注意：此題目原是DSE歷屆試題，但為免侵犯版權，題目經過修改，同學可以按試題之年份及題號自行查閱原題目。以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
「同盟制度是導致第一次世界大戰爆發的最重要因素。」評論此說能否成立。
定義 同盟制度指國家與國家之間組成同盟，用於防衛或捍衛己國的利益。 // 架構在一次大戰爆發一事上，同盟制度的重要性不宜高估，因同盟制度本質是防守性的，而且盟約缺乏效力，其重要性較民族主義、軍備競賽、殖民地爭奪等因素次要。 // 立場因此，題目所言不能成立。
主旨句 儘管同盟制度對於導致一次大戰爆發也不無重要性。 // 主項重要性由於盟約多屬於秘密性質，因此使各國互相猜忌，甚至因而導致危機的出現，如德國為測試英、法摯誠協定的堅韌度，挑起了1905年的摩洛哥危機，終使危機出現。而且，同盟制度使歐洲分裂成三國同盟及三國協約兩大陣營，導致日後地區性的衝突擴大至兩大陣營間的衝突，如1914年塞拉耶佛危機原本只屬於奧、塞的衝突，因同盟制度而使德國、法國及英國捲入，其中德國更開出「空白支票」予奧匈，增加奧匈開戰的信心，同時，地區性衝突也因同盟制度而演變為世界性的戰爭。 // 小結可見，同盟制度是衝突及戰爭出現的其中原因。
然而，同盟制度對於一次大戰爆發存有頗大的局限，故並非導致戰爭爆發的要因。
主旨句 其一，同盟制度是防守性的，並非是為攻擊別國而成立，故對於一次大戰爆發的重要性有限。 // 主項局限就目的而言，同盟制度乃因德國首相俾斯麥為防止法國的報復而開創，目的在於防止戰爭爆發。另外，20世紀初成立的三國協約(1907年)目的也在於抗衡三國同盟的勢力，避免英、法、俄三國受到三國同盟的攻擊，故此是防守性的。就條約內容而言，同盟條約規定只有在戰爭爆發時才需要協助盟友或採取善意性的中立，盟約本身並無任何侵略或援助侵略的條文，如三國同盟及英日同盟等。因此，若然無戰爭作為觸發點，同盟體系根本不能夠發揮作用。 // 小結可見，同盟制度的目的及條約內容均是防守性的，並不會主動導致一次大戰的爆發。
其二，同盟制度缺乏效力，故並不是導致一次大戰爆發的要因。同盟制度的效力有限，盟約的簽署國不一定根據同盟而決定自己的行動，例如意大利早於1900年已與其盟友德國的敵人法國簽訂了《法意諒解》，平息了雙方的殖民地糾紛。其後，於1914年第一次世界大戰爆發後，意大利非但沒有為德、匈提供軍事援助，更於1915年轉投協約國陣營，向德、奧宣戰，反映盟約的效力有限。此外，三國協約方面亦然，英、法在危機中也不一定會支持俄國，例如在1908年波斯尼亞危機中，英、法恐懼俄國在巴爾幹地區的勢力擴大而未有對俄國提供援助，使俄國於危機中失勢，此也顯示了各國不一定會以同盟的關係及利益作為首要考慮。可見，同盟制度的效力有限，並非導致大戰爆發的主因。
從上可見，同盟制度並非是導致一次大戰爆發的最重要因素，相反，其他因素較其重要。
主旨句 民族主義在導致一次大戰爆發一事上，較同盟制度重要。 // 他項重要性各民族為爭取民族光榮及更多的利益，積極進行擴張，最終導致戰爭的出現，因於塞拉耶佛危機(1914年)中，泛日耳曼主義的德國不惜開出「空白支票」支持其民族戰友奧匈，同時，作為「斯拉夫民族的兄長」的俄國也總動員以支持同族的塞，最終，兩大民族基於民族光榮及利益而拒於讓步，結果使塞拉耶佛危機演變成一場大戰。 // 駁論事實上，民族主義較同盟制度重要，因同盟制度本身是防守性的，但民族主義則將同盟制度由防守性轉變為攻擊性，例如在塞拉耶佛危機中，德國開出「空白支票」予奧匈，使同盟之性質變得更具軍事性，奧匈的開戰信心也大增，終使戰爭爆發。此外，部分國家介入戰爭並非基於同盟制度，例如俄、塞兩國並非是同盟，俄國支持塞爾維亞是基於塞爾維亞是斯拉夫民族的南支。 // 小結可見，在導致一次大戰爆發一事上，民族主義實較同盟制度重要。
軍備競賽對於一次大戰爆發的重要性也大於同盟制度。軍備競賽後，各國軍事實力加強，並且為開戰作好準備。因各國制定了作戰計劃，如德之施里芬計劃、法之第十七號計劃及俄之第十九號計劃，令歐洲戰雲密佈，各國對己國的作戰計劃充滿自信，因而於衝突時以戰爭為優先考慮，如德國於1914年塞拉耶佛危機局勢未穩定前已採取施里芬計劃，使戰爭成為定局。事實上，軍備競賽在一次大戰爆發一事上的重要性大於同盟制度。因軍備競賽促使了同盟的出現，如德國於19世紀末開始積極擴張海軍，使英國深感海軍強國的地位受到挑戰，繼而與日本結盟，以抗衡德國。此外，軍備競賽強化了同盟間的關係，例如俄、法在軍事上為抗衡德國，共同制訂了第十七號及第十九號計劃，使同盟關係更加鞏固，同時也使兩大陣營的關係變得更加對立。可見，軍備競賽在一次大戰爆發一事上較同盟制度重要。
殖民地爭奪也是一次大戰爆發的要因，重要性大於同盟制度。列強為了爭奪殖民利益而導致多次衝突的出現，惡化了20世紀初的國際局勢，例如德國和法國為爭奪北非的摩洛哥而導致了兩次摩洛哥危機(1905年；1911年)的出現，於第二次摩洛哥危機中，德國更派出黑豹號到摩洛哥，使局勢更趨惡化，成為大戰爆發的遠因。事實上，殖民地爭奪在導致一次大戰爆發的重要性大於同盟制度。首先，殖民地衝突引致同盟體系的形成，如德國的「世界政策」使英國深感恐懼，與法、俄締結成三國協約，以抗衡德國的擴張。此外，殖民地衝突觸發同盟的援助，如兩次摩洛哥危機中，法國要求同盟英、俄之援助及德國要求奧匈之援助，均使同盟制度生效，導致衝突擴大化。可見，同盟制度在導致一次大戰爆發一事上的重要性不及殖民地爭奪。
總括而言，同盟制度雖然對於大戰爆發不無重要性，然而卻存有頗大的局限，重要性不及民族主義、軍備競賽、殖民地爭奪。因此，同盟制度並非導致一次大戰爆發的最重要因素。
‘The alliance system was the most important factor in causing the First World War.’ Comment on the validity of this statement.
Alliance system is that countries forming alliances among themselves for defense and protecting their own interests. Regarding WW1, the importance of alliance system should not be overestimated since it was defensive in nature and not binding. Alliance system was less important than nationalism, armaments race and colonial rivalries in breaking out WW1. Thus, this statement is invalid.
Alliance system had significance in breaking out WW1. Alliances were usually secret in nature, thus aroused suspicions and even led to crisis; for example, Germany caused the Moroccan Crisis摩洛哥危機(1905) to test the solidness of Anglo-French Entente, which intensified the international situation. Besides, alliance system divided Europe into two military camps － Triple Alliance and Triple Entente. Local conflicts would therefore spread and evolved into conflicts between the two camps. For example, the 1914 Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機 was simply a conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but owing to the alliance system, Germany, France and Britain were embroiled. Germany even issued the “blank cheque” 空白支票to Austria-Hungary, which made her more determined to declare war. Eventually, the local conflict turned into a world war because of alliance system. It showed that alliance system led to conflicts and wars.
However, alliance system was not a major factor in breaking out WW1 since it had limitations.
Firstly, alliance system was defensive in nature and its establishment did not aim at attacking other countries, therefore it had limitation in breaking out WW1. In terms of objective, alliance system was initiated by German Prime Minister Bismarck俾斯麥 to avoid the revenge of France, with the aim to prevent war. Also, the Triple Entente三國協約 founded in the early 20th century aimed at counteracting the Triple Alliance三國同盟 and protecting Britain, France and Russia from the attack of the Triple Alliance. Hence, it was defensive in nature. In terms of treaty terms, signatories had to help their allies or adopt benevolent neutrality only when war broke out. There were no articles about invasion or assisting invasion in covenants of alliances, such as the Triple Alliance三國同盟 and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance英日同盟. Therefore, without war as the trigger, alliance system could not come into effect. It showed that the objective and treaty terms of alliance system were defensive in nature and would not take the initiative to break out WW1.
Secondly, alliance system was not a major factor in breaking out WW1 since it was not binding. Alliance system had limited effectiveness. Signatories might not abide by the alliance. For example, Italy signed the Franco-Italian Entente《法意諒解》(1900) with France, which was the enemy of its ally Germany, in order to settle their colonial disputes. Later, Italy did not provide any military assistance to Germany and Austria-Hungary when WW1 (1914) broke out, and even turned to the Allies and declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. It showed that the effectiveness of covenant was limited. Besides, regarding the Triple Entente, Britain and France might not support Russia as well. For example, Britain and France feared that Russia expanded its influence in the Balkans so they did not provide assistance to her in the Bosnian Crisis波斯尼亞危機(1908), thus Russia losing its influence. It showed that countries would not necessarily regard the alliance relationships and interests as their primary consideration. Thus, alliance system was not a major factor in breaking out WW1 since it was not binding.
As discussed above, alliance system was not a major factor in breaking out WW1. Other factors were more important than that.
Nationalism was more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1. Every race actively expanded their territories so as to gain more national glories and interests, thus leading to war. In the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機(1914), Pan-Germanic Germany issued the “blank cheque” 空白支票 to its ally Austria-Hungary that was fighting for the same race. Meanwhile, Russia, which was the big brother of Slavs斯拉夫民族的兄長, announced general mobilization總動員 in support of the same race Serbia. In the end, the two major races refused to give way on account of national glory and interest, thus the Sarajevo Incident becoming a world war. In reality, nationalism was more important than alliance system since alliance system was defensive in nature. However, nationalism turned alliance system from being defensive to aggressive, like Germany issuing the “blank cheque” to Austria-Hungary in the Sarajevo Incident, which changed alliances to more military and made Austria-Hungary more determined to declare war, resulting in the outbreak of war. Furthermore, some countries involving in war were not based on alliance system. For instance, Russia and Serbia were not alliance. Russia supported Serbia because it was the southern subgroup of the Slavs. It showed that nationalism was more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1.
Armaments race was more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1. After armaments race, the military strength of most countries was raised and they were well prepared for war. Besides, each country formulated war plans, namely the German Schlieffen Plan施里芬計劃, the French Plan 17第十七號計劃 and the Russian Plan 19第十九號計劃, Europe was hovering on the brink of war. Each country was confident in its own war plan and first considered war when there were conflicts; for example, Germany had executed the Schlieffen Plan before the situation of Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機 was made clear; war thus became inevitable. In reality, armaments race was more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1. Armaments race contributed to the formation of alliances; for example, because Germany actively expanded its navy in the late 19th century, which challenged the naval supremacy of Britain, Britain formed alliances with Japan so as to confront Germany. Moreover, armaments race consolidated the relationship among allies. For example, Russia and France formulated Plan 17 and Plan 19 with a view to confronting Germany, thus consolidating their relationship and in the meantime intensifying the two camps opposition. It showed that armaments race was more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1.
Colonial rivalries were more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1. European powers scrambled for colonial interests, which led to several conflicts, worsening the international situation in the early 20th century. For example, Germany and France struggled for Morocco in North Africa, thus leading to two Moroccan Crises兩次摩洛哥危機(1905; 1911). Worse still, Germany sent the gunboat Panther黑豹號 to Morocco in the Second Moroccan Crisis, worsening the situation. It became a remote cause of WW1. In reality, colonial rivalries were more important than alliance system in breaking out WW1. To begin with, colonial rivalries contributed to the formation of alliance system. For instance, the “World Policy” 「世界政策」 of Germany feared Britain. Therefore, Britain formed the Triple Entente with France and Russia to suppress the growth of Germany. Besides, colonial rivalries triggered alliance assistance. Take the two Moroccan Crises (1905; 1911) as examples, France requested assistance from its allies Britain and Russia while Germany asked for that of Austria-Hungary, which extended the scope of disputes. It showed that alliance system was less important than colonial rivalries in breaking out WW1.
In conclusion, there was no doubt that alliance system was important in leading to WW1. However, it had structural limitation and therefore it was less important than nationalism, armaments race and colonial rivalries. Thus, alliance system was not a major factor in causing WW1.
Comments