The article’s title asks what lessons have been learned from the history of WW1? There are always lessons to be learned from history, but there are even more immediate and pressing pages of history than WWI. The recently-concluded Soviet era is an example. I have never heard any Russian leader state anything even vaguely like the following: “Here is what I have learned from my country’s Soviet experience. Here is what I have identified as the factors that made it possible for my country to slip into its Soviet nightmare. Here is what I am doing to prevent such factors ever arising again in the public life of my country. Here is what Russia needs to be doing to prevent a similar tragedy from returning”

What a truly silly concept adanced, that history should in some way have a prioritisation, that some pages deserve more merit than others. History is not a guide to medical techniques to be applied, it isn't the ABC (Airways,Breathing,Circulation) of emergency procedure. History is history, a fountain of knowledge and reflection, not a tool of action. the very notion of a drive to create a prioritisation, displays an agenda, wherby history is trying to be mis-used as a tool, for some particular purpose. Indeed one of the useful qualities of a correct historical representation, is that it is all inclusive and balanced, allowing comparative analysis between different historical temporal passages and geographic regions. This attempt at historical prioritaisation, coupled with continually addressing one historical passage out of context from the subject of a given historical discussion. Further displays that history is trying to be manipulated as a tool to suit an agenda. Remember this article refers to the tragedy of localised conflict, which still today represents a sad situation for those caught up in it, and also represents a very dangerous seed for wider conflict being initiated. Especially when internatioanl inter governmental treaties and obligations are in place.These are the lessons of WW1. The whole point of the article was to encourage that we should learn from history and that learning, based on the prior disasterous consequences, encourage us to seek political peaceful resolution to diputes. Not see military means as a simple firts step. I for one support this drive, as war is a very blunt instrument, with horrific human suffering involved.

History cannot be manipulated, CountCash. History has happened, and what happened cannot now unhappen, or happen differently. History can be lied about, ignored or taken out of context. But such efforts are similar to gnats trying to move the pyramids – they may wear themselves out, but the pyramids will remain exactly where they are. However, history most certainly can and should be prioritized. All history is a valuable learning resource. But the history of events one or two thousand years ago is not as relevant to today as the history of events of one or two decades ago. The events surrounding WW1 had a profound effect on our world today. But the events subsequent to that had even a more profound effect. Learning the lessons of those events is of the greatest relevance of all to our lives today. Yet neither CountCash nor I have ever heard a Russian leader express having learned anything at all from his country’s Soviet experience, or committing himself to any tangible steps to ensure that his country will never again descend into a similar nightmare. CountCash reminds us that the article refers to the tragedy of localized conflicts. Russia is dotted with localized conflicts within and around its borders that derive directly from the abuses of Soviet rule. One would think that sensible policymakers in Moscow would seek to correctly analyze the causes on the basis of what Russians under the Soviet flag did to those peoples and to those regions that had the effect of producing the problems in the first place, and then set about remedying those matters. But analyzing Soviet disasters, taking appropriate responsibility for these, and then in a logical and methodical way setting about healing what can be healed is not Russia's way.

No Indeed the prioritization of history is the manipulation, that is the whole point, it creates incorrect focus and lacks comparative value. If you remove large tracks of medical training, and focus on a narrow area, then low and behold your diagnosis is narrow and jaundiced. One great value of a superb general doctor is their breadth of knowledge. We know they need to make some comparative analysis, and deduction,before diving into specialty by others. You don't get a body of medical knowledge, just written in an ER. The body of knowledge is the data base from which the doctor can take from. The creation of it is academic work, not political work to suit hospital budgets. History is not a product, produced for the consumer, history is history, there is no marketing plan for history, no key features. there is no end identified customer. There is no prioritization for delivery. To push for prioritization, shows a drive of the historical process from a customer focus. This is perverse and wrong, it is the work of extremists. Can you imagine the perversion of saying, I just need these few pages of history, to get on with my work, please write them quickly. Good history is an academic chore, undertaken without reference to the customer. History is what it is. History of 2000 years ago is just as important as 100 years ago, that is the point of history, to have the whole picture, this is how we as humans gain enlightenment and a total picture. History doesn't exist in convenient bubbles of time and space, product bubbles for instant use. History as an accurate academic study is difficult to grasp for those used to manipulating history. History is a knowledge base for learning, the viewpoint and conclusions often change with time, it is therefore useless as a tool or initiator of action. The consumer of the history is the actor, and they better be sure to use sound judgment as a good general doctor does, with the a vast medical knowledge at their disposal.

To CountCash: Like perhaps yourself, I get mightily annoyed by the shallow, piecemeal “USA Today” approach to either the news or to history. Which, by the way, is one reason I take strong exception to the standard Russian approach to Soviet Baltic history – it is not only shallow and piecemeal, but on top of that it also includes liberal doses of sheer fiction which I, as an Estonian, happen to know is fiction, and which anyone else who wants to take the time and trouble can determine to be fiction by researching the subject from any accepted authoritative historical texts the world over. Any presentation of history has to be organized (since you don’t appear to like the word, “prioritized”). Its scheme of organization has a specific aim in mind – it is either about a specific period, or specific events within a period, or a specific region, or examining a specific principle or dynamic, etc. This means that any one presentation of history must also, of necessity, also be incomplete. A more complete and balanced understanding of events is gained by cross-referencing many accounts and orientations. By doing this methodically, some assertions are seen to be clearly contrived because they are inconsistent with the broad body of verified information. Most Soviet-era assertions about its Baltic adventures fall into that latter category, as do contemporary Russian claims that borrow from them. I’d also like to repeat what I had written previously: while all history is important and has lessons to teach, some aspects of history are more directly relevant to today’s challenges than others. The history of the Ming Dynasty is of little direct relevance to today’s Europe; the history of the Soviet Union is. This is why Russia’s obfuscation of that history is so disruptive to current European affairs.