南京回声:《南京浩劫》辩论中的虚构、偏见与幕后推手

Echoes of Nanjing:Fiction,Suberfuge and Public Relations in the Debate of The Rape of Nanking

1997年,张纯如的《南京浩劫:二战中被遗忘的大屠杀》出版。这部颠覆性的著作取得了巨大的成功,得到了知名历史学家及读者的广泛赞誉。但是,很快就有了不同的反应,不仅有来自日本方面的猛烈批评,而且西方学术界也陆续发表尖刻的评论,有些批判来自受人尊敬的历史学家。毫无疑问,张纯如的著作并非完美无缺,如果批评者就事论事指出史实错误或观点错误,实属正常,但事实并非如此,一些文章充满恶意,甚至是人身攻击,采用了张纯如必须被摧毁的策略,最终导致该书在部分学术圈中有了“错误”和“质量差”的名声。追根究源,日本外务省是大部分“大批判”的幕后推手,资助并推动了旷日持久的抹黑、丑化张纯如及其著作的“公关”活动。外务省的影子刊物《日本回声》陆续发表知名历史学家如傅佛果、秦郁彦、库克斯等批判张纯如的文章,2007年南京沦陷70周年之际,相关的文章被汇集成册,以《南京辩论概述》为名出版,作为70周年献给英语世界的“礼物”。通过普遍的夸大、错误的引用、歪曲原文等方式,这些文章给张纯如和她的书戴上了虚构和带有偏见的帽子,扭曲了公众和学术界对南京大屠杀这一事件的理解。然而,这些文章却被宣传为现代的、客观的和科学的历史研究,而事实则完全相反。

In 1997,Iris Chang's"The Rape of Nanking:The Forgotten Holocaust of World War Ⅰ"was published,which has achieved great success and received widespread praise from leading historians and readers.However,soon there was a different reactionstrident critisisms not only from Japan,but also from the Western academic community,some of which came from noted historians.Undoubtedly,Iris Chang'book is not flawless.It is normal for critics to point out factual errors orthose that amount to much,but this is not the case.Some articles are full of malice,even personal attacks,and adopt a tactics that Iris Chang must be destroyed,which has taken a toll on the reputation of book and author for error and poor quality that appears to have taken hold within portions of the"Academy".Japan's Foreign Ministry was the camouflaged hand in much of the"criticism",it financed and promoted the long-drawn-out"public relations"campaign aiming at discrediting and vilifying Chang and her book.The shadow periodical of the Japan's Foreign Ministry,Japan Echo has successively published articles criticizing Iris Chang by noted historians such as Joshua Fogel,Hata Ikuhiko,Alvin Coox etc.In 2007,on the occasion of the 7oth Anniversary of the fall of Nanjing,those Nanjing articles were republished by Japan Echo in a book tilted An Overview of the Nanjing Debate as a"gift"to the English-speaking world.The Ministry'public relations apparatus advertised these writings as modern,objective and scientific historiography.The reality is far different.Instead,through consistent exaggeration and misquoting,these writings fashion a fictionalized and stereotyped version of Chang and The Rape of Nanking.As such,they distort public and academic understanding of this historical event.