January 3. Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations for application of Art. 11 of the Covenant. (". . . that every measure effec­tually to safeguard peace be taken." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 138.)


January 7. Franco‑Italian treaty signed. (". . . desirous of devel­oping in Africa the relations of amity and good neighbourliness which exist between the two nations, and, in order to do this, of regulating in a definitive manner the questions pending on the subject of the conventions of September 28, 1896, relative to Tunisia and of the accord of London of April 26, 1915, in its article 13 . " [Unofficial Translation.] Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, p. 19.)


January 13. Saar plebiscite held. ("Having regard to Articles. 49 and 50 of the Treaty of Versailles and Chapter III of the Annex to those articles . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1934, p. 69. Cf. Dec. 8, 1934, supra, and see infra, Mar. 1.)


January 14. League advisory committee removed arms embargo from Bolivia. (It had accepted the committee report of Nov. 24, 1934. [q. v. supra]; Paraguay had not. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 413.)


January 18. Japanese and Manchukuo troops, invaded the demili­tarized zone between Charhar and Jehol. (The governor of the province had allowed his troops to violate the Charhar‑Jehol frontier, the position of which, although it had been well estab­lished as a provincial boundary under the former Chinese regime, had become ambiguous, since the limits of Japanese territorial claims had not been defined after the occupation of Jehol two years previously. Ibid., p. 325.)


January 22. Koki Hirota, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, made important statement on Japanese foreign policy to the Diet:

"It is the cardinal principle of our foreign policy to promote Japan's peaceful and friendly relations with every country of the world and to develop further cultural and commercial inter­course . . .

"Japan and the United States have been bound not only by the vital economic relationship of a mutual interdependence un­paralleled elsewhere, but also by a historical bond of friendship ever since the commencement of their intercourse. There exists no question between the two countries which is intrinsically difficult of an amicable solution. Certainly it is unimaginable that there should be any cause of conflict between the two coun­tries separated by the vast expanse of the Pacific .

"I fervently hope, therefore, not only that China will soon recover her stability, but that she will awaken to the realization of the whole situation of East Asia and undertake to meet the



56                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


genuine aspirations of our country. In view of our position as China's neighbour and the stabilizing force in East Asia, it is our policy to try to assist China in the attainment of this goal." (Doc. Int. Affairs 1934, pp. 481‑486.)


January 28. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, made statement on Russian foreign policy: ". . . no one can say that the Soviet Union did not do everything it possibly could to insist on universal or at least maximum disarmament.

"A logical continuation of this policy is our proposal to trans­form the disarmament conference, from which some wish to dissociate themselves as soon as possible, into a permanent peace conference, into an organ permanently concerning itself with preventing war. . . .

"In so far as in the question of guaranteeing peace the League of Nations can now play a certain positive role, the Soviet Union could not but recognize the expediency of cooperation with the League of Nations in this matter; although it is not characteristic of us to over‑estimate the role of such organizations. . . .

"The basis of our foreign policy is supporting peace and developing peaceful relations with all countries. . . .

"Not a single country, not even one of the smallest states on the borders of the U. S. S. R., has grounds for entertaining a feeling of unrest in relation to the Soviet Union, which is far from what can be said of certain other big states.

"The Soviet Union considers as incompatible with its policy the seizure of foreign territories, and is an absolute adherent of the independence, integrity, and sovereignty of China over all of her parts, including Sinkiang. . . .

"Here it is necessary to speak first of all of the relations with such Baltic states as Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Finland. The friendly nature of its policy towards these states has been emphasized by the Soviet Power in a special statement on the recognition of the integrity and complete economic and political independence of these countries. . . ." (To the Seventh All-Union Soviet Congress in Moscow. Ibid., pp. 405‑415.)


January 29. The United States Senate rejected American entrance to the World Court. (Resolution defeated 36‑52, failing to win two‑thirds majority. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 423.)


February 5‑11. Italian mobilization against Ethiopia. (The reserves necessary to place two divisions of infantry on a war footing. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 142. Cf. Peace, pp. 247 f.)


February 23. Paraguay gave notice of withdrawal from the League of Nations. (Because of discriminatory embargo. Cf. Jan. 14, supra. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 413.)


February 28. Franco‑German note on the demilitarization of the Saar. (Agreement on police measures. Doc. Int. Affairs 1934, pp. 505 f.)


March 1. Saar returned to Germany. (Result of the plebiscite of Jan. 13 [supra], which gave Germany 90.35 percent of the votes. Survey 1935, Vol. 1, p. 424.)

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              57


March 8. Ethiopia again requested arbitration and noted Italian reinforcements. (". . . the diplomatic negotiations . . . con­cerning the question of responsibility" had "shown the complete divergency of views and the impossibility of arriving at a solution by ordinary diplomatic methods." Ibid., Vol. II, p. 143.)


March 9. Foreign air attaches in Berlin were informed that German air force had come into existence officially as of March 1. (The German objective was the establishment of an air force which would be strong enough to repel attacks on Germany at any moment, and thus strong enough to guarantee Germany's abso­lute security in the air; this action had been implicitly sanctioned in advance by Britain. and France when, in their communiqué of Feb. 3, they had invited Germany to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of a West‑European air pact to be based on the Locarno principle of mutual guarantee, for this invitation pre­supposed the existence of an air force in Germany as well as in the other countries whose adherence to the proposed pact was contemplated. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 140.)


March 13. Italy and Ethiopia agreed on a neutral zone in Ogaden. (To prevent future clashes of Ethiopian and Italian troops. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 140, 527.)


March 15. France decided temporarily to extend the period of con­script service to two years. (Because of German rearmament and lack of security. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 142.)


March 16. Hitler reintroduced compulsory military service. (". . . while Germany as one party to the treaty [Versailles] had fulfilled its obligations, the redemption of the obligation on the part of the second partner to the treaty failed to become a fact. That means the High Contracting Parties of the former victor States have one‑sidedly divorced themselves from the obligations of the Versailles treaty. . . . Germany was, militarily speaking, in a vacuum, defenselessly at the mercy of every threatening dan­ger. . . . The German Government must, however to its regret, note that for months the rest of the world has been rearming continuously and increasingly. . . . In these circumstances the German Government considers it impossible still longer to refrain from taking the necessary measures for the security of the Reich or even to hide the knowledge thereof from the other nations." Doc., Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, pp. 6063.)


March 17. Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations under Arts. 10 and 15. (". . . in consequence of the mobilization ordered by the Royal Italian Government and of the continual dispatch of troops and war material to the Italo‑Ethiopian frontier, there now exists between Ethiopia and the Royal Italian Government a dispute likely to lead to a rupture. . . . The Ethiopian Gov­ernment deeply regrets to observe that the attitude of the Royal Italian Government has not been in conformity with the Geneva agreement. It has not consented to enter into any real negotia­tions; it has proceeded by way of injunctions, demanding repara­tion before the matter is examined at all. Under such conditions, it has not been possible for the direct negotiations to succeed.


58                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


The Ethiopian Government then had recourse to the good offices of a third power. It regrets to state, that the Royal Italian Government declined those good offices. . . . The Ethiopian Government hereby calls attention to the imminent danger of a rup­ture; for nothing is more to be apprehended than that some local incident may serve as a pretext for military action. The inde­pendence of Ethiopia, a member of the League of Nations, is in peril. . . ." Ibid., Vol. II, p. 17 f.)


March 20. Esthonia dissolved all political parties other than the official Fatherland party. (To do away with opposition. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 418.)


