This is an intrnt poll for my history report, I don't need any not sures or maybes, just a straight yes or no.

Question

Alright, here it is: do you think we (the allied forces) could have done something to stop World War 2 from happening? Or should we have let the events unfold as they did? Make sure you think about both sides of the arguement, on the one hand, 9 to 12 million people died in World War 2, 6 million of them being Jews, the other 3 to 6 million people being Poles, Gypsies, political enemies and others who were considered to be "undesirables." But on the other hand, if World War 2 hadn't happened, alot of the technology we have today wouldn't be available to us. Radio, the Internet, among many other things were invented by the soviets during the war. Also, back before the war we didn't have to take math and science, they were only electives. All that added together means that our lives-which includes the millions of people could have been alive-would be alot worse off. Lower life expectancy not as many jobs, the lack of technology which makes our lives so much easier.

Answer 1

its not so much of a yes or no question

but : YES

they should and could have done
much more to stop it.

(I'm Jewish, so of course I'd say that)

Answer 2

The simple answer to your question is yes, more could have been done to prevent the war from happening, at least on the scale that it did. But it is always easy to look back and say "oh, if so-and-so had done such-and-such, then everything would have been different." If the French and the British had reacted more forcefully to Hitler's moves it is possible that a much smaller conflict might have occurred, but given Hitler's determination to go to war it was probably not possible to avoid conflict altogether.

As an example of a move that might have forestalled a large-scale conflict, when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland, in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty, his army was still fairly small and underequipped. The French, who had one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time, could have at least made a demonstration, threatening to move into the Rhineland if Hitler did not retreat. With additional British help, particularly from the RAF, it might have been possible to make Hitler back down.

A few years later, when Hitler attacked Poland, he went in with the great bulk of his army, leaving only a few low-grade units to guard his western border with France. Here again, if the French and British had moved quickly after declaring war, instead of engaging in a "wait-and-see" strategy, they could probably have pushed into Germany and completely upset Hitler's apple cart. Instead of the Battle of France in 1940, there might have been a Battle of Germany.

If anybody had had an inkling that a war was coming that would make WWI look like a picnic, it would probably have caused people to act a little more forcefully to try to forestall it, or at the very least minimize it. But the British, and particularly the French, had been so appalled by the carnage of the First World War that they were willing to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid a repeat. Of course their hesitance only led to a much greater slaughter, but we know that only through the prism of history.

As for not having certain technologies if the war had not occurred, that is probably not true. Radio, one of the technologies you mentioned, had been around for some time when the war started. While it is true that wars tend to drive technological development, all of the technologies we have now would probably have been developed anyway, it just might have taken a little longer. A little patience is a small price to pay for preventing the deaths of 60-odd million people (thank you David H for pointing out the true cost of the war). And you also have to consider the possibility that one of those many millions of dead might have lived to make some great scientific breakthough, or to have a descendant who did.

At any rate, the idea that we would have been "worse off" without the war just simply does not bear much scrutiny. We'll never know how things would have been without the war, but consider how things turned out with the war. Besides the destruction and misery brought by the war itself, with the loss of those aforementioned millions of irreplaceable human beings, there was also the loss of much art, architecture, and other things which make life more enjoyable. We saw not only the development of nuclear weapons but also their use. The aftermath of the war saw the division of the world into the First (more-or-less free) World, the Second (Communist) World, and the Third (Developing) World, the latter of which was, and to an extent still is, the site of fighting by the first two to see who will control it. And all the while we have the nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads threatening to wipe us all out.

Okay, I'll get down off my soapbox now. But I do have just one more question: where, pray tell, did you get the idea that "we" didn't have to take math and science before the war? That is quite simply not true. I think you may have misunderstood something.

Answer 3

I find the perspective your question represents to be a bit disturbing, and your question somewhat confusing.

In particular, weighing some advances in technology that would have happened in the course of time in any event against the lives of the *60 million* (not 9-12 million) people who were killed is offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Do you mean, should the French and English have resisted German aggression in the Ruhr valley and against Czechoslovakia more? I don't think there's any poll you could offer that people wouldn't vote "yes" on that.

Answer 4

This is hardly a yes or no question but if you insist I'd have to say yes.America could've or should've.Human life is always more
important than technology.Especially considering how many lives we are talking about here.

Answer 5

NO. and just for your info the Russians did not invent the internet any more than Al Gore did.

Answer 6

um, this does not seem like a yes or no question.

having said that, everything happens for a reason, so the war should have happened, we should not have stopped it.

Answer 7

NO and NO

Answer 8

no