Was there a viable alternative to either the first or second world wars?

Question

I'm not an anti-war sort of person. I understand that, horrid though it is, war is sometimes unavoidable. But what about WW1 and 2?
I expect WW2 was the only option when faced with a maniac like Hitler.

Chicago - The US wasn't the only country involved in the second WORLD war.

Answer 1

In retrospect, a lot could have been done, but that doesn't necessarily mean that someone could have prevented it at the time. That's the point of learning history, to keep the same mistakes from ever happening again.

World War I was waiting to happen, Archduke Ferdinand's assassination was just the spark that set everything off. The war is still a reminder of why diplomacy is important. The only way it could have been prevented is if everyone knew ahead of time what the result would be.

World War I was also the indirect cause of World War II. Germany was forced to take sole responsibility for the war, and while it may have seemed to make sense at the time, it created the climate that allowed Hitler to rise to power. Although a lot of people already knew he was a lunatic, they decided that "desperate times call for desperate measures". He told them what they wanted to hear and blamed their problems on others. He didn't just appear out of nowhere and invade Poland, he had been in and out of politics (and jail) since the end of WWI, and came to power in 1933. The surrounding countries were concerned with themselves and not paying attention to what was going on around them. If someone had intervened before Hitler turned the country into an autocracy and rebuilt the military, maybe WWII could have been avoided.

Answer 2

Does an agressive action responded with an agressive action have any alternative?

Assuming the first agressive action is taken, you can do nothing, respond, or run away and hide.

The viable alternatives to all wars, are a solution to the disagreement. One where all sides work to find a solution which either resolves the problem, or gives each participant some compensation for what is lost. A solution whereby all parties co-operate with each other is the ultimate solution. The solution does not need to have anything to do with the argument, as it can often be an unrelated solution which provides the answer in which no side loses face.

I guess the conclusion is that the only truly viable solution to war is peace. A recognition that nobody wins when war starts, and that everyone can win a little if peace is maintained.

Peace can only be obtained when all participants have that as their goal. When there is an agressor who does not have peace as the goal, war is inevitable.

Answer 3

World War I and II were different. Briefly, you are correct with a maniac like Hitler (and there was also Japanese militarism, such as at Pearl Harbor) the United States, Great Britain, France, and the other allies had to resist his aggression and attempt to conquer the world.

The Great War was another matter. It could have been avoided. The standard causes given are imperialism, militarism, and alliances. The last item was the main cause of the war in Europe. The leader of Germany was an inept militarist, Kaiser William. But he was no Hitler. His aggression could have been and was largely was checked, such as in Morocco.

Tragically, World War I was caused by the system of alliances. Russia allied itself with the Serbs, and France. Germany had a union with Austria-Hungary. When a Serb assassinated the archduke of Austria-Hungary, the Russians supported the Serbs, while Germany pushed the Hapsburgs to take a tough stand. Diplomacy broke down; "the lights went out in Europe." There definetly was an alternative to war. The alliance system caused a rigidness that in late July 1914 resulted in France and Russia going to war with Germany. Great Britain did not enter the war until August 1914. The British were influenced to go to war probably for two reasons. First, the Kaiser, in contrast to other German leaders, had implemented a large naval build-up. Previous, German leaders had recognized Great Britain was a small island, which needed a large navy, and did not challenge this. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck accepted this status quo, saying the Germans were a land animal and the British a water animal. William unwisely changed this. Second, in trying to win a difficult two front war, Germany invaded France through neutral Belgium. There were atrocities by the Germans, but they were totally exaggerated and mistated by propaganda.

The United States clearly could have stayed out of this battle between far away nations. America and Britain have had close ties, and German submarine attacks of United States' ships, which did include some giving aid to the Allies, were the major reason we entered the war. Others included the Zimmerman Telegram. This latter matter involved Germany trying to get a union with Mexico to oppose the United States. On paper that was a threat, but it had no chance of being implemented. We had stayed out of the war, until April 1917 when America declared war on Germany and her allies to "make the world safe for democracy." Historians debate could it have? Did it? What role did World War I have in causing World War II?

You are right to distinguish between the two wars.

Answer 4

There were plenty of viable alternatives to World War One. The Central Powers, and Austria in particular, could have got all they wanted by negotiation (The Serbian Govt. proper was desperate to avoid war). The Austrian action which started the conflict was very ill-judged, and the Kaiser's promise to support Austria in any action that they took was incredibly stupid, as he came to realise. The Allied powers could also have sorted things out by negotiation, and had nothing to gain by supporting a terrorist-shielding state like Serbia. Of all wars, WW1 was the most avoidable.
As for the Second World War - once Japan(in China) and Germany in Europe had started their policies of conquest the only alternatives for the allies were to fight or surrendered to Axis control and ideology.

Answer 5

I think that action should have been taken to prevent all out war but we have the gift of hindsight to help us. Looking at it from the perspective of the time I'm sure we would have done the same thing. Our way of life was threatened at in regards to the second world war, Hitler was not going to stop without being forced too, it is a shame that the war happened and a terrible waste of human life, but I don't think there was another option.

Answer 6

World war1 could have been avoided by a United Nations style organisation brokering economic egalitarianism and economic treaty rather than the mad dash imperialism that was rampant. Again ,a proper United Nations style settlement rather than the crippling peace enforced on Germany in 1918 would have done much to reduce the rise of Fascism.
In practical terms nothing much could have been done at the time but it does show that imperialism is trouble, doing without UN direction is dangerous, as is a harsh peace. Will we learn? Doesn`t look like it

Answer 7

The accepted wisdom is that WWI was caused by industrial muscle flexing and empire building on the continent. It was like an unstoppable train once the Continental Nations started to mobilise their armies. Sarajevo was an excuse. It was a race war, the Anglo-Saxon Germanics -v-The Slavs. Treaties that were for defence dragged France and GB in. The outcome of WWI almost without doubt sowed the seeds in a broken proud nation, Germany and also sickened France for WWII. The French collapse in WWII was caused by the mincing machine that was Verdun.

Answer 8

There is always an alternitive to war , the trick is to get the combatants to agree to the terms , In regard to Kiaser Wilmhelm
and Hitler they were determined to have a war no matter what ever consessions were offord or given , and many were, one turned them down flat, the other took them and then carried on trying to take over the world , there comes a time that you have to fight or die . As in WW1 And WW2

Answer 9

Yes, both wars weren't motivated by stopping dictators. The loss of lives was just a tally chart to the higher-ups, and not more. The human cost destroyed us, they were unfeasible. Like Abel killing Cain, it's a hard argument to defend given a fair trial.
Hope this helps.

Answer 10

There's an argument (I think by the historian AJP Taylor) that WW1 started because of RAILWAY TIMETABLES. Apparently the process of mobilisation was so huge and complex and the planning of the train timetables so essential for delivering huge amounts of men to the front, that once the order had been given, it was almost impossible to stop the process.