>>64394330
>is it because of technology or polticis?
its hard to seperate the actual abilities of napoleon, washington, alexander, etc from their mythology
if napoleon had existed in WW2 and was exactly as good as he was in his time, its doubtful he would have had the same legacy as he did
WW1 and 2 werent really won by excellent generals, even when they are admitted to have played a large part
they were won by geopolitical factors, the US had a massive manpower pool and mountains of resources, which snowballed into a larger industrial base and just outproduce the axis
>is it because of technology or polticis?
both, but because of how they shaped public perception rather than the technology itself
the historiography of WW2 has largely focused on the technology that won it, which is why statements like atom bomb/radar won the war for casual non-history people
or on industrial capacity for history buffs rather than the contributions of individual people