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
_________________________________________________________________________
第二次世界大戰後德國所遭受的待遇是否沒有第一次世界大戰後般苛刻？
背景 德國作為兩次大戰的戰敗國，承受著嚴苛的待遇。 // 立場但相較之下，德國於二次大戰後所遭受的待遇在大程度上沒有一次大戰後般苛刻。 // 架構以下，將會從戰爭罪責、戰爭賠償、戰後的經濟援助、裁軍及領土安排、政治干預去討論。
主旨句 其一，從戰爭罪責的強加能夠反映出德國於二次大戰後所遭受的待遇沒有一次大戰後般苛刻。 // 項目B(第一次世界大戰後的待遇) 於《凡爾賽條約》中，戰勝國將所有戰爭罪責歸咎於德國，德國需要承擔全部的戰爭罪責。此舉導致德人感到極大不滿，認為是民族屈辱。同時，條約也是極其不公，因忽視其他國家的責任而將所有戰責歸咎於德國，反映德國遭受嚴苛的待遇。 // 項目A(第二次世界大戰後的待遇) 然而，《波茨坦協定》則較為寬鬆，沒有此一條款。由於列強知道過於苛刻的條款會再次埋下德國人復仇的決心，故在條約內對於戰爭的責任隻字不提，此舉大大有助避免德國人的報復情緒出現。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，就戰爭罪責而言，《凡爾賽條約》要求德國承擔所有戰爭罪責，極為苛刻，使德國遭受不公的待遇，反之，《波茨坦協定》則較為寬容，未有此一規定，使德國人承受著較少的民族屈辱，因此德國於二次大戰後所受的待遇較一次大戰後的寬鬆。
其二，從戰爭賠償的安排能夠反映出德國於一次大戰後所遭受的待遇遠較二次大戰後苛刻。《凡爾賽條約》要求德國對戰勝國賠償的金額達330億美元，此賠款數字遠遠超過德國可承擔的能力，因德國同樣受到戰爭的破壞，戰後也有大量退伍軍人失業，加上阿爾薩斯及洛林等煤礦重鎮已歸還予法國，德國根本無力償還巨額的款項，反映戰勝國是罔顧德國的承擔能力，而只顧及己國的利益，要求極為苛刻。然而，至第二次世界大戰後，《波茨坦協定》更符合德國的國情，德國無須以金錢作為賠償，反而允許以工業設施及產品代替，因此對德國造成較少的財政壓力，同時，以工業產品作為賠償也有助德國重建的工業，使德國的待遇大有改善。相較之下，就戰爭賠償的安排而言，《波茨坦協定》只要求德國以工業設施作賠償，顧及德國國情，較《凡爾賽條約》中330億美元的天文數字賠款對德國造成的打擊少，因此德國於二次大戰後所受的待遇較一次大戰後的寬鬆。
其三，從戰後的經濟援助也能夠反映出德國於二次大戰後的待遇沒有一次大戰後般嚴苛。一次大戰後，德國的經濟狀況差劣，列強不單未有主動提供援助，更剝削德國的經濟利益，如1923年德國未能支付戰爭賠款時，法、比兩國聯軍進佔德國魯爾區，釀成「魯爾事件」。雖然美國有為德國提供經濟貸款，如道茲計劃(1924年)及楊格計劃(1929年)，但1929年的經濟大蕭條令美國撤回貸款，令德國經濟狀況再次陷入困境，失業人數達600萬人之高(1933年)。然而，二次大戰後，由於美國深恐惡劣的經濟環境會成為共產主義滋長的溫床，因此大力協助重建西德的經濟，於「馬歇爾計劃」(1948年)中提供30億美元的巨額援助予西德。及後，西德更與法、意等國家建立合作，成立歐洲煤鋼共同體(1952年)等組織，使西德經濟得以迅速復甦。相較之下，就戰後的經濟援助而言，德國於一次大戰後在經濟方面遭受著較差的待遇，反觀在二次大戰後則大大改善，不單成為歐洲經濟統合的一份子，更能藉外國的援助及合作創造出經濟奇蹟，因此德國於二次大戰後所受到待遇的確沒有一次大戰後般苛刻。
從上可見德國於二次大戰後所受的待遇沒有一次大戰後般嚴苛，但小程度上，德國於一次大戰後的待遇較二次大戰後相約或寬鬆。
從裁軍及領土上的安排能夠反映德國在兩次大戰後的待遇同樣嚴苛。一次大戰後，《凡爾賽條約》規定德國需要大量裁減軍隊人數至10萬人，並且，德國需要交出大量領土，如將阿爾薩斯及洛林交還予法國；西普魯士及波森給予波蘭，並且需要放棄所有海外殖民地，反映對德國的安排十分嚴苛，徹底削弱了德國國力。至二次大戰後，德國仍然需要面對裁減軍備及割讓領土的待遇，如在《波茨坦協定》中，德國需要拆除所有軍事生產設施及武器，實行非軍事化。此外，同樣地需要放棄大量的領土，如將東普魯士的1/3割予蘇聯，2/3割予波蘭，同時，曾經侵略的所有領土也需要歸還，可見德國所受的待遇同樣苛刻。相較之下，就裁軍及領土的安排而言，兩次大戰後戰勝國對德國的裁軍及領土安排同樣嚴苛，待遇不相伯仲，徹底打擊了德國國力，因此德國於二次大戰後所受的待遇與一次大戰後的同樣苛刻。
從政治干預能夠反映德國在二次大戰後所受的待遇較一次大戰後的苛刻。在一次大戰後，雖然對德國的《凡爾賽條約》十分苛刻，但卻未有干預德國的內政，德國的威瑪共和政府仍然能保持主權獨立及統一，沒有受到外國在政治上的干預。然而，至二次大戰後，《波茨坦協定》規定德國需要分為四個區域，並分別由美、英、法、蘇四國佔領，並且在盟軍的指導下剷除納粹黨，建立民主。但此舉卻損害了德國的主權，並且令到德國長期處於分裂的狀態，直至1990年冷戰結束才能重新統一。相較之下，在政治干預方面，一次大戰後列強對德國的內政干預甚少，但二次大戰後德國的內政則受到嚴重的干預，更造成了長期分裂的局面，因此在此一方面而言，德國於二次大戰後所受的待遇較一次大戰後的嚴苛。
雖然從政治干預方面能夠反映德國在二次大戰後的待遇較一次大戰後的嚴苛，但整體衡量下，德國於二次大戰後無須再次承擔全部戰爭罪責，賠償安排也大大放寬，加上戰後獲得大量經濟援助及合作的機會，令戰後德國國內及外交情況有所改善。因此，題目所言在大程度上成立。
Was the treatment of Germany after the Second World War not as harsh as that after the First World War?
Germany had to suffer from harsh treatments as the defeated nation in two World Wars. Germany faced less harsh treatments in the WW2 in compared to that in the WW1. In the following essay, such opinion would be discussed in the aspects of war guilt clause, war reparation, post-war economic assistance, disarmament and territorial arrangements, as well as political intervention.
