Comments on: Guess What! History Doesn’t Repeat Itself! http://nakedhistorian.com/guess-what-history-doesnt-repeat-itself/ Naked History Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:22:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: naketav http://nakedhistorian.com/guess-what-history-doesnt-repeat-itself/#comment-5 naketav Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:36:04 +0000 http://nakedhistorian.com/guess-what-history-doesnt-repeat-itself/#comment-5 Well, to clarify, if you haven't clicked on the link--these historians are commenting on politicians comparing Britain's choice to enter the current Iraq war to the Suez Crisis of 1956 (When Britain invaded Egypt over their nationalizing of the Suez Canal) and the beginning of WWII. Here is an interesting quote from Norman Davies in the article: "I belong to the school that doesn't put much trust in historical precedents. They only show that no precedent ever fits exactly and that history never quite repeats itself. None the less, it is fascinating to see how many politicians, from Rumsfeld upwards, are using their views on history to justify policies towards Iraq. Rumsfeld seems to think that Churchill advocated a pre-emptive war against Germany. And no doubt some Iraqi professor, at this very minute, is polishing his thesis about Iraq being the "poor little Poland" waiting to be attacked by the new Hitler and Mussolini. I don't like the comparisons with 1939. The Third Reich was potentially a top-class industrial and military power, that was in a phase of dynamic expansion. If it had defeated the Soviet Union it would have been the strongest state in the world. Iraq is incapable of mounting a comparable threat. It is a third-rate power which has already been badly defeated and which does not possess the means to attack Europe or the US. Saddam is under suspicion because he may try to attack Israel, which has already attacked him. Nineteen fifty six fits the present stand-off better than 1939 does. An upstart Arab dictator, who was likened by a British prime minister to Hitler, was threatening to destabilise the region by nationalising the Suez Canal. And a "Coalition of the Willing" made up of Britain, France and Israel decided to teach him a lesson. But there the parallel ends. In 1956, one of the two superpowers of the day refused to support the adventure and promptly put an end to it. In 2003, by contrast, it is the world's only superpower that looks hell-bent on leading the coalition; and there is little chance of it being stopped by a third party. So what about 1914? The strongest military power in sight is made to feel insecure by a terrorist outrage. Instead of confining its response to the known source of the terrorism (Serbia), it lashed out at one country, which it suspected of abetting the terrorists (Russia), and then at another country (France), which was linked to the first. Then it lost the plot. Worst of all, it calculated that the war would be won by Christmas. " Well, to clarify, if you haven’t clicked on the link–these historians are commenting on politicians comparing Britain’s choice to enter the current Iraq war to the Suez Crisis of 1956 (When Britain invaded Egypt over their nationalizing of the Suez Canal) and the beginning of WWII.

Here is an interesting quote from Norman Davies in the article:

“I belong to the school that doesn’t put much trust in historical precedents. They only show that no precedent ever fits exactly and that history never quite repeats itself.

None the less, it is fascinating to see how many politicians, from Rumsfeld upwards, are using their views on history to justify policies towards Iraq. Rumsfeld seems to think that Churchill advocated a pre-emptive war against Germany. And no doubt some Iraqi professor, at this very minute, is polishing his thesis about Iraq being the “poor little Poland” waiting to be attacked by the new Hitler and Mussolini.

I don’t like the comparisons with 1939. The Third Reich was potentially a top-class industrial and military power, that was in a phase of dynamic expansion. If it had defeated the Soviet Union it would have been the strongest state in the world. Iraq is incapable of mounting a comparable threat. It is a third-rate power which has already been badly defeated and which does not possess the means to attack Europe or the US. Saddam is under suspicion because he may try to attack Israel, which has already attacked him.

Nineteen fifty six fits the present stand-off better than 1939 does. An upstart Arab dictator, who was likened by a British prime minister to Hitler, was threatening to destabilise the region by nationalising the Suez Canal. And a “Coalition of the Willing” made up of Britain, France and Israel decided to teach him a lesson. But there the parallel ends. In 1956, one of the two superpowers of the day refused to support the adventure and promptly put an end to it. In 2003, by contrast, it is the world’s only superpower that looks hell-bent on leading the coalition; and there is little chance of it being stopped by a third party.

So what about 1914? The strongest military power in sight is made to feel insecure by a terrorist outrage. Instead of confining its response to the known source of the terrorism (Serbia), it lashed out at one country, which it suspected of abetting the terrorists (Russia), and then at another country (France), which was linked to the first. Then it lost the plot. Worst of all, it calculated that the war would be won by Christmas. “

]]> By: kenny http://nakedhistorian.com/guess-what-history-doesnt-repeat-itself/#comment-3 kenny Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:07:46 +0000 http://nakedhistorian.com/guess-what-history-doesnt-repeat-itself/#comment-3 This was a very interesting read; I hadn't given much thought to that saying before, but this article brings up a very important point. This was a very interesting read; I hadn’t given much thought to that saying before, but this article brings up a very important point.

]]>