Has anyone got 22-25 marks on an A Level history essay?

Watch
chloenix
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
Hi there, the title is a bit vague so I'll explain what I mean here now

So I usually get 17-18 marks out of 25 in my history essays (I do Tudors and Nazi Germany and Weimar and I'm in year 12), and I'm struggling to get higher than that.
Recently, my friend from another school sent me her history essay, which she got 25 marks on, and I realised that she was following a structure that is completely different to what is recommended to us.
We are taught to have an extremely clear and obvious line of argument running through the essay, with clear facts, mini conclusions and linking at the end of each paragraph. Her essay, however, was very different, and was much more narrative and explained in more depth.
Basically, what I'm asking is for someone to send me one of their essays via email or google docs. I would like to see how other people write essays because I am really really struggling. I will happily return the favour and send some of my essays, or do anything I can to help.

Thank you so much
Chlo
0
reply
Miriam29
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
Which exam board?
0
reply
Haggardoldkrone
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 months ago
#3
(Original post by chloenix)
Hi there, the title is a bit vague so I'll explain what I mean here now

So I usually get 17-18 marks out of 25 in my history essays (I do Tudors and Nazi Germany and Weimar and I'm in year 12), and I'm struggling to get higher than that.
Recently, my friend from another school sent me her history essay, which she got 25 marks on, and I realised that she was following a structure that is completely different to what is recommended to us.
We are taught to have an extremely clear and obvious line of argument running through the essay, with clear facts, mini conclusions and linking at the end of each paragraph. Her essay, however, was very different, and was much more narrative and explained in more depth.
Basically, what I'm asking is for someone to send me one of their essays via email or google docs. I would like to see how other people write essays because I am really really struggling. I will happily return the favour and send some of my essays, or do anything I can to help.

Thank you so much
Chlo
I have an example that got 22/25 in my 2018 A level exam for AQA. I did the USA 1875-1975 and the Tudors 1529-1570. I got an A* overall and got 64/80 on both modules. This was the best essay I’ve wrote. If you need anymore stuff I’ll send it over
0
reply
Haggardoldkrone
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 months ago
#4
(Original post by Haggardoldkrone)
I have an example that got 22/25 in my 2018 A level exam for AQA. I did the USA 1875-1975 and the Tudors 1529-1570. I got an A* overall and got 64/80 on both modules. This was the best essay I’ve wrote. If you need anymore stuff I’ll send it over
Hold on the file isn’t working great so I’ll
Copy and paste it down here.

To what extent was American imperialism motivated by issues of national security in the years 1890 to 1920?


(This is an exact copy of one of my answers from the AQA exam papers during my actual 2018 A-Level History and therefore was done under exam timed conditions of 45 minutes: The course was the USA 1865-1975)


Though it cannot be denied that there were examples of issues relating to national security from 1890-1920 such as tensions between America and Spain over Cuba, and the examples of German aggression which would lead to the First World War, nor would it be unfair to state that the American desire for new markets, the ending of the ideological move westwards known as Manifest Destiny and the importance of imperialistic individuals greatly contributed, if not played a more important role than national security throughout this period.


Certainly, the Spanish-American war of 1898 could be seen as an example of America acting on the behest of its own national security. Cuba was only 90 miles from the American coast, and the imperialism of the Spanish (who were attempting to reclaim their crumbling empire) could have been seen as a great threat to American interests. However, the pretext which America used to enter the war was a result of the destruction of the USS Maine which although had likely had a malfunction, was twisted and stirred by the Yellow Press who used provocative language to stir the American people into a frenzy (remember the Maine, to hell with Spain). This would lead one to infer that America was acting for the most part as a result of its own national interests (fuelled with elements of nationalism) that forced entry into the war. However, Cuban sugar revenue was highly important for American consumerism and the idea of pure national security belies the complexity of the situation. It seemed America was also acting for its international as well as its national security; one could see this war as being motivated by both causal factors and that America used the Maine as an excuse to act imperialistically under the guise of national interest when it was actually just seeking to establish American militaristic hegemony.


The First World War, or rather German aggression specifically threatened American national security. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 saw the deaths of over 162 American citizens, which was inflamed by Kaiser Wilhelm´s Unrestricted Submarine Warfare in 1915. This posed a very real threat against the Americans. Yet, Wilson wished to continue his Wilsonianism (or moral diplomacy) to ensure that neutrality and American isolationism remained. However, it seems this isolationism was actually to promote national security as the Americans were economically imperialistic. Britain was spending $25 million a day on the war, $10 million was loaned from American banks. Though outwardly they were isolationist they cleverly retained their rather fake neutrality but were forced to act militarily, if not imperialistically after the Zimmermann Telegram of 1917. This promised the Mexicans in reclaiming Texas, which had been annexed in 1848 by the US. This was a threat to American soil, and America imperialistic involvement from 1917 onwards can certainly and fairly be classed as a rebuke to defend its national security.


