I firmly believe that we should learn the lessons of history, and more so, they should guide our actions today. The USA occupied Japan after dropping a couple atomic bombs, so why not drop a few on Iran, or, how about the tribal areas of Pakistan, bye bye Taliban. Lessons of history lets have more of them or am I being silly.

Anthony Jaynes, Alton, UK

1066 is the genuine article when it comes to history, also the life of brian when the subject is religion. It all depends on who wrote it.

m wilson, bidache, france

I always thought the plural of elf , was elves , but then I never went to a London Grammar school .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

1066 is the genuine article when it comes to history, also the life of brian when the subject is religion. It all depends on who wrote it.

m wilson, bidache, france

History is written by the winners of wars. The winners of wars are the Money Lenders. Everybody else loses.

Alan Heaton, Frankfurt, Germany

If David Aaaronovitch and his neo-con chums had bothered to read up the recent history of the Middle East they might have realised that Iran (and not Iraq) was the main threat to peace and stability in the region.Unfortunately this lesson of history seems to have passed them all by.

Dave Robins, West Drayton,

The study of History is the study of other people's mistakes. Learning not to repeat them is often wise.

Bry Barnes, Somerset, Uk

David's piece is admirable. For those who are, sadly, using it to make political capital - yet again - against Israel, it might be worth noting that Sir Martin Gilbert, arguably Britain's greatest expert on World War II, appeared on Israeli TV in January and compared Hamas to Hitler. Even the interviewer was taken aback by the starkness of it all. Gilbert went on to say that he found the demonising of Jewish communities world-wide worryingly reminiscent of what went on in '30s Germany. A more sober historian (some even call him boring) than Gilbert would be difficult to imagine. The recent Channel 4 programme, 'The War Against Britain's Jews', didn't say anything new, but the BBC turned it down, apparently I used to teach history at Manchester University, by the way, as well as at inner city schools in the Greater Manchester area. You can read all about my interesting teaching experiences on this blog: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA, Haifa, Israel

History: something that didn't happen, written by someone who wasn't there ...

Dan, N Shields, UK

What your trying to say is that 'Liberal Interventionalism' is worth it with the last two concluding paragraphs i think- thus 'Stay the Course!' for all sorts of selfish reasons maybe?

Do you reckon we should go into Zimbabwe then David?

Inspiring.

Jez Walton, Leeds, Leeds

When I was younger I was always struck by the beauty and simplicity of Santayana`s quote in the front of William Shirers Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, that 'Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it'. Twenty years and a history degree later, I`m more inclined to agree with Rudge from the History Boys that history is just ' One F****ing thing after another'.

StarskytheRabbit, Stockton,

History does not necessarily repeat itself but Historians do. 911 changed the course of world history for better or worse ( just like Pearl Harbour ). We live in a different century where terrorism it's globalisation are very real and clear and present danger. We are facing a new totalitran idealogy and a cult of death driven by religious extremism.

Santanu Roy, Warren, USA

Knowledge of history is surely only an asset in politics or political situations, and not all that many people get so involved. But if you are involved, knowing the history is a big asset. The crucial point being that it isn’t the lines on the page you need to know but what underlies them, and if you can get to know that - and you are unlikely to do so through normal intercourse - you can understand what politics is really about, and, indeed, what some journalists are really saying!

Henry Percy, London, UK

More clowning from the man who can't admit he was wrong, wrong, wrong on The One Big Thing - Iraq

Conall, Margam, Wales

David, after reading through your article, I'm reminded of a common adage.."work the way you play, and play the way you work". As a corollary it applies for the subject " History" too. I would not replace the word with physics, to give a more compatible, tangible physical touch and feel of it.
History, as a curriculum in regular academics, is indeed losing its sheen and flavour. But why blame the subject or its content matter. Our kids, and younger generation, not to exclude the teens and "O" level students, are living in an age of technology and multi-media, and would rather loathe reading books and scrolls, about our ancient past. Every age or era has some specific functionalities, likes and dislikes.
Early fifties and sixties was the age of rote memory, than came books and story telling. But now we are in the age of high tech gizmos. Instead of content, we should change the learning system and medium used to impart knowledge. Use multi-media, movies, DVDs to make it interesting.

