lawsuits

我今天要聊說謊的人、

and laughter.

聊官司、

The first time I heard about Holocaust denial,

聊些好笑的事。

I laughed.

初次聽到有人否認猶太大屠殺，

Holocaust denial?

我就笑了。

The Holocaust which has the dubious distinction

否認猶太大屠殺？

of being the best-documented genocide in the world?

是那個史上最惡名昭彰，

Who could believe it didn't happen?

被最完整記錄的猶太大屠殺嗎？

Think about it.

誰會相信沒有這回事？

For deniers to be right,

你想想看，

who would have to be wrong?

如果那些否認者是對的，

Well, first of all, the victims --

那誰是錯的？

the survivors who have told us their harrowing stories.

首先，受害者，

Who else would have to be wrong?

說出恐怖經歷的倖存者。

The bystanders.

還會有誰是錯的？

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

旁觀者。

on the Eastern front,

東方戰線上，

who watched their neighbors be rounded up --

無數城鎮、村莊、城市的居民，

men, women, children, young, old --

看著他們的鄰居被圍捕，

and be marched to the outskirts of the town

不分男女老少，

to be shot and left dead in ditches.

被驅趕到城鎮外圍，

Or the Poles,

中槍後就被丟在壕溝內等死。

who lived in towns and villages around the death camps,

還有波蘭人，

who watched day after day

住在集中營附近的城鎮和村莊。

as the trains went in filled with people

日復一日看著

and came out empty.

裝滿人的火車駛入，

But above all, who would have to be wrong?

然後空空地離開。

The perpetrators.

除了這些人，還有誰是錯的？

The people who say, "We did it.

加害者。

I did it."

他們承認「是我們做的、是我做的」。

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

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

說過「沒有大屠殺」。

Having thought that through,

頂多說「身不由己」，但絕不否認。

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

想了一輪之後，

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

我就決定不去碰這件事。

and I moved on.

我有其他要費心的工作和研究，

Fast-forward a little over a decade,

所以我就不管了。

and two senior scholars --

約略十多年後，

two of the most prominent historians of the Holocaust --

兩位資深的學者，

approached me and said,

兩位猶太大屠殺的歷史權威，

"Deborah, let's have coffee.

來找我說，

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

「黛博拉，一起喝杯咖啡吧。

Intrigued and flattered that they came to me with an idea

我們有個研究構想，蠻適合你的。」

and thought me worthy of it,

一方面好奇，一方面覺得榮幸，

I asked, "What is it?"

他們會找上我做研究。

And they said, "Holocaust denial."

我就問「什麼主題？」

And for the second time, I laughed.

他們說「否認猶太大屠殺」。

Holocaust denial?

第二次聽到，我又笑了。

The Flat Earth folks?

否認猶太大屠殺？

The Elvis-is-alive people?

是相信「地平說」的人嗎？

I should study them?

還是相信貓王還活著的人？

And these two guys said,

要我研究他們？

"Yeah, we're intrigued.

他們就說，

What are they about?

「對，我們很好奇。

What's their objective?

他們是什麼人？

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

目的是什麼？

So thinking, if they thought it was worthwhile,

他們為什麼要大費周章地 讓大眾相信他們？」

I would take a momentary diversion --

我就想，如果他們覺得有必要，

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

我可以稍微研究「一下」，

in academic terms, that's momentary.

也許一、兩年，或三、四年，

(Laughter)

學術研究的「一下」很隨興。

We work very slowly.

(笑聲)

(Laughter)

一切慢慢來。

And I would look at them.

（笑聲）

So I did.

我就去做研究。

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

總之就這樣。

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

研究完成後，我得出幾點結論，

One:

今天特別要分享其中兩點。

deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing.

第一：

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

否認者是披著羊皮的狼。

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

骨子裡一樣是納粹、新納粹，

But when I looked at them,

加不加「新」沒什麼差。

I didn't see any SS-like uniforms,

但你去看這些人，

swastika-like symbols on the wall,

他們不穿納粹親衛隊制服，

Sieg Heil salutes --

牆上也沒有卍字符號，

none of that.

不行納粹禮，

What I found instead

一個都沒有。

were people parading as respectable academics.

相反的，

What did they have?

他們裝成德高望重的學者。

They had an institute.

還有呢？

An "Institute for Historical Review."

他們有一間學院，

They had a journal -- a slick journal --

叫「歷史評論學院」。

a "Journal of Historical Review."

