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
_________________________________________________________________________
比較軍國主義統治時期(1931-45)及盟總佔領時期(1945-52)對日本發展的影響。
架構 軍國主義統治時期(1931-45)及盟總佔領時期(1945-52)為日本的政治、經濟、社會、軍事及外交帶來了天壤之別的影響。 // 立場軍國主義時期雖然強化了日本的軍事實力，但則破壞了日本多方面的發展，正正相反的是，儘管盟總政府壓抑了日本的軍事發展，但卻使其他方面得到良好發展。因此，兩時期的影響是立竿見影、截然不同。
主旨句 政治方面，軍國主義統治時期使日本失去民主，盟總佔領時期則為日本重建民主。 // 項目A 在軍國主義統治時期，由於軍國主義提倡專制、極權統治，因此令日本陷入歷史學家所言的「黑暗的幽谷」。例如，軍人內閣於1936年再次恢復「軍部大臣現役武官制」，使內閣再次需要軍部派大臣出任海、陸軍大臣之職才能成立，再次受制於軍部。更甚，1940年成立的「大政翼贊會」更將日本變成一個一黨專政的法西斯體系國家，日本已經再沒民主可言。 // 項目B 相反，盟總佔領時期則為日本重建民主，因盟總政府為日本實行非軍事化及民主化改革，包括在非軍事化方面審判約6,000名軍人及在民主化方面實行了民主的《昭和憲法》(1947年)，使民主得以植根於日本。 // 對比(>20%) 可見，軍國主義統治把日本拉進「黑暗的幽谷」，民主盡失，但盟總時期則為日本民主重建光明，使得民主能植根日本，兩時期對日本政治的影響大為不同。
經濟方面，軍國主義統治時期使日本經濟陷入困境，但盟總時期則有助經濟復甦。由於軍人政府極為著重軍事發展，投資大量國家開支到軍事範疇，例如在1938年通過《國家總動員法》容許將一切人力資源支援對外戰爭，使軍事開支增加至70%，及後更進一步推高至99%。結果，畸型的經濟發展及長期徵收重稅令到中小企業難以生存，引致大量企業倒閉，加上長期戰事，終使日本經濟財殫力竭。相反，由於盟總政府希望重建日本國力以圍堵共產主義在亞洲的擴大，故積極推動日本經濟復甦，例如為日本推行《禁止壟斷法》及《企業再建整備法》等以解散財閥；推行《土地改革法》以解放土地予農民，結果使日本經濟由谷底反彈，人均國民生產總值由1946年的17美元升至1950年的132美元。可見，軍國主義時期及盟總時期對日本經濟的影響是迥然不同，軍國主義時期拖垮了日本經濟，但盟總時期則重新推動經濟復甦，使經濟得以重新發展。
社會方面，軍國主義統治使人民失去自由、人權，盟總時期則會人民帶來自由、人權。軍國主義限制社會自由，例如限制出版自由，所有刊物必須得到軍方批准才可出版。此外，為配合對外戰爭的政策，政府打壓勞工活動，以穩定工業發展，但同時卻扼殺了社會自由，並損害工人的權益。軍人基本上壟斷及操控了社會發展，令人民缺乏自由、人權。相反，盟總時期則重新賦予人民自由。由於盟總政府希望確保軍國主義不會在日本死灰復燃，因此除了植根民主思想外，也確立自由及平等的思想。包括在《昭和憲法》中規定人民擁有言論、出版、結社等自由，而且也賦予了更多的基本人權，如法律平等、兩性平等等。可見，軍國主義統治下的日本缺乏自由及人權，形成了高壓控制的社會狀況，但盟總時期則為日本社會重新帶來自由及人權，甚至賦予更多，使日本社會更趨現代化。
軍事方面，軍國主義統治時期大大推動了日本軍事的發展，反之盟總時期則限制了軍事發展的進程。由於軍國主義統治時期的首相多有軍方背景，因此希望透過加強日本的軍事實力以對外侵略，令到日本的軍事實力攀上高峰，例如在海軍方面擁有10艘戰艦﹑125艘驅逐艦及65艘潛水艇等(1941年)；在空軍方面亦擁有300多架零式戰鬥機(太平洋戰爭期間)，軍力足以吞佔大半個亞洲。相反，盟總時期則限制了日本的軍事發展，新的憲法規定日本永遠放棄發動戰爭，加上為日本實行非軍事化改革後，日本僅擁有少量的自衛隊而不設軍隊，國防事務交由美軍保護(《日美安全保障條約》)，使日本的軍事開支不多於國家支出的1%，結果大大限制了日本的軍事發展。可見，軍國主義時期及盟總時期對日本軍事的影響是截然不同的，前者將日本軍事發展推至高峰，但後者則大力限制，使戰後的日本無力再發動戰爭。
外交方面，軍國主義縮窄了日本的外交圈子，但盟總時期則有助重新擴大日本外交圈子。軍國主義主張對外擴張，其侵略行動不但直接激起被侵略國的強烈仇恨，例如中國及眾多東南亞國家等，使日本與亞洲多國處於戰爭狀況。同時，也基於侵略行動威脅了西方列強於亞洲的利益而令日本與英、美、法等國交惡，及後日本於1941年突襲美國珍珠港更導致日美戰爭戰爭。雖然日本與同屬極權主義的德國及意大利結盟，但日本四處樹敵，無疑是使日本外交更趨窄狹，與多國關係惡劣。相反，盟總政府則積極協助日本重建與其他國家的外交，例如在美國的穿針引線下，日本於1952年與多個東南亞戰勝國簽訂《三藩市條約》作為戰敗條款，重新修補與東南亞國家的關係，有助逐步重建日本外交。可見，軍國主義時期令到日本與多國結怨，關係惡化至極點，大大縮窄了日本的外交圈子，但盟總時期則重建日本與其他國家的外交，作用正面。
軍國主義時期及盟總時期均是日本歷史發展的重要一頁。整體而言，軍國主義時期是破壞日本現代化的時期，但盟總政府時期則是重建及革新日本現代化的時期，兩時期為日本帶來的影響截然不同。
Compare the impacts of the period of militarist rule (1931-45) and the SCAP occupation period (1945-52) on Japan’s development.
The period of militarist rule (1931-45) and the SCAP occupation period (1945-52) brought significantly different impacts on Japan’s development in political, economic, social, military and diplomatic aspects. The period of militarist rule (1931-45) strengthened the military power of Japan but destroyed her multilateral developments. On the contrary, the SCAP occupation period (1945-52) suppressed her military development but brought good impacts on other areas. Hence, there were distinctive differences in their impacts on Japan’s development.
In political aspect, the period of militarist rule made Japan lose democracy while the SCAP occupation period helped Japan rebuild democracy. In the period of militarist rule, as militarism emphasizes autocracy and totalitarianism, Japan entered ‘the Dark Valley’ 黑暗的幽谷. For example, the militarist cabinet restored the Military Ministers to be Active-Duty Minister Law in 1936, which declared that a cabinet could not be formed without the participation of the military as the Secretary of Army and Navy. Worse still, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association大政翼贊會(1940) was formed in 1940, which turned Japan into a fascist country with totalitarian regime. Japan no longer had democracy. On the contrary, in the SCAP occupation period, the US helped Japan to rebuild democracy. Since the SCAP government launched demilitarization and democratization in Japan, like sentencing about 6000 militarists in terms of demilitarization; introducing the Showa Constitution昭和憲法(1947) in terms of democratization. Democracy was brought to Japan. Therefore, the period of militarist rule made Japan enter ‘the Dark Valley’, which lost democracy. While the period of SCAP occupation brought hope to Japan and democracy thus built again. Hence, it could be seen that the two periods had significantly different impacts on Japan’s politics.
In economic aspect, the period of militarist rule made Japan enter a difficult period of poor economy while the SCAP occupation period helped the economic recovery of Japan. Since the militarists put great emphasis on military development, the military expenses were so high that it accounted for a huge proportion of the country’s expenditure. For instance, the Mass Mobilization Law國家總動員法 passed in 1938 allowed all the human resources to be put in war. The military expenses increased to 70% and 99% later. As a result, the abnormal economic development, together with the heavy taxes imposed upon Japanese, small and medium-sized enterprises failed to develop and lots of which closed. The WW2 lasted for a long time and the economy depressed. On the contrary, as the SCAP government hoped to rebuild the national power of Japan in order to prevent Communism from growing in Asia, the US was enthusiastic about helping Japan to recover her economy. For example, the Anti-Monopoly Act禁止壟斷法 and the Fair Trade Commission of Japan企業再建整備法 was launched, which dissolved the zaibatsu. Meanwhile, the Land Reform Act土地改革法 released the farmland and returned them to peasants. The economy of Japan flourished again. The GNP per capita increased from $US 17 in 1946 to $US 132 in 1950. Therefore, the impacts on Japan’s economy brought about by militarists and by the US were significantly different. The former one destroyed Japan’s economy while the latter one boomed the economy of Japan.
