Deleted member 1487
Germany was the proximate cause of WW2, there's no doubt about that, but it still doesn't necessarily follow that no more Germany => no more World Wars. Because really, when you take a broader view of things, Germany may have been a significant contributing factor to the wars we had IOTL, said wars were ultimately just the latest instances of Europe fighting amongst itself as it had for centuries. Europe as a continent didn't get any more violent after 1871 than it was beforehand, and the real reason the World Wars were as bloody as they were revolve around the available technology and the resilience of governments, not geopolitics. Removing one actor from the stage wouldn't change the overall environment, it would simply make the next crisis resemble the Thirty Years War rather than the Napoleonic Wars. That's not a real improvement there; at best, it would redistribute the suffering.
Also, in order to be viable nation-states, the new German statelets would need internal legitimacy, which is exactly what would go down the drain if they were seen as Entente creations held in place by the strength (direct or threatened) of the French army. It's a self-defeating solution.
This is right on point. Hitler clearly started WW2, but the fact that he even got into power and anywhere close to being able to start a war is the result of a badly dysfunctional international system that enabled him to build up a war machine from very little and go on to launch the most destructive war in history. I mean even after violating the Munich Agreement by marching into Prague the British handed over millions in gold to Hitler from Czech accounts, which was then used on more rearmament. There were other bad actors in the world at the time, so who knows what would have happened if you deleted a unified Germany from the world, especially as the cost of doing so would have been horrible economically and the occupation to pull that off would have been heavily draining.