Do We Make Decisions Based on History?

[Holsety]

I figure this is fits into this forum.

Anyways, is there any time in the history of any nation where we see clear evidence that the nation looked back at the past and made an informed decision on what it was going to do based on the successes and the failures of past nations?

I see political structure (bill of rights and constitution in america for example) as an example. But other than that, I can't think of much.

The reason why I ask this is because people always talk about history being important for understanding the modern day, and I'm curious whether it's actually applied very often in such a way (by politicians and decision-making groups, or whoever).

[Holsety]

By the way, my initial response was "no we don't," but I'm thinking there are a few examples.

Most notably, after the end of WWII, we did not severely punish germany and japan as the ones responsible for anything. Instead, we took steps to ensure that they would be part of the 'new world order' or whatever.

Also, I feel like while governments in general tend to be rather rash about stuff, their initial sets of laws tend to show a lot of influence from previous countries.

[Tjol]

I think people have been somewhat rendered ignorant of history because such a condition fits certian desired political ends. For example, it's only a short matter of time before kids will grow up thinking it a fact that cigarettes were never ever smoked by any of the good guys, and they will of course be portrayed as foresighted prophets of global warming. He who controls the past, controls the present, controls the future. It's too bad that our history books don't have some threatening phrase against alteration such as that at the end of the bible.

I think leaders and thinkers and inventors look at history, because it provides a starting point. Some people like to reinvent the wheel, but the ones that really get somewhere accept the wheel and work on from there, not wasting time that prior generations have already spent on the problem.

[Avatar]

Good first paragraph Tjol. I certainly agree with it.

As for the second, that's fine, as long as they start where the others left off.

I dunno. I woulda said no too, but Holsety's example of post-WWII Japan is a good one. I'm assuming they learnt from the Treaty of Versailles. Still, not that the product of the learning was much better, but it was a start at least.

--A

[Holsety]

Rly? I mean, I thought that reconstruction in Europe after WWII was done pretty well? And even though we nuked japan we basically kept it afloat as a world power after the war (IMO we nuked japan partly because we wanted it as our ally XD and not the soviet's).

[Avatar]

I think you underestimate the effect of the imposition of American will on the Japanese. MacArthur forced them at gunpoint to abandon and repudiate a central tenet of their belief. Namely, their claim to and descent from divinity.

While the material and geopolitical outcome may have been acceptable, the effect on the Japanese psyche was considerable and still not entirely overcome I think.

--A

[Skyweir]

i'm going for not as often as could

[Revan]

The reconstruction of Europe had less to do with learning from history and more to do with the political situation at that time. America wanted to both secure their power in Europe and protect themselves from what they concieved of as the threat that was the Soviet Union.

remember; for many years Germany was divided up by America, France, Usa and the Soviet Union. If it wasn't for this occupation; I doubt Germany would be as strong as it is today.