From Niall Ferguson's recent biography Henry Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist, this excerpt below is a mix of Ferguson's writing with quotations from Henry Kissinger's doctorate dissertation on 19th century diplomacy and the philosophy of history:
No significant conclusions are possible in the study of foreign affairs— the study of states acting as units— without an awareness of the historical context. Thus history is doubly important: as a source of analogies for the statesman, but also as the defining factor in national identity. True, “positivist scholars” might insist that “at any given moment a state is but a collection of individuals.” But in reality a people defines its identity “through the consciousness of a common history. . . . History is the memory of states.”
What do you, as historian folk, think about the assertion that "the consciousness of a common history" defines a people, and that "history is the memory of states"?
Thank you for any and all exciting thoughts you have on this matter.
It's an interesting theory but it's one that I see slowly falling apart and running into a few problems.
Firstly, it is acknowledged that memory is the way in which to view our relationship with the past - the problem is that "history is also unstable, flimsy..unreliable, and often highly politicized."^1 The famous saying being, of course, "history is written by the victors."
Filtered through the lens of modern Italy we can see that the country suffers from what historian John Foot terms as a "divided memory" that filters across all aspects of society. "It has proved extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any group—public or private—to create a consensus around the past, or around ways of remembering that past."^1 Italy has often had different national narratives on their history, and these narratives have often clashed with the local stories of the event. One of the most prevalent discussions of this 'memory problem' occurs when looking at the causes of, and fallout, from the First World War - especially in the monuments and commemorations of it. The socialists and anarchists viewed the war as a massacre that had been produced by capitalists - and was to be remembered as a disaster for the proletariat. These clashed with many of the returning veterans of the war, who felt that Italy had been cheated her due by the Allies at the peace conferences. These feeling were slightly in part with the promises made going in to the war, that it would be a "quick and heroic means towards national power and wealth."^2 And even without, the nationalists viewed the conflict as heroic and glorious, as a means to reinvent Italy's image in the world^1 and established Italy among the great powers^2
One of the main avenues in which the Fascists rose to power was in controlling the public memory of the First World War and casting themselves in the better light. Nationalists seized upon the notion and national depression faced by the country with the disastrous defeat at Carporetto^2 and proclaimed that the left were disfattisti (defeatists) of the ilk that Lenin called for in Russia. The left meanwhile proudly wore that badge , and viewed the disaster at Carporetto as a sign of a revolutionary class struggle. Antiwar monuments sprung up throughout Italy, as the more left leaning and socialistic cities and states celebrated the new peace. Unfortunately, the left's notion was a political miscalculation as the Fascists were able to recast the memory of the war as a clash between those who had run away, and those who had fought. Mussolini’s first words on taking power in October 1922 to Victor Emmanuel III were “I bring you the Italy of Vittorio Veneto” - the site of Italy's defeat of Austria-Hungary that in effect ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire.^3 A monument war ensued, concurrently with Fascisms rise that saw the destruction of every antiwar monument, and monument to peace.^1 The official state memory was to be that the war was heroic, necessary, and to be repeated as needed.
A slightly less serious, but no more important aspect of the controlling narrative in the lense of a divided memory is that of sporting memory. While I have previously written about the comical turn of events that led to Bologna triumphing over Genoa in the 1924-1925 season, the memory of how those games unfolded differs between the two teams. According to Bologna's official history of the event, the final match between the two teams was played behind closed doors due to the "fiery nature" of the two fan groups. To Genoa, and many other groups, the match is known as Il Furto Della Stella as it denied Genoa its tenth championship, which gives clubs the right to sew a special star on their shirts.^4 Up until the 1990s in Genoa it was assumed that when one spoke of those from Bologna, they were referring to thieves - at least according to Genovesi film director Giuliano Montaldo.
Either way of spilling it, the memory of this event is of a divided nature on which the official narrative is at odds with the narrative of others - which is quite in common with Italy's history. On a macro level, I can see myself in a way agreeing with Kissinger, but on a micro level it falls apart as historical narrative and memory can be a flimsy beast.