Source A suggests that the League of Nations would stand firm against aggressive countries. Do you agree with this statement with regard to the Abyssinian crisis?

I do not agree with the statement. Although the League claimed to stand firm against aggressive countries, when it came down to it they backed down.

Mussolini wanted to get revenge on Abysinnia by taking their fertile land and and mineral resources. He wanted to expand the Italian empire, but Great Britain and France didn't want to upset one of thier allies by taking action. The Leauges actions in this incident were poor, as they didn't consider the wellbeing of others and put themselves first.

Samuel Hoare and Pierre Laval suggested that Italy should be given all of the best agricultural areas and that the barren mountanious areas should be left to Abysinnia.

The League of Nations were viewed as afriad of the more powerful countries, such as Italy, and Britain and Frace were seen as selfish as they had not only put their own needs before the wellbeing of other countries, but also before the League itself.

This all came after the incident between Italy and Greece in Corfu, and the Manchuria crisis which showed the League bowing down the aggressive countries.