I don't have any models that try and explain history and I can't begin to imagine what a result of such a process might be. Stuff like Asimovian Psychohistory

I don't have any models that try and explain history and I can't begin to imagine what a result of such a process might be. Stuff like Asimovian Psychohistory are fun to think about, but it is a fictional story telling device. And that's a hint. History and politics are storytelling. Often based on "true events" only as far as convenient to the storyteller. To make any useful sense of history, or politics, or nearly any "soft" process, humans apply a variety of heuristics, some based on experience, and others on evolution, that frankly no one really understands. At least in the sense of a testable or prediction making model. If someone makes a statement, or tells me a story, I have to examine the context and the past narrative of events in order to make a judgement about its veracity. The details of how that judgement come to pass are as unknown as the nature of natural language, and I suspect they are related. In other words, my process doesn't get "bad" results, it gets no results. But I do get a heuristic that is somehow useful. Sometimes. Trying to argue about events like this, outside of the limited terms of those heuristics is pointless. How many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin. Instead, as in a courtroom drama (another story!), we look for means, motive, and opportunity. And then like any good jury, we apply our various and variable heuristics and come up with our own story. Which is a guess. Whether or not you believe the story I told, within the context of rather different discussion, is irrelevant, just as how you feel about the innocence of today's murder de jour is irrelevant. Unless you are on the jury. And the jury of history on this isn't born yet. Instead we are Rashomon like witnesses to contemporary events. And speaking of irrelevant, this discussion has strayed from from its roots. While it's been fun, I'm done. Good day...