Read all the sources carefully and answer all the questions that follow.
Sources in this paper have been edited: word additions or explanations are shown in square brackets [ ]; substantive deletions of text are indicated by ellipses … ; minor changes are not indicated.
These sources and questions relate to threats to international peace and collective security: Abyssinia (1935–1936).
Source A
The first consequence of the invasion of Abyssinia had been an unexpected rally of the members of the League. It was their declared purpose to bring such pressure on Italy as would force her to make peace with Abyssinia on terms consistent with the Covenant (the charter of the League of Nations). If they succeeded in that aim the Covenant would have become the effective guarantee of world peace …
But the Hoare-Laval Pact, which broke the unity and confidence of the League action was, for the Nazis, a signal that the way was clear for further advance. It [the pact] marked the weakness and division of France and Britain … During January and February 1936 there were many indications of growing sympathy between Germany and Italy. Meanwhile, the German press was filled with attacks on the Franco-Russian Treaty and the rumour grew that Hitler’s next objective was to get rid of the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
Source B
The Abyssinian conflict had highlighted the working [operations], scope and limitations of the League of Nations. From its earliest days there had been two views of the League’s purpose. Some considered that its function was to merely provide opportunities for statesmen to meet and resolve their differences by discussion, as best they might. Others, including myself, believed that the League, if it were to be a force in the world’s politics, must take decisive action against law-breakers. The British Government had moved between conciliation and firmness in their dealings with Mussolini in 1935. Now it was clear that firmness was more likely to bring results, the League was so physically and morally sick that its strength would have to be rebuilt before it could be used, if ever it could be used at all.
Source C
Neither France nor Britain was willing to engage in military hostilities with Italy on behalf of the League of Nations. France wanted Italian support for an anti-German alliance. Britain was facing the prospect of Japanese hostility in the Far East and the threat of an aggressive Germany in Europe … While the government in Britain pledged itself [promised] to uphold the authority of the League in the general election of 1935, it then tried to negotiate a compromise deal with Mussolini, which would have given him much of the Abyssinian territory he wanted, through the Hoare-Laval Pact. However, a public protest in Britain against the Pact forced the British and French to abandon it … Thus the Abyssinian dispute revealed, as had the Manchurian crisis earlier, that the leading League powers were not prepared to enforce the Covenant against another major League power who was not directly threatening their own interests … Thus ironically the only outcome of the League’s limited attempts to combat Italian aggression over Abyssinia was to drive Mussolini into the arms of Hitler.
Source D John Bernard Partridge, an illustrator, depicts from left to right, the Abyssinian
emperor Haile Selassie with Laval, Hoare and Mussolini, in the cartoon
“The Sweets [rewards] of Aggression”, from the British satirical magazine Punch
(18 December 1935).
Haile Selassie. “HAVE I GOT THIS RIGHT?—HE’S TAKEN NEARLY HALF OF WHAT I HAD AND
NOW YOU GENTLEMEN WANT TO DISCUSS WHETHER HE SHOULD TAKE ANY MORE!”
Source E
In the twelve months following May 1935, Italian relations with Britain and France worsened, partly as
a result of the conclusion of the Franco-Soviet Pact and, in the next month, with the conclusion of the
Anglo-German naval agreement. More significantly, in October 1935, Italian forces invaded Abyssinia,
and there developed a major crisis so that, when the war ended, Italy had become separated from its
Stresa partners. Britain wanted a settlement between Mussolini and Haile Selassie, the Abyssinian
emperor, whilst safeguarding firm Anglo-Italian ties. When the crisis erupted, the British Foreign Office
understood that bloodshed in Abyssinia could negatively affect the European, Mediterranean and Far
Eastern balances of power.
Question
1. (a) What, according to Source E, was the significance of the invasion of Abyssinia for Britain?
(b) What is the message conveyed by Source D?
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
1. (a) What, according to Source E, was the significance of the invasion of Abyssinia for Britain? [3]
- Relations between Italy and Britain and France worsened.
- The Stresa Front, with Britain as a member, collapsed.
- Britain wished to maintain its links with Italy and/or felt that Mussolini and Haile Selassie needed to reach terms.
- A war in Abyssinia would affect British interests in the balances of power in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Far East.
Award [1] for each relevant point up to a maximum of [3].
(b) What is the message conveyed by Source D? [2]
- The Abyssinian emperor feels he is being treated unfairly by Britain and France.
- France and Britain, the policemen of the League, are appeasing Mussolini directly.
- Mussolini, dressed as a robber, is using the threat of force to achieve his goals.
