Key Idea: One global shock, three very different stories. The 1929 Wall Street Crash tipped weak economies over the edge across the Americas — but Hoover's caution, Roosevelt's New Deal, Vargas's centralizing dictatorship, and Cárdenas's radical reforms show just how differently governments could respond to the same crisis.
How this topic is tested
This is Paper 3 — HL regional depth. You will write two essays, each answering a 'To what extent do you agree…' question worth 15 marks, chosen from a list covering the whole region and period.
You do not need historiography debates or footnoted historians here. You need: a clear opening thesis that directly engages the claim, specific evidence FOR it, specific evidence AGAINST or complicating it, and a substantiated final judgement. Precise dates and named laws/leaders separate top-band answers from vague ones.
Must-know facts — one row per sub-topic
| Micro | Focus | Key names/dates | Core content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11.7.1 | Why the US economy collapsed, and its political impact | Fordney-McCumber Tariff (1922); Black Thursday/Tuesday (24 & 29 Oct 1929); Smoot-Hawley (1930); FDR elected 1932; Emergency Banking Act & Glass-Steagall/FDIC (1933); Wagner Act & Social Security Act (1935) | Weak banking (25,000 small banks, no insurance), high tariffs, farm depression and Dust Bowl, plus buying 'on margin' set up the Crash. Hoover's laissez-faire gave way to FDR's New Deal, which grew federal power but faced Supreme Court and Liberty League opposition |
| 11.7.2 | Brazil: from coffee crash to the Vargas regime | Coffee ~70% of exports; 1930 Revolution ends the Old Republic/café com leite; Vargas provisional president 1930; new constitution 1934; Estado Novo dictatorship from 1937; women's suffrage 1932; national minimum wage 1940 | Collapsing coffee prices broke the São Paulo/Minas Gerais elite bargain, bringing Vargas to power by revolt. He centralized authority in stages and gave urban workers real labour rights ('pai dos pobres') — but rural, Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous Brazilians were left out, and unions were state-controlled |
| 11.7.3 | Comparing government responses across the Americas | Bonus Army dispersed 1932; RFC (1932); First New Deal 1933–35 (CCC, AAA, NRA, TVA); Second New Deal from 1935 (WPA, Social Security, Wagner Act); Mackenzie King & R.B. Bennett (Canada); Bennett's 'New Deal' 1935; Lázaro Cárdenas president 1934, oil nationalized/PEMEX 1938 | Hoover's caution vs FDR's active New Deal (unemployment ~25% to ~14% by 1937, but full recovery only came with WWII). Canada's Bennett copied FDR too late and courts struck the laws down. Mexico's Cárdenas went furthest: land reform (ejidos), oil nationalization, ISI and real labour rights |
- Cause and consequence — separate long-term structural weaknesses (regulation, banking, tariffs, agriculture) from the immediate trigger (the 1929 Crash), and trace clear chains like Brazil's coffee-price collapse to Vargas's 1930 revolt.
- Perspectives — Hoover's individualism vs Roosevelt's activism; Liberty League vs Huey Long as opposite critiques of the New Deal; urban male workers' gains vs rural/Afro-Brazilian/Indigenous exclusion in Brazil.
- Significance — the permanent growth of federal/central government (FDIC, Social Security, Vargas's centralized state, PEMEX) is the biggest shared legacy, even where short-term economic recovery was incomplete.
government intervention was the most effective response to the Great Depression in the Americas?
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Do not write everything you know about one country and stop. Paper 3 essays need genuine cross-referencing — at least two countries or leaders compared directly against the claim — and a clear final judgement, not a list of facts followed by 'both sides have a point.'
What made the US banking system so fragile before 1929? About 25,000 small, local banks operated with limited reserves and no deposit insurance, so one bank failure could trigger a panic and a chain of collapses — there was no FDIC yet to stop a run.
What is the difference between the First and Second New Deal? The First New Deal (1933-35) was emergency rescue — the Emergency Banking Act, CCC, AAA, NRA and TVA stopped the immediate bleeding in banks, farms and jobs. The Second New Deal (from 1935) shifted to lasting reform — the WPA, Social Security Act and Wagner Act.
Why did Brazil's Old Republic collapse in 1930? Brazil earned about 70% of its export income from coffee. When the Crash destroyed coffee prices, the elite café com leite power-share between São Paulo and Minas Gerais lost its economic base, and Vargas's Liberal Alliance revolt toppled it within a year.
How did Vargas's labour reforms help — and not help — ordinary Brazilians? Urban industrial workers gained a minimum wage, pensions and labour courts, earning Vargas the nickname 'father of the poor.' But unions were state-controlled, strikes were banned, and rural workers, Afro-Brazilians and Indigenous peoples were almost entirely excluded.
What did Cárdenas do that was more radical than FDR or Vargas? Cárdenas redistributed about 18 million hectares of land as ejidos, nationalized foreign oil companies to create PEMEX in 1938, protected industry through import substitution industrialization, and backed the CTM trade union confederation — a far deeper transformation of the economy.
Why did Canada's response achieve so little compared to the USA and Mexico? Mackenzie King treated relief as a provincial responsibility and did little; Bennett only copied FDR's New Deal in 1935, far too late, and most of his laws were later struck down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as unconstitutional.
Always name real laws, leaders and years — 'the government helped' is worthless, but 'the Wagner Act of 1935 gave workers collective bargaining rights' is gold. Compare at least two countries when the question allows it. End every essay with a direct answer to 'to what extent' — a clear degree of agreement, never just a summary.