In the years leading up to WWII Germany started breaking the treaty of Versalles which was set up to keep them down militarily. When they started this process of militarization they were, per the treaty, very weak. No tanks, submarines, military aircraft, or artillery, and with a severely gimped Navy and an army that didn't amount to much beyond some infantry.

Five years later they had their military machine in full swing and we all know how it turned out.

But lets say some country(s) stepped in when Hitler was in the early stages of flaunting the treaty and gave them a stomping instead of ignoring it. Wouldn't have been too hard at that point.

Similarly Japan was actually getting slapped around by Russian and Chinese forces in their attempt to invade China before Germany and the League of nations business took the Russian pressure off of Japan. They might not have even considered moving against a full strength Britain to take indochina. So the war on that front might well have ended in 1939.

Now if that had happened how would history remember things? Probably that the nations that smacked down Germany were total jerks. And anything that happened later from that sector was blowback for that.

With Germany and Japan having been stopped so easily, it would seem ridiculous to later suggest the scope of WWII as what would have happened without intervention. And suggestions of a holocaust occurring would simply be outlandish and silly.

That seem correct?

It doesnt sound right to me because we could have also not placed so much responsibility and cost onto Germany via that treaty and THAT seems to be a causal factor in how Germany responded with hostility in the first place.

What Germany did and the holocaust are not justified BUT that doesnt change the fact that the treaty of Versailles was also a real motivator to goad Germany into such behavior. We extracted too high a cost to Germany via that treaty.

Its never just ONE thing alone that creates these problems and its never just ONE parties fault and its never a simple matter of good vs evil.

Issues were simply not resolved and certainly the treaty of versailles only created even more issues to have conflict over.

So history would remember that the Allies were jerks with the treaty of versailles in the first place. And then super jerks to enforce it militarily later when Germany tried to push back against her cruel oppressors?

I think that the allies should also be remembered as causing the conflict. We created an unfair agreement and forced people to live by it...they refused and waged war and also then proceeded to try and coerce people into their unfair proposals. Both sides ended up guilty of the same thing...so where is the good guy in all that?

I think both sides could have and should have sought a better means to resolve conflicts and stop believing that coercion and brute force were the answer. Its a lesson we can learn from that if we choose to.

As we try to draw comparisons to now, I would certainly say that we shouldnt be trying to coerce nations into unfair agreements and conditions simply because we can bully them (which is merely subscribing to the notion that might makes right).

I would also say that we should realize and understand that those who become our victims are also human just like us and are just as likely to react and respond in equally stupid and inhumane ways and in no way should be elevated to the status of perfect angels. The victims failings or bad responses dont mitigate the wrongs that are committed against them and it seems we do try to forward that view a lot. Equally, the crimes committed against those who are victimized dont provide license to commit crimes either.

Probably, especially as something similarily bad might have happened. But no, they wouldn't be seen as having stopped WWII in any event. Why do I get the feeling that you've got a point to make here?

Actually theres a great line in a Pratchett book, 'The Last Hero' something like the problem with people's gratitude after you save the world from ending is that it doesn't then end, so they can't be sure what they've to be grateful for.

Actually mostly it was just an observation I had while arguing other stuff. WWII was an incredible war and it occured to me that it could easily have been prevented, and which point nobody would believe that it could have actually happened.

I do think this relates to cold war era events, possibly very well. I don't know in regards to more modern stuff. Which is part of the problem.

What is surprising in this thread is the number of people who seem to blame the allies for WWII. I really don't think they could be blamed for the treaty. It wasn't out of the ordinary in comparison to similar treaties up until then. In fact the reparations were based off the formula Germany came up with in past wars it had won.

This idea of winning a war against a country that attacked you and then isntead of taking their land shoveling money onto them to help in their reconstruction is a pretty newfangled one. Go back over 100 years with that and they'd probably think you needed to be institutionalized.

These kind of points are always interesting to speculate about but you can not really make any valid points with them. The reason is that we do not know what else would have happened without the actions that occurred. So Germany is stopped initially. Let's say Russia and Japan attack the US in an isolated move in 1945 and Russia is much stronger since they did not battle with Germany.The lack of war delayed the development of atomic weapons and Russia develops them first. Or maybe there was a German soldier who is not killed who rises to be worse than Hitler. You're free to say these proposed changes of history would be ridiculous, but there are so many if/then scenerios that we cannot really know what a change in history will do to anything else.

Didn't you ever see Back to the Future?:

I will say however that if your scenerio occurred, we'd probably see fewer movies, shows and books written about Hitler.

Actually maybe there are some worthwhile analogies to be had. Butterfly wing flap type effects are almost pointless to try and predict. But it would be reasonable that we'd have to deal with a stronger Russia. Though Europe would have been more put together to handle it, and Russia wound up gaining a lot of turf anyway.

Still it's probably somewhat similar to winning the cold war without WWIII which had the result of a irritated and armed middle east that we're dealing with now.