Now, it seems to me that from the history theorists I’ve read that there are two general theories about the nature of history:

Concepts: History flows in broad patterns, one event causing another (usually sparked by a crisis, ergo the ‘Crisis Theory’). Because of Japan’s need to be considered a power, she seeks colonies and fights a war with Russia. We refer to nations and peoples, not persons. This theory tends to fall along the lines of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Individuals: History flows according to the whim of the few great individuals there are among us (ergo, the ‘Great Man Theory’). Because Eisenhower decided that Southern Germany was more important tactically, he didn’t push too hard for Berlin, which allowed Stalin to grab Berlin and in the view of Europeans control Germany (Karl Marx said: “Whomever controls Berlin controls Germany, and whomever controls Germany controls Europe.”). This theory tends to fall along the lines of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

To what extent are these true? To what extent to they blend?

?? what are you asking?

To what extent are these two different theories true, and to what extent do they blend.

I don't know anything about any formal theories or anything, but I feel that the two are inseperable. History is made of both sweeping currents and the individual. I suppose the whole thing comes down to the question of if a certain man were removed from the timeline, would his contributions to history have occurred anyway? I imagine it's a bit of give and take. Some historical moments are unique in that I feel they depend on the individual entirely. While others would likely have happened regardless.

I lean toward the individual side of the story, myself. But, there is never a clear-cut explanation. It's always a gentle blend. Good coffee... :D