LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 Birth of the League of Nations
→ Background
● Came into being after WWI in January 1920
● At the Treaty of Versailles, it was agreed that a universal League of Nations would be set up to
resolve international problems without resorting to armed conflict
● Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland

→ Aims
● Avoid aggression between nations
● Facilitate disarmament
● Improve living and working conditions globally
● Enhance global cooperation through trade

→ Rules
● All major nations would join (certain countries eg. Germany and USSR barred)
● All nations would practise disarmament
● All disputes between countries would be taken and resolved by the LON and its decisions
accepted and respected
● A Covenant was drawn up - in the event that any nation broke the covenant and went to war, all
other nations were to cease economic relations with it immediately, and send troops to
intervene if necessary

→ Actions available to the LON - collective security

● Moral condemnation
● Economic sanctions (refusal to trade)
● Military force
○ For collective security to work, all members had to agree to them and follow them

Structure of the League of Nations

→ The Assembly
● Admitted new members
● Financed the budget
● Discuss main agenda ideas
● Decisions had to be unanimous → when dictatorships started sprouting in Europe, they
became difficult to bargain with and could block measures very easily
● There was only 1 meeting a year → in a fast-paced world where technology was speeding
up events, events were often over before they could be dealt with
→ The Council
● Designed to settle major disputes
● 4 permanent members: UK, France, Italy, Japan (had veto power)
○ Germany became permanent member in 1926
● Included temporary members (up to 10) voted in by the Assembly rotated every 3 years
● Could administer economic sanctions or organise international forces
● Met up to 5 times a year
● Lacked an army -- this was required since the members had various different aims
● Major decisions had to be unanimous
→ The League of Nations Commissions
● Branches of the LON set up to deal with issues caused by WWI

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ○ Issues included refugees, global health and working conditions
● Included Health Committee, Mandates Committee and Refugees Committee
→ Court of Justice
● Located in the Hague, Netherlands
● Gave decisions on border disputes and passed laws
● Upheld or amended past treaties
● Had no means to enforce its decisions as they merely acted in an advisory role
○ Could only carry weight when member nations were involved
● Could condemn member states to the press -- full transparency: everything happening was
publicised worldwide
→ International Labour Organisation
● Aimed to create better working conditions worldwide
● Collected data and information and advised governments
● Met only once a year
● Relied on donations for funding -- limited how much they could achieve
→ The Secretariat
● Performed administrative work eg. translating documents and keeping records
● Usually understaffed and work was slow

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 The USA and the LON
The concept of a universal LON was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson. Before the US could even join
the LON, let alone take on a leading role, he required the approval of Congress. However, the idea was
very unpopular among Americans.
→ Reasons for opposition to the LON
● LON was meant to enforce TOV, but many Americans, particularly those with German
ancestry, opposed the TOV itself
● It was feared that the US would send soldiers to every little conflict around the world, which no
one wanted after the casualties of WWI
● It was feared that the LON’s ability to impose economic sanctions on countries not cooperating
could impact American trade and business severely
● People did not want the LON to be dominated by Britain or France as many were anti-empires
● People had an isolationist stance and did not want to be involved in European affairs

★ The Senate voted to stop the USA from becoming a member of the LON
★ Wilson did not run in the 1920 election but it was won by Republican Warren Harding in a
landslide victory
○ Harding campaigned for the ‘return to normalcy’ with many Americans against the
idea of a LON

→ Consequences of the absence of the USA

● Limitations on financial capacity
● Lack of a powerful country to control LON and enforce sanctions
● Looked weak without US power
● Countries would question whether the LON was worth joining -- no credibility
● Backbone of LON absent

Membership
Why were some countries not members of the League?
● US Senate voted against US membership
● Wilson did not run in the 1920 elections and Harding won instead
● Japan and Italy were original members and permanent Council members but left after the
Manchurian and Abyssinian conflicts respectively
● Losers of the war were not allowed to join (Germany and her allies)
● USSR was not allowed as it was communist
● Some countries saw the absence of the US as a reason for not joining
○ Believed that the LON had no authority and legitimacy
● Germany joined in 1926 but left in 1933
● USSR allowed to join in 1934 but left in 1939 after invading Finland

Border Disputes
→ Vilna (1920) - FAILURE
● Lithuania and Poland
● Lithuania re-established with Vilna as its capital after WWI
● 30% of population Polish, 2% Lithuanian in Vilna
● Poles seized Vilna in 1920
● LON tried to persuade Poles to leave to no avail
● Vilna stayed in Polish hands until WWII began

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 → Aaland Islands (1921) - SUCCESS
● Finland and Sweden
● Islands equidistant to both countries
● Traditionally belonged to Finland but most islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden
● Neither country could come to a decision on who owned the islands
● LON decided islands to be kept with Finland but no weapons stored
● Both countries accepted -- remains in force till this day

→ Upper Silesia (1921) -- SUCCESS

● Poland and Germany
● TOV gave people the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany
or Poland
● 700,000 for Germany and 500,000 for Poland
○ Close results led to riots
● LON split Upper Silesia between the two countries
● Accepted by both countries and the people

→ Memel (1923) - SUCCESS AND FAILURE

● Most Memel residents were Lithuanians
● TOV put Memel under LON control
● French general was governor until Lithuanian invasion in 1923
● LON gave area surrounding Memel to Lithuania and made port an international zone
○ SUCCESS: Lithuania accepted LON decision
○ FAILURE: LON responded in favour of Lithuania who had used force

→ Ruhr (1923) - FAILURE

● Germany and France / Belgium
● Germans failed to pay an installment (reparations from TOV)
France and Belgium wanted to ‘teach Germany a lesson’
● Invaded Ruhr contrary to LON rules
● LON did nothing; seemed like they were taking sides with France / Belgium even though they
broke LON rules
○ Anti-German feeling was strong especially since France was a permanent member of
the Council
○ Strongly angered Germans

→ Corfu (1923) - FAILURE

● Italy, Albania and Greece
● Border between Greece and Albania unclear; never addressed by TOV
● Mixed-nationality team sent out to resolve issue
● Italian section separated from main party; killed by gunmen in hiding
● Italy accused Greece of planning attack and demanded fine
● Greece refused; Italians sent navy to Corfu, Greece and bombarded coastline
● Italy, led by Mussolini, persuaded LON to fine Greece 50 million lire

→ Greece and Bulgaria (1925) - SUCCESS

● Common border
● Soldiers patrolling an area fired at each other, killing a Greek soldier
● Greek army invaded Bulgaria

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● LON ordered both armies to stop fighting and for Greece to pull out of Bulgaria
● Sent experts who agreed that Greece was to blame and fined 45,000 pounds
● Both nations accepted decision

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 Agreements outside the LON
→ Washington Conference (1921-22) -- SUCCESS AND FAILURE
● Tension in the Asia-Pacific and danger of a naval arms race between Japan, Britain and USA
● Included a treaty stating that Britain, US and Japan agreed to limit their navies in the ratio 5:5:3
○ Success: prevented naval arms race (restricting numbers) and possible war
○ Failure: European countries showed authority to Japan; went against LON’s
disarmament aim

→ Genoa Conference (1922) - FAILURE

● Lloyd George (Britain) wanted to improve relations between key nations
● France fell out with Germany over reparations and with Russia over Tsarist war debts
● USA refused to attend meetings
● Resulted in France occupying the Ruhr when Germany defaulted on reparations

→ Rapallo Treaty (1922) - FAILURE

● At the same time as Genoa Conference
● Germany and Russia signed a secret pact - agreed to support each other militarily
● Germany helped train Red Army, Russia allowed Germany to try out forbidden weapons
(TOV)

→ Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance (1923) - FAILURE

● Would have obliged all members to come to the aid of a victim of aggression (collective
security)
● Assembly rejected this due to objections from Britain as they feared to commit troops
○ Anti-war sentiment after WWI

→ Dawes Plan (1924) - SUCCESS

● French invasion of Ruhr in 1923 caused German economy to collapse
● Dawes Plan allowed US to lend money to Germany, enabling it to resume reparations payment
○ US saw Germany as a vital trading partner and did not want it to be crippled
● France agreed to withdraw from the Ruhr

→ Locarno Treaty (1925-26) - SUCCESS AND FAILURE

● Reaffirmed existing borders
○ Germany accepted loss of Alsace-Lorraine
○ Germany accepted borders in the West but not in the East
● Allowed Germany to join LON in 1926
○ Success: settled some disputes
○ Failure: did not clarify borders in the East

→ Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) - FAILURE

● Countries gave up war as a means of settling disputes
○ Failure: contained no sanctions if someone broke the treaty

