PDA

View Full Version : Men learn from history...



tARoPINOS
October 3rd, 2007, 08:53 AM
"...the assertion that men learn nothing from history is contradicted by a multitude of observable facts. No experience is more common."

Interesting passage from E.H.Carr's What is History.

What do you think?
:afro:

Snoop
October 3rd, 2007, 09:03 AM
Of course we learn from history - isn't that what he's saying?

The only way we can't learn from history is if we don't get the facts straight.

tARoPINOS
October 3rd, 2007, 09:11 AM
So your saying we always get the facts right and there are no repetitious mistakes made by ....us.

What about Vietnam/Iraq, electing a second Bush, etc etc etc etc

Oh! And because he said it it's true!

Snoop
October 3rd, 2007, 09:22 AM
So your saying we always get the facts right and there are no repetitious mistakes made by ....us.

What about Vietnam/Iraq, electing a second Bush, etc etc etc etc
I never said any such thing. I said we learn from history - nothing else. Some people learn faster than others.

tARoPINOS
October 3rd, 2007, 09:41 AM
I apologise

chadn737
October 3rd, 2007, 11:29 AM
Knowing history is not enough to not make the same mistakes. After several thousand years of human history and billions of people, there really isnt a mistake that can be made that hasnt already been made.

However, details change and one can never completely predict the final outcome of something based on what has happened in the past. This means that the same mistakes will be repeated even if one has studied history.

tARoPINOS
October 3rd, 2007, 11:50 PM
Knowing history is not enough to not make the same mistakes. After several thousand years of human history and billions of people, there really isnt a mistake that can be made that hasnt already been made.

However, details change and one can never completely predict the final outcome of something based on what has happened in the past. This means that the same mistakes will be repeated even if one has studied history.

That's the criticism made of Carr. To put the quote in a context he believed that by the proper application of Historical empiricism we could generate historical laws that would enable us to predict the future based on similar events in the past and thus develop sound policy for said future...:afro:

sjjs
October 4th, 2007, 12:21 AM
People are generally stupid. Politicians included. They do not learn from history and the higher up the chain they get the more arrogant they become. If they knew anything about Roman history and could draw parallels they would probably turn around and say but it will be different for me.

eliotitus
October 4th, 2007, 09:56 AM
there really isnt a mistake that can be made that hasnt already been made.

Nuclear war.

FruitandNut
October 5th, 2007, 09:37 AM
It appears despite historical references to learn by, that each generation needs to make it's own mistakes. Appeasement in the face of totalitarian regimes has not served the good guys well in history. Indeed it has often led to eleventh hour type 'damn close run' battles and wars. Perhaps Europe, the US and the rest of the non-Islamic world is set to learn that a totalitarian Islam will likewise not be appeased. That it views appeasement as a sign of decadence and weakness. It was only when threatened people unite in determination that dangers can be checked.

Civilisations usually crumble from within as much as from without.

pandion
October 8th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Nuclear war.Ever hear mention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

supercodes
December 20th, 2007, 07:23 AM
History is learned and understood, but it is an incredibly slow process. People are more educated, civil rights is important the world over, imperialism is frowned upon and basically extinct (which was unheard of 100 years ago), slavery has been severely depleted, only existing in 3rd world nations, the length of life has been lengthened considerably, the concept of the people have some form of power is important with less and less dictators/monarchies/oligarchies emerging every decade in favor of some sort of republic. I could go on and on about how the world has been vastly improved in comparison to history.

We do learn from our mistakes, but it takes a long time to do so. Vietnam was only 40 or so years ago, that isn't enough time to depreciate the hardline stance of hawks who lived and struggled during the Cold War. Their attitude persists today, it has just taken on a new enemy in Islamo-fascism.

wanxtrmBANNED
December 20th, 2007, 07:43 AM
History is studied, and forgotten. As a student of history, world, religious I can say no one really knows EXACTLY what has occurred or for what reasons. And the general reasons STILL OCCUR. History repeats itself is a far more potent and TRUE fact.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>


We do learn from our mistakes, but it takes a long time to do so. Vietnam was only 40 or so years ago, that isn't enough time to depreciate the hardline stance of hawks who lived and struggled during the Cold War. Their attitude persists today, it has just taken on a new enemy in Islamo-fascism.

