hope he does not rest in peace as he would be appalled by the religious connotations of that . He was a brilliant historian and his books– The Age of Revolution (1962), The Age of Industry (1975), The Age of Empire (1987) and The Age of Extremes (1994) are in my mind absolute classics of modern history ( have to admit i have only read the first three). A great and accessible historian. Will be missed. www.guardian.co.uk/books/eric-hobsbawm

hope he does not rest in peace as he would be appalled by the religious connotations of that . He was a brilliant historian and his books– The Age of Revolution (1962), The Age of Industry (1975), The Age of Empire (1987) and The Age of Extremes (1994) are in my mind absolute classics of modern history ( have to admit i have only read the first three). A great and accessible historian. Will be missed. www.guardian.co.uk/books/eric-hobsbawm

Wholeheartedly seconded.

On Tony Blair - ''Labour prime ministers who glory in trying to be warlords - subordinate warlords particularly - certainly stick in my gullet.''

Not many of his type left now.

RIP (not)

I remember seeing Hobsbawn on Newsnight not so long ago, despite being well into his 90s he was still with it mentally, intelligent and articulate. A terrific academic.

The [iAge of[/i series still stand as superb history.

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9682626.stm[/url

...................And the first person to spell his name correctly on this thread wins a liquorice allsort

Or perhaps, a more realistic appraisal of this intellectual snob could be found in the points raised in AN Wilson's piece in [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2211961/Eric-Hobsbawm-He-hated-Britain-excused-Stalins-genocide-But-traitor-too.htmlTHE MAIL[/url?

It would have been interesting to see Wilson and Hobsbawm debate.

Wilson got his @rse handed to him by Hitchens on christianity and I'd have expected a similar result from Hobsbawm on the topic of social history.

Despite any religious connotations some people might perceive it as having, we need RIP, because 'sorry you're dead' lacks the required solemnity and respect.





Winning any debate is easy. Pick your ground, know your audience and make sure you're attacking rather than defending. How on Earth people build a career or reputation out of that is beyond me. Well, it's not but I'm being polite.



I quite liked Hobsbawn from the little bits I've read about him and the even littler bits by him.

A N Wilson is the snob and nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is.
No-one is as bright as A N Wilson thinks he is.

Failure to acknowledge what was actually happening in the "Communist" states was a massive moral failure on behalf of far too many 'intellectuals' in the West - seemingly Hobsbawn included.

That would be an excellent point if he hadn't written at least one book about exactly that.

I look forward to AN WILSON prefacing everything he rights about Britain and the English with an apology for Slavery, the concentration camps in South Africa, The Bengal famine and the Genocide of the Tasmanian aborigines.

Everything Stalin did he learnt from Britain.

vbfg - have you not read any of the freely available quotes where at best he's mealy-mouthed about atrocities committed in the name of Communism? Or his support for the quashing of uprisings in other countries by the Soviet army, or his attempts to brush over or even excuse atrocities? If that was somebody from the right being so pathetic in their criticism of the 'excesses' of fascist regimes they would be rightly lambasted.

That's what I'm talking about in terms of a moral failure. It's not a failure of intellect, its a failure of basic morality to attempt in any shape or form to justify human suffering on the grounds of 'the ends justify the means' which is what he did and continued to do up to his death. Suggesting that the deaths in the USSR caused by the regime would have been somehow justified had they led to a Marxist uptopia is sickening - Goebbels would have been proud.

No mate. I'm quite content to offer my opinion without having even the vaguest clue of what I'm talking about.

Here's an example:

There are no nuanced opinions. For or against, yes or no, up and down, in and out. These are the only options, and if you show little sign of being entirely one then the only reasonable conclusion is that you're entirely the other.

Bloody Stalin running torture camps for Kenyans

Thank God those nice British chaps were running the ones in Malaya , that way there would not have been any extra judicial murders there