Behind the lies of Holocaust denial | Deborah Lipstadt

翻译人员: Lipeng Chen 校对人员: Zhuxiao Yan

I come to you today to speak of liars,

我今天将和你们谈谈谎言，

lawsuits

诉讼，

and laughter.

和欢笑。

The first time I heard about Holocaust denial,

当我第一次听到对大屠杀的否认时，

I laughed.

我笑了。

Holocaust denial?

否认大屠杀？

The Holocaust which has the dubious distinction

世界上记录最全面、

of being the best-documented genocide in the world?

最著名的种族大屠杀？

Who could believe it didn't happen?

谁会相信它没有发生？

Think about it.

想想看。

For deniers to be right,

如果否认者是正确的，

who would have to be wrong?

谁会变成错误的呢？

Well, first of all, the victims --

首先，受害者们——

the survivors who have told us their harrowing stories.

那些告诉我们令人心碎的故事的幸存者。

Who else would have to be wrong?

谁还会是错误的呢？

The bystanders.

旁观者。

The people who lived in the myriads of towns and villages and cities

那些居住在东部战线上 无数村庄和城市中的

on the Eastern front,

人们，

who watched their neighbors be rounded up --

他们看着他们的邻居被围剿——

men, women, children, young, old --

男人，女人，孩子，年轻人，老人——

and be marched to the outskirts of the town

被指挥前进到村庄的边缘，

to be shot and left dead in ditches.

然后被射杀，死在沟渠里。

Or the Poles,

或是波兰人，

who lived in towns and villages around the death camps,

他们生活在集中营旁边的村庄，

who watched day after day

他们日复一日的看着

as the trains went in filled with people

火车载满着人开进来，

and came out empty.

再空着开出去。

But above all, who would have to be wrong?

但是最重要的是，究竟是谁错了？

The perpetrators.

是罪犯。

The people who say, "We did it.

是那些说着，“我们做了。

I did it."

我做了”的人。

Now, maybe they add a caveat.

现在，他们或许会加个说明。

They say, "I didn't have a choice; I was forced to do it."

他们说，“我没有选择； 我是被逼迫的。”

But nonetheless, they say, "I did it."

但是他们仍会说，“我做了。”

Think about it.

想想看。

In not one war crimes trial since the end of World War II

在二战结束后的战争罪犯审判中，

has a perpetrator of any nationality ever said, "It didn't happen."

没有一场出现过罪犯说， “它没有发生”的情况，无论罪犯国籍。

Again, they may have said, "I was forced," but never that it didn't happen.

即使他们可能会说，“我是被逼的”， 但是否认从未出现过。

Having thought that through,

想通了这一点，

I decided denial was not going to be on my agenda;

我认为战争否认不应该 成为我的研究话题；

I had bigger things to worry about, to write about, to research,

我有更重要的事情要去担心， 要去写作，要去研究，

and I moved on.

所以我翻篇了。

Fast-forward a little over a decade,

时间快进一个多世纪，

and two senior scholars --

两个资深的学者——

two of the most prominent historians of the Holocaust --

研究大屠杀最具声望的两名历史学家——

approached me and said,

找到我，说道，

"Deborah, let's have coffee.

“Deborah，我们喝个咖啡吧。

We have a research idea that we think is perfect for you."

我们有个研究想法， 十分适合你。”

Intrigued and flattered that they came to me with an idea

他们带着想法来找我， 觉得我值得研究它，

and thought me worthy of it,

我感到既兴奋又受宠若惊，

I asked, "What is it?"

于是问道，“是什么？”

And they said, "Holocaust denial."

他们说，“关于大屠杀的否认。”

And for the second time, I laughed.

第二次，我又笑了。

Holocaust denial?

否认大屠杀？

The Flat Earth folks?

认为地球是平的人？

The Elvis-is-alive people?

认为猫王还活着的人？

I should study them?

我应该研究他们？

And these two guys said,

然后这两个学者说，

"Yeah, we're intrigued.

