Considering Germany's situation after the Treaty of Versailles, the tension between it and Chechoslovakia, and the development of new war technologies, was World War 2 preventable at all? Was Hitler really such an important factor of it, or was WW2 the wish of most German people at the time? \n\nI am not talking about the Holocaust or the anti-setimism before it, just the war itself.
214627
I don't think it was inevitable. Versialles always gets blamed-- but they couldv'e renegotiated it. Hitler had a lot to do with it-- maybe it was inevitable that the treaty terms made Germans angry, but that doesn't mean they'd definitely go to war over it.
114004
Basically World World II was like a continuation of World World I. Essentially this is what happened. World War I starts (aka - The Great War pre WWII) and afterwards its like everyone took a break. I'm not joking either. It was like a pause for 20 years. In the early 1930's, Japan invaded China. China actually had the most amount of casualties, not Russia or Eastern Europe. \n\nMost countries blamed Germany and so Germany had many sanction and restrictions put on the country. Hitler played off of these emotions and blamed the Jewish population for all of Germany's problems. At this time, Hitler was also quickly moving up in the ranks and finally became Dictator. \n\nHitler then started annexing countries in the mid to left 1930's and every country began to appease him. After he took over Poland and much of France, it was too late. The non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia made Hitler essentially invulnerable because from Eastern Europe was essentially all his to take over minus Russia. (Hitler would later reneg on the non-agreesion pact)\n\nThe United States needed an excuse to get into WWII and they finally got one on June 6, 1941 - Pearl Harbor. \n\nAbout 6 million jews were killed and 6 million gypsies, homosexuals, etc were killed. \n\nIn China, about 20-25 million were killed.
606981
When Hitler was killing 10's of millions in Germany, why was he never arrested.  \n\np.s. don't mean to cause offense to any one but this needs to be discussed.
205861
Definitely not. The country as a whole was not culpable for WWI, and for that matter, the leaders of Germany were not culpable. The whole thing could have been solved diplomatically, but as soon as Archduke Ferdinand was killed, Austria demanded certain things, Serbia refused, and there was a cascade of declarations of war. It's absurd to say that Germany was responsible for all of this. At the very least, Britain and France should have mediated the conflict between Austria and Serbia BEFORE it came to declarations of war.\n\nThere's also the fact that the reparations were not about keeping Germany from doing it again, they were about punishment. All they really needed to do after the war was establish monitoring systems to make sure Germany was not rebuilding a military, the one thing they didn't do.
561472
there's always the chance, but unlike the first two wars the world knows how to negotiate properly (unlike the Treaty of Versailles which indirectly was the start of WWII) and keep things in balance, no matter how thin the line is (it's gettin thinner).\n\nhowever, history has a knack for surprising us...and the next one is not gonna even make us jump.
98898
World War was was inevitable. If it wasn't started by the assassination, it would've been started by something else.\n\nHowever, Germany should not assume the blame. The Brits, Russians, French, and Austrians are just as much at fault.
548211
Those fighter pilots(with the help of radar)might, just might, have been a turning point in WWII. The Germans could not neutralize Britain before attacking Russia. Did this keep German troops and air-power, needed on the Eastern Front, facing West, in the wrong direction?. Maybe?
2829
Yes, it defeated National Socialism (Nazi), kept communism at bay in several countries, and there is evil in this world.  People who want to destroy the American way of life. \n\nJust think of the genocide that took place under Pol Pot in Cambodia after the US pulled out of Viet Nam.  What about those in China that were executed after Mao took over.  What about the genocides in Africa? Should we just let those go unchecked?  What is the UN doing to stop that?  Nothing.\n\nI don't want to fight forever but sometimes there just isn't any choice.
207771
No.  No sporting event was going to turn back Hitler.  No World Cup Tourney was going to stop Japan from trying to take over the World.  Sometime you gotta put aside diplomacy and kick some ass.
481631
At the outbreak of World War I, the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?"\n\nThe bloodiest of all wars fought last century which ended up in an atomic explosion in Japan, caused much destructions in all continents except the Americas is actually World War 2. Was it Allied crusaders against German Jihadists?\nThe scandalous war that Americans fought in Vietnam, was it a crusade against Buddhism?\nThe Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s, a poor country with 75% illiteracy rate cannot be religious since the Soviets had no official religion.\nthe Falkland Wars were fought by the British to, what , uproot the Catholics of Argentina?\n\nI think we can all conclude that most wars in the industrial and modern era are not based on religion. I suggest you google it and read about these:\n    * American Civil War\n    * Arab-Israeli Wars\n    * Franco-Prussian War\n    * Iran-Iraq War\n    * Korean War\n    * Russo-Japanese War\n    * Vietnam War\n    * World War I\n    * World War II\n\nIndeed we could actually enlighten ourselves to the origins of conflict and come to a conclusion whether hatred is the real cause or a mere instrument employed in the act of war.