→ Young Plan (1929) - FAILURE

● New reparations plan that replaced the Dawes Plan
● Supposed to be the ‘final’ settlement of reparations, laying out the schedule for Germany to pay
off the bill (was to take many decades)

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ○ Failure: reduced total amount of reparations but Germans thought this was still too
high; was soon rendered irrelevant by the Great Depression

→ Rhineland Troops Withdrawal (1930) - SUCCESS

● Britain and France agreed to withdraw troops 5 years early due to improved relations
● Rhineland to remain demilitarised

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 Humanitarian Aid
→ Refugees
● “Nansen Passport” was created, allowing genuine refugees to travel across borders
● Acted quickly to prevent the spread of diseases in refugee camps

→ ILO
● Banned poisonous white lead from paint
● Limited hours young children could work
● Introduced a resolution for a maximum 48 hour week and maximum 8 hour day
● Dealt with social distress caused by terrible working conditions which could have led to
communist revolutionaries gaining support

→ Health Organisation
● Reduced number of cases of leprosy
● Collected statistical data and spread good medical practice
● Sponsored research into infectious diseases
● Started global campaigns to exterminate mosquitoes, greatly reducing the number of malaria
and yellow fever cases

Manchurian Crisis (September 1931)

→ Background
● Since 1900, Japan had been growing rapidly and was a major power with a strong military and
economy
● The Great Depression hit Japan terribly
● Some Japanese officials believed that taking over Manchuria was the solution to the Depression
since it was rich in raw materials
● Though Manchuria was part of China, it was run by a warlord called Young Marshal Chang
● Members of the Kwantung army staged a bomb incident on the South Manchurian railway near
Mukden in September 1931, and proceeded to invade Manchuria
● Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek then appealed to the LON for support

→ The problem for the LON

● Since Japan was the clear aggressor, according to the Covenant economic and military
sanctions would be placed
● However, the situation in Manchuria was unclear
● France was concerned with European affairs while Germany and Italy had no interest in Asian
events
● The Great Depression was at its height, and European countries wanted to deal with their own
problems rather than one abroad
● Although Britain did have extensive interests in Asia, Britain did not want to intervene because
it was already suffering greatly from the GD
○ The British government was also afraid that economic sanctions might lead to conflict
with Japan, and did not want to risk such a conflict since they were not in the position
to do so
○ The Japanese navy was very strong and would annihilate Britain’s weak navy (limited
due to the Washington Agreements)
○ Britain’s biggest naval base in Asia was Singapore, and it was not yet finished
○ Britain’s dominions, New Zealand and Australia, were unwilling to get involved

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 → What the LON did
● A ‘fact-finding’ Lytton Committee was set up under Lord Lytton and was sent to Manchuria
○ Lytton Report in 1932 showed that Japan was in the wrong because it had ‘resorted to
force’
● Majority of nations voted in favour of the Lytton Report in 1933, condemning Japan
○ This led to Japan leaving the LON

→ Why was this a failure for the LON?

● First real test of collective security failed
● Japan withdrew from LON in 1933
● China had not gotten anything out of appealing to the LON, and Japan had not been adequately
punished
● Raised doubts as to whether the LON would use the weapons it had in order to uphold peace -
reputation damaged
● Sent a negative message that a country could get away easy by showing aggression

Disarmament Conference (February 1932, Geneva)

● Following decisions made in July 1932
○ Bombing of civilian populations banned
○ Size of artillery limited
○ Tonnage of tanks limited
○ Chemical warfare banned
■ HOWEVER, there was no indication of how these aims would be achieved.
Germany walked out of the conference after their calls for equality were
rejected; they had asked other countries to disarm to their level.
● December 1932 - agreement was made to treat Germany equally
● January 1933 - Germany comes back to conference
● February 1933 - Hitler comes to power and begins to rearm Germany in secret
● May 1933 - Hitler promised that he would not rearm Germany if other countries destroyed their
arms
● October 1933 - Hitler withdrew from conference and LON
● 1934 - conference ended

→ Why did disarmament fail?

● Conflict between Germany and France
○ Germans disliked how they were not allowed to have as many weapons as France
○ France determined to ensure German military subjugation to prevent future conflict
● British and US governments unprepared to offer extra security that France requested in
exchange for limitation of arms
● No country was truly committed to disarmament
● Each country looking after herself
○ June 1935 - Anglo-German Naval Agreement (acted against TOV)

Abyssinian Crisis (1935-37)

→ Background on Abyssinian-Italian relations
● Abyssinia:
○ Only independent Black country in Africa
○ Ruled by Haile Selassie
○ In 1896, its army defeated an Italian invasion

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● Italy:
○ Led by fascist dictator Mussolini
○ Wanted to invade Abyssinia for resources and expand its empire
○ Wanted revenge for defeat in 1896

→ Timeline of events
● December 1934 - Italian troops provoke a clash at Walwal
● September 1935 - Abyssinian army is mobilised, Selassie moves Abyssinian government from
Addis Ababa to Gore
● October 1935 - Italian invasion begins
● December 1935 - Britain and France produce Hoare-Laval Pact (secret agreement)
○ Large parts of Abyssinia to be given to Italy in return for Italian withdrawal
○ Unpopular - gave in to Italy (aggressors)
○ Britain and France both needed Italy as a strong member of the LON - it was feared
that if Italy was punished greatly, it would leave the LON and ally with Germany
○ Public outcry caused plan to be abandoned; Hoare and Laval both sacked
● May 1936 - Italian conquest complete
● June 1936 - Selassie addresses LON
● 1937 - Italy leaves the League after economic sanctions are placed by the LON

→ What the LON did and the consequences

● December 1934 - offered talks with Italy
○ Rejected by Italy
● January - February 1935 - debates response
○ No further action taken
● May - September 1935 - sets up a 5-power commission
○ Proposal rejected by Abyssinia
● December 1935 - Hoare-Laval Pact
● March 1936 - Italy completes conquest
○ This catalyses Hitler’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland, as he sees the weakness of the
LON
○ Italy becomes allied with Germany and Axis Powers and leaves the LON
● June 1936 - Haile Selassie addressed Assembly calling for help
○ No action taken

→ Long-term implications
● LON suffered blow to reputation
● Countries began to form secret alliances
● Countries began to rearm
● Italy left the LON, weakening it

→ Why were the sanctions placed on Italy ineffective?

● Suez Canal was kept open → Italy was still able to trade
● Sanctions did not include coal or oil → Italy not significantly impacted
● Ban on weapons sales affected Abyssinians more than Italians
● LON took 6 weeks to decide on the sanctions
● Italy was not affected by the sanctions on gold and textiles
● US would not cooperate → Great Depression

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 PAST-YEAR ABC QUESTIONS

Part A
What made it difficult for the League of Nations to act quickly?
● ‘It took too long to make decisions.’
● ‘The Assembly met once a year.’
● ‘It was too large to react quickly to international crises.’
● ‘Votes had to be unanimous in the Assembly.’
● ‘Members were often slow to cooperate.’
● ‘Votes in the Council had to be unanimous.’
● ‘Members of the Council had a veto.’
● ‘It was difficult to take decisive action against a country if there was only a majority vote.’
● ‘The League did not have an army.’
● ‘It took time to recruit troops from member nations.’
● ‘The USA was not a member.’
● ‘The League was slow to impose economic sanctions because the USA would continue to trade.’
● ‘The great powers were exhausted from the First World War.’
● ‘Some of the ‘offenders’ were powers which Britain and France wanted to remain as allies.’
● ‘Britain and France had other priorities/self-interests.’
● ‘Some conflicts were far away.’

What were the weaknesses of (i) the Assembly and (ii) the Council in carrying out the work of the League
of Nations?
● ‘The Assembly only met once a year.’
● ‘Decisions in the Assembly had to be unanimous. This meant they had to be agreed by every
member of the Assembly.’
● ‘It was difficult for the Assembly to take decisive action.’
● ‘One small state could hold up a vital decision.’
● ‘Each permanent member of the Council had a veto. This meant that one permanent member of
the Council could stop League action even if the others all agreed.’
● ‘Britain and France were permanent members of the Council and they often disagreed.’
● Council had no army

Describe the actions taken by Haile Selassie in an attempt to save his country from Italian conquest
● He mobilised the Abyssinian army on 29th September 1935.’
● ‘He declared war on Italy after they invaded on 3rd October 1935.’
● ‘He commanded the army that fought against the Italians.’
● ‘Haile Selassie appealed to the League of Nations in a telegram.’
● ‘He moved the Abyssinian government from Addis Ababa to Gore.’
● ‘In June 1936 he went to address the League of Nations.’
● ‘He criticised the League of Nations for failing to help Abyssinia.’
● ‘In his speech he said “It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.”

