第43篇 三国攻秦反

出处:战国策·西周策

语言: 中文 English Español 日本語 한국어 Tiếng Việt ไทย Русский

📜 原文(文言文)

三国攻秦,入函谷。秦王谓楼缓曰:“三国之兵深矣,寡人欲割河东而讲。”对曰:“割河东,大费也;免于国患,大利也。此父兄之任也。王何不召公子池而问焉?”王召公子池而问之,对曰:“讲亦悔,不讲亦悔。”王曰:“何也?”对曰:“王割河东而讲,三国虽去,王必曰:‘惜矣!三国且去,吾特以三城从之。’此讲之悔也。王不讲,三国入函谷,咸阳必危,王又曰:‘惜矣!吾爱三城而不讲。’此不讲之悔也。”王曰:“钧吾悔也,宁亡三城而悔,无危咸阳而悔也。寡人决讲矣。”卒使公子池以三城讲于三国,三国乃退。

📖 白话文翻译

The forces of Han, Wei, and Qi allied to attack Qin, breaching the Hangu Pass. King Zhaoxiang of Qin said to his chancellor Lou Huan, "The armies of the three states have penetrated deep into our territory, their strength formidable. I wish to cede the lands east of the Yellow River to sue for peace—what say you?" Lou Huan replied, "Ceding the eastern lands would be a great loss, yet sparing the state from peril is a great gain. This is a matter befitting the royal kin. Why not summon Prince Chi to deliberate?" The king then summoned Prince Chi and consulted him. Prince Chi said, "To sue for peace will bring regret, and to refuse it will also bring regret." The king asked, "How so?" Prince Chi answered, "If Your Majesty cedes the eastern lands and sues for peace, though the three states withdraw, you will surely say, 'Alas! The three states were about to retreat on their own, yet I gave them three cities for naught.' Such is the regret of suing for peace. If Your Majesty refuses peace, and the three states breach the Hangu Pass, Xianyang will be in dire peril, and you will say, 'Alas! I begrudged three cities and thus failed to sue for peace.' Such is the regret of refusing peace." The king said, "Since regret is inevitable either way, I would rather regret the loss of three cities than regret the peril of Xianyang. I have decided to sue for peace." In the end, he sent Prince Chi to negotiate peace with the three states, ceding three cities, whereupon their armies withdrew.

💡 商战启示录

This strategy reveals how decision-makers weigh short-term losses against long-term survival during major crises. King Zhaoxiang of Qin, facing the combined forces of three states pressing on his borders, chose to "cede territory and sue for peace"—a move that appeared humiliating but was in fact a calculated exchange of controllable costs for strategic breathing room, averting utter catastrophe. In modern business, similar cases abound. For instance, in 2010, Toyota faced a global crisis of trust over the "brake gate" scandal, threatened by massive compensation claims and the collapse of its brand. Toyota decisively recalled millions of vehicles worldwide on a massive scale, incurring severe short-term losses, yet preserving the company's foundation. Ultimately, through rigorous quality control, it rebuilt its reputation and achieved recovery. In contrast, Nokia, amid the smartphone wave, clung to the profits of feature phones and delayed transformation until it was too late, eventually being eliminated from the market. The wisdom of commercial strategy lies in this: when crisis looms, decision-makers must clearly distinguish between "core survival" and "non-core interests," daring to sacrifice certain territories—such as market share, short-term profits, or peripheral business lines—in exchange for preserving core competitiveness and securing future opportunities. As Prince Chi observed, one may regret either negotiating or not, but when weighing two evils, choose the lesser. The essence of decision-making is to make the optimal choice among imperfect options, not to pursue a risk-free, flawless solution.