九、為祖國辯護之兩封信

（一）致The New Republic書

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《新共和國周報》書

主筆先生：

余拜讀了貴刊二月六日所刊署名“一位中國朋友”的來信，甚感興趣。余對該作者之樂觀主義深表贊同，即認為“目前形勢之發(fā)展必將有利于各有關(guān)方面”，然而，對其所提出的實現(xiàn)樂觀主義夢想之方法，則不敢茍同。該君似乎主張：解決遠東問題之關(guān)鍵，在于日本對中國事務(wù)之管理是否負責(zé)、有效。依在下之愚見，這不是解決問題的根本方法。

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

更有甚者，貴刊記者對于中國國民自治和自我發(fā)展能力之估計偏執(zhí)一端。該君指責(zé)說：“有人把共和國視作東方復(fù)興之例證，事實上該共和國是注定要慘遭失敗的……以一先進國家之標準來衡量中國，是完全不夠格的。她不具備自我發(fā)展之能力?！比挥嘁嘁嵝言摼裰袊@樣一個泱泱大國，其改革決不會是一蹴而就的。奉勸他多讀一些書，譬如約翰·菲斯克的《美國歷史的關(guān)鍵時刻》，如此他便會明白：即便是像美國這樣一個共和國，也不是單憑一項突然頒布的、神奇般的法令即可建成。試想一想，美利堅合眾國在沮喪的十三州邦聯(lián)憲法時期，其遭受之重創(chuàng)則比中華民國所遭受的更甚。辛亥革命發(fā)生于公元1911年10月，創(chuàng)立共和國至今還不足三載，豈能說已決無希望！豈能說“以一先進國家之標準來衡量中國，是完全不夠格的”？又豈能說“中國不具備自我發(fā)展之能力”？

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

胡適 紐約，綺色佳，2月27日

（二）致The Outlook書

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》書

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

余作為一名中國人，深知同胞之志氣與抱負，因此余敢斷言：任何想要在中國搞日本統(tǒng)治或“管理”之企圖，無異于在中國播下騷亂和流血的種子，未來的一段歲月中國將雞犬不寧。目前之中國，對于任何外來“武裝”之要求，不管其是如何的不近情理，確實沒有能力去抵抗。然而無論是誰，如果他想要鼓吹以日本對中國的管理權(quán)或保護權(quán)來求得“維持東方局勢之穩(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！盡管這在當(dāng)前奏效不大。君不見反日之仇恨已燃遍了神州大地么？

余誠以為，遠東問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的。

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

胡　適　謹上