Sanjeev Dheer, New Delhi, India

No its non-specific - its just 'lucky for Spurs when the year ends in one' (as the song goes)

Dom, London, UK

Anyone who put money on Tottenham winning the Premier League in 2001 would have been a numerologist not a historian.
Students of the game know that five of Tottenham's eight FA Cup wins were also in years ending in '1'. A trained historian would dismiss this as coincidence. I thought it a trivial example to put alongside that of N Ireland or the Balkans where much can surely be learnt and understood by studying the history of these regions.
I have read much history since I retired simply to make myself better informed about the past Two themes which have established themselves in my mind in attempting to evaluate actions and events are those of 'false expectations' and 'unintended consequences' Whether these amount to lessons I will leave David Aaronovitch to decide but they should serve him well conceptually in his televised history of the Blair years.

Mr M Litchfield, Wimborne,

Stupid article. To govern without understanding history is foolish.

Like trying to build a car without understanding engineering.

Time to take a holiday yourself Mr Aaronovitch?

cuffleyburgers, Lucca,

Sorry to be a pedant but the lesson of history is surely; that no set of circumstances are ever exactly the same.

Bob, Faversham, UK

Right on again, David.

Stan Rosenthal, Lindfield, West Sussex

We would expect Mr Aaronovitch to have picked up at his grammar school the big lesson of liberal western politicians interfering in the febrile cultures of political Islam, Gladstone's policy of military intervention in the Sudan did prefigure Blair in its 'meddle and muddle' and loss of life of British soldiers.

More importantly for a school curriculum history gives identity - chop off history and we lose our story as a nation. Politicians and the 'media liberals' like Mr A are keen that this identity is indeed removed, so we can 'draw a line' and 'move on' to forge a new utopian synthesis, their brave new world of cool Britannia and all its noxious results.

Geography now is deeply politicised: sociology and postmodernism dominate the mountains and oceans for today's geography students. An inconvenient shaping of truth.

T, Oxford, UK

Just behind 'shocked and appalled,' the 'lessons of history' surely ranks as the most used cliche in Letters to the Editor and in Blog Responses.
It is used by those who know no history, and it is used by those who know some history but fail to understand its real lessons.
It is most used as a gimmick to try lending a writer's opinion more authority than it actually has.
With all this value to writers, it is unlikely pure facts and logic will ever deter them.
The genuine lessons of history are such that many wish to ignore.
A perfect example is that huge standing armies tend to contribute to wars rather than deter them, a lesson particularly applicable today to the United States and its miniature geo-political replica, Israel.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada

I had a history master who disliked teaching anything after the Congress of Vienna on the grounds that everything that happened after 1815 was "just old current affairs". You don't have to take such an extreme view to think it might be a little early to be calling the war in Afghanistan "successful". Or to believe that it may not yet be all over in the Balkans.

Dick, Bromley, UK

I agree with Mr Aaronovitch, I don't see any need in learning history, other than to do well in pub quizzes. I would much rather all politicians have a good grounding in physics.

For example, when has the study of history change the world?

If that same question was posed about physics there are hundreds and thousands of answers. A good answer which I think everyone reading this can appreciate is the very fact that they are reading this. The technology that allows me to read a newspaper and express my view about the article I have just read, to as many people as care to read them, without having to leave my house. Now that is world changing and all as a result of the study of physics. I don’t know about anyone else but I think teaching kids science so that they may know how computers work is far more important to the modern world than any lesson history can teach.

Alex, London , UK

Never in the cabbage patch of mid -term page fillers has it been so likely that so many will have been so confused by so few ...

J Muir, Glos,

So this war in Afganistan that we won: is that the same one that claims a British soldier's life about once a week?

Stuart, London,

Let's just keep it simple. History is the story of humanity. It's about how we come to be who we are.

We need to know about that stuff.

