Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that the phrase, "history repeats itself" is one of the most often used misnomers. History never repeats itself, every historical event has its own unique conditions which only in the most general sense are replicated by subsequent periods or historical events.
You're right in the strict sense; history does not literally repeat. But if you're willing to relax your definitions a little bit, then yes, it does happen. As a matter of fact, it's happening right now. A little more than half a century ago, the United States valiantly agreed to help France out of a sticky little situation in one of their far-flung colonies (eventually, the name of Vietnam came to be rather more important in American news headlines). And here we are in 2010, mired once again in a pointless war that can't actually be won. Just substitute the name of Afghanistan, and voila! The History Instant Replay Button has been hit.
You're right in the strict sense; history does not literally repeat. But if you're willing to relax your definitions a little bit, then yes, it does happen.
When you relax definitions to far words lose any meaning that they might have had, take for example...
A little more than half a century ago, the United States valiantly agreed to help France out of a sticky little situation in one of their far-flung colonies (eventually, the name of Vietnam came to be rather more important in American news headlines). And here we are in 2010, mired once again in a pointless war that can't actually be won. Just substitute the name of Afghanistan, and voila! The History Instant Replay Button has been hit.
Perchance what ally are we assisting in Afghanistan? What geo-political role does Afghanistan play? What makes this war "pointless" , the nationalist viewpoint akin to the National Front for the Liberation of Southern Vietnam or the concept of Pathunwali and transnational terrorism?
If we relax the criteria for critical historical analysis so far that we compare two completely different historical events to no more than "pointless war" I suspect that the word history will come to mean absolutely nothing.
I think the statement ties in to the "those who do not learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them." No, history does not repeat itself in a literal sense, but people tend to forget lessons learned and are therefore doomed to make similar mistakes and...oila...history repeats itself.
but people tend to forget lessons learned and are therefore doomed to make similar mistakes and...oila...history repeats itself.
Like all old sayings, upon detailed analysis, they don't make much sense.
Case in point, in WWI Germany failed to out flank the French, they didn't make the same mistake during WWII. They learned from history, but the outcome was the same, defeat. Did history repeat itself or did Germany fail to learn from the wrong lesson?
I think the statement ties in to the "those who do not learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them." .
I consider that quote as nifty sounding, but ultimately useless in that the lesson can go both ways. Learning from a past mistake can lead you down a path of new mistakes rather than some felicitous outcome.
The example which springs to mind instantly is France between 1870 and 1940. France was crushed by Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War because the Germans used superior mobility (railroads) to assemble troops for rapid offensive strokes. France also suffered for absense of political unity and stability at the time, part of the nation supported Napoleon III's government and part of the nation was longing for a return to a republic. The Germans defeated them in turns, first Napoleon III, and after his capture at the Sedan battle, it was the replacement Third Republc government which failed to stop them and ultimately had to surrender.
So, in preparing for the next war, France placed its emphasis on united elan and spirited offense. They would strike like a unified bolt of lightning and overrun their foes with unflincing martial ardor. As we all know now, WW I was the next war and it was the conflict where defense reigned supreme and technology was more critical than elan. So, France took it on the chin once more.
Then, having learned their lesson about the supremacy of defense, between the World Wars they constructed the Maginot Line and prepared the strongest static defenses possible.
And of course these turned out to be worthless against the hyper mobility of blitzkrieg tactics.
So, France learned from the past, did not repeat their mistakes...and they were quite wrong each time.
The real lesson here is that the future is always going to be a crap shoot and that is where you should look when planning for the future, not the past.
In WW1 Germany lost to France. In WW2 Germany defeated France. When it came to the French they learned their lesson. They failed in other areas, notably the invastion of Russia, where I could point out that they should have taken a page from Napoleon's book and re-thought the campaign.
You debunked the Vietnam vs. Afghanistan, but I can find examples to put them together. Though the wars are different, they also contain some similarities. Both were being fought to combat an idea; communism in one, terrorism in the other. As we all know, you can't fight a concept. Both were essentially nation building efforts that paralleled the war. Both were reliant upon corrupt and inefectual local central governments who were needed for success. Both contain indigenous guerilla forces opposed to our presence. Both have little geo-political value outside of combating the "concept" that the area is spreading. Both are being fought essentially unilaterally with little support from other allies.
So, while not everything is the same one can infer that based on the lessons of Vietnam (some of which we learned from and are using to effect in Afghanistan) the entire war is essentially doomed to failure as it is by definition unwinnable.
I get your point, but sayings often have root in reality. Sometimes you need to look hard and be a little more liberal in your interpretation, but they are valid in some cases.
I think that the phrase, "history repeats itself" is one of the most often used misnomers. History never repeats itself, every historical event has its own unique conditions which only in the most general sense are replicated by subsequent periods or historical events.
What say you?
Whoever said: "History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme" knew what they were talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