Just because some peoples perceptions have changed regarding certain things does not show us learning from our mistakes. I really wish you actually knew about the history you talk about.

Wars have occurred and battles have been fought for thousands of years, VIETNAM was not the first bad war, and wont be the last.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Knowing history is not enough to not make the same mistakes. After several thousand years of human history and billions of people, there really isnt a mistake that can be made that hasnt already been made.

However, details change and one can never completely predict the final outcome of something based on what has happened in the past. This means that the same mistakes will be repeated even if one has studied history.

Absolutely correct.

I hate to bring religion in yet again however if one studies the histories OF EVERY major organized religion they will see that is a cycle as well.

Good luck christians, Islam is next! :afro:

supercodes
December 20th, 2007, 07:56 AM
Just because some peoples perceptions have changed regarding certain things does not show us learning from our mistakes. I really wish you actually knew about the history you talk about.

If people's perceptions changing isn't a sign of us learning from our mistakes, then what is it? The world is a much more just place than it was 500 years ago, that is a simple fact. The concept of the nation state giving rise to less war (wars in Europe dropped dramatically), and even more so, the concept of regional stability being dependent on everyone's cooperation is an important construct today.

Do we still have wars and injustice? Of course, and that won't change as long as humanity still has bones to pick with one another. However, the way we carry out conflict, and the way we respond to others aggression is changing and is clearly evident. This is also just one point, the other ideas I gave are also incredibly important, not just the negatives that have happened throughout human history.

wanxtrmBANNED
December 20th, 2007, 08:10 AM
If people's perceptions changing isn't a sign of us learning from our mistakes, then what is it?

There has always been a minority that is opposed to conflicts and wars. The only reason that it is more than a minority now is due to communication and instant TV coverage. The simple fact is an overwhelming majority supported HITTING Iraq, and than when the media manipulated coverage, and the government also manipulated things people followed the status quo.
You are obviously very upset with the war, though you really don't know the specifics and it is also obvious you have never been there.


The world is a much more just place than it was 500 years ago, that is a simple fact.

Communication wise, small unknown fact. Women in the late 1800's did the same amount of housework as women now, all of the gadgets have not lessened the amount of time needed to do the housework etc. Only really in communication have we changed per se. Current attitudes in the United States are still very MALE orientated. They are still racist to an extent, though actually pre-1700's racism was not considered as such. It was the rise of Imperialistic rule by FRANCE and Great Britain that really brought that out. And of course RELIGION. Christianity really enhanced the RACISM as we know it. "Sons of Ham"

The world has not really changed, IT COULD, but it most likely wont.


The concept of the nation state giving rise to less war (wars in Europe dropped dramatically), and even more so, the concept of regional stability being dependent on everyone's cooperation is an important construct today.

You are truly ignorant of what is happening and what has always happened in Europe. There are civil wars that have been happening for THOUSANDS of years and are still happening. Our media is no longer interested because it sells no papers. An ATROCITY has to occur lol. :afro:

Germany and France are not all of Europe.

supercodes
December 20th, 2007, 08:45 AM
There has always been a minority that is opposed to conflicts and wars. The only reason that it is more than a minority now is due to communication and instant TV coverage. The simple fact is an overwhelming majority supported HITTING Iraq, and than when the media manipulated coverage, and the government also manipulated things people followed the status quo.
You are obviously very upset with the war, though you really don't know the specifics and it is also obvious you have never been there.


I am upset over the war? Where do you come up with this stuff? As for your comments, isn't better communication a positive catalyst for change? Sure, media can be biased, but that doesn't extinguish the fact that people are much more educated and in the know than they were even 50 years ago. In fact, one can say that the media is an unsung part of the world's checks and balances.




Communication wise, small unknown fact. Women in the late 1800's did the same amount of housework as women now, all of the gadgets have not lessened the amount of time needed to do the housework etc. Only really in communication have we changed per se. Current attitudes in the United States are still very MALE orientated. They are still racist to an extent, though actually pre-1700's racism was not considered as such. It was the rise of Imperialistic rule by FRANCE and Great Britain that really brought that out. And of course RELIGION. Christianity really enhanced the RACISM as we know it. "Sons of Ham"

The world has not really changed, IT COULD, but it most likely wont.

Let's look at the changes that have come upon women since the 1800's:

- Women can vote in most nations.
- They can own their own property and start their own businesses.
- Wages are vastly improved.
- The term "sexual harassment" has become a key term in the workplace.
- More women are becoming "breadwinners", often leaving the men at home to take care of the kids.
- More women in politics, one of which may very well become the next President of the United States.
- They can serve in the military, AND engage in combat missions.


Also, I completely disagree with you about women in the 1800's do the same amount of housework as they do today. I need some sort of proof of this.




You are truly ignorant of what is happening and what has always happened in Europe. There are civil wars that have been happening for THOUSANDS of years and are still happening. Our media is no longer interested because it sells no papers. An ATROCITY has to occur lol. :afro:

Germany and France are not all of Europe.

Really? Name one major conflict happening within the borders of Europe as we speak. I go to the BBC Online and the headlines in Europe right now are "
Russia halts London art display" and "Ceremony marks extended EU border
Celebrations." Animosity will persist, wars will persist, but the facts still remain, that the amount of war waged worldwide has dropped exponentially.

wanxtrmBANNED
December 20th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Really? Name one major conflict happening within the borders of Europe as we speak. I go to the BBC Online and the headlines in Europe right now are "
Russia halts London art display" and "Ceremony marks extended EU border
Celebrations." Animosity will persist, wars will persist, but the facts still remain, that the amount of war waged worldwide has dropped exponentially.

What do you define as a major conflict? Millions dying or just thousands? What about hundreds?

supercodes
December 20th, 2007, 03:09 PM
What do you define as a major conflict? Millions dying or just thousands? What about hundreds?

Conflict, to me, is determined by the level of discontent and upheaval that the peoples in a single nation or between multiple nations undergo. Major conflict is, again in my opinion, all out war. However, one can't determine major conflict by body counts alone as there are thousands of people that die every year in Europe from violent crime. Political unrest is apparent in Europe, as with the rest of the world, but there is no major conflicts happening at the moment.

The last notable conflict in Europe was the Macedonian conflict which had less than 100 killed on either side, and is the first and only thus far of the 21st century. In the last 20 years the only conflicts that have happened have been from former Soviet strongholds that were all of a sudden put into a position of independence leaving the people of these countries to feel their way through their growing pains, which unfortunately lead to the Bosnian and Chechan wars amongst others. However, if you compare the conflicts of the last 100 years, to those of 3-400 years ago and beyond, you will see an incredible decease in major conflict and the time they lasted...this includes both World Wars! You'll ALSO notice that every major conflict of the past 100 years, have been largely about the people and their discontent for their government. Prior to the 20th century, almost every conflict involved territorial acquisition and personal disputes between leaders.

I could go on with comparisons over the years, but hopefully my point has been made.

wanxtrmBANNED
December 21st, 2007, 09:43 AM
Major conflict is, again in my opinion, all out war.

War defined: state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (or) a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism (or) a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

By this definition England and Ireland are still at war, even though they have decreased actual violence, the STRUGGLE continues.


The last notable conflict in Europe was the Macedonian conflict which had less than 100 killed on either side, and is the first and only thus far of the 21st century.

Absolutely disagree, especially given your description that Eastern Europe is somehow separate. However because I am aware you will argue this point being the debater you are, I will PROVIDE facts similar to above for this as well.

"facts are nice"


20Th-21St Century Conflicts in Europe.

* 1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War
* 1912–1913 Balkan Wars
o 1912-1913 First Balkan War
o 1913 Second Balkan War
* 1914–1918 World War I
* 1916 Easter Rising
* 1917–1921 Russian Civil War
* 1918 Finnish Civil War
* 1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia
* 1918–1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
* 1918–1919 Greater Poland Uprising
* 1918–1920 Estonian Liberation War
* 1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence
* 1919–1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
* 1919–1921 Silesian Uprisings
* 1919–1921 Polish-Soviet War
* 1919–1921 Anglo-Irish War
* 1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
* 1922–1923 Irish Civil War
* 1936–1939 Spanish Civil War
* 1939–1945 World War II
o 1939-1940 Winter War
o 1941-1944 Continuation War
o 1944 Slovak National Uprising
* 1946-1949 Greek Civil War
* 1956 Uprising in Poznan
* 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary
* 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
* 1969-1998 The Troubles of Northern Ireland
* 1991-1992 War in South Ossetia
* 1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
* 1992 War of Transnistria
* 1992-1998 First War in Abkhazia
* 1992-1995 Bosnian War
* 1994–1996 First Chechen War
* 1996-1999 First and Second Kosovo Wars
* 1998 Second War of Abkhazia
* 1999-2006 Second Chechen War


Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge 2002-2007

List of conflicts in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe)

Care for more? BTW I took this from your source which you did not read fully, I can actually go to another source if you should so want.


I could go on with comparisons over the years, but hopefully my point has been made.


Your point has not been made, you failed to properly define conflict.

You failed to present any factual evidence.

You failed. :afro:

supercodes
December 21st, 2007, 11:02 AM
War defined: state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (or) a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism (or) a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

By this definition England and Ireland are still at war, even though they have decreased actual violence, the STRUGGLE continues.


That's a stretch bud, and you know it. I used the term major conflict for a specific reason, and described major conflict more specifically as being "all out war." Yes, there is still conflict and disagreement in the region, but you don't see bombs going off and violent stand offs in the streets.



Absolutely disagree, especially given your description that Eastern Europe is somehow separate. However because I am aware you will argue this point being the debater you are, I will PROVIDE facts similar to above for this as well.

"facts are nice"


20Th-21St Century Conflicts in Europe.

* 1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War
* 1912–1913 Balkan Wars
o 1912-1913 First Balkan War
o 1913 Second Balkan War
* 1914–1918 World War I
* 1916 Easter Rising
* 1917–1921 Russian Civil War
* 1918 Finnish Civil War
* 1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia
* 1918–1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
* 1918–1919 Greater Poland Uprising
* 1918–1920 Estonian Liberation War
* 1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence
* 1919–1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
* 1919–1921 Silesian Uprisings
* 1919–1921 Polish-Soviet War
* 1919–1921 Anglo-Irish War
* 1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
* 1922–1923 Irish Civil War
* 1936–1939 Spanish Civil War
* 1939–1945 World War II
o 1939-1940 Winter War
o 1941-1944 Continuation War
o 1944 Slovak National Uprising
* 1946-1949 Greek Civil War
* 1956 Uprising in Poznan
* 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary
* 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
* 1969-1998 The Troubles of Northern Ireland
* 1991-1992 War in South Ossetia
* 1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
* 1992 War of Transnistria
* 1992-1998 First War in Abkhazia
* 1992-1995 Bosnian War
* 1994–1996 First Chechen War
* 1996-1999 First and Second Kosovo Wars
* 1998 Second War of Abkhazia
* 1999-2006 Second Chechen War


Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge 2002-2007

List of conflicts in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe)

Care for more? BTW I took this from your source which you did not read fully, I can actually go to another source if you should so want.


Everything you supplied in no way disproves my conclusions, in fact, you visually demonstrated with that chart exactly what I stated in words. There has been no major, armed conflict in Europe since the late 90's except for Macedonia, and those conflicts can explained by sociological growing pains associated with independence. In fact, the supposed conflict in Georgia is considered one of the better examples of peaceful revolt and power change. Hell, even in the former soviet stronghold of Ukraine, the peaceful Orange revolution made headlines. These things are very rare in history and are happening in the now for a reason.

EDIT: The Chechen conflict is another one currently happening, I did overlook that. However, it doesn't change what I have said.

wanxtrmBANNED
December 21st, 2007, 03:07 PM
Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge 2002-2007





And it actually changes everything you have said, cycles occur and over time these cycles shorten and switch areas, moving with every cultural upheaval and change.

The massive conflicts that occurred and killed millions in Europe have trended down, however the trend is going UP in Africa.



You'll ALSO notice that every major conflict of the past 100 years, have been largely about the people and their discontent for their government. Prior to the 20th century, almost every conflict involved territorial acquisition and personal disputes between leaders.



You seem to see rosie colored water, and wonderful smelling things, I see reality. And the reality is PEOPLE are killing each other EVERY day, and it has never really always been about land grabs.

Even when the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Egyptians fought their HUGE and drawn out wars (basically drawn out due to transportation being an issue) they had far more at stake than LAND, in fact it was almost always ideological in some respect. What you are failing to approach is the simple fact that when one societal type VIOLENTLY overturns/ throws another societal type change "often ideological" occurs, the ancients knew this better than anyone. This is why the habit was always enslavement and interbreeding (with very few exceptions)

Ideological struggles have always been ingrained into wars, yes land is a reason, money is a reason, more often than not religion played into these wars in very large ways. (though they were not always announced as being the reason)

I dont want to dash your hopes but seriously you should look around, the only way you will discontinue war/ conflict. Is to end the reasons for such a thing occurring. Give those men that would rather be fighting something else to strive for.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

That's a stretch bud, and you know it.

No its not, since you refused to define it when directly asked I merely presented a DICTIONARY definition and than provided an EXACT example of that definition. :afro:

supercodes
December 21st, 2007, 09:02 PM
Wanna, you are making me out to be some sort of peacenik or something, and I'm not. All I am saying, is that people learn from the past. You are nitpicking about every little thing I say instead of examining the broader picture that I am trying to get at, which is that based on evidence throughout the ages, humans have basically become more civilized, or at least more sensible.

You wanted to challenge me on Europe, and I gave you more than sufficient reasoning to show that Europe has seen lesser/lighter major conflict over the years, which is clearly a sign of a civilization becoming more civilized. Now Europe even has a Union, that has never before been seen in history.

You bring up the current turmoils Africa is undergoing, and that merely magnifies my point even further. Africa is currently the most backward place on the planet, followed closely by the Middle East, so of course most of the world's upheaval is going to be present in these regions. The Western world is much more peaceful with co-existence being commonplace, because we have ironed out a better way to live together.

Poverty, non-industrialization, tribal attentiveness, a lack of education and religious fanaticism are what is keeping travesties happening in the parts of the world that continuously find conflict. Once these regions evolve, peace will be much more attainable, unless of course some other un-precedented event occurs that will reverberate around the globe (i.e. globalization, famine, terrorism, etc).

wanxtrmBANNED
December 21st, 2007, 09:27 PM
You bring up the current turmoils Africa is undergoing, and that merely magnifies my point even further. Africa is currently the most backward place on the planet, followed closely by the Middle East, so of course most of the world's upheaval is going to be present in these regions. The Western world is much more peaceful with co-existence being commonplace, because we have ironed out a better way to live together.


You said originally that the world is trending towards peace. I disagreed, based on needs and what not, that Money involves there must always be a third world section of the world, at least as long as money and multiple governments exist.
Conflicts will continue and cannot end until this is no longer an issue.


I do see where you are coming from however and will agree to disagree on the more general aspects lol. :afro:

supercodes
December 24th, 2007, 08:33 PM
You said originally that the world is trending towards peace. I disagreed, based on needs and what not, that Money involves there must always be a third world section of the world, at least as long as money and multiple governments exist.
Conflicts will continue and cannot end until this is no longer an issue.


I do see where you are coming from however and will agree to disagree on the more general aspects lol. :afro:

Haha, I guess that is the best anyone can hope to achieve on a board devoted to debating. ;):

Publius Infini
January 2nd, 2008, 06:06 PM
Of course we learn from history - isn't that what he's saying?

The only way we can't learn from history is if we don't get the facts straight.

