历史探究
国际文凭组织 · IB Diploma · 历史 · HL 知识点 3 5:14 英语旁白 · 英中内嵌字幕
章节
文本转录
On 30 June 1936 the Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, spoke to the League of Nations in Geneva.
1936 年 6 月 30 日，埃塞俄比亚皇帝海尔·塞拉西在日内瓦向国际联盟发言。
Italy had invaded in October 1935.
意大利在 1935 年 10 月入侵。
In December the British and French foreign ministers secretly agreed to give Italy much of Ethiopia; the plan leaked and Hoare resigned.
12 月，英法两国外长秘密同意把埃塞俄比亚的大片土地让给意大利；计划泄露，霍尔辞职。
By May Italian troops were in Addis Ababa.
到次年 5 月，意军已进入亚的斯亚贝巴。
It is us today, the Emperor said; it will be you tomorrow.
皇帝说：今天是我们，明天就是你们。
The internal assessment is the historical investigation, your own research on a topic you choose.
内部评估是历史探究：就你自选的题目做自己的研究。
It has a limit of two thousand two hundred words, and the bibliography does not count.
字数上限两千二百词，参考文献不计入。
Your teacher marks it out of twenty-five, and it is worth twenty per cent of the HL grade.
老师按 25 分评分，占 HL 总成绩的 20%。
There are three sections, each with its own criterion.
探究分三部分，各有评分标准。
Section 1, sources, is worth six marks. Section 2, the investigation, is worth fifteen. Section 3, reflection, is worth four.
第一部分，史料，6 分；第二部分，探究，15 分；第三部分，反思，4 分。
So section 2 gets most of the words; a long section 1 takes words from it.
所以第二部分应占大部分字数；第一部分写得太长，就挤占了它的篇幅。
The question makes or breaks the investigation.
问题决定探究的成败。
A good question is narrow: a person, a decision, an event or a policy, not a whole war.
好问题要窄：一个人、一项决定、一个事件或一项政策，而不是整场战争。
It is answerable: the evidence exists and you can reach it.
要可回答：证据存在，而且你能找到。
And it is debatable: historians disagree.
还要有争议：史学家意见不一。
Start wide: the League of Nations in the 1930s.
从宽处开始：20 世纪 30 年代的国际联盟。
Cut to one crisis: the Abyssinian crisis.
再收窄到一场危机：阿比西尼亚危机。
Then cut to one decision: how far was the Hoare–Laval Plan the decisive blow to the League's credibility?
再收窄到一项决定：霍尔—赖伐尔计划在多大程度上是对国联信誉的致命一击？
Each cut makes the question smaller and the judgement sharper.
每收窄一次，问题更小，判断更锐利。
Why did the League fail is a whole field and invites a story.
“国联为什么失败”是整个领域，只会引出叙述。
What was the Great Leap Forward asks only for description.
“什么是大跃进”只要求描述。
Was the bomb on Hiroshima right is a moral question, not a historical one.
“轰炸广岛对不对”是道德问题，不是历史问题。
Each better version names one decision and asks how far.
每个更好的版本都点明一个决定，并问“在多大程度上”。
A typical plan: choose a topic and a first question in weeks one and two; read widely and narrow the question in weeks three to five; write section 1 in week six; section 2 from a theme plan in weeks seven to nine; and section 3 and the citations in week ten.
典型安排：第 1–2 周选题并提出初步问题；第 3–5 周广泛阅读、收窄问题；第 6 周写第一部分；第 7–9 周按主题计划写第二部分；第 10 周写第三部分并核对引用。
Your teacher may comment on one draft only.
老师只能对一稿提意见。
Section 1 states the question and evaluates two sources with OPVL, relative to the question.
第一部分写明问题，并用 OPVL 结合问题评价两份史料。
Here, the text of the plan as leaked shows exactly what Britain and France would give an aggressor. Hoare's memoir gives the motives of the man who made it.
这里，泄露的计划文本准确显示英法愿意给侵略者什么；霍尔的回忆录则提供了制定者本人的动机。
Judge each source against your question.
每份史料都要结合你的问题评价。
The plan's value is that it shows intentions exactly; its limitation is that it was never carried out, so it cannot show effects on the League.
计划的价值在于准确显示意图；局限在于从未实施，无法显示对国联的影响。
The memoir gives motives from the inside, but it was written nearly twenty years later.
回忆录提供了内部动机，但写于近二十年后。
Weak evaluation says the memoir is biased because Hoare wrote it.
弱的评价只说：回忆录有偏见，因为是霍尔写的。
Strong evaluation says why: Hoare wrote in 1954, after the Second World War had made appeasement a word of shame, so he had a reason to stress the danger.
强的评价说明原因：霍尔在 1954 年写作，那时第二次世界大战已让“绥靖”成为耻辱的词，所以他有理由强调危险。
That limits it for his motives in 1935, but it still shows the government's fear.
这限制了它作为 1935 年动机证据的价值，但仍能反映政府的担忧。
The rest of your reading feeds section 2.
其余阅读材料用于第二部分。
Group the evidence by theme, one group for each part of your argument.
按主题给证据分组，论证的每一部分一组。
Check sources against each other: corroboration, when two independent sources agree, and contradiction are both findings.
把史料相互核对：两份独立史料一致是相互印证，彼此矛盾也是发现。
Cite as you go.
边写边引用。
Section 2 is analysis, not narrative.
第二部分是分析，不是叙述。
The worked plan has three themes: the pattern since Manchuria in 1931; the leak and withdrawal of the plan; and the Rhineland in March 1936, when no member acted.
示例计划有三个主题：1931 年满洲事件以来的模式；计划的泄露与撤回；1936 年 3 月的莱茵兰事件，当时没有成员国采取行动。
Each has its evidence and counter-view, and all lead to the judgement.
每个主题都有证据和反方观点，并共同导向结论。
A model paragraph.
一段示范段落。
It argues: the plan's terms mattered less than its leak.
论点：计划的条款不如它的泄露重要。
It uses evidence: sanctions left out oil, and Hoare resigned within a week.
证据：制裁不包括石油，霍尔一周内辞职。
However, some historians say credibility was already lost after Manchuria.
然而，有史学家认为国联的信誉在满洲事件后已经丧失。
Judgement: true for Asia, but in Europe the plan ended the expectation.
判断：对亚洲成立，但在欧洲，正是这项计划终结了人们的期待。
Section 3 reflects on how historians work and the problems they meet, tied to your own investigation.
第三部分反思史学家如何工作、会遇到什么问题，并且要联系你自己的探究。
I learned a lot earns nothing.
“我学到了很多”得不到分。
I could read only English-language sources, so the Ethiopian experience appears only through outsiders, earns marks.
“我只能读英文史料，所以埃塞俄比亚人的经历只能通过外人呈现”才能得分。
The common mistakes: a question too wide for two thousand two hundred words; section 2 as a story in time order; a conclusion that sits on the fence; and a reflection about you, not about historical method.
常见错误：问题太宽，两千二百词写不下；第二部分按时间顺序讲故事；结论骑墙；反思谈的是你自己，而不是史学方法。
Before you submit: a narrow, answerable, debatable question; two sources, each evaluated for the question; evidence grouped by theme, with historians weighed; a conclusion that answers the question; and reflection on historians' methods, tied to your own investigation.
提交前检查：问题窄、可回答、有争议；两份史料都结合问题评价；证据按主题分组，并权衡史学家观点；结论回答问题；反思史学方法，并联系你自己的探究。