locking How to correctly view Japan

Seeing that the forum was discussing 'historical issues,' I looked this up. First, I want to clarify that I remain neutral, to avoid being criticized by some angry youths...
\@Feng Xuerong, historian, researcher of modern history, residing in Hong Kong. His new work, 'From the First Sino-Japanese War to July 7—Why Japan Invaded China,' has been published in Hong Kong. His earlier work, 'History is Actually Shocking,' has been published in mainland China.\ When I was young, like everyone else, I hated Japan, especially whenever I saw Japanese soldiers massacring Chinese people in films and TV dramas, I felt like tying a super bomb to myself and sinking the four Japanese islands.\ Later, I realized that anti-Japanese sentiment actually brings no benefit, especially since many young people equate films and TV dramas with real modern history, blindly following the crowd without even understanding the truth of modern history. I think, at least, it is better to understand history first and then harbor anti-Japanese feelings, it's never too late.\ The fundamental, profound, and essential reason for Japan's expansion since modern times is that the Japanese, as the most capable of the yellow race at the time, were unwilling to be confined to four small islands, because this small territory could not, firstly economically (food, resources), support Japan's rapidly growing population at the time, and secondly, in terms of national defense, offered no strategic depth and was vulnerable to destruction. Therefore, Japan at that time had to expand.\ The reason the Sino-Japanese War broke out can be condensed to the events starting from the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. In 1900, Russia, provoked by the Boxer Rebellion, sent troops to occupy a large part of China's three northeastern provinces; this military occupation lasted for four years. By 1904, Japan obtained the consent of the Qing government to send troops to Northeast China and attack Russian forces. Japan's main motivations for sending troops this time were twofold: 1) Russia's occupation of Northeast China threatened the defense and security of Korea and Japan; 2) Japan wanted to acquire some colonies in Northeast China.\ As a result, Japan defeated the Russian forces. After the war, Japan negotiated with the Qing government. On one hand, Japan returned most of the territories of the three northeastern provinces to the Qing Dynasty; on the other hand, Japan obtained the following colonial privileges in Northeast China through a treaty: two areas (leased territories of Lüshun and Dalian), one railway (South Manchuria Railway), one forest (a small portion of forest resources), and one mine (a small portion of mineral resources). This treaty is called the 'Treaty on the Affairs of the Three Northeastern Provinces.'Later, Zhang Zuolin governed Northeast China. At first, he adopted a pro-Japanese policy and respected the historical treaties mentioned above. However, in his later years, Zhang Zuolin was influenced by the nationalist movement that emerged in 1919 and began to adopt an anti-Japanese policy. Both Zhang and his son started to push the Japanese out of Northeast China. The methods were varied. For example: building dense railway networks, deliberately forcing the Japanese-operated South Manchuria Railway into bankruptcy; constructing Huludao Port, systematically forcing the Japanese-operated Dalian Port into bankruptcy; restricting the rights of Japanese residents to rent land and houses in Northeast China, and so on. In short: the goal was to eliminate Japan's influence in Northeast China.

After Zhang Xueliang switched allegiance in Northeast China and submitted to Chiang Kai-shek, Chiang Kai-shek and Zhang Xueliang implemented an even more radical anti-Japanese policy in the Northeast. They deliberately instigated anti-Japanese movements, and the Nationalist Government explicitly stated the intention to reclaim Japan's historical colonial privileges in Northeast China (that is, the 'two territories, one railway, one forest, one mine' that the Qing government had agreed to give). In other words, Chiang Kai-shek openly sought to push the Japanese out of Northeast China.

The dispute in this case lay in:
1. The Chinese side believed that the Northeast privileges granted to Japan by the Qing dynasty were invalid, and that the Chinese should reclaim these privileges, with the Japanese withdrawing from Chinese territory;
2. The Japanese side, however, believed that Japan had suffered the loss of 100,000 lives fighting Russia, and that the concessions granted by the Qing government were Japan's rightful reward. Therefore, China's exclusion of Japan's vested interests in Northeast China violated the treaty, broke trust, and persecuted the Japanese.

