How to treat the national war of weak countries against the military aggression of powerful countries

How to understand the national war of weak countries against military aggression of powerful countries

There is a view that a series of anti-aggression struggles in modern times have been carried out against the background that the enemy is strong and we are weak. Since you will still fail after resistance, and you will have to pay a heavier price after failure, it is better to give up resistance and modernize first, and take Japan as a typical example of success in this regard.

The questions raised in this way are related to the question of whether the small and weak invaded countries can defeat the powerful aggressors and whether the people of modern China should resist foreign aggression. This is of course an extremely serious problem.

In the history of ancient and modern China and foreign countries, whether it is a war between countries or a civil war, it can be said that the examples of the weak defeating the strong enemy are not uncommon. Why can the weak beat the strong? This is because the victory or defeat of a war is determined by many factors. Military power and economic power are important, but the nature of war, people's opposition, political mobilization and war strategy also play an important role. Looking at the whole world history from the Marxist point of view, we can never deprive the invaded people of their legitimate right to resist aggression. Otherwise, it will be impossible to explain the tragic historical facts of China people's numerous resistance to capitalist imperialist aggression in modern times, including the feat of the whole nation in resisting foreign invasion in the eight-year war of resistance, the great national liberation movement launched by colonial and semi-colonial countries and oppressed and backward countries around the world in the past century to resist the aggression of old and new colonialism and imperialism and strive for independence, freedom and sovereignty, and the development of world history.

As far as modern Japan is concerned, after being forced to sign unequal treaties, Japan embarked on the road of prosperity through the Meiji Restoration, but this was not the victory of the policy of non-resistance. The initiator of Meiji Restoration was not the shogunate who pursued the policy of non-resistance, but a subversive force who advocated "defending against foreign aggression" or resisting aggression. Among them, Changzhou and Samoa, the backbone forces, carried out armed resistance against the invaders in 1862. Their reform ideas are closely integrated with the purpose of anti-aggression. It is a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of history to drag on opposing reform and resisting aggression and not resisting. Externally, the western powers did not launch a new war of aggression against Japan, because their policies towards Japan and China were very different. The ability of western powers to take large-scale military actions across the ocean to the Far East has been limited. Their strategic intentions in the Far East can only focus on two points: one is to invade China, and the other is to deal with the Russians. China is the main target of plundering and squeezing by western powers. Japan's small land, poor people and lack of resources are not the focus of plunder by western powers. However, it is close to Russia and has the tradition of Bushido, which can be used by the west as an auxiliary means to invade China and contain Russia. After the western powers forced Japan to sign an unequal treaty, they stopped the expedition and used troops against Japan, so that Japan could change and grow in a peaceful environment. China is not so "lucky". In order to gain more benefits in China, the western powers are bound to use their troops against China, and it is even more impossible to help China become rich and strong and set up a powerful opponent for themselves. It is unrealistic to think that China can achieve transformation and self-improvement without resisting aggression.

-according to "From the Origin of Civilization to Modernization-Twenty-five Lectures on the History of China" (published by People's Publishing House in 2002); Modern History of Lin Huaguo (published by Peking University Publishing House in 2005); Li Wenhai's Outline of Modern History of China is a comprehensive summary of the relevant contents of the lecture outline.

How to treat the national war of weak countries against the military aggression of strong countries?

Mao Zedong once said: "In modern times, almost all imperialist countries in the world have bullied China; China's modern war of anti-aggression, from the war of anti-British aggression in 1840 to War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, ended with China's defeat and forced to accept the Treaty of Disgrace and Disgrace. The fundamental reason is that the social system is corrupt and the economy and technology are backward. "

Recently, based on this fact, some scholars put forward a view that since the Opium War, a series of wars against foreign aggression and ethnic wars have been waged against the background that the enemy is strong and we are weak. Under the general situation that China lags far behind the foreign powers, resistance groups like Lin Zexu are ignorant of current affairs, the general trend, arrogant and wrong to the country. It was Lin Zexu's tough attitude that led to the outbreak of war. They should be responsible for the failure of the war and its serious consequences, so they are sinners throughout the ages. Qi Shan and later Li Hongzhang, who advocated compromise and peace, assessed the situation, weighed the pros and cons, endured humiliation and made compromises. They can understand the situation in China and the world, and their actions are in line with national interests, so they are "outstanding" and "clear-headed" diplomats.

A very important reason for their evaluation is that backwardness will lead to beatings, and resistance is useless. If you resist, you will still fail. If you fail, you can only pay a heavier price. It is better not to resist. This statement sounds reasonable. It is also true that China is backward, and it often loses battles after being backward. So, should we resist? Are all resistance wrong? Let me answer this question from several aspects.

(1) "If you fall behind, you will be beaten", which is an unforgettable lesson drawn by the people of China from the tragic experience of repeated foreign aggression in modern times, and it is completely correct. However, the above viewpoint inappropriately extends the idea that backwardness will be beaten, and it becomes that backwardness can only be beaten. The difference between these two words has completely different meanings. It is a positive proposition that you will be beaten if you fall behind. It awakens us to have a strong sense of hardship and reminds us that a country can only stand on its own feet in the world if it strives to strengthen itself first. Through hard work, we should get rid of the backward situation as soon as possible, make ourselves strong, catch up with the advanced, and thus rank among the nations of the world on an equal footing. Only in this way can we change the tragic fate of being slaughtered, manipulated and humiliated. It is a negative proposition that backwardness can only be beaten. It advocates the philosophy of enslaving and obeying the people, disperses the people's will to struggle, and advocates that when a strong enemy attacks at present, it can only grovel and let the aggressors do whatever they want.