Wrong... Take the people who see the result of social entitlements, they have failed everywhere on earth that they have been tried. Yet if you listen to the Democrats candidates running for the position of the American President, you see each one of them competing to give away record numbers of social entitlements, even as they each stand on 'fiscal responsibility.'

People fail to learn history when they reject the lesson being taught. Which is the precise human trait that sustains the ideological left.

Snoop
January 3rd, 2008, 07:23 AM
Wrong... Take the people who see the result of social entitlements, they have failed everywhere on earth that they have been tried. Yet if you listen to the Democrats candidates running for the position of the American President, you see each one of them competing to give away record numbers of social entitlements, even as they each stand on 'fiscal responsibility.'

People fail to learn history when they reject the lesson being taught. Which is the precise human trait that sustains the ideological left.Throughout history there has been a pattern of governments ignoring social entitlements - they all collapsed because of military coups and failed attempts in waging war. The concept of right vs left has nothing to do with social entitlements - we all need them sooner or later.

When the day comes where politicians control the people (rather than people controlling politicians) we will have a dictatorship. Who was it who said "live free or die"?


Political Theory
<TABLE class=sectiontitle cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD>II. </TD><TD>http://uk.encarta.msn.com/xImages/trans.gif</TD><TD>The State</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The central concern of political theorists throughout history has been the theory of the state. Plato contributed to the founding of this theory in his discourse the The Republic, which attempted to reconcile moral theory and political practice by projecting a community in which property was to be owned in common and which was to be governed by an aristocracy of philosopher-kings who would train the young. Such doctrines, in highly distorted form, have been used in modern times as the basis of the system of government known as totalitarianism, which, in contrast to democracy, asserts the supremacy of the state over the individual. A variant of this system, known as absolutism, vests the ruling power in a limited number of people or in institutions, such as a priesthood, supporting certain fixed and generally immutable principles.
Aristotle is generally regarded as the founder of the scientific approach to political theory. His Politics, which classified governments as monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies, according to their control by one person, a select few, or many people, successfully combined an empirical investigation of the facts and a critical inquiry into their ideal possibilities, thus providing a challenging model of political studies.



<HR>
"Political Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007

JohnLocke
May 30th, 2008, 09:37 PM
Men should learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. People act out the same things over and over, just with different technology. From the earliest humans, we have learned from our mistakes. From "Grug fell of cliff; he died, so i shouldnt fall off" to "Bill lost money doing this: i shouldnt do it", humans have to pay attention so they are not the ones who make the mistakes.

JohnLocke
July 6th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Man learns from the mistakes of his ancestors, but only of he knows what they are. One must study history, as to make sure the same mistakes are not repreated on a larger scale. Those who ignore history altogether can easily become a worse version of their ancestors. We live to carry on the species and to improve the lives of those who come after us. This means we must listen to what history tells us, as it is full of lessons for the living.

Prime Minister Churchill once said "Study history, Study history! In history lie all the ways of statecraft!". This makes perfect sense, and can also be applied to all other things. In history lie all the ways of war, economics, etc. We living simply add what we can to the collective knowledge of our race. "Cro-Magnon man was just as smart as we are; they just didn't know as much". The collective knowledge of our species grows with every generation. Without it, we would still be animals, no better than the rest. We would not even know how to build fire.

Bobson52
July 6th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Nuclear war.

thank goodness.

Hitler was one of the worst. But he was still very good. He came within 40 miles of world domination. He repeated so many of napoleon's and the kaiser's mistakes that it is incredible.

Netopalis
July 7th, 2008, 05:41 AM
The single greatest mistake made by governments which fall is arrogance. Hitler was arrogant in believing he could fight a war on two fronts, that he could invade Russia in the middle of winter, and that he could create the next evolutionary step. The Roman empire fell due to Julius Caesar's arrogance in believing that one man could always control the entire Roman Empire - it worked for some time, but with the exception of a few, most emperors were complete disasters. The French kingship fell when Louis XVI was arrogant enough to believe that the opinions of the people did not matter. Arrogance is the greatest lesson that we can learn from history.