Sarah, Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada

Mr. D. Aaronovitch writes that "that the U.S. delayed until
December 1941 before entering the Second World War"
Sorry, cause and effect were somewhat different. Japan
delayed until December 1941 before attacking the US,
and Germany declared war on the US without delay-
fortunately, because the US would not have entered the war
against Germany without this declaration, and the subsequent sinking of a U.S. ship.

Dr. E.N. Terry, Westmount , P.Q., Canada

Mr A disagrees with two history professors: hence “history is bunk”. But the neos (of which he is one?) had a particular view of force and history, or rather force *in* history. They believed in progress (whose final ‘end’ was American democracy) and that the application of force to ‘unprogressive’ elements would bring about an ultimate ‘end to history’.

This ideology has turned out to be false, but Mr A. has rejected not it--not the flawed neocon worldview--but the subject (history) on which it was supposedly based. What lessons to draw from that?

Mary Shelley, London,

Clearly Spurs forgot that in order for them to win anything, the year had to not only end with a '1' but also start with a '1'. So no chance for the next 8,000 years or so.

Just shows how careful you have to be in interpreting history.

HarryG, London, UK

Interesting that David Aaronovitch adopts a very similar point of view to that other well known intellectual Henry "History is bunk" Ford. Perhaps it is the dictatorial approach 'people can have any color they want (for their T model Ford) provided that it is black' that really links them.

James, Norwich, UK

As recently as June 5th, Mr Aaronovitch referred, in a piece about the legacy of the Six Day War in the Middle East, to the unfortunate consequences of the then Israeli government's policy of permitting Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Perhaps he could explain why he seemed willing then to use history to support his own views when he now condemns others for doing the same thing. While a knowledge of history is by no means an infallible guide to the solution of current problems, it is infinitely preferable to ignorance.

Geoffrey Warner, Didcot,

It's undoubtedly true that history is far more complicated than it appears when taught to a sixteen-year-old, but unless our children KNOW the facts - that the US delayed entering the war until 1941, yet helped Britain as early as 1939 - they will never later be able even to attempt to understand why.

Ollie, London, UK

actually it might be quite helpful if more politicians knew a little more about science and a little less about law, history, and other pontificating arts...

elemjay, London,

University history is contested, school history is not. Of course there will be tussles about what goes into the school curriculum, and how the material is presented, but basically children need to move from a state of not knowing the story to knowing the outline. There was such a person as Sir Francis Drake and no-one contests that. Though people do contest the Holocaust they can be safely put with Jesus Mythers, Creationsists, and Pyramidologists. If children can name Drake's ship, remember the quote after the attack on Cadiz, and repeat the story of the bowls, then the job has been done reasonably well. As they move into A level a few of the brighter ones will ask "what are you trying to achieve by concentrating on so-called national heroes?" But that's a sign that they are getting too old for school.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Arguably the analogy between history and physics is flawed. Most people learn the physics they need very early in life, largely through experimentation (gravity, inertia, friction) and the brain processes much of these matters automatically (think of predicting the arc of a ball to be able to catch it). Higher level physics is fascinating, and important, but not usually required for everyday life. Politicians, however, should have an awareness of quite how important it is (something lacking in current target-obsessed research).

History instead raises issues and debates which do keep recurring in society and human experience, and the knowledge is less easily learned through living. From that perspective the teaching of history is arguably therefore more important than physics. Interesting historical questions would be "is there a national memory?" "What is it?" "Have previous attempts to teach it worked?" "Why?" I note politicians do not ask these questions. How unhistorical!

JS, Cambridge,

Well, I used to have no time for history (especially of the GCSE type), either... but things changed. I have come to realise that a good knowledge of history is not only rewarding in itself, but essential in some ways. Without a sense of history, there can be no sense of progression: Life is truly, in the words of one author, 'just one damned thing after another'. A knowledge of history may not predict things helpfully, and politicians' pronouncements on the 'lessons of history' are as usless as their pronouncements on any other matter. That said, history does at least explain how things got the way they are today. History is also helpful (for spoilt consumerist Westerners like me, anyway) in pointing out just how bad life was for the bulk of the British people in the past, and how lucky most of us are today in comparison.