What was the role of the Permanent Court of Justice?

● ‘The Court could advise League members on legal issues.’
● ‘The Court could advise institutions of the League, such as the Council.’
● ‘The Court made judgments on issues between League members.’
● ‘The Court interpreted international treaties.’
● ‘The Court intervened in matters of international law.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘The Court advised the ILO on its legality in applying measures across all member states.’
● ‘The Court advised on the changes from the Treaty of Sèvres to the Treaty of Lausanne.’
● ‘The Court made a judgment on the Aaland Islands.’
● ‘The Court gave advice on German and Polish interests in Upper Silesia.’
● ‘The Court could not enforce its decisions.’

Describe events in Vilna in 1920.

● ‘Polish troops seized Vilna.’
● ‘Lithuania appealed to the League of Nations over Vilna.’
● ‘The League of Nations told the Polish troops to leave Vilna.’
● ‘The League of Nations tried to arrange a plebiscite to decide Vilna’s future.’
● ‘The Polish government agreed to the plebiscite at first but then changed its mind.’
● ‘The Poles refused to leave Vilna.’
● ‘Britain and France did not want to get involved in the dispute over Vilna.’

Describe the role of the League in the Upper Silesia dispute of 1919–21.
● ‘The League was responsible for ensuring the peace settlement was maintained.’
● ‘The dispute was between Germany and Poland.’
● ‘In March 1921, the League organised a plebiscite.’
● ‘700 000 voted in favour of Germany, while 480 000 voted in favour of Poland.’
● ‘The League held six weeks of discussions with representatives of the German and Polish
governments.’
● ‘The League decided that the territory should be shared.’
● ‘The League decided that Germany should have just over half the territory.’
● ‘The League decided that Poland would receive the mainly industrial area.’
● ‘The League safeguarded minority groups.’
● ‘The League safeguarded rail links between the two countries.’
● ‘The League made arrangements for water and power supplies from one side of the border to be
supplied to the other.’

Describe the work of the League of Nations in the 1920s in relation to health.
● ‘It helped to reduce the incidence of leprosy.’
● ‘It began a campaign to exterminate mosquitoes. This led to the reduction in the spread of malaria
and yellow fever.’
● ‘It established links about health matters with non-member countries.’
● ‘It provided Germany, the USSR and the USA with information and advice on public health
matters.’
● ‘It helped the USSR prevent a typhus epidemic in Siberia.’
● ‘The League organised a public education campaign on sanitation.’
● ‘The League set up research institutes in London, Copenhagen and Singapore.’
● ‘The League developed vaccines for fighting diphtheria, tetanus and tuberculosis.’

Describe the part played by the League in international humanitarian work

● ‘It helped refugees and prisoners to return to their homelands after the War.’
● 50% to 4% drop in child slavery
● ‘It helped 400000 prisoners and refugees to return from Russia and Greece.’
● ‘It set up a health organisation.’
● ‘This tackled epidemics such as the typhus epidemic in Siberia.’
● ‘It worked to defeat leprosy.’
● ‘It attempted to exterminate mosquitoes to reduce malaria and yellow fever.’
● ‘It tackled social issues such as freeing slaves in Sierra Leone.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘It blacklisted international companies involved in illegal drug selling.’
● ‘It tried to improve working conditions.’
● ‘It banned poisonous white lead from paint.’
● ‘It limited the working hours for young children.

Describe the work of the Lytton Commission

● ‘The Lytton Commission worked on behalf of the League of Nations.’
● ‘It was a team of four/five men, led by Lord Lytton, who tried to discover the facts.’
● ‘It was a commission of enquiry into events in Manchuria.’
● ‘It spent six weeks in the province.’
● ‘It decided the Japanese invasion was not justified.’
● ‘It reported to the League’s assembly in February 1933.’
● ‘It decided the Japanese were provoked.’
● ‘It was slow acting.’

What actions could the League take to encourage members to follow its decisions?
● ‘The Council encouraged members to bring problems before the Council so that they could be
sorted out through discussion.’
● ‘The Council could use ‘moral condemnation’. The Council decided which country was the
aggressor. It condemned the aggressor’s action and then told it to stop what it was doing.’
● ‘The Council could use economic and financial sanctions. It encouraged members not to trade
with the aggressor.’
● ‘The Council could use military force. The armed forces of member countries could be used
against an aggressor.’
● Concept of collective security

What was the role of the Assembly within the League of Nations?
● ‘The Assembly could recommend action to the Council.’
● ‘The Assembly voted on admitting new members.’
● ‘The Assembly voted on the election of temporary members of the Council.’
● ‘The Assembly controlled the League’s budget.’
● ‘The Assembly met once a year.’
● ‘The Assembly discussed ideas put forward by the Council.’
● ‘The Assembly considered matters of general policy.’
● ‘The Assembly elected judges of the Permanent Court.’

What was the role of the Council within the League of Nations?
● ‘It was the executive body of the League.’
● ‘The Council dealt with emergencies.’ (Met in times of crisis.)
● ‘The Council was set up to deal with any disputes by:
○ discussion before matters got out of hand
○ deciding on a course of action
○ meeting and voting to condemn the action
○ using moral force
○ imposing economic sanctions
● and, as a last resort, the Council could use military force.’
● ‘Supervised the work of the commissions.’

Describe one failure of the League of Nations in the 1920s.

● ‘The League failed to deal with Italian aggression in Corfu.’
● ‘Mussolini demanded compensation.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘Greece refused to pay compensation and so Mussolini bombarded and occupied Corfu.’
● ‘The League failed to condemn Italy.’
● ‘Greece was made to apologise and pay compensation.’
● ‘Mussolini got round the League by going to the Conference of Ambassadors.’
● ‘The League failed to deal with the Vilna dispute.’
● ‘The League asked Polish troops to withdraw from Vilna. They refused.’

Describe how collective security was intended to work

● ‘If one state attacked another, the member states of the League would act together collectively.’
● ‘They would condemn the aggressor hoping that it would make them feel so guilty then country
would back down.’
● ‘If that failed, economic sanctions could be imposed on the aggressor.’
● ‘Hurting the country’s trade or economy might make it see sense.’
● ‘If necessary, military action against the aggressor could be taken by members joining forces.’

What difficulties did Britain and France face as the main leaders of the League of Nations?
● ‘Neither of the countries wanted to lead the League.’
● ‘They thought the USA would be the leading power.’
● ‘Both powers had been weakened by the First World War.’
● ‘Both countries’ economies were hit by the Depression.’
● ‘Both countries often disagreed with the course of action.’
● ‘They were reluctant to use military action.’
● ‘Both countries had other priorities. Britain wanted to re-build trade and look after the British
Empire.’
● ‘France was willing to bypass the League in strengthening its position against Germany.’

What were the roles of (i) the Council and (ii) the Refugees Commission in the League of Nations?
● ‘The Council dealt with emergencies.’
● ‘The Council was set up to deal with any disputes.’
● ‘It hoped to solve the problem by discussion before the matters got out of hand.’
● ‘The Council could take action against a member by using economic sanctions (moral force /
military force).’
● ‘The Refugees Commission helped to return refugees to their original homes at the end of the
War.’
● ‘It was to help people fleeing from persecution.’
● ‘It returned (400 000) prisoners of war home.’

Part B
Why did the League fail to deal with Japanese aggression following the invasion of Manchuria?
● ‘It was a strong country.’
● ‘It was a permanent member.’
● ‘Members did not want to impose trade sanctions.’
● ‘The League was Eurocentric in nature.’
● ‘Britain and France did not want their colonies attacked if they applied sanctions.’
● ‘Military sanctions were impractical/the League had no army.’
● ‘The League thought China needed ‘sorting out’ because of its state of anarchy.’
● ‘The League took too long to produce the Lytton Report.’
● ‘The League regarded Manchuria as a Japanese sphere of influence.’
● ‘Some members believed there was Chinese provocation.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘Britain and France were more focused on their own countries because of the Depression.’
● ‘There was a lack of will from the League.’

The League failed to deal with Japanese aggression because it took too long to produce the Lytton Report.
Japanese forces had invaded Manchuria in September 1931 and the Manchukuo government was
established in 1932. By the time the Lytton Committee produced the report, it was already 1933 and the
Japanese had already seized many natural resources from Manchuria.