還有一本很像樣的期刊，

One filled with papers --

「歷史評論期刊」。

footnote-laden papers.

裡面都是論文，

And they had a new name.

充滿註腳的論文。

Not neo-Nazis,

而且他們有個新名字。

not anti-Semites --

不是新納粹，

revisionists.

不是反猶太，

They said, "We are revisionists.

是「修正主義者」。

We are out to do one thing:

他們自稱「修正主義者」。

to revise mistakes in history."

目標只有一個：

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

要修正歷史的謬誤。

and what did you find there?

但如果你掀開他們的表面，

The same adulation of Hitler,

會看到什麼？

praise of the Third Reich,

一樣的希特勒崇拜，

anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice.

對第三帝國的讚揚，

This is what intrigued me.

反猶太、種族主義、充滿偏見。

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

我感興趣的是這個：

The other thing I found --

反猶太、種族主義和偏見歧視，

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

披者理性論述的外衣。

after studying deniers,

另一個發現是，

I think differently.

有些話是事實，有些是意見，

There are facts,

但研究過這些人之後，

there are opinions,

我改觀了。

and there are lies.

有些話是事實、

And what deniers want to do is take their lies,

有些話是意見、

dress them up as opinions --

還有些是謊言。

maybe edgy opinions,

這些否認者想做的是把謊言，

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

包裝成意見，

but then if they're opinions,

好像很前衛的意見，

they should be part of the conversation.

有點跳脫框架的意見，

And then they encroach on the facts.

一旦這被當成意見，

I published my work --

就會被納入討論。

the book was published,

然後漸漸蓋過事實。

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

我把研究出版成一本書，

it came out in many different countries,

書名是《否認大屠殺》。

including here in Penguin UK,

在很多國家發行，

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

包括英國這邊是企鵝出版。

Then came the letter from Penguin UK.

然後我就決定要做我的正事了。

And for the third time, I laughed ...

這時企鵝出版寄了封信給我。

mistakenly.

這是第三次我為此大笑......

I opened the letter,

但這次不好笑了。

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

我打開信，

in the United Kingdom

信裡說大衛艾文要告我誹謗，

for calling him a Holocaust denier.

在英國這邊告。

David Irving suing me?

理由是稱他「大屠殺否認者」。

Who was David Irving?

大衛艾文要告我？

David Irving was a writer of historical works,

他是何許人也？

most of them about World War II,

他是一位歷史作家，

and virtually all of those works took the position

內容多是關於二戰，

that the Nazis were really not so bad,

但他作品的立場全部都是，

and the Allies were really not so good.

納粹其實沒那麼壞、

And the Jews, whatever happened to them,

同盟國也沒那麼好。

they sort of deserved it.

猶太人，無論遭遇什麼事，

He knew the documents,

都是罪有應得。

he knew the facts,

他當然知道歷史紀錄，

but he somehow twisted them to get this opinion.

他也知道事實，

He hadn't always been a Holocaust denier,

但他就是想扭曲真相。

but in the late '80s,

他不是一開始就否認大屠殺，

he embraced it with great vigor.

但在八零年代晚期，

The reason I laughed also was this was a man

他變成理論的擁護者。

who not only was a Holocaust denier,

我為此大笑也是因為，

but seemed quite proud of it.

他不只是大屠殺否認者，

Here was a man -- and I quote --

他還以此為榮。

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

引用他的話，

Here was a man

他說「我要戳破奧斯威辛的謊言。」

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

這個人，

"How much money have you made

會指著倖存者手臂的編號問，

from having that number tattooed on your arm?"

「你刺一個號碼，

Here was a man who said,

可以撈多少錢？」

"More people died in Senator Kennedy's car

他還說，

at Chappaquiddick

「查帕奎迪克事件死的人，

than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz."

比集中營毒氣室

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

死的人還多。」

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

這是美國梗，意思是毒氣室沒死人。

about being a Holocaust denier.

這人絲毫不因為否認大屠殺，

Now, lots of my academic colleagues counseled me --

感到羞愧或該低調。

"Eh, Deborah, just ignore it."

學術界很多朋友都跟我說，

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

「不要理他就好了。」

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

我就說誹謗案不能不理啊，

But here was the problem:

他們說「誰會相信他？」

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

但問題就出在這：

to prove the truth of what I said,

英國法律上我有舉證責任，

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

要證明我說的是真的。

and in many other countries:

這點跟美國法律不同，

on him to prove the falsehood.

