Mid-Unit 1 Study Guide
Studied by 0 people
Call with Kai
Knowt Play
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
Flashcards1/54
Earn XP
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
55 Terms
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
signed into law by President Herbert Hoover in June 1930, sharply increased U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods with the intent of protecting American farmers and industries during the early Great Depression. The act, named for its sponsors Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis Hawley, resulted in average tariff rates climbing from approximately 13.5% to nearly 20%. While advocates believed it would stabilize the economy by protecting domestic markets, the act triggered retaliatory tariffs from foreign countries, which led to a significant decline in international trade and ultimately deepened the Great Depression
Abrogate
repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement).
Expropriation
the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit.
Legation
a diplomatic minister, especially one below the rank of ambassador, and their staff.
Westminster Statute
1931 was an Act of the British Parliament that granted significant legislative independence to the "Dominions" of the British Empire—including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Irish Free State—making them equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations rather than subordinate to the UK Parliament. It established their legal autonomy, allowing them to legislate independently and develop their own foreign and defense policies.
Good Neighbor Policy
The Good Neighbor Policy was the foreign policy of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt toward Latin America, emphasizing non-intervention and mutual cooperation. Introduced during the Great Depression and in the lead-up to World War II, the policy aimed to improve relations after decades of U.S. military and political intervention in the region. The policy ended with the start of the Cold War, but its legacy of cultural exchange and economic partnership continues to influence U.S.-Latin American relations.
Hemispheric Solidarity
Hemispheric solidarity refers to the idea that the nations of the Americas, from North to South, share common interests and should cooperate for their mutual benefit. It's a concept that has been particularly significant in inter-American relations and diplomacy, often serving as a guiding principle for various political, economic, and security initiatives throughout the Western Hemisphere.
Pan-American Union
was an international organization founded in 1910 to promote cooperation, peace, and trade among the nations of the Americas. It was an evolution of the International Union of American Republics, which was established in 1890 at the First International Conference of American States. The primary goal of the Pan-American Union was to foster a spirit of "pan-Americanism"—the idea of a unified Western Hemisphere. It served as a permanent secretariat and information hub for the periodic International Conferences of American States. Its functions included:
Promoting Trade: The union aimed to improve commercial relations and collect and distribute trade information among member nations.
Encouraging Peace: It sought to prevent conflicts and ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes through diplomacy and arbitration.
Fostering Cultural Exchange: The organization promoted cultural, educational, and scientific cooperation to strengthen bonds between the countries of the Americas.
The Atlantic Charter
was a pivotal policy statement issued on August 14, 1941, during World War II, that outlined the shared goals and principles of the United States and Great Britain for the postwar world. Signed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill aboard a warship off the coast of Newfoundland, it was not a formal treaty but a declaration of intent.
The Grand Alliance
also known as the "Big Three," was a military and political coalition formed during World War II. It was composed of the three main Allied powers: the United States 🇺🇸, the United Kingdom 🇬🇧, and the Soviet Union 🇷🇺.
Canadianization
refers to the process of asserting and developing a distinct Canadian identity in various aspects of society, particularly in response to the strong influence of the United States. This includes promoting Canadian culture, strengthening national institutions, and protecting domestic industries. 🇨🇦
Rio Protocol
can refer to a few different historical agreements, but it most commonly refers to the 1942 Protocol of Peace, Friendship, and Boundaries, which was signed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to end the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941.Purpose: The primary purpose of this international agreement was to resolve the long-standing territorial dispute between Ecuador and Peru. The two countries had been in conflict for decades over a large, sparsely populated area in the Amazonian basin. The protocol aimed to define a new, permanent border and establish peaceful relations.
D-Day
is the widely-used name for the largest amphibious military invasion in history, which took place on June 6, 1944, during World War II. It marked the start of Operation Overlord, the Allied campaign to liberate German-occupied Western Europe. The D-Day landings involved an enormous force of over 150,000 Allied troops—primarily from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada—who crossed the English Channel to storm a 50-mile stretch of beaches in Normandy, France.
Anglo
is a prefix used to indicate a connection to or origin from England, its language, or its culture. The term is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain during the Early Middle Ages. Anglo-American: Refers to something related to both England and the United States, often in the context of shared cultural, linguistic, or historical traditions.
GI Bill
formally known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, was a landmark U.S. federal law that provided a wide range of benefits for returning World War II veterans. It was designed to prevent a post-war economic depression and to reward the service of the 16 million men and women who fought in the war.Education and Training: The most famous provision, it paid for veterans' tuition, books, and living expenses to attend college, technical schools, or vocational training. This fundamentally changed American society by making a college education accessible to millions who would not have been able to afford it otherwise. The Montgomery GI Bill (1984): Provided up to 36 months of education benefits to service members who contributed to a specific fund.The Post-9/11 GI Bill (2008): This is the current, most comprehensive version of the law. It offers substantial education benefits to those who served on active duty after September 10, 2001, including full tuition for public in-state schools, a monthly housing allowance, and a stipend for books and supplies. It also allows veterans to transfer their educational benefits to a spouse or children.
Conscription
often referred to as "the draft," is the compulsory enrollment of individuals, most often young men, into military service. This practice is enforced by law and requires citizens to serve for a specified period, typically during times of war or national emergency, but also in peacetime in some countries.
The Porfiriato
is the name given to the period of Mexican history from 1876 to 1911, during which Porfirio Díaz ruled the country as its president. Although he stepped down for a single term from 1880 to 1884, his influence remained absolute. This era is characterized by a combination of significant economic modernization and a highly centralized, authoritarian, and repressive government.
Repatriation
Repatriation is the process of returning a person or an object to their country of origin or citizenship. It comes from the Latin roots re- ("back to") and patria ("native land" or "homeland").
Xenophobia
is the dislike, prejudice, or fear of people from other countries. The term is derived from the Greek words xénos ("foreigner," "stranger") and phóbos ("fear").
Internment
is the forced detention or confinement of a group of people, typically without a formal trial or conviction, for political or security reasons. It is most often carried out by a government during wartime or a national emergency and is a controversial practice that raises significant human rights concerns.
