Behind the lies of Holocaust denial | Deborah Lipstadt

譯者: Aaron Shoo 審譯者: 易帆 余

I come to you today to speak of liars,

我今天要聊說謊的人、

聊官司、

lawsuits

and laughter.

聊些好笑的事。

The first time I heard about Holocaust denial,

初次聽到有人否認猶太大屠殺，

I laughed.

我就笑了。

Holocaust denial?

否認猶太大屠殺？

The Holocaust which has the dubious distinction

是那個史上最惡名昭彰，

of being the best-documented genocide in the world?

被最完整記錄的猶太大屠殺嗎？

Who could believe it didn't happen?

誰會相信沒有這回事？

Think about it.

你想想看，

For deniers to be right,

如果那些否認者是對的，

who would have to be wrong?

那誰是錯的？

Well, first of all, the victims --

首先，受害者，

the survivors who have told us their harrowing stories.

說出恐怖經歷的倖存者。

Who else would have to be wrong?

還會有誰是錯的？

The bystanders.

旁觀者。

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

東方戰線上，

無數城鎮、村莊、城市的居民，

on the Eastern front,

who watched their neighbors be rounded up --

看著他們的鄰居被圍捕，

men, women, children, young, old --

不分男女老少，

and be marched to the outskirts of the town

被驅趕到城鎮外圍，

to be shot and left dead in ditches.

中槍後就被丟在壕溝內等死。

Or the Poles,

還有波蘭人，

who lived in towns and villages around the death camps,

住在集中營附近的城鎮和村莊。

who watched day after day

日復一日看著

as the trains went in filled with people

裝滿人的火車駛入，

and came out empty.

然後空空地離開。

But above all, who would have to be wrong?

除了這些人，還有誰是錯的？

The perpetrators.

加害者。

The people who say, "We did it.

他們承認「是我們做的、是我做的」。

I did it."

Now, maybe they add a caveat.

也許他們會加上但書，

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

會說「我別無選擇、我是被逼的」。

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

但至少他們承認「我有做」。

Think about it.

想想看。

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

二戰結束之後每一場審判，

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

沒有任何國籍的任何戰犯

說過「沒有大屠殺」。

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

頂多說「身不由己」，但絕不否認。

Having thought that through,

想了一輪之後，

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

我就決定不去碰這件事。

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

我有其他要費心的工作和研究，

and I moved on.

所以我就不管了。

Fast-forward a little over a decade,

約略十多年後，

and two senior scholars --

兩位資深的學者，

two of the most prominent historians of the Holocaust --

兩位猶太大屠殺的歷史權威，

approached me and said,

來找我說，

"Deborah, let's have coffee.

「黛博拉，一起喝杯咖啡吧。

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

我們有個研究構想，蠻適合你的。」

Intrigued and flattered that they came to me with an idea

一方面好奇，一方面覺得榮幸，

他們會找上我做研究。

and thought me worthy of it,

I asked, "What is it?"

我就問「什麼主題？」

And they said, "Holocaust denial."

他們說「否認猶太大屠殺」。

And for the second time, I laughed.

第二次聽到，我又笑了。

Holocaust denial?

否認猶太大屠殺？

The Flat Earth folks?

是相信「地平說」的人嗎？

The Elvis-is-alive people?

還是相信貓王還活著的人？

I should study them?

要我研究他們？

And these two guys said,

他們就說，

"Yeah, we're intrigued.

「對，我們很好奇。

What are they about?

他們是什麼人？

What's their objective?

目的是什麼？

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

他們為什麼要大費周章地 讓大眾相信他們？」

So thinking, if they thought it was worthwhile,

我就想，如果他們覺得有必要，

I would take a momentary diversion --

我可以稍微研究「一下」，

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

也許一、兩年，或三、四年，

in academic terms, that's momentary.

學術研究的「一下」很隨興。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

We work very slowly.

一切慢慢來。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And I would look at them.

我就去做研究。

So I did.

總之就這樣。

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

研究完成後，我得出幾點結論，

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

今天特別要分享其中兩點。

One:

第一：

deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing.