On this dispute, the Japanese government conducted three years of diplomatic negotiations with Zhang Xueliang and the Nationalist Government. Chiang Kai-shek and Zhang Xueliang consistently evaded the issue. Unexpectedly, during this protracted bickering, the 1929 economic crisis broke out. Moreover, the Soviet Union was about to complete its first 'Five-Year Plan.' Once completed, the Soviet Union might have the possibility to attack Japan. Stimulated by various factors, the Japanese military lost patience, and, without informing the Japanese government, launched the 'September 18 Incident,' militarily occupying Northeast China, intending to make the Northeast: 1. Japan's economic base; 2. Japan's defensive base against the Soviet Union.Soon, the League of Nations made a judgment on this dispute against both China and Japan, giving each side "fifty lashes," known as the Lytton Report. In other words, the international community at the time believed: Japan was at fault for starting the war, but China was also at fault for not fulfilling international treaties and lacking credibility.
After international mediation, both China and Japan rejected the judgment of the international community.
The problem dragged on and after six years of stalemate, an incident occurred at the Marco Polo Bridge where someone fired at the Japanese troops during a night exercise (Note: Japanese troops were stationed in the Beijing-Tianjin area according to the Boxer Protocol). The truth of this suspicious shooting incident is still unknown to this day. Based on current historical materials, there are three possible suspects: 1. Radical elements within the Japanese military; 2. Radical members of the Kuomintang; 3. Agents of Soviet Russia in China (Soviet Russia most hoped for a major war between China and Japan).
After the Marco Polo Bridge incident broke out, a month later Chiang Kai-shek mobilized fifty thousand Nationalist troops to proactively attack three to four thousand Japanese soldiers stationed in Shanghai's Hongkou (Note: this small group of Japanese troops was stationed according to the 1932 Shanghai Ceasefire Agreement).
The Japanese believed that Chiang Kai-shek's provocation was intolerable, so they launched a large-scale invasion of China, claiming to "punish the violent Chinese," and committed a massacre in Nanjing.
It should be particularly noted here that throughout the war, the Japanese military concealed the key facts from the lower and middle-level Japanese soldiers and incited hatred against China. For example, the Liu Tiaohu incident, Nakamura incident, Wanbaoshan incident, Jinan incident, and Japanese monk incident... The truth of these events was only revealed to the Japanese public and lower-ranking soldiers after the Tokyo Trials post-war. Before that, the Japanese military controlled the media, covered up the facts, and instilled the idea that “the Chinese bullied the Japanese,” hence the term "punish the violent Chinese." The brutality of Japanese soldiers can largely be attributed to not knowing the truth.
In summary, the truth of Japan's invasion of China can be briefly summarized as:
1. Japan obtained colonial interests from the Qing Dynasty through treaties;
2. Chiang Kai-shek and Zhang Xueliang tried at all costs to reclaim these colonial interests;
3. Japanese warlords, unwilling to lose vested interests, hijacked Japan and launched a full-scale war.
This is the truth.The so-called "Japan had long planned to destroy China" in modern history education is not the truth. This is the truth.

Therefore, after the war, both Mao and Chiang attributed the main responsibility for the war to the 'Japanese militarists,' rather than to all Japanese people. This attribution is accurate.

Once the war broke out, Japan was determined to defeat Chiang Kai-shek's regime and support a pro-Japanese government. Japan believed that only in this way could it secure its existing interests and leadership position in Asia; otherwise, the economic development and national defense security issues of the Japanese nation could not be solved.

Later, led by the United States, other countries sanctioned Japan and cut off its war energy supply, forcing Japan to go to war against the United States and leading to its defeat.

It should be noted here that the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek was, in fact, a militarist oligarchy. At that time, the citizens of the Republic of China did not have democratic political rights, and the country's main resources and interests were monopolized by the KMT vested interest groups... In other words, the Republic of China at that time was not a 'government for the people.' If we consider the welfare of ordinary people, how much better Chiang Kai-shek's government was compared to Wang Jingwei's (puppet) government, and how much higher its legitimacy was, is a question worth exploring.

The entire history of the Sino-Japanese War can be summarized in this way. However, due to space limitations, many readers may still have doubts about the above account. In my book published in Hong Kong, 'From the First Sino-Japanese War to July 7—Why Japan Invaded China' (Zhonghua Book Company), I provide a detailed discussion and list a large amount of firsthand historical materials.

Once the history is clarified, the following observations can be considered relatively objective:
1. At that time, Japan had to expand due to economic and national defense deficiencies. China, Korea, Ryukyu, Russia... all neighboring countries suffered from it. Japan's expansionist national policy was a comprehensive strategy in East Asia, not specifically targeted at China. The claim that 'Japan had long planned to destroy China' is not accurate and does not reflect historical truth.
2. Soldiers of the Japanese army who committed massacres in Nanjing (such as the 16th Division) had, in fact, mostly perished during the Pacific War.A few Japanese soldiers who escaped punishment laid down their arms and were slaughtered after Japan's defeat. However, apart from executing a small number of key war criminals, Chiang Kai-shek did not pursue the remaining Japanese soldiers who had civilian blood on their hands. On the contrary, he 'returned good for evil' and let them go back to their country. To be fair, this matter should be blamed on Chiang Kai-shek.

