So take the 1935 Germans. Confront them. Rant about how their decisions destroyed so much. Visibly encourage others to do the same.
Now what do you expect them to do when they're offered the chance to vote for two new candidates, neither of which they approve of? Personally, I expect them to run the other way, rather than voting.
I think I already pointed out that by 1935 in Germany it probably was too late.
To late to correct that one, yes. But not too late to prevent the next one - that's what I'm arguing about. I'm saying that this sets up a negative bias for doing anything early enough when controversy pops up, which is at best not beneficial.
Yes, indeed. This goes for any course correction, the longer you wait the more extreme the correction will have to be until they are accurately described as 'violent'. The French Revolution comes to mind (not that that was such an example of exclusively positive change but it definitely was change).
Even then it probably was too late but who knows, maybe there would have been a way to push back against the brownshirts.
Historians are not in agreement on this subject, there is a school of thought that the whole thing might have been averted.
The main culprit (the treaty of Versailles) was a 'winner takes all' arrangement that sowed the seeds for WWII, Hitler merely tapped in to the resentment that was already there and managed to wreck Europe for two generations as a result of that. In the end Germany ended up much worse than where they started as a result of their 'Germany First' policy.
I think the main lesson learned here is that if the spoils from globalization aren't divided in a fair way there will be a huge backlash (predictable), unfortunately turning the clock back will result in yet another backlash.
These pendulum swings are way too fast and violent for society to adapt without damage.