或跟其他地方的法律比，

What did that mean?

應該是他要證明我是錯的。

That meant if I didn't fight,

所以這意味什麼？

he would win by default.

如果我不跟他打官司，

And if he won by default,

他就會直接勝訴。

he could then legitimately say,

如果他直接勝訴，

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

他就可以正當地說，

Deborah Lipstadt was found to have libeled me

「我的猶太大屠殺版本才是對的。

when she called me a Holocaust denier.

黛博拉利普斯塔特

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

對我的誹謗已經敗訴，

And what is that version?

就如之前我所說的， 我不是猶太大屠殺否認者。」

There was no plan to murder the Jews,

他的大屠殺版本是怎樣？

there were no gas chambers,

納粹沒有想要殺猶太人，

there were no mass shootings,

集中營沒有毒氣室，

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

沒有大規模槍決。

and the Jews have made this all up

希特勒和這些暴行沒有關係，

to get money from Germany

猶太人捏造這些情節，

and to get a state,

來撈德國的錢，

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

去建立以色列，

they've planted the documents and planted the evidence.

一切都是同盟國的陰謀，

I couldn't let that stand

他們植入記錄又安插證據。

and ever face a survivor

我不能接受這些說法，

or a child of survivors.

也無顏面對倖存者，

I couldn't let that stand

或是倖存者後代。

and consider myself a responsible historian.

我不能接受這些說法，

So we fought.

如果我自認是負責的歷史學者。

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

所以我們迎戰。

spoiler alert:

如果你還沒看《修正》那部電影，

we won.

我要爆雷：

(Laughter)

我們贏了。

(Applause)

（笑聲）

The judge found David Irving

（掌聲）

to be a liar,

法官判決大衛艾文是一個

a racist,

騙徒、

an anti-Semite.

種族主義者、

His view of history was tendentious,

反猶太主義者。

he lied, he distorted --

他的史觀是偏頗的，

and most importantly,

他說謊、扭曲事實，

he did it deliberately.

更重要的是，

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

他是故意的。

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

我們發現他 25 篇著作的模式。

are writing books;

這數量不小，

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

在座很多人寫過書或正在寫書，

correct the mistakes.

我們會筆誤，所以才要刷二版，

(Laughter)

去訂正。

But these always moved in the same direction:

（笑聲）

blame the Jews,

但他都是朝同一種方向改：

exonerate the Nazis.

詆毀猶太人、

But how did we win?

幫納粹洗白。

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

但我們是怎麼贏的？

And what did we find?

我們從他的註解去追史料。

Not in most cases,

結果我們發現什麼？

and not in the preponderance of cases,

他大部分的著作，

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

還有比較受歡迎的著作，

that his supposed evidence was distorted,

每一篇提到大屠殺的參考資料，

half-truth,

史料都被扭曲過，

date-changed,

半真半假、

sequence-changed,

修改日期、

someone put at a meeting who wasn't there.

改變順序、

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

某人出現在根本沒去的會議。

His evidence didn't prove it.

換句話說，他根本沒有證據。

We didn't prove what happened.

他的史料不能佐證。

We proved that what he said happened --

我們不需要證明發生過的事。

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

我們只要證明他說的，

or they get their arguments from him --

甚至其他否認者說，因為他會引用，

is not true.

或是否認者也會引用他的話，

What they claim --

不是真的。

they don't have the evidence to prove it.

他們的說法，

So why is my story more than just the story

並沒有證據可以支持。

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

所以為什麼我的故事，

an American professor being dragged into a courtroom

不只是一個荒謬、長達六年 刁鑽訴訟的故事，

by a man that the court declared in its judgment

也是一個美國教授被一個

was a neo-Nazi polemicist?

法院認證過的新納粹詭辯者

What message does it have?

拖去法院訴訟的故事？

I think in the context of the question of truth,

這故事有什麼意義？

it has a very significant message.

我想在追尋真相的脈絡下，

Because today,

這隱含非常重要的訊息。

as we well know,

因為今日，

truth and facts are under assault.

如各位所知，

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

事實和真相面臨挑戰。

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

社群網站的確惠大眾良多，

and lies

也讓真相，眾所皆知的真相

to be flattened.

和謊言之間的界線，

Third of all:

變得模糊。

extremism.

第三：

You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes,

極端主義。

you may not see burning crosses,

你不會看見三 K 黨的長袍，