IB History Topic Responses to Crises in the 1930s…

Manchuria and Abyssinia: How Collective Security Collapsed

Note

Inquiry question: Why did the League's responses to Japanese aggression in Manchuria and Italian aggression in Abyssinia fail to stop great-power expansion?

Manchuria: The First Great-Power Test (1931-1933)

The Mukden Incident (September 1931): Japan's Kwantung Army staged the incident as a pretext for seizing Manchuria from China.
The Lytton Commission and Japan's withdrawal: China appealed to the League, which sent the Lytton Commission to investigate. Its report (September 1932) condemned Japanese actions. Japan simply left the League in March 1933.
1. What the League did not do: no economic sanctions were applied, and no military action was considered. A determined great power could defy the League without significant cost.

Interactive question

What vital war material did the League deliberately exclude from its economic sanctions against Italy during the Abyssinian crisis, undermining their effectiveness?

Markscheme

Oil. The League voted to apply economic sanctions against Italy, the first time sanctions had been used against a great power, but deliberately excluded oil, the most vital war material for a mechanized invasion. This let Italy's war machine keep running and, alongside the leaked Hoare-Laval Pact, showed Britain and France would not fully commit against a fellow great power. [1]

Abyssinia: The League's Final Failure (1935-1936)

The Italian invasion (October 1935): Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia), one of the few independent African states and a League member.
Partial sanctions: the League voted to apply economic sanctions against Italy, the first time sanctions had been used against a great power, but excluded oil, the most vital war material.
The Hoare-Laval Pact: the British and French foreign ministers secretly negotiated a plan that would have given Italy most of Abyssinia. When the pact leaked, it caused a public scandal that forced both ministers from office.
Conquest and the collapse of sanctions: Italy conquered Abyssinia by May 1936. Sanctions were lifted. The League's credibility was destroyed.

Definition

Hoare-Laval Pact (1935)

A secret agreement negotiated by British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare and French Prime Minister Pierre Laval in December 1935, proposing to end the Abyssinian crisis by offering Italy roughly two-thirds of Abyssinia's territory in exchange for a ceasefire. When the proposal leaked to the press in December 1935, it provoked a public outcry in Britain and France. Hoare was forced to resign. The episode exposed the unwillingness of Britain and France to enforce League sanctions against Italy, even as they publicly supported collective security. It severely damaged the League's credibility and accelerated the collapse of the collective security system.

Consequences: The Rhineland

Rhineland remilitarization (March 1936): Hitler watched the League's paralysis over Abyssinia closely and concluded that Britain and France would not resist territorial revision by force. German troops reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of Versailles and Locarno. France considered military action but decided against it without British support. The League took no action. Collective security was dead in practice.

Historiography

A.J.P. Taylor: in "The Origins of the Second World War" (1961) controversially argued the League failed because Britain and France refused to enforce it, not because collective security was inherently unworkable, a specific choice rather than an inevitable structural outcome.
F.S. Northedge: by contrast argues the League was structurally flawed from the outset: the unanimity rule, the absence of the USA, and dependence on great-power goodwill made it unable to function once those same great powers became the aggressors.
Zara Steiner: argues the Abyssinian crisis specifically marks the point of no return. Once Britain and France chose their own diplomatic interests, courting Mussolini against Hitler, over enforcing the Covenant, collective security was finished in practice even if it survived on paper.
Judgement: Taylor's emphasis on contingency and choice explains why Abyssinia unfolded as it did, Hoare, Laval, and Baldwin made a specific, avoidable decision, but Northedge's structural critique explains why the same choice was almost inevitable given a Council that could never bind its own most powerful members.

Exam technique

Paper 3: 15 marks, To what extent: "To what extent was the Abyssinian crisis (1935-1936) the decisive moment in the collapse of collective security in Europe?"
Build the argument: use the Manchuria precedent (Japan's unpunished withdrawal in 1933) to show the pattern was already set, then use the oil exclusion from sanctions, the Hoare-Laval Pact scandal, and the Rhineland remilitarization as the direct consequence of Hitler's reading of League paralysis.
Evaluate perspectives: weigh Taylor's argument that the failure was a contingent choice by Hoare, Laval, and Baldwin against Northedge's view that the Council's structure made such a choice near-certain, and use Steiner's "point of no return" framing to argue which crisis, Manchuria or Abyssinia, mattered more.

Active recall

What was the Mukden Incident, and what did it lead to?
What did the Lytton Commission conclude, and how did Japan respond?
Which vital commodity was excluded from League sanctions against Italy, and why did that matter?
What was the Hoare-Laval Pact, and why did it cause a scandal?
What did Germany do in March 1936, and why did the Abyssinian crisis make it possible?

Manchuria and Abyssinia: How Collective Security Collapsed

Note

Inquiry question: Why did the League's responses to Japanese aggression in Manchuria and Italian aggression in Abyssinia fail to stop great-power expansion?

Manchuria: The First Great-Power Test (1931-1933)

The Mukden Incident (September 1931): Japan's Kwantung Army staged the incident as a pretext for seizing Manchuria from China.
The Lytton Commission and Japan's withdrawal: China appealed to the League, which sent the Lytton Commission to investigate. Its report (September 1932) condemned Japanese actions. Japan simply left the League in March 1933.
1. What the League did not do: no economic sanctions were applied, and no military action was considered. A determined great power could defy the League without significant cost.

