On the other hand, some historians and social scientists argue that World War Two was just a continuation of World War One, so that taken together it was one World War.

Historians and social scientists sometimes debate among themselves (and with each other) about the nature of World War One and World War Two. On one hand, most of them agree that both world wars were separate, different wars. On the other hand, some historians and social scientists argue that World War Two was just a continuation of World War One, so that taken together it was one World War. Which side of the debate has the more persuasive argument? Give your informed argument based on evidence and historical perspective, including for discussion two world regions: Europe and Asia. This includes, with details, the beginning and end dates of each war, the long-term and short-term causes; if the nature of the fighting was different in both wars, or if the nature of the fighting in the first world war carried over to the next war; the long-term and short-term results; the leaders and countries involved in these causes, fighting and results, including the competing alliances; and the changes these wars (or war, depending on your argument) made on the world at large. Could both world wars–or at least one of themhave been prevented? If yes, how? If no, why not?

Last Completed Projects