Actually, yes, I do find this ridiculous. For one thing, Carr is addressing the work of historians-- and not the exercise of moral judgement by ordinary people. Second, if an historian wishes to evaluate a person or an event as "evil," then that is his or her perogative; and if the reader wishes to separate his moral observations from his historical analysis, that is _their_ perogative.
-clip- As for denouncing the sins of Charlemagne or Napoleon, I can't say there's much benefit... but denounce the sins of Joseph Stalin, and there'll be morons crawling out of the woodwork to nitpick you unto infinity. ^^^^^^ CB: I tend to vary from my fellow list-Marxists aversion to indulge in moral judgment. As I say , I , like that Marxist Khruschev, don't mind saying Stalin committed big crimes. But with our attention to dialectics, I also think that ,amazingly, incredibly, contradictorily, criminals and evil individuals can also do some things that are , dare I say, good. Stalin was profoundly contradictory. In other words, since moral judgment tends to be a kind of summary that either ends up in negative or positive numbers, concluding that someone is evil tends to the further conclusion that nothing that they did could have been good or correct or intelligent. This is understandable , by the way. In our moral feeling, evil tends to trump in the one person. Caveat: a fundamental Marxist criticism of big man theories of history must be kept in mind as a principle limiting this moral exercise. In other words, for example, Stalin did not make Soviet history, masses of people did. Individuals may speed up or slow historical processes, but not determine them. I wonder , though, about your exercising your judgment more fully. You do denounce pretty much all the American presidents as evil too , don't you ? George Washington, Jefferson owned slaves, led genocide against Indians, and stood ready to use murder to maintain the slave system. Their moral denunciation might be especially edifying for Americans. It would be good if you did that explicitly a little more ( although maybe you do). Winston Churchill should be mentioned along with Stalin, if we are to get into moral denunciation. What about all the leaders of the countries who organized WWI and ruled vast colonial empires which were truly "chaotic and full of infinite suffering" ? Why don't I hear frequent moral denunciation of Clemenceau, Wilson and , who was it, Lloyd George ? Kennedy, Johnson ? Their actions "in" Southeast Asia were pretty big sins. Truman "in" Korea, Hiroshima ?
In other words, the Brad Delong crowd tend to spend all their time morally denouncing Communist and ":Third World" leaders, which sort of raises suspicions that they are using the moral denunciation game to sneak in pro-capitalist/anti-communist, anti-national liberation propaganda in the name of morality. Then , for example, I'd say Lenin was good, great even. Fidel Castro is good, if we are going to make a moral judgment. What about Abraham Lincoln, Grant ? They organized mass murder, but for a good cause. Is organizing mass murder ( all war is mass murder) against bad guys good or bad ? Do the ends justify the means ? In other words, why does there tend to be more moral denunciation in this practice , and less moral praise ? Why go half way ? Are all heads of states evil or are some good ? Afterall, all states are repressive apparatuses.