3. Japanese government leaders have formally apologized for their history of aggression more than once. At the same time, since 1979, Japan has provided China with ODA loans (including low-interest loans, interest-free loans, and grants). These three types of figures are astronomical. Japan's economic aid strongly supported China's reform and opening-up development. Interested readers can search for the information themselves; this is a well-known fact that is easy to overlook.

Now, let's talk about the current issues. The most pressing issues in China-Japan relations today are mainly the following two: 1. The revival of militarism; 2. The Diaoyu Islands issue.

First, let's discuss the problem of the revival of militarism. We must first understand the nature of the issue of militarism in Japanese history. From my perspective, the essence of Japanese militarism in history is still the two points I mentioned at the beginning: 1. The Japanese people's economic sense of crisis; 2. The Japanese people's national defense sense of crisis.

Specifically, in modern history, the Japanese believed that the four islands they lived on severely lacked food and resources and could not accommodate a growing population. For the development of the nation, expansion was necessary, and militarism was needed to achieve this expansion. Secondly, as an island nation, Japan lacks strategic depth. The northern frontier was occupied by their historical enemy Russia, and the west had ideological rivals Britain and the United States. In the event of a future major war, if Japan had no mainland bases, it would be very disadvantaged in the war. Therefore, expansion was necessary, and militarism was needed to achieve this expansion.

This is the essence.

However, the two crises mentioned earlier—1. economic; 2. national defense—have now been resolved in Japan.

Regarding the economic problem, through international free trade, Japan has achieved the highest living standards in the world today. Food and resources are no longer an issue, and there is no need for expansion in the foreseeable future, which means there is no need to revive militarism.

In terms of national defense, Japan is protected by the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, not only becoming friends with the United States but also no longer worrying about the northern enemy—Russia. Therefore, the national defense crisis no longer exists.Any revival of anything must have a motive. The foundations of militarism (economic crisis, national defense crisis) have already disappeared in reality, so militarism has no soil to revive in the foreseeable future; therefore, it is, in fact, a pseudo-issue.
What remains is the Diaoyu Islands issue.
The Diaoyu Islands are a disputed issue. It is not a black-and-white issue, but indeed a contentious one. A so-called "disputed" issue means that "one side has its justification, the other side has its justification." Based on the existing materials, it indeed appears to be such an issue.
If this case were to be submitted to the International Court of Justice, it would not be easy to judge.
So how should this thorny matter be handled? I believe it should be handled according to the principle of "maximizing interests." Specifically, this means "handle it in a way that maximizes China's gain," and this approach implies not being restricted to "war" or "no war," but considering the overall economic interests between China and Japan. Whether it is "war" or "peace," every plan has "costs" and "benefits." Subtract the costs from the benefits, and whichever plan yields the greatest profit should be used. I think, as someone who claims to be a "patriot," you should not oppose this view; there is nothing more pragmatic than this.
With this kind of pragmatic thinking based on the "maximization of national interests," you can free yourself from the shackles of "war for war's sake" and "fight Japan just to fight Japan" hatred.
Furthermore, for the hot-blooded and angry youth passionate about the Diaoyu Islands issue, have you considered this question: the oil beneath the waters of the Diaoyu Islands—do you actually get a share of it? In other words, even if the war is won, if Sinopec or some state-owned enterprise extracts the oil, where will the profits go? Will they be enjoyed by a very small number of people, or will you also share in the benefits? If you don't get a share, then why are you angry? Why the urgency? What exactly are you hating?
Behind this lies a rather deep question: whose interests does the nation's benefit belong to? If this question is not understood, angry youth can only revolve around the ideology of "patriotism" and will never see the essence of the problem.
I believe that by this point, the readers should have a clear idea in their minds regarding the question of "should one hate Japan?"If I need to make myself a bit clearer, I will offer everyone a sentence: Whether to be anti-Japanese or not should not be based on ideology, but on your, my, and their actual interests. If being anti-Japanese benefits your, my, or their actual interests, then I don't oppose being anti-Japanese; if being anti-Japanese doesn't really bring any actual benefits to your, my, or their interests, then I have to say: 'being anti-Japanese' is actually just pointless fussing.

Whether being anti-Japanese benefits your actual interests, I believe as long as you still have a shred of rationality, you should know the answer.

At the end of this article, here's a 'one-sentence summary': Remember history, let go of hatred, respond rationally.

I believe: viewing Japan this way is correct.