WI World united against Invasion of Ethiopia

[John Fredrick Parker]

OTL, the League of Nation's response to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia was beyond pitiful -- not granting a loan to finance the resistance, or even agreeing to condemn the annexation. IIRC, a big part of the reason Britain and France were willing to go along with this relaxing was to try keep their diplomatic options for open for Mussolini against Hitler. (If I'm right, I think we all know how that turned out.)

Let's say though, that Britain, France, and Germany* all agree, whatever they may think of Abyssinia, that Mussolini's blatant aggression must be clearly condemned -- what happens then? Would the African nation is able to get loans to fund its defense, and would this make a big difference? Could Italy be stopped? And what of the effects this unity would have on the larger world stage -- would Japan, for example, rethink any plans they had against China? (And if so, would this just delay the Second Sino-Japanese War, or could it be enough to avert it entirely?)

*I'm seeing this as part of a larger TL where Hitler and the Nazis don't come to power

 

[Shaby]

No loans or anything is necessary. Just have the British cut off Italian navy from the Red Sea and it is game over.

I think main problem here is France. They wanted to keep Italian goodwill and have heir southern border secure, as well as prevent possible Italian demands for their colonies. Besides, Italian fleet and Airforce were an unknown qualities at the time, so the British did not want to risk it to go at it alone. As Churchill said, they should have.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

My biggest thought on this right now isn't so much on Ethiopia, but how stopping the invasion affects the overall geopolitical "mood" of the times -- particularly, whether international law "working" in Africa would be enough to dissuade or delay the Japanese in their invasion of China.

I think main problem here is France. They wanted to keep Italian goodwill and have heir southern border secure, as well as prevent possible Italian demands for their colonies. Besides, Italian fleet and Airforce were an unknown qualities at the time, so the British did not want to risk it to go at it alone. As Churchill said, they should have.

Hm, so a lack of nervousness about Germany wouldn't be enough then?

 

[Enigmajones]

Only two countries would have gotten actively involved, France and Japan.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Only two countries would have gotten actively involved, France and Japan.

JTBC, by "actively involved", do you mean opposing or supporting the Italian invasion? Why wouldn't Britain actively oppose Italy's actions?

 

[Enigmajones]

JTBC, by "actively involved", do you mean opposing or supporting the Italian invasion? Why wouldn't Britain actively oppose Italy's actions?

Opposing. The British won't actively oppose the Italians, because in 1934, they hope that Italy can keep Central and Southern Europe under a controllable grip. Not to mention, sentiment in support of Ethiopia wasn't particularly high in Britain. France on the other hand, wouldn't have minded gaining some territory in Africa from the Italians, but also likely wouldn't have gotten involved. Japan on the other hand, almost intervened in OTL, and Pro-Ethiopian sentiment was HIGH.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Opposing. The British won't actively oppose the Italians, because in 1934, they hope that Italy can keep Central and Southern Europe under a controllable grip. Not to mention, sentiment in support of Ethiopia wasn't particularly high in Britain.

But what if, per the OP, Britain didn't have to worry about Hitler? Would they still want to see Central and Southern Europe under such a grip?

CONSOLIDATION:

Japan on the other hand, almost intervened in OTL, and Pro-Ethiopian sentiment was HIGH.

Well, that would have implication in 37...

 

[yourworstnightmare]

You would need no Nazis.

Britain and France were not willing to drive the Italians into the German camp by being too harsh, then again they couldn't afford not doing anything either due to popular sentiments. So their "sanctions" (that were pretty useless, but did send a message to Italy) still made Mussolini start to look to Germany for an ally. And no Laval- Hoare plan would probably mean the Laval government would survive in France and probably not have George V warn Eden about "no more Hoares to Paris". And Hoare's career would probably be a lot better.

Also remember Britain and France both had interests in Ethiopia. France had built the Djibouti- Addis Abeba railway to make sure French Somaliland became the "entrance to Ehtiopia". Britain had for a long time tried to get rights to build a dam in Lake Tana, and thus control the water flow in the Blue Nile.

 

[Kalan]

OTL, the League of Nation's response to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia was beyond pitiful -- not granting a loan to finance the resistance, or even agreeing to condemn the annexation. IIRC, a big part of the reason Britain and France were willing to go along with this relaxing was to try keep their diplomatic options for open for Mussolini against Hitler. (If I'm right, I think we all know how that turned out.)

Let's say though, that Britain, France, and Germany* all agree, whatever they may think of Abyssinia, that Mussolini's blatant aggression must be clearly condemned -- what happens then?