The League also failed to deal with Japanese aggression because the member nations were suffering from
the Great Depression. After the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, America fell into a state of economic
decline which negatively impacted other countries, especially Europe. European countries especially
Britain and France were focussed on feeding their people and revising the economy and had little finances
to send troops and supplies to Manchuria.

The League failed to deal with Japanese aggression because it was Eurocentric in nature. The major
powers behind the League, Britain and France, were mostly concerned with European affairs close to
home and was not particularly interested in issues in the Far East. Since Manchuria was so far away from
Britain and France did not want to waste money sending money and resources to a country that was not of
vital European interest.

The League also failed because it had no army. Even though the Lytton Report deemed Japan as the
aggressors, they could not immediately ad efficiently dispatch troops to restore stability in the area. As a
result, there were no military sanctions and nation merely condemned Japan for her actions.

The League also failed because Britain and France were afraid that their colonies would be attacked by
Japan if they applied sanctions. Japan was a growing power in the Far East that had a large military. Its
proximity to colonies like Malaya and Australia meant that Japan could retaliate to British/French
sanctions by attacking these areas. With Europe suffering from the depression, Britain and France did not
want to risk starting another war.

The League also failed to deal with the situation because Japan was a permanent member of the League
of Nations Council. It was a significant member of the League that provided finances and had veto power
in the Council, which meant that any resolution drafted to condemn Japan would be struck down. Britain
and France did not want to risk angering such an important member, and resolutions would be
impractical.

Why did the Japanese invasion of Manchuria weaken the League?

● ‘The League looked weak by its lack of action.’
● ‘It failed to act when faced with aggressive action taken by a strong country.’
● ‘Hitler and Mussolini watched with interest as Japan got away with blatant aggression.’
● ‘The League was not willing to use its military sanction.’
● ‘The League seemed slow and bureaucratic.’
● ‘The League appeared to be Eurocentric.’
● ‘Without USA and USSR membership, economic sanctions were worthless.’

The invasion made the League look weak by its lack of action. Japanese forces entered Manchuria in
September 1931 while the Lytton Report was only released in 1933. There was only moral condemnation
by member countries while no military or economic sanctions were placed. This allowed the Japanese to
establish the Manchukuo government and appoint Pu Yi as its puppet emperor. This was seen by many as
the League doing nothing against aggressors, going against the Covenant.

Compiled by Kai Ryn

The invasion also inspired Hitler and Mussolini to invade other countries. The League not taking action
against Japan led them to believe that they would not be punished if they similarly invaded other
countries. As such, both leaders became more bold with Mussolini invading Abyssinia and Hitler
expanding east in this policy of Lebensraum. This went against the main aim of the League which was to
avoid aggression between nations.

The invasion also made the LON seem Eurocentric in nature. Whenever it came to European disputes, the
League would place military or economic sanctions like in the case of the Corfu conflict of 1923.
However, the League was not interested in affairs in the Far East merely condemning Japan for its
actions. This led many to believe that the League would only take action when there were conflicts close
to home.

Why was the absence of the USA significant for the League in the 1930s?
● ‘The USA would not be involved with economic sanctions.’
○ Sanctions were ineffective
● ‘The USA could still trade with aggressor nations.’
○ Were not deterred
● ‘The prestige of the League was reduced.’
● ‘The USA had the military resources to remove the Japanese from Manchuria.’
● ‘The USA could take over any trade in the Far East.’
● ‘The USA was unlikely to support the banning of coal and oil exports to Italy during the
Abyssinian Crisis.’

USA’s absence from the League was significant because its prestige was reduced. It was President
Wilson who raised the idea of a League of Nations and wanted the US to be one of the leading members.
The fact that the US was not a member at all undermined its legitimacy, leading other countries to
question whether it was worth joining if the initiator and most powerful country in the world was not a
member.

The absence was significant because the US would not be involved in sanctions. Since it was not a
member it was not bound by the requirement to place military or economic sanctions against countries
showing aggression. This would undermine the League’s authority because the most powerful country in
the world was not taking action against aggressors.

The absence of the US was also significant because there was less funding for the League. Since Wilson
proposed this concept it was believed that it would be mainly funded by the US. However its absence
meant that less money was pumped into the League for settling disputes and improving living conditions.
Britain and France were still recovering from WWI so they reserved less money for the League,
channeling most of their finances to social reform.

Why were the League’s sanctions against Italy for invading Abyssinia ineffective?
● ‘The Suez Canal was kept open.’
● ‘The sanctions did not include coal or oil.’
● ‘The ban on weapons sales affected the Abyssinians more than the Italians.’
● ‘Materials such as pig iron and steel were needed by the Italians for their conquest.’
● ‘It took 6 weeks to decide the sanctions.’
● ‘Britain was worried that upsetting Mussolini might endanger Malta and Gibraltar.’
● ‘Italy was not affected by the sanctions on gold and textiles.’
● ‘The US would not cooperate.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

The sanctions were ineffective because the US refused to cooperate and place sanctions on Italy. In 1935
and 1936, President FDR was more concerned about the introduction of his Second New Deal that aimed
to improve social welfare and industry to help the country recover from the Great Depression. He did not
want to endanger the USA's trade and economy even more by placing sanctions on Italy. Without the
USA, the sanctions bore no weight.

The League’s sanctions were ineffective because the Suez Canal was kept open. This waterway
connecting the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea was very important for Italy’s trade. Since it was kept
open, Italy was still able to trade and import and export goods. This did not hinder or slow down Italy’s
economy so Mussolini was not pressured to withdraw his troops from Abyssinia.

The sanctions were not effective because they did not include coal or oil, These were two commodities
that were essential to the Italians. Since they still had access to these goods, they could continue to
produce weapons and other goods which contributed to their economy. The sanctions did not slow down
Italy’s economy like they were supposed to, thus Mussolini was not pressured to withdraw his troops.

The sanctions were not effective because Italy was not affected by those on gold and textiles. These 2
industries were not particularly significant for the Italian economy. The sanctions did not slow down the
economy greatly like they were meant to. Hence Mussolini did not feel pressured to remove his troops
and back down.

Why did Wilson want a ‘league of nations’?

● ‘Wilson thought this would help to achieve world peace.’
● ‘Wilson thought this would strengthen democracy.’
● ‘Wilson thought it would encourage international cooperation.’
● ‘Wilson thought it would help business and trade between countries.’
● ‘Wilson thought it would encourage nations to disarm.’
● ‘Wilson thought this would strengthen relations between countries.’
● ‘Wilson thought this would help with humanitarian issues.

Wilson wanted a League of Nations because he thought that it would help to achieve world peace. When
the idea of the League was first brought up, WWI had not yet ended. He thought that the League would
be the first stepping stone to ending the war and facilitating global peace and cooperation such that
another catastrophic war would not happen.

Wilson wanted a League because he thought that it would encourage international cooperation. He
proposed the League as a way for countries to cooperate with each other through business and trade. This
would strengthen ties between the countries and forge new friendships, de-escalating conflict and
hopefully preventing another war in the future.

He also wanted a League because he thought it would help with humanitarian issues. Thousands of
refugees were rendered homeless and penniless due to the chaos and violence caused by the war. The
League would be an organisation that would ensure that these refugees found somewhere safe to live and
could rebuild their lives again. He also thought that members of the League could come together to stamp
out diseases worldwide, including cholera, diphtheria and tuberculosis.

Wilson also wanted a League of Nations as he believed that it would encourage nations to disarm. If all
countries came together with the common goal of facilitating global peace, they would cooperate and
disarm to prevent military conflict between each other.

Why did the League not include all countries in its membership?

Compiled by Kai Ryn

‘President Wilson’s Democratic Party had run the USA for eight troubled years. The Republicans saw the
League as an ideal opportunity to defeat him. When Congress voted in 1919, Wilson was defeated.
Wilson did not run in the 1920 election because of ill health, but his Democrat successor fought on
supporting the League. He lost by a landslide to Warren Harding who favoured isolationism and returning
to ‘normalcy’.

● ‘The Senate voted to stop the USA being a member of the League.’
● ‘The 1920 presidential election voted for isolationism.’
● Some countries did not join because of the USA’s absence.’
○ Made the League look weak / less credible
● ‘Germany as a defeated nation was not allowed to join.’
● ‘All defeated countries were not allowed to join.’
● ‘Soviet Russia was not invited to join because it was communist.’
● ‘Japan and Italy were both original members but left after disputes with the League.’
● ‘Germany joined in 1926 but Hitler took Germany out of the League in 1933.’
● ‘The USSR was allowed to join in 1934 but was expelled in 1939 for invading Finland.’
● ‘Many considered the League a club for the victorious powers.’

The Allied powers viewed the League as a ‘club’ for victors. They thought that world peace could only be
facilitated by the winners of the war and not the losers. Thus, the Treaty of Versailles prevented Germany
from being a member and the other defeated countries were not allowed to join either.

The USSR did not join the League of Nations because it was communist. Britain and France were
extremely anti-communist and did not want a communist country to be a member. Moreover, the 1917
Bolshevik Revolution that had overthrown the Tsar had damaged the country. Recovery and rebuilding
was the main priority of the government, not the League.

The USA did not join the League because the Senate voted against its membership. Members of the
Senate had an isolationist stance and did not want to be involved in European affairs. They also feared
that being a member of the League meant that they would have to spend money and resources on every
little conflict across the globe. The Senate believed that this was a waste of money and was very
unsustainable, hence they voted against the US joining the LON.

Japan was originally a member of the League of Nations and was even one of the countries that held veto
power. However, it left the League in 1933 after the Manchurian incident. Japanese forces had invaded
Manchuria and the League commissioned a committee to investigate who was at fault. When the Lytton
Report was released in 1932 highlighting Japan’s aggression, Japan left the League.

Why did the League of Nations not impose sanctions against Japan following the Mukden Incident?
● ‘European members of the League thought it was too far away to concern them.’
● ‘The main European powers in the League possessed colonies in the Far East.’
● ‘European powers did not want to lose trade in the Far East.’
● ‘Some League nations were worried sanctions could provoke an attack by the Japanese.’
● ‘European nations did not want to send a military force to the other side of the world.’
○ European countries were impacted by the Great Depression

The LON did not impose sanctions against Japan because the main European colonies controlled colonies
in Asia. It was feared that if action was taken against Japan, Japan would retaliate by attacking British and
French colonies in Asia including Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand. The European countries did not

Compiled by Kai Ryn

want to risk losing these major colonies for it would mean a serious impact on trade and manufacturing
and a possible war with Japan.

The LON did not impose sanctions because Japan was too far away. The LON was Eurocentric in nature,
mainly focussed on European affairs and less interested in events in the Far East. The European powers
believed that becoming involved in an issue so far away was an unnecessary waste of time and energy.
With conflict occurring in Europe especially political turmoil in Germany, Britain and France thought that
the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was not a priority.

The LON did not impose sanctions because they were affected by the Great Depression. The leaders of
the LON Britain and France had been badly affected by the economic depression, with their economies
dropping sharply and trade almost reaching a standstill. It was a priority for the countries to try to get
their economies and industry back to normal levels, a gargantuan task that would require huge amounts of
money and time. Both countries were more focussed on affairs at home to worry about an event that
happened so far away and was of little concern to them.

Why did the absence of some countries from the League weaken it?
● ‘The USA’s absence meant the League’s sanctions were not very effective.’
● ‘The League missed the USA’s influence and power.’
● ‘The absence of Germany made the League seem like a club for the victorious powers.’
● ‘With the absence of Germany, the League could not influence Hitler’s foreign policy.’
● ‘Italy and Japan left the League despite both being powerful and influential countries.’
● ‘Not inviting Russia meant the League lacked a world power.’
● ‘Britain and France pursued their own interests.’ → Eurocentric

The absence of the US severely undermined the League’s authority. US Congress adopted an isolationist
stance and voted against joining the League. Without the world’s most powerful country, sanctions were
not very effective - countries that had broken the League Covenant were still able to maintain trade with
US, which did not impact trade, the purpose of the economic sanctions. The League was therefore unable
to effectively exercise punishment for countries that had broken the rules.

The absence of Germany reduced the League’s credibility. The League prided itself as a global
organisation with a large membership. However, Germany was not allowed to join the League as it was
forbidden in the Treaty of Versailles. This made the League look like a club for the victorious powers and
very elitist.

The absence of the USSR meant that the League lacked a global superpower. Britain and France were
extremely anti-communist, hence USSR was not invited to join the League. The USSR was a powerful
country with a lot of money and influence, thus its absence meant that the League lost an important
member country.

Japan leaving the League in 1933 meant that the League lost a global superpower. In 1931, Japanese
forces invaded Manchuria. The League commissioned the Lytton Committee to investigate the issue.
They released the Lytton Report in 1932, outlining Japan’s faults. The Japanese were angered by this and
withdrew from the League, hence the League lost a powerful and influential member.

Why was the League of Nations ineffective in resolving the Corfu Crisis?
● ‘The League feared offending a powerful nation.’
● ‘Britain and France were not strong enough.’
● ‘The League did not have a standing army.’
● ‘Britain and France did not want another war.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘The Council put pressure on Greece to accept Mussolini’s demands.’
● ‘Mussolini used the Conference of Ambassadors.’
● ‘Italy, as a Council member, should have set a better example.’
● ‘The League could not deal with strong powers.’

The League was ineffective in resolving the Corfu crisis because Britain and France did not want to
offend Mussolini. Italy was an important superpower and influential member of the League. If Britain and
France placed severe sanctions on Italy, Mussolini would have withdrawn Italy from the League. Britain
and France would have lost an important ally.

The League was not effective because Britain and France did not want to have to go to war. Placing
severe sanctions on Italy might have caused Mussolini to wage war. Britain and France were still
recovering from WWI and public hostility towards the idea of another war was strong.

The League was ineffective as it did not have a standing army. To use military force, the League relied on
member nations sending their troops to areas of conflict. However, many nations thought that the Corfu
conflict was too minor and did not want to unnecessarily send their troops there. As such, the League was
unable to use military force against Italy, resorting to using economic sanctions which were largely
ineffective.

Why did Japan invade Manchuria?

● ‘Japan had been badly affected by the Depression.’
○ Thought that European countries would not intervene because they themselves were
badly affected by the Depression
● ‘Japan was not self-sufficient in agriculture.’
● ‘Japan invaded because of an alleged incident on the Mukden Railway.’
● ‘Japan was facing an economic crisis.’
● ‘China was very weak at the time.’
○ Politically unstable due to warlord era
● ‘Japan claimed special interests in Manchuria.’
● ‘The Japanese military were stronger than the Japanese government.’
● ‘Japan wanted to gain living space.’

Japan invaded Manchuria because it was suffering from the Great Depression. The US falling into a state
of economic depression had a knock-on effect on other countries for trade fell by 85%, impacting Japan
as the market for Japanese silk and food declined. Japan was suffering economically and thought that
invading Manchuria and taking control of its rich natural resources would be a way to boost its economy.

Japan invaded Manchuria as it was an area rich in natural resources. Manchuria had many coal mines and
an abundance of expensive metals. Furthermore, it had a vast land area, which would allow Japan to
improve its agricultural sector. Invading Manchuria would enable Japan to gain money from these
valuable raw materials and provide food for its people, many of which were starving due to the
worldwide economic depression.

Japan also invaded Manchuria because they believed China would be too weak to retaliate. China was
financially weak at the time and Manchuria was politically unstable due to the warlord era. Japan thought
that invading Manchuria at such a time would be a straightforward process without any retaliation from
China as it would be too weak to use military force.

Why were events in Corfu (1923) a problem for the League?

● ‘The League feared a powerful nation.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘Italy was a permanent member of the Council.’
● ‘Britain and France did not want to use force.’
● ‘Mussolini out-manoeuvred the League.’ - made LON look weak and incompetent in one of the
first major disputes
● ‘Mussolini used the Conference of Ambassadors.’
● ‘It was not a good example for the future.’ - gave evidence for problems to come. Made the
League seem ineffective against a powerful nation

The events in Corfu were a problem because Britain and France did not want to offend Italy.

Corfu was an issue for the League because Britain and France did not want to wage war with Italy.

Corfu was also a problem as it undermined the League’s credibility and authority. Britain and France did
not want to severely punish Italy for fear that they would lose an important ally and powerful League
member. Hence, they did little to punish Italy for its aggression. This gave the message that the League
was bowing down to powerful countries, a huge blow to the League’s reputation.

Why was the idea of ‘collective security’ unlikely to be successful for the League of Nations?
‘Collective security was unlikely to be successful as there were three stages that all members had to
agree to and follow. These were moral disapproval, economic sanctions and military sanctions. The
absence of the powerful USA would reduce the effectiveness of both moral disapproval and sanctions.’
● ‘The USA was not a member of the League.’
● ‘The absence of the USA made sanctions ineffective.’
● ‘All decisions taken by the Assembly or Council had to be unanimous.’
● ‘The League did not have its own army.’
● ‘Members of the League acted in the interests of their own countries.’

