Many observers share the belief that very dangerous or, on the contrary, very positive, situations can be determined by minor accidents. For instance, that a war could finally follow a disruption of equilibriums between politicians and generals in Turkey. That in Italy severe strife, even the end of the Berlusconi era, might be the ultimate consequence of paradoxically light mishaps in the filing of candidacies to elected offices that are not important enough. That the emergence of a brilliant orator who makes capital of social discontent could torpedo the partitocratic regime the Allies installed 65 years ago (many surveys show that here derisory percentages approve the Italian institutions and their political ways).

The above fuses may or may not ignite large explosions. But, by a sort of counter-analogy it’s arguable that, if certain marginal or escapable events of the past had not occurred, the contemporary world would be incredibly different. Had the Emperor of the French, Napoleon III, assessed a diplomatic slight by chancellor Bismarck for what factually was a simple discourtesy rather than a threat to the vital interests of France, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 would not have followed (no serious conflict existed then between Paris and Berlin). Just two battles annihilated the French armies and their prestige. The Emperor was deposed, France was occupied, Alsace-Lorraine lost. Then, thousands died in the Paris Commune insurrection.

In the following 44 years France was dominated by ‘revanche’, the obsession of vengeance. So, had it not been for the foolish choice of 1870, possibly in 1914 French president Poincaré wouldn’t pressure St.Petersburg, and even London, to fight Austria-Hungary and the German Reich. Without the Tsarist defeat, it is not proven that a Bolshevik revolution would triumph in Russia. Had WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles not humiliated Germany, probably Hitler would not become the Fuehrer, Germany would not resort to WW2, and our history would be entirely different.

There’s more.

If Hitler had a quirk different from antisemitism, millions of Jews would not be killed. Not dissimilar could have been the consequences had the Jewish world community decided to buy Hitler with (a lot of) money or otherwise instantly confronted him. For many centuries, Jews easily bought Christian sovereigns’ tolerance, namely in Castile, France, and England.

Nobody of course can demonstrate the above successions as inevitable. But as nobody can prove the contrary, the assumption is legitimate that the XXI century world would be almost the opposite of what we have, if only Napoleon the Third with his courtiers, diplomats and marshals had been wiser.

Academic historians traditionally decry this way of thinking. But in no way can they prove the superiority of their approach. They idolize just what is archived and recorded. Which is at the same time scientifically correct and devoid of human lessons. Things that do not happen can be more fateful than actual events.

Massimo Calderazzi is member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to which many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.