logo
Clio: Whose Side Is 'History' On?

Clio: Whose Side Is 'History' On?

Scoop13-06-2025
Is history binary? A judge of past behaviour with just two available options: thumbs-up, or thumbs-down? If you are not on the 'right side' of history, are you therefore on the 'wrong side'?
Can there be a 'right side of history'? Given the contexts that we now proclaim to be the right or wrong sides of history, can we presume to evaluate future judgements of our behaviours as 'history'? And, if we can, is 'history' about morals, or momentum; or, prosaically, is she just about facts? Can you (or we) ride history, like a wave? Clio, in Greek mythology, is the muse of history. She is not a straightforward lady.
Are politicians who support, by word or deed, fascists (or racists or any other obviously nasty 'ists') in another country 'on the wrong side of history' or could they be 'riding a historical wave'? I am reminded of the Hitler youth singing 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me' in the musical cabaret. In Natacha Butler's report (Al Jazeera 10 June 2025, Europe's far-right leaders, hosted by Marine Le Pen, rally in France) she notes "the conviction [by 'far-right' protesters] that history is on their side".
History as Momentum
Whoever participates in a social or political movement believes that their movement will become sufficiently consequential for those in the future to believe that the movement affected the course of history. So, the Hitler youth were correct, in the sense that their movement made their tomorrow different to what it would otherwise have been. The Hitler youth, though, were expecting a favourable judgement by 'us' in 2025. Clearly, we judge their movement in highly unfavourable terms, while accepting that the world at the end of the twentieth century might have been a better world than the world would have been had Adolf Hitler been killed in combat in the Great World War in1918. Problematic, though, is the whole subjective idea of a 'better world'; better for whom?
An important example of historicism, or alleged historical momentum, is the writings of Karl Marx. He thought he was writing scientific history, of 'historical materialism', and many people believed him; a few still do. Marx fused classical Ricardian economics – the intellectual ancestor of today's neoliberal macroeconomics – with the philosophical historicism of Georg Hegel. Josef Stalin, and others in his intellectually unaccommodating mould, killed people who spun different (or nuanced) stories of past or future history.
History as a Judge
From a judgment perspective, we place much weight on academic historians in the medium-term future to make (for all time) the correct verdict events in the present, immediate past, and immediate future.
Whether or not Clio is qualified to judge as 'good' or 'bad' past events, people, or movements, we today can evaluate Clio today – or at least her mortal disciples – on her performance so far.
Two of many issues we could look into are, first, Winston Churchill and the World War Two bombing campaigns by the 'Allies', and our present understanding of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Was Neville Chamberlain on the wrong side of history? And Churchill on the right side? (See my Invoking Munich, 'Appeasement', and the 'Lessons of History', 13 Mar 2025.)
Churchill, more than most political leaders, features in many separable stories in history. His role in pursuing the Gallipoli campaign in 1915 has generally been awarded a 'thumbs-down'. Likewise, his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1925, when he decided to fix the British pound to gold at the overvalued pre-war (1914) exchange rate; this decision was one of the key events that led the world into the Great Depression.
However, most post-war judgement of Churchill has focussed on his role as an opponent of 'appeasement' in 1938, and on his role as Great Britain's leader for the majority of World War Two (though he had been removed as Britain's leader, in a landslide electoral defeat, by the time the atomic bombs fell on Japan). On the 'appeasement' matter, Neville Chamberlain continues to be the epitome of someone 'on the wrong side of history', with Churchill on the 'right side'.
Churchill had his own personal political agenda in 1938; his lifelong pursuit of the glory of the British Empire. Churchill's principal strategic interest was to maintain the Mediterranean Sea as 'Britain's Lake'; substantially but not only because it represented Britain's sea passage to India. So many of his actions in World War Two can best be understood in terms of what he was fighting for, not what he was fighting against.
In 1938, the alternatives to the 'appeasement' of Hitler were to abstain in the face of Nazi Germany's clear-and immediate-threat to East Europe (a part of the non-Mediterranean world that Churchill was not interested in), or to threaten to declare war against Germany knowing that Britain couldn't act on its threat and thereby risked revealing its weakness. (In the summer of 1939, Britain did reveal its weakness to Josef Stalin, who then relayed that information onto Hitler at the end of August, allowing Hitler to invade Poland in the sure knowledge that Britain had no military capacity to come to Poland's aid. Chamberlain's allowing that 'information leak' to happen was surely a bigger mistake than his 1938 Munich Accord with Hitler.) And we note that Churchill said that, rather than 'peace in our time', there "would be war".
Churchill did not claim that any of the alternative choices that Chamberlain faced could or would have prevented war. Unless, that is, Chamberlain had been able to terrify Hitler into not going ahead with his military plans. (Hitler would have been more likely to liken threats by Chamberlain to 'being mauled by a mouse'; a famous if somewhat forgotten witticism of our own Robert Muldoon, speaking in reference to Opposition leader Bill Rowling.)
Realistically, Hitler was never going to commit to putting his military toys away. I think that, in light of the alternatives, Chamberlain made the right call in 1938; he hoped that he had restricted Hitler's military ambitions to the acquisition of territory inhabited by German-speaking people.
