3 ms·
I haven't read as much on the topic as you, but I've always heard that WWII was effectively a continuation of WWI; the root cause being the punitive measures in
by durzagott 10y ago
I haven't read as much on the topic as you, but I've always heard that WWII was effectively a continuation of WWI; the root cause being the punitive measures in the Treaty of Versailles.
I'd therefore assumed that Hitler was just a product of the era and there was a certain inevitability to WWII.
- gumby 10y agoIn many ways yes, it was one long war from 1870-1945 that flashed very hot a few times. I've never been a fan of the "great man" view of history -- easy to teach but barely illustrative -- but there is no question our actions have consequences. The importance of taking the large view is that you can see the larger forces that someone can harness (or that can thwart them). But the claim "if not Julius/Napoleon/Hitler than someone else" is at best hard to prove -- what someone else did would have been quite different. Most likely it would instead have been the usual muddle -- the default state is muddle, with from time to time some demagogue able to weave some strands together and cause general excitement. This is no different from, say, science. What would Newton have done had he been born 100 years later, or earlier, or 1000 miles east? On the other hand it's easy to see that if he'd not been born we'd have much of the same physics as today.