1) The cause of the Sino-Japanese War. For a long time, Chinese and foreign scholars have different opinions on this. To sum up, there are three main opinions: one is economic teleology. It is believed that Japan launched the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 in order to ensure the foreign raw material base and market, to carry out primitive accumulation and plunder the colonies. Second, contingency theory. For example, the war was caused by the uprising of the East Korean Learning Party, the war was forced to turn internal disputes into foreign aggression because of the political crisis in Japan, and the outbreak of the war was caused by accidental reasons. , all belong to this category. Third, Japan's invasion of China and Korea is its established national policy, and launching the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 is a long-planned and carefully planned aggression by Japanese militarism. Economic purpose is only one aspect of the problem. Failure to grasp the root of the problem cannot be said to be the main reason why Japan launched the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. Therefore, in recent years, Japan's occasional wars have become popular, denying Japan's mainland policy of invading South Korea and China a long time ago. For example, Gao Qiao Hideyoshi defended Japan's sending troops to North Korea, saying that "the Japanese government did not consciously participate in the war, but Ito Bowen, who was in charge of the Japanese government at that time, tried to maintain coordination with the Qing country." Later, Ito's policy change towards the DPRK lies in Japan's internal affairs (Noe: [Japan] Gao Qiao Hideyoshi: The Road to the War between Japan and the DPRK, Tokyo Chuangyuan Society, 1995. )。 Boming Ozawa also believes: "After the Shen Jia Incident, the Japanese government's foreign and military policies toward the DPRK were not aimed at the anti-Qing war. The' June 2nd invasion' (the Japanese government decided to send troops to North Korea on June 2nd, 1894) and the Nissin * * * case cooperated with North Korea's internal affairs reform, not for the purpose of' provoking' the Qing country and realizing the Nissin * * to cooperate with North Korea's internal affairs reform. (Noe: [Japan] osawa Boming: "Nissin * * and Korean Reform and the War of Nissin", Kumamoto Law No.73, 1993. There are many similar statements, so I don't need to repeat them. A common fault of supporters of contingency theory is that they are obsessed with subjective analysis of historical phenomena and can completely ignore the most basic objective historical facts. From 65438 to 0868, Meiji Emperor Mu Ren ascended the throne and began to implement the policy of "military power", with foreign aggression and expansion as the basic national policy. In the 1970s, Japan advocated "the theory of recruiting Korea". The essence of the so-called "theory of recruiting Korea" is the theory of invading the mainland. After the 1980s, the Japanese government made every effort to prepare for the continental war. As soon as Yamagata Aritomo's cabinet was established, it put forward the "line of defending interests", which became the "theoretical" basis for Japanese militarism to launch a war of aggression. By 1893, Emperor Meiji approved the "Regulations on Wartime Base Camp", which indicated that Japan had completed its war preparations for invading the mainland. Saito Saito made an in-depth study of the relevant documents of Lieutenant General Nozin Dogo, the head of the Fifth Division of Japan who first entered the DPRK in the Sino-Japanese War, and thought that the purpose of Japan's sending troops to Korea was ostensibly to "protect the Japanese and the legation" and the purpose behind it was to "compete with the Qing State" (note: Saito Saito: Creation No.24 on the preparation of the Japanese-Qing War by the army). ), that is to say, there is no "real intention" to "try to maintain coordination with the Qing state" and "* * * reform North Korea's internal affairs". In fact, as early as 1887, Lu Haijun's General Staff Headquarters had formulated several specific plans for fighting against China. Previously discovered and disclosed, Nana Ogawa, director of the Operations Department of the General Staff Department, once again proposed the "Qing Army Conquest Plan" of the Army Chief, that is, "at this time, China is absolutely preemptive." (Noe: [Japan] Nana Ogawa also: General Plan of the Qing Army Conquest, War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression Studies 1995 1. ) A few years ago, Professor zhǒng @①ǒng @① Ming discovered 1887 from the Sato Library of Fukushima Prefecture Library six conceptual plans for fighting against China, and made a case study of one of them, "Countermeasures for Seizing the Qing Dynasty", which led to the conclusion: "From the actual combat of the Japanese-Qing War, (Note: ZH ǒ ng @ ① Ming Zai [Japan]: Japan's preparations for the Qing War before the Japanese-Qing War, War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression Studies, No.2+0997. It is not difficult to see that it is no accident that Japan provoked the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, which is an inevitable step for Japan to implement its long-planned mainland policy of foreign aggression and expansion.