Firstly, the war guilt clause imposed to Germany after WW1 implied that the treatment she faced was harsher than that after WW2. In the Treaty of Versailles, the victorious nations put all the blame on Germany and she had to accept all the war responsibility戰爭罪責. Such act sparked huge discontent among Germans and they thought that it was an ethnic humiliation. At the same time, the war guilt clause was extremely unfair as it ignored the war responsibility of other countries. This showed the harsh treatment faced by Germany. However, the Potsdam Agreement was more lenient as it did not include such clause. The powers understood that a harsh treaty would once again sowed seed for the Germans’ desire to take revenge. Therefore, nothing about war responsibility was included in the treaties. This greatly prevented the German desire to take revenge. In comparison, in terms of war guilt, the Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany to bear full war responsibility which was very harsh. Unfair treatment was suffered by Germany. In opposite, the Potsdam Agreement was more lenient as it did not include such clause. Germans hence suffered from less national humiliation. Therefore, Germany suffered from a more lenient treatment after WW2 than after WW1.
Secondly, the war reparation reflected that the treatment received by Germany after WW1 was harsher than after WW2. Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany to pay an indemnity of USD $33 billion to the victorious nations. This amount greatly exceeded Germany’s affordability since she at the same time faced the damage of war. Also, large number of soldiers became unemployed after the war and the fact that industrial cities like Alsace-Lorraine阿爾薩斯及洛林 were returned to France. Therefore, she could not afford such a huge sum. This reflected that the victorious nations neglected the affordability of Germany. Instead, they just focused on their own benefits and hence the demand was very harsh. However, after WW2, the Potsdam Agreement was more in line with the situation of Germany. Germany did not have to repay in monetary terms. Instead, she was able to use industrial facilities and products as reparations. Such arrangement created less financial pressure to her. In comparison, in terms of reparations, the Potsdam Agreement was more suitable to the situation of Germany as it only demanded her to repay her debts in industrial facilities. It was more lenient than the Treaty of Versailles which demanded her to pay a huge sum of USD $3.3 billion. Therefore, the treatment to Germany after WW2 was more lenient than that after WW1.
