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]
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]
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]
- 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）
(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.