IBDP History: World history topics 11- Causes and effects of 20th-century wars-HLSL -Paper 2

Question

Examine the reasons why some 20th-century wars ended with a peace treaty while others did not.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to consider the factors that made peace treaties possible in some cases, but prevented peace treaties being signed in others. Answers may be organized around common factors, or candidates may examine wars separately. For an answer to be effective it is essential that there is at least one example of a war that finished without a treaty, and another of a war that finished with one. Candidates may also approach this question by referring to several wars as long as the focus remains on the demands of the question.

Indicative content
• Victorious powers did not always wish to make a peace treaty, regarded their victory as vindication of their cause and saw compromise as a betrayal of those who had fought.
• Some wars ended with a victory so crushing that there was no defeated party left with which to negotiate a treaty.
• In some cases UN Security Council resolutions took the place of peace treaties; or the presence of peacekeeping forces made a stalemate more acceptable.
• The issues that caused the war may have been intractable.
• In the case of the First World War the victorious powers were motivated by a desire to prevent such huge suffering in the future and a perceived need to revise European borders. There was sufficient common ground between the victors to make a series of peace treaties possible.
• In the case of the Second World War full peace treaties proved impossible as the victorious powers could not agree about key issues such as the treatment of Germany and the governance of Eastern Europe.

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 reasons why some 20th-century wars ended with a peace treaty while others did not.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to consider the factors that made peace treaties possible in some cases, but prevented peace treaties being signed in others. Answers may be organized around common factors, or candidates may examine wars separately. For an answer to be effective it is essential that there is at least one example of a war that finished without a treaty, and another of a war that finished with one. Candidates may also approach this question by referring to several wars as long as the focus remains on the demands of the question.

Indicative content
• Victorious powers did not always wish to make a peace treaty, regarded their victory as vindication of their cause and saw compromise as a betrayal of those who had fought.
• Some wars ended with a victory so crushing that there was no defeated party left with which to negotiate a treaty.
• In some cases UN Security Council resolutions took the place of peace treaties; or the presence of peacekeeping forces made a stalemate more acceptable.
• The issues that caused the war may have been intractable.
• In the case of the First World War the victorious powers were motivated by a desire to prevent such huge suffering in the future and a perceived need to revise European borders. There was sufficient common ground between the victors to make a series of peace treaties possible.
• In the case of the Second World War full peace treaties proved impossible as the victorious powers could not agree about key issues such as the treatment of Germany and the governance of Eastern Europe.

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 role of economic factors in causing two wars, each chosen from a different region.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates should focus primarily on economic causes of wars, which could have taken a number of forms. In the course of examining economic causes, candidates may make a judgment on the seriousness of economic issues, or they may consider these in relation to other causes.

Indicative content
• Countries may have engaged in wars in order to retain or obtain resources and/or territory vital to the national interest.
• A country may have been in economic difficulty and war was a way of diverting attention from domestic problems.
• Adverse economic circumstances could have contributed to the emergence of aggressive and/or expansionist leaders.
• In the case of civil wars, sections of the population may have been suffering economically.

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

“Technological developments were not significant to the outcome of 20th century wars.” Discuss with reference to two wars.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to offer a considered and balanced review of the contributions that technological developments made to the outcome of two wars. They may adopt a comparative approach and discuss the importance of technological developments in each war, or they may choose to identify and rank a range of alternative factors. However, there is no prescribed response.

Note: The Cold War is not an admissible example.
Indicative content
• Candidates may analyse the impact of weaponry such as machine guns, tanks, flame-throwers, poison gas, atom and incendiary bombs, precision bombing missiles and napalm.
• Developments in transport, mobilization and weapon delivery such as railways, helicopters, aircraft carriers, rockets and submarines may be discussed.
• There may be assessment of the role of defensive and detection systems such as radar, sonar and anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.
• Other factors may include strategies and tactics, numerical superiority, economic strength and fighting spirit.

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

To what extent did guerrilla tactics determine the outcome of either the Algerian War (1954–1962) or the Chinese Civil War (1946–1949)?

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that guerrilla tactics were a determining factor in one of the named wars. In order to justify or refute the claim that guerrilla tactics were the most important factor other reasons for the war’s outcome are likely to be assessed and a clear conclusion reached.

Indicative content
Algerian War (1954–1962)
• Candidates should be able to assess the impact of guerrilla campaigns, notably the 1954 maquisard attacks and the guerrilla war of 1956 to 1957, and French counter-measures, which were militarily effective.
• There may be analysis of French methods, which included sophisticated counter-insurgency tactics such as search-and-destroy missions, helicopters and promotion of divisions among nationalist forces. This limited the effectiveness of guerrilla tactics.
• There may be assessment of guerrilla tactics used by the Front de Libération Nationale, FLN (National Liberation Front), such as terrorism, for example bombings during the Battle of Algiers and torture.
• The role of foreign support (that of Nasser for example) may be argued as having contributed to the outcome.
• It may be argued that the brutality of the French campaign alienated domestic and international opinion.
• By 1958, when de Gaulle took power, the political climate had changed. French domestic opinion was ready to support Algerian self-rule, the military effort needed to retain control over Algeria had become unsustainable and unpopular with NATO allies, and pressure was mounting from the United Nations.
• A summative argument could be that guerrilla tactics provoked fierce French repression, which alienated moderate opinion and led to the French decision to grant independence.

