Did WWII have to happen?

Tinwise time.

Did WWII have to happen? Would it matter who was in power anywhere in Europe? By anywhere I mean Britian, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Russia.

Hope you know what I mean.

Over to you.
 
There are many possibilities of WWII not happening.
- No Great Depression means that Germany doesn't fall into the despair that eventually pointed them to vote for the Nazi Party.
- If WWI had ended in a way that made it clear to the Germans that the defeat was military, it would have avoided the "stab-in-the-back legend".
- A different Treaty of Versailles could probably prevent Germany from going the road it went.
- Greater support from the other European nations for the Weimar Republic would also help a lot.
 
Stalin might have invaded Europe anyway, though I doubt it if there was no war going on between the Western European powers.

Japan's expansion is probably inevitable, unless you somehow get the Anglo-Japanese alliance to continue.
 
As long as the Depression starts the survival of the Weimar Republic is unlikely. As other posters already mentioned. Better Treaty of Versailles which didn`t screw the German economy, than WW2 as we know is not going to happen. Otherwise there is still Japan. I dont think the Soviet Union will start a War, Stalin is much to inteligent to start a war on his own initiative.
 
there were a couple of points during the third Reich's buildup that they could easily have been rolled. Third Reich successfully bluffed a France paralyzed by fear of another war.

That said, prior to MAD (mutually assured destruction) made realistic by the advent of nuclear weapons, there was likely to be another large war at some point. Countries could not play nice together, still can't, and there's no sign that they ever will. MAD is what's preventing large wars.
 
there were a couple of points during the third Reich's buildup that they could easily have been rolled. Third Reich successfully bluffed a France paralyzed by fear of another war.

That said, prior to MAD (mutually assured destruction) made realistic by the advent of nuclear weapons, there was likely to be another large war at some point. Countries could not play nice together, still can't, and there's no sign that they ever will. MAD is what's preventing large wars.

More like costs and benefits of war are today not any longer that what it use to be :p
 
Not have to, but the likeliness of a second war after the first was damnn too high! (sorry.... could not resist)
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Not have to, but the likeliness of a second war after the first was damnn too high! (sorry.... could not resist)

If WWII did not take place, it would have to be staged by major film & TV documentary companies, or they'd be a lot of empty screen out there :D
 

Archibald

Banned
Even the most timid French military reaction on March 7, 1936 would have Hitler wetting his pants... and that may butterfly WWII (or not)
 
No. Virtually nothing in human history "had to happen" and could have turned out very differently. That's the whole point of AH isn't it?
 

Geon

Donor
No World War I

The best way to avoid World War II as I see it, is to avoid World War I. World War I ended with so many problems left unresolved that it was never a matter of if there was going to be a second world war but when. The Great Depression came about partially because of debts incurred by the First World War. Germany was left defenseless and bankrupt by the Treaty of Versailles. Italy also fell into economic chaos because of World War I. Hitler and Mussolini were if nothing else politically savvy and were able to capitalize on the conditions that existed in Germany and Italy. If it had not been them it would have been someone else. Also, Stalin wanted to expand westward as much as Hitler wanted to expand eastward. A weak divided Germany would be an inviting target. Stalin would not be in power either if World War I had not occurred.

So, again, to stop World War II you must first prevent World War I.

Geon
 
To prevent the Pacific War, you might even have to go all the way back to the Russo-Japanese War, which is where the Japanese military strategists contracted the "victory disease" that led them into thinking they could singlehandedly take on the Western Allies and China during the late '30s, early '40s.
 
You don't need to avoid WW1, you need to have it end better, either with a true defeat of the German military (in a way that makes it clear that yes, the German army was beaten and not betrayed) OR with a cease fire and milder peace treaty.

Never do a enemy a small harm, either harm him so little he can forgive you or harm him so greatly that he'll fear you.

As for Japan, no war in Europe means Japan probably won't risk a war against a undistracted France, Britain, Holland and U.S.
 
As others have said, you need to make the WWI Treaty of Versailles turn out differently (aka, better for Germany). If you the rise of the Nazi Party, you avoid WWI as we know it.

I don't know too much about Pacific history, but you'd have to change the landgrabbing regime Japan was under to a more pacifist state to avoid the Pacific theater.
 
To prevent the Pacific War, you might even have to go all the way back to the Russo-Japanese War, which is where the Japanese military strategists contracted the "victory disease" that led them into thinking they could singlehandedly take on the Western Allies and China during the late '30s, early '40s.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Obviously Germany's decision to stick Jews into ovens and try to conquer Eurasia was highly contingent, but ever since 1907 the Yellow Peril has been unstoppable.
 
Stalin might have invaded Europe anyway, though I doubt it if there was no war going on between the Western European powers.

Japan's expansion is probably inevitable, unless you somehow get the Anglo-Japanese alliance to continue.
There's that Anglo Japanese alliance again!
 
Last edited:
To prevent the Pacific War, you might even have to go all the way back to the Russo-Japanese War, which is where the Japanese military strategists contracted the "victory disease" that led them into thinking they could singlehandedly take on the Western Allies and China during the late '30s, early '40s.

I dont know. I am not sure Japan would be as willing to take on an England and France that are not distracted by a EUropean war
 

Cook

Banned
How many ships would the British and the French be willing to send?
Largest in the world and fourth largest in the world; without a European distraction to the colonial powers the Japanese were never going to do anything to bring themselves into conflict with them. And that is not speculation, the IJN and IJA doctrine was to never fight more than one major power at a time.
 
Top