“是的，我们感兴趣。

What are they about?

他们是什么样的人？

What's their objective?

他们的目的是什么？

How do they manage to get people to believe what they say?"

他们怎么让人们相信他们所说的话？”

So thinking, if they thought it was worthwhile,

想了想，如果他们觉得这有价值，

I would take a momentary diversion --

我应该做个短暂的研究方向偏移——

maybe a year, maybe two, three, maybe even four --

也许一年，也许两年，三年 甚至是四年——

in academic terms, that's momentary.

对于学术研究来说，这很短暂。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

We work very slowly.

我们进度很慢。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And I would look at them.

那我就研究着看看。

So I did.

我也这么做了。

I did my research, and I came up with a number of things,

我做了研究， 有了许多发现，

two of which I'd like to share with you today.

今天我想和你们分享两点。

One:

第一：

deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing.

否认者是披着羊皮的狼。

They are the same: Nazis, neo-Nazis --

他们是一样的：纳粹，新纳粹——

you can decide whether you want to put a "neo" there or not.

你可以决定是否要加“新”字在前面。

But when I looked at them,

但是当我研究他们时，

I didn't see any SS-like uniforms,

我没有看到像SS部队一样的制服，

swastika-like symbols on the wall,

在墙上卍字一样的标识，

Sieg Heil salutes --

“胜利万岁”（法西斯分子的招呼用语）的 招呼方式——

none of that.

一个都没有。

What I found instead

我发现的却是，

were people parading as respectable academics.

以备受尊敬的学术专家身份 进行游说的人。

What did they have?

他们拥有什么？

They had an institute.

他们有研究机构。

An "Institute for Historical Review."

“历史评论研究所”。

They had a journal -- a slick journal --

他们有一个期刊—— 一个名不副实的期刊——

a "Journal of Historical Review."

“历史评论”。

One filled with papers --

上面充满了论文——

footnote-laden papers.

有很多脚注的论文。

And they had a new name.

而且他们有个新的名字。

Not neo-Nazis,

不是新纳粹，

not anti-Semites --

不是反犹太主义者——

revisionists.

而是修正主义者。

They said, "We are revisionists.

他们说，“我们是修正主义者。

We are out to do one thing:

我们只做一件事情：

to revise mistakes in history."

修正历史中的错误。”

But all you had to do was go one inch below the surface,

但是你只需要在表层下更进一步，

and what did you find there?

你会发现什么？

The same adulation of Hitler,

一样的对希特勒的崇拜，

praise of the Third Reich,

对第三帝国的赞美，

anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice.

反犹太人，种族歧视和偏见。

This is what intrigued me.

这让我很着迷。

It was anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, parading as rational discourse.

反犹太主义，种族主义和偏见 正以理性讨论的外衣进行游说。

The other thing I found --

另一个我发现的事情——

many of us have been taught to think there are facts and there are opinions --

我们中的许多人被教育到， 有许多的事实和许多的观点——

after studying deniers,

但在研究了否认者之后，

I think differently.

我的想法变了。

There are facts,

有事实，

there are opinions,

有观点，

and there are lies.

也有谎言。

And what deniers want to do is take their lies,

否认者想要做的， 是把他们的谎言，

dress them up as opinions --

打扮成观点——

maybe edgy opinions,

也许是新颖的观点，

maybe sort of out-of-the-box opinions --

也许是跳出思维定式的观点——

but then if they're opinions,

但如果它们是观点，

they should be part of the conversation.

那么在讨论中它们应该有一席之地。

And then they encroach on the facts.

然后它们便蚕食了事实。

I published my work --

我发表了我的研究——

the book was published,

出版了一本书，

"Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory,"

“否认大屠杀：对事实和记忆越来越多的攻击”，

it came out in many different countries,

它在许多不同的国家出版，

including here in Penguin UK,

包括这里，英国的企鹅出版社，

and I was done with those folks and ready to move on.

