Why Don't We Learn from History?

This short book takes only a couple of hours to read, but it contains more valuable insight than many good books that are much longer.Liddell Hart’s question does not get an explicit answer, but an implicit answer is built up as we read: Under pressure, people who are normally capable and decent are prone to become intellectual and moral idiots.Humans were animals before they were human; they had physical needs before they had emotions, and emotions before they had reason. The natural tendency, even for the best of us, is to see first and most vividly the small universe of good that consists of ourselves and our family. The ability to see out to a larger universe of good often reaches its limit in patriotism, bounded by the borders between countries—and leaders often cultivate even patriotism by appealing to the worst in us, especially fear of the other. Seeing beyond those borders requires a strong commitment to reason—the newest, shallowest, and most fragile of our faculties. Reason is not easy even for those who practice it often under good conditions—let alone those who practice it seldom and are under the pressure of war.Human nature is full of faults and limitations, and so are its products—including markets, governments, and General Staffs. We can try to be conscious of our strengths and weaknesses, we can try to manage toward the strengths and away from the weaknesses; but the human weaknesses themselves, their deep-rooted place in us, cannot be engineered away.For Liddell Hart, history, and especially the history of war, is the history of folly: of men who were “all too ready to bring misery upon millions rather than swallow their injured pride”; of men too wedded to false confidence, to a sustaining illusion that they had it all figured out; of men who thought there was something glamorous about war.As Liddell Hart points out, against folly stand the virtues of accuracy, truthfulness, kindness, and humility. But these involve effort and consequently are all too rare. Human nature wants ease and resists any effort that does not bring instant rewards with it. General human nature changes very slowly if at all, and humankind is not perfectible. But individuals, if with time they see by better lights, can choose to change themselves.

Why don't we learn from History? Primarily because we don't want to. A general trait of human nature is to favor self interest over everything else. History can, annoyingly, get in the way of personal aggrandizement. And ambitious people will brazenly rewrite their version of the historical record to reflect the best on themselves. This is a cogently argued, clear eyed, pull-no-punches indictment of political, military, and religious leaders' constant desire to keep themselves relevant in the face of overwhelming evidence of their own incompetence.

According to some, Liddell-Hart was one of the premier military thinkers of the 20th Century. He advised leaders in WWI and WWII. However, I do not agree with either the praise given him or the advice he gave leaders in the wars mentioned. Why? He did not know Sun Tzu. I will mitigate my statement somewhat by saying it is not his fault that the did not know Sun Tzu. The fault with his not knowing Sun Tzu, and thereby greatly handicapped in any advice he might give on military affairs, has to laid squarely the feet of the translations of Sun Tzu available to him. In "Why Don't We Learn from History?" he says that general staffs were taken by surprise of military developments in WWI. He says had they studied the previous 100 or so years of military affairs prior to WWI they would have been better prepared. He makes a very broad statement in saying this. Can he account for the study of every general. No, he cannot. Besides his statement is a conclusion not founded upon proven practice because the generals staffs of WWII, Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Desert storm, etc. learned nothing from all the wars previously fought for millennia though all military universities and colleges have these studies prominently on their curriculums. How can I say this? I can say this on the basis that except for weapons advancement, strategy and tactics follow the same old formula of destroying the enemies forces via pitched battle: tanks against tanks (a Liddell specialty,) solider against soldier, weapons against weapons. In other words, blood letting, massive destruction direct and collateral, waste of natural resources, massive expenditure and cost of lives. Liddell's advice did not advance the waging of war to make it less bloody, less destructive directly or collaterally, less wasteful of natural resources, expenditure and lives. His conclusions on why we do not learn from History, particular military history all come up short because he did not know Sun Tzu. History, military or otherwise, is greatly elucidated by Sun Tzu. Liddell-Hart does have Sun Tzu's precepts in the inner flaps of his book on Strategy, again a poor translation of Sun Tzu. In Sun Tzu: The Technology of War are the precepts of Sun Tzu translated to the full concept in English as they are in the Chinese of Sun Tzu's time. War has not advanced when it very well could have become less bloody, etc. With Sun Tzu: The Technology of War it can now advance to the level of skill Sun Tzu codified 2500 years ago. We are not going to end war overnight but with Sun Tzu: The Technology of War there is the means to change if not eradicate war.

His perspective as an historian was interesting as well as his insights on human nature. Some of his final conclusions, however, taint the overall work. I think that he has too much faith in the idea of a one world government. In his defense, he does acknowledge the high improbability of such a thing actually working.

Jam packed with spot-on insights, hard truths, but truths none the less

It’s an interesting read, I appreciate his personal experience of World War I World War II and hoping that into the book.

Hart is best known for his books on military history and strategy, yet here he discusses a fundamentally important psychological and philosophical question that underlies much of history: Why we don't seem to learn much from the past. Hart notes that -- study as we might -- most ultimately lack reliance on reason (and morality) and are often instead focused on narrow and emotional considerations that need be dealt with at the moment. All who care not only about military history, but also about political science broadly -- as well as how national policies are formulated -- should read this book.

It is difficult to answer the books topic. It's all about Power and Money

I am very happy with my order. Fast delivery too!

It doesnt really live up to the title. It could have been written much better

Will recommend the book to any reader who seeks truth. He summarises quite beautifully the history of West into lessons. However, there are gaps in his scope of consideration like for eg. the histories of colonized/enslaved peoples is largely ignored and the book is obsolete in its advocacy for religion as psychology has proven its the mind, not a spirit that guides us. Nature as well as nurture.

Very interesting reading indeed; however this is a question which has troubled human minds over ages and still it does and will be there in future as well. May be ...this is how the mystery of this Universe works.