I love History,.......Political History, to be specific. But, I'd venture into any category of history, given the gift of time. In everything that history has to offer, there is always that element of magnanimity that stands out. It's one reason why history shouldn't be erased.
In the spirit of attributions, I'd gather that whatever good is taught through history can never be reciprocated in it's entirety. Maybe, that's one reason why history tends to repeat itself.
But on a comical note, if I were to just draw reference to all the famous congregations that were held through the ages, and change the scenarios to suit my imagination, would it have resulted in a better outcome?
Let's say Nostradamus should infact have lived to tell a famous perpetrator of his futuristic misgivings well in advance- then Stalin would have been obliged to leave Poland alone in the aftermath of WW2, and Hitler would not have had the will to write Mein Kampf, Franco would infact have accomodated the ideas incorporated by the nationalists, and Mussolini would not have had a friend in Germany.
Trusting that it would infact allow for a greater good of all, it would also not have resulted in the technological advancement that the war brought with it.....( the Enigma, radar and sonar technology...), or of heroes founded in adversity..( Schindler), or of the general upstart to patriotic chants,.. otherwise unknown to their predecessors. It's this weird predicament of 'what would not have happened' if events turned out to be a little different that's intriguing.
Because war disrupts humanity, it cannot be the solution to our problems. But the essence of a historical event is not the event itself, but the sequence of major and minor outcomes that has culminated in such an event.
The effects of the nuclear power has taught many nations to tread on soft ground, so much so that today, we have learnt to not handle power in the clumsy manner that we did fifty years ago. But if we are to survive the ordeal of not repeating history, then we need to learn history.
Now here's the lame predicament that has dented my sanity: If we are to learn history, and everyone else also must follow suit, .....then it's feebly suggestive that all the notorious leaders have also drawn the explicit justification for their misgivings on the basis of the history of their land.
Aren't we reversing our judgement of what history might offer as and when it fits a country's biblical..aka political agenda?
Next time a leader draws reference to the history of the region, in order to put forth his agenda, I'd wonder whether to blush with patriotism or be doubly cautious as to what that referral might offer.