Lent Post: More on World War

Salvete. I believe this weekend's posts will be devoted to World Wars future and past.

I was debating with some of my friends on whether or not we should have intervened in World War I. My argument was that nonintervention in World War I would balance the sides out and prevent World War II. Their argument was that America needed the technological advancement for future wars and that WWI would have become far more cataclysmic and continued for decades longer.

Since unfortunately I don't know their side of the argument as well as my side, here I present my argument. Feel free to argue against it as you will.

World War II was caused by the aggression of Germany and Japan, caused largely by the ambition of their nationalist socialist governments. Their aggressions, however, were caused for different reasons. Germany was driven by a nationalist socialist government with an unreasonable amount of hubris. Japan, on the other hand, was a century behind on the imperialist stage and desperately wanted territory of her own.

Were these effects the direct result of World War I and its aftermath? My argument for Germany is yes, while my argument for Japan is less clear. Germany's loss in World War I led to impossible debts, which led to hyperinflation, which led to chaos in the streets, which led to the rise of the Nazi regime over the Weimar Republic that caused the mess, which led to "hypernationalism" and the aggression of World War II. Japan's story is different. Japan had always wanted to be an imperial power ever since the shogunate was overthrown. Her imperial powers could not be quenched easily, but if World War I was continuing on, both Japan and America would have time to sit back and watch. Granted, Japan's peacetime military growth would be larger than that of America's peacetime military growth, but at least we would be wary of Japan, just as we are wary of China and Russia in the present. More on this tomorrow.