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

Authors Avatar

The Italian Conquest of Abyssinia 1935-36.

How far was the League of Nations to blame?

Source A – the cartoon entitled “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 “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: “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.

Join now!

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 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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay