Was World War 2 inevitable?
473160
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.
881406
Is it inevitable?  Dear God I hope so.
773866
The first world war was referred to both as \n' The Great War ' in old English referrence to large or of  moment, also, misleadingly, ' The War To End All Wars ' as the second world war disproved so effectively. It was called The Second World War from the start, I think. I prefer Archie Bunker's call on it:\n\n" Da big one. Douba - ya douba - ya two. "\n\nNo. I doubt there's going to be a WWIII. We all know it doesn't go out that way.
578546
Albert is pretty much on target. President Putin has said that the collapse of Communism was the greatest tragedy of statemanship in the history of the world, and he is working overtime to create the foundation of a totalitarian state.\n\nAs for WWIII, well, there was a time that a WWII was totally unthinkable. Also, while we the world's last superpower continue to borrow and spend ourselves into Third World status, China and Europe are not just sitting by and watching. Yes, there will be a third world war. With any luck, we will all be long dead before either the first shot or the actual bill for our excess comes due!
424634
Some people believe we are already involved in World War III.  It is known as "the war on terror".  I believe this is a sort of World War.  Believe that or not, if it gets much bigger, it definately will be World War III.
473077
Sure, if they want to start WW III. On NPR a week ago some military guy was saying that in every scenario of an attack on Iran it ended up with a huge uncontrollable war involving the entire middle east. ITMFA!
397568
finite resources plus infinite demand for resources equals conflict.\n\nbut the term "war" can mean many things, so i guess it depends on your definition of war.  if the term "war" is taken to be as broad as the term conflict, then yes--war is inevitable.  if, on the other hand, you mean by the term "war" a very specific type of conflict manifestation at a very specific level of the organic hierarchy, then i would suggest that it is theoretically possible to mediate the infinite conflict in different ways by revising the parameters of the organizational structure.\n\nfor instance:  one of the unspoken but very real reasons for war is population control.  (this isn't to imply malificent despots cackling wickedly as they plan population reduction wars--it has to do with the natural pressure of increased direct competition for resources erupting into violence as systems fail to accomodate basic needs.)  as social systems continue to naturally develop greater control over modes of reproduction (i.e. the progression of sexual mores, marital rituals, birth control and sex education, extending into the near-future developments of genetic engineering, cloning etc.) the state will learn to preclude population surpluses in order to obtain the greater efficiency provided by a more harmonious stability.  (if you find this logic hard to follow, think of it this way:  when the technology to enhance genetic traits such as intelligence, longevity and athleticism  (or provide extra senses and adaptations for tech interface ports) becomes available, the government will control it.  although there will be fierce battles to preserve natural breeding, the vast superiority of genetic engineering as a mode of reproduction ensures its eventual succession (if we survive the terrorist attempts to induce an apocalypse rather than allow the human race to be succeeded, that is).  when test-tube offspring become the norm, a non-violent population control system will likely emerge.)\n\nanyway--this addresses only one cause of war, but i'm sure you can see how the ramifications can extend to all the various aspects of the current institution of warfare.  the conflicts will remain, but what we call "war" (people killing people in organized battles) may very well disappear sooner than you think.  (although it's also possible that the future modes of conflict resolution will be far more ruthless than our primitive wars).\n\ni'll leave you with one more thought to elucidate my point.  thousands of years ago our primordial ancestors (closer to beasts than to men) waged a different type of war--not for land or ideology, but to eat or be eaten. their primitive minds were probably incapable of conceiving of a state of affairs where the sabre tooth was not a fierce and cunning enemy, where a perpetual vigil for a tactical battle to achieve a visceral kill would not be a constant and necessary aspect of the daily lives of their children.  and yet, with remarkably few exceptions, this war has long since ended.  there is no predator that regularly hunts human prey, and only an infinitesimally small percentage of the food eaten by humans in the modern world is hunted in the wild.  the war has ended.  and yet the conflict remains.  in order to survive humans must eat.  in order to be eaten, the food must die.  only now, this conflict is resolved through a peculiar social contract.  we breed livestock and crops whose sole purpose of existence is to feed us.  we kill them, but it can't really be called war. they offer no real resistance, and they only reason they were given their strange lives in the first place was to be eaten.  i used the term "social contract," and indeed, that's what it is.  civilization authorizes their birth on the condition that they be an easy (and delicious) food source for humans.  individuals that are especially docile or delectable succeed in reproduction, and inefficient
1007709
Yes, this is all just the beginning.\n\nSee if you look at the world today you will notice chain reactions happening all over the world that started on that day.  Example: the worlds distrust of the US.\n\nYes, a lot of things lead up to it, but it was the calmination of everything prior.\n\nBut don't worry just yet.  WWII started off a little skirmish it was a couple years before it became a blown out war.  The time you should worry is when another superpower enters this little skirmish or when it truelly becomes a religious war.\n\nYes, I know it seems that this is a religious war, but it's really just a political war right now.  If you noticed even on this forum it's becoming more religious every day. It still a man(Bin Lauden) using religion to do something political.  Eventually this will turn into a religious war or another World War; either way it will be the war to end all wars.
