Abstract

During the nineteenth century, writers of the historicist school argued that though knowledge of the past cannot be directly applied to daily problems, it is nevertheless indispensable for a true understanding of the present. In practice, however, both politicians and historians used historical arguments to support political positions. This is illustrated by a study of the use of history in the political debates over the Polish question , the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , and the Ostverträge . These debates illustrate three uses of historical evidence in policy arguments. The forms include the projected success or failure of a particular decision, the moral and legal implications of that decision, and the symbolic values which the decision reflected. There is, however, a fundamental contradiction between history and politics. While history must methodologically suspend normative premises, political decisions are founded upon the notion of a right distribution of power