九、為祖國(guó)辯護(hù)之兩封信

（一）致The New Republic書(shū)

Sir:

I read with great interest the letter from "A Friend of China", published in your Journal for February the sixth. I heartily share his optimism that "the situation now developing may be of decided advantage to all concerned", but I entirely disagree with him in his notion of the ways in which his optimistic dreams are to be realized. He seems to hold that the solution of the Far Eastern question lies in Japan's taking a "responsible and effective direction of China's affairs". That, in my humble judgment, can never be the real solution of the problem.

"A Friend of China" seems to have ignored the important fact that we are now living in an age of national consciousness. He forgets that even the Philippines can not rest contented under the apparently "beneficial" rule of the United States. In this twentieth century no nation can ever hope peacefully to rule over or to interfere with the internal administrative affairs of another nation, however beneficial that rule or that interference may be. The Chinese rational consciousness has exterminated the Manchu rule, and, I am sure, will always resent any foreign rule or "direction".

Moreover, your correspondent has been too drastic in his estimation of the capacity of the Chinese people for self-government and self-development. "The Republic," says he, "held up to the world as evidencing the regeneration of the East has proved, as was bound to be the case, a dismal failure…China as a progressive state has been tried and found wanting. She is incapable of developing herself." So runs his accusation. But let me remind him that the transformation of a vast nation like China cannot be accomplished in a day. Read such books as John Fiske's "The Critical Period of American History", and it will be clear that even the establishment of the American Republic was not achieved by a sudden and miraculous fiat. The Chinese republic has been no more a failure than the American Republic was a failure in those dismal days under the Articles of Confederation. The Chinese Revolution occurred in October, 1911. Three years have hardly passed since the formation of the republic. Can we yet say, O ye of little faith! That "China as a progressive state has been tried and found wanting," and that "she is incapable of developing herself"?

I sincerely believe with President Wilson that every people has the right to determine its own form of government. Every nation has the right to be left alone to work out its own salvation. Mexico has the right to revolution. China has her right to her own development.

Ithaca, N. Y., Feb. 27.

Sub Hu

〔中譯〕

致《新共和國(guó)周報(bào)》書(shū)

主筆先生：

余拜讀了貴刊二月六日所刊署名“一位中國(guó)朋友”的來(lái)信，甚感興趣。余對(duì)該作者之樂(lè)觀主義深表贊同，即認(rèn)為“目前形勢(shì)之發(fā)展必將有利于各有關(guān)方面”，然而，對(duì)其所提出的實(shí)現(xiàn)樂(lè)觀主義夢(mèng)想之方法，則不敢茍同。該君似乎主張：解決遠(yuǎn)東問(wèn)題之關(guān)鍵，在于日本對(duì)中國(guó)事務(wù)之管理是否負(fù)責(zé)、有效。依在下之愚見(jiàn)，這不是解決問(wèn)題的根本方法。

這位“中國(guó)朋友”似已忘記這樣一個(gè)重要事實(shí)：吾輩正生活于一國(guó)民覺(jué)醒之時(shí)代。該君甚至也已忘記，就連菲律賓也不甘受制于美國(guó)之“有益”統(tǒng)治。在二十世紀(jì)之今日，任何國(guó)家皆不該抱有統(tǒng)治他國(guó)或干涉別國(guó)內(nèi)政之指望，不管該統(tǒng)治或該干涉如何有益。中國(guó)國(guó)民之覺(jué)醒意味著滿洲統(tǒng)治之結(jié)束，余深信，對(duì)任何外來(lái)之統(tǒng)治或“管理”，國(guó)人定將忿懣不已。

更有甚者，貴刊記者對(duì)于中國(guó)國(guó)民自治和自我發(fā)展能力之估計(jì)偏執(zhí)一端。該君指責(zé)說(shuō)：“有人把共和國(guó)視作東方復(fù)興之例證，事實(shí)上該共和國(guó)是注定要慘遭失敗的……以一先進(jìn)國(guó)家之標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)衡量中國(guó)，是完全不夠格的。她不具備自我發(fā)展之能力。”然余亦要提醒該君，像中國(guó)這樣一個(gè)泱泱大國(guó)，其改革決不會(huì)是一蹴而就的。奉勸他多讀一些書(shū)，譬如約翰·菲斯克的《美國(guó)歷史的關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻》，如此他便會(huì)明白：即便是像美國(guó)這樣一個(gè)共和國(guó)，也不是單憑一項(xiàng)突然頒布的、神奇般的法令即可建成。試想一想，美利堅(jiān)合眾國(guó)在沮喪的十三州邦聯(lián)憲法時(shí)期，其遭受之重創(chuàng)則比中華民國(guó)所遭受的更甚。辛亥革命發(fā)生于公元1911年10月，創(chuàng)立共和國(guó)至今還不足三載，豈能說(shuō)已決無(wú)希望！豈能說(shuō)“以一先進(jìn)國(guó)家之標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)衡量中國(guó)，是完全不夠格的”？又豈能說(shuō)“中國(guó)不具備自我發(fā)展之能力”？

