Preventing World War II ?

There are several million dead people in Manchuria & China would would beg to differ. WW II is generally acknowleged to have begun with the Japanese actions at the Marco Polo Bridge.

Actually, that is a comment I would completely agree with and I almost pointed this out - actually I did in my first post repeated below. However, I would question that it is "generally acknowleged" that WW2 began in Manchuria in 1931. Europeans certainly don't make this connection, taking the rather Eurocentric view that it is all about Hitler. That is why the best way is to describe "WW2" itself as beginning in December 1941 when Japanese aggression against the US, Britian and Dutch east indies, coupled with Hitler's declaration of war on the USA linked the 1939 European and the Sino-Japanese regional conflicts into a single world war.

"It also depends on what one means by "WW2". Arguably "WW2" did not begin until December 1941 with Japanese attack on the British and US in the Pacific. Prior to that, there was: (1) a European War which began in 1939 and a Sino-Japanese war begun in 1931 (or 1937 depending on how you define things)."
 
"It also depends on what one means by "WW2". Arguably "WW2" did not begin until December 1941 with Japanese attack on the British and US in the Pacific. Prior to that, there was: (1) a European War which began in 1939 and a Sino-Japanese war begun in 1931 (or 1937 depending on how you define things)."

Or you could take the position that 7 years war was first world war as it was fought on several continents (as opposed to previous maximum of 2) and you have to start counting from there
 
Or you could take the position that 7 years war was first world war as it was fought on several continents (as opposed to previous maximum of 2) and you have to start counting from there

Good point. One could also argue the Naploeonic Wars were World Wars, at least during 1812-15 when the USA were involved. So we have the 1914-18Great War as "World War 3" and the 1939-1941 European War and the Sino-Japanese war of the mid 1930's coalescing into "World War 4" in 1941.

On the other hand, the 1941-45 "Second World War" might be argued to be the first true "World War" since it is the first conflict which included non-european or non-western powers as major combatants and did not end with the collapse of a European alliance
 
Prevent the Great Depression, and you will greatly limit wars in the 30s and 40s. Once the world ride this period out in relative peace, nuclear weapons will make big conventional wars obsolete.
 
Prevent the Great Depression, and you will greatly limit wars in the 30s and 40s. Once the world ride this period out in relative peace, nuclear weapons will make big conventional wars obsolete.

Would they really be developed in a peaceful world?
I mean with no Nazi enemy to fight the physiscists would not push the military to build such weapons, and there would be no massive funding from the government to research and develop them.
 
It may slow the pace considerably, but the technological advancement of war is inexorable. I could see the Weimar Republic pioneering the atomic bomb project as a deterrent, thereby triggering nuclear proliferation.
 
On the other hand, the 1941-45 "Second World War" might be argued to be the first true "World War" since it is the first conflict which included non-european or non-western powers as major combatants and did not end with the collapse of a European alliance

Did Mongols rampage in Africa? I believe they were stopped somewhere near Sinai but not sure where exactly.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Because it was NOT just a European war even in 1914. Japan entered WW1 as a British ally in 1914 and undertook operations agains German possessions in the Pacific and China. The US entered in 1917.

Until December 1941, "WW2" involved only European powers fighting in European (or immediately adjacent theatres)... and don't give me Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Until 1942 these nations (as members of the British Empire) were involved solely as sources of manpower for Britain to fight its war in Europe and North Africa. Without Japan's 1941 attacks, there may never have been a WW2 as we know it.

North Africa isn't European...
 
There are several million dead people in Manchuria & China would would beg to differ. WW II is generally acknowleged to have begun with the Japanese actions at the Marco Polo Bridge.

Except that that is in retrospect.

My dad has an Encyclopedia (?Britannica?) that had an article on 'The European War 1939-' (actually, that may have been a caption on a photograph of ships on manoevres). The point is, that in 1939/40, there were 2 wars going on, a European war of Nazi aggression and an Asian war of Japanese aggression. Once Japan attacked the European powers' colonies, and most especially after she attacked the US and Hitler DoWed the US, THEN it became a world-wide war. Given that it did become that, it is fair to say that WWII started in ?1937? with Japanese actions. But AT THE TIME, no one realized that it was WWII.
 
Except that that is in retrospect.