Anyway, while you are referencing fantasy, did not the short obnoxious American in 'The Princess Bride' warn us 'Never start a land war in Asia!'

Pat, Nottingham,

As long as malaria, AIDS, hunger, wars, car accidents, alcoholism, heart attacks, diabetes, et cetera, each kill more people in a month than terrorism in a years, it is difficult to understand how it could be an “existential threat."

Further, history has also shown the military intervention is useless against terrorism (PLO, Hamas). Applying the full force of the police however has had more succes (IRA, ETA, RAF). Anyone slightly aware of history would never have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and make militarism the centre piece of the counter terrorism effort.

Roy Basch, Eindhoven, Netherlands

I once had a history master who was reluctant to teach anything after the Congress of Vienna, dismissing everything that had happened since 1815 as just "old current affairs". You don't have to take such an extreme view to hesitate before calling the war in Afghanistan "successful" or to fear that the story isn't over in the Balkans yet.

Dick, Bromley, UK

The most important lesson of history is never to underestimate history. I recall, shortly after Tito´s death, an expert from London university warning of the "time-bomb" that was the then Yugoslavia. It had a slow fuse and took a decade to explode but explode it did.

It is a typical mistake of the Anglo world to suppose other cultures will react like ours. For historical reasons, they do not. Hence, the mess in the Middle East today.

John, London,

Hegel was right- “History teaches that history teaches us nothing“. The politicians can read whatever they like, it will make no difference to their actions. Since when has a politician been swayed by anything they read, or were told? They will stick doggedly to their own views anyway.
Everyone else should read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", to have a real idea of how they are being manipulated.

Martin Mills, Tunbridge Wells, England

Conclusion :- so David Aaronovitch is working on a "televised history" of the "Blair years" which will be just another hagiography/apologia.
Move over Alastair Campbell.
Boring.

L.Stewart, Cranbrook, UK

Yes well history is a matter of interpretation of the 'facts', as is physics. In fact most subjects are an interpretation of facts. Thats why history teaching is important - because at its best it teaches interpretation, rather than parroting of dates and monarchs. Art should also be taught upto 16 for exactly the same reasons - to equip all with the tools to interpret culture and its meanings.

Without those skills people are merely consumers of what is presented to them - exactly what Blair and his ilk would like!!

Chris, Crawley,

A small point, in the context of this piece, but the idea that History A level is an endangered species is laughable. History has been one of the most popular A level and University subjects for years, even with the onset of tuition fees 9 years ago. There was a small fall in UCAS applications for History degrees last year, but after several years of rises.

Rick, Wotton,

It is very difficult to define "History"as a single subject and even more difficult to make it objective without racial, religious or political bias. Napolean I is an heroic figure in French history and the hated villain, "Boney", in English history. Stalin will be resurrected one day as a great Russian patriot and his ruthless tyranny will be glossed over. Ask an Irish catholic what he thinks of Oliver Cromwell and you will get undiluted hatred - perhaps with just cause - but that's not the way he is portrayed in English schools. The only lessons to be learnt should be drawn from world history i.e the sheer futility of the carnage in the first world war and the reluctant folly in allowing Hitler to start the sequel. At least history demonstrates that all the despots are mortal and most of them die miserably which may be the single best reason for continuing the teaching of it.

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, United Kingdom

The problem with Blair wasn't his ignorance of History but his contempt for it, possibly out of arrogance. Just possibly... And there are lessons to be found in History. Do remember the stories on the US military watching the film "the battle of Algiers" and saying that they shouldn't do the same mistake. They didn't, did they? They managed to do ten times, no, hundred times worse than that. It seems we can count on the US to outdo anyone. Bush and Blair have constantly hyped up the terrorism threat and played on our fear to infringe our civil liberties. It could indeed be argued that, so far, we have given in to terrorism by changing our society. Quite possibly needlessly. At the end of the day, terrorism is targeting minds, not bodies. That's what History tells us, and quite rightly so. What about some stiff upper lip business, for a change?

John, London, UK

I thought it was Spurs and FA Cup finals in years ending in '1' David?

AspieMum, North Yorkshire,