I've seen talk pop up once in awhile about 'preventing WW2'
A lot of focus was on Germany's treatment, but are there other regions that could be focused on instead?
Focusing on Germany itself, the Nazi party during and post-war 'justified' their actions through the harshness of the treaties that ended WW1. While those treaties were less or more harsh than others of the time wasn't too relevant to many civilians in the region, just that they were harsh enough to be linked to difficulties suffered by citizens of Germany in the region.
I've seen various things proposed. An even less harsh treaty. I've seen some suggest that the Nazi party's argument in this area had some aspects of truth. On the other hand, I've seen some others suggest an even less harsh treaty would cause war sooner. France even with the few war reparations that were paid never really rebuilt its infrastructure, industry, or its population which was devastated since most of WW1 was fought on its soil. I've seen some suggest less harsh treaty might make France more vulnerable and attacked by another party like the Italians or Germans even earlier. Though I've seen suggested that treating Germany 'nicer' through the global affecting Great Depression might have not caused the Nazi party or other extremist party to rise.
A treaty of equal 'harshness' executed differently is another proposal I've seen.
I've also seen it proposed that the treaty should in some ways have been even harsher. An example is linked to WW2's end of war treaty. For this war, the occupation of a nation and direct control is extremely harsh in many ways.
Though the Marshall Plan and Lend Lease loan forgiveness is the opposite of that in many ways. So end of WW2 treaty could be seen as both more harsh and less harsh in different ways. Though something like that happening in WW1 would have issues of practicality with if physical industry is unable to do that, and the social or political will might not exist to make such actions feasible.
A lot of focus was on Germany's treatment, but are there other regions that could be focused on instead?
Focusing on Germany itself, the Nazi party during and post-war 'justified' their actions through the harshness of the treaties that ended WW1. While those treaties were less or more harsh than others of the time wasn't too relevant to many civilians in the region, just that they were harsh enough to be linked to difficulties suffered by citizens of Germany in the region.
I've seen various things proposed. An even less harsh treaty. I've seen some suggest that the Nazi party's argument in this area had some aspects of truth. On the other hand, I've seen some others suggest an even less harsh treaty would cause war sooner. France even with the few war reparations that were paid never really rebuilt its infrastructure, industry, or its population which was devastated since most of WW1 was fought on its soil. I've seen some suggest less harsh treaty might make France more vulnerable and attacked by another party like the Italians or Germans even earlier. Though I've seen suggested that treating Germany 'nicer' through the global affecting Great Depression might have not caused the Nazi party or other extremist party to rise.
A treaty of equal 'harshness' executed differently is another proposal I've seen.
I've also seen it proposed that the treaty should in some ways have been even harsher. An example is linked to WW2's end of war treaty. For this war, the occupation of a nation and direct control is extremely harsh in many ways.
Though the Marshall Plan and Lend Lease loan forgiveness is the opposite of that in many ways. So end of WW2 treaty could be seen as both more harsh and less harsh in different ways. Though something like that happening in WW1 would have issues of practicality with if physical industry is unable to do that, and the social or political will might not exist to make such actions feasible.