From the November 2020 History Paper 2 exam:
Discuss the impact of the mobilization of human and economic resources on the outcome of two wars.
Written under test conditions
Typed example:
The relentless machinery of war often necessitates the complete mobilisation of a nation's human and economic resources. During the First and Second World Wars, this phenomenon was clearly exemplified by the nations involved, as they were spurred on by ideologies, political necessities, and the stark reality of survival. To assess the impact of this comprehensive mobilisation on the outcome of these wars, it's paramount to examine both conflicts through the lens of critical wartime elements: industrial capacity, workforce reallocation, financial systems, and national morale.
The First World War marked the advent of a new type of conflict: the industrial war, which relied not only on soldierly valour but on the efficiency of home-front factories and industries. Historian David Stevenson in his work, "1914-1918: The History of the First World War", vividly portrays the significance of industrialisation. Britain's industrial might, in particular, played a significant role in its eventual victory. British industries were rapidly transitioned towards war production, resulting in an astonishing output of war materials. The output of shells increased from 1.5 million in 1915 to over 187 million in 1918, showcasing the ability of a mobilised economy to sustain a prolonged conflict. Contrastingly, Germany lagged behind in terms of its industrial mobilisation. According to Stevenson, while Germany boasted significant industrial capacities, it failed to utilise them effectively until 1916 when the Hindenburg Program came into effect, largely due to military interference in economic planning. This delay in mobilisation, Stevenson argues, contributed to the eventual German defeat, as they could not match the war materials produced by the Allies. Thus, the degree and timeliness of industrial mobilisation proved pivotal in the First World War.
The Second World War further underscored the importance of human and economic resource mobilisation. Historian Richard Overy's research on the economic preparation of nations during the war, presented in "Why the Allies Won", suggests that resource mobilisation was critical in the outcome of the war. The United States' conversion of its gigantic industrial capacity for war production, famously referred to as the 'Arsenal of Democracy', was instrumental in outproducing the Axis powers in terms of war materials, thereby directly influencing the war's outcome. However, it was not solely the ability to produce but also the skill to manage the workforce effectively that impacted the war's course. According to Overy, both Britain and the United States executed extensive workforce reallocations, recruiting women into factories and other industries traditionally dominated by men. This expanded labour pool proved vital in sustaining high production rates. Conversely, Nazi Germany's ideological reluctance to fully utilise female labour until late in the war hindered their war production, exemplifying how ideological restrictions can impair effective mobilisation and, ultimately, the war's outcome. Similarly, financial mobilisation was a crucial aspect of war efforts. For instance, both Britain and the United States implemented war bonds programs, not only to finance the war but also to control inflation and bolster public morale, demonstrating the intersection between economic and human resource mobilisation.
Finally, it's worth noting that the psychological aspect of human resource mobilisation significantly impacted both wars. Historian Niall Ferguson, in "The Pity of War", argues that Britain's sustained morale, fuelled by a well-mobilised propaganda machine, was a contributing factor to its perseverance and ultimate victory in the First World War. Similarly, during the Second World War, national morale, bolstered by effective human mobilisation, played a significant role in maintaining the fighting spirit on the home front and battlefront alike.
In conclusion, the mobilisation of human and economic resources was crucial in shaping the outcome of both the First and Second World Wars. As the examination of industrial mobilisation, workforce reallocation, financial measures,
From the May 2017 IBDP History Paper 2 exam:
Discuss the impact of the mobilization of human and economic resources on the outcome of two wars.
From the markscheme:
"The mobilization of human and economic resources had the greatest impact on the outcome of wars." Discuss with reference to two 20th century wars, each chosen from a different region.
The question requires that candidates offer a considered and balanced review of the statement that the mobilisation of human and economic resources had the greatest impact on the outcome of two 20th-century wars. The two wars must be from different regions. Candidates may offer equal coverage of both wars, or they may prioritize their discussion of one of them. However, both aspects will be a feature of the response. For World War One, candidates may discuss the impact on outcomes of recruitment policies and conscription. With reference to the outcome of the Chinese civil war, candidates may discuss the mobilisation of the population in support of the PLA or the impact for example, of GMD economic policies. Candidates may also discuss the impact on outcomes of mass production of war materiel, and unbalanced access to industrial centres, for instance, during the Russian Civil War. Additionally, candidates may discuss financial resources, and may refer to the impact on outcomes of higher tax rates, bonds and international loans. Other relevant factors may be addressed, but with a focus on the issue in the question. Candidates’ opinions or conclusions will be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
Written under test conditions
My comments/grade:
11/15
Thought you presented a clear and well-structured argument evaluating the extent to which the mobilisation of human and economic resources influenced the outcomes of the Spanish Civil War and the Korean War, effectively distinguishing between the role of resources as a decisive factor in Korea and as a supplementary one in Spain. You supported your ideas with historical evidence although I felt certain areas required more depth critical evaluation of additional factors beyond resource mobilisation.
In terms of structure, you maintained a clear focus on the impact of human and economic resource mobilisation in both wars, consistently addressing the question. Your intro did a good job framing the discussion around foreign intervention although a more integrated comparison throughout the essay, rather than addressing the wars in isolation, might have helped your analysis.
You certainly showed considerable knowledge of the Spanish Civil War, particularly when you started writing about the ideological divisions within the Republican side and the unity of the Nationalists. You mentioned foreign interventions by Germany, Italy, and the USSR, as well as specific figures such as Largo Caballero and Franco, although additional details on the effectiveness of Soviet support for the Republicans could have helped with balance.
As for the Korean section, your mention of the Pusan Perimeter and MacArthur’s leadership highlighted key turning points but what about the role of Chinese intervention in late 1950? That after all significantly altered the course of the war and demonstrated the limitations of resource mobilisation alone in determining the final outcome.
Analysis was shown when you argued how resource mobilisation was decisive in Korea but supplementary in Spain by comparing the nature of each conflict. But it might have helped if you'd considered additional factors in Korea, such as the strategic geography of the peninsula, the political leadership of Syngman Rhee, and the influence of Cold War dynamics. Whilst you mentioned ideological unity as a key factor in Spain, you didn't really go into the extent to which internal disunity and lack of organisation within the Republicans hindered their use of resources.
As for historiography, Beevor is mentioned in relation to the Spanish Civil War, arguing that foreign intervention only prolonged the conflict rather than determining its outcome. But beyond this single reference, I couldn't see any further engagement with historians' perspectives or debates regarding the impact of human and economic resources on war outcomes.