Inter-American Diplomacy
As tensions rose globally, the countries of the Americas intensified their diplomatic efforts to maintain peace and security within the hemisphere. This was done through a series of conferences and agreements. At the Buenos Aires Conference (1936) and the Lima Conference (1938), American nations committed to consultation and cooperation in the event of an external threat. These meetings established a foundation for collective action and marked a shift away from individual national responses to a more unified, regional approach. The Havana Meeting of Foreign Ministers (1940) further solidified this by declaring that an attack on one American nation would be considered an attack on all.
Cooperation and Neutrality
Initially, most Latin American countries declared neutrality in the European conflict, a position largely aligned with the United States' own pre-war stance. However, as the war progressed and U.S. policy shifted, so too did the hemisphere's. The declaration of war by the U.S. following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 served as a catalyst. Most Latin American nations either severed relations with the Axis powers or declared war themselves. This high degree of cooperation was a direct result of the groundwork laid by inter-American diplomacy. Nations provided critical resources, such as raw materials, and allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on their territory for hemispheric defense.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy
The Good Neighbor Policy was a foreign policy doctrine introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, stating that the United States would no longer intervene in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. It was a conscious effort to reverse decades of U.S. military interventionism and a recognition that a more cooperative approach was needed for regional stability and hemispheric solidarity
Its Applications and Effects
Non-Intervention: The policy's cornerstone was a commitment to non-intervention. The U.S. withdrew military forces from countries like Nicaragua and Haiti and nullified the Platt Amendment, which had given it the right to intervene in Cuba. This helped to build trust and assuage long-standing resentments.
Economic Cooperation: The policy also promoted economic partnerships and reciprocal trade agreements, aiming for mutual benefit rather than exploitation.
Strengthening Hemispheric Unity: By replacing military force with diplomatic and economic tools, the Good Neighbor Policy laid the foundation for strong hemispheric unity. This unity proved crucial when the Axis threat emerged. It ensured that when the U.S. entered World War II, it was not as an imperial power but as a partner with allies throughout the Americas, thereby securing vital support and resources for the Allied war effort.
How did the United States protect its foreign investments under the Good Neighbor Policy? Discuss one example in detail.
Under the Good Neighbor Policy, the United States protected its foreign investments not through direct military intervention, but through diplomatic negotiation and economic pressure. This was a significant departure from previous policies, like the Roosevelt Corollary, which had often justified military force to protect U.S. business interests in Latin America. Instead of sending in the Marines, the U.S. government relied on a more cooperative and long-term strategy, prioritizing good relations with Latin American nations.
Example: The Mexican Oil Expropriation of 1938
A prime example of this new approach was the Mexican oil expropriation of 1938. In a bold act of economic nationalism, Mexican President Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized the country's oil industry, seizing the assets of nearly all foreign-owned oil companies, including major U.S. and British firms. This action was a direct challenge to the immense power of foreign corporations that had long dominated Mexico's economy.
U.S. Response and Resolution
Despite intense pressure from the affected American oil companies to intervene militarily, President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose a different path consistent with the Good Neighbor Policy. 🤝 Instead of military action, the U.S. government:
Upheld the principle of non-intervention, acknowledging Mexico's sovereign right to nationalize its resources.
Engaged in diplomatic negotiations to ensure that Mexico would provide "just compensation" for the seized assets.
Used economic pressure by halting U.S. purchases of Mexican silver, but avoided more severe sanctions that could have crippled the Mexican economy and pushed the country toward the Axis powers.
The negotiations were lengthy and difficult. Ultimately, a settlement was reached in 1942, with Mexico agreeing to pay a negotiated amount to the U.S. companies. While the compensation was less than the companies had originally demanded, the U.S. government's patient and non-confrontational response preserved its political relationship with Mexico. This was a crucial victory for the United States, as it secured Mexico's alliance in the upcoming global conflict of World War II, demonstrating the long-term benefits of diplomacy over armed intervention.
What was the main point of the Good Neighbor Policy? Discuss the impact of the policy on hemispheric relations.
The main point of the Good Neighbor Policy was to abandon the use of U.S. military force and intervention in Latin American countries' domestic affairs, replacing it with a policy based on mutual respect, cooperation, and reciprocal exchanges.
The policy, articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, sought to reverse decades of "gunboat diplomacy" and the resentments caused by past U.S. military occupations and the unilateral assertion of U.S. power, like the Roosevelt Corollary. Its primary goal was to secure better diplomatic relations and create a united Western Hemisphere.
Why did FDR implement the Good Neighbor policy after coming to power in 1933 and what were its effects for the Americas up until 1941?
ranklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) implemented the Good Neighbor Policy in 1933 primarily to reverse decades of bitter resentment caused by U.S. military interventionism in Latin America and to secure vital economic and political cooperation for the looming threat of global conflict.
The main point of the policy was a commitment to non-intervention and mutual respect for the sovereignty of the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
Reasons for Implementation
FDR's decision to launch the Good Neighbor Policy was driven by a mix of international and domestic concerns:
Countering Global Threats (Security Motive): As fascism and militarism rose in Europe (Germany, Italy) and Asia (Japan), the U.S. needed to secure its entire hemisphere. The lasting bitterness over U.S. "gunboat diplomacy" (like the Roosevelt Corollary) meant Latin American nations might be unwilling to ally with the U.S. or might even be susceptible to Axis influence. A policy of goodwill was necessary to ensure they would become allies in a potential war.
Economic Stabilization (Depression Motive): The Great Depression severely impacted global trade. By promoting reciprocal trade agreements and fostering friendly relations, the U.S. aimed to create new markets and increase exports to Latin America, helping to boost its own struggling economy.
Ending Costly Interventionism: Military occupations in the Caribbean (like in Nicaragua and Haiti) were financially costly and diplomatically embarrassing, which was unsustainable during the Depression and counterproductive to long-term stability.
Effects for the Americas (1933–1941)
The eight years leading up to the U.S. entry into World War II saw a profound shift in inter-American relations:
1. Restoration of Sovereignty and Trust 🤝
Withdrawal of Troops: The U.S. withdrew military forces from occupied nations, notably from Haiti (1934) and Nicaragua (1933).
