When did WWII in Europe become inevitable?

[Athelstane]

I don't think Versailles made another war inevitable. It *did* make inevitable some kind of corrective reaction. That reaction did not have to be war. The pot odds, after all, were some kind of military-Junker-industrialist dominated regime eventually replacing Weimar and reasserting itself again as a great power, but not an unusually belligerent one.

I think some of the comments here get at an important qualification: Once Hitler is in power - and is not removed from power - some kind of war is inevitable. This was always Hitler's intent, as we know now. Which means that the real turning date here is 1933.

What that war would have looked like is another question. The Western Allies, obviously, had numerous points at which to resort to force to stop Hitler. Let us say they had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936. What happens? Some skirmishing, and a hasty retreat by the Wehrmacht back across the Rhine...followed, almost certainly, by a military coup to depose Hitler. You can call the Rhineland War World War II or a "police action," but obviously once Hitler is out of power, the dynamic changes.

And without Hitler in Europe, the Far East dynamic changes, too. Moving into China was one thing; but Japan only embarked on the Co-Prosperity Sphere once Hitler made decisive European intervention in the Far East impossible. Even the Army realized it could not take on Britain, France, the Netherlands and the United States single-handed.

 

[Athelstane]

WWII became inevitable when Japaneses shit in the fan in Manchuria 31/32. The Germans and Italians that can do what they want without fearing retaliasion from the US, UK and France.

No, you need Hitler in the picture.

Without Hitler, there's no sufficiently powerful would-be belligerent power in Europe to follow up on the Japanese precedent. Certainly not Mussolini, who depended on Western fears of Hitler to ensure their acquiescence in his move into Ethiopia. (And an Anglo-French War with Italy would be a very brisk affair, not a global conflict.)

Likewise, Japan has nowhere to go beyond China without any European conflict. It can't take on the European powers by itself, let alone the European powers combined with America.

 

[Athelstane]

Now that I think about

Perhaps there's a second qualification that must be addressed: What do we mean by World War II?

If by it we mean a global conflict of some kind with the traditional Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan), then it strikes me that this date must be no sooner than in the 1938-39 range, and more likely 1940. Before then, you *could* have a war, but it would be a local, much more limited war, because Germany simply did not have the power yet to fight France and Britain. And even a Sudetenland War would have been difficult for Germany, and unlikely to trigger Japanese expansion into SE Asia. Indeed, a Pacific War really only becomes inevitable in 1940, with the Fall of France and the Axis Treaty.

If by it we mean *any* significant war in Europe involving Germany, then I think that date gets pushed back a lot further.

But Hitler was always bent on the conquest of most of Europe (certainly to the East). That meant that, once he gains power and is allowed to keep it, war is going to be inevitable at some point.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I said 1935 - 1937

Timely rearmament by Britain and France during this time - not after it - matching that of German Rearmament backed up by the other 'Neutrals' of Europe also ensuring that their Neutrality was an 'Armed one' would have made it much more difficult for Germany to be as militant and then ultimately more expensive for them to attack.

The initial German attack into Holland in 1940 for instance very nearly failed - had the NL had a stronger Military i.e. not banking on Neutrality then the Attack might very likely have failed.

"For want of a Nail..." and all that!

By having not rearmed at this time Britain and France were at a serious disadvantage come 1938 -39 when trying to face down Germany and were often in a position once the war had started where they were obliged to try and support other neutrals who themselves had not rearmed - with 'Disappointing results'!

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Placed it at 1936. The occupation of the Rhineland. The failure of the former Entente members to intervene undercut the internal German opposition. There was a fair chance for a coup then, not so much after wards. There was still a chance of a coup in 1938, but the Allies were stalled on taking action, putting rearmament ahead of timely intervention.

Some would argue the tipping point came circa 1928-29. Had the entente, prinicipally France, given the Weinmar government something to show, some sort of visible concession it would have undercut the revanchist groups at that late date. By 1933 it was a bit too late for that sort of thing.

 

[Gudestein]

I'd clearly call it 1938. Ironically when Hitler avoided war over the Sudetenland, then planned removal of Hitler when out of steam and then Hitler was firmly committed to war. That is clearly the crucial point of no return. After this, only further appeasement is an option and that means at least war in the east.

 

[jahenders]

Good point. Some major European conflict involving Germany, France, and some combination of Russia, UK, and Italy was probably inevitable from Versailles.

However, I don't think a conflict as world-wide and involving the same set of major powers was necessarily inevitable until just before Poland. As noted previously, if Russia had (for reasons of diplomacy with France/UK) agreed to guarantee Poland and refused Hitler's proposal, that would have given Hitler pause. He'd probably go elsewhere instead of of invading Poland knowing Russia will attack as soon as he gets through and France and UK are attacking on the other end. So, instead, he might do France and the low countries first. This causes a war, but Russia is out of it at this point and the US might not get anywhere near as involved. There would still be fighting in Europe, Africa (Italy/Ethiopia,etc), and China/Pacific, but they'd be largely independent events, not linked into one war.

Perhaps there's a second qualification that must be addressed: What do we mean by World War II?

If by it we mean a global conflict of some kind with the traditional Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan), then it strikes me that this date must be no sooner than in the 1938-39 range, and more likely 1940. Before then, you *could* have a war, but it would be a local, much more limited war, because Germany simply did not have the power yet to fight France and Britain. And even a Sudetenland War would have been difficult for Germany, and unlikely to trigger Japanese expansion into SE Asia. Indeed, a Pacific War really only becomes inevitable in 1940, with the Fall of France and the Axis Treaty.

If by it we mean *any* significant war in Europe involving Germany, then I think that date gets pushed back a lot further.

But Hitler was always bent on the conquest of most of Europe (certainly to the East). That meant that, once he gains power and is allowed to keep it, war is going to be inevitable at some point.

 

[betrayor]

The war became inevetiable the moment germans passed the polish border,
any number of things could have changed before then.....

 

[sciscisciortino]

The austerity push under Chancellor Bruening pretty much torpedoed Weimar and left Germany with the choice of a) rearmament and militaristic expansionism to shore itself up, or b) complete implosion and civil war. I think so, anyway.

You can undermine the expansionist right in Germany just enough before '32 to result in a shattered Germany that nerfs WWII, but I'm not sure what's the latest date you can do that.