March 22. Italy consented to arbitration with Ethiopia. ("It is untrue that the Ethiopian Government vainly demanded arbitra­tion. . . . The Italian Government, although not considering, for its part, the phase of direct negotiations to be at an end, and although still awaiting a reply from Ethiopia, declares, never­theless, that it has not, and has never had, any intention of evad­ing the procedure laid down in Art. 5 of the treaty of 1928. . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 19 f.)


March 23. Russia sold the Chinese Eastern Railway to Manchukuo. (Cash transaction. Cf. May 2, and Sept. 23, 1933, supra. Survey 1934, p. 673.)

President Roosevelt announced the acceptability of the new Philippine constitution. (". . . submitted on behalf of the Philippine Constitutional Convention for certification under the Tydings-McDuffie Independence Act, conforms with the pro­visions of the Act." Doc. Int. Affairs 1934, p. 442. Cf. Mar. 24, 1934, supra.)


March 29. Ethiopian note to League of Nations wanted frontier question as well as Walwal incident settled, by arbitrators ap­pointed by League Council. (If after 30 days arbitrators had not been appointed and details of arbitral procedure had not been worked out by Italy and Ethiopia alone. Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 146.)


March 31. Belgium devalued the belga 28 percent. (Because of the. practical inability to proceed with the measures of deflation, including wage cuts, that were necessary if the former gold parity was to be maintained. Ibid., 1934, p. 33.)


April 3. Ethiopia asked the League Council to consider her dispute during its special session. (Egyptian laborers had been. engaged for the construction of roads between Massawa, in Eritrea, and. the Abyssinian frontier; this was a measure of a nature to aggra­vate the existing conflict. Ibid., 1935, Vol. II, p. 147.)


April 7. The United States agreed to cooperate with Argentina, and Chile in the Chaco peace negotiations. (For "the formulation of a pacific solution of Chaco dispute." State Release 1935, No. 289, p. 227.)

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              59


April 9. The Netherlands raised the bank rate to 4% percent. (As the aftermath of the fall of the belga, there was a "raid" on the guilder. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 392.)

France appealed to the League of Nations for action on German rearmament. (Under Art. 11, para. 2, because of the situation created by the German law of March 16, supra. Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, p. 93. "It is the duty of the League of Nations to take cognizance of the matter [violation of certain fundamental clauses of Part V of the treaty of Versailles] . . . the League cannot remain indifferent to the affirmation of a method of policy entirely contrary to the principles on which it rests and the aims assigned to it. . . . In treating as null and void the provisions governing its military status, the government of the Reich has deliberately destroyed one of the bases of its collaboration with the Geneva institution. . . . By so doing it has seriously com­promised the success of the international negotiations for the limitation of armaments pursued under the auspices of. the League of Nations and on the basis of Art. 8 of the Covenant.

Germany has sought to provide a unilateral solution for an international problem. . . . It is the Council's duty to pro­nounce upon the responsibility for the situation thus created and upon the consequences it entails. It is likewise the Council's duty to state the conclusions that must be drawn, for the pur­poses of their treaty policy, by those governments which still desire to maintain and consolidate European security, There is a more important question that must be raised; for in a Europe in which the method of unilaterally denouncing international engagements became general, there would soon be no room for any policy but one of force. . . . The efforts of the pacific nations are directed towards the establishment of a compre­hensive system of collective security among states through the conclusion of pacts of non‑aggression, consultation, and mutual assistance. Is it worth while to continue those efforts, if it is to be agreed that the repudiation of a contractual undertaking, however solemnly entered into, involves no consequences other than moral reprobation, if a country runs no risk by releasing itself from its obligations, and if the treaty‑breaking state is to be encouraged by impunity to commit further breaches? The Council would not be carrying out its mission if it looked with indifference upon such a threat to international order. It is its duty to meet that threat by considering the most suitable measures for remedying the situation that has now been created and for preventing its recurrence." Ibid., pp. 95‑97.)


April 11. British, French, and Italians conferred at Stress on German rearmament. (Based on information gathered by two British ministers. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 158. Cf. Mar. 16, supra.)


April 12. Germany expressed willingness eventually to enter an Eastern nonaggression pact. (They were unable to adhere to a, pact containing "military obligations as an essential element of its contents and therefore of its existence," because "the ampli­fication of pacts of non‑aggression and no‑force pacts . . . through agreements for military assistance rests upon an inherent contradiction." Ibid., pp. 78f.)

60                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


April 14. Italy, Britain, France rebuked German unilateral repudi­ation. (Cf. March 16, supra. "It was regretfully recognized that the method of unilateral repudiation adopted by the Ger­man Government, at a moment when steps were being taken to promote a freely‑negotiated settlement of the question of arma­ments, had undermined public confidence in the security of a peaceful order. Moreover, the magnitude of the declared pro­gram of German rearmament, already well in process of execution, had invalidated the quantitative assumptions upon which efforts for disarmament had hitherto been based and shaken the hopes by which those efforts were inspired." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, p. 81.)


April 15. The Little Entente, and the Balkan. Entente [Cf. Oct. 19, 1934] passed a resolution endorsing the results of the Stresa conference. (Because they "attach particular importance to the. impending conclusion of the treaties of mutual assistance in the northeast of Europe, as much as to the success of the negotiations envisaged in view of the realization of the security pacts in central and southeastern Europe." [Unofficial translation.] Ibid., p. 86.)


April 15‑17. League Council condemned the unilateral denunciation by Germany of the treaty of Versailles. ("The Council, con­sidering, (1) That the scrupulous respect of all treaty obligations is a fundamental principle of international life and an essential condition of the maintenance of peace; (2) That it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty nor modify the stipulations thereof unless with the consent of the other contracting parties; (3) That the promulgation of the military law of March 16, 1935, by the German Government conflicts with the above principles; (4) That by this unilateral action, the German Government confers upon itself no right; (5) That this unilateral action, by introducing a disturbing element into the international situation, must necessarily appear to 'be a threat to European security;

"Considering, on the other hand, (6) That the British Govern­ment and the French Government, with the approval of the Italian Government had communicated to the German Govern­ment as early as February 3, 1935, a plan for a general settlement, to be freely negotiated, for the organization of security in Europe and for a general limitation of armaments in a system of equality of rights, while ensuring the active cooperation of Germany in the League of Nations; (7) And that the unilateral action of Germany above referred to was not only inconsistent with this plan, but was taken at a time when negotiations were actually being pursued.  Ibid., p. 98.)

Ethiopia insisted the arbitration should cover the frontier also. (Italy wanted to confine the arbitration to "the question of responsibility for the fight at Walwal on the 5th of December and the subsequent incidents" and postpone the frontier question until "after the present dispute has been settled." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 150.)

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              61


April 20. Germany protested the Council resolution of April 17. [Supra.] (". . . they have not the right to set themselves up as judges of Germany, that the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations represents an attempt at a new discrimination against Germany and that consequently it must be most reso­lutely rejected." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, I, 116.)


April 27. Mexico withdrew silver currency from circulation. (The rise in the price of the metal threatened to make the bullion value of the peso greater than its face value, and therefore to render profitable the melting down of coins, as a result of the American silver policy. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 403. Cf. June 19, 1934.)


May 2. Franco‑Russian mutual assistance pact signed. ("Animated by a desire to strengthen the peace of Europe and to guarantee the benefits to their respective countries by assuring more completely the exact application of the dispositions of the Covenant of the League of Nations looking to the maintenance of national se­curity, territorial integrity, and the political independence of states,

"Having decided to devote their efforts to the preparation and conclusion of a European accord having this object and, while waiting, to contribute, as much as it depends on them, to the effective application of the dispositions of the Covenant of the League of Nations. . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, p. 116.)