余完全信奉威爾遜總統(tǒng)所言：各國(guó)人民皆有權(quán)利決定自己治國(guó)之形式，也唯有各國(guó)自己才有權(quán)利決定自救之方式。墨西哥有權(quán)革命，中國(guó)也有權(quán)利來(lái)決定自己的發(fā)展。

胡適 紐約，綺色佳，2月27日

（二）致The Outlook書(shū)

Dear Sir:

Permit me to say a few words concerning your editorial on Japan and China which appeared on Feb. 24, 1915. As your editorial was largely based udon a letter to the New Republic from a man who signs himself "A Friend of China", I beg to enclose a letter in which I have endeavored to show the fallacies in his arguments. In my humble judgment, the New Republic correspondent can not be a true "friend of China", nor can he be "an expert in Eastern affairs", as The Outlook seems to think.

As one who comes from among the Chinese people and who knows their inspirations and aspirations, I declare most emphatically that any attempt to bring about a Japanese domination or "direction" in China is no more and no less than sowing the seeds of future disturbance and bloodshed in China for the countless years to come. It is true that at the present moment China is not capable of resisting any "armed" demands, however unreasonable they may be. But whosoever seeks to secure "the maintenance of stable conditions in the East" by advocating Japanese assumption of the directorship or protectorship of China, shall live to see youthful and heroic, though not immediately useful, blood flow all over the Celestial Republic! Have we not seen anti-Japanese sentiments already prevailing in many parts of China?

I sincerely believe that the ultimate solution of the Far Eastern question must be sought in a mutual understanding and co-operation between China and Japan. But that mutual understanding and cooperation cannot possibly be brought forth by any armed conquest of the one by the other.

As to China's capacity for self-development, I refer you to the enclosed letter to the New Republic , which you may reproduce, if you so desire.

Very sincerely yours, Suh Hu

〔中譯〕

致《外觀報(bào)》書(shū)

尊敬的先生：

就貴刊1915年2月24日發(fā)表的社論《日本與中國(guó)》，余請(qǐng)惠允啰嗦幾句。由于該社論之大部分論據(jù)皆取自于發(fā)表在《新共和國(guó)周報(bào)》上的一封信，該信署名為“一位中國(guó)之朋友”，特附上余“致《新共和國(guó)周報(bào)》書(shū)”。在此信中，余已證明此君之高見(jiàn)純系謬論。以吾之陋見(jiàn)，此《新共和國(guó)周報(bào)》之訪員根本不能算是一位真正的“中國(guó)之朋友”，也決談不上是一位“東方事務(wù)之專(zhuān)家”，如貴刊所推崇的那樣。

余作為一名中國(guó)人，深知同胞之志氣與抱負(fù)，因此余敢斷言：任何想要在中國(guó)搞日本統(tǒng)治或“管理”之企圖，無(wú)異于在中國(guó)播下騷亂和流血的種子，未來(lái)的一段歲月中國(guó)將雞犬不寧。目前之中國(guó)，對(duì)于任何外來(lái)“武裝”之要求，不管其是如何的不近情理，確實(shí)沒(méi)有能力去抵抗。然而無(wú)論是誰(shuí)，如果他想要鼓吹以日本對(duì)中國(guó)的管理權(quán)或保護(hù)權(quán)來(lái)求得“維持東方局勢(shì)之穩(wěn)定”，那么，他定將看到年青而英勇的熱血流遍我華夏之共和國(guó)！盡管這在當(dāng)前奏效不大。君不見(jiàn)反日之仇恨已燃遍了神州大地么？

余誠(chéng)以為，遠(yuǎn)東問(wèn)題之最終解決乃在于中日雙方之相互理解、相互合作。然此種理解與合作決不是由一次次之武裝征服所帶來(lái)的。

至于中國(guó)自我發(fā)展之能力，余已在附信“致《新共和國(guó)周報(bào)》書(shū)”中闡明，君若愿意，當(dāng)可在信中找到答案。

胡　適　謹(jǐn)上