【2006】二戰丨德國戰後條款比較



題目拆解

參考答案(中文版)

(a) 參考資料D及E,指出凡爾賽條約和波茨坦協定在處理德國方面的一項相似及一項相異之處。(2+2分)


考生表現

不少考生能指出該兩項資料的相同及相異之處。有些考生只抄錄資料中的條款而未有突顯其異同,因而失分。表現較差的考生只將兩項資料中不同類的條款並列充數,而未能作出有效的比較,因此未能取得任何分數。

評分準則

相似之處 例:

- 兩者均要德國裁軍。 - 兩者生要求德國歸還曾侵佔的土地。 相異之處 例:

- 凡夫條約中的戰爭罪責未見於波茨坦協人。 - 在戰爭賠償方面,兩者要求有異:凡爾賽條約需要德國賠款,而波茨坦協定則要求德國以工業設施賠償。 - 波茨坦協定要求成立一個由盟軍主導的民主政府,凡夫條約則未見此安排。

參考答案

第一,凡爾賽條約跟波茨坦協定都要求德國裁軍。 參考資料D,凡爾賽條約要求德國「大幅削減陸軍及海軍的數目」,而波茨坦協定則要求德國將「軍事生產設施及武器」拆除,顯示兩者都旨於削減德國軍力,讓德國於戰後變弱,慎防其東山再起。 第二,凡爾賽條約要求德承擔罪責但波茨坦協定沒有這項要求。 參考資料D,凡夫條約要求德國「為戰爭帶給協約國的所有損失和破壞承擔一切責任」,表示德國要承擔戰爭是由她所挑起,並為此負責向協約國作出賠償,名留歷史。然而,波茨坦協定則沒有這項要求。

(b) 凡爾賽條約與波茨坦協定何者對德國更苛刻?試參考資料D及E,解釋你的答案。(4分)


考生表現

表現較佳的考生能比較該兩項資料,並清楚解釋為何凡夫條約或波茨坦協定對德國更為苛刻。不少考生只說明兩項協定的分別,但未有進一步解釋「更苛刻」的原因,因而失分。部分表現較差的考生更未有比較兩項資料,僅指出凡夫條約或波茨坦協定的不足之處。

評分準則

L1 答案含混,未能恰當引用資料。 [最多2分] L2 解釋清楚,並能恰當引用資料。 [最多4分]

凡爾賽條約更為苦刻,因為:

例:

- 凡爾賽條約規定德國須負起所有的戰爭責任,波茨坦協定則沒有如此不合理安排,因此前者對德國人民的民族尊嚴造成更加打擊。 - 德國須繳付龐大金錢作戰爭賠償,而波茨坦協定僅要求以非金錢形式作賠償,前者對德國的經1復甦而言打擊更大。

或 波茨坦協定更為苛刻,因為: 例:

- 波茨坦協定將德國分寧為四個佔領區,並由外國主導下成立新政府,嚴重打擊德國民族尊嚴,凡爾賽條約則沒有如此侵害國家主權之規定,因此波茨坦協定較為苛刻。

參考答案

凡爾賽條約比波茨坦條約更苛刻。 參考資料D,凡爾賽要求德國承擔「戰爭帶給協約國的所有損失和破壞」的責任,意味著德國要承認戰爭是由她所挑起,將會名留歷史,對民族自尊造成重大傷害,所以更為苛刻。 而且,資料D指出德國要向協約國賠償「200億金馬克」,巨額賠款將會嚴重打擊德國經濟,戰後有可能造成失業率高企、通貨膨脹、貧富懸殊等問題,德人生活更加慘淡,所以較為苛刻。 相反,參考資料D一方面波茨坦條約沒有承擔戰爭罪責的要求,表示戰爭是由多元因素所塑成,每個國家理應分擔戰爭責任;而另一方面,戰後德國「須以工業設施作為戰爭賠償」,這安排將有利於德國出口發展,復甦經濟,所以比凡爾賽條約寬鬆。

(c) 你是否同意波茨坦協定較凡爾賽條條約更能防止德國挑起戰爭?試參考資料D及E,並就你所知,解釋你的答案。(6分)


