2023 IB DP History Practice Paper with Answers

The response should analyze the extent of change and continuity in US foreign policy under the Good Neighbor Policy (1933-1945). For change: Candidates can discuss the formal renunciation of unilateral intervention (Roosevelt Corollary); the withdrawal of US troops from Haiti (1934); the abrogation of the Platt Amendment with Cuba (1934); the preference for negotiation over military intervention (e.g., during the Mexican oil nationalization in 1938); and the promotion of cultural and economic ties through the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (OCIAA). For continuity: Candidates should analyze how the underlying goal of US policy remained the maintenance of hemispheric dominance; the shift from direct military occupation to supporting cooperative pro-US dictators (such as Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, and Fulgencio Batista in Cuba); and the continued pursuit of economic hegemony through reciprocal trade agreements and securing vital raw materials during World War II.

13-15 marks: In-depth analysis of both changes and continuities, well-supported by specific historical evidence (e.g., Platt Amendment, Mexican expropriation, various dictators). Clearly addresses 'to what extent' with a balanced, structured synthesis. 10-12 marks: Detailed discussion of the policy with clear arguments for both shift and continuity, though one side may be slightly stronger. Well-structured. 7-9 marks: Descriptive account of the Good Neighbor Policy with basic analysis of its changes, but limited discussion of continuity or underlying US goals. 4-6 marks: General narrative of US-Latin American relations with limited focus on the specific timeframe or policy. 1-3 marks: Vague or inaccurate response.

The response should evaluate the successes and limitations of the economic reforms directed by Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance (1892-1903). Successes to evaluate: The massive expansion of the railway system (notably the Trans-Siberian Railway), which stimulated the coal, iron, and steel industries; the adoption of the gold standard (1897), which stabilized the rouble and attracted substantial foreign investment (mainly French and British); the implementation of high protective tariffs to safeguard domestic manufacturing; and the rapid overall growth rate (approx. 8% annually in the 1890s), placing Russia as the fourth-largest industrial producer by 1900. Limitations/failures to evaluate: Severe neglect of the agricultural sector, where heavy taxation and grain exports squeezed peasants to fund industrialization, leading to deep rural discontent and famine; massive national debt from foreign loans; the concentration of industries in few urban centers (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Baku), leading to terrible living and working conditions that fostered radicalism; and the relative neglect of light and consumer industries.

13-15 marks: Analytical and balanced evaluation of both the successes (railways, foreign capital, heavy industry) and the limitations (peasant distress, state debt, social unrest) of Witte's policies, supported by precise historical data and context. 10-12 marks: Clear evaluation of Witte's policies, demonstrating good knowledge of both industrial achievements and social/economic drawbacks, with a logical structure. 7-9 marks: Mostly descriptive narrative of Russian industrialization during this period, with basic assertions about Witte's success but lacking deep analytical balance. 4-6 marks: Superficial or generalized narrative of Russian history or industrialization with little focus on Witte specifically. 1-3 marks: Inaccurate or irrelevant response.

An outstanding response will be clearly structured and systematically evaluate the impact of the French Mandate on Syrian political stability. 1. Introduction: Define the scope (1920–1936), introduce the establishment of the mandate under the League of Nations, and present a clear thesis on how French policies undermined long-term stability despite creating superficial administrative structures. 2. Territorial Fragmentation ('Divide and Rule'): Analyze how the French division of Syria into separate statelets (Damascus, Aleppo, Alawite State, Jabal Druze, and the Sanjak of Alexandretta) deliberately inflamed sectarian and regional divisions to weaken the Arab nationalist movement, leading to deep-seated political resentment. 3. The Great Syrian Revolt (1925–1927): Discuss this crucial turning point led by Sultan al-Atrash. Explain how harsh French military tactics, the bombardment of Damascus, and economic exploitation demonstrated a profound failure to maintain stability. 4. Administrative and Institutional Modernization: Acknowledge that the French did introduce centralized administrative systems, modern legal codes, and infrastructure (roads, schools, and public works) that offered a veneer of stability and modernization. 5. Path to the 1936 Treaty: Examine the emergence of the National Bloc, the 1930 Constitution, the general strike of 1936, and the negotiation of the Franco-Syrian Treaty. Note that while the treaty promised a transition to sovereign stability, the French parliament's subsequent failure to ratify it left the political system fragile. 6. Conclusion: Summarize how the Mandate's reliance on sectarian division and military force ultimately stunted democratic development and left a legacy of deep political fragmentation.

This question is marked out of 15 using the standard IB History HL Essay Markbands. [13–15 Marks]: Focuses clearly on the prompt, delivering a well-structured, analytical evaluation. Demonstrates detailed and accurate historical knowledge of the French Mandate, sectarian statelets, the Great Syrian Revolt, and the 1936 Treaty. Offers a balanced assessment of both stabilizing administrative elements and destabilizing political strategies. [10–12 Marks]: Mostly analytical and well-structured. Demonstrates good knowledge of key events and policies, though it may occasionally rely on narrative rather than deep analysis of the systemic impacts on stability. [7–9 Marks]: Largely descriptive account of the French Mandate period with some relevance to political stability. Contains some historical errors or omissions and lacks a deeply critical analysis. [4–6 Marks]: Shows limited or superficial knowledge of Syrian history under the mandate, lacking clear structure or focus on the question. [1–3 Marks]: Minimal relevant historical knowledge or structure.