The Italian Invasion Of Ethiopia By Halie Selassie's Analysis
Halie Selassie’s speech to the League of Nations is an important moment in the build-up to the Second World War as it represented the triumph of Italian Fascism. The colony of Ethiopia which for so for long had avoided colonialism now became one. The Italian Invasion of Ethiopia was an ongoing conflict that had long been in the designs of Italian minds to re-design a new Roman Empire. (Blinkhorn, 2014, pp. 43-45) The Leagues of Nation’s economic sanctions proved worthless against the Italians, and the British refrained from closing the Suez Canal to Italian shipping. No sanctions were imposed by nations such as the United States and Germany who weren’t even members of the League of Nations. By May 1936, an exhausted, defeated, Emperor Halie
…show more content…
To avenge the military defeats Italy had suffered during its first invasion of the Italo-Abyssinian war. (Mockler, 2003, pp. 61-62) The conquest of Ethiopia meant the empowerment of fascism and embolden its rhetoric of Italian Imperialism. (Bruce, 1998, pp. 158-159) The Hoare-Laval Pact revealed that the League power’s inefficient ability to prevent the Italian invasion and to appease them. This meant that this according to Emperor Halie Selassie in his speech in June 1936 at the League of Nations pointed out that it was where ‘fifty nations asserted that aggression had been committed in violation of international treaties.’ (Winston, 1986, pp. 165-166) However, the 50 nation’s initial reluctance made Selassie unable to respond properly with outdated equipment and supplies, indeed, it was ‘In October 1935. the 52 nations who are listening to me today gave me an assurance that the aggressor would not triumph, that the resources of the Covenant would be employed in order to ensure the reign of right and the failure of violence.’ Selassie was questioning the duplicity with which the fifty-two member’s states had promised him financial aid and now seemed to be rejecting it and shall be discussed …show more content…
As he pointed out, ‘It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. It is the value of promises made to small States that their integrity and their independence shall be respected and ensured.’ If the League of Nations could not defend smaller state’s rights, then it would prove to be virtually ineffective against other nations. Especially with the rise of Imperial Japan that during this time was showing far more expansionist movement in Manchuria which had been condemned by the League of Nations. Selassie demonstrates this by foreshadowing these words, ‘Should it happen that a strong Government finds it may with impunity destroy a weak people, then the hour strikes for that weak person to appeal to the League of Nations to give its judgment in all freedom. God and history will remember your judgment.’ (Halie Selassie, June 1936)This would later happen when Japan backed out of the League of Nations after conquering
To avenge the military defeats Italy had suffered during its first invasion of the Italo-Abyssinian war. (Mockler, 2003, pp. 61-62) The conquest of Ethiopia meant the empowerment of fascism and embolden its rhetoric of Italian Imperialism. (Bruce, 1998, pp. 158-159) The Hoare-Laval Pact revealed that the League power’s inefficient ability to prevent the Italian invasion and to appease them. This meant that this according to Emperor Halie Selassie in his speech in June 1936 at the League of Nations pointed out that it was where ‘fifty nations asserted that aggression had been committed in violation of international treaties.’ (Winston, 1986, pp. 165-166) However, the 50 nation’s initial reluctance made Selassie unable to respond properly with outdated equipment and supplies, indeed, it was ‘In October 1935. the 52 nations who are listening to me today gave me an assurance that the aggressor would not triumph, that the resources of the Covenant would be employed in order to ensure the reign of right and the failure of violence.’ Selassie was questioning the duplicity with which the fifty-two member’s states had promised him financial aid and now seemed to be rejecting it and shall be discussed …show more content…
As he pointed out, ‘It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. It is the value of promises made to small States that their integrity and their independence shall be respected and ensured.’ If the League of Nations could not defend smaller state’s rights, then it would prove to be virtually ineffective against other nations. Especially with the rise of Imperial Japan that during this time was showing far more expansionist movement in Manchuria which had been condemned by the League of Nations. Selassie demonstrates this by foreshadowing these words, ‘Should it happen that a strong Government finds it may with impunity destroy a weak people, then the hour strikes for that weak person to appeal to the League of Nations to give its judgment in all freedom. God and history will remember your judgment.’ (Halie Selassie, June 1936)This would later happen when Japan backed out of the League of Nations after conquering