The desire for new markets seemed to coincide and stem from the completion of the settlement westwards (known as the frontier) in 1890 under the ideological banner of the Manifest Destiny. Ideologically, once the inward settlement had been completed it would inevitably lead to an outwards looking policy. American imperialism from 1898-1914 in particular could be characterised as an ideological campaign which stemmed from not only the theory and notion of the land being a ´God-gifted’ American right which needed to ´civilise´ and democratise; but also to establish American economic hegemony which could be interpreted as jealously of the colonies of the British Empire, or alternatively as a result of the fear that such an Empire could bring to national security. A fairly notable example of America attempting to ´civilise the population´, but also to expand its revenue as in Hawaii in 1898 which it would annex on the grounds of being ´progressive´. Hawaii played no credible threat to the American national security and actually relied on America and its tariff policies; essentially being a protectorate. Granted Queen Liliuokalani´s rebellion in 1893 could have been seen as aggressive, but in actuality it was defensive against the unfair power granted to American sugar growers in Hawaii that caused this. Therefore, this example highlights how America did not just get involved with issues of national security.


The imperialistic views and attitudes of individuals made a startling and arguably profound effect on American imperialistic involvement during this period. Notably Captain Mahan who´s “Influence of Sea Power” book in 1890, promoted feelings of American grandeur and promoted and justified why America should become involved. Admittedly it did so with regards to national security, and made few imperialistic mentions (only on grounds of self-defence), but it implicitly stated that America would have the power to establish its hegemony with some ease during this period. The book would be significant in how individuals such as Teddy Roosevelt handled their own foreign policy. The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 stated that it would become involved on matters of National Security. Yet, under Roosevelt the support of the Panamanian Rebels against Colombian rule can hardly be treated as being altruistic. As a result of their support they were able to purchase around 300 km of land to turn into a port canal and use as a drop off point for American trade ships. Granted it ensured that America was nationally prosperous, but it had little to do with security, rather financial investment and involvement. Wilson did a similar thing in Vela Cruz in 1914, sending in federal troops to ensure American foreign financial involvement was safe, which although may have had an economic effect on national prosperity, seemed to have little to do with prosperity.

Overall, whilst there were examples during this period where America got involved in order to protect itself against physical, tangible invasion, more often than not it appeared that it was self-seeking and self-interested, making cases of being a ´civilising´ force to establish political and financial control over other areas.


Examiners Comment: Really good range of factors and issues with some attempt at a sustained argument. Judgements not always fully convincing, but a good answer nonetheless. Top Band Level 5 Total Marks 22/25
0
reply
chloenix
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#5
(Original post by Miriam29)
Which exam board?
AQA
0
reply
chloenix
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#6
(Original post by Haggardoldkrone)
Hold on the file isn’t working great so I’ll
Copy and paste it down here.

To what extent was American imperialism motivated by issues of national security in the years 1890 to 1920?


(This is an exact copy of one of my answers from the AQA exam papers during my actual 2018 A-Level History and therefore was done under exam timed conditions of 45 minutes: The course was the USA 1865-1975)


Though it cannot be denied that there were examples of issues relating to national security from 1890-1920 such as tensions between America and Spain over Cuba, and the examples of German aggression which would lead to the First World War, nor would it be unfair to state that the American desire for new markets, the ending of the ideological move westwards known as Manifest Destiny and the importance of imperialistic individuals greatly contributed, if not played a more important role than national security throughout this period.


Certainly, the Spanish-American war of 1898 could be seen as an example of America acting on the behest of its own national security. Cuba was only 90 miles from the American coast, and the imperialism of the Spanish (who were attempting to reclaim their crumbling empire) could have been seen as a great threat to American interests. However, the pretext which America used to enter the war was a result of the destruction of the USS Maine which although had likely had a malfunction, was twisted and stirred by the Yellow Press who used provocative language to stir the American people into a frenzy (remember the Maine, to hell with Spain). This would lead one to infer that America was acting for the most part as a result of its own national interests (fuelled with elements of nationalism) that forced entry into the war. However, Cuban sugar revenue was highly important for American consumerism and the idea of pure national security belies the complexity of the situation. It seemed America was also acting for its international as well as its national security; one could see this war as being motivated by both causal factors and that America used the Maine as an excuse to act imperialistically under the guise of national interest when it was actually just seeking to establish American militaristic hegemony.


The First World War, or rather German aggression specifically threatened American national security. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 saw the deaths of over 162 American citizens, which was inflamed by Kaiser Wilhelm´s Unrestricted Submarine Warfare in 1915. This posed a very real threat against the Americans. Yet, Wilson wished to continue his Wilsonianism (or moral diplomacy) to ensure that neutrality and American isolationism remained. However, it seems this isolationism was actually to promote national security as the Americans were economically imperialistic. Britain was spending $25 million a day on the war, $10 million was loaned from American banks. Though outwardly they were isolationist they cleverly retained their rather fake neutrality but were forced to act militarily, if not imperialistically after the Zimmermann Telegram of 1917. This promised the Mexicans in reclaiming Texas, which had been annexed in 1848 by the US. This was a threat to American soil, and America imperialistic involvement from 1917 onwards can certainly and fairly be classed as a rebuke to defend its national security.


