AP U.S. History Diagnostic 24
AP U.S. History Diagnostic 24. How did the United States choose containment over the National Security Council Report in Latin America?
|AP||AP U.S. History|
|AP U.S. History||Exam|
|Test Prep||AP U.S. History|
|The Cold War||Alliances in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East|
Attempts to Contain Communism
Direct and Indirect Military Confrontation
|U.S. History||AP U.S. History|
[ mumbles ] And now the question:
How did the United States choose containment
over the National Security Council Report
in Latin America? And here are your potential answers.
[ musical tones ]
What exactly is this question asking?
The goal of the National Security Council Report
was to ensure that the basic rights of people were secure.
But in Latin America, the United States was
so focused on containing and overthrowing communist leaders,
that the NSC's noble intentions often fell by the wayside.
So we need to figure out which answer best explains
how the U.S. went about this less-than-noble course of action.
Did the U.S. choose containment over the National Security
Council Report A - by using force when basic rights
were not being threatened?
Well, the U.S. certainly believed it was intervening
only when basic rights were being threatened.
Even if those rights belonged more to wealthy landowners than
poorer segments of the population. So that eliminates A.
Would the U.S. have chosen containment over the NSC Report
C - by declaring war when the necessity
of action was unclear?
Well, because the U.S. was already sending
foreign aid to nations threatened by communism,
they made the decision to declare war only when they felt that
financial support was no longer enough.
So that strikes out C and D.
Which means that the U.S. chose containment
over the National Security Council Report in Latin America
B - by supporting non-communist
leaders regardless of their concern for democracy.
The U.S. was so focused on overthrowing
communist leaders that they often replaced them with corrupt
who had little to no regard for the human rights
the NSC Report supported in the first place.
So the answer is B. Overthrowing these Latin American leaders
is kind of like wiping chocolate off your face by smearing it with mud.
The chocolate's gone, but you're just as dirty as you were before.