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
_________________________________________________________________________
原題目題號：DSE-樣本試卷-Essay-07
「直至1945年，軍國主義對日本是禍而非福。」評論此說能否成立。
定義 軍國主義是一種黷武精神，指社會及國家的決策從屬於軍事價值的考慮，主張以武力解決問題及奉行對外擴張政策。 // 架構 軍國主義於1930年代的日本崛起，對日本政治、經濟、社會、軍事及外交方面帶來了舉足輕重的影響，但此等影響卻是禍而非福。 // 立場 因此，題目所言確能成立。
// 主旨句 政治方面，軍國主義導致日本政變、暗殺不斷，更使日本失去民主，是一禍。 // 贊成核心A的理據 軍國主義主張以刺殺方式剷除腐敗的政治家，並且建立軍人獨裁統治的政府，結果不單令日本政壇出現多次政變及暗殺，例如1932年軍國主義組織「血盟團」刺殺首相犬養毅的「五一五事件」；1936年皇道派軍人刺殺前首相齋藤實的「二二六事件」。更甚，此等暗殺、政變大大打擊了日本的民主進程，使日本逐步成為軍人獨裁統治的國家，例如「五一五事件」後，政黨政治家噤若寒蟬，往後首相一職均由軍人或元老出任，正式標誌了政黨政治的終結。至1940年，軍國主義者更建立了「大政翼贊會」以取締其他政黨，日本正式成為一個一黨專政，軍人獨裁統治的專制國家。 // 小結 可見，軍國主義使日本政治進入黑暗時期，禍害極大。
經濟方面，軍國主義拖垮日本經濟，為一禍。軍國主義主張將國家資源優先投放於軍事發展，使日本的軍事開支不斷增加。於1938年，軍人政府更通過了《國家總動員法》，將70%的國家開支投放於對外戰爭上，至百分比更於1944年推高至99%。然而，大量資源投放於軍事用途，增加軍事工業的生產，導致日本國內物資短缺，貨幣貶值，通貨膨脹，嚴重拖垮了日本的經濟發展。更甚，日本於戰爭後期節節敗退，美軍轟炸日本本土也造成了龐大的經濟破壞，其中美國於1945年投放兩枚原子彈到廣島及長崎更直接摧毀了日本的兩個重要城市。結果，日本經濟財殫力竭，日本中央銀行於1945年時的債務就佔國內生產總值的比重高達204%，反映日本經濟已經面臨崩潰。可見，軍國主義使日本經濟跌入谷底，為禍甚大。
社會方面，軍國主義使日本受到高壓控制，為一禍。軍國主義主張壓制人權、自由，人民要絕對服從政府政策，教育也應該以灌輸愛國思想及培育軍事人才為優先考慮。結果，軍國主義者於1930年代上台後，隨即使日本社會受到高壓控制，例如在教育方面，軍國主義政府不但在學校強行引入軍事訓練(1938年)，同時也開除宣揚人權及自由思想的老師，使教育受到嚴厲的控制。此外，一切的社會活動也置於軍國主義政府的監控之下，工人罷工受到禁止，所有刊物的出版也必須得到軍方批准才可出版。更甚，軍國主義者會利用《治安維持法》以打壓異見人士，例如紀錄片製作人岩崎昶就於1941年被指違反該法而被捕入獄，使日本的言論、出版等自由大受壓制。可見，軍國主義者對日本社會而言是禍。
外交方面，軍國主義使日本外交陷入孤立，為一禍。軍國主義主張對外擴張以攫取資源，彰顯國力，但日本的侵略行動就會令其與鄰近的國家關係交惡，例如日本於1937年發動「七七事變」，侵略中國，令中日戰爭爆發。及後，日本於1940年宣佈建立「大東亞共榮圈」，以驅逐西方列強為藉口，大肆侵略東南亞各國，結果使日本與東南亞國家關係惡化。此外，日本更於1941年偷襲美國珍珠港，也挑起了與美國間的戰爭爆發，日本與多國為敵，在亞洲的外交關係陷入孤立。更甚，日本軍國主義者在戰爭期間的惡行也令人髮指，例如於1938年的「南京大屠殺」就殺害了20-30萬中國軍民，令日本往後與鄰近亞洲國家的關係一直交惡。可見，軍國主義大大惡化了日本的外交關係，禍害甚大。
儘管有指軍國主義對日本而言是福，然而，此等理據欠缺說服力。
反對核心B的理據 有指軍國主義對日本農村經濟方面是福。因軍國主義者積極推動農村改革，例如於1932年的五一五事件後，軍國主義者於全國多地發起了救濟農村請願活動，要求延緩農民的負債3年，並且改善農村的水利工程，令農村經濟有所改善。 // 駁論 然而，衡量之下，軍國主義對農村經濟而言是禍而非福。因軍國主義於1937年發動對中國的戰爭，大量男丁被徵召參軍，令農村的勞動人口大大減少，農產量驟跌。此外，由於大量農作物也需要上繳用作軍餉，令農村的糧食不足，加上軍人政府於戰時不斷濫發紙幣，結果導致了嚴重的通貨膨脹，農村生活變得更加差劣。 // 小結 可見，雖然軍國主義者短暫推動了日本的農村經濟，但往後的戰爭則使農村生活變得更加困苦，是禍而非福。
有指軍國主義對日本軍事方面是福。因軍國主義主張擴張軍備以對外擴張，使日本軍事實力大大加強，例如在空軍方面，日本共生產了多達10430架零式戰鬥機(太平洋戰爭期間)，令日本的軍力足以吞佔大半個亞洲，日本的軍事實力達致巔峰時期。然而，日本軍國主義者挑起太平洋戰爭，反令日本戰敗，最終日本於戰後被迫進行非軍事化措施，不能擁有軍隊，為禍甚大。至第二次世界大戰後期，日軍已經開始節節敗退，最終更於1945年宣佈投降，而日本投降後，被盟總政府接管，被迫剷除軍事設施及不能擁有軍隊，結果令日本失去了軍事能力，往後需要靠美軍駐守以保衛國土。可見，軍國主義者雖然一度把日本軍事發展推至高峰，但戰敗後反令日本軍事發展受到限制，為一禍而非福。
總括而言，軍國主義不但使日本政治和社會陷入高壓、專制的時期，同時也損害了日本的經濟、軍事及外交等方面的發展，對於日本為禍甚深，因此題目所言確能成立。
‘Militarism was a loss rather than a gain to Japan up to 1945.’ Comment on the validity of this statement.