The desire for new markets seemed to coincide and stem from the completion of the settlement westwards (known as the frontier) in 1890 under the ideological banner of the Manifest Destiny. Ideologically, once the inward settlement had been completed it would inevitably lead to an outwards looking policy. American imperialism from 1898-1914 in particular could be characterised as an ideological campaign which stemmed from not only the theory and notion of the land being a ´God-gifted’ American right which needed to ´civilise´ and democratise; but also to establish American economic hegemony which could be interpreted as jealously of the colonies of the British Empire, or alternatively as a result of the fear that such an Empire could bring to national security. A fairly notable example of America attempting to ´civilise the population´, but also to expand its revenue as in Hawaii in 1898 which it would annex on the grounds of being ´progressive´. Hawaii played no credible threat to the American national security and actually relied on America and its tariff policies; essentially being a protectorate. Granted Queen Liliuokalani´s rebellion in 1893 could have been seen as aggressive, but in actuality it was defensive against the unfair power granted to American sugar growers in Hawaii that caused this. Therefore, this example highlights how America did not just get involved with issues of national security.


The imperialistic views and attitudes of individuals made a startling and arguably profound effect on American imperialistic involvement during this period. Notably Captain Mahan who´s “Influence of Sea Power” book in 1890, promoted feelings of American grandeur and promoted and justified why America should become involved. Admittedly it did so with regards to national security, and made few imperialistic mentions (only on grounds of self-defence), but it implicitly stated that America would have the power to establish its hegemony with some ease during this period. The book would be significant in how individuals such as Teddy Roosevelt handled their own foreign policy. The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 stated that it would become involved on matters of National Security. Yet, under Roosevelt the support of the Panamanian Rebels against Colombian rule can hardly be treated as being altruistic. As a result of their support they were able to purchase around 300 km of land to turn into a port canal and use as a drop off point for American trade ships. Granted it ensured that America was nationally prosperous, but it had little to do with security, rather financial investment and involvement. Wilson did a similar thing in Vela Cruz in 1914, sending in federal troops to ensure American foreign financial involvement was safe, which although may have had an economic effect on national prosperity, seemed to have little to do with prosperity.

Overall, whilst there were examples during this period where America got involved in order to protect itself against physical, tangible invasion, more often than not it appeared that it was self-seeking and self-interested, making cases of being a ´civilising´ force to establish political and financial control over other areas.


Examiners Comment: Really good range of factors and issues with some attempt at a sustained argument. Judgements not always fully convincing, but a good answer nonetheless. Top Band Level 5 Total Marks 22/25
Wow thank you so so much, that was amazing! You're a lifesaver
0
reply
Miriam29
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 months ago
#7
This is a WJEC essay so it is out of 30 marks in 45 minutes. I wrote it under exam conditions but it wasn’t done in an actual exam. My teacher placed it in the top band (27-30).

To what extent did American governments pursue a consistent approach to foreign policy in the period from 1898 to 1941? [30]

Between 1898 and 1941, the American governments’ approaches to foreign policy often differed in certain aspects. However, the foundations of the United States inherently favour individualism and separation from European issues, and the discomfort in dealing with certain foreign issues is present at different points throughout the period. It could be argued that governments consistently tried to manipulate previous precedent to fit whatever foreign policy they felt was necessary at the time, though the re-emergence of established ideas such as the Monroe Doctrine and neutrality may suggest a genuine desire to uphold the principles set out by George Washington and the original constitution of the United States.
Possibly the most widely applied aspect of foreign policy throughout the period was the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which broadly stated that America had the right to interfere with situations within its ‘sphere of influence’. US interference in Latin America was considerably consistent between the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the 1940s, with governments attempting to gain control of both economic and political aspects of its neighbouring countries. While it is widely considered true that the explosion of the USS Maine at a Havana port triggered the American declaration of war on Spain, historians such as Carl Degler argue that US foreign policy at this time was motivated by economic factors such as an interest in Cuban sugar. Being geographically close to the US, it is unsurprising that the McKinley administration emphasised the Monroe Doctrine in fighting over Cuba. This early use of the Monroe Doctrine also exemplifies the way in which America sought to extend its sphere of influence, gaining control of Guantanamo Bay, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. It could be argued that the classification of America’s ‘sphere of influence’ was not completely consistent with geographical location like the McKinley administration argued because it slowly spread to the Far East as economic interests in China arose. Wanting to protect US economic interests in China, the US frequently used the fact that many US companies had interests in China to argue that it was within its sphere of influence. Concerns of Japanese imperialism in China are present in foreign policy as early as Theodore Roosevelt’s 1908 Root-Takahira Agreement, but also spread to the build up to WWII with the 1921 Washington Conference where both the US and Japan promised to limit their naval tonnage. This manipulation of the Monroe Doctrine to suit economic interests may be fairly consistent between 1898 and 1941, but the fact that the degree of manipulation changed to suit the needs of the US suggests that its application was not completely consistent.
Following the First World War, there was a marked change in relations with Latin American countries in comparison to earlier selfish policies. Earlier ‘big stick’ attitudes that supported the Roosevelt Corollary to interfere in military unrest, such as the 1903 intervention in Panama which led to the acquisition of land to build the Panama Canal, seemed to lesson from Wilson’s presidency onwards. Starting with the building of highways, bridges and hospitals throughout Latin America in 1912, US benevolence in Latin America culminated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s ‘Good Neighbour’ policy. It could be argued that this policy was a reversion along the more original lines of the Monroe Doctrine, with the US monitoring situations and helping where it could, with little military interference. US investment in Latin America doubled from $1.5 billion in 1924 to $3 billion in 1929 due to the spread of manufacturers such as General Motors to countries such as Argentina and Brazil. Furthermore, 10 trade treaties had been signed with Latin American countries by 1938 The State Department hired economists such as Edward Kemmer to create economic plans for Latin American countries, which suggests that the economic motive for using the Monroe Doctrine was still present in the newer ‘Good Neighbour’ policy. Nevertheless, political involvement in Latin America somewhat decreased as the government paid Colombia $25 million as compensation for its earlier interference in Panama and US troops were withdrawn from Nicaragua in 1925, though 5000 were sent back a year later.
Despite the founding of the United States being inherently anti-imperialistic, less traditional forms of imperialism were reasonably consistent in US foreign policy between 1898 and 1941. Often, US imperialism was intrinsically interwoven with the justification of the Monroe Doctrine, such as progressive imperialism during the Spanish-American War that challenged the horrible conditions Cubans were subjected to, but want for economic-growth underpinned most other forms of imperialism. Preclusive imperialism was quite consistent, and George Herring argues that America held a key position in the 20th century fight between colonists and the colonised. The US practically decimated the Spanish Empire following the 1898 war, and it could be argued that its main adversary during the period 1898 to 1941 was the Japanese Empire. The location of both Japan and the American West Coast on the Pacific Ocean caused significant tension as America sought to expand westwards and Japan sought to expand eastwards. Following the end of the American Frontier, US policy was partially driven by expansionism elsewhere. The 1898 annexation of Hawaii exemplifies US naval interest in the Pacific, and the tension between the two nations came to logger-heads with the December 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour by Japan as the Asian country sought to control the Pacific. While the Monroe Doctrine was often used to justify interference in China, one could suggest that US policy regarding China was a form of preclusive imperialism that spanned the period. Furthermore, the US stance in regard to China did not significantly change as the various governments all sought to protect US interests. Wanting to stay ahead of Japan, the US tried to prevent a renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1922, and the Four Power Treaty of the same year saw the US and Japan agreeing to respect each other’s interests in China and the Chinese Open Door Policy. After the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Congress limited US oil supplies for Japan and eventually froze all Japanese assets in the US in 1941, which demonstrates the well-established importance of China in US foreign policy.
Despite the extensive interference of the US in other countries between 1898 and 1941, the drive to remain neutral in European affairs was a common factor in US foreign policy and a matter of extreme ridicule when it came to presidential and congressional elections. Whether this policy of neutrality was successful is questionable considering the United States fought in two world wars which originated in Europe. Reluctance to join European wars can be seen in US foreign policy where the US only joined after much of the fighting had taken place. Wilsonianism during the First World War tried to model foreign policy on the basis that Christianity rejected war, yet Kennedy argues that Wilson’s moralistic imperialism was probably the main factor in the US declaring war on Germany in April 1917. Consistent pro-British and anti-German sentiments in the general American population are evident around both World Wars, yet the governments had foreign trade policies such as ‘cash and carry’ that meant that the US could trade with all belligerents during the war. Despite this, US foreign policy tended to favour the Allied forces before American entry into war, with US trade with the Allies standing at $3.2 billion in 1916, which was ten times that of the Central Powers. In a similar fashion, the US arguably acted as the ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ during WWII by providing weapons to the Allies with the ‘Lend-Lease’ scheme and Atlantic Charter in late 1941. This is a marked inconsistency under Roosevelt because between 1935 and 1941 Congress had passed a series of five Neutrality Acts that sought to keep America out of the brewing European conflict. However, historians such as Borgan argue that the actions of Germany with unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI and the attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan in WWII forced the US to change its foreign policy away from neutrality, suggesting that there was still consistency in the idealisation of neutrality.
One could argue that attitudes towards neutrality and individualism saw the most significant differences between Democratic and Republican administrations. The World Wars were conducted under Democratic presidents, and a certain moralistic trend can be seen in the motivations of both. Following WWII, Wilson published his 14 Points, which outlined principles of European self-determination and sought to set up the League of Nations. Despite founding the League of Nations, Congress did not ratify either US membership or the Treaty of Versailles because 37 Republican senators signed a document against it and a ⅔ majority was made impossible by this. The American people were probably against the idea of such extensive US involvement in Europe, which led to the Republican Harding’s defeat of Wilson in the 1920 Presidential Election. Attitudes towards Europe during the Republican-dominated 1920s were embodied in a ‘Return to Normalcy’ policy that followed independent internationalism. Most of America’s involvement in Europe was economically-driven during this time rather than politically motivated with the 1924 Dawes Plan and the 1929 Young Plan aiming to regulate German reparation payments so that the Allies could pay their war debts to the US. However, there is some consistency with Democratic policy in that Harding and Coolidge sought to ensure war was avoided; the 1921 Washington Disarmament Conference and the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact were ratified by the Senate because they promised less interference rather than the moral imperialism that Wilson had sought.
American foreign policy between 1898 and 1941 was fairly consistent in its aims, though its execution varied somewhat depending on the international situations of the times. The Monroe Doctrine was used consistently to justify US interference in Latin America, even though the aggression of policy lessened as the US utilised more moralistic imperialism. Preclusive imperialism in the Far East was also fairly consistent due to vested interests in the Chinese economy, and the consideration of Japan as a possible threat is seen consistently between 1918 and 1941. Despite Democratic attempts to spread American morals in Europe, Congress usually managed to adhere to policies of neutrality. While neutrality sometimes wavered, the policy of refraining from battle until it was necessary was considerably consistent throughout the period.
0
reply
chloenix
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#8
(Original post by Miriam29)
This is a WJEC essay so it is out of 30 marks in 45 minutes. I wrote it under exam conditions but it wasn’t done in an actual exam. My teacher placed it in the top band (27-30).

To what extent did American governments pursue a consistent approach to foreign policy in the period from 1898 to 1941? [30]

Between 1898 and 1941, the American governments’ approaches to foreign policy often differed in certain aspects. However, the foundations of the United States inherently favour individualism and separation from European issues, and the discomfort in dealing with certain foreign issues is present at different points throughout the period. It could be argued that governments consistently tried to manipulate previous precedent to fit whatever foreign policy they felt was necessary at the time, though the re-emergence of established ideas such as the Monroe Doctrine and neutrality may suggest a genuine desire to uphold the principles set out by George Washington and the original constitution of the United States.
Possibly the most widely applied aspect of foreign policy throughout the period was the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which broadly stated that America had the right to interfere with situations within its ‘sphere of influence’. US interference in Latin America was considerably consistent between the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the 1940s, with governments attempting to gain control of both economic and political aspects of its neighbouring countries. While it is widely considered true that the explosion of the USS Maine at a Havana port triggered the American declaration of war on Spain, historians such as Carl Degler argue that US foreign policy at this time was motivated by economic factors such as an interest in Cuban sugar. Being geographically close to the US, it is unsurprising that the McKinley administration emphasised the Monroe Doctrine in fighting over Cuba. This early use of the Monroe Doctrine also exemplifies the way in which America sought to extend its sphere of influence, gaining control of Guantanamo Bay, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. It could be argued that the classification of America’s ‘sphere of influence’ was not completely consistent with geographical location like the McKinley administration argued because it slowly spread to the Far East as economic interests in China arose. Wanting to protect US economic interests in China, the US frequently used the fact that many US companies had interests in China to argue that it was within its sphere of influence. Concerns of Japanese imperialism in China are present in foreign policy as early as Theodore Roosevelt’s 1908 Root-Takahira Agreement, but also spread to the build up to WWII with the 1921 Washington Conference where both the US and Japan promised to limit their naval tonnage. This manipulation of the Monroe Doctrine to suit economic interests may be fairly consistent between 1898 and 1941, but the fact that the degree of manipulation changed to suit the needs of the US suggests that its application was not completely consistent.
Following the First World War, there was a marked change in relations with Latin American countries in comparison to earlier selfish policies. Earlier ‘big stick’ attitudes that supported the Roosevelt Corollary to interfere in military unrest, such as the 1903 intervention in Panama which led to the acquisition of land to build the Panama Canal, seemed to lesson from Wilson’s presidency onwards. Starting with the building of highways, bridges and hospitals throughout Latin America in 1912, US benevolence in Latin America culminated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s ‘Good Neighbour’ policy. It could be argued that this policy was a reversion along the more original lines of the Monroe Doctrine, with the US monitoring situations and helping where it could, with little military interference. US investment in Latin America doubled from $1.5 billion in 1924 to $3 billion in 1929 due to the spread of manufacturers such as General Motors to countries such as Argentina and Brazil. Furthermore, 10 trade treaties had been signed with Latin American countries by 1938 The State Department hired economists such as Edward Kemmer to create economic plans for Latin American countries, which suggests that the economic motive for using the Monroe Doctrine was still present in the newer ‘Good Neighbour’ policy. Nevertheless, political involvement in Latin America somewhat decreased as the government paid Colombia $25 million as compensation for its earlier interference in Panama and US troops were withdrawn from Nicaragua in 1925, though 5000 were sent back a year later.
Despite the founding of the United States being inherently anti-imperialistic, less traditional forms of imperialism were reasonably consistent in US foreign policy between 1898 and 1941. Often, US imperialism was intrinsically interwoven with the justification of the Monroe Doctrine, such as progressive imperialism during the Spanish-American War that challenged the horrible conditions Cubans were subjected to, but want for economic-growth underpinned most other forms of imperialism. Preclusive imperialism was quite consistent, and George Herring argues that America held a key position in the 20th century fight between colonists and the colonised. The US practically decimated the Spanish Empire following the 1898 war, and it could be argued that its main adversary during the period 1898 to 1941 was the Japanese Empire. The location of both Japan and the American West Coast on the Pacific Ocean caused significant tension as America sought to expand westwards and Japan sought to expand eastwards. Following the end of the American Frontier, US policy was partially driven by expansionism elsewhere. The 1898 annexation of Hawaii exemplifies US naval interest in the Pacific, and the tension between the two nations came to logger-heads with the December 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour by Japan as the Asian country sought to control the Pacific. While the Monroe Doctrine was often used to justify interference in China, one could suggest that US policy regarding China was a form of preclusive imperialism that spanned the period. Furthermore, the US stance in regard to China did not significantly change as the various governments all sought to protect US interests. Wanting to stay ahead of Japan, the US tried to prevent a renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1922, and the Four Power Treaty of the same year saw the US and Japan agreeing to respect each other’s interests in China and the Chinese Open Door Policy. After the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Congress limited US oil supplies for Japan and eventually froze all Japanese assets in the US in 1941, which demonstrates the well-established importance of China in US foreign policy.
Despite the extensive interference of the US in other countries between 1898 and 1941, the drive to remain neutral in European affairs was a common factor in US foreign policy and a matter of extreme ridicule when it came to presidential and congressional elections. Whether this policy of neutrality was successful is questionable considering the United States fought in two world wars which originated in Europe. Reluctance to join European wars can be seen in US foreign policy where the US only joined after much of the fighting had taken place. Wilsonianism during the First World War tried to model foreign policy on the basis that Christianity rejected war, yet Kennedy argues that Wilson’s moralistic imperialism was probably the main factor in the US declaring war on Germany in April 1917. Consistent pro-British and anti-German sentiments in the general American population are evident around both World Wars, yet the governments had foreign trade policies such as ‘cash and carry’ that meant that the US could trade with all belligerents during the war. Despite this, US foreign policy tended to favour the Allied forces before American entry into war, with US trade with the Allies standing at $3.2 billion in 1916, which was ten times that of the Central Powers. In a similar fashion, the US arguably acted as the ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ during WWII by providing weapons to the Allies with the ‘Lend-Lease’ scheme and Atlantic Charter in late 1941. This is a marked inconsistency under Roosevelt because between 1935 and 1941 Congress had passed a series of five Neutrality Acts that sought to keep America out of the brewing European conflict. However, historians such as Borgan argue that the actions of Germany with unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI and the attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan in WWII forced the US to change its foreign policy away from neutrality, suggesting that there was still consistency in the idealisation of neutrality.
One could argue that attitudes towards neutrality and individualism saw the most significant differences between Democratic and Republican administrations. The World Wars were conducted under Democratic presidents, and a certain moralistic trend can be seen in the motivations of both. Following WWII, Wilson published his 14 Points, which outlined principles of European self-determination and sought to set up the League of Nations. Despite founding the League of Nations, Congress did not ratify either US membership or the Treaty of Versailles because 37 Republican senators signed a document against it and a ⅔ majority was made impossible by this. The American people were probably against the idea of such extensive US involvement in Europe, which led to the Republican Harding’s defeat of Wilson in the 1920 Presidential Election. Attitudes towards Europe during the Republican-dominated 1920s were embodied in a ‘Return to Normalcy’ policy that followed independent internationalism. Most of America’s involvement in Europe was economically-driven during this time rather than politically motivated with the 1924 Dawes Plan and the 1929 Young Plan aiming to regulate German reparation payments so that the Allies could pay their war debts to the US. However, there is some consistency with Democratic policy in that Harding and Coolidge sought to ensure war was avoided; the 1921 Washington Disarmament Conference and the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact were ratified by the Senate because they promised less interference rather than the moral imperialism that Wilson had sought.
American foreign policy between 1898 and 1941 was fairly consistent in its aims, though its execution varied somewhat depending on the international situations of the times. The Monroe Doctrine was used consistently to justify US interference in Latin America, even though the aggression of policy lessened as the US utilised more moralistic imperialism. Preclusive imperialism in the Far East was also fairly consistent due to vested interests in the Chinese economy, and the consideration of Japan as a possible threat is seen consistently between 1918 and 1941. Despite Democratic attempts to spread American morals in Europe, Congress usually managed to adhere to policies of neutrality. While neutrality sometimes wavered, the policy of refraining from battle until it was necessary was considerably consistent throughout the period.
Thank you! That's such a good essay very kind of you for sending it x
1
reply
Haggardoldkrone
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 months ago
#9
(Original post by Miriam29)
This is a WJEC essay so it is out of 30 marks in 45 minutes. I wrote it under exam conditions but it wasn’t done in an actual exam. My teacher placed it in the top band (27-30).

To what extent did American governments pursue a consistent approach to foreign policy in the period from 1898 to 1941? [30]

Between 1898 and 1941, the American governments’ approaches to foreign policy often differed in certain aspects. However, the foundations of the United States inherently favour individualism and separation from European issues, and the discomfort in dealing with certain foreign issues is present at different points throughout the period. It could be argued that governments consistently tried to manipulate previous precedent to fit whatever foreign policy they felt was necessary at the time, though the re-emergence of established ideas such as the Monroe Doctrine and neutrality may suggest a genuine desire to uphold the principles set out by George Washington and the original constitution of the United States.
Possibly the most widely applied aspect of foreign policy throughout the period was the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which broadly stated that America had the right to interfere with situations within its ‘sphere of influence’. US interference in Latin America was considerably consistent between the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the 1940s, with governments attempting to gain control of both economic and political aspects of its neighbouring countries. While it is widely considered true that the explosion of the USS Maine at a Havana port triggered the American declaration of war on Spain, historians such as Carl Degler argue that US foreign policy at this time was motivated by economic factors such as an interest in Cuban sugar. Being geographically close to the US, it is unsurprising that the McKinley administration emphasised the Monroe Doctrine in fighting over Cuba. This early use of the Monroe Doctrine also exemplifies the way in which America sought to extend its sphere of influence, gaining control of Guantanamo Bay, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. It could be argued that the classification of America’s ‘sphere of influence’ was not completely consistent with geographical location like the McKinley administration argued because it slowly spread to the Far East as economic interests in China arose. Wanting to protect US economic interests in China, the US frequently used the fact that many US companies had interests in China to argue that it was within its sphere of influence. Concerns of Japanese imperialism in China are present in foreign policy as early as Theodore Roosevelt’s 1908 Root-Takahira Agreement, but also spread to the build up to WWII with the 1921 Washington Conference where both the US and Japan promised to limit their naval tonnage. This manipulation of the Monroe Doctrine to suit economic interests may be fairly consistent between 1898 and 1941, but the fact that the degree of manipulation changed to suit the needs of the US suggests that its application was not completely consistent.
Following the First World War, there was a marked change in relations with Latin American countries in comparison to earlier selfish policies. Earlier ‘big stick’ attitudes that supported the Roosevelt Corollary to interfere in military unrest, such as the 1903 intervention in Panama which led to the acquisition of land to build the Panama Canal, seemed to lesson from Wilson’s presidency onwards. Starting with the building of highways, bridges and hospitals throughout Latin America in 1912, US benevolence in Latin America culminated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s ‘Good Neighbour’ policy. It could be argued that this policy was a reversion along the more original lines of the Monroe Doctrine, with the US monitoring situations and helping where it could, with little military interference. US investment in Latin America doubled from $1.5 billion in 1924 to $3 billion in 1929 due to the spread of manufacturers such as General Motors to countries such as Argentina and Brazil. Furthermore, 10 trade treaties had been signed with Latin American countries by 1938 The State Department hired economists such as Edward Kemmer to create economic plans for Latin American countries, which suggests that the economic motive for using the Monroe Doctrine was still present in the newer ‘Good Neighbour’ policy. Nevertheless, political involvement in Latin America somewhat decreased as the government paid Colombia $25 million as compensation for its earlier interference in Panama and US troops were withdrawn from Nicaragua in 1925, though 5000 were sent back a year later.
Despite the founding of the United States being inherently anti-imperialistic, less traditional forms of imperialism were reasonably consistent in US foreign policy between 1898 and 1941. Often, US imperialism was intrinsically interwoven with the justification of the Monroe Doctrine, such as progressive imperialism during the Spanish-American War that challenged the horrible conditions Cubans were subjected to, but want for economic-growth underpinned most other forms of imperialism. Preclusive imperialism was quite consistent, and George Herring argues that America held a key position in the 20th century fight between colonists and the colonised. The US practically decimated the Spanish Empire following the 1898 war, and it could be argued that its main adversary during the period 1898 to 1941 was the Japanese Empire. The location of both Japan and the American West Coast on the Pacific Ocean caused significant tension as America sought to expand westwards and Japan sought to expand eastwards. Following the end of the American Frontier, US policy was partially driven by expansionism elsewhere. The 1898 annexation of Hawaii exemplifies US naval interest in the Pacific, and the tension between the two nations came to logger-heads with the December 