我已经不想再研究这些人了， 打算前进翻篇。

Then came the letter from Penguin UK.

然后英国的企鹅出版社发来了一封信。

And for the third time, I laughed ...

第三次，我笑了...

mistakenly.

错误的笑了。

I opened the letter,

我打开信，

and it informed me that David Irving was bringing a libel suit against me

信中说，David Irving在英国对我发起了

in the United Kingdom

诽谤诉讼，

for calling him a Holocaust denier.

因为我称他为大屠杀否认者。

David Irving suing me?

David Irving起诉我？

Who was David Irving?

谁是David Irving？

David Irving was a writer of historical works,

David Irving是历史学作家，

most of them about World War II,

作品大多关于二战，

and virtually all of those works took the position

而且几乎所有这些作品都认为

that the Nazis were really not so bad,

纳粹实际上没有那么坏，

and the Allies were really not so good.

同盟国实际上没有那么好。

And the Jews, whatever happened to them,

而犹太人，无论他们遭受了什么，

they sort of deserved it.

都是应得的。

He knew the documents,

他了解文件，

he knew the facts,

他了解事实，

but he somehow twisted them to get this opinion.

但是他扭曲了文件和事实， 得到了这一观点。

He hadn't always been a Holocaust denier,

他不一直是大屠杀否认者，

but in the late '80s,

但是在80年代后期，

he embraced it with great vigor.

他接受了这个论调。

The reason I laughed also was this was a man

我笑的原因还在于，

who not only was a Holocaust denier,

这个人不只是大屠杀否认者，

but seemed quite proud of it.

而且似乎还对此感到骄傲。

Here was a man -- and I quote --

他是这么个人—— 我引用他的话——

who said, "I'm going to sink the battleship Auschwitz."

“我要捍卫奥斯维辛集中营的战斗。”

Here was a man

他是这么个人，

who pointed to the number tattooed on a survivor's arm and said,

指着幸存者手臂上纹的数字说道，

"How much money have you made

“把这个数字纹到你的手臂上，

from having that number tattooed on your arm?"

你拿了多少钱？”

Here was a man who said,

他是这么个人，说道，

"More people died in Senator Kennedy's car

“在奎迪克岛上参议院Kennedy的车里

at Chappaquiddick

死掉的人，

than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz."

比死在奥斯维辛毒气室里的人还要多。”

That's an American reference, but you can look it up.

这是本美国出版的书， 但是你们可以找找看。

This was not a man who seemed at all ashamed or reticent

这个人对于自己大屠杀否认者的身份，

about being a Holocaust denier.

完全不感到羞耻或谨慎。

Now, lots of my academic colleagues counseled me --

许多学术界的同事建议我——

"Eh, Deborah, just ignore it."

“Deborah，忽略掉吧。”

When I explained you can't just ignore a libel suit,

当我解释我不能忽略一个诽谤起诉时，

they said, "Who's going to believe him anyway?"

他们说道，“但谁会相信他呢？”

But here was the problem:

但这是问题所在：

British law put the onus, put the burden of proof on me

英国法律将提供证据的 责任放在我的肩上，

to prove the truth of what I said,

要我证明我所说的是正确的，

in contrast to as it would have been in the United States

而不是和美国

and in many other countries:

以及其他许多国家一样，

on him to prove the falsehood.

要我证明他是错误的。

What did that mean?

那意味着什么？

That meant if I didn't fight,

那意味着如果我不抗争，

he would win by default.

默认他会胜诉。

And if he won by default,

如果他胜诉了，

he could then legitimately say,

他就可以合乎法律的讲，

"My David Irving version of the Holocaust is a legitimate version.

“我David Irving关于大屠杀的观点， 是被法律认可的。

Deborah Lipstadt was found to have libeled me

Deborah Lipstadt被判定诽谤了我，

when she called me a Holocaust denier.

因为她称我为大屠杀否认者。

Ipso facto, I, David Irving, am not a Holocaust denier."

