I specifically mentioned balance of power, but things would also have been way worse in humanitarian terms if Hitler had won. Particularly in the east.
That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
The national socialist regime was not going to surrender either way. And without a demand for unconditional surrender, this may have led Stalin to make a separate peace with the Germans. And Western leaders were very interested in making sure that it would continue to be Russians who would die fighting the Germans, rather than their tax base.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
That the outcome of World War II was not good is beyond question. The question is whether a better outcome was possible by a way other than fantasy. I do not think so. If the cowardly politicians had acted in 1936 or 1938, then sure, the outcome would have been far better, but by the time Germany was too strong, there was no other option than to side with the Soviets against the Germans.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
Not particularly. Then you would have been better off never getting involved to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that a Germany in possession of the Soviet Union, and ruled by aggressive, belligerent Nazis, would be a lethal threat to the rest of Europe. Which is why Britain and France declared war on Germany to begin with.
Balance of power means that you don't let your enemies get too powerful. When two major powers fight, and one completely overwhelms the other, then it becomes too powerful by definition.
Compared to what, and in what respect?
I specifically mentioned balance of power, but things would also have been way worse in humanitarian terms if Hitler had won. Particularly in the east.
The national socialist regime was not going to surrender either way. And without a demand for unconditional surrender, this may have led Stalin to make a separate peace with the Germans. And Western leaders were very interested in making sure that it would continue to be Russians who would die fighting the Germans, rather than their tax base.
That the outcome of World War II was not good is beyond question. The question is whether a better outcome was possible by a way other than fantasy. I do not think so. If the cowardly politicians had acted in 1936 or 1938, then sure, the outcome would have been far better, but by the time Germany was too strong, there was no other option than to side with the Soviets against the Germans.
Not particularly. Then you would have been better off never getting involved to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that a Germany in possession of the Soviet Union, and ruled by aggressive, belligerent Nazis, would be a lethal threat to the rest of Europe. Which is why Britain and France declared war on Germany to begin with.
Balance of power means that you don't let your enemies get too powerful. When two major powers fight, and one completely overwhelms the other, then it becomes too powerful by definition.