Danzig devalued the gulden 32.37 percent. (During the spring there was a serious increase in unemployment which meant a further drain on the Government's resources, and heavy expenditure was also incurred in connection. with the elections which took place in April; also to obtain parity with Polish zloty. Survey 1935, Vol. 1, p. 224.)


May 11. Ethiopia complained to the League. (Because of "the serious action taken by the Royal Italian government in pro­ceeding to the mobilization of several classes and sending numer­ous troops and large quantities of war material to Eritrea and Somaliland. . . . The Ethiopian government places its trust in the Council of the League of Nations to endeavor, in accordance with Art. 15 of the Covenant, to bring about a settlement of the present dispute." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 21-23.)

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay constituted a new commission of mediators at Buenos Aires. (Cf. April 7, supra, for "negotiations which it is hoped may result in the formulation of a proposal for a pacific solution of the hostilities between Bolivia and Paraguay equally acceptable to both of the belligerent nations." State Release 1935, No. 292, p. 287; Survey 1935, Vol. I, pp. 414.)


May 16. Czechoslovak‑Russian Mutual Assistance pact signed. (Cf. May 2, supra. Text is identical with Franco‑Russian pact. Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, p. 138.)


May 20 and 22. Ethiopia again complained to the League Council. (About the Italian Government's warlike preparations and the Italian attitude towards the composition and terms of reference of the arbitration commission. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 2.)

62                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


May 21. League of Nations Assembly approved the new Chaco peace commission. (It approved the American initiative. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 414. Cf. May 11, supra.)


May 25. Hitler in important statement of foreign policy to the Reichs­tag declared Germany's will to peace; willingness to accept non­aggression pacts; renunciation of Anschluss with Austria; rejection of League resolution of April 17; renunciation of armaments clauses of the Versailles treaty; promise to fulfill scrupulously treaties voluntarily undertaken; willingness to participate in systems of collective cooperation for safeguarding European peace; rejection of unilateral imposition of terms; willingness to enter an air agreement; willingness to agree on arms limitations; insistence on the necessity of preventing the poisoning of public opinion and on an agreement to prevent interference in the internal affairs of other states. ("National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions. And it wants peace also owing to the realization of the simple primitive fact that no war would be likely essentially to alter the distress in Europe. It would probably increase it. . . . Germany needs peace and desires peace. . . . It is sometimes much easier to sign treaties with the mental reservation that. one will reconsider one's attitude at the decisive hour than to declare, before an entire anon and with full publicity, one's adherence to a policy which serves the cause of peace because it rejects anything that may lead to war. . . . If the German Government gives an assurance in the name of the German people that they wish noth­ing but peace, then this declaration is either of exactly the same value as their signature under any specially worded pact, or otherwise this signature could not be of more value than the solemn declaration. . . . In this respect the World War should serve as a terrible warning. I do not believe that Europe can survive such a catastrophe for a second time without the most frightful upheaval. But such a catastrophe can arise all the more easily when the possibility of localizing smaller conflicts has been rendered less and less by an international network of intersecting obligations, and the danger of numerous states and nations being dragged into the struggle becomes all the greater.

As soon as the dogs of war are loosed on the nations, the end begins to justify the means. And then people soon begin to lose all clear sense of right and wrong. . . . I am afraid if such a conflict were to break out again, treaty obligations would contribute less to the identification of the aggressor than to the support of that state which served his particular interests. It would perhaps be more serviceably to the cause of peace if the other nations were to withdraw at once from both sides at the outbreak of such a conflict, rather than to allow themselves to be involved in this conflict from the outset by treaty obliga­tions. . . . With this exception [`as long as the responsible guarantors of the Memel Statute fail to induce Lithuania to respect the most primitive of human rights, it will be impossible for us to conclude any treaty with, that country.'] . . . we are ready, through pacts and non‑aggression undertakings to give any nation whose frontiers border on ours that assurance which


EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                                                                                                                             63


will also be beneficial to ourselves. . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, pp. 159175.)

Japanese fought Chinese irregulars south of the Great Wall. (Japanese military invaded the demilitarized zone on the pretext of dealing with banditry and threatened to advance on Peiping. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 325.)


May 25. League Council resolved to meet if no fifth arbitrator had been selected by July 25 in Italo‑Ethiopian dispute or if there were no settlement through conciliation and arbitration by Aug. 25.

("(1) Whereas, at the meeting of the Council in January 1935, the Italian Government agreed to settle the dispute which has arisen between them as the result of the incident at Walwal on December 4, 1934, in conformity with Art. 5 of the Italo‑Ethio­pian treaty of August 2, 1928;

"(2) Whereas, direct negotiations through diplomatic channels having been exhausted, the two parties have nominated their arbitrators as provided for in Art. 5 of the above‑mentioned treaty;

"(3) Whereas, since December 5, 1934, other incidents have taken place on the Italo‑Ethiopian frontier and the two Govern­ments are in agreement in entrusting the settlement of these incidents to the same arbitrators in accordance with Art. 5 of the Italo‑Ethiopian treaty;

"(4) Whereas, the Italian Government, in view of the request which has been made to it, makes no objection regarding the nationality of the arbitrators nominated by the Ethiopian Government;

"(5) Whereas the two Governments agree to fix August 25 next as the date on which the procedure of conciliation and arbitration shall be concluded. . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935; Vol. II, pp: 25 f.)


May 27. Chaco mediation commission began negotiations at Buenos Aires. (Cf. May 21, supra. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 414.)


May 28. Bank rate raised to 6 percent in France. (The flight from the franc had assumed almost the character of a panic, and the finance committee of the chamber of deputies was "determined to preserve the integrity of the national currency by every means." Ibid., p. 389.)

Julius Gombös, Prime Minister of Hungary, in a speech to the Hungarian parliament favored an Anschluss of Germany and Austria as clearing the way for a Rome‑Berlin, Axis. (". . . ob­stacles to agreement on the north‑south line have lessened and that it is only the Austrian question, as has been stated both by the Füehrer and the Duce, which today divides these two powerful nations. . . . A settlement is not only in our interest but in Europe's interest, and it is time that the leaders of the great powers adopted a sensible attitude and ceased to regard the problem as Austro‑Hungarian. The problem concerns the whole of Europe, for Austria, like ourselves, occupies a central position in the map of Europe and consequently given the present close

64                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


political and economic relations, this is a problem which concerns every other nation. . . . To sum up: I believe that this multi­tude of mutually conflicting political theories will develop eventu­ally in the direction of the theory mentioned by Deputy Turi–­the line Warsaw, Vienna, Budapest, Rome, perhaps completed by Berlin. This appears to establish a certain equilibrium which is without aggressive tendencies and offers a possibility for the consolidation of peace." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I pp. 181‑183. Cf. infra, Oct. 25, 1936, for agreement between Italy and Germany, which was characterized Nov. 1, 1936, as an "axis" by Mussolini in a speech in Milan. Survey 1936, p. 582.)


May 29: Kurt yon Schuschnigg, Chancellor of Austria, in speech to parliament rejected National Socialism and union with Germany while proclaiming Austria a German state. ("We regard National Socialism in Germany as an internal affair which cannot interest us as long as it is concerned solely with the citizens of the Reich, but we cannot accept the principle of the unity of party and people in a case where racial and state boundaries do not coincide. . . . Austrian National Socialism is a purely Austrian affair, and it must be stated once and for all that it has no place in our new state. . . . We had a plebiscite on July 25 [Dollfuss shot in 1934 Nazi putsch, supra] and in the days which followed at our leader's funeral procession in. the Heldenplatz in Vienna, and since then nearly every Sunday throughout the country. There is no parish where a stone or metal plate with the inscription Dollfussplat Dollfussstrasse is not to be found. . . . The voting cannot be laid to our door. . . . the result remains–an Austria that is free and independent on all sides. . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. 1, pp. 185‑187.)


