09-07-2003, 07:18 PM
...Did you mean the other way around? It was the absence of a single super-power...
Germany was essentially a "super-power", able to tromp any of their neighbors individually. The populace was extremely nationalistic, believing it was their destiny to be the center of an Aryan empire.
If there had been an established, co-operative military alliance in Europe in the 30s (a-la NATO), it is unlikely that they would have even tried expansion by military force. Of course, by the end of the 20th century they have began to succeed by economic force where they failed by military force.
Of course, the problems in making run of the mill decisions in a multi-national organization are considerable. More time can be spent in arguments, than in action. The result is often a lack of action, or the decision to hold off on making a decision. That is preferable to going off and killing people for no good reason.
-rcv-
Germany was essentially a "super-power", able to tromp any of their neighbors individually. The populace was extremely nationalistic, believing it was their destiny to be the center of an Aryan empire.
If there had been an established, co-operative military alliance in Europe in the 30s (a-la NATO), it is unlikely that they would have even tried expansion by military force. Of course, by the end of the 20th century they have began to succeed by economic force where they failed by military force.
Of course, the problems in making run of the mill decisions in a multi-national organization are considerable. More time can be spent in arguments, than in action. The result is often a lack of action, or the decision to hold off on making a decision. That is preferable to going off and killing people for no good reason.
-rcv-