The debate "Was Hitler fully to blame for WW2" was started by
November 10, 2019, 8:57 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
posted the first argument on this debate as a disagreeing part.
NoctaRavage, plank420, chelrasonjohn, Grant65, jrardin12, Cisco and 10 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, carson, benmiller and 20 visitors disagree.
It is rare for someone to be fully to blame for pretty much anything. There are always proximate causes and influences.
The allies crushed Germany with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW 1. Despite the war not really being Germany's fault, they punished them hard and pretty much crushed their economy. They also banned them from having a real military or Navy. Basically they screwed Germany as hard as the possibly could out of revenge and fear.
This created an atmosphere in Germany where people thought the peace was worse than the war. It was only a matter of time before a politician took that anger and used it. Even if hitler hadn't existed, that anger would have. Someone would have used it.
Not to mention that there would still have been the inherent conflict between democracy, Fascism and Communism building. the three ideologies would not have been able to remain peaceful neighbors forever.
Hitler was definitely one of the main driving forces to WW2. But he was not the only one. And many of the underlying causes were not started by him. to say he solely responsible would be inaccurate.