Abolition of the Platt Amendment: In 1934, the U.S. formally rescinded the Platt Amendment, which had given it the right to intervene in Cuba's affairs since 1901.
Non-Intervention Principle: The U.S. supported the principle of non-intervention at Pan-American Conferences (like Montevideo in 1933 and Buenos Aires in 1936), formalizing the shift in policy and building significant political trust across the region.
Toleration of Expropriation: FDR maintained the policy even when U.S. economic interests were directly challenged, most famously by allowing Mexico to nationalize foreign-owned oil companies in 1938, using diplomacy instead of force to negotiate compensation.
2. Economic and Political Cooperation
Increased Trade: The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 lowered trade barriers, leading to a substantial increase in trade between the U.S. and Latin American countries, which helped both sides recover economically.
Hemispheric Unity Against Axis: As the war began in 1939, this restored goodwill enabled collective security agreements at inter-American diplomatic meetings. At the Havana Meeting of Foreign Ministers in 1940, the American republics declared that an attack on one state would be considered an attack on all, ensuring a strong, united front for the inevitable World War II.
To what extent were the results of the Good Neighbor Policy successful?
The user wants me to shorten the previous response about the success of the Good Neighbor Policy. The original response was detailed and had three sections. I will condense the core arguments into a concise, two-part answer focusing on its short-term success and long-term limitations.
The Good Neighbor Policy was highly successful in the short term but was ultimately limited in its long-term effects due to fundamental contradictions.
🟢 Successes (Short-Term Triumphs)
The policy successfully achieved its primary goals of securing the Western Hemisphere for World War II:
Ended U.S. Military Intervention: FDR withdrew U.S. troops from occupied countries (e.g., Haiti and Nicaragua) and officially renounced the right to intervene by abolishing the Platt Amendment in Cuba. This restored national sovereignty and goodwill.
Secured War Allies: The resulting goodwill led nearly all Latin American nations to support the U.S. and the Allies during World War II, providing vital resources and strategic bases.
Boosted Trade: Reciprocal trade agreements helped increase U.S. exports and provided Latin American countries with access to the U.S. market, aiding both sides during the Great Depression.
🟠 Limitations (Long-Term Failure)
The policy's success was undermined by two critical flaws:
Toleration of Dictators: The U.S. commitment to "non-intervention" meant it actively tolerated and even provided aid to brutal dictatorships (like Somoza in Nicaragua and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic) as long as they maintained stability and were friendly to U.S. interests. This sacrificed the goal of promoting democracy.
Economic Dependency: While trade increased, the agreements often reinforced the region’s role as suppliers of raw materials, creating a relationship of economic dependence on the U.S. rather than fostering diversified growth.
Ultimately, the policy was completely abandoned after 1945 as the U.S. resumed interventionism during the Cold War, replacing goodwill with renewed resentment.
How did Canada gain independence from the UK to become a key player n the Americas?
You are asking for the previous answer to be made even shorter.
Canada's independence from the UK was a gradual, peaceful evolution over a century, not a revolution.
Key Steps to Sovereignty
1867: Confederation: Canada became a self-governing Dominion (autonomy over internal affairs).
Post-WWI: Canada asserted a separate voice, signing the Treaty of Versailles independently (1919).
1931: Statute of Westminster: Granted Canada full legislative equality with Britain.
1982: Constitution Act (Patriation): The final step, transferring the power to amend its Constitution from the UK to Canada.
Role in the Americas
Canada became a key regional player by being a stable, middle power that acts as a bridge:
Security: Essential partner in North American defence (NORAD) with the U.S.
Economy: Deeply integrated economically with the U.S. and Mexico (USMCA).
Diplomacy: A leading, non-interventionist member of the Organization of American States (OAS), promoting democracy and human rights.
What was the US’s role in the decisions regarding Japan and Germany? How did this create friction within Canada?
The US played the dominant role in shaping the post-war decisions for both Japan and Germany, often acting unilaterally or as the principal authority. This created friction in Canada due to concerns over sovereignty and being excluded from key decision-making processes.
US Role in Japan
The US was the sole occupying power in Japan, granting it nearly total authority over post-war restructuring.1
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP):2 General Douglas MacArthur, an American, served as SCAP and exercised executive authority over all aspects of Japanese governance from 1945 to 1952.
Key Decisions: The US dictated the terms of demilitarization, the dismantling of Japanese war industries, the purging of wartime leaders, and the drafting of the new pacifist constitution.3
Exclusion of Allies: While an Allied Council for Japan existed, it was largely consultative. The US systematically marginalized other allies, including Canada, making the occupation essentially an American-run process.
US Role in Germany
The US was one of the Four Powers (US, UK, France, USSR) that divided and occupied Germany, but its economic and strategic strength gave it outsized influence.4
Division and Control: The US oversaw the occupation of the southern zone of West Germany and played a leading role in the Allied Control Council (ACC), which governed Germany as a whole.
Economic Strategy: The US launched the Marshall Plan (1948), which was crucial for the economic recovery of the Western zones but deepened the strategic division of Germany and excluded the Soviet sector.5
Berlin Airlift & NATO: The US led the response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin (1948–1949) and was the driving force behind the creation of NATO (1949), which cemented West Germany's integration into the Western military alliance.
Friction with Canada
Canada was a significant contributor to the Allied war effort and expected to be treated as a full partner, leading to friction when the US monopolized the decision-making.
Exclusion and Humiliation: Canada was excluded from the main policy-setting bodies, particularly the effective control of the occupation in Japan. Canadian officials felt their substantial sacrifices in the war were not being recognized.
Subordination of Foreign Policy: By allowing the US to take the lead, especially in the Far East, Canada worried its foreign policy was becoming merely a subordinate extension of American policy, jeopardizing its identity as an independent "middle power."
Fear of American Dominance: The swift post-war shift—from relying on Britain to depending on the US for both security and economic stability—fueled Canadian fears of being culturally and politically overshadowed by its much larger southern neighbor. This concern over sovereignty was a perennial source of tension.