考生表現

考生多能提出理據支持其答案,但能同時就資料及個人史識加以解2者不多。部分答案僅以資料為據,以致流於片面。少數表現較差的考生更未有比較兩項資料,僅指出凡夫條約的不足之處。

評分準則

L1 片面:僅根據資料引用相關史實。 [最多4分] L2 全面:根據資料引用相關史實。 [最多6分]

波茨坦協定較凡爾賽條約更能防止德國挑起戰爭

資料 例:

- 凡爾賽條約規定,德國須負起戰爭的所有責任及以龐大金錢作為戰爭賠償,此安排較波茨坦協定易激起德國人報復。 - 波茨坦協定取締納粹黨,並在西方各國指導下恢復民主政府,此安排較能消弭德國人的復仇心,亦能促進德國與西方之間的合作。 個人所知 例:

- 因德國人認為凡爾賽條約對德國不公,希特拉領導納粹黨要求修約,取得國民支持,並四出擴張。 - 第二次世界大戰後,美國大力扶持德國(西德),德國亦能與西方國家持續保持合作關係(如加入歐洲煤鋼共同體、北約、歐洲經濟共同體),因此對戰後的安排未表不滿。 * 一般考生會選答波茨坦協定較凡爾賽條約更能防止德國挑起戰爭。倘考生持其他觀點,只要言之成理,亦應酌量給分。

參考答案

波茨坦協定更能防止德國挑起戰爭。 參考資料E,波茨坦協定將會把「納粹黨取締」,並由「盟軍指導下建立民主」,杜絕極端思想再次出現社會,並透過民主制度來維持德國穩定,有利於她戰後與歐洲國家重修舊好,所以更能防止挑起戰爭。 相反,參考資料D,凡爾賽條約要求德國「為戰爭帶給協約國的所有損失和破壞承擔一切責任」,表示德國需要承認是她所挑起戰爭,嚴重傷害國家尊嚴,更甚於產生復仇心態,埋下另一場大戰爆發的伏線,所以凡爾賽條約未能防止戰爭。 其次,資料E指出波茨坦協定要求德國「以工業設施作為戰爭賠償」,要求德國戰後生設物資賠償予盟軍,這樣的安排有利於德國戰後出口,復甦經濟,當然能防止戰爭。 相反,參考資料D,凡爾賽條約要求德國「賠償200億金馬克」,巨額賠償不但造成沉重負擔,而且戰後德國經濟一蹶不振,這樣有利於極端主義思想崛興,造成另一場戰爭出現,因此凡爾賽條約不能防止戰爭。 就我所知,一戰希特拉打著推翻《凡爾賽條約》的口號上台(1933),他先將德國武裝起來(1935),並發動多次侵略,包括入侵奧地利(1938)、捷克和波蘭(1939),最終導致第二次世界大戰爆發,反映凡爾賽條約促成另一場戰爭出現。 然而,二戰後德國於盟軍指導下跟西方國家保持合作關係,不但加入北大西洋公約組織(1949),互相交流軍事情報,亦都成為歐洲共同體(1967)的創始國,具舉足輕重的地位,確實顯示波茨坦條約能防止戰爭再現。

參考答案(英文版)

(a) With reference to Sources D and E, identify one similarity and one difference between the Treaty of Versailles and the Potsdam Agreement regarding the treatment of Germany. (2+2 marks)


Candidates’ performance

Several candidates succeeded in identifying similarities and differences between the two sources. Some candidates merely cited the treaty terms without highlighting similarities and differences, thus scoring low marks. The weaker candidates merely listed treaty terms of different natures without drawing any comparison, and failed to gain any marks.

Marking scheme

Similarity e.g.:

- both demanded disarmament of Germany - both demanded Germany to return territories it had once occupied Difference e.g.:

- the ‘war guilt clause’ in the Treaty of Versailles does not form part of the Potsdam Agreement - the two have different demands in war reparations: the Treaty of Versailles requires Germany to pay indemnities, whereas the Potsdam Agreement requires Germany to pay reparations in the form of industrial facilities - the Potsdam Agreement requires the setting up of a democratic government under the guidance of the Allied Powers, and such an arrangement was not seen in the Treaty of Versailles

Suggested answer

First, both Treaty of Versailles and the Potsdam Agreement required Germany to disarm. According to source D, the Treaty of Versailles requested Germany to “greatly reduces the size of its army and navy”, while the Potsdam Agreement demanded demolishment of “military plants and weapons” in Germany, showing that both aimed to reduce Germany’s military so as to weaken Germany after WWII, prevent Germany from rising to power again. Second, only the Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany to bear full responsibility for starting the war but not the Potsdam Agreement. According to source D, Treaty of Versailles required Germany to “accept full responsibility for causing all the losses and damage to the Allied powers brought about by the war”, Germany had to admit that it started the war and pay compensation to the Allied Powers, leaving a notorious name in world history. However, there was no such term in the Potsdam Agreement.

(b) Which was harsher for Germany, theTreaty of Versailles or the Potsdam Agreement? Explain your answer with reference to Sources D and E. (4 marks)


Candidates’ performance

The more competent candidates were able to compare the two sources, and clearly explain why the Treaty of Versailles or the Potsdam Agreement was harsher to Germany. Many candidates merely discussed the differences of the two documents and failed to proceed to explain why one was ‘harsher’ than the other, thus scoring low marks. Some weaker candidates even failed to compare the two sources and merely pointed out the limitation of either document.

Marking scheme

L1 Vague answer, unable to make due reference to Sources. [max. 2] L2 Clear explanations, able to make due reference to Sources. [max. 4] Treaty of Versailles harsher, because e.g.:

- the Treaty of Versailles specifies that Germany needs to accept full responsibility for causing the war; there is no such unreasonable arrangement in the Potsdam Agreement; therefore the former made a greater blow to German national dignity - Germany had to pay a large sum of money as war indemnities; Potsdam Agreement only requires reparations in non-cash form. The blow on German economy is more serious in the former case. OR Potsdam Agreement harsher, because e.g.:

- Potsdam Agreement divides Germany into four occupation zones and set up a new government under foreign guidance, which severely harm German national dignity; the Treaty of Versailles does not contain such a sovereignty-violation clause; therefore the Potsdam Agreement is harsher

Suggested answer

The Treaty of Versailles was harsher than the Potsdam Agreement. According to source D, the Treaty of Versailles requested Germany to “accept full responsibility for causing all the losses and damage to the Allied powers brought about by the war”, meaning that Germany ought to admit it started the war and would leave a trace in history. This undermined national pride of German people, thus the Treaty of Versailles was harsher. Moreover, source D states that Germany had to compensate “20 billion gold marks”, this huge amount of indemnity would greatly strike German economy, causing a high unemployment rate, inflation and wealth gap in post-war German society, worsening the lives of German people, the Treaty of Versailles was therefore harsher. On the contrary, source D shows that the Potsdam Agreement did not demand Germany to bear responsibility of causing the war, instead, the agreement states that the war was caused by multiple factors, every country should share the responsibility for starting war. The Potsdam Agreement also demanded Germany to “pay war indemnities with its industrial facilities”, which would facilitate development of Germany’s export industry, revitalizing its economy, the Potsdam Agreement was therefore less harsh.

(c) Do you agree that the Potsdam Agreement was more effective than the Treaty of Versailles in preventing Germany from waging war? Explain your answer with reference to Sources D and E, and using your own knowledge. (6 marks)


Candidates’ performance

Most candidates were able to substantiate their answers, but few could make use of both the sources and own knowledge in explaining their view. Some answers were only based on the source, and appeared to be lopsided. A few weaker candidates did not compare the two sources, and merely pointed out the limitations of the Versailles Treaty.

Marking scheme

L1 Lopsided: merely referring to Sources or citing relevant historical facts. [max. 4] L2 Comprehensive: referring to Sources and citing relevant historical facts. [max. 6] Potsdam Agreement was more effective than Treaty of Versailles in preventing Germany from waging war Sources e.g.:

- Treaty of Versailles specified that Germany needs to accept full war responsibility and that Germany paid large sum of money as war reparations; it is more likely that this arrangement would instigate the Germans to take revenge. - Potsdam Agreement outlawed the Nazi Party and restored a democratic government under the guidance of the Western countries. This arrangement was effective in preventing the Germans from taking revenge and promoting co-operation between Germany and the West. Own knowledge e.g.:

- Because the Germans held the view that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany, Hitler led the Nazi Party to demand treaty revision. He got mass support and underwent massive territorial expansion. - After the Second World War, the USA actively supported Germany (West Germany), which was a bale to continuously maintain co-operative relationship with the Western countries (such as joining the European Coal and Steal Community, the NATO, and the European Economic Community). It was therefore not resentful to the post-war arrangements. * Candidates in general will hold the view that the Potsdam Agreement was more effective than the Treaty of Versailles in preventing Germany from waging war. However, marks may be awarded to awarded that reflect other views and are presented logically. 

Suggested answer

The Potsdam Agreement was more effective in preventing Germany from waging war. According to source E, the Potsdam Agreement decided to “ban the Nazi Party” and set up “democracy under the guidance of the Allied Powers” to prevent extreme ideologies from emerging and to maintain Germany’s stability by establishing a democratic system. This was beneficial to Germany in repairing its relationship with other European countries, hence preventing war. On the contrary, according to source D, the Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany to “accept full responsibility for causing all the losses and damage to the Allied powers brought about by the war”, Germany had to admit responsibility in waging war, severely undermining their national pride and might even give rise to revanchism, which would bring about the outbreak of another war. Hence the Treaty of Versailles failed to prevent future war. Other than that, source E indicates that the Potsdam Agreement required Germany to “pay war indemnities with its industrial facilities”, Germany had to manufacture resources as compensation to the Allied Powers, this is beneficial to Germany’s post-war export industry and revitalizing its economy, which  in turn could prevent another war. In contrast, according to source D, the Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany to compensate “20 billion gold marks”, the huge amount of compensation not only increased the economic burden of Germany, but also disabling Germany to recover its economy, which might give rise to extreme ideologies, leading to another war. As a result the Treaty of Versailles could not prevent future war. According to my own knowledge, Hitler rose to power in 1933 upholding his aim to overthrow the Treaty of Versailles. He first rearmed Germany in 1935 and initiated invasions, including Annexation of Austria in 1938, invasion of Czech and Poland in 1939, which eventually led to the outbreak of WWII, showing that the Treaty of Versailles catalysed the outbreak of another war. Nevertheless, Germany maintained a cooperative relationship with the Allied Powers after WWII, it not only joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 and exchanged intelligence, it also became the founder member of the European Community in 1967 with considerable influence. The Potsdam Agreement could thus prevent outbreak of another war.

Recent Posts

See All

【2011】一戰丨巴爾幹半島

題目拆解 參考答案(中文版) (a)(i) 根據漫畫家,巴爾幹地區的形勢是否嚴峻?參考資料D,解釋你的答案。(3分) 考生表現 表現良好。很多考生能夠指出巴爾幹地區的形勢嚴峻。他們亦能以資料作答。 評分參考 L1 能描述有關形勢,但未能作出有效解釋。 [最多1分] L2能描述有關形勢,亦能參考資料D作出有效解釋。 [最多3分] 巴爾幹地區的形勢︰ 例︰ - 巴爾幹地區的形勢是嚴峻的。 解釋︰

【2011】中國丨革命比改革

題目拆解 參考答案(中文版) (a)從資料A指出漫畫家對中國憲政改革所持的看法。參考資料A,解釋你的答案。(3分) 考生表現 表現欠佳。頗多考生誤以為「看法」即「態度」,因而答案與題旨不符。 評分準則 L1 能指出看法,但未能作出任何有效的解釋。 [最多1分] L2 能指出看法,亦未參考資料A作出有效的解釋。 [最多3分] 看法︰ 例︰ - 清廷將不能學到外國憲政的精髓 解釋︰ 例︰ - 漫畫

【2010】二戰丨希特拉崛興

題目拆解 參考答案(中文版) (a) 資料D中的歷史人物叫什麼名字?從資料D中引用一項線索,支持你的答案。(1+1分) 考生表現 表現良好。大部分考生能指出資料所示漫畫人物的名字,並引用線索說明。部分英文卷考生不明白historical figure一詞的意思,以為題目問及某一件歷史事件,因而未能得分。 評分準則 歷史人物(1分)︰ - 希特拉 線索(1分)︰ 例子︰ - 他是「納粹黨」的領導