On the matter of the Allied bombing campaign, being willing to commit unspeakable aerial executions upon tens of millions of 'enemy' civilians, history has largely been silent; those (over a million) who were actually barbecued by the Allies fell well short of those who Churchill's 'scientific adviser' and onetime 'best friend' Friedrich Lindemann would have liked to have 'dehoused'. (See my Barbecued Hamburgers and Churchill's Bestie, 17 Apr 2025.) We cannot rely on academic historians to counter decades of myth; in part because we have too few competent historians, and in part because historians hunt in packs and are as liable to fall under the sway of the zeitgeists of their eras as are the rest of humanity's intellectual communities.
Despite Churchill's firebombing efforts, most of which took place in the early months of 1945, it was American bombing specialist Curtis LeMay who became barbecuer-el-supremo. (See my Who Executed 100,000 Civilians in a Single Night?) In 1945, and mainly through his own initiative, he burned more Japanese civilians to death than those who died from the atomic bombs. Was Curtis LeMay on the right side of history? The Japanese ruling class thought so in 1964; LeMay had helped to make the new Japan possible. The Emperor had been saved, as an emperor without an empire. And Japan had been saved from Stalin's advances, advances that stopped at Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands.
We note that the worst of the Allies' terror campaign took place towards the end of the war, when the 'evil' Axis was in no position to reciprocate. Inherently, such crimes – on the scale that 'we' perpetrated them – are asymmetric warfare. Killing your enemies' civilians seemingly grants your enemies a moral right to kill your civilians. I think that no party who commits those kinds of war crimes can ever be on 'the right side of history'; though some other people may take more convincing. To compound the criminality of the Allied bombing campaign, it was ineffective, because World War Two was already asymmetric; the main turning points were Hitler's foolish declaration of war against the United States, and the Battle of Stalingrad in the latter part of 1942. World War Two could have been ended much more quickly with carrot than with stick, by finding suitable ways for the retreating powers to 'save face'. Truth and reconciliation always trump vengeance. Yet so many horrendous "killings of civilians to [allegedly] save 'our' soldiers" remain either on the 'right side of history' or concealed from view, obviating the popular requirement to cast judgement.
The Great Depression was still much in historical memory in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1930s, Josef Stalin and his comrades believed this was the beginning of the end of the capitalist world; and he executed any economists (eg Nikolai Kondratiev) who suggested otherwise. At the time, a number of progressive western economists (eg Alvin Hansen) to an extent agreed with Stalin.
However, in the 1970s, a group of extremist 'Chicago' economists and economic historians – Milton Friedman would lay claim to being both an economist and a historian – successfully committed on the world an intellectual coup-d'etat which would distract the historical community from reality. Friedman's coupsters scapegoated the United States Federal Reserve Bank (on the basis of a few quite minor 'mistakes' in monetary policy in 1929 and 1930). The net result was that the real culprits, the fiscal conservatives, escaped the condemnation of history.
The Friedmanites, and their 'intellectual' descendants, have claimed the 'right side of history'; claiming victories (without convincing counterfactuals) in the alleged titanic battle between the 'inflation monster' and the battlers of the 'lower middle classes'. These faux historians claimed that small "mistakes" in monetary policy in 2003/04 and 2021/22 have been the predominant causes of the 2008/09 'global financial crisis' and the 2022 to 2024 'cost of living' crisis. When it comes to macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy, this writing of consumable history is about as pathetic (as intellectual history) as the claims of the Holocaust-deniers, or of the people (such as Herr Hitler) who claimed that Germany was 'stabbed-in-the-back' by international Jewry in 1918.
Saying Sayonara to Clio?
In the meantime, Aotearoa New Zealand's political leaders – and their public service collaborators – are doing their best to deconstruct Clio, by shredding many many books held at the National Library. (See National Library to dispose of 500,000 books from overseas collection, OneNews, 12 Jun 2015; and Book dealer sickened by plan to destroy half a million books, RNZ 12 Jun 2015.) This purge is being justified as a nationalist purge of books written in another time, and therefore with another perspective, and not written in our little exceptionalist country. And also the possible loss of much of our historical memory, through the lack of support for Aotearoan memory banks such as Te Ara Encyclopaedia of NZ, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, NZHistory, and Te Akomanga. Jock Phillips, recently retired historian in chief, is disgusted. (see More cuts proposed at Ministry for Culture and Heritage, RNZ, 13 June 2025.)
Clio is a muse to be loved and cultivated. She gives much, but rarely in simplistic right-wrong terms; and she changes her mind, in response to both new information and new zeitgeists. Whereas Hitler's Nazis burned the books they didn't like – and many other books besides – Aotearoa's fiscal conservatives are looking for a whimper – a tearless shredding – rather than a blaze. And our remaining unshredded public collections, our memories – our abilities to evaluate the rights and the wrongs and the waves of our national and international pasts – stand to depreciate, to wither.
Note:
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Keith Rankin
Political Economist, Scoop Columnist
Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s.
Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like.
Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ominous Plans: Making Concentration Camp Gaza
Ominous Plans: Making Concentration Camp Gaza