As a military spirit, militarism bears a definition that all decisions related to society and the nation are based on military concerns. It encourages using armed force to solve problems and supports expansionist foreign policy. The rise of militarism took place in Japan in the 1930s and had significant impact on Japan in political, economic, social, military and diplomatic aspects. But such impact harmed rather than benefited Japan. Therefore, the statement is valid.
Politically, militarism led to continuous coups and assassinations and loss of democracy, doing harm to Japan. The militarists supported eradication of corrupt politicians by assassinations and establishment of a military dictatorship. As a result, several coups and assassinations took place in Japan, including the May 15th Incident五一五事件 in which Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi犬養毅 was assassinated by members of the Brotherhood of Blood League血盟團 in 1932, and the February 26th Incident二二六事件 in which Imperial Japanese Army officers killed former Prime Minister Saito Makoto齋藤實. More importantly, these coups and assassinations interrupted the process of democratization in Japan and gradually made it a military dictatorship. For example, after the May 15th Incident五一五事件, party politicians were not dared to challenge the military and almost all Prime Ministers were generals or the Genro. This marked the end of party politics. In 1940, the militarists even established the Imperial Rule Assistance Association大政翼贊會 as a replacement of all other political parties. Japan genuinely became an autocratic nation ruled by one-party military dictatorship. It is clear that militarism brought Japan to the dark ages and harmed it greatly.
Economically, militarism wrecked Japan’s economy and did harm to the country. The militarists gave priority to military development when distributing national resources and kept increasing Japan’s military expenses. In 1938, the National Mobilization Law國家總動員法 was passed to allocate 70% of its national budget for wars. The proportion further rose to 99% in 1944. However, with the allocation of excessive resources for military uses and increase in military production, Japan was short of different materials and experienced devaluation and inflation. Its economy was hugely damaged. Worse still, Japan lost its momentum at the late stage of war and US bombings caused huge economic destruction. The US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima廣島 and Nagasaki長崎 in 1945, directly destroying two important cities of Japan. As a result, Japan was economically strained. In 1945, the Japanese Central Bank owed debts that were equivalent to 204% of Japan’s GDP, which showed that Japan’s economy was on the brink of collapse. It is apparent that militarism did great harm to Japan’s economy.
In social aspect, militarism brought Japan under coercion and did harm to it. Militarism supports a curb on human rights and freedom, and absolute obedience to the government. For education, priority should be given to indoctrinating patriotic ideas and nurturing military personnel. As a result, after the militarist takeover in the 1930s, they immediately made the Japanese society a suppressive one. As for education, the militarist government did not only carry through military trainings in schools (1938), it also fired teacher who promoted human rights and liberal ideas. A strong grip was added on education. In addition, all activities in the society came under the militarist government’s scrutiny. Strikes were banned and all publications must gain approval from the military before publishing. Worse still, the militarists used the Peace Preservation Law治安維持法 to oppress dissidents. Akira Iwasaki岩崎昶, a film producer who was arrested in 1941 for infringement of this law, serves as an example. Freedom of speech, publication and other kinds was greatly suppressed. Therefore, what the militarists did to Japan was harmful.
In diplomatic aspect, militarism led to diplomatic isolation of Japan and did harm to it. The militarists advocated territorial expansion for resources and manifestation of national strength. But its aggression would cause deterioration of its relationship with the neighouring countries. For example, Japan launched the July 7th Incident七七事變 in 1937 and caused the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War. After that, Japan declared its policy of setting up the ‘Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere’ 大東亞共榮圈 and aggressively invaded Southeast Asian countries on the pretext of driving out the Western influence there. Japan’s relationship with these countries worsened as a result. In addition, it launched a sudden attack on the Pearl Harbour珍珠港 in the US in 1941, triggering a war between them. Japan became the enemy of many countries and ran into isolation with poor foreign relations with Asian countries. Besides, Japanese militarists took some outrageous actions during wars. For instance, they murdered 200-300 thousands Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants in the Nanjing Massacre南京大屠殺 of 1938. Because of that, Japan’s relationship with the neighbouring Asian countries remained bad. It is clear that militarism damaged Japan’s foreign relations and did great harm to it.
There are claims that militarism benefited Japan, but they are not convincing.
Some said that militarism benefited rural economy of Japan. The militarists proactively promoted agricultural reforms. For example, after the May 15th Incident五一五事件 in 1932, the militarists petitioned for peasants around the country, demanding a 3-year deferment of peasants’ loan payment and improvement of water conservation in rural areas. This improved the rural economy. However, it should be harm rather than benefit if all its pros and cons are evaluated. As the militarists started a war on China in 1937, many males were enlisted in the army and the rural working population decreased sharply, as did the agricultural production. Besides, large amount of crops were handed in as provisions for soldiers and this caused food shortages in rural areas. Moreover, the mass printing of banknotes in wartime led to hyperinflation and further threatened peasants’ livelihood. It is clear that the militarists promoted Japanese rural economy for a short period of time, but the wars coming afterwards made peasants’ livelihood even worse. It did harm rather than benefited Japan.
Some claimed that in military aspect, militarism benefited Japan. Militarism supports military buildup for territorial expansion and promoted Japanese military capabilities. For air force, Japan produced as much as 10430 A6M Zero Fighters零式戰鬥機 (during the Pacific War). Japan was therefore strong enough to conquer more than half of Asia and its military strength reached its peak. However, Japanese militarists waged the Pacific War that only led to the defeat of Japan. In the post-war period, Japan was forced to demilitarize and banned from maintaining any armed forces. This was great harm to the country. At the late stage of WW2, the Japanese was losing ground and eventually surrendered in 1945. After that, Japan was taken over by the SCAP盟總政府, which demolished military plants and prohibited it from having an army. Japan thus lost its military capability and relied on the US heavily for protection. Therefore, despite the fact that Japan’s military was in peak conditions because of the militarists, they brought the country constraints on military development and harmed rather than benefited Japan.
In conclusion, militarism did not only bring the Japanese society under coercion and autocracy, but it also hindered the economic, military and diplomatic development of Japan, doing great harm to the island country. Therefore, the statement is valid.
Comments