Central to this essay is the debate about the ultimate purpose of studying history and about the social role of the historian as it was conducted in the first two decades after the Second World War in Belgium and the Netherlands. Many historians took the view after the war that the study of the past must contribute directly to (political) reconstruction and the shaping of (democratic) public opinion. In the eyes of historians like the Amsterdam Professor Jan Romein and the powerful Belgian Inspector for History Teaching Leopold Flam, historiography should not be focused on knowledge of the past as such, and the same was certainly true of history teaching. On the contrary, the social capital that they represented was founded on their involvement with the present. Against this presentist position there grew the conception that the study of the past for its own sake remained of great importance in post-war society, and in fact that such an orientation towards the past itself and a critical attitude towards those who wished to use history to shape contemporary society could actually help prevent a new dictatorship or a new conflict. This historicist standpoint was regarded as anything but ‘aloof’ or ‘unethical’ by its advocates like the Utrecht Professor Pieter Geyl.