Both were entirely due to circumstance, over the actions of a single person or country. Germany was in massive debt, caused by the other countries taking a ton of money from them, so they elected a man who promised to fix their problems, and that man decided that the best way to do so was through war.
Well everything's entirely due to circumstance. But the reason Germany was in so much debt was because of the Treaty of Versailles. That could have been less punitive—the US and some of the British thought it was way too harsh even at the time.
And even if the war was going to happen (notwithstanding a different outcome in Versailles), if it wasn't for Hitler it could well have been much more localised and less devastating.
I wasn't assigning blame; I was talking about the sequence of events and how they could have been stopped. My point of saying it was the doing of one country, is that this makes it a lot easier to prevent in hindsight, since it's just one country that needs to go down a different path (which is why something as simple as different conditions on a treaty could have been enough).
And in terms of blame, I put that with Hitler and those who saw common cause with him (for the most part).
Why is nationalism frowned-upon in Europe?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
WW2 could have been avoided. At least, it seems much more the doing of one man and one country than WW1.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Both were entirely due to circumstance, over the actions of a single person or country. Germany was in massive debt, caused by the other countries taking a ton of money from them, so they elected a man who promised to fix their problems, and that man decided that the best way to do so was through war.
--
lukeuser
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well everything's entirely due to circumstance. But the reason Germany was in so much debt was because of the Treaty of Versailles. That could have been less punitive—the US and some of the British thought it was way too harsh even at the time.
And even if the war was going to happen (notwithstanding a different outcome in Versailles), if it wasn't for Hitler it could well have been much more localised and less devastating.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Then you can't go putting most of the blame on Germany, since putting most of the blame on Germany is what truly caused the war in the first place.
--
lukeuser
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I wasn't assigning blame; I was talking about the sequence of events and how they could have been stopped. My point of saying it was the doing of one country, is that this makes it a lot easier to prevent in hindsight, since it's just one country that needs to go down a different path (which is why something as simple as different conditions on a treaty could have been enough).
And in terms of blame, I put that with Hitler and those who saw common cause with him (for the most part).