warning

These resources will be removed by end of Summer Term 2025.

Switch to our new teaching resources now - designed by teachers and leading subject experts, and tested in classrooms.

Lesson details

Key learning points

  1. In this lesson, we will examine the global situation which made the work of the League of Nations much more difficult in the 1930s, and go on to explore two examples of the failure of the League of Nations (Manchuria and Abyssinia) which paved the way to the Second World War.

Licence

This content is made available by Oak National Academy Limited and its partners and licensed under Oak’s terms & conditions (Collection 1), except where otherwise stated.

Loading...

5 Questions

Q1.
What was the League of Nations?
An organisation set up so that nations could compete with each other.
Correct answer: An organisation set up so that nations could discuss and solve their problems instead of going to war.
An organisation set up to punish Germany following the Treaty of Versailles.
Q2.
Which of these options was NOT an aim of the League of Nations?
Correct answer: Consider how else Germany could be punished for the First World War.
Disarmament.
Stop war.
Uphold and enforce the Treaty of Versailles.
Q3.
What was the Kellogg-Briand Pact?
An agreement that Britain and France were the strongest countries in the League of Nations.
An agreement that the armies of the member states of the League of Nations could be used for war.
Correct answer: An agreement to ban war.
An agreement to keep Germany out of the League of Nations for as long as possible.
Q4.
What did the Corfu Crisis of 1923 show?
That Britain and France never agreed on any decisions made within the League of Nations.
That the League of Nations had no power to solve disputes.
Correct answer: That the League of Nations had some power to solve disputes.
Q5.
Which of these statements about the League of Nations is true.
Correct answer: The League could sometimes pressurise small states to do what they wanted (but not powerful ones).
The League of Nations was kind to Germany which meant that there was less tension in Europe.
The League of Nations was very successful at making countries meet their aim of disarmament.

6 Questions

Q1.
What was the Wall Street Crash?
A car crash on a road called Wall Street in 1929.
Correct answer: The name for the day when the economy in America collapsed in 1929.
Unemployment in 1929.
Q2.
Which of these options was NOT a reason why Japan wanted to take over Manchuria.
Japan was growing in power.
Manchuria had lots of fertile land.
Correct answer: Manchuria wanted to be ruled by Japan as it was nearby and more powerful than China.
Q3.
When the League of Nations told Japan to leave Manchuria, how did Japan react.
Japan asked for a conference to be held to discuss whether the League of Nations had any right to ask them to leave Manchuria.
Japan left Manchuria and left the League of Nations in protest.
Japan left Manchuria and stayed in the League of Nations but asked for an enquiry into whether Manchuria should be theirs.
Correct answer: Japan refused to leave Manchuria and left the League of Nations instead.
Q4.
Of which country was Mussolini the leader?
Britain
France
Correct answer: Italy
USA
Q5.
Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. How did the League respond?
The League declared war on Mussolini - he was invading a weaker country and needed to be stopped.
The League did nothing at all. It did not have any power because of the global economic depression.
Correct answer: The sanctions were put in place which meant that member states stopped trading with Italy (this did not include coal, oil and iron).
Q6.
Which of these options best describes the way that the League was viewed after the Manchurian and Abyssinian Crises?
The League was seen as a good organisation, that had made some mistakes with Manchuria and Abyssinia, but had a plan to solve problems better in the future.
The League was seen as a strong, powerful protector for weaker countries, against the growing fears of fascism.
Correct answer: The League was seen as weak and ineffective.