World War II can never be fully assessed without looking into World War I. Wars have causes and may start only from some various causes. But war may be a continuation from another one where only an armistice was properly what was between them. This is what can characterize World War I and World War II as perceived by some historians based on events that happened.
In the making of the Treaty of Versailles that effectively ended World War I, France chaired the peace conference and saw fit to have Germany, the one who started the war, be properly punished and the lands it confiscated be returned. Germany signed the treaty but proposed some amendments. Still, the treaty was to the consciousness of Germans a reason to have a score settled - and that came in World War II.
In a comparison between French demands after First World War and US demands after the Second World War, it is found that more of contrast lay in the altered circumstances. France acted purely on an instinct of her national survival, whereas the United States had hidden her intentions. France needed Germany to be humiliated and pay back for her foolhardiness, whereas the United States acted mainly on her self-interest with an additional desire to see Europe and the rest of the world secure without being plagued by further wars.
This paper looks first into France and its demands after World War I, followed by its consequences, after which follow the demands of the United States after World War II. A rather longer discussion follows on the peace-keeping efforts of the United States, including its purposes with the NATO alliance as a consequence. ...