# Have conservatives historically most often been on the wrong side of history? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507 "2012-07-07T06:37:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/141 "2012-07-09T21:22:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry but in this case as the communists had it wrong they also have the definitions wrong, by definition a progressive is a person who favors change progress or reform, especially in political matters. > > Sure they do want to change others, but after more than 100 years what we had is clearly the ironic result that most progressives \*\*did \*\*demand that Russia (up to the 80’s) and now that China change and get going with reform and to change their now old ways. But, by your definiton, the revolution in Russia, the mess in Cambodia, Hitlers Germany and the communist revolution in China were progressive movements at the time. Just because they led to the mass murder of millions does not change this fact. Seriously, look at the number of people killed in China during the revolution. Or Cambodia. This thread has turned into a giant pile of denial. According to most of the posters in this thread there have been _NO_ progressive governments that did anything wrong. The murders are hand waved away with ‘But that isn’t what we meant, they weren’t really progressive’. It is cheap, lazy and dishonest. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/142 "2012-07-09T21:28:07Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > According to most of the posters in this thread there have been _NO_ progressive governments that did anything wrong. According to the rest of the posters in this thread, there are no conservative governments that did anything wrong. Get the picture? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/143 "2012-07-09T21:37:30Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > My working definition of conservatives and progressives is that conservatives are generally for the status quo, progressives are generally for change. Human society has (IMO) slowly evolved over time to become better, indicating that progressives are slightly more “correct” than conservatives. > > In that context, there are plenty of progressive ideas that have turned out to be wrong. As already mentioned, Communism is an easy example. Eugenics is a controversial example but fits as a progressive idea (it was, after all, based on Darwin’s theories) gone bad. > > Gun control seems to be losing out, at least in the US. IMO the War on Poverty was mostly wrong. [Forced busing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing_in_the_United_States) looks like a bad idea in hind-site. On a more light-hearted note, [Brutalist architecture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism) was very very wrong. Gun control is another one. Progressives have generally been at most risk of being wrong when they want to restrict liberty and most often right when wanting to expand it. Liberty tends to win out in the long run. A NY Times columnist was recently asked by some fellow former 60s advocates why they were so successful on their civil rights issues but so unsuccessful on their economic program. And his epiphany was that the same persuasion that convinced the public that people should be free applied equally to economic issues. Here’s the op-ed if anyone’s interested: > **[Opinion | The Downside of Liberty (Published 2012)](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)** > > For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, the extreme individualism of the ’60s has been triumphant. Selfishness won. BTW, Paul Krugman unintentionally made the same point in another column when he complained about the “permissiveness” that allows some people to accumulate “obscene” amounts of wealth. Well, yeah, we are a more permissive society, you have to take the whole thing. If you want traditional values back, you have to go back to the 1950s in their entirety. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/144 "2012-07-10T08:35:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That’s absurd. To somehow pose Cold War Communist despots in Russia and China as the progressive equivalent of American evangelicals is nothing more than hyperbole. If we get pinned with Stalin, you get pinned with Hitler. That is just the way it is. When I was in college in the early 1980’s, the place was rife with ‘fellow travelers’ who went far out of their way to excuse/defend/support the Soviet Union. The left at the time most definitely saw the Soviets as part of the grand progressive experiment. I can’t tell you how many dorm room bull sessions resulted in discussions about the great Soviet system. Point out oppression, and the response would be that capitalism is oppressive, and at least in the Soviet Union everyone is equal and everyone has a job and everyone gets a good education. I knew plenty of leftists at the time who were convinced that the Soviet model was the future. They marched in solidarity with Cuba, Nicaragua, and other Soviet puppet states. They marched against “American Imperialism” but defended Soviet aggression and expansionism as the necessary response to America or because the Soviets’ history of invasions reasonably made them want to create a buffer around themselves - this was often the excuse for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. To this day, you can’t go to a left-wing march in America without seeing Soviet iconography - hammers and sickles, raised fists of the