Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
An interesting counterfactual for WWII is what happens if Hitler DOESN'T undertake a war of annihilation in the east? What happens if he promises to liberate them from the yoke of Stalinism. Of course his deranged ideology was the whole point of the conflict.
Andrew Roberts has a quip in Storm of War (2009) something to the effect of, had Hitler not been a Nazi, he could have won the war, but had he not been a Nazi, he wouldn't have started the war in the first place.
And then there's Eco presenting fascism itself as a strategic trap: "Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
That's an interesting thought. Also, Storm of War is fantastic.
AJP Taylor had a pretty solid argument that German national interests post-Versailles were likely to lead to war sooner or later anyway.
I know the argument but I don't think I actually agree with it. The one thing we can say for certain is that an accurate assessment of German strategic interests would not have gone to war, given that Germany was ruined by the war.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