Were the Neutrality Acts imposed by FDR successful in keeping the US out of the war? Why or why not?
The Neutrality Acts imposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt were not successful in keeping the United States out of World War II.
Why They Failed
The Neutrality Acts of the mid-1930s were designed to prevent the US from being drawn into foreign wars by limiting arms sales and travel, based on the painful lessons of World War I.1 However, they failed for the following reasons:
They Tied FDR's Hands: The strict cash-and-carry and embargo provisions were so rigid they hindered the U.S.'s ability to aid its democratic allies (Britain and France) against the aggression of the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan). The Acts treated aggressors and victims equally, a moral and strategic flaw.2
Gradual Erosion by Roosevelt: As the global situation worsened, FDR repeatedly worked to amend and ultimately bypass the restrictions to prepare the country for war and assist the Allies:3
"Cash and Carry" (1939): This amendment allowed belligerent nations to purchase non-military goods and, later, arms, as long as they paid immediately and transported the goods themselves.4 This effectively favored the naval powers (Britain and France).
The Destroyer Deal (1940):5 FDR exchanged 50 old destroyers with Britain for the right to establish U.S. bases in British territories, bypassing the "no sale of arms" provision by structuring it as a swap.6
Lend-Lease Act (1941): This measure, seen as the deathblow to official neutrality, allowed the U.S. to "lend or lease" war materials to any country whose defense was deemed vital to the U.S. (This fully committed the U.S. to the Allied cause without formally declaring war).7
Direct Attack by Japan: The formal end of U.S. neutrality came not from the European conflict but from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.8 This attack rendered all previous isolationist legislation irrelevant and plunged the U.S. into World War II.9
In summary, the Neutrality Acts were defeated both by President Roosevelt's strategic need to help the Allies and by the ultimate act of war by an Axis power.
How effective was Canada in helping Great Britain during WWII?
Canada was highly effective and critical in helping Great Britain and the Allied war effort during World War II, playing a far more significant role than its population size suggested.1
🇨🇦 Key Areas of Canadian Contribution
1. Naval and Air Warfare
Battle of the Atlantic: The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) started the war with only a handful of ships but grew to over 400 vessels.2 It was largely responsible for escorting convoys of vital supplies (food, fuel, war materials) from North America to Britain, often battling German U-boats in the North Atlantic.3 Canada's efforts were essential to preventing Britain from being starved into surrender.
Air Training and Personnel: Canada hosted the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP), training over 130,000 aircrew from Commonwealth nations.4 The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) became the fourth-largest Allied air force, contributing squadrons to strategic bombing runs over Germany and coastal defense.5
2. Material and Economic Support
The Arsenal of the Commonwealth: Canada's economy underwent a massive wartime transformation, becoming a major supplier of armaments, vehicles, and raw materials.6 It was a crucial "Storehouse and Arsenal" for the Commonwealth, providing everything from guns and ships to aluminum and lumber.7
Financial Aid: Canada provided massive direct financial aid to Britain, including a $1 billion gift and a $700 million loan in 1942, to help the UK purchase essential supplies, far exceeding the scale of U.S. Lend-Lease aid relative to Canada's national wealth.8
3. Ground Forces and Key Battles
Troops and Manpower: Over one million Canadians served in the military.9 Canadian ground forces were involved in crucial actions, including:
The disastrous Dieppe Raid (1942), which provided critical lessons for the later D-Day landings.10
The successful Allied invasion of Italy.11
The D-Day landings (June 6, 1944), where Canadian forces were given responsibility for Juno Beach.12
The fierce fighting to secure the Scheldt Estuary in late 1944, which was vital for opening the port of Antwerp and supplying the final push into Germany.13
In summary, Canada's wartime assistance provided a lifeline to Britain in the early, darkest years of the war and delivered essential fighting power and logistical support until victory was achieved.14
What were the Neutrality Acts? How did they change over the course of WWII?
The Neutrality Acts were a series of US laws passed between 1935 and 1939 aimed at preventing the United States from being drawn into foreign conflicts, based on the prevailing isolationist sentiment after World War I.1
Key Acts and Their Changes Over WWII
The Acts effectively changed from being rigid tools of isolation to flexible instruments of aid to the Allies, reflecting President Roosevelt's efforts to prepare the U.S. for war without formally entering it.2
1. The Original Embargo (1935–1937)
Provisions: The initial acts mandated a mandatory arms embargo on both aggressor and victim nations involved in a conflict. They also warned U.S. citizens against traveling on ships belonging to warring nations.
Effect: These acts were highly restrictive, based on the premise that U.S. financial and arms dealings had dragged the nation into WWI.3 They severely limited the President's ability to take sides or assist democracies against aggression.
2. The Shift to "Cash and Carry" (1937 and 1939)4
As Axis aggression grew, Roosevelt and Congress gradually amended the Acts to favor the Allied powers, who controlled the sea lanes.5
Date | Act/Policy | Key Change | Effect on WWII |
1937 | Neutrality Act of 1937 | Allowed the President to implement "cash and carry" for non-military goods. | Favored Britain and France, who could use their strong navies and merchant fleets to buy and transport goods. |
1939 | Neutrality Act of 1939 | Extended "cash and carry" to arms and military equipment, while keeping the ban on U.S. ships delivering them. | Major shift. It legally allowed the U.S. to supply weapons to the Allies (Britain and France) following the outbreak of war in Europe, signaling the end of true impartiality. |
3. Circumvention and End of Neutrality (1940–1941)
The increasing threat from Nazi Germany forced the U.S. to fully bypass the spirit of the Neutrality Acts:
Destroyer-for-Bases Deal (1940): Roosevelt used executive authority to exchange 50 obsolete destroyers for the right to establish U.S. bases on British territories, effectively transferring military assets without a "sale."
Lend-Lease Act (March 1941): This act completely undermined the Neutrality Acts by allowing the U.S. to "lend or lease" war materials to any nation whose defense was deemed "vital to the defense of the United States."6 It ended the pretense of neutrality and turned the U.S. into the "Arsenal of Democracy."
Formal Repeal: The final vestiges of the Neutrality Acts were rendered irrelevant by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the subsequent declaration of war, officially ending U.S. neutrality.
To what extent were the countries in the Americas (other than Canada) truly neutral up to 1941?
The countries in the Americas (other than Canada and the US) were technically neutral up to December 1941, but they were not truly impartial.
⚖ Impartiality vs. Alignment
Their formal neutrality was a political stance, but their actions demonstrated a pro-Allied alignment due to U.S. pressure and strategic interests:
Economic Dependency: The war cut off European trade, making the U.S. their sole major market. They became the "Arsenal of Raw Materials," supplying vital resources (oil, copper, rubber) to the U.S. war machine.
Security Concessions: Under the Good Neighbor Policy, the U.S. was granted permission to establish or use military bases in strategic locations (like Panama and Brazil) for anti-submarine patrols in the Atlantic.
Diplomatic Solidarity: Through Pan-American conferences (1939, 1940), they agreed to coordinate continental defense, effectively isolating the Axis powers in the hemisphere.
Therefore, by 1941, most of the Americas had become non-belligerent allies in all but name, making their formal neutrality a mere formality.
Why was hemispheric solidarity so important in 1940 to the United States? What was one thing the US did to move towards solidarity?
Hemispheric solidarity was critically important to the United States in 1940 primarily for national security and economic survival against the rising threat of the Axis powers.
🛡 Why Solidarity Was Vital in 1940
By 1940, with Nazi Germany dominating Western Europe and France having fallen, the U.S. had two urgent priorities that required cooperation from the Americas:
Continental Defense (Security): The U.S. feared a potential Axis attack or subversive activity launched from Latin American nations. Without strong allies, the U.S. would have to defend a 10,000-mile coastline, and the Panama Canal could be vulnerable to attack or sabotage. Solidarity ensured the cooperation needed for defensive military bases and intelligence sharing.
Economic Access (Resources): As war disrupted global trade, the U.S. and its future allies depended on Latin American nations for strategic raw materials essential for the war machine. Access to vital resources like oil, rubber, copper, and quartz could only be guaranteed through political and economic solidarity.1
In essence, solidarity transformed the entire Western Hemisphere into a secure resource base protected from Axis interference, which was essential for the U.S. to focus on supporting Great Britain and preparing for its own entry into the conflict.
🤝 US Action to Move Toward Solidarity
The most significant action the U.S. took to foster solidarity was the Havana Meeting of Foreign Ministers (1940).
The Action: The U.S. pushed for and secured a resolution stating that any attempt by a non-American power to take over or interfere with a European colony in the Americas (like French or Dutch colonies) would be viewed as an act of aggression against all American republics.
The Result: This diplomatic measure, a collective interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, committed all 21 American republics to joint action and consultation in case of foreign threat. It established the principle that the defense of the hemisphere was a shared responsibility, replacing the old U.S. unilateral interventionism and thereby strengthening Latin American trust and cooperation.2
What major event(s) lead to Pearl Harbor? Choose one to discuss.
The two major events that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor were the Japanese invasion and occupation of China and the United States' retaliatory economic embargoes against Japan.
🛑 Discussion: The US Economic Embargoes
The most direct cause leading to the attack was the United States' decision to escalate economic warfare against Japan.
Background
Japan's military campaigns in China (starting in 1937) and its expansion into French Indochina (Vietnam) in 1940 were aimed at creating a self-sufficient "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." This expansion directly threatened U.S. interests in the Pacific.1
The US Response (1940–1941)
The U.S. responded to Japanese aggression with increasingly severe trade restrictions:2
Aviation Fuel and Scrap Metal Embargo (1940): The U.S. began limiting the sale of aviation fuel and high-grade scrap iron and steel, which Japan needed for its military industry.
Asset Freezing and Oil Embargo (July 1941): This was the decisive step. In response to Japan's full occupation of French Indochina, the U.S., along with Britain and the Netherlands, froze all Japanese assets in their countries and imposed a total embargo on oil and other key resources.3
Why the Embargo Led to War
Japan imported over 80% of its oil from the United States. The 1941 embargo put Japan in a strategic corner:4
Choice: Japan faced a choice between crippling its military and economy within two years or seizing the oil-rich territories of the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia).
Need for a Pre-emptive Strike: Japanese leaders decided to seize the oil fields, but they believed that any move south would immediately draw the U.S. Pacific Fleet into the war. Therefore, they planned a pre-emptive surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to cripple the fleet, buying them six months to secure the resource-rich territories.
The embargo was a severe provocation that gave Japan a perceived necessity for war, leading directly to the decision to attack the U.S. fleet.5
How did the America’s respond after the attack at Pearl Harbor? Use specific details in your answer.
The Americas responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, with an immediate declaration of war by the United States and a rapid, widespread move toward hemispheric solidarity that ended the pretense of neutrality across the region.
🇺🇸 United States Response: Immediate Mobilization
The U.S. response was swift, decisive, and focused on total war mobilization:1
Declaration of War: On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress, famously calling the date "a date which will live in infamy."2 Congress voted overwhelmingly to declare war on Japan.3 Germany and Italy, honoring their Tripartite Pact with Japan, declared war on the U.S. on December 11, formally bringing the U.S. into both the Pacific and European theaters of WWII.4
Wartime Controls: FDR rapidly enacted total war mobilization measures:
War Production Board (WPB): Established to convert industrial capacity from civilian to military production, halting the manufacture of cars and consumer goods to focus on tanks, planes, and ships.5
Rationing: Essential goods like sugar, gasoline, and rubber were rationed to ensure resources were directed to the military.6
Internment: The attack fueled intense fear and anti-Japanese sentiment on the West Coast, leading to Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, which ordered the forced removal and internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans (including U.S. citizens) into remote camps .
🌎 Response Across the Americas (Excluding Canada)
The attack served as a unifying catalyst for the rest of the hemisphere, immediately dissolving the legal fiction of neutrality:
Immediate Declarations of War: Nearly all of the Central American and Caribbean republics, due to their proximity to the Panama Canal and strong ties to the U.S., declared war on the Axis powers within days of the attack. Key countries included:
Cuba, Panama, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua.7
The Rio Conference (January 1942): At this meeting of foreign ministers, the American republics passed a resolution recommending that all member states break diplomatic relations with the Axis powers.
Compliance: Most nations, including Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela, swiftly severed diplomatic ties.
Holdouts: Only Argentina and Chile initially resisted, maintaining neutrality until 1944 and 1943, respectively, due to strong local Axis sentiment and a desire to resist U.S. pressure.
Military and Economic Support: The declaration of solidarity led to concrete actions:
Brazil: Allowed the U.S. to establish air bases in Natal, which became a vital staging ground for ferrying aircraft and supplies to Allied forces in North Africa (the "Trampoline to Victory").
Mexico: Agreed to the Bracero Program (1942), sending Mexican laborers to work on U.S. farms to cover wartime manpower shortages.8
Raw Materials: Latin American countries ramped up production of strategic materials (rubber, copper, tin) under U.S. purchasing agreements to fuel the Allied war effort.
Why did Chile OR Argentina hold back from declaring war on the Axis powers? What lead them to finally declare war?
Chile and Argentina were the two main Latin American holdouts from the Allied cause, primarily motivated by nationalism and a desire to resist U.S. political and economic dominance in the hemisphere.
I will discuss Argentina, as its resistance was more prolonged and politically charged.
🇦🇷 Argentina's Reasons for Holding Back
Argentina resisted declaring war on the Axis for the longest period, remaining officially neutral until March 1945. Their neutrality was driven by several factors:
1. Anti-U.S. Nationalism and Sovereignty
Resistance to Pan-Americanism: Argentina had a history of resisting the U.S.-led Pan-American movement. They saw the U.S. demand for wartime solidarity as a thinly veiled attempt to assert economic and political hegemony over South America. Maintaining neutrality was viewed by nationalist factions, particularly within the military government, as a defense of national sovereignty.
"Braden or Perón": The nationalist backlash against U.S. pressure became a core political issue, culminating later in Juan Perón's political slogan, which framed the choice as supporting the U.S. (represented by Ambassador Spruille Braden) or supporting Argentine national interests (Perón).
2. Strong European Ties and Sympathy
British Economic Ties: Argentina's economy was historically tied to Great Britain (sometimes called the "Sixth Dominion") as a major supplier of meat and grain. While the UK was an ally, its trade interest was in keeping Argentina neutral to continue the flow of food, which conflicted with U.S. demands for Argentina to join the war.
Axis Sympathy: Strong communities of German and Italian immigrants existed in Argentina. Furthermore, a significant number of military officers were impressed by German military efficiency and held fascist or nationalist sympathies, giving the military governments a domestic reason to resist joining the Allies.
⚔ The Final Declaration of War
Argentina was finally compelled to declare war on the Axis in March 1945 due to a combination of intense external pressure and the shift in the global balance of power.
Escalating U.S. Pressure: The U.S. grew increasingly hostile toward Argentina’s neutrality, using measures like withdrawing its ambassador and withholding Lend-Lease aid, severely isolating the Argentine military government (the GOU, and later the Farrell regime).
Exclusion from Post-War Order: By early 1945, it was clear the war was ending, and the creation of the United Nations (UN) was imminent. Neutral nations risked being excluded from the founding conference and the new global economic and political order.
The Price of Admission: The military government, seeing that continued isolation was politically and economically unsustainable, finally agreed to the U.S. condition: declare war on the Axis powers to secure a seat at the upcoming San Francisco Conference (the founding of the UN).
Argentina declared war on Germany and Japan on March 27, 1945, ensuring its place in the post-war world, but making it the last major American nation to formally abandon neutrality.
How and why did Canada’s role both in the Americas and as a part of the Commonwealth change in the 1930s?
Canada's role both in the Americas and as a part of the Commonwealth changed significantly in the 1930s due to the Great Depression and the growing threat of war in Europe and Asia. These events compelled Canada to assert greater sovereignty within the Commonwealth while simultaneously seeking economic and security cooperation with the United States and Latin America.
👑 Role in the Commonwealth: Increased Autonomy
Canada used the 1930s to cement its independence from Great Britain, shifting from a subordinate dominion to an equal partner.
How it Changed
Statute of Westminster (1931): This crucial British Act of Parliament, passed at Canada’s insistence, legally established that the Parliament of Canada was fully independent and equal to the British Parliament. It effectively granted legislative independence, meaning Britain could no longer pass laws for Canada, formalizing Canada’s self-governing status.1
Independent Diplomacy: Canada began acting unilaterally on the global stage, especially at the League of Nations, often opposing British policy when it conflicted with Canadian interests or isolationist public opinion.
Why it Changed
Assertion of Sovereignty: Canadian leaders, notably Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, pushed to formalize the independence earned during WWI. They felt that Canada, having shed blood as a separate nation, needed the legal right to determine its own foreign policy and future, free from the decisions of London.
Avoiding Foreign Entanglements: A deep strain of isolationism in Canada meant many wanted to avoid being automatically dragged into a future British war. The Statute of Westminster provided the legal shield to make that independent choice (which Canada later exercised by declaring war on Germany a week after Britain in 1939).2
🌎 Role in the Americas: Necessary Cooperation
As Britain's attention and resources were focused on Europe, Canada was forced to re-evaluate its relationship with its geographically dominant neighbor, the United States.
How it Changed
Shift to U.S. Orbit: The collapse of global trade during the Depression forced Canada to rely more heavily on the U.S. economy. Furthermore, the rising threat of war made Canada's security inseparable from that of the U.S.
Trade Agreements: Canada and the U.S. negotiated reciprocal trade agreements (1935 and 1938) to restore trade flow, cementing their economic interdependence and pulling Canada further into the North American sphere.3
The "Good Neighbor" Mentality: While not yet a full participant in Pan-American organizations, Canada began to view the defense of the continent as a shared interest with the U.S. and other American nations.
