What leds to the war during 1900s

This is not a debate. I would simply like to discuss this with anyone. 3 rules: 1. No voting on this debate please. I will get the next discussion up asap. 2. I would like people to participate in comment. Use as much words as you like. 3. No offending language. (Also, Please use some good citations and also books would be preferred. ) So here is my opening thoughts. Introduction: In my introduction, I would love to use a paragraph from H. G. Wells's The War Of The Worlds(1898): The houses caved in as they dissolved at its touch, And darted out flames; the tress changed to fire with a roar. . . So you understand the roaring wave of fear that swept through the greatest city in the world just as Monday was dawning - the stream of flight rising swiftly to a torrent, Lashing in a foaming tumult round the railway stations. . . Did they dream they might exterminate us? As many would agree with me that this was indeed a beautiful piece of literary work, It also portrays a world, A Lethal Century. Published on the eve of the twentieth century, H. G Well's The War Of The Worlds is much more than just a seminal work of science fiction. It is also a kind of Darwinian Morality tale, And at the same time, A work of singular prescience. In the century after the publication of his book, Scenes like the ones Wells imagined became a reality in cities all over the world. Not just in London, Where Wells set his tale, But in Brest-Litovsk, Belgrade and Berlin; In Smyrna, Shanghai and Seoul. - Gene Pool: Not without reason, Hermann Goring explicitly called the second World war 'the great racial war'. That was indeed how many contemporaries experienced it. The importance then attached to notions of racial difference now seems rather strange. The science of modern genetics has revealed that human beings are remarkably alike. In terms of origins can be traced back to Africa between 100, 000 and 200, 000 years ago, And who began to spread into new continents only as recently as 60, 000 years ago - in evolutionary terms, The proverbial blink of an eye. However, I must hereby quote the American anthropologist Melville J. Herskovits: "Two people never meet, But the mingle their blood. " Mingling, However is only one of a range of options when two diverse human population meet. The minority group may remain distinct for breeding purposes but become integrated into the majority group in all or some other respects. The problem is, Why, If minorities face so many risks by not assimilating, Do ethnic identities persist, Even in cases where no biological distinction exists? As is well known, The first ostensibly scientific attempt to subdivide the human species into biologically distinct races was by swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus(Carl Von Linne). In his Systema Naturae(1758), He identified four races: Homo Sapiens Americanus, Homo Sapien Asiaticus, Homo Sapien Afer, And finally Homo Sapien europaeus. This was a profound transformation in the way people thought. Previously, Men have tended to believe that it was power, Privilege and property that were inheritable, As well, No doubt, As the social obligations that went with them. The royal dynasties who still so much of the world in 1900s were the embodiments of this principle. Even the republic that occasionally arose in the modern period, Still tended to retain the hereditary principle with respect to wealth, If not to office and status. Racial theorists claimed not only colour and physiognomy but also intelligence, Aptitude, Character and even morals and criminality were passed on in blood from generation to generation. This was another central paradox of the modern era. Even as the hereditary principle ceased to govern the allocation of office and ownership, So it gained ground as a presumed determinant of capability and conduct. Men cases to be able to inherit their father's jobs; in some countries, During the twentieth century they even ceased to be able to inherit their estates. But they could inherit their traits, As legacies of their parents' racial origins. To be sure, The world on Sept 11 1901, Was not a bad place for a healthy white man with a decent education and some money in the bank. Writing 18 years later, The economist John Maynard Keynes could look back, With a mixture of Nostalgia and irony to the day when the class to which he belonged had enjoyed ' at a low cost and with the least trouble, Conveniences, Comforts and amenities beyond the compass of the richest and most powerful monarchs of other ages. Not only could Keynes's inhabitant of London buy the world's ware and invest his capital in a wide range of global securities; he could also travel the earth's surface with unprecedented freedom and ease. But the crucial point, As Keynes saw it, Was that the man of 1901 regarded this state of affair as normal, Certain and permanent, Except in the direction of further improvement and any deviation from it as aberrant, Scandalous and avoidable. It is worth turning back to The Times of that golden ages to verify Keyne's justly famous recollection. Exactly a century before two hijacked planes slammed into the twin towers of the World trade center, The Globalization was indeed a reality, Despite that word was as yet unknown. This, Is a simple example, As to prove, The world of 1901 was a world of empires, But the problem was their weakness, Not their strength.