[Ruy Horta]

Germany threatened the balance of power within Europe, essentially the Anglo-French status quo. Seen from that angle, WW2 differed little from WW1 or even Franco-Prussian War.

Although some may find this ridiculous, I find sufficient proof in post war cooperation between France and Germany as the final shift of balance.

Of course it is ironic that Germany was accused of wanting world domination by what were essentially nations which had built (or conquered) their own empire in the preceding century or two.

(you can see that same irony in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is another means to maintain a status quo - and only mentioned if it comes in handy and easily forgotten when not)

Sometimes I wonder if a German victory in WW1 (likely if Britain had not entered the continental war) or at least a stalemate (likely if the US had not entered a European war) would not have brought a better balance of power in Europe at a lower cost in human lives and without the huge financial shift towards the new world.

I do not believe that ideology plays much of a role when nations clash, that's more the domain of the propagandists, but it does look better in history books instead of the more pragmatic reasoning. Of course ideology does play a role in how a nation wages war, but that is something different.

If I remember correctly Ferguson in the pity of war illustrated nicely the situation of the late 19th century where basically Britain, France, Russia and finally upcoming Germany start playing a game of chess. In the end, Germany is the weakest and easiest foe to face, since any other combination would lead to less attractive (and I dare add profitable) struggles.

Some may call me a cynic, but although some details may change, history has a nasty way of repeating itself, not surprising since man is essentially the same.