ahistorical analysis

What if during the Cold War a serious political scientist, diplomat, politician, foreign policy analyst wrote about the Berlin Wall or the Berlin Blockade:

The conflict doesn't date to the establishment of the GDR, German States have always been in conflict with each other. In order to truly understand the division of Germany, you have to go back to Charlemagne, who united Germany in the 8th century, but whose empire crumbled when he died.

That might sound intelligent historical insight--and it's true that history would be very different had Charlemagne not divided his kingdom when he died--but it's also a horrible example of trying to explain contemporary events as direct results of historical actions.

Sloppy historical parallels are made all the time in writing about policy or grand ideas. Be wary.