歷史的單一故事
English version below: Hilter and Churchill, hero or devil?
在倫敦研究了不少二戰歷史，以前在台灣上歷史課時，總是覺得一直背誦年代，乾又無聊，不過這學期在學校的歷史課談到歷史並不代表真相，而是故事，而且通常是單一版本的故事。這些「真相」不能算是事實，只是比較多人同意的故事，最近去了邱吉爾戰爭室，正好啟發了相似的觀察。
▍戰爭海報下的惡人邱吉爾還是希特勒？
邱吉爾戰爭室是二戰時的策略辦公室，因為倫敦被希特勒轟炸，因此他們蓋了一個地下辦公室，裡面有歐洲的地圖，地圖上的一個圖釘代表一個戰隊，地圖上坑坑疤疤，代表了他們所盤算的進攻策略。連接在戰爭士旁邊的是邱吉爾博物館，其中一張把邱吉爾妖魔化的宣傳海報吸引了我的注意。學歷史時，我從來毫無疑惑的把希特勒和邪惡劃上等號，但這張德軍所做的宣傳海報卻代表了另一個版本的故事。如果今天德國是戰勝二次大戰，我們會怎麼看待希特勒和邱吉爾呢？
▍歷史的主觀性
於是我找了兩張圖做比較，相似的組成，卻從兩邊陣營說著相反的故事。左邊是英國在閃電戰（Blitzkrieg）時的宣傳海報，右邊是德國針對英國封鎖政策的宣傳海報，他們兩張圖的組成十分相似，都是相似的年代，都一樣在妖魔化敵對陣營的首領，小孩和女性都被運用於宣傳上。 我想歷史因為是人類在事件發生後，回頭拍板定論過去的最終定奪，因此勝利的陣營和他們的價值就被多數人認同，歷史便是從他們的角度被撰寫，但如果我們想像自己生活在當下的人們，尚不可知二戰的結局，我們會看到的其實是兩邊的陣營在相互競爭的寫下最自己故事版本。如果今天希特勒贏得的二戰，邪惡或許就不再是希特勒的鬍子，而是邱吉爾的雪茄。
▍藉由女性和孩童所刻畫的邪惡
左邊的圖可以看到希特勒的幽魂在一位母親的耳畔煽動著「帶他們回去，帶他們回去。」看不見幽魂的母親一臉狐疑，孩子天真無邪的玩玩具，下方的標題好像一個第三者大聲的呼喊「不要這樣做，母親！」（Don’t do it, mother!） 這張圖大約是在1941 年由英國的衛生局所繪製，當時處於假戰（Phoney War）時期。所以原先帶著孩子到成交避難的很多家庭都逐漸回來都市，沒想到不久後閃電戰爆發，希特勒開始大規模轟炸英國各大城，所以這張海報就是會了勸導母親帶著孩子留在原地。
這張圖不是只是在妖魔化希特勒，而是運用希特勒來說告訴當時的人們，如果一位母親想要帶孩子回城市去，那不是他自己理性下的自由意志，而是驅動於被希特勒侵蝕的邪惡思想，隱晦的強迫人民服從。
右邊的圖，也是在約莫 1940, 1941 年所被繪製，只是邱吉爾在這張圖裡變成惡魔的代理人。邱吉爾身穿黑袍，陰冷的籠罩，右上角寫著「封鎖是他最後的希望」，右下角有個飢腸轆轆的懷孕的母親和一個拿著一丁點食物的孩子，母親憂慮地問：「足夠餵飽他們兩個嗎？」(Aurai-je assez … pour eux deux?)母親對兩個孩子的生存憂慮，控訴邱吉爾的慘忍無道。也經由站在法國地圖的母親和孩子說明這些飢餓的法國人民，都是邱吉爾邪惡政策下的犧牲品，和今天我們認知的歷史大相徑庭。
當時，德國軍隊入侵波蘭和法國之後，把大部分的法國物資都送到德軍的戰鬥前線，英國便採行大規模封鎖政策，想讓德軍彈盡糧絕，但因此法國讓開始進行嚴格的糧食配給。法國人民吃不飽，對邱吉而感到憤怨。因此德軍利用這個機會，想讓法國人轉移中心，不再關注德軍佔領法國的事情，希望法國把氣出在邱吉爾身上。
從這兩張圖，我們都可以看到他們由女性來陳述犀利的道德判斷。兩張圖的差別在於，左邊的女性是受眾立基在希特勒已經是邪惡的化身，來說服國民服從政令。右邊的女性是媒介，藉由引發同情，情感連結飢餓的現實和敵軍的政策，來點燃對敵軍首領的憤慨，但兩者都是站在女性都是需要被正義的一方保護，不論是生理上或是思想上的立場來說故事，那迫害女性和孩童的一方自然代表邪惡了。
▍歷史無法脫離主流道德判斷，是大眾口味的單一故事
這兩幅畫代表當代兩邊力量的較勁和背後的價值主張，而我們今天因為生存於贏家所創造的時代，自然就已經帶有有色的眼鏡來看歷史了，更不用說在日常生活中的強化，像反希特的立法，邱吉爾的名言等。於是發現歷史是建築在特定的道德標準之上，自然就不可能絕對客觀。即便在歷史文物被創造的當下對當代有相反的意見，後世的定奪，其實也大幅影響了敵對史料的接觸頻率和普遍大眾對對真相的接受性。透過比較勢均力敵正例反例，相襯於我所接觸到的歷史，就發現歷史，也是大眾口味的單一故事。
▍其他
原本特別喜歡 Yuval Noah Harari 大歷史的書，但今天回頭想想，他也是用進步史觀做為他有色的眼鏡，把人類的歷史用自己的解讀串連起來，而串連本身，就是史料的主觀選擇。如果世界對時間的主流態度不是線性，而是佛家的輪迴說，那我們所看待的歷史或許又會完全不同了。
Hilter and Churchill, hero or devil?
“The man who invented bombing offensives against the civilian…” grabbed my attention in the Churchill War Room. The opposite narrative made me wonder, “If Hilter won WWII, what would be our opinion toward Churchill and Hilter?”
To investigate, I chose two WWII propaganda posters with conflicting stories. Britain made the left poster, Don’t do it, mother, during the Blitzkrieg [1], and Germany made the right poster, Son dernier espoir… “Le Blocus”, to target Britain’s blockade policy [2]. They were sufficiently similar to be juxtaposed because they were created around the same year; both demonized the leaders from the rival camp and utilized women and children to propagandize.
Nevertheless, we consider these two posters quite differently. Yet, at the core, they are arguing for the same idea: the enemy’s leader should not be trusted, and it is demonstrated through the value that society must protect their women and children.
If the Allied Forces had lost WWII, it’s not impossible to imagine that we would be viewing Churchill the same way that we view Hitler now — that Churchill’s cane would represent the totality of evil the same way Hitler’s mustache does now, or that the symbol of Churchill’s army would have the same connotation that the swastika does today. The conclusion and (happy) ending of WWII has influenced the perception of these propaganda posters because of subjectivity [3].
We can see Hilter’s ghost whispering to a woman, saying, “take them back!” The woman, the mom of two innocent children, is suspicious since she cannot see the ghost. The title seems to be a third party warning the mom not to listen to the instigation and take regretful action.
In 1938, John Anderson’s committee laid out the war evacuation policy, and the Health Minister started the evacuation for children and women since1939. They started to come back during the Phony war due to a false sense of security [4]. Nevertheless, Blitzkrieg began, and most cities began to be bombed. The poster’s purpose was to persuade evacuated women with children to stay in the countryside [5][6].
This poster wasn’t only about demonizing Hilter but also about conveying a message — If you bring your children back to the city, it wasn’t a personal choice but a detrimental thought coming from Hilter. The morality judgment it placed through Hilter implicitly enforced the citizens to comply [7].
Germany also created the poster around 1941. By contrast, Churchill became the devil’s advocate. Wearing a black cloak, looming above a mother and a child, the subtitles on the right-hand upper corner say, “His last hope, blockage.” We can see the mother whose coat is torn and a child holding a food parcel underneath. The pregnant mom asks with a tone of desperation, “Is it enough to feed those two?” The poster illustrates the brutality of Churchill through their struggle for survival. Since the women standing on the map of France, she represents the starving french are the victims of Churchill’s blockage policy, which is widely diverged from our knowledge of history.
After Germany invaded Poland and France, it exported goods and materials from the occupied zone to support the army. Britain, therefore, adopted an economic blockade policy, resulting in strict rationing in France. French people blamed the consequence on Churchill’s policy[8][9]. Germany then seized the chance to divert the attention from its occupation to project anger on Churchill by leveraging the sentiments in French society.
From both posters, we observe a sharp moral judgment through women. The difference is that the Britain poster is based on the premise that Hilter is the evil to persuade citizens to submit to the policy. The German poster utilizes the woman as a medium to evoke empathy, emotionally connect starving with opponents’ policy, and provoke anger against Churchill. Nonetheless, both assume that women need to be protected, regardless of their physics or thoughts.
To sum up, two posters demonstrate the competing narratives and values of two forces during the era. Since we live in a world that the winner creates, we naturally adopt history through their lens, let alone the daily influences that reinforce our beliefs, such as Churchill’s quote and anti-Hilter act [10].
Here, we observe that the creation of history entangles specific morality judgments. Since morality judgments can hardly be objective, nor does history. Even though the fact creation process provides us the opposite perspective, the decision of retrospective significance adjudicates the good and evil, limits the exposure of the fact retrieval process, and affects the acceptance of the idea of truth [11]. Through comparing two posters with the history we consume, we see that history is a single story that meets public taste.
Bibliography
[1] “Don’t Do It Mother,” Imperial War Museums, accessed February 4, 2022, https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/41032.
[2] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Anti-British Propaganda Poster Featuring Winston Churchill Looming above a Mother and Child — Collections Search.” Accessed February 2, 2022. https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn513602.
[3] Walbert, K. Reading primary sources: An introduction for students. Learn NC, 2004
[4] National Army Museum. “Defeat in the West, 1940.” Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/defeat-west.
[5] Brown, Mike. Evacuees: Evacuation in Wartime Britain 1939–1945. The History Press, 2005.
[6] The evacuation of children during the Second World War. “The History Press.” Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/the-evacuation-of-children-during-the-second-world-war/.
[7] Lewis, Rebecca Mary. “The planning, design and reception of British home front propaganda posters of the Second World War.” PhD diss., University College Winchester, 2004.
[8] Medlicott, William Norton. The Economic Blockade, 1952.
[9] Osborne, Eric W. Britain’s Economic Blockade of Germany, 1914–1919. Routledge, 2004.through Claremont Libraries, ACLS Humanities Ebooks.
[10] Evans, Richard J. “History, memory, and the law: the historian as expert witness.” History and Theory 41, no. 3 (2002): 326–345.
[11] Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). The power in the story. In *Silencing the past: Power and the production of history* (pp. 1–30). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN: 0–8070–4310–9. Available
