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
_________________________________________________________________________
就影響1907-1914年間三國同盟及三國協約的關係而言，討論民族主義及帝國主義兩個因素的相對重要性。
定義 民族主義指一群有共同背景的人居住於同一地域內，希望建立自己的民族國家，但當民族主義發展成偏激時，便會演變成極端民族主義，認為自身民族是最優越的民族，剝奪其他民族的資源以加強自身的國力及勢力。至於帝國主義則是為建立霸權，凌駕於其他國家之上而侵略別國的領土及奴役別國的人民。 // 立場民族主義及帝國主義對於塑造1907-1914年間三國同盟及三國協約的關係而言均極具重要性，但民族主義的重要性較帝國主義為大。 // 架構以下將從衝突、戰爭及緩和方面比較。
主旨句 對於1907-1913年間三國同盟與三國協約之間的衝突而言，民族主義及帝國主義各有重要性。 // 主項A重要性民族主義方面，同盟國及協約國為爭取民族光榮及壯大民族勢力而積極擴張，導致衝突頻生，例如德國為擴大其泛日耳曼主義的勢力，於1908年支持同族的奧匈吞併波黑，導致俄國的不滿，使波斯尼亞危機的出現，使兩大陣營關係交惡。 // 主項B重要性另一方面，帝國主義也導致此時期的衝突，因列強積極擴張以建立其帝國，最終因競爭而導致危機發生，例如1911年德、法因爭奪摩洛哥的利益的導致第二次摩洛哥危機，德、奧一方面與英、法、俄對抗，使兩大陣營對立，關係惡化。
主旨句 對於1907-1913年兩大陣營的衝突而言，民族主義較帝國主義更為重要。 // 駁論在因果關係而言，帝國主義是由民族主義發展至極端時，加上國家經濟實力膨脹所促使，利用強大的國力以剝削其他國家，達致霸權的建立，彰顯自身民族的強大及優越。而且，就影響列強的行動而言，民族主義亦較帝國主義重要，例如1908年的波斯尼亞危機中，德國強硬支持奧匈是基於相近的民族背景，奧匈的母語是德語，而且日耳曼人是佔了最高的比例，故德國希望透過支持奧匈以擴大泛日耳曼人的勢力，相反，德國對於奧匈的支持與帝國主義並無太大關連，因是次危機無助於德國從中取得直接利益。 // 小結可見，民族主義對於兩大陣營的衝突出現而言，重要性大於帝國主義。
對於三國同盟及三國協約導致戰爭的爆發而言，民族主義及帝國主義各具重要性。民族主義對於塞拉耶佛危機(1914)的出現極具重要性，因奧匈基於爭取民族光榮而於巴爾幹擴張，同時，塞爾維亞的極端民族主義不滿奧匈在塞拉耶佛的閱兵以致刺殺奧匈皇儲的事件出現。而且，事件後，德國和俄國也同樣基於民族主義而分別支持同一民族的奧匈及塞爾維亞，最終使危機演變成三國同盟和三國協約的戰爭，嚴重惡化了兩國的關係。此外，法國也基於對德國的復仇主義而支持俄國，希望報復普法戰爭的戰敗之辱，結果使法國也捲入，導致戰爭爆發。帝國主義方面，帝國主義對於危機的出現也具重要性，因奧匈希望在巴爾幹攫取更多的領土，不斷擴張其勢力，最終引致塞爾維亞的不滿，才導致塞拉耶佛危機的出現，繼而使雙方關係惡化。
相較之下，民族主義對於戰爭爆發而致兩大陣營關係惡化的重要性大於帝國主義。首先，探討危機的成因而言，民族主義的重要性較大，因危機是由於塞的極端民族主義分子的刺殺而直接挑起，並非基於國家間因為建立帝國霸權的鬥爭而生。其次，從事件的擴大化而言，在民族主義的影響下，德國開出「空白支票」支持奧匈；俄國第一個國家總動員支持塞；法國也因復仇主義而介入事件。相反，德國與俄國支援奧、塞與其自身的帝國主義並無太大的關連，因事件並非直接關乎兩國的帝國利益，更甚，法國的介入更可能會因為最終戰敗而摧毀其帝國。可見，民族主義對於戰爭爆發的重要性較大，較影響同盟國與協約國的關係。
雖然從衝突及戰爭的爆發可見民族主義對於兩大陣營關係的影響較大，但就兩大陣營的關係緩和而言，帝國主義的重要性則較大。由於帝國主義是主張擴張而攫取經濟利益，建立霸權，故經濟利益是優先考慮。因此，在情況下，各國可能會因為利益而作出退讓，正如1911年摩洛哥危機時，德國在危機中失勢，而法國願意以部分剛果利益換取德國承認法國於摩洛哥的利益，結果使德國在危機中作出退讓，不致於戰爭的爆發，緩和了緊張的國際局勢。在民族主義方面，巴爾幹小國的獨立主義促使了第一次巴爾幹戰爭(1912-13)的爆發，由於同盟國與協約國恐懼戰爭的持續會使巴爾幹局勢變得一發不可收拾，因此英、俄、奧等兩大陣營的國家願意合作，介入調停，召開倫敦會議。因此，巴爾幹的民族主義成為了兩大陣營合作的契機。
相較之下，對於兩大陣營關係的緩和而言，帝國主義的重要性大於民族主義。衡量帝國主義及民族主義對於雙方關係改善的影響力而言，列強會因為利益而嘗試改善敵對的關係，例如意大利雖然屬於三國同盟的一方，但卻早於1900年因殖民地利益而與協約國的法國簽訂《法意諒解》，自此開始對同盟國出現離心，慢慢向協約國靠攏，最終在塞拉耶佛危機後沒有支援德、奧一方，而意大利與英、法、俄的關係也得以改善。然而，由於同盟國與協約國間沒有民族關連，因此難以憑藉民族主義以改善關係。更甚，民族主義更成為兩大陣營關係惡化的要因，因德國的泛日耳曼主義與俄國泛斯拉夫主義在巴爾幹競爭，而法國的復仇主義更一直伺機報復德國，故無助促使兩大陣營關係緩和。可見，對兩大陣營關係的緩和而言，帝國主義的影響力確大於民族主義。