May 30. Japanese military authorities laid demands before the Chinese administration at Peiping regarding suppression of anti­-Japanese activities. (Peiping was the scene of pourparlers carried on with the Chinese authorities by the unaccredited agents of Japan, consisting of local garrison commanders, representatives of Army Headquarters, and peripatetic officers of indeterminate status. The militarists believed direct enforcement of demands the only effective method of dealing with the Chinese. Japan wanted an official repression of all anti‑Japanese manifestations in China and collaboration in a crusade against Communism. Survey 1935, Vol. I, pp. 318‑320.)


June 7. Pierre Laval formed a Government in France. (Pierre Etienne Flandin's Government resigned when the chamber of deputies defeated the emergency powers bill which would have enabled the Governments to deal with the financial and fiscal crisis; Bouisson's Government lasted four days, for their plenary power bill was also defeated. Ibid., pp. 389 f.)

Stanley Baldwin became Prime Minister and Sir Samuel Hoare, Foreign Secretary in Britain. (Cabinet reconstruction due to resignation, of Ramsay MacDonald. Ibid., p. 419.)


EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              65


June 9. Japan demanded abolition of the Peiping Political Council, the Kuomingtang branches in Hopei, and the Blue Shirt organiza­tion., and withdrawal of Nanking government forces from Peiping and Tientsin areas. (Ibid., p. 415. Cf. May 30, supra.)


June 10. China accepted the demands of June 9. (To avoid hostili­ties. Ibid., p. 415.)


June 11. Danzig Senate decreed control of foreign exchange and condi­tions on which foreign money could be acquired. (General uneasiness had developed into panic, as the result of rumors that at the end of April certain highly-placed Nazis had used their knowledge of the impending devaluation of the currency for their personal profit, and that a further devaluation was contemplated. Ibid., pp. 224 f.)


June 12. Armistice signed in Chaco war. (Through good offices of the mediators; to establish a procedural basis for a final. settle­ment of the controversy. Treaty Inf. 1935, No. 69, pp. 10, 31; Doc. Int. Affairs 1936, p. 538.)


June 15. Finland paid her war debt; others defaulted. (State Release 1935, No: 298, pp. 446462).


June 18. Chancellor Hitler signed a naval treaty with Britain limiting the German fleet to 35 percent of Britain's surface craft and 45 percent of her submarines. ("His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regard this proposal as a contribution of the greatest importance to the cause of future naval limitation. They further believe that the agreement which they have now reached with the German Government, and which they regard as a permanent and definite agreement as from today between the two Governments, will facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of naval limitation between all the naval Powers of the world." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, pp. 142‑145.)

Nanking agreed to dismiss the governor of Charhar. (Charhar troops fired on Manchukuo officials on June 11. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 415.)


June 19 Ethiopia requested neutral observers after protesting Italian press reports and troops in East Africa. (Activity ". . . with the manifest intention of disturbing relations between Italy and Ethiopia. The royal Italian Government refers to these frontier incidents as confirming its duty to tale the most vigorous defensive measures to safeguard its legitimate interests. The Ethiopian Government solemnly protests against these assertions and this attitude. It denounces them as pretexts put forward with the object of justifying active preparations for an impending aggression and making it inevitable." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 33 f.)


June 22. League of Nations lifted arms embargo from Paraguay. (Hostilities in the Chaco had ceased June 14. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 414.)

66                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


June 24‑26. Italy rejected a British offer as compensation for Ethiopia. (Mussolini's attitude seemed to justify the deduction that he was determined to obtain control over a large part of Ethiopia, if not over the whole country, and that, unless Ethiopia submitted to being swallowed up, he meant to impose his will upon her by force of arms. Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 160. Cf. Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 35 f.)


June 27.  France resumed liberty in naval matters. ("A grave event        has just modified the equilibrium of European naval forces."             [British‑German naval agreement. Cf. June 18, supra.] [Un­official Translation.] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 153.)


July 1. Chaco peace conference at Buenos Aires. (State Release 1935, No. 301, p. 3. Cf. June 12, supra.)


July 3. Ethiopia asked the United States to secure observance of the Kellogg Pact. (Ibid., p. 29.)


July 16. Two more Italian divisions mobilized. (For service in East Africa. Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 162.)


July 18. Polish Minister of Finance ordered that goods imported through Danzig (except those destined for consumption or for use in the territory of the Free City) could be released from the customs only by the Polish customs administration in Polish territory. (As reprisal for Danzig exchange restriction measures of June 11, supra; and as an effort to deprive Danzig of her share of the Polish import trade. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 225.)


July 22. Italy went off the gold standard. (The forward lira was quoted in London at a discount equivalent to a rate of over 30 percent per year despite official pegging at 10 to 12 percent discount on the gold parity. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 420.)


July 25. Britain embargoed arms to Ethiopia and Italy. (The Italian Government had made representations to the effect that the con­tinuance of such supplies would be regarded as an unfriendly act. Ibid., pp. 164 f.)


July 26. League Council informed members Italo‑Ethiopian arbitra­tion commission had failed to select a fifth member or agree on details of procedure and that a meeting would be called. (Cf. May 25, supra. Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 41.)


August 1. British, French, and Italian Governments conferred at Geneva on the Italo‑Ethiopian affair. ("In view of the fact that the three Powers, signatories of the Treaty of December 13, 1906, concerning Ethiopia, have already declared themselves ready to undertake negotiations among themselves with a view to facili­tating a solution of the differences existing between Italy and Ethiopia." Ibid., p. 47.)

Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare denied in the House of Commons that Britain or France had given Italy a free hand in Ethiopia at the Stresa conference on German rearmament.


EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              67


(". . . there had been rumours. . . . Speaking for His Maj­esty's Government, I desire to say that there is no foundation whatever for this report. I would add that the question of Ethiopia was never discussed between the delegates of the three Governments at Stresa. . . . I am quite certain that the French Government gave no undertaking either at Stresa or in other conversations that would justify any statement of that kind. I am quite certain that the French Government has taken no action and has made no statement that would be contrary to its obliga­tions either under the Covenant or under the existing treaties." Commons, Vol. 304, cols. 2934‑2935.)

Italy established official control for purchase of certain raw materials from abroad. (In order to regulate "the disposition of foreign purchases in relation to the better development of Italian exports." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 420.)

Arthur K. Greaser, President of the Danzig Senate, ordered that foodstuffs and other necessaries should be admitted from Germany duty‑free. (Acting in virtue of plenary powers con­ferred on him by the Senate, as protest to Polish customs decree of July 18, supra. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 225.)


August 3. League Council resolved that the jurisdiction of the Italo­-Ethiopian arbitration commission should be limited solely to the elements of the dispute other than the question of sovereignty of Walwal, and that they should meet again Sept. 4 to examine the aspects of the relations between the two countries. ("Whereas the proceedings of the commission of conciliation and arbitration have been interrupted, and, in order to ensure their resumption, the two Governments concerned have applied to the Council to interpret the agreement reached between those two Governments with regard to the exact scope of the task entrusted to that commission. . . .

