This interpretations covers What Do Historians Think? within Abyssinia Crisis for GCSE History. Revise Abyssinia Crisis in Conflict and Tension 1918-1939 for GCSE History with 8 exam-style questions and 15 flashcards. This topic appears regularly enough that it should still be part of a steady revision cycle. It is section 6 of 15 in this topic. Use this interpretations to connect the idea to the wider topic before moving on to questions and flashcards.
🔎 What Do Historians Think?
Interpretation 1 — The death of the League (Zara Steiner): Zara Steiner argues that Abyssinia was the defining moment at which the League ceased to be a serious international institution. The combination of toothless sanctions, the Hoare-Laval betrayal, and the League's inability to prevent conquest demonstrated that collective security had collapsed entirely. After Abyssinia, the League was, in Steiner's assessment, "a dead letter."
Interpretation 2 — Britain and France share the blame (Ruth Henig): Ruth Henig argues that the League itself was not the fundamental problem — the failure of political will by Britain and France was. Both powers had the capacity to impose effective sanctions (including closing the Suez Canal) and chose not to. The League's failure at Abyssinia was ultimately a failure of its two most powerful members, not of the institution itself.
Why do they disagree? Steiner and Henig differ on whether the institution or its members bear primary responsibility. This distinction matters for the AQA essay question: if the League's design was the root problem, structural reform would have been necessary; if political will was the issue, the same institution could have succeeded with more committed members. Both lines of argument are rewarded by examiners when properly developed with evidence.
Practice questions for Abyssinia Crisis
What was the Wal-Wal Incident of December 1934?
What did the Hoare-Laval Pact propose?