總括而言，民族主義及帝國主義對於1907-1914年間兩大陣營的關係發展影響重大，雖然帝國主義在緩和關係上的影響力大於民族主義，但整體衡量，民族主義使兩大陣營關係惡化至戰爭爆發的程度，因此重要性較帝國主義大。
Discuss the relative importance of nationalism and imperialism in affecting the relations between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in the period 1907-1914.
Nationalism is that a group of people, who share similar background and live in the same region, hopes to establish their own country. However, when nationalism turns radical, extreme nationalism is evolved, which regards their race as supreme, exploits the resources of other races, to strengthen their own national power and influence. Imperialism hopes to set up hegemony, surpass and invade other countries, to exploits people in other countries. Nationalism and imperialism both had significance in affecting the relations between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in 1907-1914. However, nationalism was more important than imperialism. This essay will make comparison with regard to conflict, war and détente.
Nationalism and imperialism both had significance in causing conflicts between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in 1907-1913. In terms of nationalism, the Triple Alliance and the Allies actively expanded their territories in order to gain national glory and strengthen their own races power, leading to conflicts. For example, Germany supported Austria-Hungary to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina (1908) so as to expand Pan-Germanism, which aroused discontent of Russia. The Bosnian Crisis波斯尼亞危機 thus broke out, worsening the two blocs’ relationship. On the other hand, imperialism led to conflicts as well. Since powers actively expanded their territories to establish their empires, conflicts occurred because of competition in the end. For instance, Germany hoped to gain Moroccan interest and competed with France, leading to the Second Moroccan Crisis第二次摩洛哥危機(1911). Germany and Austria-Hungary were confronted with Britain, France and Russia. The two camps were in opposing situation, worsening their relationship.
