man's sleep, the cartoonist is showing that the old man was asleep/just been woken up and is living in the dark. The point being made here is that the league, on many occasions, did not really do anything due to the fact that they are actually sleeping. In addition, by making the LoN an old man, it is indicating that the LoN was slow and weak and therefore allowed the conquest to proceed. A final way in which the cartoonist is critical of the league is through the use of the quote. By making the Italian soldier say that â€Å"I am sorry to disturb your sleep, but I should like to tell you that you no longer need to bother yourself†¦ † it seems as if the cartoonist is trying to get the message across of the fact that the soldier has taken responsibility of the league's soldiers and done it a favour. What's more here, by making the Italians solve the matter themselves and having the Italian soldier as bigger than the old man (armed as well) shows exactly how the league could do nothing about the conquest. Likewise, source G is highly critical of the LoN. It is a speech made by Haile Selassie, emperor of Abyssinia at the time. The first way in which Selassie says that the league was to blame is through the first sentence, â€Å"I claim the justice which is due to my people and the assistance promised eight months ago. By using the time phrase â€Å"eight months ago†, it gives us a clear indication of how slow the league was. In addition, by stating that: â€Å"On many occasions, I have asked for financial assistance for the purchase of arms. That assistance has been constantly refused me†, Haile is otherwise saying that the league has its limits to what it can do. In addition to those points, Haile says that the problem is bigger than the aggression of Italy; it is the existence of the LoN. Despite the fact that it is saying that the league in existence is causing all the problems, it is also showing how Italy were also to blame for the conquest. Finally, source H is yet another speech by Benito Mussolini, whereby he says that; if the league had imposed oil bans, he would have halted the invasion. This is critical of the league as it gives me the message that the league should have taken the risk. However, it can also be said that the league was unaware of how to deal with Mussolini or how he would react to the oil ban. Ultimately in this essay, I feel that the sources go very far in proving that the LoN was to blame for the Mussolini conquest. All but 3 of the sources agree with my conclusion and, despite there are even 3, they can all be counter-argued. Firstly, source C shows how ruthless Mussolini was. However, the League of Nations collectively was stronger than him and could deal with whatever he threw (it was more of the fact that they could not be bothered). As a matter of fact, Britain and France on their own could deal with the likes of Mussolini and so the argument for Italy's aggression now seems small. Secondly, source E talks about how the league was meant to deal with issues like unprovoked aggression. However, the fact that Samuel Hoare's character is questionable (after the Hoare-Laval pact) alongside him talking to the LoN (wants to say good things about it) makes me wonder whether this source actually counts. And thirdly, despite the League were unaware of how Mussolini was going to react to the ban, I feel that it should have taken the risk in doing so nevertheless as it had nothing to lose; it had already lost its reputation†¦