(2) The assumption of this view is that backward and weak countries and nations are bound to fail in the anti-aggression war. Their logic is that since it is doomed to failure, it is futile to resist, so it is better not to resist. In my opinion, the crux of the problem is that this hypothesis has no scientific basis. In the history of ancient and modern China and foreign countries, whether it is a war between countries or a civil war, it can be said that it is not uncommon for the weak side to defeat the seemingly powerful side. In the war of independence, the United States defeated Britain, the most advanced country in the world at that time. At that time, the strength of the United States was very weak. If we can't resist according to backwardness, then the United States can't beat Britain. Haiti, a backward small country, also drove away the French colonists, won independence and won the victory of anti-colonialism.

Judging from the history of our country, if we give up the struggle because of the disparity in strength, there will be no victory for the * * * production party to overthrow the Kuomintang. When talking about War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression's victory, Comrade Hu Jintao particularly emphasized: "It is no accident that the people of China can win War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression's victory and defeat the aggressors whose economic strength and military equipment are far stronger than their own with backward weapons and equipment." . War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, China's economic strength is backward, and its weapons and military equipment are far behind the Japanese, but China has won. The reason is that the outcome of the war is determined by many factors. Military power and economic power are very important, but the nature of war, the opposition of people's hearts, political mobilization, war strategy and so on also play an important role. As a historical judgment, it is unfair, at least unfair, that some people blindly blame those who fought desperately for the survival of the country and the nation when the invaders imposed war on the oppressed nation.

(3) Since resistance is futile and wrong, how should the weak ethnic groups treat themselves when the invaders attack the enemy at the gates with warships and cannons? They wrote two prescriptions for this. The first prescription is: don't resist until you rearm and enrich your strength. I think this is totally empty talk. Because when the war starts is not for you to decide. When to fight and what excuses to find to fight have always been the aggressor's decision. Will the invaders wait until you rearm and enrich your troops before starting a war? There is no such possibility, so such research is worthless.

The second prescription is: give up resistance and make concessions in exchange for a "relatively favorable peace treaty" with the invaders. In fact, Li Hongzhang and others have been using this method in modern history. Before the Sino-French War and the Sino-Japanese Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, Li Hongzhang tried his best to seek the mediation of various countries through various concessions to avoid war. The result is inevitable, and the war is still raging in the land of China. Because the invaders want more than they can fill, this is by no means a small concession to satisfy them. On the contrary, if you give in, he will push his luck even more. Therefore, Professor Lin Huaguo wrote in an article, "In the history of Chinese and foreign wars, it is not uncommon for aggressors to stubbornly resist and force them to lower their aggression requirements, and it is even unheard of to give up resistance to win concessions from aggressors."

(4) Since all the national anti-aggression wars have failed, how should we treat this sad fact? It is obviously a superficial and outdated view of history to discuss heroes and right and wrong simply by success or failure. In fact, many important events in modern history ended in failure, but it cannot be said that failure is invalid and failure is wrong. During the 80 years from the Opium War to the May 4th Movement, both the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement and the Reform Movement of 1898 failed. Although the Revolution of 1911 won the victory of overthrowing the feudal autocratic monarchy in the Qing Dynasty, it did not change the social nature and the oppressed status of the people in the end, so it also ended in failure. However, these movements have had a positive impact on history from different angles and promoted the progress of history from different angles. These historical events are an inevitable stage for the people of China to move towards a new and higher form of struggle, and they are also the cornerstone of the final victory of China's national democratic revolution.

So is the national war against aggression. The failure of the Sino-Japanese War paid a heavy price and brought great disaster and unprecedented shame to the Chinese nation. However, it was this failure that caused the Chinese nation to set off a new wave of awakening, and the patriotism gained new high spirits, and the voice for change became louder and louder. Therefore, Engels once said: "There is no historical catastrophe that is not compensated by historical progress."

Not only the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, but also the Boxer Movement failed under the bloody suppression of Eight-Nation Alliance and the Qing government. However, does this mean that the boxer movement is meaningless? That's not true. We said that the Boxer Rebellion did play a role in preventing foreign countries from dividing up China. Eight-Nation Alliance Commander-in-Chief Wadesi once said, "We can't regard the people of China as people who have become weak or lost their virtue. In fact, they still contain infinite vitality ... As for all the militant spirit of China, it has not been completely lost, which can be seen in this' boxing movement'. " "No matter Europe, America and Japan, there is no such brain power and strength to rule a quarter of the world's creatures. ..... So, dividing it is the best policy. " (The Boxer Movement) Hedby Wadesi thinks deeper and sees farther. He said, "This is a pure patriotic volunteer movement", "This movement has captured the imagination of the masses, and it will burn all over China like wildfire", "Today's episode is not meaningless, it is a prelude to a century that will change, and it is the main theme of the future history of the Far East: China in the year 2000 will be very different from China in the year 1900!" (Selected Historical Materials of the Yellow Disaster) His eyes are sharp and original. What the Boxer Movement can give us is that China in 2000 is completely different from China in 1900.

u.edu.cn/wygkcn_ShowArticle.asp? Wygkcn _ ArticleID = 8383