worker, Che Guevera hats and T-shirts, etc. These marches are often funded by overtly communist outfits such as Worker’s World. As for the millions dead as the result of communism, the answer you’d get varied from, “That’s a capitalist lie” to “That was Stalinism - not communism” to “you’ve got to break some eggs to make an omelette”. This was usually followed by a grand description of just how miraculous the industrialization of the Soviet Union had been. If you doubt the ‘progressive’ support for Stalinism or at least Soviet Communism, you just need go back and read what The Nation and The New Republic were writing at the time. Certainly there were factions within - Trotskyists vs Stalinists for example (look up the Dewey Commission for an interesting look into those times), but they were never anti-Soviet, even though this was the period of some of the worst mass murders and forced starvations in the Soviet Union, and these facts were well known at the time. The British writer who broke the story of the Ukraine Famine that killed 7 million people was sacked by the progressive Manchester Guardian because it supported Stalin. In America, Walter Duranty (who won a Pulitzer Prize for journalism), was writing in the NY Times as a mouthpiece for the Soviets. He wasn’t an obscure writer, either - he was bureau chief in Moscow for the Times. Duranty even defended the Gulag system. How did the American progressive magazine _The Nation_ describe Duranty’s writing? They said his articles were, “the most enlightened, dispassionate dispatches from a great nation in the making which appeared in any newspaper in the world.” The Soviet Union - a great nation in the making. A grand progressive experiment. And hey, if you’ve got to break a few eggs to get there, so be it. And the difference between the Communists and the Nazis was not at the time right vs left, but a split between international socialism and national socialism. Communists saw socialism as a worldwide trend, with workers uniting throughout the world against their oppressors. The Nazis were nationalists, and saw Communism as a threat to national pride and sovereignty, and to the purity of German bloodlines. But they didn’t totally disagree about socialist policy. As you know, the actual name of the Nazis was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Their platform included a guaranteed job at a living wage, universal education, expanded old age security payments, creating jobs through infrastructure works, a greater share of profits from heavy industry for workers, nationalization of industries that the Reich felt were not performing in the interests of the workers, the abolition of usurious interest rates, abolition of land speculators, breaking up large organization and turning their facilities over to small worker-collective type businesses, etc. Of course, their platform also limited this to people of the proper race, and they made no bones about the fact that they were going to enable it by punishing the ‘mongrel’ races and other undesirables. They were crazy, but it was a crazy mix of leftist ideas and insane nationalism and racism - not a mix of capitalism and insane nationalism and racism. Just to be clear. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/145 "2012-07-10T08:49:58Z")
As for more modern failures of progressive ideas, I’d start with the turn to the left Britain made after WWII which resulted in decreased growth, debt, unemployment, a lousy public health system, and by the 70’s the trade unions were crippling the country with constant revolving strikes and crazy demands such as keeping open British coal mines even though no one wanted British coal. Britain went from being one of the major powers of the world to an economic basket case in 30 years. More recently, we have the Euro - a grand progressive experiment that was supposed to unify a continent, but instead resulted in welfare writ large and has been a major factor in the current world economic mess - with the worst yet to come. Conservatives in Britain managed to keep it out of the Euro. Socialism in general has proven to be a failure. National industrial policy died a merciful death in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Trade tariffs as worker protections failed, and the history of the last 20 years has been one of liberalized markets and free trade. I’d also say that the model of government-run public education has failed to achieve what it was supposed to and is slowly being replaced or modified with market-based reforms, and public unions are declining in popularity because of their excesses and the fact that they are bankrupting the governments that supported them. The form of public welfare advocated by progressives has been a dismal failure, and welfare reform in the 1990’s was opposed by most on the left, but turned out to be a success. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/146 "2012-07-10T11:22:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > According to the rest of the posters in this thread, there are no conservative governments that did anything wrong. > > Get the picture? I don’t think that. I think that both progressive and conservative governments have got plenty wrong. Neither side is blameless. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/147 "2012-07-10T11:25:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for more modern failures of progressive ideas, I’d start with the turn to the left Britain made after WWII which resulted in… a lousy public health system… Ahem. I don’t think it’s been a failure - it’s been a great success, and one which the British are near universally proud of. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/148 "2012-07-10T11:29:45Z")