"Considering that the competence of the Commission rests upon the agreement reached between the parties to the dispute;

"Considering that it appears both from the notes of May 15 and 16, 1935, and from the declarations made before the Council at its meeting on May 25, that the two parties did not agree that the commission should examine frontier questions or give a legal interpretation of the agreements and treaties concerning the frontier, and that this matter therefore does not fall within the province of the commission;

"Considering, in consequence that the commission must not, by its decision on the Walwal incident, prejudge the solution of questions which do not fall within its province, and that it would be prejudging that solution if it founded its decision on the opinion that the place at which the incident occurred is under the sovereignty either of Italy or of Ethiopia . . . " Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 43 f.)


August 7. The United States Export‑Import Bank refused credit for export of munitions to Italy and Ethiopia and cotton shipments to Italy. (Practical action on the part of the United States with a view to preventing it from becoming entangled in the approaching war. Survey 1935, Vol. II, pp. 240, 529.)


68                                                        EVENTS LEADING  UP TO WORLD WAR II


August 9. Poland and Danzig by agreement withdrew regulations and decree respectively of July 18, supra, and August 1, supra. (They desired to avoid intervention of the League of Nations. Ibid, Vol. I, p. 226.)


August 12. Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations for removal of restrictions on the supply of arms. (Restrictions on the export of arms and munitions to Ethiopia had been imposed during the early summer by a number of Governments, including the Bel­gian, Czechoslovakian, Danish, and French. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 164, 529.)


August 18. President Roosevelt sent a personal message to Premier Mussolini to avoid war. ("In this country it is felt both by the Government and by the people that failure to arrive at a peace­ful settlement of the present dispute and a subsequent outbreak of hostilities would be a world calamity the consequences of which would adversely affect the interests of all nations." Peace, p. 266.)


August 20. The Seventh World Congress of the Communist Interna­tional resolved to create the broadest united front in the struggle for peace and against the instigators of war and against fascism, against militarism and armaments, against chauvinism, to sup­port the national liberation struggle and wars of national libera­tion. ("In face of the war provocations of the German Fascists and Japanese militarists, and the speeding up of armaments by the war‑parties in the capitalist countries. . . . The concentra­tion of forces against the chief instigators of war at any given moment . . . constitutes a most important tactical task . . . It is the duty of the Communists actively to support the national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples of the colonial and semi‑colonial countries, . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1936, pp. 457 ff.)


August 22. British Cabinet decided to maintain for the time the em­bargo on export of aims to Italy and Ethiopia. (". . . in the hope that a peaceful solution of the difficulty between those nations may still be found as a result of conversations through diplomatic channels between the British,  French, and Italian Governments." Ibid., 1935, Vol., II, p. 53. Cf. Aug. 12, supra.)


August 25. United States called attention to and protested against the activities involving interference in the internal affairs of the United States, which took place in Russia in connection with the Seventh All‑World Congress of the Communist International. Doc. Int. Affairs 1936, pp. 461 f. State Release 1935, No. 309, pp. 147 ff.) .


August 27. Russia declined to accept the United States protest of Aug. 25. Doc. Int. Affairs 1936, pp. 462 f. State Release 1935, No. 309, pp. 148 f).


August 28. Italy issued emergency decrees on conversion of foreign securities, taxation, and economy measures. (". . . the problem of sanctions has been examined by the high military authorities


EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR, II                                                               69


of the regime in all its aspects, and . . ., as far as eventual sanctions of a warlike nature are concerned, the necessary deci­sions and measures to cope with them were already taken a long time ago. . . ." Ibid. 1935, Vol. II, pp. 3, 54 f.)


August 29. The British fleet left Malta for the Eastern Mediterranean. ("In accordance with the program for its autumn cruise. . . ." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 252.)


August 31. President Roosevelt signed the first "neutrality act" 49 Stat., Pt. I, 1081‑1085. (". . . for the prohibition bf the export of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to belligerent countries; the prohibition of the transportation of arms, ammuni­tion, and implements of war by vessels of the United States for the use of belligerent States; for the registration and licensing of persons engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting, or importing arms, ammunition; or implements of war; and restrict­ing travel by American citizens on belligerent ships during war." Treaty Inf. 1935, No. 71, p. 7. ". . . it was intended as an expression of the fixed desire of the Government and the people of the United States to avoid any action which might involve us in war." Statement of the President.  State Release 1935, No. 309, p. 162. Cf. Peace, pp. 266, 272.)

Secretary of State Hull rejected reply of Russia to the United States protest. See Aug. 25 and 27 supra. (". . . in view of the plain language of the pledge, it is not possible for the Soviet Government to disclaim its obligation to prevent activities on its territory directed towards overthrowing the political or social order in the United States. And that Government does not and cannot disclaim responsibility an the ground of inability to carry out the pledge, for its authority within its territorial limits is supreme and its power to control the acts and utterances of organizations and individuals within those limits is absolute." State Release 1935, pp. 150 ff. Doc. Int. Affairs 1936, pp. 463 f.)


September 8. The Italo‑Ethiopian arbitration commission exonerated both Italy and Ethiopia of aggressive intent in the attack of Dec. 5, 1934, at Walwal. (". . . the allegations brought against them [the Italian Government and its agents] by the Ethiopian Government are disproved in particular by the many precautions taken by them to prevent any incident on the occasion of the assembling at Walwal of Ethiopian regular and irregular troops, and also by the absence of any interest on their part in provoking the engagement of Dec. 5 . . . it had not been shown that they [the Ethiopian Government] can be held responsible for the actual incident of Dec. 5." Ibid., 1935, Vol. II, pp. 59 f.)


September 4‑6. League Council created a five‑power commission for the Italo‑Ethiopian dispute. (". . . to make a general examina­tion of the Italo‑Ethiopian relations and to seek for a pacific settlement." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 182.)


September 10. Premier Laval, Anthony Eden, and Sir Samuel Hoare set limit of sanctions action against Italy in private conversations at Geneva. ("We were convinced that our first effort at concilia­tion had failed and that hostilities were going to begin almost


70                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


immediately. . . . We turned all our attention to the question of how the mechanism of collective security should be put into operation, . . . We found ourselves instantaneously in agreement upon ruling out military sanctions . . . in a word, ruling out everything that might lead to war." Ibid., pp. 184 f.)

France asked Britain to what extent she might be assured in the future of the immediate and effective application by Britain of all the sanctions provided in Art. 16 in the event of a violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations and a resort to force in Europe. (In "the eventuality of a resort to force in Europe on the part of some European State, whether or not that State might be a member of the League of Nations." Ibid., pp. 257 f.)


September 10. Ambassador Breckinridge Long cabled Italy was determined to proceed in Africa. (". . . the whole population, both military and civilian, are in complete accord with Mussolini's policies as they have been developed up to now and as they are prospected for the future." Peace, p. 273.)


September 11. Sir Samuel Hoare pledged British loyalty to the League Covenant at Geneva. ("We should be shirking our responsi­bilities . . . if those of us who hold strong views as to the League and its future did not frankly and boldly express them. . . . It is . . . necessary when the League is in a time of real difficulty for the representative of the United Kingdom to state his views and to make it as clear as he can, first that His Majesty's Govern­ment and the British people maintain their support of the League and its ideals as the most effective way of ensuring peace,  . . . The League stands, and my country stands with it, for the col­lective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety. . . ." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 187.)


September 12. Secretary of State Hull reminded Italy and Ethiopia of their obligations, under the Briand‑Kellogg Pact. ("We believe that international controversies can and should be settled by peaceful means. . . . Under the conditions which prevail in the world today, a threat of hostilities anywhere cannot but be a threat to the interests–political, economic, legal, and social­–of all nations. Armed conflict in any part of the world cannot but have undesirable and adverse effects in every part of the world. All nations have the right to ask that any and all issues, between whatsoever nations, be resolved by pacific means. Every nation has the right to ask that no nations subject it and other nations to the hazards and uncertainties that must inevitably accrue to all from resort to arms by any two." Peace, p. 277.)


