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]
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，僅有效運用資料及個人所知。 [最多8分]
- 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）
(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)
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.
L1 Vague explanation and ineffective use of the Source. [max. 2]
L2 Clear answer with effective explanation with reference to the Source. [max. 4]
- All scouts should put their country first and self second, and keep their national flag flying, even if they have to bleed for it.
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)
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.
* One mark for common concern and two marks for valid explanation
- Issue of Germany
- It was concerned whether it would provoke Germany (for) and whether it could check Germany’s expansion (against).
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)
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.
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]
- 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)
- 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)
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.