Why it Changed
The Depression's Impact: The global economic crisis devastated Canada’s traditional trade routes and industries, forcing a strategic shift towards its largest, most stable market—the United States.
Security Vacuum: With Britain preoccupied with appeasement and the rise of Germany, Canada realized that its security guarantee was shifting from the Royal Navy to the U.S. Navy and Air Force. This realization paved the way for the later wartime defense agreements that would tightly integrate North American security.
To what extent (both sides) was Canada’s involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic successful in negating Germany’s aims?
Canada's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic was highly successful in negating Germany's primary aim—to starve Britain into surrender by cutting off vital supply lines—but this success came at a high cost to Canadian resources and personnel.
🟢 Success: Negating Germany's Aims
Germany's aim in the Battle of the Atlantic was simple: use U-boats to sink enough Allied merchant shipping that Great Britain could not sustain the war effort (by running out of food, fuel, and war materials) or that the United States would be unable to ferry troops and supplies to Europe.
Canada played a critical role in defeating this aim:
1. Convoy Protection and Lifeline
The Escort Role: The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) started the war small but became responsible for protecting the convoys that crossed the treacherous North Atlantic from North America to Britain. This route, known as the "lifeline" to Britain, was vital.
Expansion: The RCN grew exponentially, from a handful of ships in 1939 to over 400 warships (mostly corvettes and frigates) by 1945. It ended the war as the third-largest Allied navy after the US and UK.
Result: By maintaining the flow of essential goods, Canada ensured that Britain never faced starvation or industrial collapse. Without the RCN's convoy work, the logistical base for the eventual invasion of Europe (D-Day) would have been impossible to build.
2. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Innovation
Training and Technology: Canadian ships became experts in anti-submarine warfare. They helped pioneer convoy tactics and adopted critical technologies like High-Frequency Direction Finding (HF/DF) to locate U-boats.
Closing the Gap: Canadian and Allied forces eventually closed the Mid-Atlantic Gap, a stretch previously too far from land-based air cover, turning the tide against U-boat "wolf packs."
🔴 Cost: The Extent of the Sacrifice
The success was bought through immense sacrifice and strain on Canada's resources:
1. High Casualties and Ship Losses
The Battle of the Atlantic was Canada's longest and deadliest campaign of the war. Over 2,000 members of the RCN and 1,600 Canadian merchant mariners were killed.
The RCN suffered the loss of 24 warships. Many convoys were decimated, forcing Canada to bear the loss of thousands of tons of cargo and dozens of ships, highlighting the brutal nature of the German U-boat offensive.
2. Resource Strain
Canada diverted vast industrial resources to building escort ships (like the popular Corvette) and training aircrews for coastal patrol, placing a heavy financial and logistical burden on the nation.
In summary, Canada's involvement was decisive. By shouldering the immense task of securing the North Atlantic convoys, the RCN directly thwarted Germany's core economic warfare objective and ensured the material survival of Great Britain, making the eventual Allied victory in Europe possible.
Examine the ways in which the battle in Dieppe fought by Canadians foreshadowed the Battle of Normandy (look at the relationship).
The Battle of Dieppe was a disastrous rehearsal for the later Battle of Normandy (D-Day). The relationship is that the massive tactical and intelligence failures at Dieppe provided the critical, necessary lessons that ensured the success of Normandy.
🔴 Dieppe Failures (1942) and Normandy Successes (1944)
The costly Canadian failure at Dieppe showed Allied planners exactly what not to do, directly influencing the final D-Day plan:
Failure: At Dieppe, the lack of pre-landing naval and air bombardment meant German coastal defenses were fully intact when the troops landed.
Lesson Learned (Normandy): Planners ensured massive, overwhelming air and naval bombardment to soften defenses before any soldier set foot on the beaches.
Failure: Canadian tanks at Dieppe were unable to cope with the shingle beaches and sea wall, getting bogged down and becoming easy targets.
Lesson Learned (Normandy): The Allies developed and deployed specialized armored vehicles ("Hobart's Funnies"), including tanks modified with Duplex Drive (DD) flotation devices and heavy engineering vehicles to clear mines and obstacles before the main infantry waves.
Failure: The Dieppe objective was to seize and hold a defended port. This proved impossible due to the fierce German resistance in an urban environment.
Lesson Learned (Normandy): The decision was made to land on open, less-defended beaches and bypass the ports. The solution was the rapid deployment of two massive, prefabricated artificial harbors (Mulberries) towed across the Channel to solve the logistical supply challenge.
The immense sacrifice of the 2nd Canadian Division at Dieppe provided the strategic intelligence and tactical blueprint that directly contributed to the success of the Normandy landings two years later.
Discuss (balanced analysis of positives and negatives) the results of Canada’s involvement in WWII.
You've asked me to reformat the previous balanced analysis of Canada's involvement in WWII, removing the chart and presenting it in pure text (Quizlet) format.
🇨🇦 Results of Canada’s Involvement in WWII (Balanced Analysis)
Canada's involvement in World War II had results that were profoundly paradoxical: the nation achieved unprecedented economic power and global stature (positives) but at the cost of deep societal divisions and heavy human loss (negatives).
🟢 Positive Results (Triumph and Progress)
Economic Transformation: The war ended the Great Depression. Canada became a global industrial powerhouse, producing over 800,000 military vehicles and thousands of aircraft. This effort permanently modernized its economy and led to full employment.
Global Status & Sovereignty: Canada emerged as a "Middle Power." Its massive military and economic contributions earned it a key role in founding the United Nations and other post-war organizations, confirming its fully independent diplomatic status.
Financial Independence: Canada funded its own war effort and provided substantial aid (including a billion-dollar gift) to Britain, emerging debt-free from U.S. Lend-Lease programs. By 1945, Canada was the third-largest trading nation in the world.
Social Change: The demand for labor led to the mass entry of women into industrial jobs and the military, altering gender roles. Post-war veteran programs (education grants, housing loans) expanded access to university and fueled the post-war housing boom.
🔴 Negative Results (Cost and Division)
Human Cost: Over 45,000 Canadians were killed and more than 55,000 wounded, making it the nation's deadliest conflict. The service members suffered immense losses in campaigns like the Battle of the Atlantic, the Dieppe Raid, and the Italian Campaign.
National Unity (Conscription): The Conscription Crisis of 1944 severely broke national unity. Prime Minister King's broken promise led to deep-seated resentment and renewed French-English division that strengthened Quebec nationalism and distrust of the federal government.
Civil Liberties Violation: The government unjustly used the War Measures Act to order the mass internment of over 20,000 Japanese Canadians (including citizens) from the West Coast in 1942, seizing and selling their property.
Long-Term Debt: The war effort created a large national debt (over $20 billion), passing substantial financial costs on to the next generation.
What were the reasons that some Mexican citizens supported the Axis Powers? How did President Camacho get rid of that support?
Reasons for Axis Sympathy in Mexico
Support for the Axis powers among some Mexican citizens was rooted in a combination of political resentment toward the United States, ideological alignment among small but vocal groups, and the presence of strong immigrant communities.
Anti-American Sentiment: A significant residual hostility existed toward the U.S. due to historical grievances, including the Mexican-American War (loss of vast territory) and frequent American political and military intervention. Some Mexicans subscribed to the idea of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," viewing the Axis powers as a counterweight to their powerful northern neighbor.
Ideological Alignment (Conservative/Far-Right): Small but influential elements of the Mexican conservative, pro-clerical, and far-right sectors, including factions within the newly formed National Action Party (PAN), viewed the authoritarian, anti-communist, and traditionalist platforms of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany favorably.
Ethnic and Community Ties: Mexico had sizable communities of German and Italian immigrants who maintained strong cultural and financial ties to their homelands and naturally supported the Axis cause. German interests were particularly significant in sectors like chemicals, hardware, and pharmaceuticals.
How President Manuel Ávila Camacho Eliminated Axis Support
President Manuel Ávila Camacho (1940-1946) did not solely rely on repression to counter Axis influence; instead, he used a dual strategy of diplomatic alignment and economic reward, culminating in a formal declaration of war.
1. Diplomatic and Economic Alignment (The Carrot)
Settling Disputes with the U.S.: Camacho resolved the decade-long dispute over the expropriation of foreign oil properties (nationalized in 1938), paving the way for full cooperation with the U.S. This removed a major source of anti-American resentment.
Economic Aid: In exchange for political support and vital raw materials (like mercury, zinc, and copper), the U.S. guaranteed the Mexican peso's stability, offered loans, and provided aid to modernize Mexican industry. This economic boom undercut domestic instability and rewarded cooperation.
The Bracero Program (1942): This organized program allowed hundreds of thousands of Mexican agricultural workers to work in the U.S., creating jobs and demonstrating a beneficial partnership between the two nations.
2. State Repression and Declaration of War (The Stick)
Seizure of Assets: The Mexican government, maintaining a "simulated neutrality" after 1939, began taking decisive action. After the U.S. entered the war, Camacho ordered the seizure of German and Italian ships in Mexican ports and eventually seized the property and businesses of Axis nationals (German, Japanese, and Italian).
German U-Boat Attacks: The ultimate tipping point that galvanized national anti-Axis sentiment and allowed Camacho to overcome domestic opposition was the sinking of two Mexican oil tankers, the Potrero del Llano and the Faja de Oro, by German U-boats in May 1942.
Declaration of War: When Germany refused to apologize, Camacho secured a declaration of war against the Axis from Congress in May 1942, framing the conflict as a defense of national honor and sovereignty. This official action criminalized any remaining open support for the Axis.
The declaration of war and the subsequent economic benefits effectively neutralized Axis sympathy by uniting the nation against an external aggressor and providing compelling economic reasons to support the Allied effort.
Why and with what results did Mexico and Canada participate in the Second World War?
🌎 Canada and Mexico in WWII: Why and With What Results?
This summary outlines the distinct reasons and outcomes for Canada and Mexico during World War II.
🇨🇦 Canada's Participation
Why They Participated:
Loyalty & Security: Canada declared war one week after Britain, asserting its independence while honoring its historical ties. Crucially, it needed to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes from German U-boats to guarantee Allied supply lines.
Key Results (Positives & Negatives):
Economic Boom: The war ended the Great Depression, spurring industrialization. Canada emerged with the third-largest Allied navy and a massive capacity for war production.
Global Status: Canada’s immense contribution earned it the status of a "Middle Power" and a seat as a founding member of the UN.
Cost: Over 45,000 Canadians were killed. The war triggered the divisive Conscription Crisis of 1944, severely straining French-English relations.
🇲🇽 Mexico's Participation
Why They Participated:
Direct Aggression & Economy: The immediate trigger was the sinking of Mexican oil tankers by German U-boats (May 1942), an attack on national sovereignty. President Camacho also sought economic stability through a strategic partnership with the U.S.
Results (Positives & Negatives):
Economic Boom: U.S. investment and demand for Mexican minerals and industrial goods fueled the "Mexican Miracle," a period of rapid industrial growth.
Labor & Diplomacy: The creation of the Bracero Program sent Mexican workers to the U.S., significantly strengthening previously strained U.S.-Mexico relations.
Military Role: The Escuadrón 201 (Aztec Eagles) flew combat missions in the Pacific, providing a symbol of national unity and securing a diplomatic seat at post-war tables.
Why was WWII seen as a transformative event for African Americans?
Who were the Tuskegee Airmen and how did the Tuskegee Airmen influence the civil rights movement during and after WWII?
What were the results of African American participation in WWII?
What was one reason that Native American participation was necessary to the war effort? What was a result of Native American participation?
How did the Navajo Code Talkers contribute to the United States military during WWII?
Why were Hispanics Americans and Mexicans invaluable during WWII? Explain this reason.
How did the Second World War affect the role of women and minorities in US society?
Why did the US introduce conscription in 1940 and what effect did it have on the course of the war?
How did the government support women who were a part of the war effort?
What were the results of women’s roles during WWII? Describe at least two.
Why could conscription be considered successful during WWII?
Note 
Flashcards (244)