My dad has an Encyclopedia (?Britannica?) that had an article on 'The European War 1939-' (actually, that may have been a caption on a photograph of ships on manoevres). The point is, that in 1939/40, there were 2 wars going on, a European war of Nazi aggression and an Asian war of Japanese aggression. Once Japan attacked the European powers' colonies, and most especially after she attacked the US and Hitler DoWed the US, THEN it became a world-wide war. Given that it did become that, it is fair to say that WWII started in ?1937? with Japanese actions. But AT THE TIME, no one realized that it was WWII.

I think you agreed with my point exactly. I think the reason most historians sloppily say "WW2" began in 1939 reflects the eurocentrism of most people in the western world. From a european perspective it was "their" war which evolved into a global war after the US and Japan entered. It makes just as much sense for a Chinese or Japanese historian to consider "WW2" is their war begun in 1937 which became global when Japan attacked the wallies and Hitler declared war on the US.

For these reasons, I try to remind myself that "WW2" basically began in 1942.
 
I think you agreed with my point exactly. I think the reason most historians sloppily say "WW2" began in 1939 reflects the eurocentrism of most people in the western world. From a european perspective it was "their" war which evolved into a global war after the US and Japan entered. It makes just as much sense for a Chinese or Japanese historian to consider "WW2" is their war begun in 1937 which became global when Japan attacked the wallies and Hitler declared war on the US.

For these reasons, I try to remind myself that "WW2" basically began in 1942.


This is only true up to a point. Events in Europe, particularly the Fall of France, steadily brought Japan, the USA and the USSR into the conflict. Nothing in the Sino-Japanese War could have done the reverse. THe European War triggers the full global struggle in a direct way. The Asia war simply does not.
 
There’s another problem to consider besides the usual “troika of trouble” in 1930s Europe. Even if Germany, Italy, and Russia/the USSR all have governments that aren’t actively looking to start trouble, the same cannot be said of the states in Eastern Europe created in the wake of Versailles. While there were no signal conflicts in the region before WW2, every country in the region was plagued with stagnant economies, increasingly autocratic governments, and large populations of ethnic groups who, according to the tenets of nationalism, should all be living in the mythical realm known as “somewhere else.” In many ways, the situation was inherently unstable, and aside from the slowly-disarticulating League of Nations, it was becoming harder for these countries to resolve these problems peacefully, let alone satisfactorily. Rather than having an aggressive European power launching a war of conquest, another European war could start much the same way WWI did, as a local dispute provokes fear and overreaction in the big European powers, leading to a domino effect of panicked war declarations and hasty mobilizations.

On the other hand, the brief scenario I outlined would not necessarily lead to a “world” war. That, in my opinion, would depend on to what extent the two major non-European powers of the early 20th century, America and Japan, have been integrated into European diplomacy. At the same time, most of the factors that led to both nations participation in WW2 would still be in play here, though the variations of the TL would probably change the emphases on the various rationales for each country. Japan could still decide to strike out against the European colonies in E-SE Asia while the European conflict is boiling without OTL Germany’s help, in hopes that the Americans won’t launch a preemptive strike against them. At the same time, the American leadership may decide to intervene to preserve the balance of power in Europe while not having a profound distaste for its opponents.
 

boredatwork

Banned
Avoid WW2 more or less entirely? Best approach is to change WW1.

Keep the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires together, prevent communist revolution in Russia, ensure that the resolution of WW1 doesn't so massively disfavor any of the powers with the eventual capacity to raise cain about it (Russia, Germany, France, England, A-H, O, US, Japan, China).

You'll still have some friction/disorder as the relative power of the core European states (UK, France, Germany, A-H) wanes and the power of other states rises. But there's a decent chance that could be handled via a series of short, separate, limited wars/unrest/revolution stretched out over a few decades, rather than rolling everything up into the massive bloody spasm we had in OTL.

It's the difference between having all the cold war related/inspired incidents (cuba, berlin, hungary, czechoslovakia, poland, vietnam, korea, nicaragua, el salvador, afghanistan, decolonization, china) being spread out over 44 years the way they were, or occuring all at once.
 

Markus

Banned
Instead of stabbing France in the back by signing the Anglo-German-Naval-Treaty the UK delivers a harsh protest note when Hitler reintroduces the draft in 1935 and plans a modest increase in military spending in the 1936 budget. In 1936 Britain fully backs France, when Germany tries to re-occupy the Rhineland by deploying several sqadrons of Hawker Harts and Furys. The French send their troops into the Rhineland, the Wehrmacht runs and the Allies decide to stay.
 
Top