根据事实，我，David Irving， 不是大屠杀否认者。”

And what is that version?

这是什么样的观点？

There was no plan to murder the Jews,

不存在谋杀犹太人的计划，

there were no gas chambers,

不存在毒气室，

there were no mass shootings,

不存在集体射杀，

Hitler had nothing to do with any suffering that went on,

希特勒与这些磨难毫无关系，

and the Jews have made this all up

而犹太人只是编造了这些

to get money from Germany

来从德国那里得到钱财，

and to get a state,

来成立一个国家，

and they've done it with the aid and abettance of the Allies --

他们靠同盟国的帮助做到了这一点——

they've planted the documents and planted the evidence.

他们编造了文件，编造了证据。

I couldn't let that stand

我不能让这种言论

and ever face a survivor

出现在幸存者面前，

or a child of survivors.

出现在幸存者的孩子面前。

I couldn't let that stand

我不能在这种言论成立时，

and consider myself a responsible historian.

还以一个负责任的历史学家自居。

So we fought.

所以我们抗争。

And for those of you who haven't seen "Denial,"

对于你们中还没有看到过“否决”的人，

spoiler alert:

剧透警告：

we won.

我们赢了。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

(Applause)

（掌声）

The judge found David Irving

法官认为David Irving是

to be a liar,

一个骗子，

a racist,

一个种族主义者，

an anti-Semite.

一个反犹太主义者。

His view of history was tendentious,

他的历史观是充满偏见的，

he lied, he distorted --

他撒谎，他扭曲事实——

and most importantly,

更重要的是，

he did it deliberately.

他是故意这么做的。

We showed a pattern, in over 25 different major instances.

我们在超过25个不同的主要地方， 显示了他的做法。

Not small things -- many of us in this audience write books,

不是小事——观众中的许多人写书，

are writing books;

正在写书；

we always make mistakes, that's why we're glad to have second editions:

我们总会犯错误，这就是我们对 能有第二版感到高兴的地方：

correct the mistakes.

改正错误。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But these always moved in the same direction:

但是这些总是朝着一个方向发展：

blame the Jews,

责怪犹太人，

exonerate the Nazis.

为纳粹辩护。

But how did we win?

但我们是怎么赢的呢？

What we did is follow his footnotes back to his sources.

我们所做的是追溯他的脚注的来源。

And what did we find?

我们发现了什么？

Not in most cases,

不是在大部分情况下，

and not in the preponderance of cases,

不是在许多情况下，

but in every single instance where he made some reference to the Holocaust,

而是在他参考大屠杀的每一个情况下，

that his supposed evidence was distorted,

他的支持证据是被扭曲的，

half-truth,

一半是真的，

date-changed,

修改了日期，

sequence-changed,

调整了次序，

someone put at a meeting who wasn't there.

把会议中不存在的人加了进去。

In other words, he didn't have the evidence.

换句话说，他没有证据。

His evidence didn't prove it.

他的证据不能提供证明。

We didn't prove what happened.

我们没有证明发生的事情。

We proved that what he said happened --

我们证明他所说发生的事情——

and by extension, all deniers, because he either quotes them

广义上来说，所有否认者， 因为他们引用这个人，

or they get their arguments from him --

或是从他这里获得论据——

is not true.

不是真实的。

What they claim --

他们声称的——

they don't have the evidence to prove it.

他们没有证据去证明。

So why is my story more than just the story

所以为什么我的故事不只是

of a quirky, long, six-year, difficult lawsuit,

一个离奇的，长达六年的困难诉讼，

an American professor being dragged into a courtroom

被一个人拽入法庭的美国教授，

by a man that the court declared in its judgment

最后他被法院认定为新纳粹，

was a neo-Nazi polemicist?

这么简单？

What message does it have?

它传递了什么样的信息？

I think in the context of the question of truth,

我认为在质疑事实的背景下，

it has a very significant message.

