I found this thread on another forum interesting, so I'm reposting it here:
I agree with @stevep's response that it would have been better for the Entente to win WWI earlier, before the Bolshevik Revolution actually occurred in Russia:
What do you all think?
Does anyone else here feel that WWII was a huge waste while WWI wasn't?
I mean, I know that World War I was extremely atrocious and that I certainly wouldn't have been able to bear fighting in the trenches. However, the outcome of World War I did have a lot of positive aspects to it. For instance, Serbia and Romania were able to achieve their dreams of putting almost all ethnic Serbs/ethnic Romanians under their rule, Czechoslovakia was created, Poland was recreated, the Baltic countries were created, Finland was created, and the Arabs in the Middle East finally became free of Ottoman rule (albeit with them unfortunately being put under British and French rule instead of being given independence). (I'm certainly not forgetting the Armenian genocide here. That was a massive tragedy and atrocity and should never be forgotten. That said, though, as I stated above, World War I did have a lot of positive consequences.)
Now, compare World War I with World War II. I mean, Yes, it's great that Hitler and Mussolini were defeated, but it would have been much better for someone to put a bullet to Hitler's head back in 1923 or even in 1939 (ex. Georg Elser). Indeed, the only positive consequences of World War II was that Japan got kicked out of China and Korea (both of which might have very well eventually happened anyway even without World War II) and that almost all ethnic Ukrainians were put into one state--albeit with this state being the Ukrainian SSR inside of the extremely oppressive and brutal Soviet Union. However, these things in themselves simply weren't worth the war. Indeed, as the result of World War II, Eastern Europe suffered for half a century--first under Nazism, and then under Communism. Western Europe--with the exception of Germany--didn't suffer anywhere as near long-term damage from World War II but, like Eastern Europe, had a lot of its Jews murdered in the Holocaust. As for Germany, its fate would have been much, much better in a scenario where the Nazis never came to power. Indeed, it would have kept its Jewish population, the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe (including eastern Germany and the Sudetenland) wouldn't have gotten expelled, and East Germany wouldn't have had to endure almost half a century of Communist rule.
Indeed, the one thing about World War I that I deeply regret is the Russian Revolution. Of course, this issue could have been dealt with had the Entente/Allies won World War I more quickly.
Anyway, though, does anyone here agree with my broad point here? Specifically, that World War I achieved many good things in spite of its brutality while World War II didn't achieve many good things and thus was much more of a waste than World War I was?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
I agree with @stevep's response that it would have been better for the Entente to win WWI earlier, before the Bolshevik Revolution actually occurred in Russia:
futurist
Well if WWI had ended differently then we would very likely never had WWII, or at least a conflict as bloody and savage as that. Most noticeably if a democractic or even mildly right wing Russia had emerged from the bloodshed then we have a markedly more stable Europe because there is a powerful check on German revanchism so some nutter like Hitler gaining control of Germany is less likely and once he starts attacking people he's likely to be stomped pretty damned quickly. Of course a Russia that goes right wing but avoids the devastation of the OTL civil war and waste and slaughter of communism might end up as a serious threat to the rest of Europe if it turned expansionist and you could have a major war as a result. Although its still likely to be less bloody and hopefully less savage than OTL.
Of course a Europe that doesn't suffer WWII and fascism is likely to be more bigoted than OTL and not just in a significant level if antisemitism. Also being stronger without the bloodshed the colonial powers might try to hang onto their colonies longer, especially those of economic importance and/or with levels of European settlement. As such you might have more Algeria's and Rhodesia's. Whether the total cost would be greater than OTL WWII would be doubtful but it could be pretty nasty.
The simplest solution would be if WWI ended a bit earlier, preferably with less bloodshed all around and resulted in a more stable peace. You might then avoid anything like OTL WWII. Of course even here there are nasty potential consequences. For instance nukes will be created sooner or later and whether its safer having several powers developing them in secrecy and possibly not realising other powers have them, or some dictatorship, willing to spend on long term military projects developing them 1st and seeking to use them to gain power or simply to maintain a monopoly you could end up with a very dark world.
What do you all think?