In comparison, nationalism was more important than imperialism in causing conflicts between the two camps in 1907-1913. In terms of cause-effect relationship, imperialism occurred when nationalism turned to radical and national economic power was expanded. They hoped to exploit other countries through powerful national strength in order to set up hegemony and show off their races superiority. Besides, nationalism was more important than imperialism in affecting powers’ actions. For example, Germany supported Austria-Hungary owing to their same race in the Bosnian Crisis波斯尼亞危機(1908). The mother tongue of Austria-Hungary was German. Germans accounted for the highest population ratio in Austria-Hungary. Thus, Germany supported Austria-Hungary in order to expand Pan-Germanism. In contrast, since Germany could not gain any direct interest through this crisis, Germany supported Austria-Hungary which did not related to imperialism. It showed that nationalism was more important than imperialism in causing conflicts.
Nationalism and imperialism both had significance in causing wars between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. Nationalism contributed to the emergence of the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機(1914). Austria-Hungary expanded in the Balkans in order to gain national glory. Meanwhile, the extreme nationalism of Serbia was discontent with Austria-Hungary’s parade in Serbia, thus resulting in the Austrian crown prince assassination. Besides, Germany and Russia supported Austria-Hungary and Serbia respectively because of nationalism after the Sarajevo Incident. This incident was developed into war between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, worsening their relationship. Moreover, France supported Russia due to revanchism復仇主義 against Germany. It hoped to get rid of the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War. France thus involved in it, leading to wars. In terms of imperialism, imperialism had significance in causing crisis. Since Austria-Hungary hoped to gain more territories in the Balkans, expanding its power. It aroused Serbia discontent, thus leading to the Sarajevo Incident塞拉耶佛危機 and worsening their relationship.
In comparison, nationalism was more important than imperialism in causing wars between the two camps. With regard to cause, nationalism was more important. The Sarajevo Incident was caused by assassination which held by extreme nationalist極端民族主義分子 in Serbia rather than struggle among countries in establishing imperial hegemony. Moreover, regarding expansion, because of nationalism, Germany sent “blank cheque空白支票” to support Austria-Hungary while Russia carried out General Mobilization to support Serbia. France also involved in it owing to revanchism. On the other hand, Germany and Russia supported Austria-Hungary and Serbia respectively which did not related to their empires’ interest. Furthermore, France would be collapsed if the Allies were defeated. It showed that nationalism was more important than imperialism in causing wars and affecting the relations between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente.
Undoubtedly, nationalism had a greater influence in causing conflicts and wars. However, imperialism was more important in easing up the two camps relationship. Since imperialism promoted expansion and gain economic interest to establish hegemony, economic interest was the first consideration. Thus, countries would give way because of interest. For example, in the Second Moroccan Crisis第二次摩洛哥危機(1911), Germany lost its influence. France agreed to give part of the Congo’s interest剛果利益 to Germany in exchange for recognition of the interests of France in Morocco. In the end, Germany gave way which avoided war and eased up hostile international situation. In terms of nationalism, the national independent movement of Balkan states led to the First Balkan War第一次巴爾幹戰爭(1912-13). Since the Triple Alliance and the Allies worried that war would sustained and worsened the Balkan’s situation, Britain, Russia and Austria agreed to cooperate and hold the London Conference倫敦會議. Thus, the national independent movement of Balkan states facilitated the cooperation between the two camps.
In comparison, imperialism was more important than nationalism in easing up two camps’ relationship. Powers tried to improve opposing relationship because of interest. For example, although Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance, it signed Franco-Italian Entente法意諒解(1900) with France owing to colonial interest. Italy deviated from the Triple Alliance gradually and was getting on for the Allies. In the end, Italy did not support Germany and Austria in the Sarajevo Incident. The relationship between Italy and Britain, France, Russia improved. However, since the Triple Alliance and the Allies did not have national correlation, it was difficult to improve relationship through nationalism. Furthermore, nationalism worsened the relationship between the two camps because there were competitions between Pan-Germanic泛日耳曼主義 Germany and the Pan-Slavic泛斯拉夫主義Russia in the Balkans. French Revanchism復仇主義 tried to took revenge on Germany. Thus, it was difficult for nationalism to improve the two camps relationship. It showed that imperialism was more important than nationalism in easing up two camps’ relationship.
In conclusion, nationalism and imperialism both had significance in affecting the relations between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in 1907-1914. Undoubtedly, imperialism had a greater influence in easing up the two camps relationship. However, nationalism worsened their relationship and developed it into war. It was more important than imperialism.
Comments