| Date | May 2022 | Marks available | 4 | Reference code | 22M.1.BP.TZ0.10 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Analyse | Question number | 10 | 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.]
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source I for an historian studying relations between Japan and the United States before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Markscheme
Value:
- It is the official position of the United States government at the time
- It sets out the position of the United States in negotiations.
- It gives detailed information on American demands.
Limitations:
- As the note is from November 1941, there is no indication of how Japan reacted to these demands.
- Since the aim was to pressure Japan, the demands of the United States Government may not represent their actual position.
- It gives no information on preceding events that led to this proposal being issued.
The focus of the question is on the value and limitations of the source. If only value or limitations are discussed, award a maximum of [2]. Origin, purpose and content should be used as supporting evidence to make relevant comments on the value and limitations. For [4] there must be at least one reference to each of them in either the value or the limitations.
Examiners report
In general, candidates seem to be better prepared for this question and most attempted to address the value and limitation of the source from its origin, purpose and content. Nevertheless, there remains a proportion of candidates that focus primarily on the content of the source at the expense of the provenance and purpose. In addition, a significant minority continue to begin their response with lengthy descriptions of origin, purpose and content before evaluating these elements, which wastes valuable examination time. Quite often candidates would not refer to what the question was asking, but would just make very general comments. As per previous sessions, some candidates did not refer to one of the elements in their response — for example, no reference to purpose or to content. Candidates should be aware that they need to make valid comments on the value and limitations of the source drawn from its origin, purpose and content.
