The life and death of Eric Hobsbawm
Hobsbawm was the Marxist version of David Irving. Why is his death any more worthy of mourning?
In his dotage in the 1990s a respected academic historian, author of bestselling books, and lifelong Nazi was interviewed for the Times Literary Supplement about his youthful commitment to Hitler. The interviewer asked “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?”
The historian replied instantly; “Yes”
Of course, that never happened but something almost identical did.
In his dotage in 1994 a respected academic historian, author of bestselling books, and lifelong Marxist was interviewed for the Times Literary Supplement about his youthful commitment to Stalin. The interviewer asked “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?”
Eric Hobsbawm, who died yesterday aged 95, replied instantly; “Yes”
It is one of the great mysteries of intellectual life in the last few decades that anyone who confesses to a youthful flirtation with Nazism or fascism is shunned by polite society until a sufficiently long and intense period of penance had passed, while a youthful fondness for communism is presented as one of those harmless things we all go through, like collecting football stickers.
During the 20th century the miserable ideology of communism slaughtered millions and immiserated millions more. Between the Ukrainian famine and purges of the 1930s, the gulags, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, to the insanity of Mengistu in Ethiopia, communism was responsible for as many as 94 million deaths in the last century.
To paraphrase Montesquieu, there has never been a kingdom given to so much bloodshed as that of Marx.
And yet we don’t regard it with the same abhorrence as Nazism. Instead, the death of Eric Hobsbawm is mourned.
Ed Miliband said that this apologist for totalitarianism “cared deeply about the political direction of the country.” More, one hopes, than he cared for the millions whose deaths he excused.
For the BBC Nick Higham wrote that “Eric Hobsbawm was remarkable among historians in being proud to call himself a Marxist long after Marxism had been discredited in the West.” Hobsbawm was remarkable for no such thing. He was remarkable for his slavish devotion to the Soviet Union long after its full horror had been exposed. As Michael Moynihan wrote:
“When the bloody history of 20th-century communism intrudes upon Mr. Hobsbawm's disquisitions, it's quickly dismissed. Of the countries occupied by the Soviet Union after World War II—'the Second World War,' he says with characteristic slipperiness, 'led communist parties to power' in Eastern and Central Europe—he explains that a 'possible critique of the new [postwar] socialist regimes does not concern us here.'
Why did communist regimes share the characteristics of state terror, oppression and murder? 'To answer this question is not part of the present chapter.' Regarding the execrable pact between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, which shocked many former communist sympathizers into lives of anticommunism, Mr. Hobsbawm dismisses the 'zig-zags and turns of Comintern and Soviet policy,' specifically the "about-turn of 1939–41,"'which "need not detain us here'".
Read more on: john phelan, Eric Hobsbawm, marxism, How many deaths is Communism responsible for?, David Irving, communism and nazism, communism, nazism, the evil of communism, totalitarianism, Soviet Union, Stalin, Times Literary Supplement, Nick Highan, BBC, ed miliband, Ed Miliband and Eric Hobsbawm, Michael Moynihan, Nick Cohen, and Stalinist Russia
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.