If Britain and France had not declared war on Germany but allowed Hitler free reign in the east, would the end result not be very similar to the actual outcome of World War II? From all that I've read it appears to me that Hitler was obsessed with controlling eastern Europe, the prize being Russia. His occupation of the western European nations was a response to two powerful and hostile nations (Britain and France) on his western border. He would have been a fool not to occupy these countries. The big question, then, is whether or not Hitler, once he had dealt with the east, attack the western nations in a bid to rule continental Europe. My sense is that this was not of particular interest to him. So, would there have merely(!) been an enslavement of eastern Europe with the rest of the continent more or less going about it's business? As it actually turned out, eastern Europe was enslaved for fifty years by Russia, rather than by Germany. Had Britain and France not declared war, millions of people--soldiers and civilians--would not have died in the hostilities. As for the Holocaust, as terrible as that was, my understanding is the Russians were carrying out their own Holocaust in even greater numbers than the Germans.

I don't for a minute suggest that there shouldn't have been an attempt to stop Hitler. But with the benefit of hindsight, I wonder which is to be preferred: eastern Europe controlled by Germany or by Russia?