(2) The nature of the Sino-Japanese War. In this regard, China scholars believe that the Japanese war of aggression is an unjust war, and China's war against the invaders is a just war. It seems that only the principle is defined, or only the universality of this war is determined, without studying its particularity. Because of this, there is no objection. From Japan's point of view, the debate is quite fierce. Generally speaking, there are the following opinions: First, the theory of just war. When the Sino-Japanese War broke out, the theory of just war was rampant in Japan. For example, it is claimed that Japan's purpose this time is to "ensure North Korea's independence for a long time" and "remove its obstacles for the progress of world civilization" (Note: See Nobuo Kizaburo's Inside Story of Japanese Diplomacy in the Sino-Japanese War, 360-36 1 page. ), so "the Japanese-Qing War was a civilized and barbaric war" and "for us, it was actually a just war. Not only in law, but also in ethics. " (Note: See [Japan] Fujimura Daosheng's Japanese-Qing War, 98 pages. ) After the Second World War, the theory of just war, which was once unanimous in public opinion, naturally fell out of fashion, so various opinions were put forward. Second, the defense theory. This is a popular saying in recent years. For example, at that time, Japan "felt a strong threat to the growth of the Beiyang Navy, so it basically focused on the defense of its own territory", and the so-called statement that "Japan had long been ready to attack the mainland" was wrong (Note: [Japan] Morita Yu 'e: "On the Preparation for the Japanese mainland's attack before the Japanese Qing Dynasty", Military HistoryNo. 1 19. )。 Or argue that Japan's military expansion against the Qing Dynasty is due to the sense of crisis that the Qing navy is superior to Japan, and it is not actively plotting against the Qing Dynasty, but preparing to defend itself under unintentional circumstances (Note: [Japan] Gao Qiao Xiuzhi: "The Road to the Japanese-Qing War", 305-306 pages. )。 That is to say, due to the threat from China, Japan expanded its army to prepare for war, not consciously launched the Sino-Japanese war of aggression against China. Then, as early as 1887, the Japanese Chief of Staff made a battle plan for Lu Haijun's invasion of Chinese mainland. What did it show? Advocates of defense theory avoid talking about it. Third, duality theory. There are also two kinds of dualism: one is: "The Japanese-Qing war has the nature of nationalism on the one hand and the nature of imperialist war on the other." Another said: "For imperialist countries, the Japanese-Qing War was defensive; For China, a backward country, this is an imperialist war of aggression. " (Note: Zhang Zhonglin: Views of some Japanese scholars on the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1894, Foreign Social Science Information No.9, 1984. These two different duality theories seem to be comprehensive, but whether they can be established is worth considering. Can the Sino-Japanese War be said to be nationalist? In fact, it is the Japanese gentry who are most keen on provoking war, and this kind of war fanaticism also affects intellectuals, but "most people are indifferent to war because they can't understand the motives for going to war." Therefore, Ozaki Yukio, a politician at that time, pointed out: "The so-called national unity in the Japanese-Qing War was also the result of' similarity and echo'." (Noe: [Japan] Fujimura Daosheng: "Japanese-Qing War", 97 pages, preface 1 page. It is obviously unreasonable to endow this war of aggression launched by the Japanese ruling clique with nationalism. As for the relationship between Japan and western imperialist countries, there is certainly a struggle, but it is more exploitation and collusion, which can only be described as "defense" and can only beautify the culprit who intentionally or unintentionally launched this war of aggression. So, can it be said that it has the nature of imperialist war? In this regard, opinions are also inconsistent. Some critics say that it does not have the nature of an imperialist war. Some critics also said that it has a certain imperialist war nature. But in any case, it must be affirmed that the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 "opened the way for Japan to move towards modern imperialist robber policy" (Note: [Japan] Kiyoshi Inoue: Japanese Militarism Volume 2, Commercial Press, 1985, 130. )。 Judging from the outcome of this war, "the imperialist world system is in a special era when the war broke out", so "the Nissin War became the starting point of China's formal division, and it was also a watershed for the formation of the imperialist system in Asia" (Note: [Japan] Fujimura Daosheng: "The Nissin War-a Turning Point in Modern East Asian History", preface 2-3 pages, Iwabo Bookstore, Tokyo, 65438. )。 Because of this, the author believes that although Japan's own capitalist development has not yet reached the stage of imperialism, from the formation process of the entire Asian imperialist system, Japan has become one of the most aggressive members by launching the Sino-Japanese War. In this sense, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 was an important part of a series of aggressive wars launched by imperialist powers in Asia at the turn of the last century. It is unreasonable to exclude it from the scope of imperialist war and deny its nature.