History informs the present and explains some of the phenomena that occur today. Why do you think that history is taught in military colleges and is a compulsory part of higher military education?
History taught in military colleges as illustrations to actual applications of military principles they teach. No more, no less.
But it is different for politics.
It's because it teaches lessons and helps explains causual factors in events that are occurring today. You ignore it at your peril. If you cannot grasp that concept then you fail in the basics of military strategy and geopolitical strategy.
There is difference with what i'm saying.
History is background. Human are not programs they are sometimes illogical, affected by multitude of considerations and most importantly creative. It is something history teach us too.
So times matter, generations matters.
Without knowing background one can't judge scene, but with only background one will also fail, because one is blinded by past and don't account for changes.
The Sun Tsu Ping Fa is about 2,000 years old and is required reading in all military colleges. Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War is still read today in military colleges and he wrote that circa 2,500 years ago. Look up the Thucydides Trap because that is just as applicable and dangerous today as was about 2,500 years ago when Sparta was the declining power and Athens the rising power.
This discussion isn't breaking forum rules because it has a direct impact upon military affairs.
Sun Tsu Ping Fa is collections of military principles, not history. One of the reasons in military colleges teach historical applications and not only principles themselves is that there will be time when principles themselves not applicable.
For example liberal democratic country will not limit rise of another liberal democratic country by military means. Or resolve simple disputes escalating beyond diplomacy.
And this change was completed when? Around ~1948 i guess it strengthened, after Universal Declarations of Human Rights.
Before this was questionable because firstly you can't define liberal democracy correctly and secondly you can convince general population to approve war easier.
Now let's look at one issue, "humanitarian war". That means war where you have no actual stake in, but still enter because you want to prevent genocide for example. Is it justified, who could give legitimacy(lets say UNSC) to such war and if it should be condemned if legitimacy can't be obtained(for example party that do genocide gained VETO by itself or other parties)?
What if it is misused?
And it's something going on now, no amount of historical knowledge will allow to judge probability of military interference on humanitarian ground. You need to look at how ppl view issue and wars in general, who is the current leader, how easy it is to interfere from military and diplomatic standpoints etc.
And it has direct effect on military matters.
Just one example. Simply put world changes faster, information and ideas spread faster, military preparations go faster, escalation go faster...
I also love using history to illustrate, or explain my points, but it can only take you so far. IMO
www.timesofisrael.com