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

start A the vignette entitled Dogs of War has a contentedness of the fashions in which the conference of Nations failed. This is depicted through and through the cartoon in numerous shipway. Firstly, the charr (representative of the League of Nations) is awardn h emeritusing the dog collars which conduct writing chip at on them. One collar reads japan while the separate collar reads Ger macrocosmy. The particular that they argon alter indicates that they thrust twain left the League.When relating that to hearty events, Japan left the group discussion as a issue of them being condemned after the invasion of Manchuria and Ger macrocosmy left through the actions of Hitler (as a result of him dis take h sr.ing with the disarmaments). A nonher way in which the cartoon shows the failure of the League is through the actions of Britain and France. During the conflict amidst Italy and Abyssinia, Britain and France are sh receive as yet smell everyplace. In simpler fo oth sure-enough(a), Britain and France are shown as if they do non care or further appetency to let things go by as if it doesnt outcome.This, in effect, undermines the Leagues objective of batching with conflicts such as those and creating peace. When relating that to real events, Britain and France didnt sincerely 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 come upon matters worse. As a result, they just stood by and let Mussolini invade and take over Abyssinia. However, it is non just active what Britain and France did it is to a fault ab kayoed if they had the ability to do it.The situation that Britain is represented as a attack and France as a poodle stronger than the dogs representing Italy and Abyssinia shows exactly how they could retain dealt with the trouble if they wanted to. This re late(a)s to how they had the spend of collective warran ter to deal with problems, if need be. My point present is that this strengthens my argument above of how Britain and France just didnt want to deal with the conflict. In assenting, the League of Nations on the whole is shown as a adult female who is not b separateed about the conflict.That aside, the accompaniment that the fusion is represented a woman depicts peace. This is also emphasised through the addition of a go down 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 revise to create peace. Instead of rattling doing something about it, she is just doing what Britain and France are. Using this, failure has been shown as the cartoon is searing of the compact not doing anything about the matter.My final point on this matter relates to what the woman representing the coalition is in reality doing. The cartoonist has shown the woman with her arms tied. I t dep closures as if he/she wants to get across the item that woman is struggling to control the dogs. In terms of real events, Britain and France signed a Hoare-Laval promise which allowed Italy to take 2/3 of Abyssinia. However, when the public form out about this, it had a severe name on the LoN and so Hoare and Laval denied any familiarity whatsoever. Italy saw this and invaded Abyssinia as they no longer trusted Britain and France.This is a reason for the alliance having its arms tied. On the different hand, it domiciliate be utter to be struggling as the coalition struggled to look after some(prenominal) the members and the conflicts that were going on. This point is reinforced from what is said at the bottom of the cartoon 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 themes A and B differ and allow the viewer visualise the problems of peacekeeping in the 1930s. Firstly, a major difference between the arisings is how each country is represented.While inception A uses dogs to represent countries, blood line B uses sacks. The fact that dogs are closer to humans than sacks allows blood line A to extradite a huge advantage over tooth root B. What I sozzled by this is that dogs are living and in reality signifi stick outt things such as facial nerve faces and movement faecal matter be shown through them. However, those signifi bottomt purviews 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 others face and in positions that are most equally when in a fight. This cannot be done with sacks and so lineage A is to a greater extent understanding in exhi hour 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 custody tied) whereas, in source B, the LoN is represented as a cart and that cannot be shown here. However, handle source A, source B does have aspects that help understand the problems.One good aspect in my opinion is the present of which countries are more likely to leave than others. A great example of this is how groovy Britain and France are solid up the top whereas Italy is on the verge of falling off. This relates well to how Italy didnt have corporate trust in the League after the pact be bring forth 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 loath and needs to be pushed. This helps understand t he 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 group discussion. 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 unite.On the other hand, a bad aspect in both would be that neither shows the 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 experimentnance states. obtain A is a cartoon from a British magazine only when 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 bushelly holding the league together, which is localize on as the help of France and other countries is also doing so. From this, we can say that source A is more trustworthy than source B as source B is biased. In culture to this answer, I liveliness 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 worry members of LoN and ways in which the league would not be worried much at all. Benito Mussolini states that formerly a decision is taken we march forward and do not turn back In my opinion, this aspect of the de delayrance would have worried the members of the league as it is implying how unmerciful Italy can be/are. When that is put into side with the leagues actions, things can become very concerning for the league. By mentioning that they depart 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 termination of his public lecture. In his speech, Mussolini says that It is better to live one day as a lion than a cardinal years as a sheep I reckon this would worry members of the LoN because that last part shows how much personnel 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 fortuity 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 Benitos option would have most likely not included the league and so Italy wouldnt implementm 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 frequently struggle with situations whereby a powerful country has done somethin g. A perfect example of this is the incident of capital of Lithuania. Vilna was awarded to Poland solely on the basis that they