Why "there is never a winner in war, only a loser!" ? To answer this question, we must first analyze the background of this view. In the case that all parties are controversial, some "neutral" people are afraid of being involved in the struggle and what bad influence they will bring to themselves. They think it is wrong to give up the opportunity of provocation so much, so they clamor for "excessive peace". They put forward that "there will never be a winner in war, only a loser!" "Some people make this seemingly' peaceful' appeal, but it is an out-and-out partiality. Obviously, it is encouraging the weak side in the struggle, but it is essentially against "there will never be winners in the war, only losers!" "(that is, they are essentially against themselves) because they want a winner who can represent their interests. Struggle exists objectively, and it must be reflected in the ideological field in one form or another, in the works of this writer or that writer, regardless of whether the writer is conscious or unconscious. This is an objective law that is independent of human will. If some comrades disagree with the above views, please answer, how can we learn from "there will never be winners in war, only losers!" " "What have you learned?