Why is everyone rushing to praise the Marxist Eric Hobsbawm, an apologist for mass-murderers?

A "great" supporter of mass murderers

I'll admit to being perplexed by the sycophantic encomiums from all parts of the political spectrum being lavished on the Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm (or Frogspawn as I seem to remember he was known at Cambridge). I foolishly thought that right-wingers and conservatives would be united in their disdain for an academic who escaped Nazi oppression only to wind up claiming that, in order for communism to succeed, it would have been worth the death of 10 or 15 million people (as opposed to the minimum of a hundred million who actually died).

In Hobsbawm’s corner, there were the likes of right-wing economic historian Niall Ferguson (a mate of the old blighter, apparently) and conservative commentator Allan Massie - yes he supported the most monstrous tyranny the world has ever known, but he was a great historian. In humanity’s corner, there were historian Michael Burleigh and novelist A.N. Wilson - he may have been a great historian, but he supported the most monstrous tyranny the world has ever known. The Guardian, naturally, decided he was a simply brilliant historian and a truly smashing human being. The excellent Nick Cohen cogently summed up the treacherous, ungrateful, hateful old git’s flaws in a Spectator post, but asked to be excused from having to despise him in the way he would an old Nazi, because of the Cohen family’s leftist credentials. (We'll get back to you on that one, Nick).

All of these pieces had their good points. But the best article of all was by Douglas Murray, again in the Spectator, entitled “A great historian with fascist tendencies has died”, which echoed my own attitude exactly (you can read the whole thing here). In his piece, Murray writes about Hobsbawm as if he had been a keen supporter of Nazism (as opposed to Communism)n in the 1930s, and who, despite never having renounced his beliefs, had gone on to be showered with praise  by western democracies:

In recent years some controversy was caused when he was asked whether the deaths of millions of people in the Holocaust would have been justifiable if it had led to the fascist state he wished to bring about and he replied ‘yes’. Lively, witty and convivial, he remained a central figure in far-right circles and was always able to draw a crowd at the Hay-on-Wye festival and the salons of literary London.  For his many notable achievements he was given numerous awards. In 1998 he was made a Companion of Honour.

I have previously pointed out that I see absolutely no difference between people nowadays describing themselves as Fascists or Marxists (the proof can be found here). It means they are either supremely foolish or almost inconceivably wicked or simply too obstinate and egotistical to admit that they once made a dreadful mistake by supporting a political philosophy which history has conclusively proved produces nothing but brutality, poverty, murder, enslavement and tyranny.

I have no idea whether Hobsbawm was a great historian, but if he was, I'm perplexed. I can see how someone might be a great bricklayer and a Marxist or a great footballer and a Fascist - their political views are entirely irrelevant to their professions. But how can you be a great historian or economist when you're interpreting evidence through the distorted lens of theories which have been proved to be cosmically, disastrously, utterly WRONG! How does that work? You can be, say, a great Whig historian, because, even if you're not a Whig, it's possible to make out a perfectly credible case for Whigism. But it is simply impossible for a rational human being to make a credible case for Marxism in 2012. It's like imagining that someone who believes the world was created 4000 years ago could be a great geologist: they could, I suppose, have some piercing insights, and they might write well, but their fundamental beliefs would mean that, ultimately, they'd be spouting utter balls.

I imagine that, in the case of both geologists and historians, they'd have to end up falsifying or distorting facts in order to make reality conform to their delusional belief system - Hobsbawm was certainly often guilty of peddling the party line in preference to telling the truth (several commentators mention his ludicrous interpretation of the motives behind the Soviet Union's Winter War with Finland in 1939-40).  How can you deliberately lie and be considered a "great historian"? 

The fact that so many members of the great and the good are eager to heap praise on Hobsbawm (in an attempt to demonstrate how fabulously liberal and forgiving they are, I presume) may indeed be a sign of this nation’s wonderful reserves of tolerance, rationality and even-handedness – but it also explains why the Left has been allowed to establish a totalitarian stranglehold on the cultural life of this country.

The reason so many of our best conservative and right-wing academics end up teaching abroad is because Britain’s politico-media-academic elite hasn’t had the moral courage to ostracise those who betray their country by acting as cheerleaders for tyranny, whether of the Communist or Islamist variety. I'm astonished that a great, truth-telling  right-wing historian like Niall Ferguson - who has long since decamped to America - doesn't understand this.