The League of Nations & the Abyssinian Crisis (Cambridge (CIE) IGCSE History)
Revision Note
Written by: Zoe Wade
Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett
Causes of the Abyssinian Crisis
Abyssinia was a country in the north-east of Africa
It is now called Ethiopia
British, French and Italian colonies surrounded Abyssinia
Despite this, Abyssinia maintained its independence
Examiner Tips and Tricks
In your revision, it is helpful to consider the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors behind certain events. ‘Push’ factors are events or motivations for someone to act. Mussolini did not want to rely on foreign goods. This ‘pushed’ Italy to invade Abyssinia to gain valuable raw materials. ‘Pull’ factors are benefits from performing an action. Abyssinia defeated Italy in 1896. This ‘pulled’ Italy to invade Abyssinia to get revenge and restore national pride. Considering the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors will help you to explain why Italy invaded Abyssinia and how this affected the League of Nations.
Events of the Abyssinian Crisis
Worked Example
Describe what happened during the Abyssinian Crisis
4 marks
Answers:
In December 1934, Italy created a border incident with Abyssinia in the Wal-Wal oasis (1). The League attempted to resolve the conflict between January and October 1935 (1). In October 1935, Italy invaded Abyssinia with 250,000 soldiers (1). Italy’s illegal invasion of Abyssinia forced the League to place economic sanctions on Italy (1).
Examiner Tips and Tricks
This question in Paper One requires you to state information you know about the Abyssinian Crisis. The Cambridge IGCSE gives you a point for each relevant piece of information that you write. Therefore, do not spend any additional time trying to describe or explain each reason.
Consequences of the Abyssinian Crisis
The Abyssinian Crisis highlighted the selfish interests of Britain and France
The Hoare-Laval Pact aimed to give Mussolini what he wanted to protect Britain and France’s imperial interests in East Africa
Britain and France avoided taking firm action against Italy
They did not close the Suez Canal
Italy continued to have sea access to Abyssinia
Britain and France had just signed the Stresa Front (1935) with Mussolini
The Stresa Front was an agreement against Nazi Germany
This alliance seemed more important to France and Britain than protecting Abyssinia
Britain and France did not succeed in a long-lasting alliance with Italy
In 1936, Italy and Germany formed the Rome-Berlin Axis
The incident reconfirmed how weak the League was without the USA
The USA sold oil to Italy
If the League placed oil sanctions on Italy, they feared that the USA would not support the League
As a result, Italy continued to have essential resources for war
Worked Example
Study Sources C and D. Does Source C make Source D surprising? Explain your answer using details of the sources and your knowledge
8 marks
Source C: From the diary of Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador to Britain, November 1935. Hoare was in charge of British foreign policy until December 1935, when he resigned Hoare told me that the Italian demands remain unacceptable to Abyssinia, as they do to the League and Britain. I briefed Hoare on our position. We have no quarrels with Italy. We have no interests in Africa. If we are taking a stand against Italy, it is only as a loyal member of the League, and because we want to teach a lesson to serve as a warning for any future aggressors. Italy is not a very serious aggressor, but there are more dangerous candidates in the world. Hoare assured me that the British position is exactly the same. Britain has no interest of its own in the conflict. It is guided purely by loyalty to the League. Hoare, like me, does not regard Italy as a terrifying aggressor |
Source D: From the memoirs of Anthony Eden, entitled Facing the Dictators, published in 1962. Eden was a leading member of the British government throughout the Abyssinian Crisis and became Foreign Secretary when Hoare resigned in December 1935. In this extract, he describes a meeting in April 1936 At a committee of the League Italy’s use of gas was discussed. France’s only contribution was to ask whether there was any enquiry into the Abyssinians’ use of dum-dum bullets and into the atrocities committed by them. I had to remind the French that the 1925 Gas Protocol, which had been signed by both Abyssinia and Italy, was absolute. There was no provision that the use of gas might be permitted on account of the methods of warfare adopted by the other side. During an adjournment, a private Anglo-French meeting was held. It showed no agreement was possible. I said that the League had lost greatly in prestige in many countries. A despairing message had been received from the Abyssinian government. I wanted to know if the Committee was to do no more than to suggest that its chairman should see the Italian representative and thus give the Italian government further opportunity for delay. I said that the threat of poison gas was not to Africa only. Dictator states might well use gas in Europe |
Partial answer:
Source C does make Source D surprising as they disagree about how concerned League members were about the Abyssinian Crisis (1). Maisky in Source C states that “the Italian demands remain unacceptable… to the League and Britain”. However, Eden in Source D recounts that, on the issue of Italy’s use of gas, “no agreement was possible” with France (1). Eden, as a key British official during the Abyssinian Crisis, witnessed France’s lack of interest in the Abyssinian Crisis. Therefore, Source D more likely reflects the uncaring attitude of League members towards Abyssinia (1).
Examiner Tips and Tricks
To answer this style of question in Paper Two, you should aim to:
State how surprising the information in Source C is when compared to Source D. To do this, you need to understand the different outlooks of both sources on a specific event. Ensure you clearly state in a sentence if Source C makes Source D surprising
Use quotes from both sources. This is needed to show where the sources differ
Compare the two sources, using your own knowledge. In this example, you could add how the Geneva Protocol in 1925 banned the use of chemical warfare. This makes France’s attitude in Source D quite shocking. They do not seem to care that Italy is using poisonous gas against Abyssinians
The League of Nations After 1936
After 1936, the League of Nations’ reputation was destroyed
It had no authority over international relations
It had no power or influence over aggressive countries
The world moved closer to a world war
Hitler began an aggressive campaign of land expansion in Europe
The events of Manchuria and Abyssinia showed that Hitler could do whatever he wanted without consequences
The League failed to keep world peace
In September 1939, Hitler’s invasion of Poland triggered the Second World War
During the Second World War, the League held no Assembly or Council meetings
The League disbanded in April 1946 and gave its powers to the United Nations
The League had success with its humanitarian commissions after 1936
Some historians use this to argue that the League of Nations was not a total failure
The Permanent Court of Justice and the International Labour Organization became part of the United Nations
The Health Commission became the World Health Organization
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?
