I'm sorry, I don't endorse your perception of these and object even more to your definition of me. It is right for people in a country to have patriotism, but to question a person's perceptions because of their patriotism is biased and is not a correct way of thinking. My perception of Japan is based on facts, while much of your perception is based on some propaganda and is superficial.
China was very rotten at that time, from the time it lost to Britain in 1840 to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, China was in civil war, and from 1911 to 1949, China was also in civil war, and various imperialist countries were supporting warlords in China for over 100 years, and there were wars everywhere. You can imagine how weak China was in this situation.
We can imagine if the United States from now on there has been a civil war, fighting for 100 years, do you believe that Mexico can defeat the United States, even if Mexico's level of technology is only the world's middle class. Of course provided that extraterritorial countries do not stop it . This is what happened when Japan fought China. At that time, the United States in 1941 before the United States can still have been a large number of military supplies sold to Japan. If China does the same, I do not believe that such the United States can hold off the Mexican invasion.
If an analogy can be drawn again , it is that now India starts a civil war, which is fought for 30 years, then Bangladesh can occupy a third of India with the world's upper-middle level technology and military. The premise is that China, the United States and Europe not only do not stop you from invading India, but also sell you military supplies, because at this time China, the United States and Europe are also fighting each other. In the end Bengal lost and was occupied by the victor among China, America, and Europe and started to support Bengal, which gained the world market it needed to develop its products and technology. This market used to be owned by these two losers , but defeat meant losing dominance of the market. Britain and France, after World War II, slowly lost their colonies, is the embodiment of this behavior.
Japan has certainly made achievements, and the size of this achievement needs to be viewed objectively, not by imagination. Your claim that Japan has caught up with the West through 150 years is outrageously wrong. At that time, the West, including Russia, had basically occupied the vast majority of the world's territory, resources and markets. Japan's various products in that era, you can search the Internet, ah, to see the gap with the West.
You can also search for a comparison of Japanese weapons of that era with the West and the Soviet Union. To put it bluntly, Japanese weapons at that time were among the worst in Europe. At that time, the British, American and German weapons were the best, and the Soviet Union's were behind them, but the Soviet Union's weapons had the advantage of generational differences in the face of Japan.
Regarding the defeat of the Russian Navy by Japan in 1905, it is well known that Britain supported Japan, right, and Britain did not send a fleet. One of the main enemies of Britain at that time was Russia.I think you know more about the historical relationship between Britain and Russia than me. Britain was officially allied with Japan a few years before the war.
Japan is still very grateful to the United States after World War II. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is about the technology and market piece. Before World War II, Japan could not get the resources and markets it needed to develop, and China's market was divided among several empires, while the rest of the world's resources and markets were all in the hands of the West and Russia. After the U.S. occupation of Japan, the U.S. began to support Japan due to the change in the international situation, and in this case, Japan gained access to markets, technology and resources for development, and Japanese products have been sold to the world ever since.
And the relationship between Britain and Japan. After Japan grew to affect British interests in the Far East, Britain turned to seek to suppress Japan, which is why the Anglo-Japanese alliance later failed and Japan-Germany allied.
International relations were such that Britain went from supporting Japan together to suppress Russia to suppressing Japan, all from interests.
To understand things, we must also consider the whole picture and not just think that others are making excuses.
When it comes to the success of the Japanese invasion of China at that time, we have to see both the reason that China was very weak and the fact that the West at that time was fighting internally and did not have much power and mind to put on the Far East. World War I and World War II were European civil wars that turned into world wars.
If an analogy can be drawn, it is that now India starts a civil war, which is fought for 30 years, then Bangladesh can occupy a third of India with the world's upper-middle level technology and military. The premise is that China, the United States and Europe not only do not stop you from invading India, but also sell you military supplies, because at this time China, the United States and Europe are also fighting each other. In the end Bengal lost and was occupied by the victor among China, America, and Europe and started to support Bengal, which gained the world market it needed to develop its products and technology. This market was actually owned by the two losers, but defeat meant losing dominance of the market. Britain and France, after World War II, slowly lost their colonies, is the embodiment of this behavior.
A civil war in a country where there is foreign intervention, that civil war will last longer, not even depending on the two sides of the civil war, but on the foreign power. This is the reason why the civil war in China has been able to last so long. The various imperialists, through external manipulation, can balance the forces of each side and keep the civil war parties fighting for a long time. Now at this time, there are still several countries in civil wars, such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen. These countries in civil wars can easily successfully be invaded by their neighbors if no top international player steps in to stop this invasion from their neighbors, because a civil war in a country is the equivalent of a country having a major illness and is very weak.
There is just a little bit of civil unrest in Burma now, and if all the countries had stayed away, Bangladesh could have taken over part of Burma by now. That's how weak a country can be in a civil war and how important the international environment is.
