- 學習資本主義國家（西方） - 學習馬克思主義國家（俄國） - 在孫中山（蔣介石）領導下進行革命 - 在中國共產黨領導下進行革命
第一，資料B指「學習資本主義」的方式來挽救中國。 資料B指出「要救國」的話，其中一個方法就是「學外國」，透過「學習西方資產階級民主主義的文化」來促進中國現代化，藉此讓中國富強。 第二，作者指「馬克思列寧主義」亦是挽救中國的方法。 作者於資料B指出知識分子「用無產階級的世界觀作為觀察國家命運的工具」，檢視過去中國積弱因由，「重新考慮自己的問題」，從而吸收經驗再改造中國，藉此救國。
(ii) 根據毛澤東所言，你在題(a)(i) 所指出的兩個方法能否挽救中國？參考資料B，解釋你的答案。（4分）
L1 未能扣緊(i) 所述方法，答案含糊，亦未能恰當引用資料。 [最多2分] L2 能扣緊(i) 所述方法，解釋清楚，亦能恰當引用資料。 [最多2分] 例：
- 先進的中國人未能按西方資產階級方法實現救國的理想，而俄國等馬密思主義國家卻取得革命勝利。 - 孫中山的繼承人蔣介石未能挽救中國，反而把中國拖到了絕境；相對而言，在人民解放戰爭勝利後，中國共產黨領導的革命取得成功。
雖然，學習資本主義的方法未能挽救中國。 儘管資料指出「中國人向西方學得很不少」，能夠體會到外國富國強兵之道，嘗試從中學習，但最終還是「行不通」，經過「多次奮鬥」依然是「失敗了」，顯示資料指出學習外國救國的方法是失敗的。 不過，通過「馬克思列寧主義」的方法是成功。 參考資料B，作者指出「走俄國人的路」就是「結論」，意味著除了學習「馬克思列寧主義」救國外就別無他法，而且於「共產黨領導下」更取得了「基本的勝利」，有利於拯救中國，反映該方法是成功的。
L1 答案含糊，未能有效運用資料及相關史實。 [最多2分] L2 能回應毛澤東的看法，但僅依據資料或引用相關史實。 [最多3分] L3 解釋清楚，能回應毛澤東的看法，亦能依據資料及引用相關史實。 [最多6分]
- 辛亥革命未能令中國富強。這個事實支持毛澤東關於先進中國知識分子的看法。（個人所知） -孫中山在1910年代末和1920年代初真的絕望，原因是他未能得到西方各國的援助。（資料＋個人所知） 不同意 例：
- 晚清改革的確帶來改善，中國就算沒有革命也會出現全面發展。（個人所知） - 說中國在蔣介石治下陷於「絕境」誇張失實的。恢復關稅自主權和促進工業發展，是「南京十年」期間的部分成就。（資料＋個人所知） - 國民政府在中日戰爭中有著重要的角色，不應認為中國共產黨是當時抗日的唯一力量。（資料＋個人所知）
題目所言大程度成立。 第一，毛澤東認為學習西方的方法是失敗的。 參考資料B，毛澤東指出20世紀中國嘗試「學習西方資產階級民主主義的文化」，從而讓中國達成現代化。不過，學外國的方式「行不通」，就算「多次奮鬥」結果還是「失敗了」，所以他認為學西方的方法是失敗的。 雖然，辛亥革命後中國依然專制，一方面袁世凱解散國民黨、國會，而他自己亦組織稱帝運動（1915）；另一方面，袁去世後更陷入軍閥混戰的局面（1916－1928），符合毛澤東的法。 然而，辛亥革命卻非完無貢獻，一方面她結束了中國長達2000多年的君主制度，解放政治；另一方面，孫中山致力於建立民國，頒布《中華民國臨法約法》，將中國扭轉成憲政國家，反映毛澤東看法非完全準確。 第二，毛澤東認為共產黨帶領中國戰勝內戰。 參考資料B，毛澤東指孫中山的繼任者「蔣介石」將中國「拖到了絕境」，意味著讓中國情況不進反退，更甚於一個絕望的局面。相反，國民於共產黨的帶領下，「驅逐日本帝國主義」，並取得了「基本的勝利」，表示共產黨帶領中國戰勝內戰。 雖然，共產黨跟國民黨宣布停止內戰，並對外一致抗日，包括成立「八路軍」與日軍對戰，反映共產黨於內戰中付出貢獻，不容忽視。 然而，考慮到資料指出蔣介石讓中國步入「絕境」，一方面「絕境」這個字詞屬於極端字眼，表示中國步入滅亡，沒有出路；另一方面，這卻有達史實，因為南京政府為現代化作出不少努力，包括「新生活運動」、《民權法規》等，有利於公民教育發展。 而且，據史家分析，共產黨於抗戰期間採取「一分抗日、二分應對、七分發展」方針，意味著她執意擴張勢力多於對抗日軍，顯示共產黨的貢獻備受質疑，同時亦不能忽視國民黨的努力，所以不能同意毛澤東的看法。 總括而言，毛澤東貴為中國共產黨的領導，對中國政治發展自然別有一番理解，儘管他對革命發展、中國內戰的看法存有理據。但考慮到他的身份、用字欠恰當，所以題目所言大程度成立。
(a)(i) Identify from Source B two methods of saving China. (2 marks)
Performance was good. Most candidates were able to point out two methods of saving China. However, weak candidates failed to conceptualise two distinguishable methods. For example, some wrote ‘learning from foreign countries’ a one method and ‘following the Russian path’ as another, and were not aware of the fact that Russia was one such foreign country. Such answers did not score full marks.
- Learning from foreign capitalist countries (the West) - Learning from the Marxist countries (Russia) - Revolution under Sun Yat-sen (Chiang Kai-shek) - Revolution under the Communist Party of China (CPC)
in the West” to save China. Source B shows that one way that “China could be saved” was to “learn from foreign countries”, facilitating modernisation through “studying the culture of democracy of the capitalist class in the West” to vitalize China. Second, the author states that “Marxism-Leninism” is another way to save China. The author of source B pointed out that intellectuals “adopted the proletarian world outlook as the instrument for studying a nation’s destiny”, to reflect on the reasons that led to a weak China in the past and “reconsidered their own problems”, so as to gain experience and reform China, hence China could be saved.
(ii) According to Mao, were the two methods you identified in (a)(i) successful in saving China? Explain your answer with reference to Source B. (4 marks)
Performance was good. Most candidates were able to explain whether the methods they pointed out in (a)(i) could save Chine or not. However, some weak candidates merely copied from the source without pointing out whether the methods were successful in saving China.
L1 Weak reference to the methods mentioned in (i), vague answer and improper reference to the Source. [max. 2] L2 Due reference to the methods mentioned in (i), clear explanation and able to make due reference to the Source. [max. 4] e.g.
- The Chinese progressives failed to realize their ideals for saving China based on the Western capitalist line, while Marxist countries like Russia have attained revolutionary success. - Chiang Kai-shek, Sun’s successor, failed to save China and instead dragged her into complete hopelessness; contrastingly, the revolution led by the CPC was successful after its victory in the People’s War of Liberation.
Learning from capitalism failed to save China. Source B shows that “the Chinese learnt a good deal from the West” and developed an understanding of how the West grew in power. Although Chinese people attempted to learn from the West, they “could not make it work” and “their repeated struggles all ended in failure”. Source B implies that learning from capitalism was a failure. However, the method of learning from “Marxism-Leninism” was a success. According to source B, Mao ZeDong states that “follow the path of the Russians” was the “conclusion”, meaning that there was no way to save the country other than learning from “Marxism-Leninism”. Chinese people “under the leadership of the Communist Party of China…have basically been victorious”, showing that learning from “Marxism-Leninism” was a success in saving China.
(b) Do you agree with Mao’s view on China’s political development in the first half of the 20th century? Explain your answer with reference to Source B and using your own knowledge. (6 marks)
Performance was poor. Only a few candidates were able to use relevant historical facts to explain whether they agreed with Mao’s view on China’s political development as reflected in the source. Many candidates chose to agree with Mao’s view, but they merely copied from the source without further elaboration. Some weak candidates overlooked the time period specified in the question and wrote at length on events in the latter half of the 20thcentury.
L1 Vague answer, and unable to effectively refer to the Source and own knowledge. [max. 2] L2 Able to respond to Mao’s view(s), but referring to the Source or own knowledge only. [max. 3] L3 Clear explanation, able to respond to Mao’s view(s) and effectively refer to both the Source and own knowledge. [max. 6] Agree - The 1911 Revolution failed to bring about a prosperous China. This fact supported Mao’s claim about the Chinese progressives. (own knowledge) - It was true that Sun Yat-sen was in deep despair in the late 1910s and the early 1920s because he failed to secure help from the Western countries. (Source + own knowledge) Disagree e.g.
- The Late Qing Reform did bring about improvements and China was on the way of national advancement even without a revolution. (own knowledge) - It is exaggerated to say that China was in ‘complete hopelessness’ under Chiang Kao-shek. Restoration of tariff autonomy and industrial advancement were some of the achievements during the ‘Nanjing Decade’. (Source + own knowledge) - The Nationalist Government also played a key role in the Second Sino-Japanese War. The CPC should not be the only force to be counted. (Source + own knowledge)
I agree with Mao’s view to a large extent. First, Mao believes that learning from the West was a failure. According to source B, Mao points out that in the 20thcentury, China attempted to “study the culture of democracy of the capitalist class in the West” to facilitate modernization. However, learning from the West “could not work” and “ended in failure” after numerous attempts. Hence he believes that China failed to learn from the West. There were several historical events that support Mao’s view, for instance, China remained under dictatorship after the 1911 Revolution. On one hand, Yuan ShiKai dissolved Kuo Min Tang (KMT) and evicted the parliament, he also attempted to revive the monarchy in 1915. On the other hand, China entered the chaotic Warlord Era from 1916 to 1928 after Yuan’s death. This situation matches Mao’s comment. However, the 1911 Revolution still contributed in the development of China as it ended the 2000-year-old monarchical system and liberated China. Sun YatSen was also devoted to construct a republic, he introduced the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, transforming China into a country ruled by constitution. Mao’s view was therefore not completely accurate. Second, Mao believes that the Communist Party of China (CPC) led China to win in the civil war. According to source B, Mao accused that Chiang Kai-shek, the successor of Sun, “dragged China into complete hopelessness”, meaning that Chiang deteriorated the situation and brought China into desperation. On the contrary, Chinese people “drove out Japanese imperialism” under the leadership of the CPC and attained “basic victory”, meaning that the CPC led China into victory in the civil war. The CPC signed a ceasefire with KMT to stop the civil war, so that both parties could fight together against Japan, for example the Eight Route Army was introduced, showing that CPC’s contribution in the civil war should not be neglected. However, source B states that Chiang dragged China into “complete hopelessness”, which must also be taken into consideration. On one hand, the term “hopelessness” is an extreme word, meaning that China was brought into destruction and there was no way out. On the other hand, this is against historical facts, because the Nanjing Government contributed to the modernization of China, including the New Life Movement and”People’s Right Regulation”, which was beneficial to the development of civic education. Moreover, according to analysis from historians, the CPC employed the tactic of “ten percent of effort fighting against Japan, twenty percent of effort to response, seventy percent of effort in development”, meaning that it put more effort in expanding its influence than in fighting against Japan, CPC’s contribution in the civil war is questionable. KMT’s effort in the war should not be overlooked, therefore Mao’s view is not completely tenable. In conclusion, Mao, as the leader of the CPC, held a distinctive view on China’s political development. His view on the revolutionary development and Chinese Civil War was supported, yet considering his position and misuse of wordings, I agree to a large extent.