Comment by syngrog66 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by syngrog66 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Not sure how well accepted that theory is or isn't but it certainly seems to hold a lot more credence than "the war in Europe started because Hitler."

I've read a lot of WWII history. Especially focused on the ETO and Germany. In my mind, it seems beyond clear that Hitler was the reason that war broke out, the single prime key motivating force, his desires, his influence, his decisions, his cult of personality, his charisma, his quirks, his obsessions, etc. He existed and acted within a framework of other facts, within a certain context, and there were plenty of others who failed to act against him, enough, early enough, when it would have been more effective. But I've been confident of the "because Hitler" idea for a long time.

If you can point me at a history book or analysis which you think contradicts that, definitely share it with me, I always love to learn different angles. If I were to give you just one that aligns with "because Hitler" I'd recommend Shirer's Rise & Fall.

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.

In 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com