Interactive question

What vital war material did the League deliberately exclude from its economic sanctions against Italy during the Abyssinian crisis, undermining their effectiveness?

Markscheme

Oil. The League voted to apply economic sanctions against Italy, the first time sanctions had been used against a great power, but deliberately excluded oil, the most vital war material for a mechanized invasion. This let Italy's war machine keep running and, alongside the leaked Hoare-Laval Pact, showed Britain and France would not fully commit against a fellow great power. [1]

Abyssinia: The League's Final Failure (1935-1936)

The Italian invasion (October 1935): Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia), one of the few independent African states and a League member.
Partial sanctions: the League voted to apply economic sanctions against Italy, the first time sanctions had been used against a great power, but excluded oil, the most vital war material.
The Hoare-Laval Pact: the British and French foreign ministers secretly negotiated a plan that would have given Italy most of Abyssinia. When the pact leaked, it caused a public scandal that forced both ministers from office.
Conquest and the collapse of sanctions: Italy conquered Abyssinia by May 1936. Sanctions were lifted. The League's credibility was destroyed.

Definition

Hoare-Laval Pact (1935)

Consequences: The Rhineland

Rhineland remilitarization (March 1936): Hitler watched the League's paralysis over Abyssinia closely and concluded that Britain and France would not resist territorial revision by force. German troops reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of Versailles and Locarno. France considered military action but decided against it without British support. The League took no action. Collective security was dead in practice.

Historiography

A.J.P. Taylor: in "The Origins of the Second World War" (1961) controversially argued the League failed because Britain and France refused to enforce it, not because collective security was inherently unworkable, a specific choice rather than an inevitable structural outcome.
F.S. Northedge: by contrast argues the League was structurally flawed from the outset: the unanimity rule, the absence of the USA, and dependence on great-power goodwill made it unable to function once those same great powers became the aggressors.
Zara Steiner: argues the Abyssinian crisis specifically marks the point of no return. Once Britain and France chose their own diplomatic interests, courting Mussolini against Hitler, over enforcing the Covenant, collective security was finished in practice even if it survived on paper.
Judgement: Taylor's emphasis on contingency and choice explains why Abyssinia unfolded as it did, Hoare, Laval, and Baldwin made a specific, avoidable decision, but Northedge's structural critique explains why the same choice was almost inevitable given a Council that could never bind its own most powerful members.

Exam technique

Paper 3: 15 marks, To what extent: "To what extent was the Abyssinian crisis (1935-1936) the decisive moment in the collapse of collective security in Europe?"
Build the argument: use the Manchuria precedent (Japan's unpunished withdrawal in 1933) to show the pattern was already set, then use the oil exclusion from sanctions, the Hoare-Laval Pact scandal, and the Rhineland remilitarization as the direct consequence of Hitler's reading of League paralysis.
Evaluate perspectives: weigh Taylor's argument that the failure was a contingent choice by Hoare, Laval, and Baldwin against Northedge's view that the Council's structure made such a choice near-certain, and use Steiner's "point of no return" framing to argue which crisis, Manchuria or Abyssinia, mattered more.

Active recall

What was the Mukden Incident, and what did it lead to?
What did the Lytton Commission conclude, and how did Japan respond?
Which vital commodity was excluded from League sanctions against Italy, and why did that matter?
What was the Hoare-Laval Pact, and why did it cause a scandal?
What did Germany do in March 1936, and why did the Abyssinian crisis make it possible?

IB History Responses to Crises in the 1930s Including Italy's Invasion of Abyssinia Notes

IB History Responses to Crises in the 1930s Including Italy's Invasion of Abyssinia Notes

Manchuria and Abyssinia: How Collective Security Collapsed

Manchuria: The First Great-Power Test (1931-1933)

Abyssinia: The League's Final Failure (1935-1936)

Consequences: The Rhineland

Manchuria and Abyssinia: How Collective Security Collapsed

Manchuria: The First Great-Power Test (1931-1933)

Abyssinia: The League's Final Failure (1935-1936)

Consequences: The Rhineland

IB History Responses to Crises in the 1930s Including Italy's Invasion of Abyssinia Notes

Focused study 4: Conflict and displacement

Focused study 5: Protest and change

Thematic study 3: Authoritarian rule (from 1750 CE onwards)

Thematic study 4: Popular movements (from 1750 CE onwards)

The Americas

Asia and Oceania

Europe

IB History Responses to Crises in the 1930s Including Italy's Invasion of Abyssinia Notes

Focused study 4: Conflict and displacement

Focused study 5: Protest and change

Thematic study 3: Authoritarian rule (from 1750 CE onwards)

Thematic study 4: Popular movements (from 1750 CE onwards)

The Americas

Asia and Oceania

Europe

Manchuria and Abyssinia: How Collective Security Collapsed

Manchuria: The First Great-Power Test (1931-1933)

Abyssinia: The League's Final Failure (1935-1936)

Consequences: The Rhineland

Manchuria and Abyssinia: How Collective Security Collapsed

Manchuria: The First Great-Power Test (1931-1933)

Abyssinia: The League's Final Failure (1935-1936)

Consequences: The Rhineland