Historical question.

Whether there is selfishness or not, it should be easy to see by now!

The Kuomintang in Taiwan can calmly hand over power to the party that won the election, but on the other hand, a certain party: the TV series constantly preaches to everyone that "fight the world and sit on the country", and then get a few puppet democratic parties to be a foil and embellishment, which is no different from the emperor of feudal society in his bones!

What's worse is that because the country is not owned by a certain person or a certain family, whoever has a certain degree of power must get a hand as soon as possible, no matter how long the country can sit! Just like the current state-owned enterprises and private enterprises, private enterprises have to consider long-term development, while state-owned enterprises have a difficult long-term plan and will not engage in independent research and development.

At that time, it was only a formal unification, and the essence was still a warlord separation, and the establishment of the national ** began not long after"The Great War of the Central Plains"** The army and the local army are fighting happily. In the end, Zhang Xueliang from the northeast joined the official to help Lao Jiang level those local armies, but it was only superficially obedient. The various local armies still maintain a great deal of strength.

The battle between the open and the dark continues. A regime is divided into several factions, each with its own army. Even if the policy specified by **** is good, it is a piece of paper that cannot be implemented.

Impossible. If the assumption is not true, the characteristics of the Chinese nation will have to be lived and died.

History cannot be assumed!

The winner is king, and the loser is the villain.

The benevolent are invincible, and the violent will be defeated.

There are many historical problems, and there is no such thing as the most classic statement, it mainly depends on which aspect you analyze from which side, you can get a result from the positive analysis, and you will get diametrically opposite results from the negative analysis, so it is difficult to define it concretely.

Historicity refers to the fact that practice is the activity that the subject engages in in a certain social relationship, is constrained by social conditions, and develops with the changes and development of society and history.

This shows that practical activities are not isolated activities of individual individuals. The fundamental changes achieved by Marx and Engels in their outlook on social history were mainly the establishment of the principle that social existence determines social consciousness.

This principle is a revolutionary discovery not only for economics, but also for all historical sciences (all sciences that are not natural sciences are historical sciences): 'The mode of production of material life regulates the whole of social life, The process of political and spiritual life', all social and state relations, all religious and legal systems, all theoretical viewpoints that have appeared in history, can only be understood when the material conditions of life in each of the corresponding epochs are understood, and from which they are derived.

What are the most classic historical questions? There are many historical problems, for example, in modern history.

The question is who is which, ask yourself to study this very prominent question, very.