Scoop

time7 days ago

  • Scoop

Ominous Plans: Making Concentration Camp Gaza

The odious idea of a camp within a camp. The Gaza Strip, with an even greater concentration of Palestinian civilian life within an ever-shrinking stretch of territory. These are the proposals ventured by the Israeli government even as the official Palestinian death toll marches upwards to 60,000. They envisage the placement of some 600,000 displaced and houseless beings currently living in tents in the area of al-Mawasi along Gaza's southern coast in a creepily termed 'humanitarian city'. This would be the prelude for an ultimate relocation of the strip's entire population of over 2 million in an area that will become an even smaller prison than the Strip already is. The preparation for such a forced removal – yet another among so many Israel has inflicted upon the Palestinians – is in full swing. The analysis of satellite imagery from the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) by Al Jazeera's Sanad investigations unit found that approximately 12,800 buildings were demolished in Rafah between early April and early July alone. In the Knesset on May 11 this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave words to those deeds: 'We are demolishing more and more [of their] homes, they have nowhere to return to. The only obvious result will be the desire of the Gazans to emigrate outside the Strip.' Camps of concentrated human life – concentration camps, in other words – are often given a different dressing to what they are meant to be. Authoritarian states enjoy using them to re-educate and reform the inmates even as they gradually kill them. Indeed, the proposals from the Israel's Defense Department carry with them plans for a 'Humanitarian Transit Area' where Gazans would 'temporarily reside, deradicalize, re-integrate, and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so'. The emetic candy floss of 'humanitarian' in the context of a camp is a self-negating nonsense similar to other experiments in cruelty: the relocation of Boer civilians during the colonial wars waged by Britain to camps which saw dysentery and starvation; the movement of Vietnamese villagers into fortified hamlets to prevent their infiltration by the Vietcong in the 1960s; the creation of Pacific concentration camps to detain refugees seeking Australia by boat in what came to be called the 'Pacific Solution'. Those in the business of doing humanitarian deeds were understandably appalled by Israel's latest plans. Philippe Lazzarini, head of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), stated that this would 'de facto create massive concentration camps at the border with Egypt for the Palestinians, displaced over and over across generations'. It would certainly 'deprive Palestinians of any prospects of a better future in their homeland.' Self-evidently and sadly, that would be one of the main aims. A few of Israeli's former Prime Ministers have ditched the coloured goggles in considering the plans for such a mislabelled city. Yair Lapid, who spent a mere six months in office in 2022, told Israeli Army Radio that it was 'a bad idea from every possible perspective – security, political, economic, logistical'. While preferring not to use the term 'concentration camp' with regards such a construction, incarcerating individuals by effectively preventing their exit would make such a term appropriate. Ehud Olmert's words to The Guardian were even less inclined to varnish the matter. 'If they [the Palestinians] will be deported into the new 'humanitarian city', then you can say that this is part of an ethnic cleansing'. To create a camp that would effectively 'clean' more than half of Gaza of its population could hardly be understood as a plan to save Palestinians. 'It is to deport them, to push and to throw them away. There is no other understanding that I have at least.' Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg was also full of candour in expressing the view that the plan was 'for all facts and purposes a concentration camp' for Gaza's Palestinians, 'an overt crime against humanity under international humanitarian law'. This would also add the burgeoning grounds of illegality already being alleged in this month's petition by three Israeli reserve soldiers of Israel's Supreme Court questioning the legality of Operation Gideon's Chariots. Instancing abundant examples of forced transfer and expulsions of the Palestinian population during its various phases, commentators such as former chief of staff of the IDF, Moshe 'Bogy' Ya'alon, are unreserved about how such programs fare before international law. 'Evacuating an entire population? Call it ethnic cleansing, call it transfer, call it deportation, it's a war crime,' he told journalist Lucy Aharish. 'Israel's soldiers had been sent in 'to commit war crimes.' There is also some resistance from within the IDF, less on humanitarian grounds than practical ones. To even prepare such a plan in the midst of negotiations for a lasting ceasefire and finally resolving the hostage situation was the first telling problem. The other was how the IDF could feasibly undertake what would be a grand jailing experiment while preventing the infiltration of Hamas. This ghastly push by the Netanyahu government involves an enormous amount of wishful thinking. Ideally, the Palestinians will simply leave. If not, they will live in even more carceral conditions than they faced before October 2023. But to assume that this cartoon strip humanitarianism, papered over a ghoulish program of inflicted suffering, will add to the emptying well of Israeli security, is testament to how utterly desperate, and delusionary, the Israeli PM and his cabinet members have become.

Greece coastguard rescues hundreds of migrants
Greece coastguard rescues hundreds of migrants

Otago Daily Times

time06-07-2025

  • Otago Daily Times

Greece coastguard rescues hundreds of migrants

Hundreds of migrants have been rescued off the coast of Greek island Crete, pictured here, over the weekend. Greece has rescued hundreds of migrants off its southern islands of Gavdos and Crete in five separate incidents since Friday, its coastguard said today. More than 430 migrants were spotted and rescued about 25 nautical miles off Gavdos, Greece's southernmost island, on Sunday (local time), the coastguard said in a statement. In a separate incident, also on Sunday, the European Union's Frontex border agency rescued 96 migrants on board two boats off Crete, the coastguard said. The migrants are now being taken to Crete, Greece's largest and most populous island. Sea arrivals from northeastern Libya of migrants trying to cross to Europe have surged in recent months. They mainly come from the Middle East and North Africa, including nationals from war-torn Sudan and citizens of Egypt and Bangladesh. Last month Athens said it would deploy two frigates near Libyan territorial waters to help stem the flow. It also urged Libya to cooperate more closely with Greece and the EU to stop migrants sailing from there or turn them back before they exit Libyan territorial waters. In another incident on Sunday, a Greek media outlet published footage showing dozens of migrants jumping off a speed boat into the water before reaching the shores of southern Crete. Greece and Libya have been trying to mend relations strained by an accord signed in 2019 between the Libyan government and Turkey. Greek Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis travelled to Benghazi on Sunday to discuss migration with eastern Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar. "We will continue our undisturbed relationship... and we hope that in the near future we will have tangible results for the progress of our relations," Gerapetritis was quoted by his ministry as saying after meeting Haftar.

