How far do you agree with this statement?
2007-02-05 20:38:52 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes, and so was the one in the Pacific. The regional powers felt the need to establish dominance like pack animals. It is amazing that Europe has remained without war since, the longest in that continents history excluding Bosnia. The Treaty of Versailles did nothing to solve the underlying hatreds of WW1. The Marshal plan in hind sight was spectacularly successful.
2007-02-05 21:08:31 · answer #1 · answered by Billy Dee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, as others have pointed out, at some level no war is really "inevitable," in that to have a war there have to be at least two groups fighting each other over some issue. Wars don't just "happen" spontaneously. If no one fights there obviously can be no war. But even if one side decides to fight, as long as the other doesn't there still is no war.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that Hitler was determined to invade other countries, and that other countries were determined to resist those invasions, then under those circumstances the war was inevitable.
2007-02-06 08:23:37 · answer #2 · answered by Jeffrey S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No war is inevitable. But, war has become endemic in human society. Man cannot live without dispute.
2007-02-05 20:42:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
War cant be termed inevitable. Circumstances do lead to war situations but unfortunately it is human whim which ultimately starts one.
2007-02-05 20:48:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes...the Versailles treaty left the Germans no where else to go.
2007-02-05 20:44:25 · answer #5 · answered by the old dog 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
But IRAQ could be averted.....
2007-02-05 23:25:21 · answer #6 · answered by SHIH TZU SAYS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