Looking back at the right and wrong of fortress defense and coastal defense in the late Qing Dynasty, which is right and wrong between Li Hongzhang and Zuo?

Li Hongzhang's proposition is to attach importance to coastal defense first, while Left's proposition is to pay equal attention to fortress defense and coastal defense. The former is the lesser of the two evils, while the latter is the endless future trouble.

Left advocates paying equal attention to land and sea, "both hands should be grasped and both hands should be hard", and abandoning coastal defense and focusing only on land defense is not the case at all. With the national strength of the Qing dynasty, it is not difficult to give consideration to both. If you insist on making all the questions into multiple-choice questions, you deserve to fail. Besides, even if you have to choose between land and sea, you should choose land defense. Britain and France at sea want to trade with you, and Russia on land wants you dead. Which one do you deal with first?

The navy is by nature offensive. There is no first land, and there is no second ocean. In a sense, the concept of coastal defense is wrong. The navy is not for defense at all! How was your first navy in Asia? Can you resist the British navy? If you really want to defend, you have to wait for the other side to land and be defeated by the army.

Zuo did much better than Li Hongzhang. Tens of millions of people were laid off in the west, and General Dorona was shot in the rebellion in the west. Britain, Russia and even Osman, the sick man of West Asia, are doing things. Zuo Gong ignored such a bad situation and continued to fight against Xiang. If you have no money, you can manage the British loan, and it will also have an effect after the loan. Xinjiang should be taken back.