Lo NSG

St.
James School
Model United Nations Conference
The League of Nations

Agenda: Aftermath of World War I
The League of Nations Study Guide
Topic A: Reparations of the First World War

Topic B: The Crisis in Manchuria
Topic C: The Abyssinian Crisis
Topic D: The Great Depression
Topic E: The Spanish Civil War
Topic F: The Conflict in the Gran Chaco Region
Topic G: The Invasion of Poland
JacoMUN16
Page 2
Message from the Executive Board:

Dear Delegates,
It is our pleasure to welcome you to this years edition of JacoMUN. The
League of Nations committee will try to deal with the Reparations
caused by the First World War, the Crisis in Manchuria, the Abyssinian
Crisis, the Spanish Civil War, the Invasion of Poland and the Great
Depression. Our aim is to revisit and recreate history, and counter the
circumstances that lead to the most devastating war in the history of
mankind, the Second World War. The major challenge of any historical
committee is in making sure that decisions are taken with the same
mindset and information with which they have been occurred without
the benefit of hindsight. We aim to provide you with that information
in this study guide, though gathering additional information on your
delegations position is recommended. We hope you actively take part
in this committee, which strives to maintain global peace and security
in a world marked by economic recession and increasing instability. The
uneasy new political order established in the aftermath of the Great
War surely does contribute to the mindset of the debate on our topics.
We wish you fruitful discussions and debate in our committee.
Ujaan Ganguly
(Chairperson)
JacoMUN16
Page 3

History of the League of Nations
The League of Nations is an international organization founded on January 20th 1920. It has three main
organs: the Permanent Secretariat, the Assembly, comprising all members, and the Council, where all
permanent members and an equal number of nonpermanent members sit. Other institutions operating
within the League of Nations are the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and the
International Labor Organization (ILO). This session at JacoMUN 2016 represents a session of the
Assembly of the League of Nations in January 1932. The mandate of the Assembly of the League of
Nations is described as the right to deal "with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or
affecting the peace of the world. Each member of the League of Nations is thereby represented by up to
three representatives in the Assembly, with each member having one vote. The Councils exclusive
authority is established regarding the supervision of the reduction of armaments and the preservation
of the territorial integrity of the member states, as well as disputes or threats of war and the failure to
carry out a decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Councils role is also clear in
disputes that cannot be settled by arbitration or judicial settlements: these have to be submitted to the
Council, which will draft a report. While the Assembly maintained the power to accept any members
request for a settlement, the Council must be informed beforehand. The Council also has the power to
inquire into disputes between non-member states and take measures to prevent hostilities between
them. This broad list of powers of the Council severely limits the jurisdiction of the Assembly regarding
settlement of all sorts of international disputes as it sees fit, since the Councils prerogatives are not to
be infringed upon. Both the Assembly and the Council have to act using the unanimity requirement,
which guarantees the full respect for each members national sovereignty. This rule stipulates that any
decision of either body requires a unanimous vote of all the states present at the meeting.
The Unanimity Rule

This unanimity rule always applies in both Council and Assembly, except in ten well-defined exceptions.
These encompass the admission of new members, the amending of the Covenant, the election of
nonpermanent members to the Council, a change in the number of members of the Council, a vote on
procedural matters, a vote on a decision on a dispute or on the application of sanctions, matters
regarding the Saar territory, questions arising out of the sections of the peace treaties relating to League
inspection of the armaments of defeated Powers, the election of judges to the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ) and the appointment of the Secretary General. Especially the exception
regarding the decision on a dispute or the application of sanctions is important, since it requires all
members of the Council, both the permanent and the non-permanent ones, to agree to it in the
Assembly, while at the same time a regular majority of the other states present is required. While this
exception does lower the threshold for the sanctions to be applied or for the dispute to be ruled upon
among those Assembly members which arent members of the Council, it does grant a veto right to
those Council members both to the permanent and to the temporary ones. The Assembly can thereby
be stalled by a single negative vote.
JacoMUN16
Page 4

Topic A: Aftermath of the First World War
The burdensome permanent reparations imposed after World War I, coupled with a general inflationary
period in Europe in the 1920sanother direct result of a materially catastrophic warcaused spiraling
hyperinflation of the German Reichsmark by 1923. This hyperinflationary period combined with the
effects of the Great Depression (beginning in 1929) to seriously undermine the stability of the German
economy, wiping out the personal savings of the middle class and spurring massive unemployment.
Such economic chaos did much to increase social unrest, destabilizing the fragile Weimar Republic.
Efforts of the western European powers to marginalize Germany undermined and isolated its
democratic leaders and underscored the need to restore German prestige through remilitarization and
expansion.
The social and economic upheaval that followed World War I powerfully destabilized Germany's
fledgling democracy and gave rise to many radical right wing parties in Weimar Germany. Particularly
detrimental in connection with the harsh provisions of Versailles was the rampant conviction among
many in the general population that Germany had been "stabbed in the back" by the "November
criminals"those who had helped to form the new Weimar government and broker the peace which
Germans had so desperately wanted, but which had ended so disastrously in the Versailles Treaty.
Many Germans forgot that they had applauded the fall of the Kaiser, had initially welcomed
parliamentary democratic reform, and had rejoiced at the armistice. They only recalled that the German
LeftSocialists, Communists, and Jews, in common imaginationhad surrendered German honor to a
disgraceful peace when no foreign armies had even set foot on German soil.
This Dolchstosslegende(stab-in-the-back legend) was initiated and fanned by retired German wartime
military leaders, who, well aware in 1918 that Germany could no longer wage war, had advised the
Kaiser to sue for peace. It helped to further discredit German socialist and liberal circles who felt most
committed to maintain Germany's fragile democratic experiment.
Vernunftsrepublikaner ("republicans by reason"), individuals like the historian Friedrich Meinecke and
Nobel prize-winning author Thomas Mann, had at first resisted democratic reform. They now felt
compelled to support the Weimar Republic as the worst alternative. They tried to steer their
compatriots away from polarization to the radical Left and Right. The promises of the German
nationalist Right to revise the Versailles Treaty through force if necessary increasingly gained inroads in
respectable circles. Meanwhile the specter of an imminent Communist threat, in the wake of the
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and of short-lived Communist revolutions or coups in Hungary (Bela Kun)
and in Germany itself (e.g., the Sparticist Uprising), shifted German political sentiment decidedly toward
right-wing causes.
JacoMUN16
Page 5

Agitators from the political left served heavy prison sentences for inspiring political unrest. On the other
hand, radical rightwing activists like Adolf Hitler, whose Nazi Party had attempted to depose the
government of Bavaria and commence a "national revolution" in the November 1923 Beer Hall Putsch,
served only nine months of a five year prison sentence for treasonwhich was a capital offense. During
the prison sentence he wrote his political manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).
The difficulties imposed by social and economic unrest in the wake of World War I and its onerous peace
terms and the raw fear of the potential for a Communist takeover in the German middle classes worked
to undermine pluralistic democratic solutions in Weimar Germany. They also increased public longing
for an authoritarian direction, a kind of leadership which German voters ultimately and unfortunately
found in Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist Party. Similar conditions benefited rightwing authoritarian
and totalitarian systems in Eastern Europe as well, beginning with the defeated nations of World War I,
and eventually raised levels of tolerance for and acquiescence in violent anti-Semitism and
discrimination against national minorities throughout the region.
Finally, the destruction and catastrophic loss of life during World War I led to what can best be
described as a cultural despair in many former combatant nations. Disillusionment with international
and national politics and a sense of distrust in political leaders and government officials permeated the
consciousness of a public which had witnessed the ravages of a devastating four-year conflict. Most
European countries had lost virtually a generation of their young men. While some writers like German
author Ernst Jnger glorified the violence of war and the conflict's national context in his 1920
work Storm of Steel (Stahlgewittern), it was the vivid and realistic account of trench warfare portrayed in
Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 masterpiece All Quiet on the Western Front (Im Westen nichts Neues)
which captured the experience of frontline troops and expressed the alienation of the "lost generation"
who returned from war and found themselves unable to adapt to peacetime and tragically
misunderstood by a home front population who had not seen the horrors of war firsthand.
In some circles this detachment and disillusionment with politics and conflict fostered an increase in
pacifist sentiment. In the United States public opinion favored a return to isolationism; such popular
sentiment was at the root of the US Senate's refusal to ratify the Versailles Treaty and approve US
membership in President Wilson's own proposed League of Nations. For a generation of Germans, this
social alienation and political disillusionment was captured in German author Hans Fallada's Little Man,
What Now? (Kleiner Mann, was nun?), the story of a German "everyman," caught up in the turmoil of
economic crisis and unemployment, and equally vulnerable to the siren songs of the radical political Left
and Right. Fallada's 1932 novel accurately portrayed the Germany of his time: a country immersed in
economic and social unrest and polarized at the opposite ends of its political spectrum. Many of the
JacoMUN16
Page 6

causes of this disorder had their roots World War I and its aftermath; and the path which Germany took
would lead to a still more destructive war in the years to come.
KEY FACTS:
Germany lost 13 percent of its territory and 10 percent of its population.
Perhaps the most humiliating portion of the treaty for defeated Germany was Article 231,
commonly known as the War Guilt Clause. This clause forced the German nation to accept
complete responsibility for initiating World War I. Germany was liable for all material damages.
The treaty limited the German army to 100,000 men and forbade conscription. It greatly limited
the German navy and prohibited a submarine fleet and air force.
Nearly 10 million soldiers on all sides died as a result of hostilities. This figure far exceeded the
military deaths in all the wars of the previous one hundred years combined. Although accurate
casualty statistics are difficult to ascertain, an estimated 21 million men were wounded in
combat.
Postwar treaty reparations and hyperinflation of the German currency contributed to economic
turmoil in Germany.
JacoMUN16
Page 7

Topic B: The Crisis in Manchuria
Introduction:The Manchurian Crisis, along with the invasion of Manchuria, establishment of the puppet state of
Manchukuo, and Japans departure from the League of Nations, mark one of the Leagues greatest
failures. Japan, striving to prove itself as the first modern imperialist Asian power and torn between the
influence of the army and the emperor, saw the potential for expansion in the fracturing post-imperial
China. Well intentioned, but under-informed and lacking the ability to enforce their edicts, the League of
Nations efforts to promote collective security failed. The Manchurian Crisis proved the League
toothless, paving the way to Italys invasion of Ethiopia, and eventually the devastation of the Second
World War. As delegates of the League of Nations you have the opportunity to revisit this crisis and
potentially change the fate of South-East Asia and the League of Nations.
Timeline of Major Events: October 1929: the American stock market collapse signals the start of the great depression.
September 18, 1931: Mukden Incident, explosion and skirmishing near the Japanese South Manchuria
Railway. Japan blames Chinese dissidents for the attack.
September 19, 1931: Invasion of Manchuria, units of the Japanese Kwantung Army occupy Southern
Manchuria.
December 1931: Lytton Commission dispatched by the League of Nations to investigate the violence
and conflicting Japanese and Chinese claims over responsibility.
January 1932: Shanghai Incident, an assault on five Japanese nationals leads to riots in the streets of
Shanghai and eventually full-scale armed conflict.
February 1932: Japanese forces continue their advance and, despite Chinese resistance, fully complete
their occupation of Manchuria.
March 1932: Japan declares the state of Manchukuo with former Chinese emperor Aisin Puyi as head
of state.
JacoMUN16
Page 8

Japan in the 1930s:By the beginning of the 1930s Japan had been a charter member of the League of the Nations and
permanent member of the League Council for a decade. They had served conscientiously while Japanese
diplomats and members of the secretariat carried out their duties with distinction. Some discontent was
heard at home that Japan was wasting her time and resources on a European club too distant to be
effective in Asia, but few people in Japan expected the dramatic events that were to follow. In the
1930s, American economic collapse spurred on concerned voices in Japan which called for reliable
markets, dependable sources of raw materials, and territory for the countrys expanding population.
Imperialist militaristic officers came to power in the army and militarism became increasingly popular
with the Japanese population. Influential officers in the military, particularly in the Kwantung army
based in Korea, turned their sights on the Chinese mainland.
Post-Imperial China:China, meanwhile, was still in the process of stabilizing following the fall of the imperial dynasty in 1912.
National forces under Chiang Kai-shek were asserting their territorial sovereignty while Japans retention
of Shandong province invigorated both the Nationalists and the emerging Chinese Communists. These
events culminated in the 1927-1928 Northern Expedition. Chiang Kai-sheks forces united large portions
of the fragmented republic, pushed back the communists, and drew the support of local warlords.
Notably, this included Zhang Xueliang, known as the Young Marshall who held power over the three
northernmost provinces of China including Manchuria.
The Mukden Incident:On the evening of 18th September, 1931 Japanese railway guards on the South Manchurian Railway
reported an explosion just north of the city of Mukden. A short skirmish occurred that evening between
Chinese and Japanese soldiers, followed shortly thereafter by the Kwantung Armys occupation of
Mukden. Despite orders from the General Staff in Tokyo, local Japanese forces expanded their
operations and, supported by a rush of popular nationalistic fervor, advanced into Northern Manchuria.
On the 11th of December the frustrated Japanese cabinet resigned, only to have their replacements
prove even less effective at controlling their military.
China goes to the League:Earlier, on September 21st China brought the crisis to the attention of the League, requesting under
Article 11 of the Covenant for a meeting of the council. The Following day the council passed a
resolution appealing to the Chinese and Japanese Governments to refrain from any action which might
aggravate the situation and find adequate means of enabling the two countries to withdraw troops
immediately. Heedless of the resolution, fighting between the two parties continued. Due to the
continued violence, and spurred on by both the Japanese and Chinese governments, the League
dispatched the Lytton commission on a fact-finding mission to inform their member states and
JacoMUN16
Page 9

determine the causes of the conflict. Throughout the Commissions six week mission, Japanese forces
continued to advance and new violence sprang up in the city of Shanghai.
Discussion of the problem:The Issue Itself:

The roots of the Manchurian crisis are deeply embedded in issues of imperialism, economic collapse,
and the fragility of the original League organization. Japan, a rising star in Asian politics, aimed to be the
first modern non-European great power. While some sectors of the government believed strongly in
international organizations, others (particularly the military) argued that the only way for Japan to
succeed was to expand and model themselves on Western imperialism. China, fraught with internal
instability, rising nationalism, and a burgeoning communist party knew it needed to prove its place in
the world.
Political Obstacles:China hoped that bringing their case to the League would provide international support and force Japan
to back down, while Japan was certain that this was a local Asian issue which did not merit the attention
of the League and should be solved through bilateral peace talks. Meanwhile, France, the United States,
and the United Kingdom, all held vested interest in the stability of South-east Asia. Germany and Italy
watched the proceedings to gauge the reactions of the League. Japans seat on the League council
meant that any major decisions of the League would have to take Japan into account due to the
Leagues consensus voting system. Diplomats in the League were additionally hampered by a lack of
accurate information on the conflict.
JacoMUN16
Page 10

The Future:Tensions between China and Japan are extremely high. Japanese forces continue to expand into
Northern Manchuria while the outclassed Chinese army struggles to resist. The European powers watch
the conflict with increasing concern over their holdings in the region while the forces of the USSR remain
poised on the boarder observing the conflict. On January 18th 1932, five Japanese monks are assaulted
in the city of Shanghai. The Chinese government blames Japanese agents for instigating the assault while
the Japanese government insists that this is yet again, instigation by the violent Chinese government.
The deaths caused riots in the city between local Chinese and Japanese expatriates. By January 27th
over 7000 Japanese soldiers concentrated on the shorelines of Shanghai, while outside the city the
Chinese 19th Army begins to mass.
BLOC POSITIONS:Nations that are directly involved:

Japan and China are diametrically opposed. Japan aims to increase its economic means while expanding
its empire. It supports the creation of the state of Manchukuo citing Wilsonian ideals regarding selfdetermination. Japan hopes to pursue bilateral negotiations with China. China aims to maintain direct
control of its territory, improve the stability of its territory, and secure support via the League of
Nations. The Chinese main military concern is their civil war with the expanding Chinese Communist
party so they hope to deal with the Manchurian crisis as quickly as possible to turn their attention back
to the Communist threat.
Nations with vested interests nearby:
The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and other colonial powers are concerned over the
security of their colonies in South-East Asia. While none of them are directly involved in the conflict they
remain concerned that the violence in Manchuria could spread, destabilizing the region. They are also
concerned about Communist expansion in China, and are invested in Japan as an Eastern counter to the
potential expansion of the USSR.
Nations concerned by the development of the crisis:
Many small states sympathize with China, fearing imperial hostility from larger powers and hoping for
proof of the Leagues ability to protect them. Italy watches the developments in China with great
interest as they are considering how far they can push the League. Germany, torn by political unrest due
to the swift rise of the Nazi party, likewise remains concerned.
JacoMUN16
Page 11

Further Reading:http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk/modernworld/appeasement/manchuriancrisis.html
Elorant, Jari. Why Did the League of Nations Fail? Appalachian State University, Department of
History, 2005 http://www.ata.boun.edu.tr/ehes/ Istanbul%20Conference%20Paper s%20May%202005/WHY_DID_T HE_LEAGUE_OF_NATIONS_ FAIL.pdf
Bendiner Elmer, A Time for Angels: The Tragicomic History of the League of Nations, New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1975.
Points Resolutions Should Address:1. How does the League of Nations react to the presence of Japanese Forces in Manchuria and to the
possible future of the state of Manchukuo?
2. What can be done to stop the violence likely to occur in Shanghai?
3. Can the international community address Japan's concern over its economic stability and meet its
desire to expand?
4. Can the Assembly of the League of Nations find ways to maintain the desire for stability of the
Republic of China?
JacoMUN16
Page 12
Topic C: The Abyssinian Crisis

Introduction:The Italian invasion of Abyssinia is important for multiple reasons. It showed the League of Nations
inefficiency in maintaining collective security (thus making it one of the most important events in the
Leagues history). It also showed that the League of Nations was ineffective as a peace keeper between
nations and that it didnt have the strength to prevent aggression. Furthermore, the invasion led to the
withdrawal of Italy from the League of Nations in 1937. Italy was one of the founding members of the
League of Nations, and its withdrawal from the League was more significant than that of Germanys and
Japans in 1933.
In the early 1930's Italy's population was growing steadily. The Italian leader, Benito Mussolini, was
eager to increase the size of the Italian empire. He wanted to increase the empire for several reasons.
Firstly, an expanded empire would provide much needed raw materials needed to help Italian Industry
and military expansion.
Secondly an increased empire would send out a clear message of strength and add to national prestige.
Thirdly, expansion would provide land for the expanding population to live in.
Italy already held several colonies in Africa. Eritrea on Africa's eastern coast was an Italian colony, as was
Libya on the Mediterranean coast. Expansion of the empire would almost certainly be a breach of
international agreements: Italy had signed the Kellogg pact which denounced warfare and as a member
of the League of Nations was forbidden to act aggressively against another Member Nations. Legally
therefore such expansion could only really be achieved through effectively taking control of an areas
economy making it dependent on Italy.
JacoMUN16
Page 13
Italy in the 1930s:Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was the leader of the Nationalist Fascist Party, Prime Minister from
1922 until he was removed in 1943. After being expelled from the Italian Socialist Party Mussolini
denounced it and later founded the fascist movement. A part of his expansionist plans was to obtain a
foreign policy triumph allowing him to push Fascist system in a more radical guidance at home. Italy's
forces were far superior to the Abyssinian forces, especially in air power, and they were victorious.
Emperor Haile Selassie was forced to flee the country, with Italy entering the capital Addis Ababa to
proclaim an empire by May 1936.
JacoMUN16
Page 14
Abyssinia in the 1930s:Haile Selassie I was Ethiopias ruler from 1916 to 1930 and Emperor of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974. With
an attack appearing inevitable, Emperor Haile Selassie ordered a general mobilization of the Army of the
Ethiopian Empire. Persuaded that Mussolini wanted to conquer East Africa, he gave a speech at the
League of Nations on the 30th June 1935: "It is us today. It will be you tomorrow."
JacoMUN16
Page 15
Timeline of Major Events:1895 - Italy invades Ethiopia (Scramble for Africa of the XIXth century)
1928 - Treaty of Friendship between Italy and Emperor Haile Selassie.
29th September 1934 - Non-Aggression Pact between Ethiopia and Italy.
22nd November 1934 - Walwal incident in which Ethiopian armed forces demand the retreat of the
Italian forces installed by the area, the disagreement becomes an armed conflict.
6th December 1934 - the Emperor of Ethiopia accuses Italy to have opened fire.
8th to 11th December 1934 - Italy demands excuses from Ethiopia and later adds the demand for
financial compensation for damage.
3rd January 1935 - Ethiopia calls upon League of Nations for help to settle the issue.
7th January 1935 - French Foreign Affairs Minister proposes Italy take the French Somalia in exchange of
help in case of German attack: this becomes known as The Franco-Italian Agreement of Rome.
25th January 1935 - Five Italian military members are killed by Ethiopian forces.
December 1935 - Hoare-Laval Plan established.
JacoMUN16
Page 16

23th February 1936 - Mussolini sends large amounts of troops in bordering countries to Ethiopia:
Somalia and Eritrea.
8th March 1936 - Ethiopia calls upon League of Nations a second time for settling of issue.
17th March 1936 - Ethiopia calls upon League of Nations for help to push the Italians out.
20th June 1936 - USA terminates application of Neutrality Acts towards conflicting parties to never
recognize Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia.
1934-37 - Abyssinian Crisis, as a result of Walwal incident of November 1934
3rd of October 1935 - Invasion by Italian Troops of Ethiopia
1936 - King of Italy made emperor of Ethiopia, combined with Eritrea and Somaliland becomes Italian
East Africa; Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia flees.
The Walwal Incident:On November 22, 1934, a force of 1,000 Ethiopian militia with three fitaurari (Ethiopian military-political
commanders) arrived near Walwal and requested the Dubats garrison (about 60 men) to withdraw. The
Somali NCO leading the garrison refused to withdraw and notified the fact to Captain Cimmaruta,
commander of the garrison of Uarder, 20 km away.
The next day, while surveying the border between British Somaliland and Abyssinian, an Anglo
Ethiopian boundary commission arrived at Walwal. The commission was confronted by a newly-arrived
Italian force. The British members of the boundary commission protested but withdrew to avoid an
international incident. The Abyssinian members of the boundary commission stayed at Walwal.
Between 57 December, for reasons which have never been clearly determined, there was a skirmish
between the garrison of Somalis who were in Italian service and a force of armed Ethiopians. According
to the Italians, the Ethiopians attacked the Somalis with rifle and machine gun fire. According to the
Ethiopians, the Italians attacked them, supported by two tanks and three aircraft. In the end,
approximately 107 Ethiopians and 50 Italians and Somalis were killed. Neither side did anything to avoid
confrontation; the Ethiopians repeatedly menaced the Italian garrison with the threat of an armed
attack, nordid the Italians send two planes over the Ethiopian camp with some machine-gun fire.
JacoMUN16
Page 17
Bloc Positions:Nations and organizations involved:

Kingdom of Italy:
The Italians had attempted to expand in eastern Africa by joining Abyssinia to her conquests, but in
1896, the Italians were heavily defeated by the Abyssinians at the Battle of Adowa. The loss of 6000 men
against a backward army from Abyssinia was difficult for the Italian people to comprehend. However,
this defeat did not stop politicians in Italy planning for a new attempt to take over Abyssinia.
United Kingdom and France:
Britain and France were also concerned about provoking Mussolini in the Mediterranean Sea where
Britain had two large naval bases - Gibraltar and Malta. In fact, the Italian Navy was vastly overestimated
by both the British and French but it was this fear which also led Britain to keeping open the Suez Canal.
If this route had been cut, then Italy would have had extreme difficulties supplying her armed forces in
the region during the conflict. It is also possible that both Britain and France considered the war too far
away to be of any importance to them. They were not prepared to risk their naval power in the
Mediterranean for the sake of a country barely anybody had heard of in either France or Britain. Britain
JacoMUN16
Page 18

and France also had another input into this affair. In an effort to end the war, the British Foreign
Secretary - Samuel Hoare - and the French Prime Minister - Pierre Laval - met in December 1935. They
came up with the Hoare-Laval Plan. This gave two large areas of Abyssinia to Italy and a gap in the
middle of the country - the "corridor of camels" - to the Abyssinians. The south of the country would be
reserved for Italian businesses. In return for this land, the Italians would have to stop the war.
Involvement by the League of Nations:In October of 1935, when invaded, Ethiopia asked for measures to be taken against Italy by League of
Nations. After six weeks of debate, economic sanctions were forced upon Italy without pertaining to
vital products but only weaponry, metal and rubber. Furthermore, no military support was sent to the
country and three member states refused to impose sanctions on Italy. The Hoare-Laval Plan was
presented by Foreign Ministers of both the Britain and France in December 1935: it gave two areas of
Abyssinia to Italy and left a gap in the center named the Corridor of Camels in return Italy was to stop
warfare on Britain and France; Mussolini gave his agreement, yet due to British national protest this plan
was dropped. The economic sanctions also failed as they did not threaten Italys economic stability and
thus did not pressure it to refrain from pursuing the conflict with Ethiopia.
Points Resolutions Should Address:What kind of action should be taken by the member nations with regard to the situation? (Diplomatic,
economic or military)
How can the League ensure that this kind of action isnt taken again by another country?
What actions should be taken against Italy for their invasion of Abyssinia and also for their violation of
Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations?
Should the Hoare Laval plan still be in force?
What kind of alternative solution could Italy ask for to their wish for power over African countries?
Further Research:https://teachwar.wordpress.com/resources/war-justifications-archive/italian-ethiopian-abyssinian-war1935/
http://www.liquisearch.com/abyssinia_crisis
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/italy-1900-to1939/abyssinia/
JacoMUN16
Page 19
Topic D: The Great Depression/ 1929 World

Economic Crisis/ Wall Street Crisis
Introduction:The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression that took place during the 1930s.
The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations; however, in most countries it started in 1929
and lasted until the late 1930s. It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th
century. In the 21st century, the Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the
world's economy can decline.
The depression originated in the United States, after a fall in stock prices that began around September
4, 1929, and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black
Tuesday). Between 1929 and 1932, worldwide GDP fell by an estimated 15%.
The Great Depression had devastating effects in countries both rich and poor. Personal income, tax
revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%.
Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and in some countries rose as high as 33%.
Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction
was virtually halted in many countries. Farming communities and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell
by approximately 60%.Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent
on primary sector industries such as mining and logging suffered the most.
JacoMUN16
Page 20

Causes of the Decline:The fundamental cause of the Great Depression in the United States was a decline in spending
(sometimes referred to as aggregate demand), which led to a decline in production as manufacturers
and merchandisers noticed an unintended rise in inventories. The sources of the contraction in spending
in the United States varied over the course of the Depression, but they cumulated in a monumental
decline in aggregate demand. The American decline was transmitted to the rest of the world largely
through the gold standard. However, a variety of other factors also influenced the downturn in various
countries.
Stock Market Crash:Great Depression: people gathering on the steps of the building across from the New York Stock
Exchange on Black Thursday, October 24, 1929 [Credit: AP]The initial decline in U.S. output in the
summer of 1929 is widely believed to have stemmed from tight U.S. monetary policy aimed at limiting
stock market speculation. The 1920s had been a prosperous decade, but not an exceptional boom
period; prices had remained nearly constant throughout the decade, and there had been mild recessions
in both 1924 and 1927. The one obvious area of excess was the stock market. Stock prices had risen
more than fourfold from the low in 1921 to the peak in 1929. In 1928 and 1929, the Federal Reserve had
raised interest rates in hopes of slowing the rapid rise in stock prices. These higher interest rates
depressed interest-sensitive spending in areas such as construction and automobile purchases, which in
turn reduced production. Some scholars believe that a boom in housing construction in the mid-1920s
led to an excess supply of housing and a particularly large drop in construction in 1928 and 1929.
By the fall of 1929, U.S. stock prices had reached levels that could not be justified by reasonable
anticipations of future earnings. As a result, when a variety of minor events led to gradual price declines
in October 1929, investors lost confidence and the stock market bubble burst. Panic selling began on
Black Thursday, October 24, 1929. Many stocks had been purchased on marginthat is, using loans
secured by only a small fraction of the stocks value. As a result, the price declines forced some investors
to liquidate their holdings, thus exacerbating the fall in prices. Between their peak in September and
their low in November, U.S. stock prices (measured by the Cowles Index) declined 33 percent. Because
the decline was so dramatic, this event is often referred to as the Great Crash of 1929.
The stock market crash reduced American aggregate demand substantially. Consumer purchases of
durable goods and business investment fell sharply after the crash. A likely explanation is that the
financial crisis generated considerable uncertainty about future income, which in turn led consumers
and firms to put off purchases of durable goods. Although the loss of wealth caused by the decline in
stock prices was relatively small, the crash may also have depressed spending by making people feel
poorer. As a result of the drastic decline in consumer and business spending, real output in the United
States, which had been declining slowly up to this point, fell rapidly in late 1929 and throughout 1930.
Thus, while the Great Crash of the stock market and the Great Depression are two quite separate
events, the decline in stock prices was one factor contributing to declines in production and
employment in the United States.
JacoMUN16
Page 21
Banking Panics and Monetary Contraction:The next blow to aggregate demand occurred in the fall of 1930, when the first of four waves of banking
panics gripped the United States. A banking panic arises when many depositors simultaneously lose
confidence in the solvency of banks and demand that their bank deposits be paid to them in cash. Banks,
which typically hold only a fraction of deposits as cash reserves, must liquidate loans in order to raise
the required cash. This process of hasty liquidation can cause even a previously solvent bank to fail. The
United States experienced widespread banking panics in the fall of 1930, the spring of 1931, the fall of
1931, and the fall of 1932. The final wave of panics continued through the winter of 1933 and
culminated with the national bank holiday declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 6,
1933. The bank holiday closed all banks, and they were permitted to reopen only after being deemed
solvent by government inspectors. The panics took a severe toll on the American banking system. By
1933, one-fifth of the banks in existence at the start of 1930 had failed.
By their nature, banking panics are largely irrational, inexplicable events, but some of the factors
contributing to the problem can be explained. Economic historians believe that substantial increases in
farm debt in the 1920s, together with U.S. policies that had encouraged small, undiversified banks,
created an environment in which such panics could ignite and spread. The heavy farm debt stemmed in
part from the high prices of agricultural goods during World War I, which had spurred extensive
borrowing by American farmers wishing to increase production by investing in land and machinery. The
decline in farm commodity prices following the war made it difficult for farmers to keep up with their
loan payments.
The Federal Reserve did little to try to stem the banking panics. Economists Milton Friedman and Anna J.
Schwartz, in the classic study A Monetary History of the United States, 18671960 (1963), argued that
the death in 1928 of Benjamin Strong, who had been the governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York since 1914, was a significant cause of this inaction. Strong had been a forceful leader who
understood the ability of the central bank to limit panics. His death left a power vacuum at the Federal
Reserve and allowed leaders with less sensible views to block effective intervention. The panics caused a
dramatic rise in the amount of currency people wished to hold relative to their bank deposits. This rise
in the currency-to-deposit ratio was a key reason why the money supply in the United States declined 31
percent between 1929 and 1933. In addition to allowing the panics to reduce the U.S. money supply, the
JacoMUN16
Page 22

Federal Reserve also deliberately contracted the money supply and raised interest rates in September
1931, when Britain was forced off the gold standard and investors feared that the United States would
devalue as well.
Scholars believe that such declines in the money supply caused by Federal Reserve decisions had a
severely contractionary effect on output. A simple picture provides perhaps the clearest evidence of the
key role monetary collapse played in the Great Depression in the United States. The figure shows the
money supply and real output over the period 1900 to 1945. In ordinary times, such as the 1920s, both
the money supply and output tend to grow steadily. But in the early 1930s both plummeted. The decline
in the money supply depressed spending in a number of ways. Perhaps most important, because of
actual price declines and the rapid decline in the money supply, consumers and businesspeople came to
expect deflation; that is, they expected wages and prices to be lower in the future. As a result, even
though nominal interest rates were very low, people did not want to borrow because they feared that
future wages and profits would be inadequate to cover their loan payments. This hesitancy, in turn, led
to severe reductions in both consumer spending and business investment spending. The panics surely
exacerbated the decline in spending by generating pessimism and loss of confidence. Furthermore, the
failure of so many banks disrupted lending, thereby reducing the funds available to finance investment.
The Gold Standard:Some economists believe that the Federal Reserve allowed or caused the huge declines in the American
money supply partly to preserve the gold standard. Under the gold standard, each country set the value
of its currency in terms of gold and took monetary actions to defend the fixed price. It is possible that
had the Federal Reserve expanded greatly in response to the banking panics, foreigners could have lost
confidence in the United States commitment to the gold standard. This could have led to large gold
outflows, and the United States could have been forced to devalue. Likewise, had the Federal Reserve
not tightened in the fall of 1931, it is possible that there would have been a speculative attack on the
dollar and the United States would have been forced to abandon the gold standard along with Great
Britain.
While there is debate about the role the gold standard played in limiting U.S. monetary policy, there is
no question that it was a key factor in the transmission of Americas economic decline to the rest of the
world. Under the gold standard, imbalances in trade or asset flows gave rise to international gold flows.
For example, in the mid-1920s intense international demand for American assets such as stocks and
bonds brought large inflows of gold to the United States. Likewise, a decision by France after World War
I to return to the gold standard with an undervalued franc led to trade surpluses and substantial gold
inflows. (See also balance of trade.)
Britain chose to return to the gold standard after World War I at the prewar parity. Wartime inflation,
however, implied that the pound was overvalued, and this overvaluation led to trade deficits and
substantial gold outflows after 1925. To stem the gold outflow, the Bank of England raised interest rates
substantially. High interest rates depressed British spending and led to high unemployment in Great
Britain throughout the second half of the 1920s.
JacoMUN16
Page 23

Once the U.S. economy began to contract severely, the tendency for gold to flow out of other countries
and toward the United States intensified. This took place because deflation in the United States made
American goods particularly desirable to foreigners, while low income reduced American demand for
foreign products. To counteract the resulting tendency toward an American trade surplus and foreign
gold outflows, central banks throughout the world raised interest rates. Maintaining the international
gold standard, in essence, required a massive monetary contraction throughout the world to match the
one occurring in the United States. The result was a decline in output and prices in countries throughout
the world that also nearly matched the downturn in the United States.
Financial crises and banking panics occurred in a number of countries besides the United States. In May
1931 payment difficulties at the Creditanstalt, Austrias largest bank, set off a string of financial crises
that enveloped much of Europe and were a key factor forcing Britain to abandon the gold standard.
Among the countries hardest hit by bank failures and volatile financial markets were Austria, Germany,
and Hungary. These widespread banking crises could have been the result of poor regulation and other
local factors, or simple contagion from one country to another. In addition, the gold standard, by forcing
countries to deflate along with the United States, reduced the value of banks collateral and made them
more vulnerable to runs. As in the United States, banking panics and other financial market disruptions
further depressed output and prices in a number of countries.
International Lending and Trade:Some scholars stress the importance of other international linkages. Foreign lending to Germany and
Latin America had expanded greatly in the mid-1920s, but U.S. lending abroad fell in 1928 and 1929 as a
result of high interest rates and the booming stock market in the United States. This reduction in foreign
lending may have led to further credit contractions and declines in output in borrower countries. In
Germany, which experienced extremely rapid inflation (hyperinflation) in the early 1920s, monetary
authorities may have hesitated to undertake expansionary policy to counteract the economic slowdown
because they worried it might reignite inflation. The effects of reduced foreign lending may explain why
the economies of Germany, Argentina, and Brazil turned down before the Great Depression began in the
United States.
JacoMUN16
Page 24

The 1930 enactment of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in the United States and the worldwide rise in
protectionist trade policies created other complications. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was meant to boost
farm incomes by reducing foreign competition in agricultural products. But other countries followed
suit, both in retaliation and in an attempt to force a correction of trade imbalances. Scholars now
believe that these policies may have reduced trade somewhat but were not a significant cause of the
Depression in the large industrial producers. Protectionist policies, however, may have contributed to
the extreme decline in the world price of raw materials, which caused severe balance-of-payments
problems for primary-commodity-producing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and led to
contractionary monetary and fiscal policies.
Effects of the Great Depression:JacoMUN16
Page 25

Australia
Australia's dependence on agricultural and industrial exports meant it was one of the hardest-hit
developed countries. Falling export demand and commodity prices placed massive downward pressures
on wages. Unemployment reached a record high of 29% in 1932, with incidents of civil unrest becoming
common. After 1932, an increase in wool and meat prices led to a gradual recovery.
Canada
Harshly affected by both the global economic downturn and the Dust Bowl, Canadian industrial
production had fallen to only 58% of the 1929 level by 1932, the second lowest level in the world after
The United States, and well behind nations such as Britain, which fell to only 83% of the 1929 level. Total
national income fell to 56% of the 1929 level, again worse than any nation apart from the United States.
Unemployment reached 27% at the depth of the Depression in 1933.
Chile
The League of Nations labeled Chile the country hardest hit by the Great Depression because 80% of
government revenue came from exports of copper and nitrates, which were in low demand. Chile
initially felt the impact of the Great Depression in 1930, when GDP dropped 14%, mining income
declined 27%, and export earnings fell 28%. By 1932, GDP had shrunk to less than half of what it had
been in 1929, exacting a terrible toll in unemployment and business failures.
Influenced profoundly by the Great Depression, many national leaders promoted the development of
local industry in an effort to insulate the economy from future external shocks. After six years of
government austerity measures, which succeeded in reestablishing Chile's creditworthiness, Chileans
elected to office during the 193858 period a succession of center and left-of-center governments
interested in promoting economic growth by means of government intervention.
Prompted in part by the devastating 1939 Chillan earthquake, the Popular Front government of Pedro
Aguirre Cerda created the Production Development Corporation (Corporacin de Fomento de la
Produccin, CORFO) to encourage with subsidies and direct investments an ambitious program of
import substitution industrialization. Consequently, as in other Latin American countries, protectionism
became an entrenched aspect of the Chilean economy.
China
China was largely unaffected by the Depression, mainly by having stuck to the Silver standard. However,
the U.S. silver purchase act of 1934 created an intolerable demand on China's silver coins, and so in the
end the silver standard was officially abandoned in 1935 in favor of the four Chinese national banks'
"legal note" issues. China and the British colony of Hong Kong, which followed suit in this regard in
JacoMUN16
Page 26

September 1935, would be the last to abandon the silver standard. In addition, the Nationalist
Government also acted energetically to modernize the legal and penal systems, stabilize prices, amortize
debts, reform the banking and currency systems, build railroads and highways, improve public health
facilities, legislate against traffic in narcotics and augment industrial and agricultural production. On
November 3, 1935, the government instituted the fiat currency (fapi) reform, immediately stabilizing
prices and also raising revenues for the government.
France
The crisis affected France a bit later than other countries, hitting around 1931. While the 1920s grew at
the very strong rate of 4.43% per year, the 1930s rate fell to only 0.63%.The depression was relatively
mild: unemployment peaked under 5%, the fall in production was at most 20% below the 1929 output;
there was no banking crisis.
However, the depression had drastic effects on the local economy, and partly explains the February 6,
1934 riots and even more the formation of the Popular Front, led by SFIO socialist leader Lon Blum,
which won the elections in 1936.
France's relatively high degree of self-sufficiency meant the damage was considerably less than in
nations like Germany.
Germany
The Great Depression hit Germany hard. The impact of the Wall Street Crash forced American banks to
end the new loans that had been funding the repayments under the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. In
1932, 90% of German reparation payments were cancelled. Widespread unemployment reached 25% as
every sector was hurt. The government did not increase government spending to deal with Germany's
growing crisis, as they were afraid that a high-spending policy could lead to a return of the
hyperinflation that had affected Germany in 1923. Germany's Weimar Republic was hit hard by the
depression, as American loans to help rebuild the German economy now stopped. The unemployment
rate reached nearly 30% in 1932, bolstering support for the Nazi (NSDAP) and Communist (KPD) parties,
causing the collapse of the politically centrist Social Democratic Party. Hitler ran for the Presidency in
1932, and while he lost to the incumbent Hindenberg in the election, it marked a point during which
both Nazi Party and the Communist parties rose in the years following the crash to altogether possess a
Reichstag majority following the general election in July 1932.
Hitler followed an autarky economic policy, creating a network of client states and economic allies in
central Europe and Latin America. By cutting wages and taking control of labor unions, plus public works
spending, unemployment fell significantly by 1935. Large scale military spending played a major role in
the recovery.
JacoMUN16
Page 27

Great Britain
The World Depression broke at a time when Britain was still far from having recovered from the effects
of the First World War more than a decade earlier. Great Britain was driven off the gold standard in
1931.
The effects on the northern industrial areas of Britain were immediate and devastating, as demand for
traditional industrial products collapsed. By the end of 1930 unemployment had more than doubled
from 1 million to 2.5 million (20% of the insured workforce), and exports had fallen in value by 50%. In
1933, 30% of Glaswegians were unemployed due to the severe decline in heavy industry. In some towns
and cities in the north east, unemployment reached as high as 70% as shipbuilding fell 90%.The National
Hunger March of SeptemberOctober 1932 was the largest[106] of a series of hunger marches in Britain
in the 1920s and 1930s. About 200,000 unemployed men were sent to the work camps, which continued
in operation until 1939.
In the less industrial Midlands and Southern England, the effects were short-lived and the later 1930s
were a prosperous time. Growth in modern manufacture of electrical goods and a boom in the motor
car industry were helped by a growing southern population and an expanding middle class. Agriculture
also saw a boom during this period.
Greece
As the reverberations of the Great Depression hit Greece in 1932, the Bank of Greece tried to adopt
deflationary policies to stave off the crises that were going on in other countries, but these largely failed.
For a brief period the drachma was pegged to the US dollar, but this was unsustainable given the
country's large trade deficit and the only long-term effects of this were Greece's foreign exchange
reserves being almost totally wiped out in 1932. Remittances from abroad declined sharply and the
value of the drachma began to plummet from 77 drachmas to the dollar in March 1931 to 111 drachmas
to the dollar in April, 1931. This was especially harmful to Greece as the country relied on imports from
the UK, France and the Middle East for many necessities. Greece went off the gold standard in April,
1932 and declared a moratorium on all interest payments. The country also adopted protectionist
policies such as import quotas, which a number of European countries did during the time period.
Protectionist policies coupled with a weak drachma, stifling imports, allowed Greek industry to expand
during the Great Depression. In 1939 Greek Industrial output was 179% that of 1928. These industries
were for the most part "built on sand" as one report of the Bank of Greece put it, as without massive
protection they would not have been able to survive. Despite the global depression, Greece managed to
suffer comparatively little, averaging an average growth rate of 3.5% from 1932-1939. The dictatorial
regime of Ioannis Metaxas took over the Greek government in 1936, and economic growth was strong in
the following years.
JacoMUN16
Page 28

Ireland
Frank Barry and Mary F. Daly have argued that:
Ireland was a largely agrarian economy, trading almost exclusively with the UK, at the time of the Great
Depression. Beef and dairy products comprised the bulk of exports, and Ireland fared well relative to
many other commodity producers, particularly in the early years of the depression.
Italy
The Great Depression hit Italy very hard. As industries came close to failure they were bought out by the
banks in a largely illusionary bail-out the assets used to fund the purchases were largely worthless.
This led to a financial crisis peaking in 1932 and major government intervention. The Industrial
Reconstruction Institute (IRI) was formed in January 1933 and took control of the bank-owned
companies, suddenly giving Italy the largest state-owned industrial sector in Europe (excluding the
USSR). IRI did rather well with its new responsibilities restructuring, modernizing and rationalizing as
much as it could. It was a significant factor in post-1945 development. But it took the Italian economy
until 1935 to recover the manufacturing levels of 1930 a position that was only 60% better than that
of 1913.
Japan
The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929
31. Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be
identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and
second, by devaluing the currency. Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and
minimize resulting inflationary pressures. Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as
especially effective.
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect. Japanese textiles began to displace British
textiles in export markets. The deficit spending proved to be most profound. The deficit spending went
into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces. By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression.
By 1934, Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation,
moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions.
This resulted in a strong and swift negative reaction from nationalists, especially those in the army,
culminating in his assassination in the course of the February 26 Incident. This had a chilling effect on all
civilian bureaucrats in the Japanese government. From 1934, the military's dominance of the
government continued to grow. Instead of reducing deficit spending, the government introduced price
controls and rationing schemes that reduced, but did not eliminate inflation, which would remain a
problem until the end of World War II.
JacoMUN16
Page 29

The deficit spending had a transformative effect on Japan. Japan's industrial production doubled during
the 1930s. Further, in 1929 the list of the largest firms in Japan was dominated by light industries,
especially textile companies (many of Japan's automakers, like Toyota, have their roots in the textile
industry). By 1940 light industry had been displaced by heavy industry as the largest firms inside the
Japanese economy.
Latin America
Because of high levels of U.S. investment in Latin American economies, they were severely damaged by
the Depression. Within the region, Chile, Bolivia and Peru were particularly badly affected.
Before the 1929 crisis, links between the world economy and Latin American economies had been
established through American and British investment in Latin American exports to the world. As a result,
Latin Americans export industries felt the depression quickly. World prices for commodities such as
wheat, coffee and copper plunged. Exports from all of Latin America to the US fell in value from $1.2
billion in 1929 to $335 million in 1933, rising to $660 million in 1940.
But on the other hand, the depression led the area governments to develop new local industries and
expand consumption and production. Following the example of the New Deal, governments in the area
approved regulations and created or improved welfare institutions that helped millions of new industrial
workers to achieve a better standard of living.
Netherlands
From roughly 1931 to 1937, the Netherlands suffered a deep and exceptionally long depression. This
depression was partly caused by the after-effects of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 in the U.S., and
partly by internal factors in the Netherlands. Government policy, especially the very late dropping of the
Gold Standard, played a role in prolonging the depression. The Great Depression in the Netherlands led
to some political instability and riots, and can be linked to the rise of the Dutch national-socialist party
NSB. The depression in the Netherlands eased off somewhat at the end of 1936, when the government
finally dropped the Gold Standard, but real economic stability did not return until after World War II.
New Zealand
New Zealand was especially vulnerable to worldwide depression, as it relied almost totally on
agricultural exports to the United Kingdom for its economy. The drop in exports led to a lack of
disposable income from the farmers, who were the mainstay of the local economy. Jobs disappeared
and wages plummeted, leaving people desperate and charities unable to cope. Work relief schemes
were the only government support available to the unemployed, the rate of which by the early 1930s
was officially around 15%, but unofficially nearly twice that level (official figures excluded Mori and
women). In 1932, riots occurred among the unemployed in three of the country's main cities (Auckland,
JacoMUN16
Page 30

Dunedin, and Wellington). Many were arrested or injured through the tough official handling of these
riots by police and volunteer "special constables".
Portugal
Already under the rule of a dictatorial junta, the Ditadura Nacional, Portugal suffered no turbulent
political effects of the Depression, although Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, already appointed Minister of
Finance in 1928 greatly expanded his powers and in 1932 rose to Prime Minister of Portugal to found
the Estado Novo, an authoritarian corporatist dictatorship. With the budget balanced in 1929, the
effects of the depression were relaxed through harsh measures towards budget balance and autarky,
causing social discontent but stability and, eventually, an impressive economic growth.
South Africa
As world trade slumped, demand for South African agricultural and mineral exports fell drastically. The
Carnegie Commission on Poor Whites had concluded in 1931 that nearly one third of Afrikaners lived as
paupers. The social discomfort caused by the depression was a contributing factor in the 1933 split
between the "gesuiwerde" (purified) and "smelter" (fusionist) factions within the National Party and the
National Party's subsequent fusion with the South African Party.
Soviet Union
The Soviet Union was the world's sole communist state with very little international trade. Its economy
was not tied to the rest of the world and was only slightly affected by the Great Depression. However
the forced transformation from a rural to an industrial society succeeded in building up heavy industry,
at the cost of millions of lives in rural Russia and Ukraine.
At the time of the Depression, the Soviet economy was growing steadily, fuelled by intensive investment
in heavy industry. The apparent economic success of the Soviet Union at a time when the capitalist
world was in crisis led many Western intellectuals to view the Soviet system favorably. Jennifer Burns
wrote, "As the Great Depression ground on and unemployment soared, intellectuals began unfavorably
comparing their faltering capitalist economy to Russian Communism. ... More than ten years after the
Revolution, Communism was finally reaching full flower, according to New York Times reporter Walter
Duranty, a Stalin fan who vigorously debunked accounts of the Ukraine famine, a man-made disaster
that would leave millions dead."
Spain
Spain had a relatively isolated economy, with high protective tariffs and was not one of the main
countries affected by the Depression. The banking system held up well, as did agriculture.
JacoMUN16
Page 31

By far the most serious negative impact came after 1936 from the heavy destruction of infrastructure
and manpower by the civil war, 1936-39. Many talented workers were forced into permanent exile.
Sweden
By the 1930s, Sweden had what America's Life magazine called in 1938 the "world's highest standard of
living". Sweden was also the first country worldwide to recover completely from the Great Depression.
Taking place in the midst of a short-lived government and a less-than-a-decade old Swedish democracy,
events such as those surrounding Ivar Kreuger (who eventually committed suicide) remain infamous in
Swedish history. Eventually, the Social Democrats under Per Albin Hansson would form their first longlived government in 1932 based on strong interventionist and welfare state policies, monopolizing the
office of Prime Minister until 1976 with the sole and short-lived exception of Axel Pehrsson-Bramstorp's
"summer cabinet" in 1936. During forty years of hegemony, it was the most successful political party in
the history of Western liberal democracy.
Thailand
In Thailand, then known as the Kingdom of Siam, the Great Depression contributed to the end of the
absolute monarchy of King Rama VII in the Siamese revolution of 1932.
United States of America
Around 13 million people became unemployed. In 1932, 34 million people belonged to families with no
regular full-time wage earner. The Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between 1929 and 1932.
Homebuilding dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.
In the 1920s, the banking system in the U.S. was about $50 billion, which was about 50% of GDP. From
1929 to 1932, about 5,000 banks went out of business. By 1933, 11,000 of the US' 25,000 banks had
failed.
Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. GDP fell around 30%; the stock market lost almost 90% of its value. In
1929, the unemployment rate averaged 3%.In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers
were unemployed. In Cleveland, the unemployment rate was 50%; in Toledo, Ohio, 80%. Over one
million families lost their farms between 1930 and 1934.
Corporate profits had dropped from $10 billion in 1929 to $1 billion in 1932.Between 1929 and 1932;
the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%. Nine million savings accounts had been
wiped out between 1930 and 1933. 273,000 families had been evicted from their homes in 1932.There
were two million homeless people migrating around the country.
JacoMUN16
Page 32

Over 60% of Americans were categorized as poor by the federal government in 1933.In the last
prosperous year (1929), there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933 only 23,068 came to the
U.S. In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it. With little
economic activity there was scant demand for new coinage. No nickels or dimes were minted in 1932
1933, no quarter dollars in 1931 or 1933, no half dollars from 1930 to 1932, and no silver dollars in the
years 192933.The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to
encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands, including some U.S. citizens, were
deported against their will. Altogether about 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated.
Social workers in New York reported that 25% of all schoolchildren were malnourished. In the mining
counties of West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, the proportion of malnourished children
was perhaps as high as 90%.The Great Depression also had impacts on the health of the people; many
people were suffering from tuberculosis (TB). In the year 1930, U.S. Census determined the U.S.
population to be 122,775,046. About 40% of the population was under 20 years old.
Points Resolutions Should Address:How can all Member Nations counter The Great Depression in the entire world?
What steps should each Government take to counter the impact of the Great Depression in their
respective countries?
How can the impact of the Great Depression be minimized?
How can international trade be improved after its breakdown due to the Great Depression?
Further Research:http://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Depression#toc234441
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Great_Depression.aspx
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html
Bernanke, Ben S. Essays on the Great Depression. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
2000. Emphasizes bank panics and the gold standard.
Bernstein, Michael A. The Great Depression: Delayed Recovery and Economic Change in
America, 19291939. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Argues for the interaction
of technological and monetary forces and explores the experience of several industries.
JacoMUN16
Page 33

Bordo, Michael D., Claudia Goldin, and Eugene N. White, Eds. The Defining Moment: The
Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1998. Evaluates the impact of a range of New Deal policies and international
agreements.
Hall, Thomas E., and J. David Ferguson. The Great Depression: An International Disaster of
Perverse Economic Policies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.
Margo, Robert A. "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s." Journal of Economic
Perspectives 7, no. 2 (spring 1993): 4159.
Rothermund, Dietmar. The Global Impact of the Great Depression, 19291939. London:
Routledge, 1996. Extensive treatment of the Third World.
Temin, Peter. Did Monetary Forces Cause the Great Depression? New York: Norton, 1976.
Classic early defense of Keynesian explanation.
JacoMUN16
Page 34

Topic E: The Spanish Civil War
Introduction:The Spanish Civil War widely known in Spain simply as the Civil War or The War was a civil war fought
from 1936 to 1939 between the Republicans, who were loyal to the democratic, left-leaning Second
Spanish Republic, and the Nationalists, a Falangist group led by General Francisco Franco.It represents
the interests of the Popular Front, a coalition of political parties intent on resisting the spread of fascist
influences that have taken root in the country. This coalition, under President Manuel Azaa, consists of
Republicans, Communists, and Anarchists alike as they all work towards repairing their ideologically
divided nation. However, the unity of these groups is questionable, with restless anarchists and
communists groups periodically rising up. The election in February of this very year saw only a slight
victory of the Popular Front over the fascist National Front and the establishment of the current
minority government. The public is ripe with unrest as they see the turmoil surrounding their nations
religious values, immense poverty, and a resentful national army. Since the Great War, many nations
have been forced to adapt to an evolving world that tests their ideological resolve. Since Spain is in a
time of crisis, the committee may enact any sort of political, economic, or military action in order to
ameliorate the situation as quickly as possible. Once reforms are voted upon and approved by the
committee, they will be implemented quickly. However, interactions with other entities such as the
League of Nations or other countries may take longer to carry out. Many of this committees members
are ambassadors who are connected to powerful and influential countries. These political interests will
be key in Spains ability to hold itself together in the coming years. The public is desperate and looking
for strong leadership and diplomatic skill from this precarious minority government. This committees
central aim is to bring political harmony to the nation of Spain. Given this goal, it cannot be emphasized
enough that this task would become incredibly difficult if a civil war were to begin. However, many of
the National Fronts leaders are unwilling to cooperate and look to change the country through violent
measures. Influential figures, such as the well-respected Francisco Franco and Jose Sanjurjo, hold strong
sway over the nations military and its loyalty to Spain. The aggressive fascist countries of Nazi Germany
and the Kingdom of Italy are sure to support the National Front if an uprising were to be instigated.
Amongst the Spanish people there are many who would take up arms against the Popular Front. The
leadership of the Popular Front is on high alert as information mounts on the organization of another
revolt. With the nation restless and divided the future appears calamitous and uncertain. You are a
member of this fateful committee and the stability and progressive ideals of Spain rest in your hands.
You must do your best to reunite the support of your people and hold together the country you hold
dear to your heart. While this committee has a common goal, to bring peace and stability to Spain, the
path to it is unclear. Any action that derives the support of one group most certainly will draw ire from
another. It is up to you to work passionately towards what you see as the nations ideals, even if they
contradict others within the committee. If your committee fails in its purpose the nation will
undoubtedly fall to suffering and the temptations of fascism.
JacoMUN16
Page 35
Timeline of Major Events:
Glorious Revolution (1868): Spurred by a revolt of sergeants in Madrid, this revolutionary energy
was harnessed by liberals and republicans alike. Agreements were struck by exiled political
figures that organized major uprisings with the goal of overthrowing Queen Isabella II, who
many interpreted as the source of Spains struggles. With the plan in place, much of the navy
and army defected and defeated those still loyal to Isabella. She fled to France within the year
where she would remain until her death in 1904. A constitution was written in 1869 which
promoted liberal ideals. Those in power deemed a new monarch necessary and soon the Italian
Amadeo of Savoy became Amadeo I of Spain in 1870.
First Spanish Republic (1873): King Amadeo I abdicated the throne on February 10th 1873 and
returned to his home of Italy. This was due to growing republican influences, Cuban
independence, and rebellions. Here began the Spanish Republic. Over the course of the next
year, three civil wars were fought highlighting the profound instability of this time. Political
division made true progress impossible and the desire for yet another government was
overwhelming.
Bourbon Restoration (1874): A coup d'tat on December 29th 1874 restored Alfonso XII, the son
of Isabella II, to the throne of Spain in a constitutional monarchy. Desire for stability was the
main goal of this new government. In hopes of eliminating the rampant political division a new
process called turnismo was implemented. In this process both the Liberal and Conservatives
were rotated within the government. This system was not without criticism and drew fire from
socialists, anarchists, and the separatists in Catalonia and Basque. However, the nation
witnessed economic prosperity during these times and Spain set itself on a path of
modernization. After Alfonso XII came Alfonso XIII in 1898. During this time Spain quickly lost all
of its distant colonies to the newly formed United States of America in the Spanish-American
War. Failure to conquer Morocco led to further military humiliation. A loss of faith in the military
and government led to revolts over conscription in Barcelona in the Catalonia region. The
Working class of Barcelona clashed with both police and the army at the end of July in 1909
JacoMUN16
Page 36
during what is now known as the Tragic Week. The prosperity of early times collapsed and
political upheaval seemed imminent.
Dictatorship of Primo de River (1923): Change came in the form of a coup d'tat that placed
Miguel Primo de Rivera who targeted the parliament as the source of Spains ills, as the new
head of Government. Alfonso XIII backed Primo de Rivera as he suspended the constitution and
began his rule with a one party system. Over the next seven years he bankrupted the
government with multiple attempts to fix the countrys economy and poor public services. The
military soon lost faith and Alfonso XIII rescinded his support and reclaimed control of the
country and its previous systems. The changes did not come quickly enough for the unstable
country and pro-republic riots against the monarchy began.
Formation of the Second Spanish Republic (1931): A new constitution began to form in June of
1931 with the goal to form the Second Spanish Republic. King Alfonso XIII left the country as the
anti-monarchy sentiments reached an all-time high. The provisional government scrambled to
control its fervent people as they burned churches in defiance of the powerful Catholic Church.
Within this constitution freedom of speech, womens suffrage, and divorce all became legal in
the country. Church property was seized by the state and the papacy was banned from being
taught in public education. These changes capitalized on anti-church sentiment and led to the
denouncement of the government by Pope Pius XI. Furthermore, the new government
nationalized land, banks, and railways upsetting the wealthy upper class position in society. As a
whole, society was upheaved as the traditional holders of power saw it taken from their grasp.
Uprising of Sanjurjo (8/10/1932): In August of 1932, Jose Sanjurjo, a military man, attempted a
small military uprising. After opposing military reforms and the autonomy given to Catalonia and
Basque, Sanjurjo saw himself demoted from his position as general. The rebellions stated
purpose was to replace the current ministry rather than to overthrow the current government.
Success was seen in Seville but failed elsewhere and Sanjurjo surrendered himself to the
government. He was sentenced to life in prison where he began supporting the National Front.
Asturian Miners Strike (1934): When CEDA, a right-wing fascist political party, entered the
Spanish government; anarchist and communist miners from the Asturia region went on strike as
protest. This demonstration soon evolved into a full-scale revolution, which the government
tasked Francisco Franco, a general in the army and strong opponent of communism, with
quelling. The aftermath of the revolution left 3,000 miners dead and countless more faced
unemployment or torture in prisons. Franco believed that the string of strikes that Spain had
seen were the result of Soviet agents spreading communism throughout the country.
Formation of the Popular Front (1/15/1936): Manuel Azaa, a republican who had hopes of
continuing Spains liberal reforms, led the creation of a coalition of political parties which he
hoped could defeat the far-right National Front in the next election. This coalition contained
three main views, those of republicans, communists, and anarchists. The purpose of this
coalition, called the Popular Front, was to preserve the reforms made in the lifetime of the
Republic, such as reducing the influence of the Catholic Church and reducing military spending.
Demotion of Franco (2/22/1936): In his time as a general, Francisco Franco had accumulated
plenty of political clout as well as a great deal of loyalty from his soldiers. Fearing another
JacoMUN16
Page 37
possible coup dtat, the government of Spain sent him into isolation on the Canary Isles in
order to reduce his influence over the public during the crucial time of elections.
Election of 1936 (2/16/1936): This key election saw the Popular Front and National Front go
head to head. With great participation, 72% of the voting population came to vote on this
fateful day. The Popular Front saw support from its usual republican, communist, and anarchist
blocs. The National Front saw backing from the Catholic Church, powerful landowners, and the
industrialists. In the end the Popular Front prevailed with 4.7 million votes to the National
Fronts 4 million. The center saw little support with only 450 thousand votes, a testament to an
increasing polarization.
Banning of the Falange (3/15/1936): Formed in 1933, the Falange party was a far-right party that
modeled itself after Italian fascism. After the election of 1936, the Popular Front began to
persecute those who supported the Falange party. Jos Antonio Primo de Rivera, the leader of
the party, was imprisoned and many of the remaining supporters joined underground
movements for revolution.
Zamora removed as President (4/7/1936): President Niceto Alcal-Zamora was removed from
his presidency due to the unjustified and illegal dissolution of parliament. His hope was to
prevent CEDA from gaining power and claim the office of Prime Minister. New elections were
held and this new parliament voted on his dismissal due to the unjustified dissolution. Then
Manuel Azaa was elected to the position where the large right-wing bloc opposed him. To
replace Azaa, the republican Santiago Casares Quiroga was appointed. This instability was
proving too many Spaniards that the Second Republic was no improvement over the past
governments they had endured.
JacoMUN16
Page 38

Discussion of the Problem:Political Division
Spain in the past century and increasingly in recent years has experienced a crisis of political leadership.
The whiplash of different governances has taken a toll on the Spanish people, worsened further by their
inability to change what many of them see as a malignant system. For many years the two main parties,
the Conservatives and Liberals, were different in name only. There were no distinguishable policy
differences between them, as both were working for the interests of the wealthy landowning class. Even
in the election of a Prime Minister, who should have guided the passage of legislation, the ballots were
rigged. The ultimate result of this corruption was a lack of meaningful change in Spain, which some
people, especially those in the lower class, desperately wanted. The unpopular policies of the past
culminated in the formation of the Catholic, right-wing CEDA and Falange parties. The CEDA is the more
moderate-right party that was slowly being pulled to the far right by the fascist, and now underground,
Falange. Over the course of the Second Republic, political thought has moved apart to such an extent
that moderates are in short supply come time of elections. Spains government is split into two clear,
diametrically opposed factions: the far-right and far-left. In the eyes of these factions, this was the
opportunity for either the right (the Nationalist Front) to win and bring about a fascist state, or for the
left (the Popular Front) to win and bring about a Bolshevik Revolution. Azaa was appointed president
and Casares Quiroga was named Prime Minister; the two have quickly instituted continued anti-Catholic
and anti-military legislation. This, predictably, is not to the amusement of the Nationalist Front or the
Spanish people (the wide majority of whom are Catholic). Disorder is quickly spreading throughout Spain
as farmers, the military, and workers revolt.
Religious Unrest
The new government has quickly alienated any remaining support from the right by passing anticlerical
legislation. The Jesuits, a pillar of Spanish Catholicism since the 16th century, have been dissolved and
the state has been secularized. Civil marriage has been instituted and divorce is legalized within the
constitution. Many devout Catholics fear further destruction of Spanish religious culture by Manuel
Azaa, but have hope that the National Front will protect their beliefs.
Military Disloyalty
The Republicans have also managed to alienate the army through implementing measures designed to
cut down on military spending. Thousands of officers have been forced to retire on half-pay and military
spending as a whole has grinded to a halt. The closing of the Military academy in Zaragoza was marked
by a bitter speech by its then director Francisco Franco. Many young cadets no longer feel loyalty to
their government that has failed to care for them, but to the generals who oppose the changes. Those in
the military that fight these reforms are demoted and exiled to far away posts. Army resentment has
surfaced many times through small revolts during the past few years and there is fear that many
disillusioned soldiers see strength in the National Front.
JacoMUN16
Page 39

Economic Woes
Persistent economic inequality has been a prevalent issue throughout Spain. This can be witnessed in
the plight of the agricultural workers. Prior to the revolution, Spain was primarily an agricultural
economy. However, this poses some fundamental issues: the agricultural system does not provide
enough food to feed the workers and only produces food on a seasonal basis. As a result, there is an
excess of displaced agricultural workers. These excess workers have quickly become disillusioned and
make up the main demographic of the National Front. These peasant masses, similar to the army,
oftentimes revolt in the countryside to express their bitterness toward the wealthy owners of large
estates. In contrast to the agriculture, industrialization has boomed in the Basque and Catalonia regions
of the country. The formation of unions in these areas is key to the political support of anarchist and
communist beliefs. These societal contrasts are the driving forces behind the movements for autonomy
in these regions. Positive economic forces have occurred in the past 40 years. Loss of the colonies in the
Spanish-American war returned economic investments back to the Spanish homeland. This, paired with
the modest economic boom that World War I heralded, created a period of hope. Sadly, the peasants
have only become more embittered as inflation rates rise, food shortages become more prevalent, and
the lack of consistent growth in Spanish industries.
Bloc Positions:Ministers and the Army

As part of the presidential cabinet, the Ministers of War, Propaganda, Finance and Industry, as well as
the Head General of the Republican Army and the Head of Financial Reserves, will be working toward
keeping the Republicans in power. They are fundamental to the protection and upkeep of Republican
Party legitimacy after winning the elections. Their experience in the military also provides the expertise
needed in regaining support from disillusioned soldiers.
Industry and the Left Coalition
JacoMUN16
Page 40

One of the main concerns of the middle-class is the economic control that the landed aristocracy has in
Spain. However, while the Republicans stay in power, they see the necessity of supporting Spains
industries and workforce through reforms. Therefore, key figures, such as the owners of the main
factories and mines, will be working along the Committee to stabilize the Republics economy.
Additionally, just as the industries owners move forward, members of the left wing, among them
moderate communist, socialist and anarchists, will help the Republic to pass liberal reforms. Moreover,
the main leaders of the Partido Comunista Espaol (Communist Party of Spain), the Confederacin
Nacional Del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labor), and the head of the largest union, offer their
support to the Republican party against the Nationals.
USSR Ambassador
The Soviet Union sees the importance of fighting the spread of fascism throughout the world. They are
eager to offer supplies and advice to nations who require aid from the great USSR. Spains noticeable
communist party has only furthered their interest in the country. However, they understand the tense
politics of the times and would be hesitant to provide their own soldiers to any cause. This aligns with
their acknowledgment of the non-intervention stance of the League of Nations which seeks to dampen
foreign intervention in domestic issues such as Spains. The ambassador to the USSR has been included
in the committee as strong communication with this country could lead them to become the Popular
Fronts greatest ally.
United States Ambassador

At the time of the War, the United States was still following a policy of isolationism, where American
intervention in other countries issues was limited. They understand the destructive effects of European
politics and still remember the massive losses European countries suffered in the Great War. Their
wariness extends to distrusting the USSR and their current interest in Spain. Within the nation's general
populace there is notable support for the Popular Front. Economics remain their primary interest and
would be the greatest means of provoking a response from the government of this sleeping giant. The
ambassador to the United States has been included as they have the potential to pressure their western
Allies politically and contribute economically.
British and French Ambassadors
Seeing the danger of the spread of Fascism and Communism in continental Europe, France and Britain
have implemented a neutral stance. This is reflected in the non-intervention stance held by the League
of Nations. Even though the formation of the Popular Front in France inspired the left-wing movement
in Spain to form a similar coalition, France and Britain attempt to remain politically distant from Spain.9
The stance of both nations populace however supports the Popular Front, some even enough so to
volunteer if fascism threatened to consume the country. The ambassadors to these countries have been
included in the committee as they can hopefully be convinced to provide assistance to the Popular Front
JacoMUN16
Page 41

Italian and German Ambassadors
The Fascists powers, Germany and Italy, support the Nationalists views. Neither Germany nor Italy
wants to see Spain fall under the influence of Communism, and both have politically supported General
Francisco Franco. Their disregard for international opinion and continuous shows of strength has
frightened many in continental Europe. Germanys withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933 and
Italys continued disregard for policy demonstrate their interventionist stance that would fully back any
Fascist rebellion in Europe. The ambassadors to these countries have been invited to the committee as
they have kept close tabs on these potentially dangerous nations.
The Catholic Church
Within the Committee are the ambassadors to the Vatican as well as an influential priest from Seville. As
one of the main victims of the religious reforms imposed by the Republican Partys power in
government, the Catholic Church repudiates the left-wing movement, and works toward the restoration
of the rights and society role of the Catholic Church. The current Pope Pius XI holds great sway over the
devout Catholic populace of Spain and would support any movement capable of restoring papal
influence in Spain.
Points Resolutions Should Address:Would the stances of the neutral countries change if their business interests in Spain are affected? If so,
how could they change? What side would they support?
What type of role could the separatist movements in Catalonia and Basque play in the tension? Do
communist or anarchist groups have influence in these areas?
What economic changes are needed in Spain? Who would be impacted the greatest by potential
changes?
How is the non-intervention stance of the League of Nation influencing countries? If the stance were to
change how would it affect the Popular Front?
The governments of many countries favor neutrality even if parts of the populace favor intervention, is
it possible for the populace to act outside of their governments wishes?
How could the Popular Front gain support from the Catholic Church? Is the support of the Church
needed by the Popular Front?
JacoMUN16
Page 42

Further Research:http://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to1980/the-spanish-civil-war/the-causes-of-the-spanish-civil-war/
http://www.alba-valb.org/resources/lessons/introduction-to-the-spanishcivil-war/the-1936-elections-and-the-popular-front-government
http://spartacus-educational.com/Spanish-Civil-War.htm
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/spanish-civil-war-breaks-out
http://www.spainthenandnow.com/spanish-history/civil-war-and-thecatholic-church/default_181.aspx
JacoMUN16
Page 43

Topic F: The Conflict in the Gran Chaco Region
Introduction:The region of the Gran Chaco plain encompasses a surface of over 600,000 square kilometers and spans
three countries: Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina. The Southern Chaco and the Central Chaco now lie
within the territory of Argentina, while the territory known as the Northern Chaco has been claimed by
both Bolivia and Paraguay ever since the end of colonial times. Within the context of the Gran Chaco
region conflict, two of the poorest countries in South America risk investing almost all of their resources
in a border war which neither of them is sure to win. Both countries have undergone severe territorial
loss in recent times, especially Bolivia, which saw its access to the sea blocked in 1904 by having to cede
its Pacific coastline to Chile. This conflict was therefore already described by some as a battle between
the two Latin American states who least can afford to do so. While the Gran Chaco plain has no direct
added value to other countries in south America (except for Argentina), it would appear that this conflict
is regional in nature. However, the fact that vast deposits of oil have been found further up north at the
east side of the Andes Mountains surely does give this conflict a new dimension. It is certainly true that
many foreign powers and oil companies would become actively interested in the dispute if there were
to be vast reserves of petroleum underneath the territory in question. This dispute therefore has an
international dimension, and should be discussed by the Assembly of the League of Nations in its
plenary session.
Topic History:The conflict in the Gran Chaco region finds its roots in the previous century, when several wars were
fought in South America between the countries involved in the issue at hand. In order to understand the
reasons why the situation is escalating it is therefore important to look into the history of both countries
in order to assess their respective claims.
Colonial History and Independence:Paraguay and Bolivia were both territories conquered and administered by Spain since the 16th
century. Bolivian silver mines financed many Spanish political projects in Europe and beyond, while
Paraguay became productive in its production of agricultural produce. Both countries gained their
independence from the Spanish Crown in the first decades of the 19th century. Paraguay quickly
became independent in 1811, while Bolivia had to fight a long war of independence (1809-1825) to
establish itself as a sovereign nation. The fact that Bolivia spanned a much larger surface than now in
1932 undoubtedly contributed to the mind-set that any further territorial loss is out of the question.
JacoMUN16
Page 44

The Treaty of Petrpolis (1903) and the War of the Pacific (1879-1884):During the 19th century Bolivia was forced to cede land to Brazil in 1867 and 1903. The 1867 treaty
between President General Mariano Melgarejo Valencia and Brazil provided for the transfer of over
100,000 square kilometers in exchange for access rights to the Atlantic Ocean over Brazilian territory.
The rubber boom at the end of the 19th century came along with intrusions of Brazilian rubber
gatherers who started an insurrection against the Bolivian government in the Acre territory. In the
Treaty of Petrpolis of 1903 Bolivia swapped the rubber-producing Acre territory about 191,000
square kilometers against some 5,000 square kilometers of Brazilian territory, in addition to a lump
sum of about $1000000 and the Brazilian governments promise to build the Madeira-Mamor railway
linking Bolivia to the Atlantic Ocean. The railway proved particularly difficult to build, and by the time it
was ready the rubber boom was over due to the increased supply from Asian countries and synthetic
rubber producers. Bolivia also lost land to Chile in the aftermath of the War of the Pacific (1879-1884).
Following the armistice in 1884 a peace treaty named the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" was signed
in 1904, which determined the final position of the border between both Chile and Bolivia. Particularly
the loss of land to Chile hurt the national economy, since it meant that Bolivia became a land-locked
country, thus impeding economic development through maritime transport. Bolivia still held vast
amounts of natural resources (i.e. silver) despite losing its nitrate deposits, but became heavily
dependent on its neighbors in order to get them exported to markets overseas. The Madeira-Mamor
railway thereby became a vital transport link to the Atlantic Ocean. The previously Bolivian railway to
the Pacific now under Chilean control also remained an important way of shipping domestic cargo to
markets overseas.
The War of the Triple Alliance or Paraguayan War (1864-1870):Paraguay had a similar history, losing vast amounts of land in the War of the Triple Alliance or
Paraguayan War (1864-1870). This conflict marked the loss of almost 70% of Paraguays male population
and saw the Triple Alliance of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay take control of large parts of Paraguays
initial territory, including some parts of its most fertile land. The Paraguayan War heavily marked the
young country of Paraguay, and nearly saw it annihilated because of Argentinas proposal to divide the
country in two, with both Argentina and Brazil getting parts of it. Brazil nevertheless opposed this idea,
and maintained Paraguay as a buffer state against its main regional rival Argentina. In 1932 Paraguay
can therefore be described as a country which has known a long set of territorial and political setbacks,
just like its neighbor Bolivia. The fact that the national pride in both countries has hit record lows in the
aftermath of a string of military and diplomatic defeats only adds to the difficult circumstances in which
this conflict erupted.
JacoMUN16
Page 45

Discussion of the Problem:The issue itself:
The Gran Chaco region is a large territory spanning over 600,000 square kilometers, divided between
Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina. Despite its sparse population, the Gran Chaco offers many advantages.
To Bolivia it would secure control of the Paraguay River, which offers access to the Atlantic Ocean. To
Paraguay it would signify the reversal of the outcome of the Paraguayan War. Finally, the territorial gain
and the restoration of national prestige are elements which seem attractive to both countries. After
having endured military losses for most of the 19th century, a victory in the Gran Chaco region would
ensure a renewal of domestic pride and the aversion of further political turmoil within their boundaries.
Furthermore the hypothesis exists that the territory holds vast reserves of petroleum, since similar oil
deposits were discovered at the foot of the Andes Mountains further to the north. This threatens to
make the situation escalate, and has reportedly gotten major oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell
and Standard Oil to show interest in a conclusive Paraguayan or Bolivian victory respectively.
Historical Claims:
The Paraguayan claim goes back to the end of the 19th century, when groups backed by its government
started to settle on the plain. These groups included religious minorities such as the Mennonites as well
as Paraguayan and Argentine cattle breeders and wood cutters. The efforts to use the resources of the
Gran Chaco plain were intensified after the Paraguayan War (1864-1870), when the country suffered a
painful defeat at the hands of the Triple Alliance of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. Paraguays claim is
therefore predominantly based on the terra nullius idea: the Gran Chaco was sparsely inhabited and
Bolivia didnt exercise effective control over the territory. As such, the Paraguayan government
continued occupying increasingly large parts of the region. Bolivia argues that the Gran Chaco region
was transferred to the new Republic of Bolivar Bolivias initial name - upon its independence. The
former Spanish provinces of Moxos and Chiquitos encompassed the Gran Chaco plain, and under the uti
possidetis iuris principle in international law Bolivia claimed that it had the same borders as the
preceding state upon its formation as a newly formed nation. This contrasts with the Paraguayan claim
of terra nullius. Despite the fact that Bolivian control over the region was more limited than the
Paraguayan and Argentinean settlement efforts, the government of Bolivia still states that it has full
sovereignty.
Argentina's Influence:
The role of Argentina in the conflict is rather unclear. Because Argentina defeated Paraguay in the War
of the Triple Alliance (1864-1870) it also obtained the Southern Chaco and Central Chaco part of the
Gran Chaco plain; the conflict is therefore being fought on the Northern Chaco. While no direct
advances have been made against Argentinean territories on the Gran Chaco plain, the Argentinean
government undoubtedly keeps on monitoring the situation, and wont hesitate to intervene militarily
JacoMUN16
Page 46

to secure its own lands and interests. At this point in time it also remains unclear which party in the
conflict gets Argentinean backing, although the joint trade interests of the joint Argentinean and
Paraguayan settlements in the Gran Chaco might persuade Buenos Aires to side with Paraguay. The fact
that Paraguay is historically Argentinas regional enemy might however also result in discreet
Argentinean backing for Bolivia. It remains to be seen which position the Argentinean government will
take.
The Future:
Both Paraguay and Bolivia havent excluded the possibility of militarily invading the disputed Gran
Chaco region. The entire Paraguayan army in 1932 encompasses 4,026 troops and is ready to be
mobilized if needed, reflecting its smaller overall population (880,000) compared to Bolivia (2,150,000).
Bolivia however has managed to stockpile vast reserves of mainly German-fabricated arms, ammunition
and equipment in preparation for a possible conflict. Exchanges of fire and attacks on border positions
have already been taking place since 1928, and the Council of the League of Nations had already been
seized by its acting president, senior French politician and diplomat Aristide Briand, who had won the
Noble Peace Prize in 1926. The League of Nations already received a list of telegrams from both
governments detailing various aspects of the conflict. Back in 1928 the League of Nations managed to
calm the situation, with the help of the Pan American Union, which persuaded both Paraguay and
Bolivia on September 12th 1929 to return to the status quo ante, while not acting against the arms race
which had been going on. It remains to be seen whether the Assembly of the League of Nations will be
able to the same return to calm this time round. It also appears unclear whether the international
community can stop the arms race in the region of the Gran Chaco. The future therefore looks rather
gloomy, with an increased militarization in both countries and a great willingness to go to war. It
remains to be seen what the League of Nations can do to achieve its goal of global peace and security,
particularly on the South American continent. Preventing a conflict between two of its poorest Latin
American members surely promises to constitute a big challenge for this Assembly.
Bloc Positions:Nations that are Directly Involved:

Paraguay and Bolivia have already presented the issue to the Council of the League of Nations in 1928.
They dont feel inclined to negotiate a peaceful agreement between themselves, but could possibly be
persuaded to do so under international pressure, just like a couple of years ago in 1929. Nations with
vested interests nearby Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have a historical feud against Paraguay, while
Chile recently got its claims on Bolivias sea shores recognized. These bigger and wealthier neighbors of
both parties to the conflict have an interest in containing the possible fighting to the Northern Chaco;
this is particularly true for Argentina. Possible military involvement on either side of the conflict could
also result in additional territorial gain or economic profit. It also has to be noted that the Monroe
Doctrine might be applied once again by the United States - having American solutions for American
problems, including as far afield as South America. Despite the fact that the United States is not a
JacoMUN16
Page 47

member of the League of Nations, their attitude to the conflict could greatly influence the course of the
conflict.
Nations Concerned By the Development of the Crisis:

While the Council of the League of Nations has already tried to deal with this matter in 1928 the recent
escalation risks to be a watershed moment for the idea of regional peace and stability in South America.
While the achievements of the League of Nations in Latin America have been limited, this conflict could
be the occasion to put the Covenant into practice. It also has to be noted that the possible presence of
oil might influence the position of certain countries which have major oil companies.
Points Resolutions Should Address:To whom should the Northern Chaco part of the Gran Chaco region belong? Is there a need for the
Assembly to rule of on this issue itself or to refer it to arbitration or to the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ)?
In case of a find of petroleum deposits, should the uti posseditis iuris principle prevail? To whom do the
proceeds from the oil belong?
Which role is Argentina allowed to play in the Gran Chaco region? Is the League of Nations willing to
allow for Argentina to back either of the parties to the conflict?
How can the international community prevent the continuation of the arms race between Bolivia and
Paraguay?
Further Reading:Articles III, V, VIII and X-XVII of the Covenant of the League of Nations
A.de Quesada and P. Jowett, the Chaco War 1932-1935. South Americas greatest modern conflict,
Oxford, Osprey Publishing, 2011, 3-20 (Men-at-Arms series).
Bruce W. Farcau, the Chaco War: Bolivia and Paraguay, 19321935, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996,
5-31.
C. Howard-Ellis, The origin structure & working of the League of Nations, Boston, Houghton Muffin Co.,
1929, 124.
Rex A. Hudson and Dennis Michael Hanratty, Bolivia: a country study, Library of Congress. Federal
Research Division, 1991, 19-21.
Chaco War, in Anique H. M. van Ginneken, Historical dictionary of the League of Nations, Scarecrow
Press Inc., 2006, 56.
JacoMUN16
Page 48

Topic G: The Invasion of Poland
Introduction:One of Adolf Hitler's first major foreign policy initiatives after coming to power was to sign a
nonaggression pact with Poland in January 1934. This move was not popular with many Germans who
supported Hitler but resented the fact that Poland had received the former German provinces of West
Prussia, Poznan, and Upper Silesia under the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. However, Hitler
sought the nonaggression pact in order to neutralize the possibility of a French-Polish military alliance
against Germany before Germany had a chance to rearm.
In the mid and late 1930s, France and especially Britain followed a foreign policy of appeasement. The
objective of this policy was to maintain peace in Europe by making limited concessions to German
demands. In Britain, public opinion tended to favor some revision of the territorial and military provision
of the Versailles treaty. Moreover, neither Britain nor France in 1938 was militarily prepared to fight a
war against Nazi Germany.
Britain and France essentially acquiesced to Germany's rearmament (1935-1937), remilitarization of the
Rhineland (1936), and annexation of Austria (March 1938). In September 1938, after signing away the
Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and
French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the
incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump
Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the
Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.
Hitler responded by negotiating a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union in the summer of 1939.
The German-Soviet Pact of August 1939, which stated that Poland was to be partitioned between the
two powers, enabled Germany to attack Poland without the fear of Soviet intervention.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland.
JacoMUN16
Page 49

Appeasement:Appeasement, the policy of making concessions to the dictatorial powers in order to avoid conflict,
governed Anglo-French foreign policy during the 1930s. It became indelibly associated with Conservative
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Although the roots of appeasement lay primarily in the weakness of
post-World War I collective security arrangements, the policy was motivated by several other factors.
Firstly, the legacy of the Great War in France and Britain generated a strong public and political desire to
achieve peace at any price. Secondly, neither country was militarily ready for war. Widespread pacifism
and war-weariness (not to mention the economic legacy of the Great Depression) were not conducive to
rearmament. Thirdly, many British politicians believed that Germany had genuine grievances resulting
from Versailles. Finally, some British politicians admired Hitler and Mussolini, seeing them not as
dangerous fascists but as strong, patriotic leaders. In the 1930s, Britain saw its principle threat as
Communism rather that fascism, viewing authoritarian right-wing regimes as bulwarks against its
spread.
The League of Nations was intended to resolve international disputes peacefully. Yet the Leagues
ineffectiveness soon became apparent. In 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, the League
condemned the action. However, without either the weight of the US or the power of its own army, it
was unable to stop Japan. By 1937, Japan had launched a full-scale invasion of China. In October 1935,
the League imposed economic sanctions but little more when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. In March
1936, a cautious Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, forbidden under Versailles. The feared Anglo-French
reaction never came. In the Leagues council, the USSR was the only country to propose sanctions.
British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ruled out the possibility.
Germany and Italy now realized that the democracies were seeking to avoid confrontation, so both
countries continued to test the limits. During the Spanish Civil War, Hitler and Mussolini contravened
the Non-Intervention Agreement, sending troops, equipment and planes to back the rebels. Their
intervention was ignored by the international community. When Chamberlain became Prime Minister in
May 1937, the pattern of appeasement had already been set. In March 1938, Hitlers Anschluss (union)
with Austria was once again met with Anglo-French impotence and inaction.
Czechoslovakia had been created under Versailles, and included a large German minority mostly living in
the Sudetenland on the border with Germany. In mid-September 1938, Hitler encouraged the leader of
the Sudeten Nazis to rebel, demanding union with Germany. When the Czech government declared
martial law, Hitler threatened war.
On 15 September, Chamberlain met Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Without consulting the Czech authorities,
he pledged to give Germany all the areas with a German population of more than 50 per cent. France
was persuaded to agree. Hitler then altered his criteria, demanding all the Sudetenland. At the Munich
Conference on 30 September, Britain and France agreed to his demands. Chamberlain was confident
that he had secured peace for our time.
Appeasement was not without its critics. Churchill believed in a firm stand against Germany, and Foreign
Secretary Anthony Eden resigned in February 1938 over Britains continued acquiescence to fascist
demands. The left-wing also attacked Chamberlains blindness. In March 1939, when Germany seized
JacoMUN16
Page 50

the remainder of Czechoslovakia, it was clear that appeasement had failed. Chamberlain now promised
British support to Poland in the case of German aggression. A misguided belief in peace in our time was
replaced by a reluctant acceptance of the inevitability of war.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact:The German-Soviet Pact, also known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact after the two foreign ministers
who negotiated the agreement, had two parts. An economic agreement, signed on August 19, 1939,
provided that Germany would exchange manufactured goods for Soviet raw materials. Nazi Germany
and the Soviet Union also signed a ten-year nonaggression pact on August 23, 1939, in which each
signatory promised not to attack the other.
The German-Soviet Pact enabled Germany to attack Poland on September 1, 1939, without fear of
Soviet intervention. On September 3, 1939, Britain and France, having guaranteed to protect Poland's
borders five months earlier, declared war on Germany. These events marked the beginning of World
War II.
The nonaggression pact of August 23 contained a secret protocol that provided for the partition of
Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe into Soviet and German spheres of interest
The German Plan:The outline of the German plan of action is contained in the communiqu of the German High Command
published on 24th September 1939. It is also known from numerous propaganda publications which give
to the facts a biased interpretation. But even the official pronouncement of the High Command allows
itself such latitude, for its communiqu describes the spirit of Poland as one of "extreme chauvinism."
Further, the communiqu argues that the existence of plans for occupying Danzig and invading East
Prussia is revealed by a study of Polish writings. The communiqu attributes aggressive intentions to the
Polish army. It even suggests that the Poles underestimated Germany's strength, as it alleges that the
Polish High Command was convinced that the bulk of the German forces would be used in the west.
This assertion had also certain propaganda aims, being used in particular to substantiate the claim that
the Reich was menaced by Poland.
The object of the German High Command was to surround and destroy the Polish forces grouped in the
Vistula bend from Torun to Cracow.
JacoMUN16
Page 51

The Wehrmacht operating in Poland was organized in 5 land armies, 2 air fleets, and special groups of
the naval air force and air force of East Prussia (Table 3).
All the forces, divided into two groups of armies, were under the command of General Brauchitsch, with
his Chief of Staff, General Halder. The line of division between the two groups was at first the River
Notec.
(1) The Northern group of armies was commanded by General Bock, with General Salmuth as Chief of
Staff.
It was composed of the 3rd and 4th Armies, and the naval forces commanded by Admiral Albrecht.
The air fleet No. 1, commanded by General Kasselring, with two bases - in East Prussia and in German
Pomerania,as well as the naval air forces were at the disposal of the command of this group. The Vistula
formed the line of division between the two armies.
The 3rd Army, commanded by General Kuechler, was deployed in East Prussia direct on three axes: the
western, from Marienwerder (Kwidzyn) to Deutsch Eylau (Niemieckie Ilovo), 2 infantry divisions; the
main forces at Gilgenburg (Dombrowno), Neidenburg (Nibork), Willenberg (Wielbork), and Friedrichshof
(Rozogi), 4 infantry divisions, 2 armoredmotorized divisions, 1 cavalry brigade; the eastern flank was
covered by the garrisons of the Mazovian forest and Lake forts (Landwehr division) at Biala and Arys, the
garrison of the fortified Letzen district, and one reserve division in the Goldaps area.
The reserves consisted of one reserve division south of Allenstein (Olsztyn) and one Landwehr division in
the Szczytno (Ortelsberg) area.
Altogether 6 infantry divisions, 2 armored motorized divisions, 1 cavalry brigade for attack, and 4
infantry divisions covering the east were kept in reserve.
JacoMUN16
Page 52
The task of the army was to make a thrust directed east of Warsaw across the Bug in order to join forces
there with the group of southern armies and outflank the Polish forces west of Warsaw and further to
cut them off by a projected wide sweep movement beyond the Bug and San.
The divisions operating from the Marienwerder and Deutsch Eylau district were ordered to maintain
contact between this group and the western army (the 4th Army of General Kluge), which was deployed
in German Pomerania, and to co-operate along the Vistula in the direction of Grudziadz. These divisions
were at first under General Kluge.
The main forces of the 4th Army were concentrated in the region of Krojanke (Krojenka), Flatow
(Zlotov), Friedland (Frydlond), Schlochau (Czluchov). Strength: 4 infantry divisions, 3-4
armoredmotorized divisions. The northern flank was covered by the 1st reserve division in the Buetow
district and a combined unit (Landwehr) in the Lauenburg (Lembork) district. The same task south of Pila
(Schneidemuehle), along the Notec, was entrusted to one reserve division. At first a motorized unit
operated between Kreuz and Schoenlanke (Trzcianka).
Altogether this makes 5 infantry divisions, 3-4 armored motorized divisions of the first line, and 2 higher
formations kept in reserve.
The task of the army was to cut off the salient formed by Polish Pomorze in order to link up East Prussia
and Danzig with the Reich by seizing the crossings on the Vistula near Grudziadz and Bydgoszcz, and
then to operate south-eastwards jointly with the 3rd Army. The task of seizing the Polish coast was
JacoMUN16
Page 53

entrusted to the northern wing, stretching from Bytom to the forces organized in Danzig (one or two
infantry divisions) and the naval forces.
The joint forces of the group of the Northern Army including reserves, but excluding the Danzig forces,
were 17 infantry divisions, 4-5 armored motorized divisions, and 1 cavalry brigade.
(2) The southern group of armies was commanded by General Rundstaedt, whose Chief of Staff was
General Manstein. The land forces consisted of the 8th, 10th, and 14th armies; in addition there was the
4th Air Fleet, commanded by General Lohr.
The main task was entrusted to the 10th Army, commanded by General Reichenau. In the Opole
(Oppeln) part of Silesia the forces were in general distributed over the following area: Opole (Oppeln),
Namyslow (Namslau), Byczyna (Bitschen), Kluczborek (Kreuzberg), and Gliwice (Gleiwitz). The
armoredmotorized forces (5-6 divisions) were concentrated in the region of Olesno (Rosenberg),
Namyslow (Namslau), Byczyna (Bitschen), Dobrodzien (Guttentag), and Tworog (Tworog). Behind the
northern and southern flanks of the armoredmotorized forces there were 2 infantry divisions each, and
behind the center 2 infantry divisions. Altogether 6 infantry and 6 armored motorized divisions.
The army had to reach the Vistula from Kluczborek (Kreutzberg) by a powerful thrust eastwards and thus
to cut off in the Vistula bend the Polish forces stationed in the provinces of Pomorze and Poznan.
South of Gliwice (Gleiwitz) the 14th Army, under the command of General List, was grouped in the
military district of Upper Silesia, Cieszyn Silesia, Moravia, and Slovakia.
The area of the concentration of forces was planned with a view to enabling movements in an easterly
direction to be made without reference to the convex shape of the Polish frontier. Thus along the line
Sosnicowice (Kieferstaedtel)-Rybnik-Katowice-Cracow, 2 infantry divisions were stationed; 1 armored
motorized division, Raciborz (Ratibor)-Pszczyna-Oswiecim; 2 infantry divisions, Frydek-Biala; 3 infantry
divisions, Zylina-Zywiec; 2 armored motorized divisions, Trzciana (Trstena)-Chabowka; in the valley of
the Poprad Kierzmark (Kezmarek)-Druzbaki, 2 infantry divisions. In all, 9 infantry divisions. Two Slovak
infantry divisions were located in the area Lubowla-Moedzi-Laborce.
JacoMUN16
Page 54

It was established that 6 reserve divisions and 1 infantry division, which later took part in the
occupation of Silesia and the Crakow province, were kept in immediate reserve in the area of Prudnik,
Kornow, Raciborz, Morawska Ostrawa, Frydek, and Jablonkow.
General List's task was to contain the Polish forces grouped in the industrial basin and to aim at cutting
them off from the east by action from south and north, which would at the same time cover Slovakia. To
cover the northern flank of General Reichenau's Army on the Poznan side, the 8th Army of General
Blaskowitz was grouped in echelon with the axis of operation towards Lodz-Warsaw. The northern flank
extended to the Notec, skirting the Poznan province, the southern to Namslau. The main forces
consisted of 5 infantry divisions:
(1) In the Milice (Mulish)-Twardagora (Festenberg) area - 2 divisions;
(2) In the Olesnica (Oels)-Bierutow (Bernstadt) area - 3 infantry divisions.
This containing group of the 8th Army was protected from the north by Landwehr divisions in the region
of Wasosz (Herrnstadt) and Wschow (Fraustadt). The front sector between Glogow (Glogau) and Krzyz
(Kreutz) was occupied by 3-4 fortress and Landwehr divisions. All these divisions (4-5) gradually occupied
Poznania and some took part in the battles on the Bzura.
The southern front had in all 30 infantry divisions and 9 armored motorized divisions.
In addition to the troops on the front and those mentioned held in immediate reserve, about 10
infantry divisions were kept near the Polish frontier. Some were in the course of formation as garrisons
of occupied territories; others were already garrisons of occupation of the frontier districts of Poland,
Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia.
The Air Fleet No. 1, which was included in the northern front, had two bases: in East Prussia, with 400600 airplanes, and in German Pomerania with 700-1000 airplanes. The Air Fleet No. 4, which operated
from the southern front, had one base in the area of German Silesia, with 600-900 planes, and a second
in the Slovak aerodromes with 300-500 planes.
JacoMUN16
Page 55