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour by Japan as the Asian country sought to control the Pacific. While the Monroe Doctrine was often used to justify interference in China, one could suggest that US policy regarding China was a form of preclusive imperialism that spanned the period. Furthermore, the US stance in regard to China did not significantly change as the various governments all sought to protect US interests. Wanting to stay ahead of Japan, the US tried to prevent a renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1922, and the Four Power Treaty of the same year saw the US and Japan agreeing to respect each other’s interests in China and the Chinese Open Door Policy. After the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Congress limited US oil supplies for Japan and eventually froze all Japanese assets in the US in 1941, which demonstrates the well-established importance of China in US foreign policy.
Despite the extensive interference of the US in other countries between 1898 and 1941, the drive to remain neutral in European affairs was a common factor in US foreign policy and a matter of extreme ridicule when it came to presidential and congressional elections. Whether this policy of neutrality was successful is questionable considering the United States fought in two world wars which originated in Europe. Reluctance to join European wars can be seen in US foreign policy where the US only joined after much of the fighting had taken place. Wilsonianism during the First World War tried to model foreign policy on the basis that Christianity rejected war, yet Kennedy argues that Wilson’s moralistic imperialism was probably the main factor in the US declaring war on Germany in April 1917. Consistent pro-British and anti-German sentiments in the general American population are evident around both World Wars, yet the governments had foreign trade policies such as ‘cash and carry’ that meant that the US could trade with all belligerents during the war. Despite this, US foreign policy tended to favour the Allied forces before American entry into war, with US trade with the Allies standing at $3.2 billion in 1916, which was ten times that of the Central Powers. In a similar fashion, the US arguably acted as the ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ during WWII by providing weapons to the Allies with the ‘Lend-Lease’ scheme and Atlantic Charter in late 1941. This is a marked inconsistency under Roosevelt because between 1935 and 1941 Congress had passed a series of five Neutrality Acts that sought to keep America out of the brewing European conflict. However, historians such as Borgan argue that the actions of Germany with unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI and the attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan in WWII forced the US to change its foreign policy away from neutrality, suggesting that there was still consistency in the idealisation of neutrality.
One could argue that attitudes towards neutrality and individualism saw the most significant differences between Democratic and Republican administrations. The World Wars were conducted under Democratic presidents, and a certain moralistic trend can be seen in the motivations of both. Following WWII, Wilson published his 14 Points, which outlined principles of European self-determination and sought to set up the League of Nations. Despite founding the League of Nations, Congress did not ratify either US membership or the Treaty of Versailles because 37 Republican senators signed a document against it and a ⅔ majority was made impossible by this. The American people were probably against the idea of such extensive US involvement in Europe, which led to the Republican Harding’s defeat of Wilson in the 1920 Presidential Election. Attitudes towards Europe during the Republican-dominated 1920s were embodied in a ‘Return to Normalcy’ policy that followed independent internationalism. Most of America’s involvement in Europe was economically-driven during this time rather than politically motivated with the 1924 Dawes Plan and the 1929 Young Plan aiming to regulate German reparation payments so that the Allies could pay their war debts to the US. However, there is some consistency with Democratic policy in that Harding and Coolidge sought to ensure war was avoided; the 1921 Washington Disarmament Conference and the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact were ratified by the Senate because they promised less interference rather than the moral imperialism that Wilson had sought.
American foreign policy between 1898 and 1941 was fairly consistent in its aims, though its execution varied somewhat depending on the international situations of the times. The Monroe Doctrine was used consistently to justify US interference in Latin America, even though the aggression of policy lessened as the US utilised more moralistic imperialism. Preclusive imperialism in the Far East was also fairly consistent due to vested interests in the Chinese economy, and the consideration of Japan as a possible threat is seen consistently between 1918 and 1941. Despite Democratic attempts to spread American morals in Europe, Congress usually managed to adhere to policies of neutrality. While neutrality sometimes wavered, the policy of refraining from battle until it was necessary was considerably consistent throughout the period.
Our essays titles were so similar haha 😂 and gosh you can write a lot in 45 minutes
2
reply
Miriam29
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 months ago
#10
(Original post by Haggardoldkrone)
Our essays titles were so similar haha 😂 and gosh you can write a lot in 45 minutes
Once I have facts memorised I’m good at writing (or scribbling) very fast.
0
reply
Audrey18
Badges: 21
#11
Report 7 months ago
#11
chloenix

