Was there a viable alternative to either the first or second world wars?
There were plenty of viable alternatives to World War One. The Central Powers, and Austria in particular, could have got all they wanted by negotiation (The Serbian Govt. proper was desperate to avoid war). The Austrian action which started the conflict was very ill-judged, and the Kaiser’s promise to support Austria in any action that they took was incredibly stupid, as he came to realise. The Allied powers could also have sorted things out by negotiation, and had nothing to gain by supporting a terrorist-shielding state like Serbia. Of all wars, WW1 was the most avoidable. As for the Second World War – once Japan(in China) and Germany in Europe had started their policies of conquest the only alternatives for the allies were to fight or surrendered to Axis control and ideology.
World War I and II were different. Briefly, you are correct with a maniac like Hitler (and there was also Japanese militarism, such as at Pearl Harbor) the United States, Great Britain, France, and the other allies had to resist his aggression and attempt to conquer the world. The Great War was another matter. It could have been avoided. The standard causes given are imperialism, militarism, and alliances. The last item was the main cause of the war in Europe. The leader of Germany was an inept militarist, Kaiser William. But he was no Hitler. His aggression could have been and was largely was checked, such as in Morocco. Tragically, World War I was caused by the system of alliances. Russia allied itself with the Serbs, and France. Germany had a union with Austria-Hungary. When a Serb assassinated the archduke of Austria-Hungary, the Russians supported the Serbs, while Germany pushed the Hapsburgs to take a tough stand. Diplomacy broke down; “the lights went out in Europe.” There defin