Yet the British and American systems both have one big thing in common: No country seeking to reform its health care system would ever think to adopt either the British or American model. Britain’s health care stats are awful, almost as bad as the US’s. And that’s with universal health care. Doctors as government employees was never a good idea, but it did scratch an ideological itch for Britain’s socialists. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/149 "2012-07-10T12:34:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yet the British and American systems both have one big thing in common: > > No country seeking to reform its health care system would ever think to adopt either the British or American model. Britain’s health care stats are awful, almost as bad as the US’s. And that’s with universal health care. > > Doctors as government employees was never a good idea, but it did scratch an ideological itch for Britain’s socialists. Really? Do you have a source for these stats? (although this may be derailing the thread a lot…) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/150 "2012-07-10T13:12:39Z")
**Sam Stone** , you are just mixing together the extreme left with progressives and ignoring the march of time and, well, the progress of progressives. It was clear that indeed anyone that was from the extreme left and still following the Soviet Union to the last was discredited, and it has to be pointed out that even Michael Moore took hammer and chisel to help tear down the Berlin wall. It was supposed to go without saying, but even you acknowledged before that the left in America did not like the Soviets by then so I wonder why you are coming with that caricature now. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/151 "2012-07-10T13:23:37Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Really? Do you have a source for these stats? (although this may be derailing the thread a lot…) Which do you want? Life expectancy? Infant mortality? Cancer survival rates? Life expectancy after age 65(an area the US actually bests Britain in?) Britain badly trails continental Europe in all of those stats and it’s directly attributable to the overly ideological model. It doesn’t derail the thread too much to talk about this, since it is another example of where the right was right and the left was wrong, and the left does not seek to create this model anywhere anymore. The NHS model was fashionable among liberals in the 1940s and 1950s, but by the 1960s the shortcomings of the model were obvious and other means were chosen to extend health care to all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/152 "2012-07-10T13:30:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Which do you want? Life expectancy? Infant mortality? Cancer survival rates? Life expectancy after age 65(an area the US actually bests Britain in?) > > Britain badly trails continental Europe in all of those stats and it’s directly attributable to the overly ideological model. It doesn’t derail the thread too much to talk about this, since it is another example of where the right was right and the left was wrong, and the left does not seek to create this model anywhere anymore. The NHS model was fashionable among liberals in the 1940s and 1950s, but by the 1960s the shortcomings of the model were obvious and other means were chosen to extend health care to all. Mmm, compared to continental Europe you say? [Looks at the health care systems in Europe]… Are you sure you are looking at systems that the left disapproves? As I do remember from previous discussions, the bottom line was that in England many do agree that reform is needed, but do not agree with a dismantling of UHC. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/153 "2012-07-10T13:35:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, once again in the place these things took place, Europe, they will look at you weirdly if you insist fascism was liberal/leftist and it is not only just because of workers unions. I was never saying fascism was liberal or leftist, but their economic policies were on the left end of the spectrum. The simple fact is fascism doesn’t, as a whole, meld well with left/right definitions because without an authoritarian/libertarian scale there is no way to factor in the authoritarian parts of fascism without “breaking the mold.” Right scale economic policies are inherently anti-state planning of the economy, but it’s also ludicrous to call fascists “liberal.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/154 "2012-07-10T13:37:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Mmm, compared to continental Europe you say? [Looks at the health care systems in Europe]… Are you sure you are looking at systems that the left disapproves? I’m not saying the left disapproves, only that the left switched from supporting single payer to multi payer over time because single payer proved to have drawbacks. > [@](#): > > As I do remember from previous discussions, the bottom line was that in England many do agree that reform is needed, but do not agree with a dismantling of UHC. It’s actually a little worse than that. Reform apparently doesn’t mean having the private sector provide health care. The doctors will continue to work for the government, the hospitals will continue to be run by the government. What