258718
I think war is a very important part of our lives and especially the economy. The only reason for patriotism and the desire for peace comes from war, hate, and killing. The Second World War jolted America from the Great Depression of the 30's to the industrial wonders of the 40's and 50's. If there was no war, there would be no democracy because arguing is a verbal war, and pits brothers against one another. Some say the only way to have complete world peace is to be run under either a communist government or monarchy. But others would then get restless and brew up another war. As long as there is life, there can be no such thing as world peace, it is in all creatures nature to fight others either different or similar for survival and power. So there is really no reason for all the fuss about world peace. It isn't going to happen until all life is destoyed. The term pacifist then, according to nature, means "fool bent of the destucrtion of all life". Not exactly what they profess, is it?
912508
Well, if enough idiots start posting this latest conspiracy theory on Yahoo Answers, all the young people who frequent this place will eventually start to believe that World War 2 never happened.\n\nWe've seen this already with the Moon landing "hoax" theory, and 9/11 conspiracy, so I'm sure it's just around the corner for these mental midgets.
1030257
it's highly possible\nWith the presence of US and Israel there, i think the beginning of third world war will be seen soon.\nBush's politics of invasion in Iraq, Afghan reminds us to what Hitler did in the beginning of WW II\nUS-and the past Nazi germany- invaded other countries, occupied it, tried to find reason for their illegal action, and could not be stopped by world peacekeeper organization (UN now and League of Nation in 1930s)\nAnd of course, the ownership of nuclear arsenals by israel makes the situation more complicated. Israel can intervene other country by help of their deadly warheads, where no other powers in the middle east has the same weapon (in east asia, two nuclear power are in balance, so no one can intervene other)
542823
First off, for most of us WW2 took five years of actual fighting and then the cold war with its regional conflicts that followed went on for another Forty!\n\nAlso in that conflict the allies would lose the total number of casualties incurred in Iraq in a single day.\n\nThe war in Iraq was won.....It is the peace which is being lost.
41982
Well, winning World War II set the United States up to be a world power.  It also helped ushered in a great deal of long-overdue reforms in Europe, and today a European Federal Constitution is now a very real possibility.  Further still,  had Hitler succeeded, he would have undoubetly gone on to destroy the United States indescriminatently.  He would not have spared a single American, even those who resembled his ideal race, because they had grown up in a culture that was, in his eyes, dirty and corrupt (not to mention we were his sworn enemy).  This is one of the many instances in which money plays no role, so the 2.6 trillion figure you site is meaningless.  And even though the use of atomic weapons is still controversial, that alone does not aide your case 'was stopping _Hitler_ worth it.  I'm frankly shocked and appauled that someone could use their freedom of speech, something that wouldn't be enjoyed in a Hilter-ized America, in such a blatantly ridiculous manner.
469208
world war 2 was going on
135701
Probably just after WW 2.
374127
Yes.  It was necessary to open another front against Germany.  The Soviet Union and Germany were basically slugging it out on the Eastern Front, but the introduction of American and British troops into Western Europe drew resources away from the Eastern Front, allowing the Soviet Army to advance farther.  The war would have lasted about two to three years longer without the D-Day invasion and probably cost 2-3 million more lives (not counting more lives lost in Nazi death camps)
600783
German resistance would have collapsed sooner.  The Allies were going for "Unconditional Surrender" no matter who was in charge for the Germans.  The result for the most part would have been the same, probably saving a significant number of lives on both sides. The political climate may have been more friendly between east & west over the next 60 years.  There might not have been the partitioning of Germany the way it was.  And maybe it could have freed up a lot of needed resources to get the Pacific war ended sooner also.