Every historian will give you a different answer regarding causality in historical inquiry. This is as much related to history as it is the philosophy of history. The problem is correlation and causation can be tricky. Some more recent discussions such as Michael Oakeshott are harsh critics of causality in history where he states that "no single event in history is isolable' toward creating a singular cause. Rather he postulates a certain continuity of history. Determinism in history saw its day, especially in the 19th and early 20th century where events have correlations continually and are contingent on previous causes. Add to this 'the direction' or 'aim of history' again to which each historian will give a different answer and there are going to be difference in what each of us regard as causually relevant. As far as predicting future events? Wrong Reddit. We don't do fortune telling. History is about context and many historians will roll their eyes from their heads when they hear 'history repeats itself'. Why? Because the conditions for repeat mean the exact same historical context has to be applied to the event that is happening now as it was then. Obviously this is not possible. Its akin to broad stroke modern astrology interpretation. Saying x event is like previous y event is only a surface reading of the event based on very broad terms.

(Sorry if this came off as more fiery than should be. I am very into this sort of thing)