否認者是披著羊皮的狼。

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

骨子裡一樣是納粹、新納粹，

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

加不加「新」沒什麼差。

But when I looked at them,

但你去看這些人，

I didn't see any SS-like uniforms,

他們不穿納粹親衛隊制服，

swastika-like symbols on the wall,

牆上也沒有卍字符號，

Sieg Heil salutes --

不行納粹禮，

none of that.

一個都沒有。

What I found instead

相反的，

were people parading as respectable academics.

他們裝成德高望重的學者。

What did they have?

還有呢？

They had an institute.

他們有一間學院，

An "Institute for Historical Review."

叫「歷史評論學院」。

They had a journal -- a slick journal --

還有一本很像樣的期刊，

a "Journal of Historical Review."

「歷史評論期刊」。

One filled with papers --

裡面都是論文，

footnote-laden papers.

充滿註腳的論文。

And they had a new name.

而且他們有個新名字。

Not neo-Nazis,

不是新納粹，

not anti-Semites --

不是反猶太，

revisionists.

是「修正主義者」。

They said, "We are revisionists.

他們自稱「修正主義者」。

We are out to do one thing:

目標只有一個：

to revise mistakes in history."

要修正歷史的謬誤。

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

但如果你掀開他們的表面，

and what did you find there?

會看到什麼？

The same adulation of Hitler,

一樣的希特勒崇拜，

praise of the Third Reich,

對第三帝國的讚揚，

anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice.

反猶太、種族主義、充滿偏見。

This is what intrigued me.

我感興趣的是這個：

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

反猶太、種族主義和偏見歧視，

披者理性論述的外衣。

The other thing I found --

另一個發現是，

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

有些話是事實，有些是意見，

after studying deniers,

但研究過這些人之後，

I think differently.

我改觀了。

There are facts,

有些話是事實、

there are opinions,

有些話是意見、

and there are lies.

還有些是謊言。

And what deniers want to do is take their lies,

這些否認者想做的是把謊言，

dress them up as opinions --

包裝成意見，

maybe edgy opinions,

好像很前衛的意見，

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

有點跳脫框架的意見，

but then if they're opinions,

一旦這被當成意見，

they should be part of the conversation.

就會被納入討論。

And then they encroach on the facts.

然後漸漸蓋過事實。

I published my work --

我把研究出版成一本書，

the book was published,

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

書名是《否認大屠殺》。

it came out in many different countries,

在很多國家發行，

including here in Penguin UK,

包括英國這邊是企鵝出版。

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

然後我就決定要做我的正事了。

Then came the letter from Penguin UK.

這時企鵝出版寄了封信給我。

And for the third time, I laughed ...

這是第三次我為此大笑......

mistakenly.

但這次不好笑了。

I opened the letter,

我打開信，

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

信裡說大衛艾文要告我誹謗，

in the United Kingdom

在英國這邊告。

for calling him a Holocaust denier.

理由是稱他「大屠殺否認者」。

David Irving suing me?

大衛艾文要告我？

Who was David Irving?

他是何許人也？

David Irving was a writer of historical works,

他是一位歷史作家，

most of them about World War II,

內容多是關於二戰，

and virtually all of those works took the position

但他作品的立場全部都是，

that the Nazis were really not so bad,

納粹其實沒那麼壞、

and the Allies were really not so good.

同盟國也沒那麼好。

And the Jews, whatever happened to them,

猶太人，無論遭遇什麼事，

they sort of deserved it.

都是罪有應得。

He knew the documents,

他當然知道歷史紀錄，

he knew the facts,

他也知道事實，

but he somehow twisted them to get this opinion.

但他就是想扭曲真相。

He hadn't always been a Holocaust denier,

他不是一開始就否認大屠殺，

but in the late '80s,

但在八零年代晚期，

he embraced it with great vigor.

他變成理論的擁護者。

The reason I laughed also was this was a man

我為此大笑也是因為，

who not only was a Holocaust denier,

他不只是大屠殺否認者，

but seemed quite proud of it.

他還以此為榮。

Here was a man -- and I quote --

引用他的話，

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

他說「我要戳破奧斯威辛的謊言。」

Here was a man

這個人，

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

會指著倖存者手臂的編號問，

"How much money have you made

「你刺一個號碼，

from having that number tattooed on your arm?"

