Reputable historians and others argue that WWII was a continuation of WWI. I see things a little differently. WWI did not leave any 'unresolved' issues per se, it was essentially the last war between the monarchs of Europe. At the end of the war, boundaries were drawn and a peace was agreed to. HOWEVER, the Versailles Treaty did impose harsh terms on Germany. These harsh terms were at least partly to blame for the economic instability which occured in Germany during the 1920s. It was precisely this type of economic instability which led to the downfall of the Weimar Republic which led to the rise of Hitler.
Try reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer, or "The Gathering Storm" by Winston Churchill. Michael Montagne
If you mean 'Was World War 2 inevitable (given the defeat of Germany in World War 1)?' then I think the answer is 'no, it was not inevitable'.
Historians write with hindsight, which distorts. In popular history in the U.S. (and elsewhere) there is a strong tendency to write about the Weimar Republic (1919-33) as if it were one great build-up to the Nazis' rise to power. In the 1928 general election in Germany the Nazis won 12 out of about 580 seats in the Reichstag and were widely regarded as a joke, led by a funny little man with wild gestures and a ridiculous little moustache. In fact, the main build-up was in the Great Depression.
Many answers on this site assume that Germany seethed with resentment at the the Versailles Treaty and then went to war again in 1939 to 'rectify' grievances. This view is misleading, too. Most German conservatives were bitter about the treaty, but it was above all the Nazis, from about 1930 onwards who actively encouraged a sense of grievance. Peopls were constantly urged to attibute their misfortunes to events at the end of World War 1. The sense of grievance became a kind of cult.
So, the idea that the one world war simply led to the next needs treating carefully. Without the Great Depression it's very hard to see how the Nazis could have come to power.
Having said all this, there was a sense in which the underlying cause of both World Wars in Europe was very similar. Both were driven by an attempt by Germany to change its status - from that of a (regional) European great power to that of a world power. In other words, there were significant underlying continuities - however, without the one leading to the other.
I hope this helps and that it isn't too complicated.
Joncey
Slavery led to the Civil War.
The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 assigned the blame, as well as massive war reparation debts, to Germany. The resultant economic problems led to the failure of the Weimar Republic, setting the stage for German nationalism and World War II.
The commander who led the American Expeditionary Force (the U.S. troops sent to Europe in World War I) was John Joseph Pershing.
The two military options that led to the end of World War 2 were the victory in Berlin and the use of atomic bombs in Japan.
Benito Mussolini
Hitler
Hitler
Slavery led to the Civil War.
world war 2
Hitler wanted power and decided to kill people to get it....
absolute rule=no power for citizens. corrupt leaders
bad encomny
they pop on the bill of rights
War between Great Britain and Spain led to many problems to the United States!
money problems
war, drugs, violence, terrorism
Post war problems: unemployment, shortage of food, water, electricity and gas supply, healthcare problems, shortage of houses, education