True. However, once you know the linking factors, they often make the timing much easier to remember. For example, if you understand that Kaiser Wilhelm's subjects bought into the propaganda about Germany being the most powerful country on the planet, and that they therefore believed that the only way that they could have been defeated was by internal sabotage, you can start to understand why the Nazi party managed to successfully scapegoat so many different groups, and the public bought it. But if you also know that a teenaged message runner by the name of Adolf Hitler served in the Kaiser's army as a message runner in the trenches, you can conceptualise the time between wars as the time it took him to climb up the social ladder to the point where he could take power (his mid-forties). It took me many, many years before I could remember 1914-1918 and 1938-1945, and even once I did, I never fully understood how short a period of time there was in between then, until I saw it in terms of the lifetime of one man.
As an alternative example, another key thing in history lessons is the line of succession of kings, or presidents in the case of the US, and there dates. I can quote you four US presidents in order: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford. Now I can't tell you the dates, but I can tell you why it would be easy to remember them. First up, history says Kennedy beat Nixon thanks to TV, so Kennedy must be the first of the four. Kennedy was shot, and Johnson was his VP. Johnson got re-elected on the back of popular grief for the death of Kennedy. Nixon was impeached, and his VP took over -- Ford. Due to Nixon's unpopularity, Ford was not voted back in at the next election. So now we've got a cause-and-effect that puts everything into perspective. Adding the details to this "bigger picture" would be very simple indeed,