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
_________________________________________________________________________
在甚麼程度上南京政府時期(1928-37)的中國，有別於晚清時期(1901-11)的中國？
背景 晚清政府於1911年倒台後，中國經歷民國初期、袁世凱專政、軍閥混戰及北伐等時期。 // 立場及架構然而，至1928-37年南京政府執政期間，中國在政治、經濟、軍事及外交方面的狀況其實與晚清時期的分別不大，只有在社會上有明顯的轉變，故題目所言在小程度上成立。
主旨句 政治方面，南京政府時期與晚清時期的中國均十分專制，分別不大。// 晚清時期 晚清政府時期，中國實行君主專制政體，儘管嘗試推行憲制改革，但專制本質不變，例如1908年頒布《欽定憲法大綱》，但憲法中君主權力超然。而且，諮議局(1909年)的議員只由少數人民所選出，並非普遍性的選舉制度。更甚，內閣的官員更全由皇帝任命，皇族壟斷了內閣(13人當中有7人)，只是鞏固皇權的工具，政治上十分專制。 // 南京政府時期至南京政府時期，雖然南京政府按孫中山的《建國大綱》逐步將中國由軍政的階段推至訓政及憲政。但憲政階段因中日戰爭(1937年)爆發而被推遲至1946年才正式通過，中國至1937年仍然停留於訓政階段，由國民黨一黨專政。此外，即使南京政府嘗試推行五權分立，但當時人民仍然缺乏選舉權，選舉制度並未能於中國確立，也缺乏民主成份。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，儘管晚清政府時期希望將中國打造成君主立憲政體，而南京政府時期則希望將中國變為共和立憲政體，但兩時期均改變不了專制的本質，中國政治仍然是人治而非法治，同時也缺乏普遍性的選舉，故兩段時期的中國分別不大。
經濟方面，兩段時期的中國仍然是經濟環境惡劣，分別不大。晚清時期，儘管晚清政府設立商部(1903年)，以及草擬商法(如《公司章程》)和大力發展鐵路網，試圖提高中國的商業化程度。然而，中國4億人口當中，超過90%人口從事農業工作，但中國農業科技落後，生產力偏低。加上，清政府更因八國聯軍的戰敗而需要賠款達4億5千萬兩，政府需要徵收重稅以償還債務，人民生活困苦。至南京政府時期，儘管南京政府極力推動中國商業化，如頒布《交易所法》等經濟法規，但這些法規均是以晚清時期的法規為藍本，故分別不大。而且，以農業為主的經濟模式並沒有改變，但農業科技仍然缺乏機器化投入，人均生產力低。再者，雖然在南京政府的改革下，金融業、工業有所發展，但受惠的大多是資產階級，例如造就了當時的「四大家族」壟斷經濟，低下階層生活仍然惡劣。相比之下，晚清時期與南京時期的中國均嘗試提高中國的商業化程度，頒布了一系列的經濟法規，但中國同時均是以農業為主，農業生產落後，而且低下階層生活困苦，經濟環境惡劣，可見兩時期的中國經濟分別不大。
軍事方面，兩段時期的中國軍力仍然不足平內抵外，分別不大。晚清時期，儘管成立練兵處(1903年)令中國至1911年擁有27萬的新軍，但晚清時期的中國軍力仍然力弱，例如中國無力阻止日﹑俄於中國爆發的日俄戰爭(1904-05年)，使中國淪為列強的戰場。而且，中央軍力不足以控制地方，新軍更如同袁世凱的私人部隊，成為日後袁世凱迫清帝退位的利劍，反映軍力不足以平內抵外。至南京政府時期，雖然南京政府也推行改革加強中國軍事實力，如利用黃埔軍校培訓士兵，並向美﹑英等國家購買軍備，但也未能使中國軍事達致現代化。在平內方面，南京政府未能完成剿共，平定國內戰局。抵外方面，日本多次入侵中國，包括九一八事變(1931年)及一二八事變(1932年)，更於1937年發動七七事變，全面侵略中國，南京政府也未能成功抵禦日本侵略。相比之下，兩段時期的中國軍事力量仍然薄弱，未能實現平內抵外的基本目標，使中國的內亂、外來入侵不斷，在中國發生的戰事屢起，可見兩時期中國軍事力量的本質仍然未有改變，分別不大。
外交方面，南京政府時期與晚清時期的中國均處於不平等的地位，分別不大。雖然清政府於1901年成立外交部以取締總理衙門，希望藉此改善中國不平等地位的待遇。然而，這並不能扭轉中國外交不平等的情況，晚清時期的中國外交地位低落，受到多條不平等條約約束，例如《南京條約》(1842年)﹑《馬關條約》(1895年)等。同時，關稅、司法等方面受外國干預﹑控制，國家未能獨立自主。至南京政府時期，儘管南京政府已收回部分主權，例如於1930年收回關稅自主權。然而，中國的不平等待遇仍然未有徹底改變，上述的不平等條約仍然存在，外國也保留在華的治外法權，不平等的狀況並未有於1937年時得以扭轉。更甚，中國不單未能保持獨立自主，更成為日本侵略的目標，於1937年全面入侵中國，國家主權未有被尊重。相比之下，儘管南京政府時期的中國外交地位較晚清政府時期有所提高，但兩段時期的不平等待遇、主權未有受到尊重的狀況根本沒有改變，中國在外交上仍然受到列強所掣肘，本質上沒有太大分別。
儘管晚清時期的中國在政治、經濟、軍事及外交方面與南京政府的分別不大，但社會方面則有著頗大的分別。
社會方面，南京政府時期的中國較晚清時期已經蛻變不少，有著明顯的分別。滿清時期，中國的社會仍然十分封建落後，雖然滿清政府頒布一系列命令，如解除婦女纏足﹑禁止吸食鴉片等，試圖使社會趨向現代化。但上述改革並未能徹底實行，纏足、鴉片至晚清政府於1911年倒台前亦未能成功解決。而且，當時的滿族是統治階級，歧視其他民族，漢族、回族等難以晉身社會上層，民族歧視問題嚴重。然而，至南京政府時期的中國社會漸趨文明開化，例如纏足、鴉片等的問題至南京政府時期得到有效禁止，而且於1929年通過的《民權法規》，有助保障公民的基本權利，封建落後的狀況有助改善。此外，自滿清政府倒台後，民國政府鼓勵「五族共和」，有助實現滿、漢、回、蒙、藏的五族平等，形成「中華民族」的民族觀。相比之下，晚清時期中國社會的封建落後面貌至南京政府時期已經大大得到改善，晚清時期的社會陋習在南京政府時期不復再現，公民權利亦得到保障，而且亦由種族不平等轉變至種族平等，可見兩段時期的中國有著頗大的分別。
總括而言，儘管晚清政府於1911年倒台至南京政府於1928年執政相隔近30年，然而，中國在政治上的專制、經濟上的惡劣環境、軍事上的力弱、外交上的不平等種種狀況均沒有改變，只有社會方面有所進步，反映兩段時期的中國本質仍然，只在小程度上出現蛻變。
To what extent was China in the Nanjing Decade (1928-37) different from how it had been in the Late Qing period (1901-11)?
After the fall of the Qing government in 1911, China went through several phases marked by the establishment of the Republic of China, Yuan Shikai’s autocracy, the chaotic Warlord Era and the Northern Expedition respectively. However, during the Nanjing Decade between 1928 and 1937, China was not very different from what it had been in the Late Qing period from political, economic, military and diplomatic points of view, with only significant changes in social aspect. Therefore, the statement concerned is valid to a small extent only.