可以撈多少錢？」

Here was a man who said,

他還說，

"More people died in Senator Kennedy's car

「查帕奎迪克事件死的人，

at Chappaquiddick

than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz."

比集中營毒氣室

死的人還多。」

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

這是美國梗，意思是毒氣室沒死人。

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

這人絲毫不因為否認大屠殺，

感到羞愧或該低調。

about being a Holocaust denier.

Now, lots of my academic colleagues counseled me --

學術界很多朋友都跟我說，

"Eh, Deborah, just ignore it."

「不要理他就好了。」

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

我就說誹謗案不能不理啊，

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

他們說「誰會相信他？」

But here was the problem:

但問題就出在這：

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

英國法律上我有舉證責任，

to prove the truth of what I said,

要證明我說的是真的。

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

這點跟美國法律不同，

and in many other countries:

或跟其他地方的法律比，

on him to prove the falsehood.

應該是他要證明我是錯的。

What did that mean?

所以這意味什麼？

That meant if I didn't fight,

如果我不跟他打官司，

he would win by default.

他就會直接勝訴。

And if he won by default,

如果他直接勝訴，

he could then legitimately say,

他就可以正當地說，

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

「我的猶太大屠殺版本才是對的。

Deborah Lipstadt was found to have libeled me

黛博拉利普斯塔特

when she called me a Holocaust denier.

對我的誹謗已經敗訴，

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

就如之前我所說的， 我不是猶太大屠殺否認者。」

And what is that version?

他的大屠殺版本是怎樣？

There was no plan to murder the Jews,

納粹沒有想要殺猶太人，

there were no gas chambers,

集中營沒有毒氣室，

there were no mass shootings,

沒有大規模槍決。

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

希特勒和這些暴行沒有關係，

and the Jews have made this all up

猶太人捏造這些情節，

to get money from Germany

來撈德國的錢，

and to get a state,

去建立以色列，

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

一切都是同盟國的陰謀，

they've planted the documents and planted the evidence.

他們植入記錄又安插證據。

I couldn't let that stand

我不能接受這些說法，

and ever face a survivor

也無顏面對倖存者，

or a child of survivors.

或是倖存者後代。

I couldn't let that stand

我不能接受這些說法，

and consider myself a responsible historian.

如果我自認是負責的歷史學者。

So we fought.

所以我們迎戰。

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

如果你還沒看《修正》那部電影，

spoiler alert:

我要爆雷：

we won.

我們贏了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

The judge found David Irving

法官判決大衛艾文是一個

to be a liar,

騙徒、

a racist,

種族主義者、

an anti-Semite.

反猶太主義者。

His view of history was tendentious,

他的史觀是偏頗的，

he lied, he distorted --

他說謊、扭曲事實，

and most importantly,

更重要的是，

he did it deliberately.

他是故意的。

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

我們發現他 25 篇著作的模式。

這數量不小，

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

在座很多人寫過書或正在寫書，

are writing books;

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

我們會筆誤，所以才要刷二版，

correct the mistakes.

去訂正。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But these always moved in the same direction:

但他都是朝同一種方向改：

blame the Jews,

詆毀猶太人、

exonerate the Nazis.

幫納粹洗白。

But how did we win?

但我們是怎麼贏的？

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

我們從他的註解去追史料。

And what did we find?

結果我們發現什麼？

Not in most cases,

他大部分的著作，

and not in the preponderance of cases,

還有比較受歡迎的著作，

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

每一篇提到大屠殺的參考資料，

that his supposed evidence was distorted,

史料都被扭曲過，

half-truth,

半真半假、

date-changed,

修改日期、

sequence-changed,

改變順序、

someone put at a meeting who wasn't there.

某人出現在根本沒去的會議。

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

換句話說，他根本沒有證據。

His evidence didn't prove it.

他的史料不能佐證。

We didn't prove what happened.

我們不需要證明發生過的事。

We proved that what he said happened --

我們只要證明他說的，

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

甚至其他否認者說，因為他會引用，

or they get their arguments from him --

或是否認者也會引用他的話，

is not true.

