The Problem with Historical Analogies
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pmAnother gem from Adam Curtis in an interview with Errol Morris in 2005:
I believe that historical analogies are always wrong. This a long discussion, but, to me, the most dangerous thing about Chamberlain’s capitulation to Hitler at Munich is not the fact that Munich happened and it led to further Nazi aggression and so on and so forth, but that the example of Munich has been used to support thousands upon thousands of bad policies and inappropriate decisions. LeMay called JFK’s recommendation for a “quarantine” (that is, a blockade) in the Cuban Missile Crisis “worse than Munich”. Would nuclear war have been a better alternative? But nuclear war was averted by Kennedy’s policies. And thirty years later the Soviet Union collapsed without the need for nuclear war. Was LeMay right? I don’t think so. But again, the example of Munich was invoked to justify the invasion of Iraq. Appeasing Saddam, appeasing Hitler. The use of the Munich analogy does not clarify, it obscures. History is like the weather. Themes do repeat themselves, but never in the same way. And analogies became rhetorical flourishes and sad ex post facto justifications rather than explanations. In the end, they explain nothing.

December 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“I believe that historical analogies are always wrong.”
Hitler’s failed invasion of Russia was a lot like Napoleon’s. They were both beaten largely by the weather, long supply lines, and a very tenacious population.
Do I get a prize for finding a counter-example to this entry’s premise?
December 24th, 2007 at 2:31 am
You missed the point…. Of course you can find analogous aspects of two events “History is like the weather. Themes do repeat themselves, but never in the same way.” Your analogy is an example of that, but it does not add clarity or additional understanding to either event.
What Curtis is talking about is the use of these analogies as smoke screens for bad decisions.