Chinese Civil War (1946–1949)
• Guerrilla tactics could be considered especially important in the early stages of the war, when Nationalist forces were vastly superior in numbers and weaponry.
• It may be argued that victory was secured in conventional pitched battles such as the 31-day battle at Mukden/Shenyang.
• There may be consideration of other reasons for Communist victory, for example Nationalist tactical errors such as the Manchurian campaign, which overstretched Nationalist supply lines and isolated Nationalist forces in PLA-controlled territory.
• The erosion of Nationalist support because of the ill-treatment of Nationalist troops led to the high desertion rate.
• Nationalist mismanagement of the economy (hyperinflation) and a failure to improve the lot of the peasantry were unpopular.
• The Communist message was focused on land reform and improved educational opportunity; peasant support was vital to communist success.
• Communist leadership was strong, there was a clear ideological message and Mao trusted his generals.
• There may be some assessment of the role of foreign support, for example, the withdrawal of US funding for the Nationalists in 1948.

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

To what extent did guerrilla tactics determine the outcome of either the Algerian War (1954–1962) or the Chinese Civil War (1946–1949)?

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that guerrilla tactics were a determining factor in one of the named wars. In order to justify or refute the claim that guerrilla tactics were the most important factor other reasons for the war’s outcome are likely to be assessed and a clear conclusion reached.

Indicative content
Algerian War (1954–1962)
• Candidates should be able to assess the impact of guerrilla campaigns, notably the 1954 maquisard attacks and the guerrilla war of 1956 to 1957, and French counter-measures, which were militarily effective.
• There may be analysis of French methods, which included sophisticated counter-insurgency tactics such as search-and-destroy missions, helicopters and promotion of divisions among nationalist forces. This limited the effectiveness of guerrilla tactics.
• There may be assessment of guerrilla tactics used by the Front de Libération Nationale, FLN (National Liberation Front), such as terrorism, for example bombings during the Battle of Algiers and torture.
• The role of foreign support (that of Nasser for example) may be argued as having contributed to the outcome.
• It may be argued that the brutality of the French campaign alienated domestic and international opinion.
• By 1958, when de Gaulle took power, the political climate had changed. French domestic opinion was ready to support Algerian self-rule, the military effort needed to retain control over Algeria had become unsustainable and unpopular with NATO allies, and pressure was mounting from the United Nations.
• A summative argument could be that guerrilla tactics provoked fierce French repression, which alienated moderate opinion and led to the French decision to grant independence.

Chinese Civil War (1946–1949)
• Guerrilla tactics could be considered especially important in the early stages of the war, when Nationalist forces were vastly superior in numbers and weaponry.
• It may be argued that victory was secured in conventional pitched battles such as the 31-day battle at Mukden/Shenyang.
• There may be consideration of other reasons for Communist victory, for example Nationalist tactical errors such as the Manchurian campaign, which overstretched Nationalist supply lines and isolated Nationalist forces in PLA-controlled territory.
• The erosion of Nationalist support because of the ill-treatment of Nationalist troops led to the high desertion rate.
• Nationalist mismanagement of the economy (hyperinflation) and a failure to improve the lot of the peasantry were unpopular.
• The Communist message was focused on land reform and improved educational opportunity; peasant support was vital to communist success.
• Communist leadership was strong, there was a clear ideological message and Mao trusted his generals.
• There may be some assessment of the role of foreign support, for example, the withdrawal of US funding for the Nationalists in 1948.

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

With reference to Pakistan’s defeat in the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, discuss the political consequences for Pakistan.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to consider how Pakistan’s defeat in 1971 affected its political scene, both during and after conflict. A possible approach may be to explain immediate, short-term and long-term results; however, no set response is required.

Indicative content
• The decisive Indian victory resulted in the independence of Bangladesh. The Pakistanis signed the Simla Agreement (1972), implicitly recognising East Pakistani independence and agreeing to procedures for resolving Indo-Pakistani disagreements peacefully. Since 1971 there has not been a war.
• As a result of defeat, Yayha Khan stood down in favour of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the first civilian leader of a smaller Pakistan.
• The Bangladeshi state, led by Mujibur Rahman, swiftly gained international recognition—Bangladesh joined the UN in 1974.
• Defeat may also have prompted Bhutto to embark on his secret nuclear programme in order to compensate for the imbalance in conventional forces.
• Some believe that a long-term consequence was Pakistani support for Islamist forces in Afghanistan and Kashmir, with a view to entrapping India in a lengthy struggle in disputed Kashmir.

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