Collective security was unlikely to be successful because the League did not have its own army. The
principle of collective security was on the basis that troops would be sent to areas of conflict. However,
without an army, countries had to voluntarily send troops to these disputes. Some countries were
unwilling to risk the lives of their soldiers unnecessarily and in the end, very little military action would
have been taken.

Collective security was also unlikely to have worked because the US was not a member of the League.
The US had a leading economy and any country that had trade cut off from the USA would face serious
economic decline. The absence of the US made economic sanctions ineffective because aggressors’
economies were not severely weakened and they were not pressured to back down.

Collective security was unlikely to have succeeded because members of the League acted in the interests
of their own countries. In order for collective security to have worked all member countries had to agree
on moral condemnation, economic sanctions and military force. However some countries were unwilling
to place sanctions for fear of economic decline or the deaths of soldiers. The views of each country were
very different so it was hard to come to a consensus.

Why did the Great Depression make the work of the League difficult?
● ‘It destroyed the goodwill upon which the League depended.’
● ‘The effects of it created tension and conflict.’
● ‘It helped extremist political parties to come to power.’
● ‘Nations began to ignore the League’s authority.’
● ‘It became difficult to use economic sanctions as trade was depressed.’
● ‘Extremist leaders looked to foreign policy success to distract attention from troubles at home.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘It encouraged militarism in Japan / Italy / Germany.’
● ‘It put pressure on countries to find new markets and sources of raw materials.’
● ‘It put pressure on governments to cut expenditure and this delayed re-armament for League
members to deal with aggressors.’
● ‘Members undermined the power of the League.’

The GD made the work of the League difficult because it encouraged militarism in Japan.
- Japan suffering economically and people starving
- Invaded Manchuria → abundance of natural resources and land for agriculture
- League had to set up Lytton Committee to investigate

The GD made the work of the League difficult because it was challenging to impose economic sanctions.
- Trade fell by 80% from the GD
- Economic sanctions would make the state of trade even worse
- Knock-on effect on other countries - did not want trade to decline even further

The GD made the work of the League challenging as it destroyed the goodwill upon which the League
depended
- No standing army - any military force would have to come from member nations
- Member nations did not want to use military force as it was not a priority - focus on rebuilding
economies due to GD
- Facilitating global peace and dealing with international conflicts became more difficult - harder to
achieve aims - blow to reputation

Why did hostilities between Japan and China break out in 1931?
● ‘Manchuria was rich in natural resources like coal and iron ore.’
● ‘China was weak at the time.’
● ‘Japan needed to expand and to produce more food.’
● ‘Japan saw an opportunity to take control of Manchuria.’
● ‘The Mukden incident – which led to the two sides shooting at each other.’
● ‘The Mukden incident gave the Japanese the excuse they needed.’
● ‘Japan already had troops in Manchuria which the Chinese resented.’
● ‘The Japanese army was keen to expand and build an empire.’
● ‘The Depression had put the Japanese economy into crisis and a solution was needed.’
● ‘The Chinese wanted to settle people in Manchuria.’
● ‘The Japanese army was no longer under the control of the Japanese government.’
● ‘It was due to the Wall Street Crash.’

Tensions broke out due to the Mukden incident in September 1931

- Kwantung army staged bomb incident on Mukden railway
- Japan saw this as an excuse to invade Manchuria and facilitate peace in the region
- Chiang Kai-shek then appealed to League

Hostilities started as Japan was suffering economically from the GD

- Japanese economy collapsing as market for silk and other goods shrunk
- Economic depression - millions of Japanese starving
- Manchuria was rich in natural resources and land - Japan saw this as a way to improve their
economy and feed the people → invasion in 1931

Tensions rose as China was weak at the time

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 - China also suffering from GD and was financially unstable
- Manchuria politically unstable - led by a warlord Young Marshal Chang - lawless and chaotic
- Japan saw this as an opportunity to invade Manchuria without much retaliation from China - too
weak to use military force against Japan

Why was the American decision not to join the League a great blow to the organisation?
● ‘It would lack influence and persuasion.’
● ‘It would lack the U.S.A.’s resources.’
● ‘Economic sanctions would be ineffective.’
● ‘It needed its military muscle.’
● ‘War-weary Britain and France were left as reluctant leaders.’

Why did some major powers not join the League?

● ‘In the USA, the Senate voted against joining.’
● ‘Wilson’s opponents were too strong.’
● ‘There was a mood of isolationism in the USA.’
● ‘The USA did not want to get involved in European affairs.’
● ‘Germany was not allowed to join.’
● ‘USSR was not invited to join.’
● ‘USSR was a Communist country.’

Why was leadership of the League weak from the start?

● ‘The USA was not a member.’
● ‘Decisions had to be unanimous.’
● ‘They lacked the ability to deploy an army.’
● ‘Britain and France rarely worked well together.’
● ‘Britain and France did not want to lead the League.’
● ‘Britain and France had other priorities.’
● ‘Germany was not invited to join.’
● ‘The USSR was not allowed to join.’
● ‘Collective security was difficult to deploy.’

Part C
‘Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia damaged the League more than Japan’s invasion of Manchuria had.’
How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
‘Manchuria was the first major problem facing the League and it tackled it with little enthusiasm. The
League was slow to act taking almost a year to produce the Lytton Report. By the time it was published,
Japan had completed the invasion of Manchuria.’
OR
‘In Abyssinia the self-interest of the League main members, Britain and France, was evident and damaged
the League. The League failed to impose severe economic sanctions on Italy as these would affect jobs
and cause economic problems.’
● ‘The League was slow acting over Manchuria.’
● ‘The leaders were more interested in their own economies.’
● ‘It needed the USA to make trade sanctions effective over Abyssinia.’
● ‘Britain and France wanted to avoid war with Italy over Abyssinia.’
● ‘The League failed to show strength by imposing limited sanctions.’
● ‘Mussolini learned from Manchuria that the League was unlikely to act.’

ABYSSINIA
Abyssinian crisis damaged League’s reputation

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 - Britain and France did not want to offend Mussolini - feared that they would lose an important
ally and League member
- Did not severely punish Italy - gave the message that League would not stand in Mussolini’s way
because he was powerful
- Undermined authority and credibility of League

Abyssinian crisis caused Italy to withdraw from League

- Economic sanctions placed on Italy in 1937
- Mussolini angered and took Italy out of League
- Italy became allied with Germany - Britain and France lost important ally and League member

MANCHURIA
Manchurian crisis encouraged militarism in Italy
- League did little to punish Japan as Manchurian incident was not high priority
- Gave Mussolini the message that the League was unlikely to act
- Encouraged him to invade Abyssinia in 1935

Manchurian crisis caused Japan to leave League

- League set up Lytton Committee to investigate situation
- Released Lytton Report in 1932, blaming Japan for its aggression
- Japanese angered and left League in 1933
- League lost powerful member of League and ally

Manchurian crisis damaged League’s reputation

- League was slow - more than a year before Lytton Committee was finally set up
- Spent six weeks investigating before finally releasing Lytton Report
- Slow action undermined credibility

OVERALL
Manchurian crisis more damaging to League than Abyssinian conflict
- Lost important League member and ally Japan - later opponent in WWII
- Encouraged militarism in Italy - led to him invading Abyssinia and becoming allied with Hitler

‘The main reason for the League of Nations failing to preserve world peace was that not all Great Powers
were members.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

‘The United States refused to join and this meant that the League was missing the world’s wealthiest and
most powerful country. This reduced the ability of the League to take action against aggressive countries
either militarily or by considering economic and trade sanctions.’
OR
‘All decisions taken by the Assembly or Council had to be unanimous. This meant that if the Assembly or
Council was meeting to vote on aggressive action by a country, it would take just one negative vote, not
including the negative vote of the aggressor, for the motion to fail.’

● ‘Britain and France acted in their own interest.’

● ‘The USA was not a member.’
● ‘Unanimous decisions were necessary from the Assembly and Council.’
● ‘The League was slow to act.’
● ‘The League had no standing army.’
● ‘The Depression brought extreme political parties to power.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘Italy and Japan withdrew from the League.

