IBDP History: Emergence of the Americas in global affairs (1880–1929)-HL option 2 -Paper 3

Question

“The US entered the First World War mainly because it wanted to protect its economic interests.” Discuss.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates must offer a considered and balanced review of the motives of the US for entering the war. The decision of the US to enter the war was influenced by a variety of factors and therefore candidates may choose to agree or disagree with the statement or may argue for a combination of causes.

Indicative content
• As the war began in 1914, the US recovered from a business recession due in significant part to war orders from Britain and France. Within little more than a year, the economy had fully recovered. Between 1914 and 1917, as trade with Britain and France grew threefold, trade with Germany declined.
• The US allowed American banks to extend approximately US$3 billion in loans to Britain and France, thus contributing to US prosperity and the Allies’ war effort.
• As a country with a large proportion of recent immigrants, ethnic influences divided US sentiments as to whether the Central Powers or the Triple Entente should be favoured. There were also many who opposed any involvement in what was seen as a European issue and thus supported neutrality. Nonetheless, on balance, the majority supported Britain and France due to their democratic governments and due to French assistance to the US during the War of Independence.
• Britain’s control of the cable linking the US to Europe, along with the concerted propaganda efforts of the British government, contributed to the perception of Germany as guilty of repeated war atrocities. Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium was also a factor in this perception.
• Germany’s application of submarine warfare caused the injury and deaths of US merchant seamen as in the Arabic and Sussex incidents and was therefore seen as more onerous than British violations of US neutrality.
• The sinking of the British passenger liner the Lusitania in 1915 took 128 US lives and resulted in a threat of “strict accountability” against Germany if such attacks continued.
• President Wilson’s tendency toward moral absolutes may have inclined US policy in favour of Britain and France in the face of Germany’s perceived aggression and violation of international law.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so

Question

Examine the long and short-term causes of the Spanish–American War (1898).

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to focus their responses on the reasons why war broke out between the US and Spain in 1898. Candidates are likely to address a combination of long- and short-term causes, both of which are equally important in bringing about the war.

Indicative content
Long-term causes
• Cuban demands for independence: the role of Jose Marti and other nationalist leaders in Cuba as well as the role of Cuban nationalists in the US; the results of the Ten Year War (1868– 1878); in 1895 fighting between Spain and Cuban nationalists was renewed.
• Spanish policies in Cuba: the appointment of General Weyler as governor; his policies to try to re-establish Spanish control (concentration camps for civilians) and their effect both in Cuba as well as in the US, which increased support for Cuban independence and US intervention.
• US foreign policy shifted from isolation to imperialism, influenced by the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.
• The impact of industrial progress in the US led to the search for new sources of raw materials and new markets to growing economic interests in the Caribbean region, including Cuba, where there was a need to protect US investments, which were threatened by the guerrilla methods used by the nationalists.
• The strategic importance of Cuba’s position in relation to the US may be discussed.

Short-term causes (1898)
• The De Lôme letter criticized US President McKinley.
• The sinking of the US battleship Maine in Havana, which had been sent to Cuba to protect US interests, increased war sentiment in the US.
• The role of the US press and Yellow Journalism may be another area for discussion.
• The diplomatic negotiations of April 1898 failed, leading to war.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

“Whether it was called the Big Stick, Dollar Diplomacy or Moral Diplomacy, the impact of United States foreign policy towards Latin America was virtually the same.” Discuss.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to offer a considered and balanced review of these foreign policies and reach a considered conclusion as to the impact they had on Latin America. Challenges to the original premise as well as confirmation are equally acceptable.

Indicative content
• Big Stick Diplomacy, practiced by Roosevelt, called for military intervention, or threat of it, to force Latin American nations to comply with US wishes. Dollar Diplomacy under Taft thought the US could control Latin American nations through loans and investment. Moral Diplomacy under Wilson sought to change the interventionist approach to one of guidance to democracy and only recognized those governments that came to power through democratic elections.
• The impact of each of these foreign policies on Latin America through military intervention, US loans and US recognition could be considered.
• Examples of affected Latin American countries could include Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala and Mexico.
• Candidates could indicate that regardless of what name was given to the foreign policy, it still resulted in American imperialism and intervention in order to protect American interests.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

Compare and contrast the US policies of the Big Stick and Moral Diplomacy.

▶️/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates must give an account of the similarities and differences in the mentioned policies, which may include their impact on the region.

Indicative content
The Big Stick policy:
• Theodore Roosevelt’s (1901–1909) corollary to the Monroe Doctrine allowed US military intervention in Latin American domestic affairs in order to protect the US. The US used force to protect its economic interests in Latin America, for example in Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua. Moral Diplomacy:
• The policies and practices of Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921) proposed that US foreign policy should reflect the nation’s values. Thus, the US would deny recognition to any Latin American government that was undemocratic or hostile to US interests. It was used in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Cuba and Panama.

Similarities:
• Both justified interventionist policies in Latin America; they expanded the influence of the US throughout the region; they justified US intervention in foreign nations for extended periods of time; they both used military power against offending governments; their applications were perceived as acts of hostility by Latin America.

Differences:
• It could be argued that the Big Stick policy relied more on the use of force than Moral Diplomacy; that Moral Diplomacy introduced a moral element that was less focused on US interests.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

“The US entered the First World War mainly because it wanted to protect its economic interests.” Discuss.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates must offer a considered and balanced review of the motives of the US for entering the war. The decision of the US to enter the war was influenced by a variety of factors and therefore candidates may choose to agree or disagree with the statement or may argue for a combination of causes.

Indicative content
• As the war began in 1914, the US recovered from a business recession due in significant part to war orders from Britain and France. Within little more than a year, the economy had fully recovered. Between 1914 and 1917, as trade with Britain and France grew threefold, trade with Germany declined.
• The US allowed American banks to extend approximately US$3 billion in loans to Britain and France, thus contributing to US prosperity and the Allies’ war effort.
• As a country with a large proportion of recent immigrants, ethnic influences divided US sentiments as to whether the Central Powers or the Triple Entente should be favoured. There were also many who opposed any involvement in what was seen as a European issue and thus supported neutrality. Nonetheless, on balance, the majority supported Britain and France due to their democratic governments and due to French assistance to the US during the War of Independence.
• Britain’s control of the cable linking the US to Europe, along with the concerted propaganda efforts of the British government, contributed to the perception of Germany as guilty of repeated war atrocities. Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium was also a factor in this perception.
• Germany’s application of submarine warfare caused the injury and deaths of US merchant seamen as in the Arabic and Sussex incidents and was therefore seen as more onerous than British violations of US neutrality.
• The sinking of the British passenger liner the Lusitania in 1915 took 128 US lives and resulted in a threat of “strict accountability” against Germany if such attacks continued.
• President Wilson’s tendency toward moral absolutes may have inclined US policy in favour of Britain and France in the face of Germany’s perceived aggression and violation of international law.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so

Scroll to Top