Politically speaking, China was profoundly autocratic in both periods with no marked changes. During the Late Qing period, China was an absolute monarchy and its autocratic nature persisted despite attempts at constitutional reform. For example, the Outline of Constitution欽定憲法大綱, promulgated in 1908, underlined the superior power of the emperor, and Provincial Assemblies諮議局(1909) were elected by a small electorate instead of universal suffrage. Worse still, the Cabinet內閣 had all its ministers appointed by the emperor and was dominated by royal families (7 out of 13 members), being merely an instrument for consolidating the royal power. The country was characterized by autocracy politically. As for the Nanjing Decade, it was true that the government followed Sun Yat-sen’s ‘Fundamentals of National Reconstruction建國大綱’ to proceed from military rule to political tutelage and to constitutional government, but the constitution was not adopted until 1946 due to the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War (1937). In other words, China in 1937 was stuck in the phase of political tutelage訓政 and under Kuomintang’s one-party dictatorship. Also, notwithstanding attempts at five-power separation五權分立, China had no electoral systems選舉制度 established and lacked democratic elements in the absence of suffrage. Comparatively speaking, the Qing government wanted to make China a constitutional monarchy while the Nanjing government desired a constitutional republic, but in both periods the autocratic nature remained unchanged, and China still had rule by law instead of rule of law with no universal suffrage. Therefore, China differed little between the two periods.
Economically, China had poor economy in both periods with no significant differences. In the Late Qing period, the government set up the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce商部(1903), drafted commercial laws such as the Company Act公司章程, and developed rail networks in a bid to commercialize China. However, China, with more than 90% of its 400 million population as farmers, had out-of-date agricultural technology and low productivity. In addition, the Qing government was burdened with the indemnity of 450 million taels of silver after its defeat by the Eight-Nation Alliance八國聯軍, and to repay the debts it had to impose heavy taxes that caused hardship for the people. As for the Nanjing Decade, the government endeavoured to commercialize China with new economic regulations like the Exchange Act交易所法, but these were based on laws set up in the Late Qing period and made no big differences. Also, while the economy remained agricultural-based, agricultural mechanization still did not take place and productivity stayed low. Moreover, although there was financial and industrial development under reforms of the Nanjing government, it benefited mostly the rich people, particularly the “Big Four Families四大家族” holding a monopoly on the economy, while the lower class still lived in poverty. Comparatively speaking, there were attempts to commercialize China together with a series of economic regulations during both periods; however, as an agricultural-centric economy, China was still confronted with agricultural underdevelopment, poverty of the lower class and economic stagnation. There were no clear differences between the two periods economically.
