CaliGuy
Banned
Had World War II never occurred (as a result of Hitler dying either during the 1920s or at any point in time up to early 1939), would territorial revisionism be more popular right now?
Basically, the reason that I am asking this question is because Britain and France were willing to tolerate some territorial revisionism in the run-up to World War II--as evidenced by Nazi Germany's annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, Hungary's annexation of southern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Poland's annexation of Cieszyn, and even Turkey's annexation of Hatay. Indeed, it was World War II and its aftermath that made the international community largely allergic to territorial revisionism (after the signing of the 1947 Parties Peace Treaties, that is). For instance, Africa's leaders agreed to respect their colonial borders in spite of the fact that these borders didn't represent ethnographic or religious realities. In fact, even more than half a century later, territorial revisionism is widely rejected and the behavior of countries who engage in it--whether the NATO countries in Kosovo or Russia in Crimea--is criticized by many countries.
Anyway, without World War II, would territorial revisionism be more popular right now? Also, if so, which additional countries would have engaged in territorial revisionism over the last several decades in this TL?
Basically, the reason that I am asking this question is because Britain and France were willing to tolerate some territorial revisionism in the run-up to World War II--as evidenced by Nazi Germany's annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, Hungary's annexation of southern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Poland's annexation of Cieszyn, and even Turkey's annexation of Hatay. Indeed, it was World War II and its aftermath that made the international community largely allergic to territorial revisionism (after the signing of the 1947 Parties Peace Treaties, that is). For instance, Africa's leaders agreed to respect their colonial borders in spite of the fact that these borders didn't represent ethnographic or religious realities. In fact, even more than half a century later, territorial revisionism is widely rejected and the behavior of countries who engage in it--whether the NATO countries in Kosovo or Russia in Crimea--is criticized by many countries.
Anyway, without World War II, would territorial revisionism be more popular right now? Also, if so, which additional countries would have engaged in territorial revisionism over the last several decades in this TL?