September 13. Premier Laval also pledged French loyalty to the Covenant. ("The Covenant is our international law. How could we allow such a law to be weakened? To do so would be to deny our whole ideal, and it would be contrary to our interest to do so. France's policy rests entirely on the League. . . . Any attack on the League would be an attack on our security." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, p. 242.)

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              71


September 14. The, Italian Council of Ministers rejected in the most explicit manner a compromise solution for the Italo‑Ethiopian problem. (". . . after the immense efforts and sacrifices made by Italy and after the irrefutable documentation contained in the Italian memorandum presented at Geneva." Ibid., Vol. II, p. 106.)


September 15. German laws passed regarding conditions for citizenship and relations between Aryans and Jews (Survey 1935; Vol. I, p. 419).

Chancellor Hitler alleges that Memel Germans had been tor­tured and deprived of autonomy after peace had been concluded. Ibid., pp. 260 f.


September 20. Italy and Britain exchanged assurances on military and naval preparation in the Mediterranean. ("Such measures had been taken as a natural consequence of the impression created by the violence of the campaign against the United Kingdom which had been conducted by the Italian press during the last few weeks. . . ." Ibid., Vol. II, p. 254. Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 299.)


September 22. Italy rejected the League committee's plans for settle­ment of the Italo‑Ethiopian dispute. ("The Committee of Five has not taken into consideration the specific charges brought by the Italian Government against Ethiopia to the effect that the latter has not fulfilled the obligations which she assumed at the time of her joining the League. Nor has it considered whether Ethiopia is still worthy to belong to the League, when she has not fulfilled those obligations and has openly violated others.

"The Committee of Five has not paid sufficient attention to the fact that Ethiopia was admitted to the League on certain special and specified conditions, and that she may be regarded as no longer possessing the status of a. member of the League, inasmuch as she no longer fulfills the conditions to which her membership was indissolubly linked." Ibid., p. 111.)


September 23. Sir Samuel Hoare sent message of reassurance to Italy on the British fleet movements. (He was "particularly desirous of eliminating every useless misunderstanding between the two countries." Ibid., p. 299.)

Ethiopia accepted the proposals of the League Committee of Five as a basis for negotiation. ("The Ethiopian Government agrees with the Committee of Five . . ." Ibid., pp. 114 ff.)


September 24. Britain asked France regarding her attitude if a mem­ber of the League of Nations, who was preparing to fulfill his obligations under Art. 16, were attacked before that article became applicable. (They wanted to know whether they might count on the same support as if the article were effective. Survey 1935, Vol. II, pp. 258 f.)


September 25. Ethiopia again asked for neutral observers. (". . . to establish the facts in regard to any aggression or other incident that might occur in order to fix the responsibility therefor." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 135.)

72                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


September 26. League Council appointed a committee to prepare a report on the Italo‑Ethiopian affair. (". . . the Council was obliged to recognize that the efforts of the Committee of Five had failed . . . with a view to the application of Art. 15, para. 4 of, the Covenant." Ibid., p. 135.)

Britain told France the former would be second to none in their intention to fulfill, within the measure of their capacity, the obligations of the Covenant in answer to the request of Sept. 10, supra. (". . . the ideas embodied in the Covenant, and in particular the aspiration to establish the rule of law in international affairs, had appealed with growing force to the strain of idealism in the British national character, and . . . they had indeed become a part of the national conscience.

. . . the League stands, and this country stands with it, for the collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression. . . . His Majesty's Government believe that an organism which, in the considered opinion of this nation, represents the one and only real hope of avoiding the senseless disasters of the past and ensuring world peace by collective security in the future, will not lightly render itself impotent by lack of faith in, and refusal of effective action on behalf of, its own ideals." Ibid., pp. 300 ff.)


September 29. Ethiopia signed a general mobilization order. (Accord­ing to the Italians, this was the latest and complete expression of the warlike and aggressive spirit in Ethiopia issued as a direct and immediate threat to the Italian troops. Ibid., pp. 136, 171.)


October 2. Italy announced national mobilization. (". . . because there is an attempt to commit against them the blackest of all injustices, to rob them of a place in the sun . . . to us were left only the crumbs from the sumptuous colonial booty of others. . . . With Ethiopia we have been patient for forty years. Now, enough!

"At the League of Nations, instead of recognizing the just rights of Italy, they dared to speak of sanctions. . . . To sanc­tions of a military character we will reply with orders of a military character. To acts of war we will reply with acts of war. . . .

"A people which is proud of its name and of its future cannot adopt a different attitude. . . ." Ibid., pp. 169 ff.)

Martial law declared in Bulgaria; Agrarians, Socialists, Communists, and others arrested. (Because of plot to overthrow the king and government. Survey 1935, Vol. I, pp. 414 f.)

Ethiopia notified Council that Italian troops had violated the frontier in province of Aussa. (They asked Council "either to send observers or to obtain confirmation of this violation of Ethiopian territory through the Government of French Somali­land." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935; Vol. II, p. 171.)


October 3. Ethiopia proclaimed general mobilization. ("Hostilities were reported to have begun on the Eritrean border." State Release 1935, No. 314, p. 251.)

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              73


October 4. Italy suggested a symmetrical cancellation of the naval and military measures of precaution which Britain and Italy had taken in the Mediterranean. (They implied there was a state of tension over the Mediterranean balance of power which had nothing to do with the Italo‑Ethiopian affair. Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 255.)


October 5. France, replying to Britain's query of September 24 [supra] promised support if there had been previous consultation on pro­cedures, and if Britain would reciprocate under Art. 17 as well  as Art. 16. ("The proposal of the British Government, if given a wide application, fills in very opportunely a gap in the system of `collective security' to which our two Governments are firmly attached." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 302.)

President Roosevelt embargoed export of arms and munitions to Italy and Ethiopia. ("Whereas section. 1 of a joint resolution of Congress . . . approved August 31, 1935, provides . . .: That upon the outbreak or during the progress of war between or among two or more foreign states, the President shall proclaim such fact, and it shall thereafter be unlawful to export arms, ammunition, or implements of war from any place in the United States, or possessions of the United States, to any port of such belligerent states . . . a state of war unhappily exists between Ethiopia and the Kingdom of Italy . . ." 49 Stat. Pt. 2, p. 3474.)


October 7. League Council decided that Italy was the aggressor. (". . . fourteen Members of the League of Nations represented on the Council consider that we are in presence of a war begun in disregard of the obligations of Art. 12 of the Covenant." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol., II, pp. 183 f.)


October 9. Secretary of State Hull informed the League of Nations it was unnecessary and inadvisable to ask the United States to consider joint sanctions. (". . . definite measures have already been taken by the United States in accordance with our own limitations and policies; that these measures include long steps in restricting commercial and financial transactions with the bellig­erents; and that we desire to follow our course independently according as circumstances develop." Peace, p. 284.)


October 10. Coup d'état reestablished a monarchy in Greece. (Panayoti Tsaldaris Government overthrown; National Assembly declared for monarchy. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 420.)

Secretary of State Hull stated that the purpose of the proclama­tion of Oct. 5 [supra], was to keep the United States out of war. ("The warning given by the President in his proclamation con­cerning travel on belligerent ships, and his general warning that during the war many of our people who voluntarily engage in transactions of any character with either of the belligerents do so at their own risk, were based upon the policy and purpose of keeping this country out of war." State Release 1935, No. 315, pp. 303 f.)


