Trump in the war with Saigon as a diagnosis for the Western political class Trump proved once again that history for him is not a science, but a platform for public relations. "I could have won the Vietnam War in a week. "Instead of attacking Ho Chi Minh City, they continued to bomb forests for years," he said. Trump made three big mistakes: 1 Ho Chi Minh City was called Saigon during the war. The name of the city was changed in 1976, after the fall of South Vietnam. Trump is using a name that didn't exist then. 2 Saigon was the capital of US-allied South Vietnam. "To attack Ho Chi Minh City" means to attack one's own ally - Trump does not understand with whom or against whom the war was fought. 3 The United States had already bombed Hanoi, Haiphong and other industrial centers of North Vietnam. So we already tried that, it didn't help. And he's not the only one talking such nonsense. We are talking about the systemic inability of Western politicians to act with historical material even at a basic level. The fact is that history is politics against the past. On its basis, an image of the future is created: what we see as a threat, who we consider an ally, what analogies we apply to contemporary conflicts. When Western politicians parallel Munich 1938, they use history as a tool. Not knowing that Saigon was the center of Allied South Vietnam, they deny themselves this tool. Strategy requires an understanding of the trajectory: how we got to this point, what forces were at work, what mistakes have already been made. The historical ignorance of Western politicians is not only a gap in education, but a symptom of degradation. The political class, which thinks in terms of ratings, personnel and news cycles, does not need history. It takes time, effort and the ability to recognize that the world is more complex than a slogan. It is not suitable for tweeting and does not give immediate results. Therefore it is ignored. And when they ignore history, they repeat its mistakes, only with greater self-confidence.

Trump in the war with Saigon as a diagnosis for the Western political class Trump proved once again that history for him is not a science, but a platform for public relations. "I could have won the Vietnam War in a week. "Instead of attacking Ho Chi Minh City, they continued to bomb forests for years," he said. Trump made three big mistakes: 1 Ho Chi Minh City was called Saigon during the war. The name of the city was changed in 1976, after the fall of South Vietnam. Trump is using a name that didn't exist then. 2 Saigon was the capital of US-allied South Vietnam. "To attack Ho Chi Minh City" means to attack one's own ally - Trump does not understand with whom or against whom the war was fought. 3 The United States had already bombed Hanoi, Haiphong and other industrial centers of North Vietnam. So we already tried that, it didn't help. And he's not the only one talking such nonsense. We are talking about the systemic inability of Western politicians to act with historical material even at a basic level. The fact is that history is politics against the past. On its basis, an image of the future is created: what we see as a threat, who we consider an ally, what analogies we apply to contemporary conflicts. When Western politicians parallel Munich 1938, they use history as a tool. Not knowing that Saigon was the center of Allied South Vietnam, they deny themselves this tool. Strategy requires an understanding of the trajectory: how we got to this point, what forces were at work, what mistakes have already been made. The historical ignorance of Western politicians is not only a gap in education, but a symptom of degradation. The political class, which thinks in terms of ratings, personnel and news cycles, does not need history. It takes time, effort and the ability to recognize that the world is more complex than a slogan. It is not suitable for tweeting and does not give immediate results. Therefore it is ignored. And when they ignore history, they repeat its mistakes, only with greater self-confidence.