“Policing the perimiters and enforcing the Treaty of Versailles, a military deployment need not go to war to be effective -- crippling Hitler's ability to build an army and an active deterrent would have gone a long way.”
The anti-war sentiment, at least in England and the United States, was too great for that kind of
“Prior to that -- had an effective Marshall-type plan been in place to rebuild Germany after WWI the economic and political climate wouldn't have been as favorable for Hitler to succeed politically.’
Unlike World War II, Germany itself was relatively untouched physically by World War I,
The greatest damage was done by a blockade that caused significant suffering, even
death, among the civilian population. That blockade, though not immediately, did disappear
with the end of the war .
Germany as a nation in it’s short history, (beginning circa 1870), extolled the sword as a, if not the, ways and means to achieve it’s national ambitions or to avenge their thwarting. The “master race” was a belief and their right to rule at any cost to the subjected a given for many in power
as well as those who carried out orders they themselves would have written.
“Anti-Semitism -- I don't know what could have been done about that -- it was rampant in Europe and America -- Hitler got half his material from Henry Ford.”
Hitler didn’t need Henry Ford. There was plenty of proven in blood Anti-Semitism before
any who could have call himself an “American” was born.
Someone once said that a nation should go to war out of the highest charity
or deepest need. Neither of us dispute the latter. It is the idea of war for
others, for risking oneself for others than one’s legal/declared own that is questioned here.
It’s is like seeing a child being attacked on the road outside one’s strong castle;
it’s not my child; why should I care; why should I bother . . .