Thirdly, the post-war economic assistance provided also reflected that Germany faced a more lenient treatment after WW2 than after WW1. After WW1, the economic situation of Germany was very poor. The powers not only failed to actively provide assistance to her, they also exploited her economic benefits. For instance, in 1923, when Germany failed to repay the war indemnity, France and Belgium sent troops and invaded German Ruhr Valley. This was called the Ruhr Crisis魯爾事件. Indeed, the US had provided loans to Germany, such as the Dawes Plan道茲計劃(1924) and the Young Plan楊格計劃(1929). However, the 1929 Great Depression prompted her to retreat all the loans. German economy was in a difficult position. Unemployed population soared to 6 million people (1933). However, after WW2, the US feared that the poor economic situation would become the breeding ground of communism. Therefore, the US helped West Germany to reconstruct her economy. She provided a sum of USD $3 billion in the Marshall Plan馬歇爾計劃(1948). After that, West Germany cooperated with countries like France and Italy, and formed organizations like European Coal and Steel Community歐洲煤鋼共同體(1952). Economy of West Germany thus recovered. In comparison, in terms of post-war economic assistance, Germany suffered from harsher treatment after WW1. After WW2, not only did she became one of the members in European economic integration, she could also utilize the assistance of foreign countries and created economic miracles. Therefore, the treatment of Germany after WW2 was not as harsh as that after WW1.
The above showed that the treatments faced by Germany after WW2 were not as harsh as after WW1. To a small extent, the treatment of Germany after WW1 was more lenient than that after WW2.
The disarmament and territorial arrangements reflected that the treatments to Germany in both after WW1 and WW2 were equally harsh. After WW1, Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany to greatly reduce the number of soldiers to one hundred thousand. Also, Germany had to give up a lot of territories. For instance, Alsace-Lorraine阿爾薩斯及洛林 was given to France; West Prussia西普魯士 and Posen波森 was given to Poland. Also, Germany had to give up all the overseas colonies. These reflected that the arrangement to Germany was very harsh and it totally destroyed her national strength. After WW2, Germany still had to reduce her armaments and cede lands. For instance, in the Potsdam Agreement, Germany had to demolish all the facilities that made weapons. Demilitarization was adopted to her. Apart from that, Germany had to give up great amount of territories, for instance, 1/3 of East Prussia was given to Soviet Union; the other 2/3 was given to Poland. At the same time, all the territories that were invaded before had to be returned. This showed that the treatments suffered by Germany were equally harsh. In comparison, in terms of disarmament and territorial arrangements, they were equally harsh after both world wars. These settlements totally damaged the German national strength and hence the treatment after WW1 was as harsh as that after WW2.
As for political intervention, the treatment of Germany after WW2 was harsher than that after WW1. After WW1, although the Treaty of Versailles was very harsh, it did not intervene the internal policies of Germany. Weimar Republic威瑪共和政府could preserve her sovereignty and unity. The foreign countries did not intervene in her internal policies. However, after WW2, the Potsdam Agreement demanded Germany to be divided into four zones and were occupied by the US, Britain, France and Soviet Union respectively. Under the instruction of the Allied, Nazi Party was totally eliminated and democracy was formed. Such act greatly harmed the sovereignty of Germany and put her under a long term separation. The unification of Germany only occurred in 1990 after the end of Cold War. In comparison, in terms of political intervention, such intervention of the powers after WW1 was less than that after WW2. The internal policy after WW2 was greatly intervened and created a long-term separation. Hence, the treatment of Germany after WW2 was harsher than that after WW1.
The treatment of Germany after WW2 was harsher than that after WW1 as reflected by the political intervention. However, in an overall view, Germany did not have to bear all war responsibility after WW2, the war reparation was relatively more lenient, together with the fact that Germany received a lot of economic assistance and cooperation opportunities, both internal and external post-war situations of Germany were improved. Therefore, to a large extent, the view was agreed.
コメント