L1 解釋含混，未能有效運用資料。 [最多1分] L2 答案清晰，能參考資料作出有效解釋。 [最多3分]
看法︰ 例︰ - 巴黎和會的三位和平締造者僅造就象徵性的和平，和平的前景並不樂觀。 解釋︰ 例︰ - 「囚鳥」象徵和平。雖然囚鳥已獲釋，但她仍然被鐵鍊扣在一個寫出「1919年條約」的鐵球，意味著凡爾賽條約是對和平的巨大阻礙。
漫畫家認為和平未能得以確立，未來將受到威脅。 從資料C的漫畫中，儘管漫畫標題指「夫人，您已自由了」，而象徵和平的天使亦已獲釋重獲自由，暗示和平得到解放，穩定亦重臨大地，前景樂觀。 然而，漫畫的天使獲得自由的同時，身體卻被扣上「1919年條約」的鐵鎖，喻意天使表面上重獲自由，但實際上卻被鐵鎖限制，和平未能得以確立，仍會受到挑戰威脅。
L1 嘗試作出推論，但所作解釋無力。 [最多1分] L2 推論有效，能參考資料作出有效解釋。 [最多3分] 例︰ - 應迫令德國人接受條約內容（「絕不可與德國人談判或修好，而必須令他們就範」）。 - 不應讓德國馬上出現經濟復蘇（「一條寬宏大量……的和約，……結果只會加速德國的復元」）。
嚴懲德國是克里孟梭在巴黎和會所持的原則。 資料D指克里孟梭於巴黎和會中「堅持絕不可與德國人談判或修好」，拒絕寬容對待德國，反而要「必須迫令他們就範」，苛刻對待德國，以防德國再度威脅法國安全，可見嚴懲德國是克里孟梭的原則。 其次，克里孟梭並不認同威爾遜「十四項建議」而所訂立的「一條寬宏大量或公正平等條約」，認為平等對待德國只會加速其「復元」，並「捲土重來」再次「攻擊法國」，對法國的國家安全帶來威脅，所以克氏主張嚴懲德國。 最後，資料D指從「過去」考慮的克里孟梭只「從德法關係的角度來看和約」，認為德國對法國而言是嚴重的威脅，必須迫使德國「就範」以確保法國的安全，故嚴懲德國是其的原則。
L1 答案含混，未能有效運用資料及個人所知。 [最多2分] L2 欠缺均衡，僅能有效運用資料或個人所知。 [最多4分] L3 答案合理且均衡，能有效運用資料及個人所知。 [最多8分] 批評︰ 例︰ - 和平締造者在大戰之後未能締結真正的和平。（資料C） - 克里孟梭對德國過於嚴苛/ 只從德法關係出發，而未有從人類福祉著想。（資料D） 是否公允？ 例︰ - 公允。這條條約條款苛刻，例如戰爭罪責條款，令德國人憤恨，播下復仇的種子。（個人所知） - 不公允。避免德國再興，是維持和平的關鍵。此外，英法兩國與斯特萊斯曼執政後的威瑪德國關係良好，德國更於1926年獲准加入國際聯盟。（個人所知）
資料C及D的批評大程度公允。 先從資料C討論。 資料C的漫畫批評巴黎和會和平締造者未能締結和平。參考資料C，象徵和平的天使表面上重獲自由，但實際上卻仍被「1919年條約」所限制著，喻意批評巴黎和會的和平締造者未能締結長久的和平，僅在和會中建立象徵性的和平。 雖然，1920年代國聯多次成功維持和平，實顯資料存有偏見。就我所知，巴黎和會所成立的國際聯盟（1920）於1925年防止希臘進攻保加利亞，阻礙戰爭的爆發，讓和平得以確立，並非資料所指和平受到掣肘，故資料有欠公允。 然而，極權主義興起反映資料所言有根有據。就我所知，1920年代期間國聯未能完全維持國際穩定，一方面，墨索里尼帶領法西斯黨於1922年上台；另一方面，他奪取政權後隨即入侵阜姆，破壞地區安全，國際於上述行動均無動於衷讓侵略者得逞，符合資料批評。 再者，民族小國過於軟弱符合資料批評。就我所知，巴黎和會提倡「民族自決」導致新國家如捷克和波蘭的出現，但此等國家的經濟和軍事實力弱小，容易成為侵略者的目標，如1928年意大利強迫阿爾巴尼亞成承認她是保護國，反映巴黎和會未能維持和平，資料屬實公允。 現從資料D討論。 資料D批評克里孟梭對德國過於苛刻。參考資料D，巴黎和會的法國代表克里孟梭堅持嚴懲德國，認為「絕不可與德國人談判或修好」，若寬容地對待德國只會使她「捲土重來」，再次「攻擊法國」，破壞法國安全。所以，他要求戰勝國制定嚴苛條款懲罰德國，此為資料指控。 雖然，德、法關係於戰後得到改善，資料存有偏見。就我所知，英國和法國分別於巴黎和會後跟德國簽訂《羅加諾公約》（1925）促進彼此關係，更甚於1926年同意德國成為國際聯盟會員國，一同維持和平，避免戰爭再次出現，反映資料所有欠公允。 但是，《凡爾賽條約》條款嚴苛。就我所知，巴黎和會所制訂的《凡爾賽條約》要求德國承擔所有戰爭罪責和賠償66億英鎊，嚴重打擊德國實力，以防其東山再起發動侵略，威脅國際穩定，符合資料認為克里孟梭對德苛刻的批評，實為公允。 而且，戰後德、法曾出現衝突。就我所知，法國和比利是因巴黎和會的賠債問題爆發「魯爾事件」（1923），與德國發生衝突，事後法、比聯軍進佔德國魯爾區，苛刻對待德國直至償款還賠，彼此關係惡劣，符合資料所指，實為公允。 總括而言，雖然資料C和D對巴黎和會和平製造者的批評存有偏見，但仔細分析後，資料批評不無道理，縱使內容有誇張之嫌卻未至於失實。因此，資料批評大程度公允。
(a) What was the cartoonist’s view on the prospect of peace? Explain your answer with reference to Source C. (3 marks)
Performance was good. The question required candidates to identify the cartoonist’s view on the prospect of peace with reference to Source C. most candidates pointed out the cartoonist’s pessimistic view about the prospects for peace. However, some weak candidates mistook the key word ‘view’ for ‘attitude’, and so lost marks. Some candidates mistook the angel in the cartoon for Germany, leading to problematic inferences and low marks.
L1 Vague explanation and ineffective use of the Source. [max. 1] L2 Clear answer with effective explanation with reference to the Source. [max. 3]
- The three peacemakers at the Paris Peace Conference only made symbolic peace, but the prospect of peace was not optimistic.
- Although the Jail Bird, which symbolized peace, was set free, she as shackled to an iron ball inscribed with ‘Treaty 1919’, meaning that the Treaty of Versailles was a huge block to the prospect of peace.
The cartoonist believes that long-lasting peace was not established, threats will appear in the future. According to Source C, the title of the cartoon is ‘Madam, you are free!’, the angel who signifies peace is also freed. This means that peace and stability were once again restored, the future should be optimistic. However, the angel was chained by ‘Treaty 1919” when she was freed, implying that she was limited by the chain and her freedom was superficial, long-lasting peace was yet to be established and threats will appear in the future.
(b) Infer one principle that Clemenceau upheld at the Paris Peace Conference as reflected in Source D. Explain your answer with reference to Source D. (3 marks)
Performance was good. The question required candidates to infer one principle that Clemenceau upheld at the Paris Peace Conference as reflected in Source D. most candidates made use of clues in Source D to infer one such principle. However, some candidates merely copied or quoted from the Source without marking any inferences.
L1 Attempts to infer, but marred by weak explanation. [max. 1] L2 Valid inference with good explanation referring to Source D. [max. 3]
- Treaty terms should be dictated to the Germans (‘one must never negotiate with a German or conciliate him; one must dictate to him). - Germany should not be ready for economic recovery (‘a peace of magnanimity… could only have the effect of shortening the interval of Germany’s recovery…’)
Georges Clemenceau insisted to punish Germany severely in Paris Peace Conference. Source D shows that Clemenceau insisted in Paris Peace Conference that “one must never negotiate with a German or conciliate him”, he refused to tolerate Germany, and stated that “one must dictate to him” such that Germany must be punished harshly to prevent future threats to France’s security. Therefore it can be inferred that one of Clemenceau’s principle in Paris Peace Conference was to punish Germany severely. Other than that, Clemenceau disagreed with “a peace of magnanimity or of fair and equal treatment” and the Fourteen Points suggested by President Wilson, Clemenceau believed that equal treatment of Germany would only speed up its recovery and “once again hurl at France”, threatening France’s national security. Clemenceau therefore insisted a severe punishment of Germany. Last but not least, source D states that Clemenceau lived in the past such that “he sees the issue of Peace in terms of France and Germany”. He believed that Germany was a critical threat to France, therefore “one must dictate to him (Germany)”, punish Germany harshly to ensure national security of France.
(c) Do you think that the criticisms of the peacemakers at the Paris Peace Conference contained in Sources C and D were fair? Explain your answer with reference to Sources C and D and using your own knowledge on the situations at that time. (8 marks)
Performance was fair. The question required candidates to discuss whether the criticisms of the peacemakers at the Paris Peace Conference contained in Sources C and D were fair. Candidates were expected to first understand the two sources in terms of criticisms of the peacemakers at the Paris Peace Conference, and discuss whether such criticisms were fair, using their own knowledge. The best candidates were able to clearly explain their answers; for example, the criticisms were fair because they represented what really took place, or they were unfair due to huge limitations the peacemakers faced at the time. However, some weak candidates misunderstood the question as one asking whether the decisions made by the peacemakers – rather than criticisms of the peacemaker – were fair, which scoured no marks. Moreover, given the fact that the Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 and would politics changed a lot in the 1920s, especially after the 1929 Great Depression, it was irrelevant to cite fact from the 1930s.
L1 Vague answer, ineffective in using both Sources and own knowledge. [max. 2] L2 Lack in balance, effective in using Sources or own knowledge only. [max. 4] L3 Sound and balanced answer, effective in using both Sources and own knowledge. [max. 8]
- The peacemakers could not make real peace after the Great War. (Source C) - Clemenceau was too harsh to Germany. / Clemenceau only considered the issue of peace in terms of France and Germany, not of humanity. (Source D) Were they fair? e.g.
- They were fair. This led to many harsh treaty terms, such as the war guilt clause, which provoked German anger and sowed the seed of revenge. (own knowledge) - They were not fair. Prevention of another rise of Germany was key to the maintenance of peace. Moreover, Britain and France had good relationship with Weimar Germany under Stresemann, and Germany was admitted to the League of Nations in 1926. (own knowledge)
The criticisms in source C and D were fair to a large extent. Source C will be analyzed first. The cartoon in source C criticized that Paris Peace Conference failed to establish peace. According to source C, the angel, who represents peace, does not attain genuine freedom as she is chained by “Treaty 1919”, meaning that peacemakers in Paris Peace Conference failed to restore long-lasting peace, only superficial peace was established. The League of Nations successfully maintained peace in the 1920s, showing that source C might be biased. Unlike how the cartoonist portrayed that peace was not long-lasting, The League of Nations was set up in Paris Peace Conference in 1920, it had successfully prevent Greece from invading Bulgaria in 1925, prevent a war from breaking out and peace was upheld. Nevertheless, the rise of authoritarianism shows that source C is tenable. The League of Nations failed to fully maintain international stability in the late 1920s. Mussolini and the Fascist Party rose to power in 1922, he then invaded Fiume, destroying regional stability yet limited actions were taken to stop him, peace did not last long which match the criticism of source C. Moreover, nation states were too weak, which matches the criticism of source C. Paris Peace Conference advocated self-determination of nations, this gave rise to new states like Czech and Poland. However these nation states were too weak in terms of economy and military and were easy targets for aggressors. For instance, Albania was coerced to submit to Italy in 1928, showing that Paris Peace Conference failed to uphold peace, the criticism of source C is fair. Criticism of source D is also fair. Source D criticized Clemenceau of being too harsh to Germany. According to source D, Clemenceau represented France in the Paris Peace Conference, he insisted to enact harsh treaties to punish Germany, believing that “one must never negotiate with a German or conciliate him”, tolerating Germany would only speed up Germany’s recovery and “once again hurl at France”, threatening France’s national security. Source D criticizes Clemenceau of punishing Germany severely. Some may argue that Source D was a bit biased as the relationship between Germany and France improved after WWI. Britain and France signed the Locarno Treaties with Germany in 1925 to improve their relationship, Germany even became a member of the League of Nations in 1926 to promote peace and prevent war, showing that source D is biased. However, Treaty of Versailles was harsh which matches the criticism of source D. Treaty of Versailles was formed in Paris Peace Conference, Germany was to hold full responsibility of WWI and had to compensate 6.6 billion pounds, this was to struck Germany’s power and prevent it from initiating future invasion which may threaten international peace. This matches the criticism of Clemenceau of being too harsh in source D, therefore source D is fair. Moreover, after WWI, dispute between France and Germany continued. In 1923, France and Belgium sent troops to occupy Ruhr in Germany due to compensation dispute in Paris Peace Conference. France and Belgium continued to occupy Ruhr until Germany had paid its compensation. The relationship between France and Germany was deteriorated, which fulfill the criticism of source D. All in all, although the criticisms of peacemakers in Paris Peace Conference in source C and D may seem to be biased, the sources are tenable after detailed analysis, the sources may be exaggerated but it was supported by facts. As a result, criticisms in source C and D are fair.