Memories Of Isfahan And Security Shocks In A Wilder World
Memories Of Isfahan And Security Shocks In A Wilder World

Scoop

time30-06-2025

  • Scoop

Memories Of Isfahan And Security Shocks In A Wilder World

In 1975, though Indochina was left in ruins, New Zealanders' OE options still included places now wiped off tourist routes, including a 5 week 'Scandy /Russia' bus trip with 40 'down under' youth, and 3 months from 'London to Katmandu', including Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, in tents right across Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Frequent moves across the region in tents then represented eager adventures of lucky young westerners broadening their life experience of other peoples, places and cultures. Regular relocation in tents now is instead part of terrible trauma of famished families whose homes have been made the rubble graves of relatives. By my bed is a beautiful woven rug from Isfahan's gorgeous market, and on a shelf, hand painted tiles gifted by a mosque guide. Photos of Isfahan from its small 'mountain' overlook the graceful city. Postcards display its majestic blue mosque. All is now at risk, its people and awesome heritage due to Israel's war fever and America's endless supply of lethal weaponry. Is the world nearing 21st century meltdown? Russia and Ukraine, both part of my adopted daughters' heritage, are now war zones. Israel, not satisfied with ongoing genocide in Gaza, West Bank or bombing Lebanon and Syria, has drawn US into war on Iran, ostensibly to destroy nuclear facilities (verified by regular IAEA checks for peaceful energy use only), including one in Isfahan. On our last night there in 1975, two young locals took a friend and I to a lovely restaurant, soon filled with a jubilant wedding party, the bride still in her white gown. My polite host told his story. Under the Shah, two years military service by all young men was compulsory. Disgusted with its 'barbarism', he left to join nomads in the desert, spending his two years' national service teaching their children before returning to his family, who by then presumed him dead. He could not get a driver's license, bank account or anything else revealing his identity, risking prison and torture for 'desertion'. Israel also has 'refusers'. But it takes a strong sense of personal agency to resist patriotic propaganda and pride in military sacrifice from childhood onwards, despite deep structural injustices perpetuated by military power; millions killed and maimed worldwide in living memory, and centuries of precious infrastructure and cultural heritage razed. How long will humanity allow foreign policies underpinned by nihilism and factories profiting from death, while the world burns, glaciers melt and seas rise due to inaction on climate change? Who really believes that we, or the world in general, gain more security with nine nations now armed with nuclear weapons and six additional nations 'sharing' them? US pressures within America and abroad to transfer more government spending from civilian needs to military research and development and industry, resembles a massive international marketing campaign. The power of that industry, burgeoning since World War Two, is comparable to a tumour becoming cancerous as it metastasizes (grows and spreads through the body), swamping vital organs, snuffing life out of the human host, while its lethal products kill 'Others', users seduced by promises of power, dominance or 'security'. In America, democracy has become oligarchy in all but name – government dominated by highly visible and less visible hands of wealthy corporations. 'Tied' sponsorship is required to run for national leadership, enabling sponsors to largely determine national priorities and what will be scrapped. Military spending increases unabated, while federal spending on civilian programs shrinks, shortening life expectancies and hopes of many. New Zealand would be wise to resist such butter to bombs pressures and instead pursue policies which genuinely enhance security. These include stronger support for multilateral institutions to protect human rights and climate, and tweaking skill sets at home from 'enhancing our lethality' to strengthening civil defense responses to intensifying climate change crises, as well as mitigating emissions creating the problem.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store