The concept of aggression and merit, right?

Active attack theory is a typical fallacy.

It is the "rhetoric" of the aggressor to cover up the crime and attempt to cover up the moral and historical condemnation. But that doesn't cover up these crimes.

I don't know when it started. Whenever people miss the martyrs and oppose aggression, there will always be a kind of person. They believe that the appearance of intruders has promoted the progress of the intruders and given them advanced technology and motivation to move forward, which is the basic idea of aggression theory.

I firmly oppose this statement, because it is not a correct statement, and it is extremely distorted and naive.

First of all, when it comes to war, the first thing we think of is hunger, corpses lying everywhere, and the inhuman treatment and cruelty of unarmed people by invaders, rather than a group of amiable people teaching advanced technology hand in hand. Aggression is aggression, a predatory act of contempt and disdain for the invaded, rather than a handout with the mentality of getting rich first and then getting rich.

Is the successive progress in China's modern history the result of the invaders' professors?

No, that's the result of China's constant resistance in humiliation, constant groping in endless darkness, and finding his own way after numerous failures. The intruder deserves no thanks. What should be thanked more is a group of young people at that time, who fought against fascism all the time for everyone to have enough to eat, wear warm clothes, go to school and shed their blood.

Never believe that suffering is worthwhile, suffering is suffering, and suffering will not bring success.

Suffering is not worth pursuing, and tempering the will is because suffering is inevitable. Those who advocate the theory of active aggression are just the cover-up and beautification of their crimes by the aggressors and the ignorance of brainless followers.