FieldMarshal
Banned
A relatively common assertion I hear both here and in the mainstream are that the three world wars were an unavoidable result of the geopolitics of their era. The first being the result of years of imperialism, militarism, and nationalism among the European powers finally coming to a head; the second being a result of the failures of Versailles, the Great Depression, and the rise of Fascism in Germany, Italy, and Japan; and the third being the result of the inherent conflict between capitalism and communism and years of military buildup by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Is there really any truth to these assertions, or is it all just pop-history nonsense? I tend to lean toward the latter myself. The European nations were able to coexist relatively well before WW1 (discounting events like Crimea or the Franco-Prussian war). Meanwhile, I feel that while some sort of conflict in the post-WW1 world was probably bound to happen, a Second World War was far from a sure thing, and any variety of plausible PoDs could have prevented that: someone less crazy than Hitler as head of the NDSAP, Italy and Japan choosing to remain British allies, etc. And the United States and the Soviet Union had been able to coexist in relative peace (proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan notwithstanding) for decades after the end of WW2 before the outbreak of the Spring Crisis in 1989; less hardline leadership (particularly on the part of the Russians) could have mediated the crisis peacefully rather than the out-of-control brinkmanship that ultimately resulted in WW3 and N-Day.
Main reason I’m asking is because the numerous talking heads have been going on about how war between the South American power blocs is “inevitable” and drawing parallels to Europe in 1914. I think it’s all hyperbolic bullshit myself, but still.
Is there really any truth to these assertions, or is it all just pop-history nonsense? I tend to lean toward the latter myself. The European nations were able to coexist relatively well before WW1 (discounting events like Crimea or the Franco-Prussian war). Meanwhile, I feel that while some sort of conflict in the post-WW1 world was probably bound to happen, a Second World War was far from a sure thing, and any variety of plausible PoDs could have prevented that: someone less crazy than Hitler as head of the NDSAP, Italy and Japan choosing to remain British allies, etc. And the United States and the Soviet Union had been able to coexist in relative peace (proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan notwithstanding) for decades after the end of WW2 before the outbreak of the Spring Crisis in 1989; less hardline leadership (particularly on the part of the Russians) could have mediated the crisis peacefully rather than the out-of-control brinkmanship that ultimately resulted in WW3 and N-Day.
Main reason I’m asking is because the numerous talking heads have been going on about how war between the South American power blocs is “inevitable” and drawing parallels to Europe in 1914. I think it’s all hyperbolic bullshit myself, but still.
Last edited: