论文部分内容阅读
“九一八”事变后,胡适的“主和”与傅斯年“主战”虽是横亘在二人之间的一道心理鸿沟,但“和”与“战”各有其理由,并非像名词显示的那样泾渭分明。在对待国联及李顿调查团报告书的问题上,胡适出于世界主义和国际公义的考量,主张接受;傅斯年则秉持民族主义立场,在接受与拒绝之间摇摆。随着日本侵略规模的扩大,国联调解的失败,胡适谋求通过接受国际调停来使中国融入世界的愿望也付之东流。
After the “September 18 Incident”, Hu Shih’s “Lord” and “Fu Sinian” “Main Battle” is a psychological gap between the two people. However, "Each has its own reasons, not as clear as the noun shows. In handling the reports of the League of Nations and the Litong Commission, Hu Shih accepted the considerations of cosmopolitanism and international justice. Fu Sinian swayed from the standpoint of nationalism in accepting and rejecting the report. With the expansion of Japan’s aggression and the failure of the League of Nations to mediate, Hu Shih also pursued the desire to make China integrate into the world by accepting international mediation.