YES
USA not a member
- Congress voted against joining League, isolationist
- Sanctions not as effective
- Countries did not join League due to USA’s absence

USSR not a member

- USSR not invited because Britain and France anti-communist
- Loss of an influential member
- League looks weak and elitist

Italy and Japan left League

- After Manchuria and Abyssinia incidents both leave League
- Both important and influential powers - leaving League makes it look weak

NO
Decisions in Assembly and Council had to be unanimous
- League slow to act
- Events often over before anything could be done
- League did not keep to its aims of preserving peace and solving international disputes

League had no standing army

- Relied on other countries to send troops
- Countries did not want to send troops unnecessarily
- Could not use military force - ineffective

OVERALL
Most important reason for League failure: important countries were not members

‘The humanitarian work of the League of Nations was the most successful of its activities in the 1920s.’
How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

‘Fridtjof Nansen headed the League’s Refugee Organisation and managed to help 425 000 displaced
persons either to return home or find new homes between 1920 and 1922. Many of these had been
prisoners of war stranded in Soviet Russia, Poland, France, Germany and Turkey. His team found suitable
transport, set up temporary camps, taught new trades and skills and issued identity documents. It was a
great success.’
OR
e.g. ‘The League satisfactorily resolved the dispute between Sweden and Finland over the rival claims to
the Aaland Islands in the Baltic Sea. Most of the islanders wanted to be ruled by Sweden, but the League
investigated and awarded the islands to Finland with safeguards for the islanders. Sweden accepted the
decision.’

● ‘Thousands of refugees were returned to their homelands after the First World War.’
● ‘The Health Organisation helped Russia deal with a typhus outbreak.’
● ‘It worked hard to defeat leprosy.’
● ‘It started a campaign to exterminate mosquitoes.’
● ‘Over 200 000 slaves were freed.’
● ‘The League black-listed large international companies involved in illegal drug selling.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘The League banned poisonous white lead from paint.’
● ‘It limited the working hours for young children.’
● ‘The League devised a plan to stabilise the Austrian currency.’
● ‘The League made recommendations for the marking of shipping lanes.’
● ‘The League produced an international highway code for road users.’
● ‘The League resolved the Aaland Islands dispute by giving them to Finland.’
● ‘The League organised a plebiscite to resolve the dispute over Upper Silesia.’
● ‘The League successfully resolved the dispute between Turkey and Iraq over Mosul.’
● ‘The League intervened over the border dispute between Greece and Bulgaria.’
● ‘The League settled the differences between Columbia and Peru.’
● ‘The League successfully resolved the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay.’

One of the League’s most successful efforts was the work of the Refugees Commission. A Nansen
passport was introduced to help refugees return to their countries of origin and start afresh after the war.
Thousands of refugees were helped by this scheme, enabling them to cross borders easily. The
commission also set up refugee camps and acted quickly to prevent the spread of contagious diseases
such as tuberculosis.

Another successful humanitarian effort was the League’s efforts to improve health standards. Vaccines
for tetanus, diphtheria and tuberculosis were developed and sent to various countries around the world,
significantly decreasing death rates. It also collected statistical data and spread good medical practices
among various countries.

The League was successful in solving the Aaland Islands dispute of 1921. The islands, equidistant to
Finland and Sweden, traditionally belonged to Finland but its residents wanted to be governed by
Sweden. The League decided that the islands would remain with Finland but it was to be demilitarised.
The decision was upheld and it is still in force today.

The League also successfully solved the Upper Silesia conflict. A referendum was held to determine
whether the area would belong to Germany or Poland. With 700,000 votes for Germany and 500,000 for
Poland, these close results caused riots in the streets. The League decided to split the area between
Germany and Poland and the decision was upheld.

The League was also successful in solving the Greece-Bulgaria conflict. The armies of both countries
were patrolling the border when a Greek soldier was killed. Greece invaded Bulgaria as a result. The
League ordered both armies to stop fighting. After an investigation it was revealed that Greece was at
fault and the Greek army was ordered to withdraw from Bulgaria and pay a fine of 45,000 Euros. The
decision was upheld.

‘It was the Great Depression that brought about the failure of the League.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.

‘The Depression brought extremists to power who were often nationalist in nature. They did not believe
in democracy and ignored the authority of the League. This extreme nationalism brought with it
militarism which meant countries built up their armed forces and used aggression to achieve their aims.
The League could not cope with this aggression.’
OR
e.g. ‘The League lacked a standing army, but could impose military sanctions when member countries
would be asked to contribute towards a fighting force. This created uncertainty as an appropriate army
would be difficult to assemble since member states were reluctant to send their army to participate in a
dispute in which they were not directly involved.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘During the Depression, countries were reluctant to impose economic sanctions.’
● ‘The Depression resulted in people losing their jobs and turning to extreme parties.’
● ‘Extremists came to power and ignored the authority of the League.’
● ‘Extreme nationalism brought with it militarism.’
● ‘League members lacked the means to deal with aggression.’
● ‘Countries were aggressively trying to find new markets and raw materials.’
● ‘The absence of the USA reduced the League’s effectiveness.’
● ‘Britain and France were reluctant leaders of the League.’
● ‘Japan, Italy and Germany left the League.’
● ‘The League did not have a standing army.’
● ‘The Assembly and Council needed unanimous decisions.’

YES
Countries reluctant to impose economic sanctions
- Did not want to damage trade even more
- Aggressors were not deterred
- League could not achieve aims of peacekeeping

Countries turned to extreme militarism

- Japan invaded Manchuria
- Italy invaded Abyssinia
- Both became allied with Germany

NO
League had no army

Assembly and Council decisions had to be unanimous

USA not a member

OVERALL
No, not the Great Depression that caused failure
League’s organisation (or lack thereof) and absence of key countries

‘The League of Nations was successful in achieving its aims in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer.

eg. ‘The League aimed to settle disputes peacefully, and it achieved this aim in dealing with a dispute
between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland Islands. Both Sweden and Finland claimed the Aaland
Islands in the Baltic Sea. The League investigated and awarded the islands to Finland, but with safeguards
for the Swedish islanders. Sweden accepted the judgment.’
OR
‘The League aimed to discourage aggression, but it failed to achieve this aim in dealing with the dispute
between Poland and Lithuania over Vilna. Poland took control of Vilna in a clearly aggressive action.
Lithuania appealed to the League, who told Poland to withdraw, but Poland refused to do so. The League
was not prepared to act against Poland as they saw them as a valuable ally, and thus gave out the message
that aggression could pay.’

● ‘The League settled the dispute over the Aaland Islands peacefully.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘The League settled the dispute over Upper Silesia peacefully.’
● ‘The League improved living conditions for refugees in Turkey.’
● ‘The League helped to improve working conditions for children.’
OR
● ‘The League failed to deal with Polish aggression in Vilna.’
● ‘The League failed to deal with Italian aggression in Corfu.’
● ‘The League failed to deal with Lithuanian aggression in Memel.’
● ‘The League failed to deal with aggression between Bolivia and Paraguay.’

YES
Aaland Islands 1921

Upper Silesia 1921

NO
Failed to deal with Vilna conflict
- 1920 - Polish seized Vilna
- Lithuania appealed to League for help but League did nothing
- Vilna stayed in Polish hands until outbreak of WWII

Failed to deal with Corfu conflict

- Italy-Albania border unclear, mixed-nationality team sent to investigate
- Italian section killed by gunmen; Italy accused Greece of orchestrating
- Greece refused to pay fine, Italy bombarded Corfu coastline
- Mussolini persuaded League to fine Greece 50 million lire

Failed to deal with Memel conflict

- Lithuania invaded Memel in 1923 as most residents were Lithuanian
- League gave area surrounding Memel to Lithuania
- Failure because League gave in to Lithuania which showed aggression and broke covenant

OVERALL
Failures outweigh successes

‘It was the World Depression, and not increasing militarism, that made the work of the League in the
1930s more difficult.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

e.g. ‘The World Depression made the work of the League more difficult as countries were reluctant to
impose economic sanctions since their economies were already struggling. This was seen when Japan
invaded Manchuria, and Britain did not support economic sanctions against Japan.’
OR
‘Increasing militarism in Japan certainly made the work of the League more difficult. The army leaders in
the government were determined to obtain an empire to increase its power and prestige and increases in
the army’s size and weaponry were taking place. As the generals encouraged aggressive expansion, this
led to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931.’

● ‘Countries were reluctant to impose economic sanctions.’

● ‘The Depression brought extremists to power, for example, in Germany.’
● ‘Countries were unable to afford rearmament making them reluctant to use military sanctions.’
● ‘The need for new markets made countries look to expand their territory.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘A successful invasion could distract the population from the economic problems governments
were facing.’
● ‘It led to the failure of the disarmament conference.’
● ‘Germany started to rearm.’
● ‘Italy became increasingly aggressive and invaded Abyssinia.’
● ‘Japan invaded China in 1937.’
● ‘Militarism made the policy of appeasement seem more sensible.’