74                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


October 11. League Assembly decided on arms, financial, and economic sanctions against Italy. (". . . fifty States members of the League have expressed an opinion in accordance with that of the fourteen States members of the Council, by conveying, either explicitly by their declaration or tacitly, their Government's acquiescence in the report and documents in question." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 191. Cf. also Ibid., pp. 196‑199, and 202‑210. )


October 14. Britain inquired as to French support "in the event of special measures of a military character being aimed at Great Britain" for participating in economic and financial measures under Art. 16. ("On the 14th October 1935, the Coordination Committee made a declaration recognizing that any proposals for action under Art. 16 of the Covenant were made on the basis of para. 3 of that article, by which the Members of the League agreed, among other things, that they would mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the Covenant‑breaking states." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 263. )


October 18. Britain reassured Italy that it had no intention of taking independent action in the Mediterranean. (To explain the British attitude as devoid of self‑interest. Ibid., p. 256.)

France promised unlimited solidarity of action in the matter of military, air, and naval assistance to Britain if she were attacked as the result of the application of Article 16. [Cf., Oct. 14 supra.] ("The British Government . . . offers the French Government the assurance that it will not take the initiative in any measure against Italy which would not be in conformity with the decisions taken, or to be taken, by the League of Nations in full agreement with France." Ibid., p. 265.)


October 19. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said the conflict was no British‑Italian conflict. (". . . for no isolated action has been taken by Great Britain and no isolated action will be taken by Great Britain. . . . It is spread about in some places abroad that one of the main objects in the line of action taken up by this country is to fight and to overthrow fascism in Italy. That is a lie of a dangerous kind. What Government Italy has is a matter for Italy alone. The day is long past when this country would seek by arms or any other method to overthrow a form of Government existing in another country." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 332 f.)


October 22. Foreign Secretary Hoare restated Britain's devotion to the League of Nations. ("If the League does fail, the world at large, and Europe in particular, will be faced with a period of almost unrelieved danger and gloom. The attempt made with such faith and fervor after the War to eliminate war as an instrument of national policy will have been successfully frustrated. The great endeavor to ensure the inevitable failure of aggression will have been gravely compromised. The hope of a new and better world will have become more remote. . . . We say today–`World peace or destruction.' These are the reasons why we have been

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              75


constantly trying to make the provisions of the Covenant succeed, and these, as the House knows are the only reasons that have prompted our action." Commons, Vol. 305, col. 21.)


October 23. Prime Minister Baldwin spoke in the House of Commons of favoring the "adopting as the policy of this country, as far as the League can carry it out today, the policy of collective security . . ." (". . . I am convinced that the country is behind that policy." Ibid., col. 152.)


October 25. The Chaco peace commission prepared a procés verbal declaring the war between Bolivia and Paraguay at an end and urging the two Republics to find as soon as possible a pacific solution for all outstanding differences. (". . . the demobiliza­tion of the belligerent armies has been completed in the form decided by the said commission . . . the military effectives have been reduced to less than five thousand men . . . the two parties have fulfilled their obligation not to make new acquisitions of warlike material . . . have carried out their, undertaking of non­aggression . . . the said undertaking . . . precludes the renewal of hostilities . . . the state of war has ceased to exist owing to the, final cessation of hostilities and the impossibility of their resumption." Doc. Int. Affairs 1936, p. 543.)


October 26. Secretary of State Hull informed the League of Nations Coordination Committee of the independent and affirmative action of the United States for the purpose of dealing with the Italo‑Ethiopian controversy and the special circumstances it presented. (Because of "its purpose not to be drawn into the war and its desire not to contribute to a prolongation of the war.

"Realizing that war adversely affects every country, that it may seriously endanger the economic welfare of each, causes untold human misery, and even threatens the existence of civiliza­tion, the United States, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Pact of Paris and other peace obligations, undertakes at all times not only to exercise its moral influence in favor of peace throughout the world, but to contribute in every practicable way within the limitations of our foreign policy, to that end." State Release 1935, No. 318, pp. 337 f. Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 285 f.)


October 30. Britain and Italy again discussed symmetrical reduction of forces in the Mediterranean. (Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 257. Cf. Oct. 4 and 18, supra.)

President Roosevelt repeated determination of the United States not to become involved in the Italo‑Ethiopian controversy. ("In dealing with the conflict between Ethiopia and Italy, I have carried into effect the will and intent of the neutrality resolution recently enacted by Congress." State Release 1035, No. 318, p. 338.)


November 2. Canada recommended extending sanctions to oil, coal, iron, and steel. (The list of key products was not complete. Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 274.)

76                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


November 3. Greek plebiscite favored restoration of monarchy. (Ibid., Vol. I, p. 420. Cf. Oct. 10, supra.)


November 4. China abandoned the silver standard, nationalized silver, and established a paper currency. (They were "measures which have been prepared for strengthening the commercial banking system, giving increased liquidity under sound conditions to the commercial banks. . . . The Government is determined to avoid inflation and will take energetic measures to deal with speculation and attempts to bring about unwarranted increases in prices." Ibid., p. 406.)


November 5. Britain and Italy again discussed reduction of forces in the Mediterranean. (Cf. supra, Oct. 30. Loc. cit.) A further exchange took place Nov. 12. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 257.


November 6. League Committee of Eighteen accepted revised draft of the Canadian proposal in principle. ("It is expedient that measures of embargo provided for in proposal no. 4 should be extended to the following articles as soon as the conditions neces­sary to render this extension effective have been realized . . ." Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 275.)


November 11. President Roosevelt said primary foreign policy was to avoid being drawn into war. ("Jealousies between nations con­tinue; armaments increase; national ambitions that disturb the world's peace are thrust forward. Most serious of all, interna­tional confidence in the sacredness of international contracts is on the wane." Peace, pp. 289 f.)

Italy protested application of sanctions in note to all members of the League of Nations. (". . . . the reasons set forth, in the Italian memorial [of Oct. 7] have not been sufficiently considered; . . . the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations corresponding to the situation to which attention has been called have not been applied." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 216.)


November 14. President Roosevelt revoked the arms embargo against Bolivia and Paraguay. ("Whereas the Peace Conference in Plenary Session in Buenos Aires formally adopted on October 28, 1935, a Resolution declaring that the war between Bolivia and Paraguay had come to an end . . ." 49 Stat., Pt. 2, p. 3480.)


November 15. The Chinese commissioner of the demilitarized zone, Yin Ju-Keng, asked autonomy for North China. (Part of Japanese‑inspired. autonomy movement. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 416.)

The Philippine Islands became a Commonwealth. (As a result of the Philippine Independence Act and the adoption of a constitution by national plebiscite. Ibid., p. 302. Cf. Mar. 24, 1934, Mar. 23, supra.)

Secretary of State Hull pointed out that trade in essential was materials, such as oil, copper, trucks, scrap iron, and scrap steel, was directly contrary to the policy of the United States Govern­ment as announced in official statements of the President and Secretary of State as well as contrary to the general spirit of the

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              77


recent neutrality act. ("In view of the many inquiries that are being made from time to time with respect to trade with Ethiopia and Italy . . ." State Release 1935, No. 320, p. 382; Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 287. Cf. Oct. 5, 10, 26, supra. Cf. Peace, p. 292.)


November 18. League Economic sanctions against Italy became effective. (Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, pp. 6, 195. Cf. Fascist Grand Council communiqué. Ibid., p. 342. Survey 1935, Vol. II, p. 232.)


November 19. Japanese military authorities demanded Chinese author­ities at Peiping accept the autonomy program. (Under threat of Japanese military occupation. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 416.)


November 22. Italy protested United States statements on Italo-­Ethiopian War. Cf. Oct. 5, 10, 26, Nov. 15, supra. They "cannot be interpreted otherwise than an extension and aggrava­tion, to the principal detriment of Italy, of the meaning of the Neutrality Act of August 31, 1935." That of Nov. 15 "is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Treaty signed between the United States and Italy in 1871–and still in force–which reciprocally guarantees each contracting party a `complete freedom of commerce and navigation'." Peace, pp. 294 f.)


November 24. The Chinese administrator of the eastern section of the demilitarized zone in Hopei, Yin Ju-keng, declared the independ­ence of the district for administration under the East Hopei Anti‑Communist Autonomous Council. (With Japanese mili­tary support to get direct Japanese control over the coal‑produc­ing, area together with its connections with the sea. Survey 1935, Vol. 1, p. 329 f.)


December 1. Chiang Kai‑shek became President of the Executive Yuan in China. (Wang Ching-wei resigned; he had become identified in the public mind with a "pro‑Japanese" policy. He had resigned in August. and actually left office after an attempt on his life at the opening plenary session in November. Ibid., pp. 308, 416.)


December 5. Secretary of State Hull protested the Japanese‑inspired autonomy movement in North China. ("Political disturbances and pressures give rise to uncertainty and misgiving and tend to produce economic and social dislocations. They make difficult the enjoyment of treaty rights and the fulfillment of treaty obligations." Peace, p. 302.)


December 5. Foreign Secretary Hoare defended the Franco‑British peace efforts in the House of Commons. ("On the one hand, we have taken our full part in collective action under the Covenant and, on the other hand, we have continued our efforts for a peaceful settlement . . . the League was solidly behind this two‑fold programme . . . they gave a particular blessing to the efforts that France and we were making to find the basis of a peaceful settlement. . . . " Commons, Vol. 307, col. 342.)

78                                EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


December 6. Order came into force prohibiting import of Reichsmark notes into Germany from abroad unless by special permission or for foreigners' blocked accounts. (Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 419.)


December 7‑8. Hoare‑Laval peace plan for the Italo‑Ethiopian war negotiated at Paris. (Because of the moral mandate for concilia­tion of the League committee, because of the approach of oil sanctions, because of a belief that Italy would attack the British fleet if oil sanctions were imposed, because of a French warning of a possible delay in coming to Britain's assistance in case of such attack. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 280‑301. ("Animated by the same spirit of conciliation and in the sentiment of Franco‑British friendship, we have, in course of our long discussions yesterday and today, sought formulas which would serve as basis for an amiable settlement of the Italo‑Ethiopian conflict." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 350.)

Esthonia suppressed a coup d'état of the Liberators' League. (Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 418.)


December 9. Hoare‑Laval plan published in the French press. (Once the contents were a matter of public knowledge, it would be difficult for the British Prime Minister to reject what his Foreign Secretary had accepted and had drafted and had recommended without disavowing the man in the act of disapproving the measure. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 301.)

Naval Conference opened in London. ("It is now nearly six years since the representatives of the countries participating in this conference met in London to deal with the subject of our present deliberations . . . the limitation and reduction of naval armaments by international agreement. The treaty which re­sulted from that conference provided for the holding of another conference between the same Powers in the present year." State Release 1935, No. 324, p. 513.)


December 10. The British Government endeavored to defend the Hoare‑Laval plan in Parliament and promote it in Ethiopia. ("There has obviously been a leakage in France which has made a very difficult and delicate matter incomparably more difficult and more delicate. . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. I, pp. 350‑360.)


December 12. King Fuad of Egypt restored the 1923 constitution (After a joint petition of all political parties. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 418. Cf. Nov. 13, supra.)

Ethiopia asked the League Assembly to discuss the Hoare-­Laval peace proposal before Ethiopia replied. (". . . in order that, by a full and free public debate, conducted frankly in the face of the world, free from all pressure, direct or indirect, every Member State should be enabled to express its opinion on the true practical significance of the proposals submitted to Ethiopia and: on the general problem of the conditions which are indispen­sable if a settlement between the victim of a properly established act of aggression and the aggressor government is not in practice to result in destroying the League of Nations by bringing final

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II                                              79


ruin upon the system of guaranteed collective security provided for by the Covenant." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 366.)

The Chinese National Government announced the appointment of an Autonomous Political Council to administer Hopei and Charhar, the two provinces bordering on Manchukuo, under the chairmanship of General Sung Che-yuan, ex‑governor of Charhar. (The Japanese military authorities, having failed to create an autonomous area of five provinces [Nov. 19, supra] contented themselves with two. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 330.)

The League Committee of Eighteen postponed the adoption of the oil sanctions. (". . . the committee should refrain from any measure which might have a political character, so long as the Council of the League had not been able to take a decision on the merits of the new proposals put forward by France and the United Kingdom. The adoption of any new measure by the Committee of Eighteen might prejudice the action which the Council, in virtue of its powers, would shortly have to take. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 307.)


December 13. Chancellor Hitler rejected bilateral pacts within an air pact in interview with British ambassador. (". . . the Franco­-Soviet `military alliance' directed against Germany had rendered any air pact out of the question; for the bringing into the picture of Russia had completely upset the balance of power in Europe. . . . each party reserves to itself the right to decide in the last resort who the eventual aggressor is." Ibid., Vol. I; p. 201.)


December 15. Finland paid her war debt. (State Release 1935, No. 325, pp. 541‑555.)


December 16. Ethiopia denounced the Hoare‑Laval plan. (". . . our willingness to facilitate any pacific solution on the basis of the Franco‑British proposals would not only be cowardice toward our people, but a betrayal of the League of Nations and of all states that have thought up to now they could have confidence in the system of collective security.

"Those proposals are . . . a negation and abandonment of the principles upon which the League of Nations was founded. They would consecrate the amputation of Ethiopia's territory and the disappearance of her independence for the benefit of a state that has attacked her. . . .

"A settlement on the basis of these proposals would place a premium upon aggression and upon violation of international engagements. . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 367.)


December 18. Eduard Benes elected President of Czechoslovakia. (Thomas G. Masaryk resigned Dec. 14. Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 417.)

Italy rejected the Hoare‑Laval plan. (". . . the Italian people, . . . is capable of resisting a very long siege, especially when it is certain in the clearness and tranquility of its con­science that right is on its side . . ." Doc. Int. Affairs 1935, Vol. II, p. 371.)




80                                                                    EVENTS LEADING UP TO WORLD WAR II


Ethiopia again denounced the proposals. (". . . convinced that no authority of the League of Nations had entrusted to any one the mission to prepare proposals and forward these proposals to the parties to the dispute. . . . The Ethiopian Government did not expect that these conditions would be drawn up without its participation. . . . The Ethiopian Government desires to point out that all these breaches of the Covenant . . . are proposed against Ethiopia . . . are proposed for the benefit of a state which has declared that the Italo‑Ethiopian: dispute `cannot be solved by the application of the means provided by the covenant. . . ." Ibid., pp. 370‑384.)


December 22. Anthony Eden became British Foreign Secretary. (Secretary Hoare resigned because of the repudiation of the Hoare‑Laval plan. Survey 1935, Vol. II, pp. 315‑320.)


December 23. Saburo Kurusu, of the Japanese Foreign Office, said Japan was destined to lead Oriental civilization. (". . .foreign people did not understand what it was all about." Peace, p. 302.)


December 28. Lithuania dissolved all opposition parties. (Survey 1935, Vol. I, p. 422. Cf. Sept. 15, supra.)