Award [1] for each relevant point up to a maximum of [2].
Question
2. Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and C about the importance of the invasion of Abyssinia. [6]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
2. For “compare”
- Both sources indicate that Britain was initially committed to uphold the League of Nations.
- Both sources claim that the failure of the Hoare-Laval Pact damaged the League of Nations.
- Both sources show that relations between Germany and Italy improved.
- Both sources indicate that Germany would be more aggressive in the future.
For “contrast”
- Source A indicates that its members would support the League of Nations and the Covenant whereas Source C states that members were not prepared to enforce the Covenant.
- Source A suggests that there was a division between France and Britain whereas Source C sees them as working cooperatively in trying to resolve the Abyssinian crisis.
- Source A suggests that the Hoare-Laval Pact was responsible for the League’s failure in Abyssinia whereas Source C suggests that the League failed because France and Britain had other foreign policy priorities.
Do not demand all of the above. If only one source is discussed award a maximum of [2].
If the two sources are discussed separately award [3] or with excellent linkage [4–5]. For maximum [6] expect a detailed running comparison/contrast. Award up to [5] if two sources are linked/integrated in either a running comparison or contrast.
Question
3. With reference to their origin and purpose, assess the values and limitations of Source B and Source C for historians studying the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. [6]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
Source B
Origin: Anthony Eden, former Foreign Secretary of Britain, in his autobiography published in 1962.
Purpose: The book expresses Eden’s view on interwar British foreign policy.
Value: Eden was Foreign Secretary at the time and a key critic of the Hoare-Laval negotiations. It has the benefit of hindsight.
Limitations: The memoirs were written over 25 years after the event. Eden might be attempting to portray his actions in a more favourable light.
Source C
Origin: Christopher Culpin, a history teacher and author, and Ruth Henig, an academic historian, in a book for students published in 1997.
Purpose: To provide a general overview of European History up to 1945.
Value: Published in 1997 it will have hindsight; it will be well-researched with possible access to declassified documents. Henig is renowned in the field.
Limitations: It is a book for students and therefore may not have depth of analysis. It covers 75 years of European History and may not provide much information on the Abyssinian invasion.
Do not expect all of the above. Ideally there will be a balance between the two sources, and each one can be marked out of [3], but allow a [4/2] split. If only one source is assessed, mark out of [4]. For a maximum of [6] candidates must refer to both origin and purpose, and value and limitations in their assessment.
Question
4. Using the sources and your own knowledge, examine the significance of the Italian invasion of Abyssinia for the League of Nations and international relations (up to December 1936). [8]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
4. Source material
Source A Shows initially that the Abyssinian Crisis led to a unified response to Mussolini’s aggression. This unity was short-lived as the Hoare-Laval Pact demonstrated. The crisis also led to better relations between Germany and Italy. The crisis contributed to further divisions between Britain and France.
Source B The invasion showed the limitations of the League of Nations, which was so weakened that it was unlikely that collective security as a means of maintaining peace would ever work again in the future.
Source C The Abyssinian invasion showed that the leading League powers were not prepared to enforce the Covenant against another major League power who was not directly threatening their own interests. The major outcome of the League’s attempts to stop Italian aggression was to bring Mussolini and Hitler closer together.
Source D Indicates that the League was ineffective when a member threatened force. It also shows that Mussolini’s actions were likely to be rewarded with Abyssinian territory.
Source E Italy became separated from its Stresa partners. The invasion would affect the European, Mediterranean and Far Eastern balances of power. Britain wanted a settlement between Italy and Haile Selassie.
Own knowledge
Could include the weaknesses of the League in the application of sanctions and greater depth of analysis of the actual event. The importance of Italy moving towards Germany will have a significant effect on the guarantees made at Locarno in 1925. The French ratification of the Franco-Soviet pact is used by Hitler as the main pretext for abandoning Locarno. Candidates may also make reference to Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, the support of Italy and Germany to Franco in the Spanish Civil War and the signing of the Rome-Berlin Axis in October 1936. The above events have to be explicitly linked to them being a consequence of the Abyssinian Crisis.
Candidates could argue that the Italian invasion of Abyssinia was not the most significant factor in weakening the League of Nations and international relations. Events prior to the Abyssinian Crisis had already damaged the credibility of the League. This could be supported by reference to the nature of the Covenant, the invasion of Manchuria among other factors.
Do not expect all the above and accept any other relevant material. If only source material or own knowledge is used, the maximum mark that can be obtained is [5]. For maximum [8] expect argument, synthesis of source material and own knowledge, as well as references to the sources used.