Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

Wal Wal Incident and Abyssinian Crisis

The sources agree that conquering Abyssinia was popular in Italy, the Wal Wal incident exacerbated tensions, and Italy faced economic problems. However, they disagree on why the League of Nations failed to stop Italy and on the motives for Italy's invasion. Source A views the League and Britain/Abyssinia negatively, while Source B is critical of Italy and the Great Powers. The sources have different perspectives given their origins in Britain or Italy.

Uploaded by

Thepower BearBG
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

Wal Wal Incident and Abyssinian Crisis

The sources agree that conquering Abyssinia was popular in Italy, the Wal Wal incident exacerbated tensions, and Italy faced economic problems. However, they disagree on why the League of Nations failed to stop Italy and on the motives for Italy's invasion. Source A views the League and Britain/Abyssinia negatively, while Source B is critical of Italy and the Great Powers. The sources have different perspectives given their origins in Britain or Italy.

Uploaded by

Thepower BearBG
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SRC A and B agree on some topics, but disagree on others.

The sources agree that the idea of


conquering Abyssinia was a popular in Italy. Both sources also agree that the Wal wal incident was the
last drop to start the crisis, both sources agree on the fact that the league was defeated. And both
sources agree that Italy had economic problem.

The sources disagree on why the league failed. In A they a sympathetic towards the league, but in B they
are not. In source A Mussolini wasn’t thinking about Wal Wal before,but in src B he was just waiting for
excuse to attack. The driving force in A was just the land with no thought of colonies, but in src B the
colonies were the main thing. Hoare-Laval did not create aggression in source A, but in src B the invasion
was popular so it created aggression and there were different motives for the invasion src A was the
need of land, in src B it was used to distract from the economic problems. There was disagreement in
who caused the problem in A Britain and Abyssinia were the problem,but in B Italy and the great
powers.

D proves C because a British author confesses that far British empires were taken by conquest and also
src C is written from an American which makes it not that blissed. Src C give a lot of information about
that Italy was lied. On the other hand src C is a diary which makes it biased, because it’s the man
opinion.

Study Source E.
What the cartoonist tries to say it that Italy claims that they will save Abyssinia from barbarism,
but they used barbaric methods on their own. And that Italy brought only destruction to
Abyssinia. Because at first they live in huts which is barbaric, but a plane drops bombs and
destroys the barbaric way of living.

Study Sources F and G.


It’s clear from the beginning that both sources won’t agree, because source F is published by
Britain and the other one is published by a newspaper founded by Mussolini
The cartoonist in src F represents Italy as strong and abusive, with no fear from the league this
is shown by the following text”The league? Pah! The league is contemptible! The cartoonist
criticizes Italy for its abusive behavior”. He likes to rule but he does not like the other member of
the league, because how he answers the question of the woman. The other nations try to help
the western civilization, but Mussolini just make full of himself.
In src G we see the the reversed thing Italy is powerless and poor, but Britain is wealthy and
has he control and only focused on it’s own gluttony. The cartoonists supports Italy and
criticizes Britain. This src is published with the idea to create hate towards Britain, and try to
justify their action in Abyssinia. Both sources are biased, because they are published with
propaganda purposes.

Study Source H.
Are you surprised by this speech? Explain your answer using details of the source and your
Knowledge.
No I am not surprised by the speech because, his country was attacked, so the only reasonable thing for
him was to try to calm down the people and request compensation from the LN, because they haven’t
done anything for the situation.

6question

Source A justifies the invasion, because it says that this step was a necessity, rather than to colonize.
Source C supports the thesis that the invasion was justified, because Italy felt cheated after
WW1,therefore it was their only right to get it themselves. Source G justifies it because it shows Italy as
poor people with nothing on their table, so there were doing everything to survive, but we need to take
that with a grain of salt because it was published in newspaper funded my Mussolini.

On the other hand source B does not justify the invasion, because it makes it look that they have done it
just to fix their economical satiation with no intention of helping Abyssinia. Source D does not approve
invasion. Sources E does not approve because the main massage was that they pretended to stop the
barbarism but they used barbaric ways so they are no different. Source F too does no approve because
Mussolini just make big of himself with which he stops the actions that the league tries to help. And
source H does not approve the invasion.

So to conclude based on the sources the invasion was not justified, because they were just chasing their
own intrests, without thinking of the consequences.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Source C, written from an American perspective, suggests Italy felt wronged post-WWI, thus justifying the invasion, while Source D, through a British lens, presents historical conquest as typical behavior, not fully endorsing justification but acknowledging its prevalence .

Source G attempts to garner sympathy for Italy by depicting it as powerless and impoverished in contrast to a wealthy and indulgent Britain, manipulating public sentiment to justify actions in Abyssinia and fostering animosity towards Britain .

Source A justifies the invasion as a necessity for land and not for colonization, whereas Source B criticizes it as a move to distract from economic problems and not to aid Abyssinia .

Source E highlights the moral contradiction of Italy claiming to save Abyssinia from barbarism while simultaneously employing barbaric methods, emphasizing devastation caused by Italian actions, thus critiquing the purportedly civilized motives .

In Source F, the League of Nations is depicted contemptuously, with Italy portrayed as strong and dismissive of the League's authority, while Source G shows Italy as victimized and the League as dominated by selfish British interests. Both use satirical and exaggerated imagery to support nationalistic perspectives .

Source H showcases the speech as a calculated effort to calm Italian citizens and demand compensation from the League of Nations, presenting the speaker’s pragmatic approach to address public discontent and diplomatic failure in a structured appealing manner .

Source A suggests that Mussolini was not considering the Wal Wal incident beforehand, implying a more reactive stance, while Source B describes Mussolini as having been waiting for an excuse to attack, indicating a premeditated plan .

Source D, using an indirect admission, suggests Britain's empire was born out of conquest thereby indirectly justifying Italy's actions, while Source F criticizes Britain's inaction in relation with the League, portraying Italy as defiant. Both portrayals are biased, serving to justify the respective country’s stance .

The socio-political context of 1930s Europe, marked by rising nationalism and tensions, deeply influenced Source F, which viewed Italy's actions critically from a British standpoint, while Source G, promoted by Mussolini-funded media, reflected Italian nationalist sentiment, both serving propaganda ends justified by domestic narratives .

Both Sources A and B acknowledge economic problems in Italy as a factor, but Source A views the conquest as a land necessity, devoid of colonial intention, while Source B emphasizes it as a distraction from economic woes. They differ on whether Mussolini's actions were opportunistic .

You might also like