Different teachers have different styles but at the end of the day you have to ensure that your answer format is exactly what the exam board wants in order to award you the top marks. Many students who did the history A levels with CIE board have failed the exams repeatedly. There was even another girl on this forum who repeated the paper for 4 consecutive years and she claims that she's now in Queen Mary for law. Anyways, your are fortunate in some sense because AQA's website is stocked with very good resources. Take a moment to explore the website and you will be pleasantly surprised.

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/hist...ment-resources
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/hist...hing-resources
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/hist...ning-resources

Haggardoldkrone

Do you have any resources on how to answer source based questions? This type of questions require students to look at 4 different sources and answer a question which comprises on the information contained in the 4 sources.
0
reply
hrusse2
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 months ago
#12
I have! I also did Tudors and Weimar Germany on AQA - I'll find some out for you!
0
reply
chloenix
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#13
(Original post by Audrey18)
chloenix

Different teachers have different styles but at the end of the day you have to ensure that your answer format is exactly what the exam board wants in order to award you the top marks. Many students who did the history A levels with CIE board have failed the exams repeatedly. There was even another girl on this forum who repeated the paper for 4 consecutive years and she claims that she's now in Queen Mary for law. Anyways, your are fortunate in some sense because AQA's website is stocked with very good resources. Take a moment to explore the website and you will be pleasantly surprised.

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/hist...ment-resources
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/hist...hing-resources
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/hist...ning-resources

Haggardoldkrone

Do you have any resources on how to answer source based questions? This type of questions require students to look at 4 different sources and answer a question which comprises on the information contained in the 4 sources.
Thank you for your advice, I'll check out the links
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (588)
33.99%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (718)
41.5%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (345)
19.94%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (79)
4.57%

Watched Threads

View All