54942
The Germans, when they broke the treaty of Versailles. Hitler began taking over neighboring countries and the rest of the world thought Germany wasn't much of a threat so they didn't really pay attention to what Hitler was doing.
645164
The fault lies mostly with Adolf Hitler, although the German people willingly followed where he led.  The Treaty of Versailles in retrospect was too harsh, but that is hindsight, which is always 20/20.  The Allies at the end of WWI did the best they could to get the various countries to come up with a workable treaty.
137632
I haven't usually heard it called that, at least not in the United States, France, or Britain.  I think it might have been called the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia, though -- but they like big names.\n\nWW2 was not fought primarily for patriotic reasons, at least not by the United States, though patriotism might have been used to motivate the soldiers.  I think in many cases WW2 was called the "Good War" because the other side was so monstrously evil that there is no moral question.
407939
It has everything to do with the Treaty of Versailles. As it's name points out, this is a treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors in the French city of Versailles. It was the peace treaty that officially ended World War I and unofficially started World War II.\n\nOne of the terms of this treaty was the creation of the League of Nations, whose goal would be to prevent another world war. Other parts of the treaty stated that Germany was to be fully blamed for World War I and because of this, Germany was demanded to pay up all damages calculated of WWI. Also, Germany was denied having an airforce, a navy and was only allowed to have a limited land army. It's colonies were taken away and other damages were also imposed. In a nutshell, Germany was brought to it's knees and into a depression.\n\nThis helped bring about the rise of Hitler who promised to tear up the hated treaty. Of course, Germans supported him and once he arranged for virtually limitless power, it was too late. Nations part of the League of Nations were also fooled by Hitler. They allowed Hitler to take over Austria-Hungary, which belong to Germany prior to WWI. The League of Nations did not disagree much with Hitler's request to undo the Treaty of Versailles. They agreed with him that the terms were much too harsh.\n\nIt was only until Hitler marched into Poland that everyone realized what was happening. But of course, that set foot into a much bloodier World War.\n\nReally, the League of Nations failed to prevent WWII by allowing a genius psychopath to manipulate them. (This is my opinion.)\n\nHope this novel of mine answers your question.
33133
More thank likely another conflict in the Middle East is very likely.  \n\nThey are comparing the president of Iran to Hitler when it comes to anti-semistism.  I was reading somewhere, I think it was an article on CNN, where someone was saying that back then people just dismissed Hitler's anti-semtic stance as just rhetoric or empty speech and if they acted they could've prevented the Nazi Regime.  Well that person said that they should not dismiss the president of Iran's speech as rhetoric, empty speech, and pursuit of nuclear enrichment, but they should "act" this time around.
129615
They idea of a "preventive war" has two big dangers:\n\n1) Pretending is not a war, when actually it is. The US attacked Iraq.\n2) There is no limit to what preventive means if "preventing" may become proactive.\n\nChina has WMD. So does North Korea. And France. And the UK. And Russia. And Israel. And India. And Pakistan. And probably a couple of more countries.\n\nWhy not attacking all this countries? It should prevent a nuclear attack in the US.\n\nThere are terrorists in many countries. Like ETA in Spain. Why not attacking Spain? And what about Ireland and IRA?\n\nIraq didn't have WMD and there is no clear connection between muslim terrorists - specially the terrorists of 9/11 - and Iraq. In fact Iraq was one of the least religious muslim countries as terrorist are fundamentalists.\n\nSo, why Iraq?\n\nDon't tell me Saddam was an enemy. Actually the US armed Saddam when Iraq was at war with Iran.\n\nIf terrorism is driven by hate, then probably the invasion in Iraq is going to produce lots and lots of terrorists. So, this war is not going to prevent terrorism but is inducing it, and at the same time increasing fear and hate towards the US all around the world.\n\nAnd in fact, the US has terrorists - remember Oklahoma - and WMD. Saddam may have attacked the US arguing... there are terrorists and WMD in the US.\n\nI don't like Saddam. I think the world should have been a better place without him in power. But not in this way.
484719
The Britsh public thought the treaty was extremly harsh. Even Llyold George (the british delegate who signed the treaty) thought it was harsh. He wanted a more fairer treaty but it was put more in favor of want France (Clemenceau) wanted.\nThe Germans thought it was too harsh escpecially the war guilt clause and the reperations which they would have had to pay until the 1980s. The diasarmament causes were seen as unfair because it was more of a right that Germany had an army since every other country did. Also the Rhineland was German land and it was seen as unfair that Germany could not occupy its own land. For these reasons Hitler tried to over turn the treaty.