Could WW2 have been avoided?

[General Lee]

This is an interesting topic. I think it was possible for this war to have been avoided because Germany had to take all responsibility for a war they didn't start and were punished. Germany's territory was significantly reduced and their military broken down and striped of an Air force. It was a total humiliation and I believe it was terms like those that fueled the rage of Adolf Hitler and gave him and his followers the motivation to rebuild the might of their country. Had Germany been given more generous terms then perhaps Hitler would have had less to no motivation to do what he did, and who would follow him if he didn't have the terms of WW1 to back him up? Another problem was participation by world powers. America as we know had the issue of not wanting to get involved then later having to. As for the European allied nations they didn't seam to keep a close watch on Germany when it was bulking up it's forces and thanks to Hitler had an Air Force the Luftwaffe both violations of the treaty of Versailles and it seamed like nobody cared about Germany invading other nations until they themselves were affected like France. Based on this I think had the terms of the treaty been more fair and if the Allies enforced the treaty then the war could have been avoided. Now I don't disagree with the war, and it's one of my favorite topics, and that was the greatest generation.

 

[jgoodguy]

1. Could be is always yes.
2. The losses of WWI caused the citizens of the allied nation to want to avoid war. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_in_the_borders_of_1914–18
3. The allied nations were simply unprepared for war.

The avoidance of conflict was logical in the context of the time.
Stalin avoided war too so it was not a consequence of democracy.

 

[Matt McKeon]

This is an interesting topic. I think it was possible for this war to have been avoided because Germany had to take all responsibility for a war they didn't start and were punished. Germany's territory was significantly reduced and their military broken down and striped of an Air force. It was a total humiliation and I believe it was terms like those that fueled the rage of Adolf Hitler and gave him and his followers the motivation to rebuild the might of their country. Had Germany been given more generous terms then perhaps Hitler would have had less to no motivation to do what he did, and who would follow him if he didn't have the terms of WW1 to back him up? Another problem was participation by world powers. America as we know had the issue of not wanting to get involved then later having to. As for the European allied nations they didn't seam to keep a close watch on Germany when it was bulking up it's forces and thanks to Hitler had an Air Force the Luftwaffe both violations of the treaty of Versailles and it seamed like nobody cared about Germany invading other nations until they themselves were affected like France. Based on this I think had the terms of the treaty been more fair and if the Allies enforced the treaty then the war could have been avoided. Now I don't disagree with the war, and it's one of my favorite topics, and that was the greatest generation.

I've read this argued two ways.
1. Hitler, and not just Hitler, went on and on about how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was. But was it compared to the treatment the Germans meted out to the Russians in the Brest-Litivok Treaty ending Russian involvement in WWI? Was it more harsh than the settlement they forced on the French after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, when Germany seized two French provinces(and heavy reparations)? So shoot Hitler in the face in 1925, and the danger of war is mitigated.

2. Shoot Hitler in the face, we will probably get another right wing nationalist interested in revenge for WWI. WW II was in the cards, and someone was going to play them.

The points about American absence, and reluctance of France and Britain to endure another war are well taken.

 

[jgoodguy]

2. Shoot Hitler in the face, we will probably get another right wing nationalist interested in revenge for WWI. WW II was in the cards, and someone was going to play them.

Good observation.
In the Red Alert Universe, Hitler is eliminated by a time-traveling Einstien and the Soviets are the aggressors. Like all what-ifs, there are many possibilities. A commie Germany is also a possibility.

 

[Jim Klag]

If you're talking about Europe, the answer is clearly "yes." All the way up until it actually begsn in Poland, a response other than appeasement would have stopped it. The Japanese and Chinese had been fighting for years and Mussolini was fumbling around in Africa before Hitler attacked the Poles.

 

[jgoodguy]

1. Hitler, and not just Hitler, went on and on about how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was. But was it compared to the treatment the Germans meted out to the Russians in the Brest-Litivok Treaty ending Russian involvement in WWI? Was it more harsh than the settlement they forced on the French after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, when Germany seized two French provinces(and heavy reparations)? So shoot Hitler in the face in 1925, and the danger of war is mitigated.

Hitler was charismatic, any historical replacement would also have to be charismatic. Timing is important, a year or 2 later and Hitler becomes a side note in history.

 

[Jim Klag]

In 1935, the French could have stopped it before it really began. When the Germans marched into the Saarland, they were very few and the French army could easily have stopped them. A failure like that would have ended Hitler's regime, or at least put it on very unsteady footing. Dictators must keep winning to stay afloat.

 

[rittmeister]

I've read this argued two ways.
1. Hitler, and not just Hitler, went on and on about how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was. But was it compared to the treatment the Germans meted out to the Russians in the Brest-Litivok Treaty ending Russian involvement in WWI? Was it more harsh than the settlement they forced on the French after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, when Germany seized two French provinces(and heavy reparations)? So shoot Hitler in the face in 1925, and the danger of war is mitigated.

2. Shoot Hitler in the face, we will probably get another right wing nationalist interested in revenge for WWI. WW II was in the cards, and someone was going to play them.

The points about American absence, and reluctance of France and Britain to endure another war are well taken.

• no - brest-litovsk was indeed harsher, but lenin thought it would be revised anyway with the americans tricked into the war
• yes - you want to read up on that; those two provinces were in dispute for a long time. bismarck was considered way too lenient and not just in germany
• definately but probably without the kzs - some british historians call the two world wars the 2nd 30-years war. remember what happened on the balkans, in (and around) turkey and in russia between the two - let alone japan's expansion.

eta: of course ike is correct about mussolini's dreams of empire

 

[rittmeister]

In 1935, the French could have stopped it before it really began. When the Germans marched into the Saarland, they were very few and the French army could easily have stopped them. A failure like that would have ended Hitler's regime, or at least put it on very unsteady footing. Dictators must keep winning to stay afloat.

the rheinland my dear, the rheinland - the saarland they kept after round 02

 

[Jim Klag]

the rheinland my dear, the rheinland - the saarland they kept after round 02

Whatever. Yes. The Saarland voted to come back to Germany. Still applies. The French could have stopped it.

 

[rittmeister]

Whatever. Yes. The Saarland voted to come back to Germany. Still applies. The French could have stopped it.

of course, but mentioning the saarland here is a bit like saying jeff davis abolished slavery

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

This is an interesting topic. I think it was possible for this war to have been avoided because Germany had to take all responsibility for a war they didn't start and were punished. Germany's territory was significantly reduced and their military broken down and striped of an Air force. It was a total humiliation and I believe it was terms like those that fueled the rage of Adolf Hitler and gave him and his followers the motivation to rebuild the might of their country. Had Germany been given more generous terms then perhaps Hitler would have had less to no motivation to do what he did, and who would follow him if he didn't have the terms of WW1 to back him up? Another problem was participation by world powers. America as we know had the issue of not wanting to get involved then later having to. As for the European allied nations they didn't seam to keep a close watch on Germany when it was bulking up it's forces and thanks to Hitler had an Air Force the Luftwaffe both violations of the treaty of Versailles and it seamed like nobody cared about Germany invading other nations until they themselves were affected like France. Based on this I think had the terms of the treaty been more fair and if the Allies enforced the treaty then the war could have been avoided. Now I don't disagree with the war, and it's one of my favorite topics, and that was the greatest generation.

Had the allies physically occupied Germany after WWI and not punish Germany but allow it's economy to recover then there would not be a WWII. The allies learned that lesson post WWII.
The US did not stay out of WWII as FDR despite mostly Republican opposition pushed thru Lend-Lease which kept the UK in the war. In September 1941 FDR ordered the USN to actively find and sink U- Boats. FDR authorized the American Volunteer Group composed of US military pilot's to be seconded to the Chinese Air Force prior to Pearl Harbor. By the time the AVG arrived in Burma and had their P-40s assembled in Burma it was past December 7 1941.
If we're talking alternative history then arguably a President Wendell Willkie would of kept the US out of WWII.
Leftyhunter

 

[rittmeister]

If we're talking alternative history then arguably a President Wendell Willkie would of kept the US out of WWII.
Leftyhunter

nonsense

Wendell Lewis Willkie (born Lewis Wendell Willkie; February 18, 1892 – October 8, 1944) was an American lawyer, corporate executive, and the 1940 Republican nominee for President of the United States. Willkie appealed to many convention delegates as the Republican field's only interventionist: although the U.S. remained neutral prior to Pearl Harbor, he favored greater U.S. involvement in World War II to support Britain and other Allies.

... and now add pearl harbor and the fact that both adolf h and benito m declared war on dec 11. how on earth could he have stood out of the war when the us public demanded blood? i doubt he wanted to anyway.

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

This is an interesting topic. I think it was possible for this war to have been avoided because Germany had to take all responsibility for a war they didn't start and were punished. Germany's territory was significantly reduced and their military broken down and striped of an Air force. It was a total humiliation and I believe it was terms like those that fueled the rage of Adolf Hitler and gave him and his followers the motivation to rebuild the might of their country. Had Germany been given more generous terms then perhaps Hitler would have had less to no motivation to do what he did, and who would follow him if he didn't have the terms of WW1 to back him up? Another problem was participation by world powers. America as we know had the issue of not wanting to get involved then later having to. As for the European allied nations they didn't seam to keep a close watch on Germany when it was bulking up it's forces and thanks to Hitler had an Air Force the Luftwaffe both violations of the treaty of Versailles and it seamed like nobody cared about Germany invading other nations until they themselves were affected like France. Based on this I think had the terms of the treaty been more fair and if the Allies enforced the treaty then the war could have been avoided. Now I don't disagree with the war, and it's one of my favorite topics, and that was the greatest generation.

Had Stalin not cooperated with German armament production starting in the 1920s perhaps Germany would of had more difficulties in subverting the Versiles Treaty. The Molotov-Rithenthrop pact secured Germanies Eastern Flank making war with the West more viable.
Had the allies stood up to Hitler in regards to his take over of Austria or Czechoslovakia perhaps WWII would not of occurred.
Leftyhunter

 

[rittmeister]

Had Stalin not cooperated with German armament production starting in the 1920s perhaps Germany would of had more difficulties in subverting the Versiles Treaty. The Molotov-Rithenthrop pact secured Germanies Eastern Flank making war with the West more viable.
Had the allies stood up to Hitler in regards to his take over of Austria or Czechoslovakia perhaps WWII would not of occurred.
Leftyhunter

the man's name was von ribbentrop - is there a reason why you mincemeat so many german names?

... and btw, how would the allies have been supossed to do that other than declaring war?

... and yet another btw, that was vladimir ilyich ulyanov aka lenin

 

[5fish]

Germany invading other nations

No, he reunited the German speaking people before the war. If he would have stopped there and not invaded Pole or start World War 2 or the persecutions of the Jewish people, think, Hitler would have gone down as one of the greats leaders of the 20th century. He would be up there with Stalin, Moa, Churchill, FDR and so forth... for he would have unified the German peoples. He would have been like Ho or Moa unifying his people...

 

[Jim Klag]

Moe

You rate the Three Stooges pretty high.

 

[rittmeister]

No, he reunited the German speaking people before the war. If he would have stopped there and not invaded Pole or start World War 2 or the persecutions of the Jewish people, think, Hitler would have gone down as one of the greats leaders of the 20th century. He would be up there with Stalin, Moe, Churchill, FDR and so forth... for he would have unified the German peoples. He would have been like Ho or Moe unifying his people...

sure - if johann georg elser had gotten him there would be statues today and all that bad stuff would have been disposed onto his minions, but that was not to happen. has anybody ever read mein kampf? then or now?

 

[Jim Klag]

has anybody ever read mein kampf? then or now?

I have.

 

[5fish]

I think it was possible for this war to have been avoided because Germany had to take all responsibility for a war

I assume you are talking about WWI. Germany backed the Austrians. Who were inching for a fight with the Serbs and the Germans gave them the okay to go to war with the Serbs. It seems they did start the war indirectly...

snip...

Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia

On July 28, 1914, one month to the day after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife were killed by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary

www.history.com

Threatened by Serbian ambition in the tumultuous Balkans region of Europe, Austria-Hungary determined that the proper response to the assassinations was to prepare for a possible military invasion of Serbia. After securing the unconditional support of its powerful ally, Germany, Austria-Hungary presented Serbia with a rigid ultimatum on July 23, 1914, demanding, among other things, that all anti-Austrian propaganda within Serbia be suppressed, and that Austria-Hungary be allowed to conduct its own investigation into the archduke’s killing. Though Serbia effectively accepted all of Austria’s demands except for one, the Austrian government broke diplomatic relations with the other country on July 25 and went ahead with military preparedness measures. Meanwhile, alerted to the impending crisis, Russia—Serbia’s own mighty supporter in the Balkans—began its own initial steps towards military mobilization against Austria.

snip... Here the thing that started the war ...

Austria-Hungary issues ultimatum to Serbia

At six o’clock in the evening on July 23, 1914, nearly one month after the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a young Serbian

www.history.com

Meanwhile, in Belgrade on the afternoon of July 25, convinced that Austria-Hungary was preparing for a fight, Serbian Prime Minister Nicola Pasic ordered the Serbian army to mobilize. Pasic himself delivered the Serbian answer to the ultimatum to Gieslingen at the Austrian embassy, just before the 6 p.m. deadline. Serbia’s response effectively accepted all terms of the ultimatum but one: it would not accept Austria-Hungary’s participation in any internal inquiry, stating that this would be a violation of the Constitution and of the law of criminal procedure. This response did much to appeal Pasic and his country to international observers of the conflict; to Vienna, however, it made little difference. Gieslingen, bags packed and car waiting to drive him to the railroad station, broke the Dual Monarchy’s diplomatic relations with Serbia and left to catch his train. Three days later, on July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, beginning the First World War.