Was WWII a War that needed to be fought?

Was WWII Needed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 77 72.6%
  • No

    Votes: 25 23.6%
  • No Opinion

    Votes: 4 3.8%

  • Total voters
    106
Originally posted by Benderino


That was WWI, buddy. :)


yes but do u relize if ther was no killing of fredinana ther whold have been no ww1, and wit no ww1 ther whold be no ww2, or atlest no hitler!!
 
Originally posted by Tavenier
I don't think a balance of power of two is 'better'. Look at today. One of the two collapsed and only one is left. There is no balance these days. I am glad it was the USSR that collapsed and not the USA, but still things could have been better with more powers to balance.
China and Europe will (probably) even the balance a bit in the future.
With more powers in a BOP the balance will not easily turn to one side. Others would team up (military, economically and/or politically) to even the balance again.

The trouble is that this "balance" is in reality not balanced at all, and the more powers are involved, the greater the disparities in relative strength and the greater the chances, therefore, that one party will attempt to disrupt the balance for its own gain. Historically speaking, this is where we see massive general wars between large blocs of allied countries. Not so during periods in which one or two powers predominate, which tend to be times of (relative) peace between the powers, who can in those circumstances see no benefit in going to war.

I thus look at "balance of power situations" as being really delicate and unsustainable periods of great instability which can ultimately only "resolved" when a long and bloody war decimates all but one of the competing nations. It happened to Napoleonic France, it happened to Germany (though it took two tries for the resolution to "take," much to humanity's detriment). 1914 in particular should have proven for all time that "balance" does not equal "safety;" rather it signals the existence of an extremely dangerous form of international competition.
 
Top Bottom