戰爭記憶之形塑－－以1937年淞滬會戰為例

Abstract

歷史記憶為近年相當熱門的研究議題之一，相關理論經1980年代以後的開展已漸趨完備，並逐漸地受到人文與社會學科的注意，而近現代史學者尤其關注戰爭記憶。 戰爭記憶與國家塑造及認同有相當大的關係，尤其近代民族國家的發展，使國家當權者相形重視民眾對國家的認同，於是透過宣傳與教育手段，使人民對某個時期的歷史有共同的記憶，進而達到目的。1937年爆發的淞滬會戰，即於中華民國政府的營造下，透過報刊與紀錄片等文字及非文字的宣傳，成為中國全面抗戰的象徵。儘管會戰本身以失敗坐收，然而會戰所出現的英雄人物卻並未在戰後消失，而是加諸於教科書、影像與紀念活動當中，使會戰本身的失利被淡化，並對臺灣民眾加以文化、教育灌輸，從中建立以中國國民黨為中國合法繼承者之史觀，並連結臺灣與中國之間的關係。 然而，戰爭記憶形塑的過程，因不同時期，面對不同敵人而有所波動。尤其到了1980年代以降，臺灣本土意識高漲，更是對過往以中國認同為軸心的戰爭記憶形成嚴峻挑戰。不過中國認同為主體的戰爭記憶並未因此消逝，而是與日籍臺灣兵等臺灣認同之記憶並存。至今，臺灣認同與中國認同對於戰爭記憶的詮釋，仍是學界內外各勢力的必爭戰場。

Historical Memory, one of the most popular subject in historical profession, especially war memories, attracted by modern history scholars. A significant relationship exist in war memories, state-building, national identity. Those in power attach importance to shape national identity in public. To achieve the purpose, making have the same memories by propaganda and education. In 1937, Government of the Republic of China to propagandize Second Battle of Shanghai as an important symbol in Period of War against Japan by newspapers and periodicals and documentary films. Postwar, some heroes appeared in textbook and films and commemorations. Distracting the truth is the consequences of failure in Second Battle of Shanghai. With this series of propaganda, Kuomintang established a history viewpoint: the only legitimate successor of China. The process of shaping war memories, however, were change because of different time and enemies. After 1980s, in particular, the rising of Taiwanese Identity thinking has become a challenge to Chinese Identity war memories. Interpretation of the war memories between Taiwanese Identity and Chinese Identity has become a battleground both inside and outside the academic even today.