不是真的。

What they claim --

他們的說法，

they don't have the evidence to prove it.

並沒有證據可以支持。

So why is my story more than just the story

所以為什麼我的故事，

不只是一個荒謬、長達六年 刁鑽訴訟的故事，

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

an American professor being dragged into a courtroom

也是一個美國教授被一個

by a man that the court declared in its judgment

法院認證過的新納粹詭辯者

拖去法院訴訟的故事？

was a neo-Nazi polemicist?

What message does it have?

這故事有什麼意義？

I think in the context of the question of truth,

我想在追尋真相的脈絡下，

it has a very significant message.

這隱含非常重要的訊息。

Because today,

因為今日，

as we well know,

如各位所知，

truth and facts are under assault.

事實和真相面臨挑戰。

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

社群網站的確惠大眾良多，

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

也讓真相，眾所皆知的真相

和謊言之間的界線，

and lies

to be flattened.

變得模糊。

Third of all:

第三：

extremism.

極端主義。

You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes,

你不會看見三 K 黨的長袍，

you may not see burning crosses,

不會看見燃燒的十字架，

you may not even hear outright white supremacist language.

不會聽見右派白人至上主義言論。

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

而是「另類右派」、「國民陣線」， 這類的名字。

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

但骨子裡是一樣的極端主義，

像否認大屠殺一樣， 用合理性偽裝成的言論。

parading as rational discourse.

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

我們居住在一個 真相處於挨打的時代。

I'm reminded of a New Yorker cartoon.

我想到《紐約客》的一則漫畫。

A quiz show recently appeared in "The New Yorker"

最近漫畫裡有一個益智節目，

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

節目主持人對參賽者說，

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

「小姐，雖然你答對了，

But your opponent yelled more loudly than you did,

但對手喊比較大聲，

so he gets the point."

所以他得分。」

What can we do?

所以我們該怎麼辦？

First of all,

首先，

we cannot be beguiled by rational appearances.

不要被理性的外衣騙了。

We've got to look underneath,

我們要看破表相，

and we will find there the extremism.

揪出隱藏的極端主義。

Second of all,

第二，

we must understand that truth is not relative.

要了解真相是絕對，不是相對的。

Number three,

第三，

we must go on the offensive,

我們要反守為攻，

not the defensive.

不能一味挨打。

When someone makes an outrageous claim,

當有人發表荒謬言論，

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

就算他們可能位居高位，

if not the world --

也許全球知名，

we must say to them,

我們也要質問他，

"Where's the proof?

「證據在哪裡？」

Where's the evidence?"

「你拿什麼證明？」

We must hold their feet to the fire.

不能輕易放過他們。

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

謊言跟真相絕對不能一視同仁。

And as I said earlier, truth is not relative.

就像我說的，真相不是相對的。

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

很多人都跟著學術、

and enlightened liberal thought,

自由、啟發的思想長大，

where we're taught everything is open to debate.

認為什麼事都可以討論。

But that's not the case.

但這種事例外。

There are certain things that are true.

有些事就是真理。

There are indisputable facts --

有些事實不容質疑，

objective truths.

是客觀的真相。

Galileo taught it to us centuries ago.

伽利略幾世紀前就說了。

Even after being forced to recant by the Vatican

就算教廷逼他認錯，

that the Earth moved around the Sun,

說地球不是繞著太陽轉。

he came out,

他步出宗教法庭，

and what is he reported to have said?

記載說他講了什麼？

"And yet, it still moves."

「可是，地球依然繞著太陽轉。」

The Earth is not flat.

地球不是平的。

The climate is changing.

氣候正在變遷。

Elvis is not alive.

貓王已經死了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

And most importantly,

更重要的是，

truth and fact are under assault.

真相和事實備受挑戰。

The job ahead of us,

我們眼前的工作、

the task ahead of us,

眼前的任務、

the challenge ahead of us

眼前的挑戰，

is great.

太大了。

The time to fight is short.

沒時間浪費。

We must act now.

我們要馬上行動。

Later will be too late.

再遲就來不及了。

Thank you very much.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）