The fact that Germany agrees alone would already seriously strenghten the sanctions imposed by the league of nations. They were not so useless as you seem to think, the contained a ban on selling coal and oil to Italy. That alone would have seriously crippled the Italian economy, but neither Germany nor the USA respected the sanctions and continued to trade. If Germany stops selling coal Italy will face some serious troubles.

Would the African nation is able to get loans to fund its defense, and would this make a big difference? Could Italy be stopped?

That is pretty much given. All the British had to do was to close the Suez channel to Italian shiping and the invasion would fail due to logistic reasons.

And what of the effects this unity would have on the larger world stage

For one Mussolini would be humiliated and isolated for all to see. He had started a war of agression against some blacks and the whole world sided against him which lead to a military defeat. I'm fairly sure that he would be deposed after this abysmal failure. The fascist regime itself might survive, but would certainly be destabilised.

This would in turn make some of the Italian allies e.g. Austria quite vulnerable ... which would be an excellent reason for Germany to take a hard line against Italy.

Then there is also the issue of the spainish civil war. Without italian support Franco would not get his troops from the Marocco to Spain itself in time and the whole coup would likely fail.

would Japan, for example, rethink any plans they had against China? (And if so, would this just delay the Second Sino-Japanese War, or could it be enough to avert it entirely?)

*I'm seeing this as part of a larger TL where Hitler and the Nazis don't come to power

That would again depend on how the non-nazi germany acts. IOTL they had quite a strong interest in China but withdrew to get an alliance with Japan against the Soviet Union.

However I think it is highly unlikely that Japan would attack later. China was getting stronger with each year as more and more of its army was equiped with new weapons and trained by german advisors.

So a hard line against Italy might paradoxically cause an earlier Sino-Japanese war, as the Japanese want to strike when China is stille weak, so they can defeat it before the LoN intervenes.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

You would need no Nazis.

Naturalament.

For one Mussolini would be humiliated and isolated for all to see. He had started a war of agression against some blacks and the whole world sided against him which lead to a military defeat. I'm fairly sure that he would be deposed after this abysmal failure. The fascist regime itself might survive, but would certainly be destabilised.

Wow, now I wonder if no Nazi Germany means Mussolini wouldn't try anything in Ethiopia in the first place...

However I think it is highly unlikely that Japan would attack later. China was getting stronger with each year as more and more of its army was equiped with new weapons and trained by german advisors.

So a hard line against Italy might paradoxically cause an earlier Sino-Japanese war, as the Japanese want to strike when China is stille weak, so they can defeat it before the LoN intervenes.

Yeah, I had a hunch this would be the case -- I suppose the only comfort for Asia is that the Japanese Empire and her wars will take a very different course from there without a distracted Europe.

<everything else>

<everything else>

Wonderful stuff, thank you

 

[Esopo]

With no nazis, it is unlikely mussolini will even try to attack ethiopia at all.

 

[Kalan]

Wow, now I wonder if no Nazi Germany means Mussolini wouldn't try anything in Ethiopia in the first place...

It is of course possible that Mussolini would reconsider his plans but I am not so sure.

In 1930 Italy built the fort of Walwal (Ual-Ual in italian) on Ethiopia soil in a clear violation of a treaty delineating the italian-ethiopian border. The Ethiopians protested and demanded the fort to be removed, which caused Musolini to ask the Italian military commander Emilio De Bono to asses the war readiness of the Ethiopian military in 1932. Emilio concluded that the Ethiopians were no match for Italians. Which caused him to continue the intrusion of Ethiopian territory.

All this happend before the Nazis took power in germany so it would likely still happen.

Then in 1934 the Ethiopian had finally enough of the Italian building forts on their ground and attacked Walwal. The attack was repealed but several Italian soldiers had died. Mussolini didn't really like this and started the military buildup would lead to the war in 1935.

By this time Hitler had taken power but he hadn't done much besides purging any opponents within Germany and solidifying his grip on power, certainly he hadn't yet become a major factor in international politics.

As the seeds of the war had been sown before the Nazis emerged, and the war happend at a time when they were still weak I am fairly sure it would still happen even without the Nazis.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

As the seeds of the war had been sown before the Nazis emerged, and the war happend at a time when they were still weak I am fairly sure it would still happen even without the Nazis.

I think you've got it. So:

No Nazis = Failed War w Abyssinia = Mussolini Falls from power

And, with the Spanish Republic now likely to survive, fascism peters out in Europe.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Yes, the Walwal crisis was really the trigger, which gave Mussolini his casus belli. Another thing to take into consideration is the Italian propaganda of an anti- slavery crusade. (Slave traded slave raids an were illegal in Ethiopia, but happened openly anyways, slavery was still legal even if there were laws that restricted it, but few cared).