胡適：自由主義者還是蔣政權的捍衛者？－從吳國楨事件看殷海光與胡適劍沒有出鞘的交鋒

本文探討三個互有關涉的公案：第一個是台灣省主席吳國楨流亡美國後與國府間的鬥爭，吳在《展望》上發表文章，指控台灣在蔣介石治下已成警察國家；第二個是，四九年奉蔣之命赴美的胡適，在駐美大使顧維鈞的折衝下，投稿給《新領袖》，反駁吳文，終結吳國楨挑戰國府的事件；第三個是赴美短期訪問的殷海光，不滿胡適的批吳，寫了不客氣的信，重責胡適，引發胡適的回應。從吳、胡、殷三人的私函、辯難、訪談，藉比揭露三個歷史事件的始末。第一是吳國楨公開挑戰蔣政權的起因與過程，從而呈現五○年代台灣的白色恐怖。第二是胡適與吳國楨之間針鋒相對的私函往返，以及在美進行的筆戰，追索胡適作為的背後動因，並解答胡適究竟是自由主義者抑或蔣政權的辯護士的提問？第三個是，同屬自由主義陣線的胡適與殷海光，在吳國楨事件上，為何有截然不同的觀點、立場與表現？胡與殷的矛盾，透顯的不只是兩代自由主義者的歧出，而是面對國府與台灣當何去何從的不同想像與取向。本文以歷史敘述為經，政治分析為緯，是融合歷史與政論於一的嚐試。

關鍵字

吳國楨事件；白色恐怖；自由主義知識分子；胡適；殷海光

並列摘要

This paper analyzes three incidents of intellectual debate about the Nationalist government in Taiwan. The first incident is K. C. Wu's publication of an article on Look magazine that accused Chiang Kai-Shek of turning Taiwan into ＂a police state.＂ K. C. Wu, the former governor of Taiwan living in exile in the U.S. had become a political foe of the Nationalists and wrote the article to delegitimize Generalissimo Chiang's rule of the island. The second incident is Hu Shih's rebuttal of K. C. Wu on The New Leader. Hu Shih's authorship of this article was arranged by Wellington Koo, the Nationalist government's ambassador to the U.S., who was acting under direct orders from Generalissimo Chiang to facilitate the publication of materials that would discredit K. C. Wu. Hu's counterattack soundly defeated Wu and put a decisive end to the ＂K. C. Wu incident.＂ The third incident occurred, however, when Yin Haiguang wrote a scathing letter addressed personally to Hu Shih, in which the he pilloried Hu Shih for his arguments and personal conduct in the K. C. Wu affair. Hu was obliged to pen a reply. Analysis of the private communications, public debates and recorded meetings between K. C. Wu, Hu Shih and Yin Haiguang sheds light on three historical problems. First, K. C. Wu's public challenge to Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalist regime set the record straight on Taiwan's White Terror during the 1950s. Second, a critical reading of the private and public exchanges between Hu Shih and K. C. Wu reveals Hu Shih's motives and raises serious questions as to whether Hu Shih was the liberal thinker he portrayed himself to be or in fact an apologist of Chiang Kai-Shek's political regime. Third, this research asks why as self-identified liberals, Hu Shih and Yin Haiguang took diametrically opposed views and interpretations of the K. C. Wu affair and acted in total disagreement. Hu Shih and Yin Haiguang's conflict not only exposes the generational fault line between the two liberal thinkers, but is moreover the result of the clash of opposing visions and imaginations about the Nationalist government and Taiwan's future. This paper unfolds the events with the method of the historical narrative but dissects them with the approach of the political commentary; it is a conscious attempt on the author's part to combine the roles of the historian and political commentator and essayist.