【2018】一戰丨童軍



題目拆解



參考答案(中文版)

(a) 從資料E歸納當時童軍的性質。試參考資料E,解釋你的答案。(4分)



考生表現

表現良好。題目要求考生從資料E歸納1908年童年的性質。大部分考生能夠歸納出童軍的性質,並作出恰當的解釋。

評分準則

L1 答案含混,未能有效運用資料作答。 [最多2分]

L2 答案清晰,能參考資料作有效解釋。 [最多4分]

性質:

例:

- 愛國

解釋:

例:

- 所有童軍應該以國為先,己為後,讓國旗飄揚不落,即使要為之灑血亦在所不措。

參考答案

童軍的性質是愛國的。

童軍具宣揚愛國心之職責。參考資料E,手冊指出童軍理念是回應當時社會「愛國思想已蕩然無存」的背景。這表示1908年英國人對祖國不甚存乎,情形如同「羅馬公民般自私、懶惰、只圖享樂」,故羅伯特・貝登堡鼓勵少年參加童軍以提高身份認同,性質是愛國的。

手冊強調國家與個人關係。參考資料E,羅伯特.貝登堡指童軍應「視自己國家的福祉為首要之事」,即以國家為中心,提倡愛國主義。因此行才可令英國霸權「安然延續下去」,維持歐洲領主地位。否則「將危在旦夕」,對安全構成威脅。從此可見,童軍存保家護國之任務,需要捍衛國家尊嚴,故其性質是愛國的。

童軍考慮國家優先於自己。參考資料E,手冊裡指童軍座右銘是「國為先,己為後」,意思是做任何事前先顧慮國家再想到自己。為免「日益強大」的外敵侵佔英國,作為童軍一員應存為國犧牲的想法,其強調國家重要之主張顯示性質是愛國的。

童軍有責任維持國家強盛。參考資料E,羅伯特・貝登堡認為童軍要「讓國旗飄揚不落」,國旗代表著一個國家的尊嚴和驕傲。童軍為保持大英霸權,就算「為此而灑血」也當此行,反映其存濃厚的愛國心,所以性質是愛國的。

(b) 從資料F指出在辯論三國協約的必要性時,正反雙方的共同關注點。試參考資料F,解釋你的答案。(3分)



考生表現

表現令人滿意。題目要求考生從資料F指出在辯論三國協約的必要性時,正反雙方的共同關注點。不少考生能夠按題目要求運用資料作答。表現稍遜的答卷僅胡亂引述資料,而未能推斷出共同關注點,或曲解了正方的立場。

評分準則

* 共同關注點1分,有效解釋2分

共同關注點:

例:

- 德國問題

解釋:

例:

- 他們關注三國協約會否刺激德國(正方)及能夠制約德國的擴張(反方)。

參考答案

辯論的共同關注點是對德國的影響。

正方憂慮三國協約觸動德國神經。參考資料F,反對締結三國協約的觀點稱「其會失去了與德國和解的可能」,擔心加入協約國會與德國交惡。甚至指三國協約具同盟功效的話,「則是為了刺激德國而精心策劃的一項挑戰」,針對德意志擴張而來。可見,正方關注三國協約對德國的影響。

反方稱三國協約能抗衡德國。參考資料F,贊成組織三國協約的觀點稱「擴張是德國必然採取的政策」,泛日耳曼主義主張德意志擴張,對歐洲列國構成威脅。為消除憂慮以「應付這個以及其他危險」,辯論員指「三國協約是必須的」,有助抵禦德國避免戰爭。可見,反方關注三國協約對德國的成效。

(c) 「遍及歐洲各地的民族主義,並非必然導致大戰的爆發。」你是否同意此說?試參考資料E及F,並就你對直至1914年歐洲歷史發展所知,解釋你的答案。(8分)



考生表現

表現尚可。題目要求考生討論遍及歐洲各地的民族主義是否必然導致大戰的爆發。只有表現最佳的考生能夠有效運用兩項資料和個人所知作出合理的討論。很多表現稍遜的答卷出現以下一種或以上的毛病:胡亂引錄資料,惟未能回應題旨;鋪陳有關結盟制度的史實,惟不知道資料F已提及結盟制度;陳述與題旨無關的史實,例如第二次世界大戰的起因;引用錯誤的史例(例如使用巴爾幹危機和塞拉耶佛暗殺事件作為爭奪殖民地的例子)。部分認為民族主義並非必然導致大戰爆發的考生,將「國家利益」作為一個重要因素獨立處理,惟不知道「國家利益」和「民族主義」實際上關係密切。

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,僅能有效運用資料個人所知。 [最多4分]

L3 答案合理且均衡,僅有效運用資料個人所知。 [最多8分]



並非必然:

例:

- 羅借特・具登堡等愛國者熱衷於宣揚愛國主義,然而大學生對政治問題不一定變得盲動魯莽。(資料E及F)

- 歐洲列強在塞拉耶佛刺殺事件後普竭力進行磋商。 (個人所知)

必然:

例:

- 使用武力保家衛國甚至犧牲性命是相宜的做法。(資料E)

- 部分人認為「擴張是德國必然採取的政策」。歐洲將無可避免因為德國的野心而被捲入戰團。(資料F)

- 民族主義在巴爾幹半島導致危機,繼而促成了第一次世界大戰的爆發。(個人所知)

參考答案

題目所言並不成立,民族主義必然導致第一次世界大戰。

第一,愛國主張導致第一次世界大戰。參考資料E,童軍手冊主張年輕人應「國為先、己為後」,事事先考慮對國家影響,要「視自己國家的福祉為首要之事」,比個人安危還要緊。於此情況底下,極端的愛國思想令英國人不惜一切追求光榮,最終導致第一次世界大戰爆發。

第二,犧牲精神導致第一次世界大戰。參考資料E,羅伯特・貝登堡形容1908年英國「將危在旦夕」,周圍敵人「日益強大」,藉此警惕國民切勿鬆懈。面對這環境,他更主張童軍要「讓國旗飄揚不落」,竭盡所能維持大英霸權,就算「要為此而灑血」也應當此行。可見,熾熱的民族主義導致第一次世界大戰。

第二,日耳曼主義導致第一次世界大戰。參考資料F,爭論要否成立三國協約之時,支持那方認為「擴張是德國必然採取的政策」,表示德意志民族(日耳曼)好勇鬥狠,為爭取歐洲霸主地位鐵定會觸發衝突。可見,隨德國向世界擴張,第一次世界大戰將無可避免地發生。

第三,復仇主義導致第一次世界大戰。就我所知,普法戰爭(1870)後法國被迫簽訂《法蘭克福條約》,條款苛刻(例如50億法郎)令法人感到萬分不滿,希望找個機會向德報復。於是乎,塞拉耶佛危機(1914)後法國支持俄國,令衝突擴大化。可見,復仇主義導致第一次世界大戰。

第四,斯拉夫主義導致第一次世界大戰。就我所知,俄國和塞爾維亞希望成為巴爾幹半島領主。為此,於戰前已與日耳曼民族的奧匈和德國觸發衝突(例如1908年的波斯尼亞危機),隨雙方關係再一步惡化,至塞拉耶佛危機(1914)時其更希望藉戰爭摧毀德奧勢力。結果,第一次世界大戰因斯拉夫主義而爆發。

然而,撇開民族主義之外,同盟制度、軍備競賽亦導致第一次世界大戰,但重要性有限。

第一,同盟制度導致第一次世界大戰。參考資料F,反對成立三國協約的觀點表示其「秘密性大有問題」,就連締約國也「不知道它究竟是什麼」,無所適從。即是說其將會加深列強彼此猜忌,亦未必有助簽署國保障安全。最終,第一次世界大戰就在此不明不白下所觸發。

然而,民族主義比同盟制度重要。於因果關係而言,同盟制度的出現是民族主義而來。由於德皇深怕法國報復(復仇主義),因而接納俾斯麥建議與意大利、奧匈組成三國同盟(1882),這顯示同盟制度從屬於民族主義。更甚,同盟制度造成勢力均衡,例如波斯尼亞危機(1908)時俄國因德國支持奧匈而選擇退讓。因此,民族主義較重要。

第二,軍備競賽導致第一次世界大戰。就我所知,列強積極擴展軍備。例如海軍方面,英國推出「二比一無畏艦政策」回應德國挑戰,至1910年時英德分別建造了10艘和5艘無畏艦。這表示競爭令列強武裝起來,當衝突爆發時她們易於以武解決而非採取和平手段。確實,第一次世界大戰亦在濃厚的火藥味下爆發。

然而,民族主義比軍備競賽重要。於因果關係而言,由於擁有強大的軍事實力可以使他們就範,因此列強努力擴展軍備。更甚,軍備競賽並不含軍備競賽,本無侵略性,只是數量和質量上競爭。即是說,沒有外來因素介入下,單純的軍事擴張不會引發任何衝突。因此,軍備競爭不及民族主義重要。



總括而言,題目所言並不成立。

參考答案(英文版)

(a) What can you conclude from Source E about the nature of scouting at the time? Explain your answer with reference to Source E. (4 marks)



Candidates’ Performance

Performance was good. This question required candidates to conclude from Source E about the nature of scouting in 1908. Most candidates were able to draw conclusions about the nature of scouting, with a relevant explanation.

Marking Scheme

L1 Vague explanation and ineffective use of the Source. [max. 2]

L2 Clear answer with effective explanation with reference to the Source. [max. 4]



Nature:

e.g.

- Patriotic

Explanation:

e.g.

- All scouts should put their country first and self second, and keep their national flag flying, even if they have to bleed for it.

Suggested Answer

The nature of scouting at that time was patriotic.

Frist, scout upheld the duty of spreading nationalism. From Source E, the scout handbook asked people to “keep the well-being of your country in your eyes above everything else” in order to prevent British Empire from falling “to pieces like the great Roman Empire did”, reflecting scout promoted to people that country should always be the first priority in people’s heart. This shows that scouting promotes patriotism among citizens.

Second, the handbook emphasized the relation between the country and individuals. From Source E, the handbook stated “...if you boys will keep the well-being of your country in your eyes above everything else”, emphasized to consider the country first. As this could ensure the British Empire would “go on all right”, otherwise, national security would be threatened. Hence, protecting the country was the major responsibility of scouts, showing that the nature of scouting was patriotism.

Lastly, scout consider the country before themselves. From Source E, the motto “Country first, self-second” encouraged the citizens to “keep our national flag flying, even if you have to bleed for it”. This showed scouting would do everything and even sacrifice themselves in order to preserve national interests. Hence, the nature was patriotism.

(b) Identify from Source F the common concern of both sides when debating about the necessity of the Triple Entente. Explain your answer with reference to Source F. (3 marks)



Candidates’ Performance

Performance was satisfactory. This question required candidates to identify from Source F the common concern of both sides when debating the necessity of the Triple Entente. Many candidates made use of the Source to answer the question as required. The weak answers either merely copied indiscriminately from the Source without inferring any common concern, or distorted the arguments of the affirmative side.

Marking Scheme

* One mark for common concern and two marks for valid explanation



Common concern:

e.g.

- Issue of Germany

Explanation:

e.g.

- It was concerned whether it would provoke Germany (for) and whether it could check Germany’s expansion (against).

Suggested Answer

The common concern of both sides was the influence to Germany.

The “for” side worries the Triple Entente would trigger Germany.

From Source F, the “for” side thought the establishment of the Triple Entente would make “a reconciliation with Germany impossible”, reflecting it concerned the reaction of Germany against the treaty, which might be triggering her aggression.

The “against” side believe the Triple Entente could content against Germany.

From Source F, the “against” side argued that the “one necessary policy” for Germany was “expansion”, so Triple Entente was “essential” to prevent this “danger” from happening. This showed the “against” side also concerned the act of Germany, which was the same as the “for” side. Hence, it believed the establishment of the Triple Entente was necessary.

(c) ‘Widespread nationalism across Europe did not necessarily lead to outbreak of a general war.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to Sources E and F and using you own knowledge concerning the historical development of Europe up to 1914. (8 marks)



Candidates’ Performance

Performance was fair. This question required candidates to discuss whether widespread nationalism across Europe necessarily led to the outbreak of a general war. Only the best candidates were able to engage in a logical discussion and use both Sources and their own knowledge effectively. The weak answers displayed one or more of the following flaws: copying indiscriminately from the Sources without addressing the gist of the question; describing the Alliance System without showing awareness that it had been mentioned in Source F; producing irrelevancies such as cause of the Second World War; using wrong examples for illustration (such as mistaking the Balkan Crises and Sarajevo Assassination as examples of colonial rivalries). Some candidates, while uphold the view that nationalism did not necessarily lead to the outbreak of a general war, chose to discuss ‘national interest’ as an essential and totally independent factor, not being aware that ‘national interest’ and ‘nationalism’ are interrelated.

Marking Scheme

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 Source and own knowledge. [max. 8]



Not necessarily:

e.g.

- Whereas patriotism was fervently promoted by patriots like Robert Baden-Powell, university students did not necessarily become hot-headed towards political issues. (Sources E and F)

- European powers made efforts to negotiate after the Sarajevo Assassination. (own knowledge)

Necessarily:

e.g.

- Use of force as a means to protect one’s country was deemed desirable, even at the cost of risking one’s life. (Source E)

- It was regarded at least by some that Germany’s ‘necessary policy was expansion’. Europe would be inevitably dragged into war due to German ambitions. (Source F)

- Nationalism led to crises in the Balkans, which contributed to the outbreak of the First World War. (own knowledge)

Suggested Answer

I don’t agree. Widespread nationalism did necessarily lead to the outbreak of world war one.

First, patriotism leads to world war one. According to source E, it encouraged teenagers ‘Country first, self-second’ and “your country in your eyes above everything else”. Under such circumstances, extreme patriotism leads British to do everything, including war and sacrificing themselves, in exchange for national glory. Hence, it led to WW1.

Second, sacrificial thought lead to WW1. According to source E, it was mention that “there is very great danger, because we have many enemies abroad, and they are growing daily stronger and stronger.”. Under such circumstances, it reminded the scouts “Remember it is going to be the business of every one of you to keep our national flag flying, even if you have to bleed for it”. This shows that British are influenced by strong nationalism that encouraged them to sacrifice themselves for the country and hence going war becomes very likely for them. As a result, nationalism leads to WW1.

Thirdly, revengeful idea led to WW1. According to my own knowledge, France was forced pay CHF 50 million and ceded Alsace Lorraine to Germany after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. These led to large scale discontent in France and rooted their revengeful idea. Therefore, France mobilized and supported Russian against Germany after the Sarajevo Incident in 1914. This led to the escalation of regional conflicts and directly led to WW1.

Forth, Slavicism leads to Ww1. According to my own knowledge, Russia and Austria both wanted to control the Balkans. Nationalism between these two states led to the Bosnian crisis in 1908, worsening Austro-Serbian relation. Which finally led to the Sarajevo Incident in 1914, directly broke out WW1.

However, apart from nationalism, alliance system and armament race both led to WW1, yet they have limited importance.

First, alliance system led to WW1. According to source F, the “against” side pointed out that “The secrecy of the Entente was problematic. No one knew exactly what it was” This shows that forming alliance intensified secrecy and caused suspicious between countries. Hence world war broke out between misunderstandings and secrets.

However, nationalism was more important than alliance system in causing WW1. According to my own knowledge, in terms of casual relationship, alliance system was a result of nationalism. The French nationalism of revenge against Germany drove Germany into alliance with Italy and Austria under the suggestion of Bismark. What is more, alliance system was less important in causing WW1 because it made powers back down. For example in the Bosnian Crisis(1908), Russian backed down as Germany supported Austria, preventing a war breaking out between Russia and Serbia. Hence, nationalism was more important.

Second, armament race leads to WW1. According to my own knowledge, powers actively build their armaments. For example, Britain initiated naval race against Germany in competing to build more dreadnoughts, till 1910 Britain and Germany had built 10 and 5 dreadnoughts respectively. This shows that powers had prepared themselves with strong and lethal weapons, in case of conflicts, they prefer going war to solve but not by peaceful means. Hence this favoured the broke out of WW1.

However, Nationalism was more important than armament race in casing WW1. In terms of casual relationship, powers built armaments to gain national glory under extreme nationalism. More importantly, armaments race was only a competition of the numbers to weapons but not competing in a real armed conflicts, therefore, without surrounding factors, armament race wont initiate any conflicts, it was nationalism that leads to conflicts. Hence armament race was less important than nationalism.


In conclusion, I disagree nationalism was not necessarily in causing World War 1.