它有着重要的信号。

Because today,

因为在今天，

as we well know,

我们都知道，

truth and facts are under assault.

事实正在遭受攻击。

Social media, for all the gifts it has given us,

社交媒体，除了它带给我们的礼物，

has also allowed the difference between facts -- established facts --

也允许事实中的不同——既定事实——

and lies

以及谎言

to be flattened.

被传递。

Third of all:

第三点：

extremism.

极端主义。

You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes,

你们也许没见过3K党的袍子，

you may not see burning crosses,

你们也许没见过燃烧的十字架，

you may not even hear outright white supremacist language.

你们也许没听过白人至上主义者的言论。

It may go by names: "alt-right," "National Front" -- pick your names.

它可能用了其他的名字： “非主流右派”，“国家前线”——你们说了算。

But underneath, it's that same extremism that I found in Holocaust denial

但是本质上，这就和我在装作以 理性讨论否认大屠杀进行游说中

parading as rational discourse.

看到的极端主义一样。

We live in an age where truth is on the defensive.

我们生活在事实处于被动地位的时代。

I'm reminded of a New Yorker cartoon.

我想起了一个纽约客杂志上的漫画。

A quiz show recently appeared in "The New Yorker"

最近纽约客杂志上有一个答题秀，

where the host of the quiz show is saying to one of the contestants,

答题秀的主持人对其中一个参赛者说，

"Yes, ma'am, you had the right answer.

“是的，女士，你的答案正确。

But your opponent yelled more loudly than you did,

但是你的对手比你喊得更响，

so he gets the point."

所以他得分。”

What can we do?

我们能做什么？

First of all,

首先，

we cannot be beguiled by rational appearances.

我们不能被理性的外衣所欺骗。

We've got to look underneath,

我们需要看到本质，

and we will find there the extremism.

那样我们就会看到极端主义。

Second of all,

其次，

we must understand that truth is not relative.

我们需要认识到事实不是相对的。

Number three,

最后，

we must go on the offensive,

我们必须变得主动，

not the defensive.

而不是被动。

When someone makes an outrageous claim,

当有些人发出反常言论时，

even though they may hold one of the highest offices in the land,

即使他们在一国身居高位，

if not the world --

甚至在世界范围内——

we must say to them,

我们必须对他们说，

"Where's the proof?

“证明在哪里？

Where's the evidence?"

证据在哪里？”

We must hold their feet to the fire.

我们必须给他们施加压力。

We must not treat it as if their lies are the same as the facts.

我们不能一样对待谎言和事实。

And as I said earlier, truth is not relative.

我之前说过， 事实不是相对的。

Many of us have grown up in the world of the academy

我们中的许多人成长于学术世界，

and enlightened liberal thought,

接受自由思想，

where we're taught everything is open to debate.

被教育所有事情都可以进行讨论争辩。

But that's not the case.

但不是这样的。

There are certain things that are true.

某些事情确实是真的。

There are indisputable facts --

存在毋庸置疑的事实——

objective truths.

客观事实。

Galileo taught it to us centuries ago.

伽利略数世纪前教了我们。

Even after being forced to recant by the Vatican

甚至在他被教廷逼迫

that the Earth moved around the Sun,

撤回地球绕着太阳转的言论之后，

he came out,

他走出来，

and what is he reported to have said?

文字记录他说了什么？

"And yet, it still moves."

“但是，它仍转着。”

The Earth is not flat.

地球不是平的。

The climate is changing.

气候是在变化。

Elvis is not alive.

猫王不在人世了。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

(Applause)

（掌声）

And most importantly,

最重要的是，

truth and fact are under assault.

事实正在遭受攻击质疑。

The job ahead of us,

我们面对的工作，

the task ahead of us,

我们面对的任务，

the challenge ahead of us

我们面对的挑战，

is great.

是伟大的。

The time to fight is short.

斗争的时间不多了。

We must act now.

我们必须马上行动。

Later will be too late.

再晚就太晚了。

Thank you very much.

非常感谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）