【2016】冷戰丨戈巴卓夫



題目拆解





參考答案(中文版)

(a) 諾貝爾委員會對當時蘇聯的局勢持什麼看法?試以資料C的一項線索,支持你的答案。(2分)


考生表現

表現未如理想。題目要求考生指出諾貝爾委員會對1990年蘇聯局勢的看法。只有少數考生能夠以資料的線索為據描述蘇聯的局勢。部分考生較遜的考生誤解題旨,討論了諾貝爾委只會對蘇的正面態度,因而失分。

評分準則

* 有效看法1分,有效線索1分


例︰ - 蘇聯局勢嚴峻(「正在動搖國基的巨大經濟、社會和政治問題」) - 蘇聯在一位有為的領導人領導下,正在克服種種困難(「米哈伊爾.戈巴卓夫的改革措施所表現的膽識」)

參考答案

諾貝爾委員會認為當時蘇聯正面對經濟、社會和政治問題的考驗,局勢動盪嚴峻。 資料C指出「挪威諾貝爾委員會」和「全世界」都在關注蘇聯的「英勇鬥爭」,而該鬥爭指蘇聯當局正面對「動搖國基的巨大經濟、社會和政治問題」的考驗,一個影響著蘇聯建國根基的挑戰,可見當時蘇聯的局勢十分嚴峻。

(b) 從資料D推斷戈巴卓夫管治的性質。試參考資料D,解釋你的答案。(3分)


考生表現

表現尚可。提問用語「性質」似乎對很多考生頗有難度。只有個別的考生能夠指出戈巴卓夫管治的態度,並作出有效的解釋。部分表現稍遜的答卷誤將性質理解成政策倡議;部分答卷僅引錄資料內容,而沒有加以進一步闡釋;部分答卷說戈巴卓夫的管治性質是要解散蘇聯,因而未能得分。

評分準則

* 有效性質1分,有效解釋2分


性質︰ 例︰ - 改革的、進步的(從「米哈伊爾.戈巴卓夫雖無意卻移除了蘇維埃國家賴以存活的行政和壓迫機器」、「軍隊或克格勃不會用來殘酷懲罰政權的反對派」等可以看出,戈巴卓夫注意改革,並沒有使用殘酷手段對待進步人士。)

參考答案

戈巴卓夫管治性質為放寬操控,減少壓迫。 資料D指出戈巴卓夫「移除了蘇維埃國家賴以存活的行政和壓迫機器」,改變高壓統治的傳統,放棄以壓迫手段作為管治方針,讓「共產黨失去其對國家的操控」,下放權力予國民,所以戈巴卓夫的管治具放寬操控的性質。 最後,戈巴卓夫改革「軍隊」和「克格勒(蘇聯的情報機關)」,該兩個組織「不會用來殘酷懲罰」反對派,從此不再迫害異見份子,確保國民有言論自由表達意見。可見,戈巴卓夫管治具減少壓迫的性質。

(c) 你是否同意戈巴卓夫是一個具有能力的蘇聯領袖?試參考資料C及D,並就你所知,解釋你的答案。(8分)


考生表現

表現令人滿意。題目要求考生評估戈巴卓夫是否一個具有能力的蘇聯領袖。在這裡,「具有能力」應該放在「蘇聯領袖」這個背景去理解,其人是否能夠效忠於這個超級大國的利益。部分能力較高的考生能夠善用資料及相關史實討論戈氏的政策倡議如何影響了蘇聯的發展。部分考生同意戈氏是一個有能力的領袖,但卻強調他的政策導致蘇聯解體。這種答法欠邏輯,等於暗示戈氏沒有能力拯救蘇聯,因此與其答案的觀點相悖。部分表現較遜的考生誤解了資料。如例資料C談及蘇聯所面對的困難,有考生卻理解成該資料譴責戈氏引致該等困難。

評分準則

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7分]


有能︰ 例︰ - 不能使用克格勃鎮壓人民。(資料D) - 提倡「新思維」和「開放」,讓人民享有更多自由。(個人所知) - 致力促進「國家之間的兄弟情誼」。(資料C) - 致力改變與資本主義國家的關係,例如美蘇領袖互訪。(個人所知) 並非有能︰ 例︰ - 蘇聯的「既有離心趨勢就都浮現了」。(資料D) - 戈巴卓夫被葉利欽推翻,蘇聯亦告解體。(個人所知)

參考答案

戈巴卓夫較小程度上是個具有能力的蘇聯領袖。 外交方面,戈巴卓夫有利於提升蘇聯的國際地位。資料C指戈巴卓夫獲頒象徵「以國際合作代替衝突」的「和平獎」,肯定他於「裁軍和談判」方面的努力,有於改善蘇聯跟其他國家之間「兄分情誼」,建立正面形象,所以他是個有能力的蘇聯領袖。 領袖方面,資料C形容戈巴卓夫制定的「改革措施」具有「膽識」,一方面指他不畏挑戰敢於改革,另一方面形容他改革一針見血,有利於蘇聯成為強國。可見,戈巴卓夫不但具有領導風範,而且帶領蘇聯人民踏上富強道路,當然是個有能力的蘇聯領袖。 監察方面,戈巴卓夫改善國民生活狀況。參考資料D,作者指戈巴卓夫「移除了」蘇聯的「壓迫機器」,往後蘇聯不再以壓迫手段對待異見份子,確保國民享有言論自由表達意見,民權備被重視。因此,戈巴卓夫是個有能力的領袖。 軍事方面,戈巴卓夫促進蘇聯跟他國關係。就我所知,戈巴卓夫積極與西方國家進行談判,包括簽訂《中程導彈裁撤條約》(1987)和《歐洲常規軍隊裁減條約》(1990),不但減省蘇聯軍事開支,而且有利於她跟他國建立緊密關係。故此,他是個有能力的領袖。 然而,大程度上戈巴卓夫並非有能力的蘇聯領袖。 政治方面,戈巴卓夫讓蘇聯陷入衰退。參考資料C,作者指戈巴卓夫執政期間蘇聯面對「動搖國基的巨大經濟、社會和政治問題」,意味著他管治不當置蘇聯於水深火熱間,危機出現為國民帶來負面影響,所以他不是個有能力的領袖。 外交方面,戈巴卓夫統治導致蘇聯解體。參考資料D,戈巴卓夫開明的管治方針導致蘇聯「既有離心趨勢」出現,國民對他失去信心,衛星國要求獨立。這正反映戈氏執政下蘇聯帝國面臨崩解,出現政治危機。因此,他不會是個有能力的領袖。 經濟方面,戈巴卓夫導致蘇聯經濟衰退。就我所知,戈氏的改革措施未能解決蘇聯經濟問題,更甚於惡化原有情況,如國民收入於1991年下跌15%,國民生活慘淡,經濟發展停滯不前。確實,按當前的經濟環境而言,他不會是個有能力的領袖。 政制方面,戈巴卓夫結束蘇聯共產政制。就我所知,戈巴卓夫1990年修改憲法結束共產黨一黨專政,實行多制黨和代議政治一方面埋下蘇聯解體伏線。另一方面,改革促成八一九事變(1991)出現,權力鬥爭造成政局動盪,國民生活苦不堪言。故此,他不會是個有能力的領袖。 總括而言,戈巴卓夫作為蘇聯領袖作出多方面改革提升國力,涵蓋政制、經濟、外交、軍事等方面,是個有活力且有膽識的領袖。然而,他制定政策缺乏前瞻性,漠視蘇聯實況。結果,現況跟不上預期,蘇聯更於1991年解體。所以,題目所言小程度成立。


參考答案(英文版)

(a) What was the view of the Nobel Committee on the situation of the USSR at the time? Support your answer with one clue from Source C. (2 marks)


Candidates’ Performance

Performance was below expectations. The question required candidates to identify the view of the Nobel Committee on the situation of the USSR in 1990. Only a minority of candidates were able to describe the situation of the USSR, based on clues from the Source. Some weak candidates misunderstood the gist of the question and discussed the positive attitude of the Nobel Committee towards the USSR, hence losing marks.

Marking Schemes

* One mark for valid view and one mark for a valid clue


Examples: e.g.

- The situation of the USSR was critical (‘huge economic, social and political problems which shake the country’) - The USSR was under the leadership of an able leader, who was overcoming difficulties of various kinds (‘the boldness shown by Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform initiatives’)

Suggested Answer

The Nobel Committee viewed that the USSR was facing economic, social and political problems – in a chaotic and unstable situation. From Source C, “the Nobel Committee” and “the entire world” were watching the Soviet Union’s “dramatic and heroic struggle”. The USSR was facing “huge economic, social and political problems”, which could make the USSR a loose federation. It reflected that the situation of USSR was chaotic and unstable.

(b) Infer from Source D the nature of Gorbachev’s governance. Explain your answer with reference to Source D. (3 marks)


Candidates’ Performance

Performance was fair. The question word ‘nature’ seemed to be difficult for many candidates. Only a minority of candidates were able to identify the nature of Gorbachev’s governance, with an effective explanation. Some weak answers mistook policy initiatives for nature; some merely quoted from the Source without further elaboration; some wrote that the nature of Gorbachev’s governance was to dissolve the USSR, so scored no marks.

Marking Schemes

* One mark for valid nature and two marks for valid explanation


Nature: e.g.

- Reforming progressive (‘Mikhail Gorbachev’s unintended success in removing the administrative and repressive machine on which the Soviet state depended’ and ‘the army or the KGB would not be deployed without mercy to punish the regime’s opposition’ reflect that Gorbachev was serious in promoting reform, and did not adopt cruel measures against the progressives in the country.)

Suggested Answer

The nature of Gorbachev’s governance was loosened control. From Source D, Gorbachev “removed the administrative and repressive machine” and changed the traditional oppressive measures. Repressive ruling was abandoned. Once Communist Party “lost its grip”, more powers were given to its people. The nature of loosened control was reflected. From Source D, Gorbachev reformed “the army” and “the KGB (the intelligent agency of the USSR)”. They “would not be deployed without mercy” to punish the opposing factions. Without the crackdown on dissidents, people were granted with the freedom of speech. The nature of loosened control was reflected.

(c) Do you agree that Gorbachev was an able leader of the USSR? Explain your answer with reference to Sources C and D and using your own knowledge. (7 marks)


Candidates’ Performance

Performance was satisfactory. The quest required candidates to evaluate whether Gorbachev was an able leader of the USSR. Here, ‘able’ should be understood in the context of ‘leader of the USSR’, who would work for the interest of this superpower. Some able candidates were able to make good use of the Sources and relevant historical facts to discuss how Gorbachev’s policy initiatives affected the development of the USSR. Some candidates agreed that Gorbachev was an able leader, but wrongly emphasized that his policies led to the dissolution of the USSR, thus missing the fact that these approach actually implied Gorbachev’s inability to save the USSR, hence contradicting their viewpoint. Some weak candidates misinterpreted the Sources. For example, Source C, which mentioned some difficulties faced by the USSR, was said to be blaming Gorbachev for causing such difficulties.


Marking Schemes

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. 7]


An able leader: e.g.

- He no longer used the KGB against the people (Source D) - He promoted ‘glasnost’ (openness) and ‘perestroika’ (reform), and gave more freedom to the people. (own knowledge) - He promoted ‘fraternity between nations’. (Source C) - He redefined the relationship with the capitalist countries, such as conducting mutual visits of the US and USSR leaders. (own knowledge) Not an able leader: e.g.

- The USSR’s ‘naturally decentralizing tendencies of a huge land empire came to the surface.’ (Source D) - Gorbachev was overthrown by Yeltsin, and this marked the dissolution of the USSR. (own knowledge)

Suggested Answer

To a small extent, Gorbachev was an able leader of the USSR. In terms of diplomacy, Gorbachev enhanced the international status of the USSR. From Source C, “the Peace Prize”, which represented “replacement of conflict with international cooperation”, was given to Gorbachev. This ensured his efforts on promoting “disarmament and negotiation”. Gorbachev improved ‘fraternity between nations’ and built the USSR a positive image. Therefore, he was an able leader of the USSR. In terms of leadership, from source C, Gorbachev’s “reform initiatives” were “bold”. He showed no fear to launch reform, which was trenchant to solve the problems and favorable for the USSR to grow strong. Therefore, not only did he posses leadership, but also paved the USSR on the road of prosperity. Gorbachev was an able leader of the USSR. In terms of social, Gorbachev improved the livelihoods of its people. From Source D, he “removed the administrative and repressive machine”. Without the crackdown on dissidents, people were granted with the freedom of speech. Gorbachev emphasized the importance of civil rights, showing that he was an able leader. In terms of military, Gorbachev improved relationships of the USSR with other countries. From my own knowledge, Gorbachev actively negotiated with the West. He signed Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty (1987) and Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (1990). Not only did he reduce military expenses of the USSR, but also improved its relationships with other countries. Gorbachev was an able leader of the USSR. That said, to a large extent, Gorbachev was not an able leader. In terms of politics, Gorbachev made the USSR slide into recession. From Source C, under the governance of Gorbachev, the USSR faced “huge economic, social and political problems which shake the country”. It implied that he had ineffective governing which placed the USSR under chaos. Crisis brought negative impacts to the people. He was not an able leader. In terms of diplomacy, Gorbachev led to the dissolution of the USSR. From Source D, the openness of Gorbachev led to “decentralizing tendencies” faced by the USSR. Citizens lost confidence in Gorbachev and the Soviet Satellites requested for independence one after one. It implied that the USSR turned into a loose federation and faced political crisis under the governance of Gorbachev. Therefore, he was not an able leader. In terms of economy, Gorbachev brought economic recession to the USSR. From my own knowledge, Gorbachev’s reform could not solve the economic problems of the USSR. The situation had even worsened. For instance, the GNP dropped 15% in 1991. There was economic stagnant and people had poor quality of life. Therefore, he was not an able leader. In terms of institution, Gorbachev ended the communist regime. From my own knowledge, Gorbachev changed the constitution in 1990 and ended one-party dictatorship of the communist party. Launching multi-party and representative democracy paved the way to dissolution. In 1991, August Coup happened. The division within CPSU caused political instability and worsened people’s quality of life. He was not an able leader. To conclude, Gorbachev made every endeavor to boost national strength in political, economic, diplomatic and military aspect. He was a bold and energetic leader. Still, he lacked proactive thinking in formulating policies. The results could not meet up with the expectations. It led to the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. Thus, to a small extent, the claim is valid.