Would territorial revisionism be more popular right now if WWII had never occurred?

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?
 

Deleted member 97083

If Soviet territorial claims in areas like Romania and Poland (the Belorussian parts of Poland in 1939) didn't lead to a WW2 of their own starting in the mid or late 1940s. And the Empire of Japan never went to war with the West. Then yeah, territorial revisionism between non-nuclear powers would be more popular.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If Soviet territorial claims in areas like Romania and Poland (the Belorussian parts of Poland in 1939) didn't lead to a WW2 of their own starting in the mid or late 1940s. And the Empire of Japan never went to war with the West. Then yeah, territorial revisionism between non-nuclear powers would be more popular.
No WWII in Europe--or even no Fall of France--means no Pearl Harbor, no?

Also, I doubt that the Soviets would be willing to start a world war in an attempt to acquire additional territories; however, if the opportunity came to do so without risking a world war, they would almost certainly go for it.
 
Top