| Date | May 2022 | Marks available | 3 | Reference code | 22M.1.BP.TZ0.9 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | What | Question number | 9 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Source I An extract from a US government proposal delivered to the Empire of Japan on 26 November 1941, “Outline of Proposed Basis for Agreement Between the United States and Japan.” (Known as “The Hull Note”.)
The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will endeavor [try] to conclude a multilateral non-aggression pact among the British Empire, China, Japan, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, Thailand, and the United States.
Both Governments will endeavor to conclude among American, British, Chinese, Japanese, the Netherlands and Thai Governments an agreement in which each of the Governments would pledge itself to respect the territory of French Indochina.
The Government of Japan will withdraw all military, naval, air and police forces from China and from Indochina.
The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan will not support militarily, politically, or economically any Government or regime in China other than the national Government of the Republic of China.
[Source: Department of State Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 129, Dec. 13, 1941. United States Note to Japan, “Outline of Proposed Basis for Agreement Between the United States and Japan”, 26 November 1941. Available at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hull_note [Accessed 09 March 2021]. Source adapted.]
What, according to Source I, were the proposals made to Japan by the United States?
Markscheme
Conclude a multilateral non-aggression pact.
- Reach an agreement so that the territory of French Indochina would be guaranteed.
- Japan had to withdraw all military, naval, air and police forces from China and from Indochina.
- That the two governments would not support any government or regime in China other than the national Government of the Republic of China.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required. Award [1] for each relevant point up to a maximum of [3].
Examiners report
The majority of candidates identified three clear points from the content of the source and there were several valid points that could be drawn. However, there were a number of scripts that gave only two developed points or repeated the same point. A minority offered only one limited point and on occasion did not address the question. Again, in some cases responses offered extensive background or contextual information outside of the source. Candidates who provided unnecessarily lengthy answers for the first question often had timing issues in the final stages of the exam.
