Der britische Historikerstreit
The German word Historikerstreit, meaning a quarrel between historians, gained popularity in the 1980s, to describe arguments over whether Nazism represented a continuity or rupture in the German story, or over the comparative evils of Fascism and Stalinism. Historical debates over questions bearing on political decision-taking – such as Greece’s debt to Germany (or vice versa), or whether Turkey is a European country – have kept the practice going in the 21st century.
The British historical guild has been slow to emulate the European model, but the self-styled ‘Historians for Britain’ in October last year launched a manifesto using a selective reading of the past to argue for British uniqueness and superiority vis-à-vis the EU.
Hosted by the Westminster-based ‘Business for Britain’ forum, and led by David Abulafia of Cambridge University, the group trumpeted its tenets in three hundred words of fully justified, white-on-black, sans serif text, all in bold, all in italics, all capitalised; formatting features generally met with on the remoter shores of the internet. An authority-conferring black-and-white photograph of old books, including Hume’s History of England, served as background.
Among the manifesto’s claims were that the EU’s ‘new taxes’ ‘penalise Britain’s historic financial and mercantile trade’; that it has a ‘disregard for the decisions of voters’; and that it nurtures a general hatred of democracy. The ‘brutal’ EU threatens the traditions ‘peculiar to our shores’ which ‘form the rich fabric of our history and inform our lives today’. It has ‘wrecked lives’ in the Mediterranean and is ‘fanning the flames of aggressive extremism’ there. The manifesto quickly disappeared; apparently some of the distinguished signatories whose names appeared below the thesis had never seen, let alone endorsed it.
Relaunched earlier this year, with a somewhat different set of signatures, ‘Historians for Britain’ made waves after the election with a piece by Abulafia in History Today. He pointed to history to argue the case for Britain’s ‘milder political temper’, including an alleged absence of anti-Semitism, innovativeness in such questions as women’s suffrage, tolerance of immigrants, and parliamentary and democratic traditions. All of which means that Britain must renegotiate its EU membership.
The tendentiousness of his claims, and the problematic leaps from past to present, were comprehensively criticised a week later in a counterblast in History Today, written by six historians and endorsed by nearly three hundred.
They didn’t mention, though, quite how European Abulafia and his comrades’ démarche is. Manifestos of national-historical distinctness have been a trend all over Europe for decades: each with its peculiar claims for exceptionalism, its attendant political counsels, its outlandish formatting. By putting out such a text, the ‘Historians for Britain’, far from making a case for leaving Europe, have shown how far, advertently or otherwise, they belong to it.