The 1920s had been times of
prosperity and democracy. But, after 1930, there
was a great depression. Countries now wanted to
increase their wealth at other nations' expense.
Fascist governments which believed in the survival of the
strongest came to power in Germany and Italy.
In
the 1920s, the League had been quite successful.
In the 1930s, it failed terribly.
This
page looks at its failure in Manchuria, and
the next spread looks at its failure in Abyssinia.
|
Going Deeper
The following links will help you widen your knowledge:
Outline
notes
Impact of the 1930s Depression on international relations
Reed
Brett on Manchuria
Japanese
foreign policy - summary
Powerpoint - Manchuria
Describe Japan’s invasion of Manchuria
(1931–3) and what the
League of Nations did about it.
|
Failure in Manchuria, 1932-33
The Dispute
In
the 1930s there was a world-wide economic depression.
Japan tried to overcome the depression by building up an empire.
In 1932, the Japanese army invaded Manchuria and threw out the Chinese.
They set up their own government there and called it Manchoukuo.
China
asked
the League to help.
What the League did:
The
League sent a group of officials led by Lord Lytton to study the problem (this took a year).
In
February 1933 it ordered Japan to leave Manchuria.
The Outcome:
Japan
refused to leave Manchuria. Instead,
Japan left the League.
Many countries had
important trading links with Japan.
The League could not agree on sanctions or even a ban on weapons
sales. Britain and
France did not want a war, so nothing was done.
The Japanese stayed in Manchuria.
The
League had failed.
|

|
Manchuria: Results
Source A
The
invasion of Manchuria had two important side effects - putting
aside for a moment its dreadful revelation that the League was
powerless in the face a determined aggressor. First, it raised the prestige of the Japanese
Army. Second, it made it possible for the Army to
pressurise the Japanese government to undertake a policy of
armed expansion.
Tony
Howarth, Twentieth Century History (1979). A British secondary school textbook.
Source B
America's consistent refusal to use nothing more than words in support
of the League had shown just how toothless and helpless the
international community was when it came to enforcing and
upholding the peace. A dangerous precedent had
been set.
John Costello, The Pacific War (1981) A British secondary school textbook.
|
Source C
I
know this sounds all wrong, perhaps immoral, when Japan is
flouting the League of Nations, but:
(1) she was greatly
provoked,
(2) she must ere long expand somewhere - for
goodness sake let (or rather encourage) her to do so there
instead of Australia and
(3) her control of Manchuria means a
real block against Communist aggression.
A letter from the Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge University, to
his friend John Simon, the British Foreign Secretary (1933).
Consider:
Using sources A-E, find and list all the results you can see
of the League's failure in Manchuria.
|

Source D
This cartoon of 1933,
by the British cartoonist David Low, is entitled: 'The
Doormat'.
What is the cartoonist suggesting
about: • the League...
• the Japanese Army... • John Simon and the other western
diplomats?
Click here for the interpretation
|

Source E
This
cartoon was produced in 1933.
What
is the cartoonist suggesting about Japan?
Click here for the interpretation
|
Consider:
1. The 'Why the League Failed' webpage suggests seven reasons why the League failed. How
many of these factors can you see at work in the League's failure in the
Manchurian crisis:
1. Weak powers
2. America was not a member
3. The League's structure/organisation was inefficient
4. World Depression made nations less cooperative
5. The more the League failed, the less authority it had
6. Its own members betrayed it and let it down
7. The League faced aggressive military fascist powers
2. Taking these ideas into account, WHY did the League fail in Manchuria?
|
- AQA-style Questions
3.
Write an account of the League's failure in Manchuria.
4. "The League's failure in Manchuria fatally damaged its
reputation." How far do you agree with this statement?
|