It absolutely would have. Hitler relied on the West's complete aversion to war to re-arm. If France and England had shown some muscle he would have backed down.

>Another example of talk failed, and perhaps violence would have worked.
>
>>The problem really was that France and England just got tired of enforcing the Versaille limitations and the occupation of the Rhineland - encouraging Germany's remilitarization and aggression. If at any point in the late 30's the Allies had made a stand the Nazi government would have backed off.
>>
>>>This is a good example that supports my point. In WWI the allies never pursued the Germans onto their own soil and Germany surrendered before being decisively defeated in battle. This lead lead to a myth amoung the germanic people that Germany had not been defeated, but betrayed from behind (in the German government) by communist and Jewish elements. This myth allowed facist nationalist like Hitler to rise to power and to cause WW2. Had the allies pursued the Germans into Germany and crushed the army, the buildins and the will of the people we probably wouldn't have had a WW2. This of nation crushing then nation building worked in WW2 and turned the germanic people into an ally of the western powers ever since. Same for the Japanese. Using your own argument from a previous thread, they had to subject the German people to the crushing deprevation of a long defeat to convince them that they were wrong. The allies simply failed to do this, failed to be violent enough.
>>>
>>>>Aggressors have to be met with equal or greater violence.
>>>
>>>Wait a sec, you have just switched sides in the argument.