reform should actually entail other than “it should work better” I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/155 "2012-07-10T14:05:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not saying the left disapproves, only that the left switched from supporting single payer to multi payer over time because single payer proved to have drawbacks. Mmm, most European systems are a mix, they are not entirely single payer. > [@adaher](#): > > It’s actually a little worse than that. Reform apparently doesn’t mean having the private sector provide health care. The doctors will continue to work for the government, the hospitals will continue to be run by the government. What reform should actually entail other than “it should work better” I’m not sure. Well, in Switzerland, one of the last remaining countries in Europe that switched to UHC: > **[Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World |...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/)** > [@](#): > > The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government. The most interesting bit to me is that the Frontline showed how conservatives there opposed that change, Frontline showed then an interview with the main leader that did oppose it, he said that he would not change back to the way things were. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/156 "2012-07-10T14:48:03Z")
Yeah, most European systems are multi-payer, and where they are single payer, they are decentralized, like in Sweden. Canada’s single payer system is run by the provinces. So the British model really is kinda unique in the Western world in that it borrows a model mainly used by totalitarian states. That’s not a moral judgement on NHS, I don’t consider NHS itself freedom-destroying or anything. It’s just an observation that it’s antiquated and ideological rather than practical. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/157 "2012-07-10T19:32:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not saying the left disapproves, only that the left switched from supporting single payer to multi payer over time because single payer proved to have drawbacks. Isn’t that the very essence of progressivism – modifying policies over time in response to new information (and new technology)? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/158 "2012-07-10T19:53:34Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > Isn’t that the very essence of progressivism – modifying policies over time in response to new information (and new technology)? No. You’re making a mistake of language usage called [equivocation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation). _Every_ political group left, right, white, red, royalists, revolutionaries, etc modifies policies in response to new information. That is a given. Every group wants to make “progress” by whatever their definition of “progress” happens to be. That doesn’t make all of of them a “Progressive” ideology (capital “P”). The lowercase “p” “progressive” is spelled the same but it’s a different word. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/159 "2012-07-10T20:11:49Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > Isn’t that the very essence of progressivism – modifying policies over time in response to new information (and new technology)? Depends. Part of the movement respects empiricism, part of it is dogmatic. There are many liberals in the US that would prefer single payer, which makes zero sense in a country with a federalist structure. While I’m not thrilled with the ACA, it at least recognizes the realities of how the American system is set up. States will have their own exchanges, and many people will be covered through the state/federal Medicaid program. So you’ve got a lot of true believers wishing for single payer, but the powers that be in the Democratic Party were more realistic about what would actually work. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507/160 "2012-07-10T23:52:14Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > No. You’re making a mistake of language usage called [equivocation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation). > > _Every_ political group left, right, white, red, royalists, revolutionaries, etc modifies policies in response to new information. That is a given. Every group wants to make “progress” by whatever their definition of “progress” happens to be. That doesn’t make all of of them a “Progressive” ideology (capital “P”). The lowercase “p” “progressive” is spelled the same but it’s a different word. I have no idea what you think is being equivocated. Progressive with a capital P refers to the Progressive Party. Same as how you don’t capitalize “socialist” unless you’re referring to a party by that name. The difference between progressivism and most (though not all) other ideologies is that it has no ultimate goal. Other ideologies like Marxism, libertarianism, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. describe an ideal state and measure “progress” in terms of moving closer to that ideal. Progressivism measures “progress” in a more incremental and utilitarian fashion. Generally, progressives are characterized by a willingness to try new and/or experimental methods, and a general opposition to the status quo. Progressivism is also not purist; it can be combined (to varying degrees) with other ideologies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-conservatives-historically-most-often-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/627507.md?page=9)