The whole of Poland was divided into sections approximately corresponding to the projected area of
operation of the various armies. The zone of the operations of the East Prussian group comprised
Eastern Poland and was bounded on the west by a line running along the Vistula to Grudziadz, through
Warsaw, Sandomierz, and thence to Lwow and Krzemieniec. The section of the Pomorze group extended
from the frontier of this province south to the line Poznan-Kielce-Radom-Warsaw. The section of the
Silesian group extending from the border of the former included the area of Western Malopolska to
Jaslo-Przemysl-Lwow. The section of the Slovak group extended from the border of the former and
included the whole of south-eastern Poland. The routes of flights for particular duties were so traced
out inside each sector that they ensured a double effectiveness along the line Warsaw-Lwow.
In addition to the air fleets mentioned above, which for operational purposes were subordinated to the
commanders of the groups and land armies, the air forces of the Reich organized in fleets Nom. 2 and 3
carried out special tasks, taking their orders from Field-Marshal Goering. The air force totaled 2000-3000
airplanes.
A superficial calculation based on bombing raids and the airplanes used in them yields a figure
exceeding that given above, on certain days well above 5000 planes being engaged over Poland. Hence
the conclusion that various formations effected several flights or that the same machines were used by
several crews.
Polish troops in the Vistula bend by using two groups of forces:
(a) in the Oppeln-Breslau region the armored motorized arms were to pierce the Polish defenses and
reach the Vistula, containing the Polish forces from the south and cutting off their retreat to Warsaw
and Sandomierz;
(b) An armored motorized group striking from German Pomerania was to reach the Vistula and establish
tactical contact with East Prussia in order to encircle the Polish forces from the north and east by a
thrust along both sides of the Vistula.
The first action would at the same time make it possible to thrust deep into the main population centers
and the interior of the Polish State, paralyzing the Government and the military command and
destroying the centers of the war industry. The next actions were to achieve the occupation of Polish
JacoMUN16
Page 56

Pomorze, cut Polands access to the sea, set Danzig free, and establish direct communications with East
Prussia.
Meanwhile the flank armies were to threaten the Polish flank and create conditions for further action
beyond the Vistula-San barrier. In this way full advantage was to be taken of the formation of the
frontier which was unfavorable to Poland. This explains why the German Command deviated from its
favorite maneuver of using great pressure on the enemy flanks while at the same time containing the
frontal forces (Cannae maneuver). The plan for a speedy military success, producing a situation which
would present an accomplished fact in the sphere of politics, necessitated a restriction of aims. This was
necessary owing to the impossibility of foreseeing how operations in the west would develop and in
order to obtain a position that could be used for diplomatic bargaining.
As the Germans have not published a detailed account of the operations, the data given here may be
somewhat incomplete as regards the organization of the army or its various sections. The deployment of
German forces and their numerical strength are shown in Table 3.
German sources and publications give the strength of forces used against Poland as 38 infantry divisions.
No doubt the armored forces have not been included in this figure, and the reserves of the army and the
large formations operating on the coast and in Danzig have certainly been omitted. In any case, during
the first engagements 38 land divisions were identified, as well as 14-15 armored motorized divisions
and 1 cavalry brigade. Later, on 14th September, this figure rose to 59 infantry divisions and 16 armored
motorized divisions.
Poland planned to raise 39 infantry divisions, 4 infantry brigades, 11 cavalry brigades, and 2 motorized
brigades, whilst the Reich's forces of the first line were: 47 infantry divisions, 14-15 armored motorized
divisions, and 1 cavalry brigade. This comparison reveals the numerical superiority of the Germans.
Furthermore, 10 infantry divisions which were farther from the Reich frontier zone could at any time be
put into the field.
On 1st September, Poland had only 16 infantry divisions, 3 infantry brigades, 6 cavalry brigades, and 1
motorized brigade, grouped for operation. From this it appears that the first German thrust alone
engaged 40 per cent of the Polish forces.
JacoMUN16
Page 57

In this connection it is difficult to refrain from observing that military writers in some countries allow
themselves considerable poetical license when they speak of a Cannae in Poland. This is contradicted by
the reversed numerical ratio of the contesting sides: in Poland the weaker was on the defensive and the
stronger attacked.
The Polish troops being shifted to take part in the decisive maneuver and to be added to the general
reserves continued to arrive up to 3rd September. In addition to the armies, 30 infantry divisions, 4
infantry brigades, 11 cavalry brigades, including the Suwalki cavalry brigade, which had reached its
destination and completed its mobilization, should have found themselves in the field at that time.
But from the first day the German air force had paralyzed the railways. Some divisions suffered
considerable losses during transport (the 1st, 2nd, 13th, 22nd, 41st, the Podole and Kresy cavalry
brigades, some (the 19th and 29th) reached the appointed concentrations by marches, and three (the
3rd, 12th, 36th) had to detrain about 90 km. behind the battle zone. At first only a few battalions of the
latter went into action. Owing to the development of events the 45th reserve division was never
mobilized, and as for the 5th infantry division, only fractions of it operated at three points (Kutno,
Modlin, Warsaw).
Such was the effect of the powerful surprise operations of the air force. It should be added that the
"Kutno" reserve never came into existence, and in the main direction of operations, despite the
improvisations attempted, only 3 (the 13th, 19th, 26th) infantry divisions and a cavalry brigade and
about 9 unattached battalions were available, in place of 8 infantry divisions, 1 cavalry brigade, and 1
motorized brigade supposed to be there. The enumeration of the divisions indicates that the shifting
was improvised to obtain a strong concentration in that area. Thus it can be seen that the first
improvised deployment led to other deployments which at times proved less fortunate.
This is no doubt due to the fact that there is a constant conflict in the human mind between the
tendency to adhere to an approved plan and the pressure of circumstances which necessitates a
decision to change over to a diametrically opposite course. Normally such a change entails great
sacrifices, and necessarily leads to an abandonment of ground. As a result, the changed plan is usually
unsatisfactory. Finally, as is always the case in the drama of war, there are too many obscure factors due
to lack of knowledge of how operations are developing. Another factor which may militate against
change and the adoption of a new plan better suited to conditions is the tendency to risk the gamble
that the plan embarked upon may after all turn out successful.
JacoMUN16
Page 58

Polish Defense Plan:The defensive measures taken arose from the conviction that it would be against Poland that the Reich
directed its main forces and delivered the first blow. Once the non-aggression pact with Poland had
been denounced, the attack became a certainty. The date was left to Hitler alone to decide. Disturbing
reports about warlike preparations arrived in ever-increasing number from Germany, as well as
information about the speeding-up of military training. Roads leading from Slovakia to Poland were
improved and widened; troops of the line appeared in the frontier regions, where fortifications and road
barriers were being constructed. Reserves were reported as being called up. Diplomatic conversations
conducted by Germany up to the last moment represented nothing more than an attempt to separate
Poland from France and England, and to lull the world into a sense of security. Thus, far from removing
the threat of war, these talks made it only more certain, since the Reich never expected Poland to yield
to pressure.
Poland was bracing herself to withstand the first blow from Germany, then mobilizing, until the Allied
forces could be ready for the action to which they were committed, France by her alliance and Britain by
her guarantee. It was a question of inflicting as heavy losses as possible on the Germans during the first
battles, using every opportunity to counter-attack, and holding out even at the cost of losing some
territory until the offensive could be taken later in conjunction with the Allied armies in the west.
Such action could be of a defensive character only, and would postulate a speedy offensive in the west,
which would relieve Poland of having to bear alone the whole impact of the superior German war
machine. Of course, in all these calculations, a war in which Germany was the only opponent was
expected.
The outline of the plan for meeting the attack from the west was passed on 23rd March 1939 to the
various armies and operational groups formed for the defense there. The armies to be used remained in
their peace-time garrisons, only those forces being moved which were to cover the zones which in
peace-time were non-military. Instructions were issued to carry out all preliminary moves in such a way
as to avoid any incidents that might precipitate hostilities. Such a handling of the situation had the
character of intensified study of the problem of defense in the west, rather than that of preparation for
impending war.
In calculating the main lines of action open to the enemy, it was expected that there would be a main
drive towards Warsaw from the Breslau-Oppeln district along the most direct line, with a supporting
JacoMUN16
Page 59

action towards Silesia and the industrial region, and possibly also reinforced from Slovakia. A subsidiary
push towards Warsaw could come also from East Prussia.
The possibility of an intermediate attack from eastern Pomerania in the direction of Bydgoszcz, Torun,
and Inowroclaw, with a view to linking these other two drives and containing the Polish forces stationed
in Pomorze and Poznan provinces, was also considered.
It was assumed that the strengths of the various attacks would be:
From East Prussia (approx.)
9-12 Divisions
From Silesia (approx.)
20-30 Divisions
Towards Polish Pomorze (approx.)
6-8 Divisions
From Moravia (approx.)
10-15 Divisions
JacoMUN16
Page 60

For these reasons it was planned to form defensive lines in certain sectors; in others to make a strategic
retreat, whilst at the same time opposing the main offensive of the enemy with strong reserves.
Up to the outbreak of the war, the grouping of troops decided on in March was subjected only to minor
modifications, and these simply for reasons of organization.
The general line of defenses would be the Augustow forests, the Rivers Biebrza, Narew, Bug-Narew, the
Vistula with the Modlin bridgehead, Torun, the Bydgoszcz bridgehead, the lakes around Znin, the lakes
in the zone of Inowroclaw, Warta with the bridgeheads at Kolo and Turek, the Widawka, the country
west of Czestochowa, the fortified points in Silesia (Brynica, Mikolow, Zory), the country west of
Oswiecim, Biala, Zywiec, Jordanow, Chabowka, Nowy Sacz. The Carpathian passes were as yet only kept
under observation and nothing more than barriers against mechanized and horse-drawn vehicles were
erected. The points selected for advanced positions were at Mlawa, Brodnica-Grudziadz and the lakes in
the region of Wongrowiec-Znin.
The construction of defensive lines was started only after the harvest, and they were nothing more than
field fortifications with barbed wire entanglements. Special attention was paid to anti-tank traps, which
were chiefly laid near the main roads. The construction of fortifications was entrusted to the local
military commanders. Semi-permanent works were built at the following points: Osowiec, Wizna,
Nowogrod, Hel, Brynica, Mikolow, Zory, Zywiec, Jordanow, Chabowka, and Nowy Sacz. Barriers to form
inundations were constructed on the following rivers: Dzialdowka, Orzyc, Ossa, Drweca, Brda, Widawka,
Brynica, and Gostynka. But they proved of little use, owing to the exceptionally dry autumn and the very
low water-level of the rivers.
If the line could not hold, a second line of resistance was decided upon along the Rivers Narew, Vistula
and Dunajec. It was considered unlikely that the enemy could force his way across the Narew, but for
this contingency a withdrawal of the Bug line and the forests of Bialowieza was planned.
To facilitate operations eight bridges were built on the Vistula, two on the Polica, and two on the Warta.
During the initial stage of the preparatory work, peace-time strength was increased by the calling up of
certain groups of reservists, without however exceeding the peace-time budget estimate. Several
JacoMUN16
Page 61

formations were withdrawn from the east, including the 20th Infantry Division, the Nowogrodek Cavalry
Brigade, and one regiment from the 26th Infantry Division.
Points Resolution Should Address:Are the reasons for invading Poland viable?
How can the Germans be driven out of Poland without leading to further problems?
Should Member Nations impose sanctions on Germany for violating international law?
Will the Policy of Appeasement do more harm than good?
How can the League of Nations prevent this situation from leading to a Second World War?
Further Reading:Record, Jeffrey. The Specter of Munich: Reconsidering the Lessons of Appeasing Hitler. Washington, DC:
Potomac Books, 2007.
Rossino, Alexander B. Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity. Lawrence: University Press
of Kansas, 2003.
Zaloga, Steve. Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005070
http://felsztyn.tripod.com/germaninvasion/id11.html
Important Documents:
The Treaty of Versailles

The Covenant of the League of Nations
Dawes Plan
Young Plan
Treaty of St. Germain
Treaty of Trianon
JacoMUN16
Page 62
Treaty of Sevres
Treaty of Neuilly
President Woodrow Wilsons 14 Points
JacoMUN16
Page 63

Lo NSG

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lo NSG

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

St.

The League of Nations

The League of Nations Study Guide

Topic A: Reparations of the First World War

The League of Nations Study Guide

Message from the Executive Board:

The League of Nations Study Guide

The Unanimity Rule

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Germany lost 13 percent of its territory and 10 percent of its population.

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Discussion of the problem:The Issue Itself:

The League of Nations Study Guide

BLOC POSITIONS:Nations that are directly involved:

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Topic C: The Abyssinian Crisis

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Bloc Positions:Nations and organizations involved:

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Topic D: The Great Depression/ 1929 World

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Effects of the Great Depression:JacoMUN16

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Timeline of Major Events:

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Bloc Positions:Ministers and the Army

The League of Nations Study Guide

United States Ambassador

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

The League of Nations Study Guide

Bloc Positions:Nations that are Directly Involved: