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
_________________________________________________________________________
「民族主義是導致第一次世界大戰爆發的最重要原因。」你是否同意此說？試參考1900-1914年間的史實，解釋你的答案。
架構及立場 民族主義、同盟制度、軍備競賽及殖民地爭奪是導致第一次世界大戰爆發的根本性因素。其中，民族主義是最重要因素，因德國之泛日耳曼主義、俄國之泛斯拉夫主義、法國之復仇主義及巴爾幹小國之民族主義導致衝突四起，最終使大戰變得難以避免。因此，題目所言確能成立。
主旨句 其一，德國之泛日耳曼主義與俄國之泛斯拉夫主義衝突導致一次大戰之爆發。 // 主項的重要性以德國為首的泛日耳曼主義陣營和以俄國為首的泛斯拉夫主義陣營為了擴大民族勢力，積極在巴爾幹地區擴張，結果導致衝突不斷，最終更成為大戰爆發的重要成因。例如在1908年時，德國就支持同屬日耳曼民族的奧匈吞併波、黑兩省，導致了泛斯拉夫主義的俄、塞不滿，引起了「波斯尼亞危機」，惡化了歐洲局勢。及後，兩大民族的鬥爭更令塞拉耶佛危機升級為一場無可避免的戰爭，因德國於危機中開出「空白支票」支持同民族的奧匈；俄國也第一個國家總動員以全力支持同族的塞，雙方更基於民族屈辱而拒不讓步，一次大戰最終也基於泛日耳曼主義與泛斯拉夫主義的對壘而爆發。// 小結可見，泛日及泛斯之衝突實為導致一次大戰爆發之主因。
其二，法國之復仇主義報復德國亦成為大戰爆發之催化劑。基於普法戰爭之敗(1870-71年)，法國被迫簽訂了喪權辱國的《法蘭克福條約》，割讓了阿爾薩斯及洛林予德國，德皇更於法國凡爾賽宮加冕，結果使法國衍生出對德國的強烈復仇主義。縱使20世紀初的多次衝突未有令德、法兩國爆發戰爭，但法國的復仇情緒一直未有平伏。於1914年塞拉耶佛危機發生後，法國人民的開戰呼聲高企，希望報復德國，一雪前恥，而法國總統和總理更出訪俄國，表示支持俄國對抗德國，結果一方面導致了俄國開戰信心大增，同時法國也因此而捲入戰爭，使戰爭擴大化。可見，法國復仇主義一心要報復德國，也使大戰爆發。
其三，巴爾幹小國之民族主義及塞之大塞爾維亞主義亦促成戰爭之爆發。為了擺脫土耳其的控制及壓迫，以及取得更多的土地以強化自己民族的實力，保加利亞、塞爾維亞等巴爾幹國家於1912年組成了巴爾幹聯盟，並向土耳其開戰，結果導致第一次巴爾幹戰爭爆發。事後，保加利亞和塞爾維亞卻因馬其頓的利益問題而再起爭端，使第二次巴爾幹戰爭在兩國民族競爭的情況下爆發。更甚，由於塞爾維亞鼓吹大塞爾維亞主義，希望統一巴爾幹地區的塞爾維亞人，驅走外族統治，結果促使了極端民族主義分子普林西普於1914年以暗殺方式刺殺奧匈皇儲斐迪南，導致塞拉耶佛危機的出現。其後，塞爾維亞也基於民族尊嚴而拒於全盤接受奧匈苛刻的最後通牒，最終使奧塞戰爭變得不可避免，點燃起一戰爆發的火種。可見，巴爾幹之民族主義亦成為一次大戰爆發之要因。
民族主義對大戰爆發的重要性實無庸置疑，其他因素的重要性並不及之。
主旨句 同盟制度雖導致一次大戰，然而其重要性不及民族主義。 // 他項要性 同盟制度造成連鎖效應，使衝突惡化。在塞拉耶佛危機中，德國開「空白支票」支持其盟國奧匈，而法國總統及總理亦訪問俄國以表支持對俄國的支持。結果，塞拉耶佛危機因同盟制度的連鎖反應而造成多國的衝突，最終形成世界大戰。 // 駁論然而，同盟制度的重要性不及民族主義。就比較援助的考量而言，俄國與塞爾維亞並非是同盟，相反，兩國是同屬斯拉夫民族，故民族主義較同盟制度更加重要。而且，就因果關係而言，民族主義導致同盟制度的出現，德國開創同盟制度是因為恐怕法國復仇主義報復，因此拉攏奧、意結成三國同盟，以防範法國的民族報復，最終才使同盟制度出現以致大戰爆發。 // 小結 可見，同盟制度的重要性不及民族主義。
軍備競賽對大戰爆發亦具重要性，但並不及民族主義。軍備競賽大大惡化了國際關係，例如英、德就無畏艦的競賽而使雙方關係緊張，英國更與法國簽訂《英法海軍協定》(1912年)以防範德國的海軍擴張；德、法、俄等國實行徵兵制，擁有大量軍隊，使各國在衝突時容易採取強硬行動，例如俄國在塞拉耶佛危機後進行總動員以支持塞爾維亞，最終使大戰在強硬的軍事態度下爆發。然而，民族主義更為重要。就因果關係而言，民族主義導致了軍備競賽出現。因各國為獲取民族光榮，希望以軍力壓倒他國就範於其民族之下，例如英國以「二比一無畏艦政策」以回應與德國海軍競賽，以維持其海軍霸權的民族優越感，結果導致軍備競賽出現及埋下對戰的伏線。可見，軍備競賽的重要性不及民族主義。
殖民地爭奪對大戰爆發雖有重要性，但不及民族主義重要。列強為爭奪殖民地而導致多次衝突出現，例如德國與法國為爭奪北非的摩洛哥而導致兩次摩洛哥危機(1905年；1911年)的出現，大大惡化了國際局勢，最終成為大戰爆發的遠因。然而，殖民地爭奪的重要性不及民族主義。就發展趨勢而言，殖民地爭奪有緩和趨勢，如法國與英國於1904年達成殖民地諒解；英國與俄國於1907年也達成英俄諒解，而德、法間的摩洛哥危機 (1911)最終也獲得解決，直至塞拉耶佛危機爆發前，殖民地衝突大致平息。相反，民族主義衝突日趨激烈，1908年之波斯尼亞危機使德、奧與俄、塞雙方險生大戰，兩次巴爾幹戰爭使局勢更趨緊張，至塞拉耶佛危機發生，大戰更因民族衝突而變得不可避免。可見，民族主義的重要性大於殖民地爭奪。
總括而言，民族主義之間的衝突使大戰變得難以避免。雖然同盟制度、軍備競賽及殖民地爭奪等因素亦具重要性，但重要性並不及民族主義。
‘Nationalism was the most important reason for the outbreak of the First World War.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to the period 1900-14.
Nationalism, the alliance system, arms race and colonial rivalries were the fundamental causes of the First World War. Among them, nationalism was the most important factor because Pan-Germanism of Germany, Pan-Slavism of Russia, French Revanchism and Balkan nationalism led to widespread conflicts and eventually made the world war inevitable. Therefore, what the question suggests is valid.
First of all, the confrontation between Pan-Germanism泛日耳曼主義 of Germany and Pan-Slavism泛斯拉夫主義 of Russia led to the First World War. The German-led Pan-Germanist camp and Russian-led Pan-Slavic camp went for expansion in the Balkans巴爾幹 for greater strength of their races. This resulted in endless conflicts and even became a major cause of the world war. For instance, in 1908, Germany supported Austria-Hungary, which was also a Germanic nation, to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina. This upset Pan-Slavic Russia and Serbia and caused the Bosnian Crisis波斯尼亞危機, exacerbating the situation in Europe. Afterwards, the strife between the two races made the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機 escalate into a war that could not be prevented. During this incident, Germany offered the ‘blank cheque空白支票’ to Austria-Hungary with strong ethnic ties, while Russia was the first to declare general mobilization總動員 to back Serbia with an ethnically similar population, and both sides refused to budge an inch for fear of bringing humiliation to their races. The First World War finally broke out due to the confrontation between Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. Therefore, the conflict between the two ideologies was a major reason for the First World War.
Secondly, French Revanchism復仇主義 against Germany was also a catalyst for the world war. Defeated in the Franco-Prussian War普法戰爭(1870-71), France was forced to accept the humiliating Treaty of Frankfurt法蘭克福條約, under which Alsace-Lorraine阿爾薩斯及洛林 was ceded to Germany. Also, the German Emperor was even proclaimed in the Versailles Palace凡爾賽宮. These bred strong revanchism against Germany in France. Although their conflicts in the early 20th century did not cause a war, revengeful sentiment among the French was not reduced. After the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機 of 1914, the French fiercely demanded a war on Germany out of a desire for revenge. The President總統 and Chancellor總理 of France even visited Russia to show support for its fight with Germany. This not only gave Russia great confidence of starting a war but also got France involved in it, enlarging the scale of the war. Therefore, French Revanchism with determination to take revenge on Germany also led to the world war.
Thirdly, Balkan nationalism and the Greater Serbia ideology also contributed to the outbreak of the world war. In order to get rid of Turkish control and capture more territory for greater national strength, Balkan states such as Bulgaria and Serbia formed the Balkan League巴爾幹聯盟 in 1912 and declared war on Turkey, leading to the First Balkan War第一次巴爾幹戰爭. After that, Bulgaria and Serbia fought over interests in Macedonia馬其頓 and the Second Balkan War第二次巴爾幹戰爭 broke out under competition between these two races. Moreover, Serbia actively promoted its Greater Serbia ideology大塞爾維亞主義 in the hope of unifying all Serbians in the Balkans and driving away foreign rule. This encouraged extreme nationalist Gavrilo Princip普林西普 to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, leading to the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機. Later, Serbia refused to fully comply with the harsh ultimatum最後通牒 from Austria-Hungary for the sake of national dignity and it was inevitable for them to have a war, which eventually triggered the outbreak of the First World War. Therefore, Balkan nationalism was also an important factor that led to the First World War.
The importance of nationalism in causing the world war was unquestionable and other factors were not as important as that.
The alliance system contributed to WW1 but its importance was less than that of nationalism. The alliance system set off a chain reaction that exacerbated conflicts. During the Sarajevo Incident, Germany offered the ‘blank cheque空白支票’ to its ally Austria-Hungary, and the President總統 and Chancellor總理 of France even visited Russia to show its support. As a result, the incident escalated into a conflict between many countries and even the world war due to the chain reaction driven by the alliance system. However, the alliance system was less important than nationalism. In terms of considerations for assistance援助的考量, Russia was not an ally of Serbia but it still offered help just because both of them had a Slavic-majority population斯拉夫民族. Nationalism was thus more important than the alliance system. Also, in terms of causality因果關係, nationalism led to the advent of the alliance system. Alarmed at French Revanchism復仇主義, Germany formed the Triple Alliance三國同盟 with Austria-Hungary and Italy to protect itself against possible revenges by the French, and this brought the alliance system into existence and caused the world war. Therefore, the alliance system was less important than nationalism.
Arms race was also important in causing the world war but not as much as nationalism. The arms race greatly undermined relationships between different countries. For instance, the naval race between Britain and Germany on dreadnoughts無畏艦 added tension between them, and Britain even signed the Anglo-French Naval Agreement英法海軍協定(1912) with France as a precaution against Germany’s naval expansion. Also, countries such as Germany, France and Russia introduced conscription徵兵制 and had large armies, which allowed them to take a strong stand against opponents in conflicts. For example, Russia announced general mobilization in support of Serbia after the Sarajevo Incident and the world war eventually broke out due to its unyielding attitude. However, nationalism was more important. In terms of causality因果關係, nationalism contributed to the arms race because countries hoped to overpower others with military strength in order to win national glory. For example, Britain responded to the German naval expansion with the 2:1 dreadnought policy二比一無畏艦政策 with a view to maintaining its naval hegemony and sense of superiority. This paved the way for the arms race and wars between them. Therefore, arms race was less important than nationalism.
Colonial rivalries were of certain importance in causing the world war but it was less than that of nationalism. The powers had several conflicts when competing for colonies. For example, the two Moroccan Crises兩次摩洛哥危機(1905 and 1911) were caused by the contest between Germany and France for Morocco in North Africa. Such rivalries significantly aggravated the international situation and served as an underlying cause for the world war. However, colonial rivalries were not as important as nationalism. In terms of historical trend發展趨勢, colonial rivalries showed signs of alleviation as exemplified by the signing of colonial entente between Britain and France in 1904 and the Anglo-Russian Entente英俄協約 in 1907. A solution was also reached for the Moroccan Crisis摩洛哥危機 between Germany and France (1911). Before the Sarajevo Incident, colonial rivalries were mostly settled. On the contrary, conflicts driven by nationalism became increasingly intense. The Bosnian Crisis波斯尼亞危機 of 1908 pushed Germany and Austria-Hungary to the brink of war against Russia and Serbia, the two Balkan Wars兩次巴爾幹戰爭 generated much tension, and the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機 made the world war unavoidable amid racial conflicts. Therefore, nationalism was of greater importance than colonial rivalries.
In conclusion, conflicts between different nationalist ideologies made the world war inevitable, and the alliance system, arms race and colonial rivalries were also important factors but not as much as nationalism.
Comments