In military aspect, China was short of military strength to counter with internal and external threats in both periods with no significant improvement. In the Late Qing period, although China raised the New Army of 270 thousand soldiers by 1911 with the establishment of the Bureau of Military Training練兵處(1903), the country was still weak in terms of military power. For example, it failed to stop the Russo-Japanese War日俄戰爭(1904-05) that took place in its territory and became a battleground for the powers. Also, the central government lacked military power to control local authorities and the New Army, being virtually the private army of Yuan Shikai袁世凱, was even used to force the Qing emperor to abdicate. They were evidence showing Qing China’s incompetent military power. As for the Nanjing Decade, China did not achieve military modernization despite related reforms including setting up the Whampoa Military Academy黃埔軍校 to provide trainings for soldiers and buying weapons from countries like the US and Britain. In terms of internal disputes, the Nanjing government failed to destroy the Communist Party剿共 and end the domestic warfare. Regarding external threats, it also failed to defend the country against Japanese invasion when Japan launched multiple invasions against China, including the September 18th Incident九一八事變(1931) and January 28th Incident一二八事變(1932), and started a full-scale invasion following the July 7th Incident七七事變 in 1937. Comparatively speaking, China was weak in military terms during both periods and did not at least guarantee internal security and external defense. With respect to the relentless internal revolts and foreign encroachment, China remained intrinsically incompetent in terms of military strength and made no big differences throughout the two periods.
Diplomatically speaking, China was on an unequal footing to other countries in both periods and differed little. Although the Qing Court replaced Zongli Yamen總理衙門 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs外交部 to improve its unequal international status, this did not redress the balance. Qing China had low international status and was bound by several unequal treaties such as the Treaty of Nanjing南京條約(1842) and Treaty of Shimonoseki馬關條約(1895). Also, its tariff and judicial systems were under foreign intervention and control, which means there was no self-determination for China. As for the Nanjing period, the government got back part of its sovereignty, including tariff autonomy關稅自主權 retrieved in 1930. But such inequality was not completely removed by 1937 since the above unequal treaties were still effective and some countries retained their extraterritorial rights治外法權 in China. Worse still, China not only failed to be independent and autonomous but also become a target for Japanese aggression. The full-scale invasion of China全面入侵中國 started in 1937 showed that China’s sovereignty was not respected. Comparatively speaking, the Nanjing government achieved higher diplomatic status compared to the Late Qing period, but the unequal treatment and disrespect to its sovereignty did not improve throughout the two periods. China was diplomatically constrained by the powers and did not have fundamental changes.
Although Qing China differed little from how the country had been during the Nanjing period in political, economic, military and diplomatic sense, there were still considerable differences in social aspect.
Socially speaking, China had transformed profoundly during the Nanjing decade compared to the Late Qing period and the differences were significant. In the Late Qing period, Chinese society remained feudalistic and backward. Despite social modernization attempts including a set of orders to ban foot binding纏足 and opium smoking吸食鴉片, they were not fully implemented and these problems had not been solved by the Qing’s downfall in 1911. Besides, the Manchu ruling class discriminated against other races, such as Han and Hui people漢族、回族, and mobility to the upper class was hardly possible for other ethnic groups with the serious racial discrimination. However, the society became more civilized and open during the Nanjing Decade. To be specific, evil social practices like foot binding纏足 and opium smoking鴉片 were effectively banned, and the People’s Rights Ordinance民權法規 was passed in 1929 to protect basic civil rights and overcome social backwardness. In addition, the Nationalist government had promoted the principle of ‘Five Races Under One Union五族共和’ since the fall of the Qing Dynasty. This helped achieve racial equality among the Han, the Manchus, the Mongols, the Hui and the Tibetans, as well as the national identity of ‘the Chinese中華民族’. Comparatively speaking, the feudalistic features and backwardness of Late Qing Chinese society were much improved during the Nanjing Decade with social evils eliminated, civil rights protected and racial inequality rectified. Therefore, there were considerably huge differences in China between the two periods in this regard.
In conclusion, although it was almost 30 years between the Qing’s downfall in 1911 and the establishment of the Nanjing government in 1928, China continued to be politically autocratic, economically underdeveloped, militarily weak and discriminated diplomatically with improvements only in social aspect, which suggests that China was intrinsically the same throughout the two periods and achieved transformation to a small extent only.
Comentários