DEPRESSION
Countries refused to impose economic sanctions

Led to Japan invading Manchuria

Led to Germany becoming extremist with Hitler’s rise to power

- Elected 1933
- Announced conscription and existence of Luftwaffe

MILITARISM
Japan’s increasing militarism led to Manchurian invasion

Italy’s militarism led to Abyssinian invasion

OVERALL
GD led to militarism hence it was more important

‘The League of Nations failed in its peacekeeping role.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.

‘The League was successful in settling small disputes during the 1920s. The League was new and
countries were willing to give it a chance to be successful. It settled the dispute between Finland and
Sweden over the Aaland Islands. Most islanders wanted to be ruled by Sweden but Finland was given
control of the islands although with safeguards for the islanders and Sweden accepted the decision.’
OR
e.g. ‘The League was unsuccessful in its peace-keeping role in the 1930s. When the Japanese invaded
Manchuria, the League sent a commission of enquiry under Lord Lytton to Manchuria. By the time
Lytton arrived, the invasion was complete and by the time the League had voted on Lytton’s Report,
which blamed Japan, eighteen months had passed since the original Japanese action.’

● ‘The League was generally successful in keeping the peace in the 1920s.’
● ‘The League was unsuccessful in keeping the peace during the 1930s.’
● ‘The League organised a plebiscite and partition of Upper Silesia.’
● ‘Greece and Bulgaria fought over their borders and the League settled it successfully.’
● ‘A dispute between Peru and Columbia was settled.’
● ‘A dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay was peacefully settled.’
● ‘There were failures in the 1920s such as the failure to remove the Poles from Vilna.’
● ‘Mosul was given to Iraq and Turkey accepted the decision.’
● ‘The League failed to remove Japan from Manchuria.’
● ‘The League failed to stop Mussolini conquering Abyssinia.’

FAIL
- Abyssinia

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 - Vilna
- Manchuria

SUCCESS
- Aaland Islands
- Upper Silesia

‘The League did all within its power to deal with the Abyssinian crisis.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.

‘The League acted swiftly when Italy invaded Abyssinia, condemning Italy’s aggression and setting up a
committee to decide upon economic sanctions in an attempt to cause problems for Italy’s economy and
her war effort. The League banned arms sales and the export of rubber, tin and metals to Italy. Loans to
Italy were banned as were imports from Italy. It was hoped these actions would stop Italy.’
OR
e.g. ‘The League simply did not do enough. Some countries acted in self-interest and this affected exactly
what was done to Italy. The Suez Canal was the main route for Italian ships to take supplies to the Italian
army, and closing it would have caused immense problems for Italy. The League did not close the Suez
Canal; it was kept open because Britain was afraid that closing it would mean Italian attacks on her
colonial possessions of Gibraltar and Malta.’

● ‘The League condemned Italy’s unprovoked aggression towards Abyssinia.’

● ‘The League banned arms sales to Italy.’
● ‘The League banned exports of rubber to Italy.’
● ‘The League did not ban oil and coal exports to Italy.’
● ‘The Suez Canal remained open.’
● ‘Britain and France drew up the Hoare-Laval Pact.’

YES
Arms sales to Italy banned

Rubber exports banned

NO
Suez Canal remained open

Italy unaffected by sanctions on pig iron

Oil and coal exports to Italy not banned

‘Ineffective sanctions were the main reason for the failure of the League in Abyssinia.’ How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

‘The League failed to ban coal and oil exports to Italy. It was thought the USA would not support the oil
ban and Britain was worried that 30000 coal miners would lose their jobs if there was a coal ban on
exports to Italy. If the oil ban had taken place, the invasion would have stopped within a week.’
OR
‘The secret plan by the French and British foreign secretaries, Hoare and Laval, to give Mussolini two
thirds of Abyssinia was leaked to the French press. It was seen as a blatant act of treachery against the
League. It had totally undermined the League.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘The League failed to ban coal and oil exports to Italy.’
● ‘Britain and France failed to close the Suez Canal.’
● ‘The Hoare–Laval Pact undermined the League.’
● ‘Britain and France wanted Mussolini as an ally.’
● ‘Britain failed to use its colonies bordering Abyssinia.’
● ‘Self-interest on behalf of Britain and France caused a lack of serious action.’

Which was the more important cause of the failure of the League: its organisation or its membership?
Explain your answer.

‘The League met infrequently and was slow to act. It investigated the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
The Commission took twelve months to report as it had to go to the Far East from Europe. By the time
the Commission reported, the invasion had been completed. It showed the League weak in the face of a
military power acting in a distant part of the world.’
OR
e.g. ‘Where countries were affected by the world trade depression, they often acted in their own self-
interest rather than that of the League. For example, countries were less keen to impose sanctions. This
applied to Britain in relation to Abyssinia. Here they failed to immediately impose a ban including oil and
coal. This was because Britain feared damage to its economic interests with the loss of jobs for 30 000
British coal miners. The League looked powerless.’

e.g. Organisation – ‘The League met infrequently.’

● ‘The League was slow to act.’
● ‘Sanctions were ineffective.’
● ‘The League did not have its own military forces.’
● ‘Collective security was an issue.’
● ‘It was difficult to get unanimous decisions.’
● ‘The League was Euro-centric.’
Membership – ‘Member countries often acted in their own interests.’
● ‘Important nations were absent.’
● ‘The major powers attempted to control the Council.’
● ‘The USA was not a member.’
● ‘The impact of the veto.’

‘The League failed in Manchuria because of the attitudes of its leading members.’ How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
‘Britain and France, the dominant members of the League, considered Asia very distant and they did not
consider an Asian crisis as being vital to the countries in Europe. If Britain and France considered
military action against Japan, they could easily lose.’
OR
‘The League failed in Manchuria because it could not impose meaningful economic sanctions. The USA
had failed to join the League. If economic sanctions were imposed, the USA could continue trading with
Japan, nullifying the League’s actions.’

● ‘It lacked the strength to impose sanctions.’

● ‘It took the view that Japan was imposing stability.’
● ‘The League had little interest in a distant country.’
● ‘The lack of USA membership was crucial.’
● ‘Japan was too powerful to attack.’
● ‘The League lacked an army.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

How far was the response of the League of Nations to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia justified? Explain
your answer.

● ‘The League condemned the Italian invasion quickly and imposed sanctions.’
● ‘The Abyssinians had committed many human rights abuses.’
● ‘Britain and France could not afford to alienate Italy.’
● ‘Britain and France did not want Italy to ally with Germany.’
● ‘The Americans would not support sanctions, especially of oil, and so they were a waste of time.’
● ‘The Italians’ atrocities in Abyssinia should have been severely punished.’
● ‘Important materials such as coal, iron and oil were not part of the sanctions.’
● ‘It was simple aggression by one member of the League against another.’
● ‘Hoare and Laval were making plans about Abyssinia secretly.’
● ‘The Italians used chemical weapons.’
● ‘There was little the League could do when Britain and France were plotting together.’

The League’s response was justified because it prevented Mussolini from getting too close to Hitler.

The League’s response was also justified because Italy was a powerful member of the League.

However, the League’s response cannot be justified because Britain and France gave in to the aggressor
Italy.

The League’s response also cannot be justified as Italy had invaded by force and killed many
Abyssinians.

The League’s response cannot be justified because Haile Selassie had addressed the League of Nations
Assembly in 1936.

‘The Depression had a greater impact on the League than did events in Manchuria.’ How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
● ‘The Depression brought extreme political parties to power.’
● ‘The Depression caused the goodwill of the 1920s to evaporate.’
● ‘The Depression meant countries were reluctant to use economic sanctions.’
● ‘It took the view that Japan was imposing stability in Manchuria.’
● ‘The League had little interest in a distant country.’
● ‘The League was slow acting over Manchuria.’

‘The League failed because of the Abyssinian crisis.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer.
● ‘The most powerful country was not a member.’
● ‘Britain and France often disagreed.’
● ‘The League lacked a standing army.’
● ‘The League took too long to make decisions.’
● ‘The Depression brought extreme political parties into power.’
● ‘The League had little interest in distant countries.’
● ‘More action should have taken place over Manchuria.’

‘The League of Nations was a success.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
● ‘It successful in the 1920s.’
● ‘It failed with Vilna and Corfu.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn

 ● ‘It was a success in Upper Silesia.’
● ‘It dealt successfully with disputes in South America.’
● ‘It was successful in dealing with disputes with smaller nations.’
● ‘It was highly successful with its humanitarian work.’
● ‘It failed in the 1930s.’
● ‘The handlings of Manchuria and Abyssinia were dismal failures.’

Compiled by Kai Ryn