Rationalising devilish deeds of history is often mistaken for favourable judgment. The Oxford historian A. J. P. Taylor was considered more than an eccentric in suggesting that Adolf Hitler had been an orthodox, daring statesman, rather than a mass murdering psychotic of inimitable fibre pursuing a common plan of domination.
Particularly riling were remarks that had the effect of taking the sting of singularity out of Hitler's character. For, 'in principle and doctrine, Hitler was no more wicked and unscrupulous than many a contemporary statesman', though he did outdo 'them all' in the department of commissioned wickedness.
The issue sheds light on that perennial historical desire to seek a demon that will invariably make the accuser look better, be it as victim, or as morally superior agent. Such a figure supplies the suitable demonology of the moment, a convenient successor figure deemed the 'next Hitler'.
In the savage wars of the Balkans during the 1990s, the identification of good sides over bad, noble warriors over ignoble ones, meant evil had to be singularised, culprits found to galvanise resistance. Identifying another mass murdering dictator was fundamental to the cause. One such figure was Serbian president Slobodan Miloševic.
How far could Miloševic be implicated in the atrocities of those wars? He was the bogeyman supremo of the 1990s, the great demon demagogue. In duly being surrendered to The Hague to face the music of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, questions about his role in the civil wars was put to the bench. But the judges never reached a verdict.
Miloševic fought with dogmatic, relentless conviction. But ailing health took its toll, and he died in a Hague cell in March 2006. That result had the effect of suspending arguments about responsibility from any legal scrutiny. Historical speculators moved in, capitalising on the real estate of memory.
Earlier this month, British journalist Neil Clark decided to add to the speculation by suggesting Miloševic had been exonerated for his role in war crimes and crimes against humanity, notably in Bosnia. He drew upon Andy Wilcoxson's assertions, based on the 24 March Karadžic judgment from the ICTY.
'The ICTY's conclusion,' went Clark, 'that one of the most demonised figures of the modern era was innocent of the most heinous crimes he was accused of, really should have made headlines across the world.' Even the ICTY itself 'buried' that exoneration 'deep in its 2590 page verdict in the trial of