In social aspect, the militarist rule made Japanese lose freedom as well as human rights while the SCAP occupation period brought about freedom and human rights. Different sorts of freedom such as the freedom of press was strictly forbidden in militarism. All the issued materials had to be censored by the militarists. Without the militarists’ permission, they were not allowed to be published. Besides, to collaborate with the foreign war policy, all the activities organized by the union were suppressed. In this way, industrial development could be stabilized but freedom was exploited. The interests of workers were also jeopardized. Basically, militarists controlled all the social development of Japan and people lacked freedom and human rights. On the contrary, during the SCAP occupation period, the US granted Japanese freedom. Since the US did not want militarism from reviving again, she not only introduced democracy in Japan, but she also ensured the ideas of freedom and equality being adopted in Japan, including the freedom of speech, press as well as assembly which were stated in the Showa Constitution昭和憲法. People were granted more human rights like legal equality and sexual equality. Therefore, the period of militarist rule deprived Japanese of freedom and human rights while the SCAP occupation period granted and even brought more freedom and human rights to Japanese, which was favorable to social modernization in Japan.
In military aspect, the period of militarist rule prompted the military development of Japan while the SCAP occupation period limited the progress of military development. In the period of militarist rule, as the Prime Ministers were closely related to the militarists, they hoped to strengthen their military power so as to carry out expansion. This allowed Japan’s military strength to reach its peak. For navy, Japan owned 10 battleships戰艦, 125 destroyers驅逐艦 and 65 submarines潛水艇(1941). For air force, it owned more than 300 A6M Zero Fighters零式戰鬥機(during the Pacific War). Japan was therefore strong enough to conquer more than half of Asia. On the contrary, the SCAP occupation limited the military development. The news constitution stated Japan should abandon the use of war. After launching demilitarization, Japan only retained its self-defense force with small number of soldiers while no army was possessed. The US troops continued to station in Japan for its defense(American-Japanese Security Pact日美安全保障條約) and the military expenses of Japan only accounted for 1% of the national expenditure. This greatly limited the military development of Japan. Therefore, the impacts made on Japan’s military development by the militarists and the SCAP occupation period was different. The former made her military strength reach its peak while the latter one limited the military development of Japan. Japan was not able to wage wars on other countries.
In diplomatic aspect, militarism narrowed the diplomacy of Japan while the SCAP period helped establish relations with other countries and enlarged her diplomacy. Militarism stressed the need for foreign expansion and therefore, not only did Japan’s annexations provoke hatred among China中國 and Southeast Asian countries東南亞國家, but her invasions also harmed the interest of the western powers. Take China and other Southeast Asian countries as an example. The expansions of Japan created war with Asian countries. Meanwhile, the aggression of Japan led to the discontent of Britain, the US and France, which in turn caused the Pearl Harbor珍珠港 Incident in 1941, in which the US fought with Japan. Though Japan allied herself with Germany and Italy, her aggressive actions created more enemies against Japan as well as poor relations with other countries. On the contrary, the SCAP government was passionate in helping Japan re-establish relations with other countries. With the US’s efforts, Japan signed the Treaty of San Francisco三藩市條約 in 1952 with various allied nations. This mended the relations between Japan and other Asian countries, rebuilding Japan’s diplomacy. Therefore, the period of militarist rule made Japan become the enemy of a number of countries and had extremely bad international relations. As for the SCAP period, the US helped Japan rebuild relations with other countries, which was positive.
The period of militarist rule and the SCAP occupation period were both important to the history of Japan. Generally speaking, the period of militarist rule could be regarded as a period for destructing Japan’s modernization while the SCAP government helped rebuild and transform Japan into a modernized country. They brought significantly different impacts.
Comments