Can history stop the next war?
(History, Cambridge)
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Submit your answer
Limit: 1000 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
31 Comments
History is better than psychology as it is really the study of people. Being a history lover and always ready to learn I was devastated to see the war on Iraq in this day and age. A really selfish and intelligent person would never hurt another human being.
Posted by cat | 18.11.08, 15:24 GMT
History, showing us the results of all the previous wars, will not stop the next war.
We, as mankind, like having our own experiences. Not only do we love checking up on what other people have proven but also we often behave contrary to popular belief, explaining it, in the full conviction of being more worldly-wise than those from the past centuries.
Future humanity is up to people who will govern some countries and exert more influence on other countries. Among them may come into power such people who will offer peace, but in real earnest they will lead to the next war.
It can be only explained by the perversity of our will.
Posted by Anna Smyk | 23.10.08, 18:26 GMT
History informs most aspects of most decisions made by almost all people, but as historiography shows, nothing can be predicted by history, nor does history itself have a dynamic independent of individual people and groups of people (pace 70s marxism). Therefore, since people and groups can and often do behave irrationally and without regard to "warnings from history", history cannot stop the next war
Posted by Jim Friday | 19.10.08, 03:29 GMT
I think History shows us that nothing stops war other than the depletion of the prequisites with which to wage it.
Posted by John | 17.10.08, 22:27 GMT
You are making the mistaken assumption that the war has stopped at some point, it seems to have been pretty continual from the the we crawled out of caves.
Posted by Bitwize | 17.10.08, 13:52 GMT
History is descriptive term for the past events and has occured, and thus has no direct control over the actions of human beings against one another. However it would be more accurate to say that the lessons of history could be used to stop the next war, For instance, if one takes note of the 'strong line of continuity' (as Noam Chomsky puts it) by the actions of the worlds formost military power we hear the same rhetoric of their right to impose democracy wherever it suits their econmic interest, regarless of the human sacrifice, that is used by the American Government, whilst they continue to act in contrary to international law and have a single moral standard to which their own actions do not apply. By raising awareness of this hypocrisy and observing the history of the US intervention in the worlds' affairs. then non-violent opposition could influence the aggressive policy of the US.
Posted by Andy | 17.10.08, 12:52 GMT
No. History, sadly, has been used as an excuse to cause more wars than stop them in the future.
Posted by Conall | 16.10.08, 22:59 GMT
As a comment to the question, I'd like to say that if history stops the next quarrel which could possibly turn into a war, then history will not stop the 'next war' but has prevented a war. With that said, I believe a war, once started, can be stopped with experience gained from history and diplomatical efforts.
The end of a war can be come in a number of ways, but it is wise for the sides of the war to look at local history as a starting point in negotiations. For example one should never humiliate a defeated opponent, which the victors of the first World War did not consider at length, the same way one would today considering the historical evidence we now carry.
Posted by David Hune | 16.10.08, 21:08 GMT
No, because it wouldn't be the next war if it did. History always starts the next war though.
Posted by Theo | 16.10.08, 21:05 GMT
What was all that about Saddam Hussein being the new Hitler? How we had to go to war to bring democracy, just like we did in Germany? A tabloid view of history, I know, but it all goes to show that history can be invoked to suit whatever fantasy you wish it to suit. Historical facts are only half the battle; they need to be interpreted, and that's where it all starts to go pear-shaped. Is there ever a correct interpretation of events which are in essence so complex? If there isn't, then how can we learn from it? We can learn from past events if we are imaginative enough to know what people involved in them must have gone through and can transform that into something much more alive - like a novel or poem or a really honest film - but the events themselves and the interpretations placed on them by historians with academic axes to grind, I suspect, have very little to teach us.
Posted by Lumukanda | 16.10.08, 20:56 GMT
31 Comments