were strong/big and the league could do nothing about it, although it primarily 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. Britains place to Abyssinia is shown in different ways through each source (D and E). In source D, we are precondition the upshot that Britain does not really care much about Abyssinia. It states, The suggestions favoured Italy, were acceptable to France, and Eden gave the impression that England king accept them as well. The fact that the suggestions favoured Italy meant that they didnt favour Abyssinia.Baring this in mind, the source later says Eden gave the impression that England might accept them as well. Th is meant that he thought England were going to accept the fact that Abyssinia were to be set 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 masses. This is spare from him being known as Lord Eyelashes someone who always used to flutter his eyelashes in order to get on the good side of quite a little or to get what he wanted.Using this, it can be said that the impression he gave didnt 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 outset D was written by an Italian historian, Source E was proclaimed by Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Secretary.Samuels first sentence in his speech immediately movements my trust of Britains attitude to Abyssinia. When Hoare states that 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 sensible conclusion by Hoare and Laval, the Covenant opposed it and so it reflects Hoares 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, other trustworthy aspect to this speech would be that Hoare was lecture to the public and could not lie. Once again though, that can be counter-argued by the fact that he is publ ic lecture to the LoN and doesnt 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 darnedd for.My final point in this enquire 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 didnt really like Britain at the time, the writer may have referred to Anthony Eden as 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 relia bility. duration goes on and as it does, memory becomes a less undetermined 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 Britains 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 didnt care about Abyssinia all that much as it didnt concern them much. In other words, the consequences of them being invaded didnt really concern affairs with Abyssinia it just really concerned Italys 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 weird man and the provenance could cause unreliability, I feel source E isnt any better.Source E st ates that Britain (in the LoN) will help Abyssinia and does not tolerate bullying simply 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 mordant. 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. Whats 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 c artoonists 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 devising 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 On many occasions, I have asked for monetary tending 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 th eir own ways. A final way in which both sources agree relates to the first sentence of Selassies speech, 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, The problem is a much wider one than Italys aggression. It is the very beingness 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 Selassies speech, Selassie questions the League of future actions through the last line of his speech, Are you going to set a amazing 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 strike that the League of Nations did not ban inunct sales to Italy. There are ways in which I am move and ways in which I am not.Immediately after construe the source, the first thing that move me was the fact that Mussolini had said, 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, well get hold that Mussolini said there that 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 Leagues 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 didnt trust Britain and France anymore and so people would see that imposing a n oil ban, for example, would be a perfect way at acquire 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 impression. 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. Whats 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.mayhap 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 intend 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 b een 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 entrap 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 Mussolinis 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 Japan and Germany empty, the source is trying to get across the message of how the League lost 2 of its most significant 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 didnt 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 qu ote at the bottom of the source 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 Italys aggression (and Abyssinias) was hard to deal with as the leagues (womans) 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 close to 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 couldnt really stop future act ions.This is as a result of the Hoare-Laval pact, which was once again Britain and Frances 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 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 leagues fault it was also Italys 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 perso n 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 Lord Eyelashes, the writer is trying to get across the message of how the league positive someone who just did what they did to impress people. In other words, he may have made the persecute 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 light aggression and states that The British government and nation is firm on this principle. As a result, it can be s aid 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, I am blueish 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 sorry to disturb the old mans 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 I am sorry t o 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 leagues soldiers and done it a favour.Whats 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 super 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, I claim the justice which is due to my people and the assistance promised eight months ago. By using the time phrase eight months ago, it gives us a clear indication of how slow the league was. In addition, by stating that On many occasions, I have asked for financial assistance for the purchase of arms. Th at 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, th ey 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 Italys 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 Hoares character is contestable (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