English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I pose this question in view that so many millions of lives been lost, changed because of this one man. Not to mention many famous men who stood up to fight at opposite camps.

There might be others if Hitler didn't exist but will the effect such drastic?

2007-02-14 19:42:58 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

5 answers

I think that the Japanese did not revolve around Hitler, nor the Chinese. Wilson's demand that the new Polish state have a seacoast at the expense of Germany was an error. Britain and France declaring war on Germany in support of a military dictatorship, whose aggression against Czech state was just as imperialist as the German aggression and a state, that incidentally, was just as anti-Semitic as Germany, was another mistake. For Poland and Germany were two sides of the same coin. Certainly, Stalin did not revolve around Hitler and Hitler could have ruled the world as Stalin's partner. The two of them, their forces combined, would have been unstoppable.
However, another way to answer your question is how you view history. Do you believe in the great men theory of history? If you do, then one man can make a difference. However, if you are a Marxist or believe in the economic theory of history, then economic forces govern history. In which case, things would have turned out the same even if the German leader was Himmler and the Russian leader was Trotsky, and the American leader as Al Smith.

2007-02-14 20:17:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Hitler was a powerful leader and his exploits made him the master of the German people who he led to invade many countries unopposed. He was not suppose to dominate but his enemies were so divided on the start of war. It was only in 1945 when US, UK and other countries really decided to unite and defeat Hitler.

2007-02-15 03:59:24 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

I hope some day they will wonder why they followed Bush,and wonder how they could stand by and let babies be murdered ,that would mean there is hope in the future,but I fear that will not be so.

2007-02-15 03:56:20 · answer #3 · answered by bruce j 2 · 0 0

he was a great leader til Sept 1,1939....after that he was a nutjob

2007-02-15 04:03:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

very sad era...all he was is a drug addict manipulator..to this day..it baffles me how so my didn't have a mind of their own and followed that jerk off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-02-15 03:49:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers