What do you think would be a fair treaty? The situation is just before the invasion of russia.
I think this :
Germany receives the provinces of :
West Prussia (Danzig Province, Bromberg Province, Posen Province)
Alsace-Lorraine (Metz-Strasbourg-Mulhouse)
Luxemburg
Danish Schleswig
Please note :
From what I know the Germans had claims/owned these areas from at least 1836 :
Luxemburg : 1836
Alsace Lorraine : 1836
Danish Schleswig : 1836
West Prussia : Owned ever since 1836.
Do you think the germans could set up protectorates? Puppets? Dominions? Buffer States? War Indemnities? Disarmament?
Peace between Axis and Allies
-
Alex Coles
- Associate
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: England
Germany
Germany should recover all territories lost directly as a result of WW1. Exceptions: France keeps Loraine, Germany Alsace. Denmark maintain part of Schleswig (North of Flensburg.) Luxenburg remains independent if desired by its citizens. Austria unites with Germany as requested by it people directly after WW1. Germany receives German speaking Sudentenland, (Previously Austro-Hungargian territory.) Germany gets Geman speaking Austrian Tyrol from Italy. Areas with 80% or more Polish population given to Poland. This to establish stability in that area. There wasn't a German Empire in 1836. Most of the territory discussed was Prussian, not part of Germany (Germany didn't exist as a country at that time, Thanks to France and Sweden (Thirty-Years War)
-
Alex Coles
- Associate
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: England
Yeah, Germany was unified after the 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian war, with Reichskanzlei Bismarck as their head, Prussia annexing :
Saxony
Wuerttemburg
Schleswig
Holstein
Hannover
Bremen
Oldenburg
Anhalt
Lippe-Detmold
Nassau
Frankfurt-am-main
Hesse-Darmstadt
Bavaria
Baden
Hesse-Kassel
Mecklenburg
Braunschweig
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
Saxe-Weimar
Saxe-Meiningen.
All of those states (incl. Prussia) make what Germany is today. I don't think Poland should get areas with 80% Polish population, because what about Western prussia? Eastern Prussia was part of Germany from as early as I can remember, at least from 1500 all the way until 1945.
Saxony
Wuerttemburg
Schleswig
Holstein
Hannover
Bremen
Oldenburg
Anhalt
Lippe-Detmold
Nassau
Frankfurt-am-main
Hesse-Darmstadt
Bavaria
Baden
Hesse-Kassel
Mecklenburg
Braunschweig
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
Saxe-Weimar
Saxe-Meiningen.
All of those states (incl. Prussia) make what Germany is today. I don't think Poland should get areas with 80% Polish population, because what about Western prussia? Eastern Prussia was part of Germany from as early as I can remember, at least from 1500 all the way until 1945.
Peace Treaty discussion
East Prussia should have been retained by Germany after WW2. Poland after, I believe the third partition by Austria, Prussia and Russia, became a Duchy under the control of Tsarist Russia. Previous to that it had been an empire in its own right. The German general staff in the early part of the 20th Century wanted Poland re-established to provide a buffer-state between Germany and Russia. This was the result of Wilhelm II not following Bismark's policy of maintaining an alliance between Prussia (Germany) and Russia. Until the recent Germany unification the Eastern Territories were suppose to be just under "Polish Administration." Of course ethnic cleansing directly after WW2 negated that discussion. I think to this day part of East Prussia should be returned to Germany. The latter just my 2 Cts worth.
Dan38
Dan38
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
The Treaties of Versailles, St Germain, Trianon, etc., although far from perfect, were reasonably fair. They allowed tens of millions of non-Germans to escape Austro-German rule while placing a far smaller number of Austro-Germans under foreign rule. Before these treaties we are talking about whole nations under foreign rule. After these treaties we are ony talking about peripheral minorities under foreign rule.
In practical terms the unification of Austria and Germany after WWI is a non-starter, because the effect would be to leave Germany stronger after its defeat in WWI than it was before.
What was fair rather depends on when one is talking about. What was fair on 21 June 1941 (17SSPG's date) would be rather different from what was fair in 1945 (Dan38's date). Given what happened between these two dates, fairness demanded a very different settlement.
Cheers,
Sid.
The Treaties of Versailles, St Germain, Trianon, etc., although far from perfect, were reasonably fair. They allowed tens of millions of non-Germans to escape Austro-German rule while placing a far smaller number of Austro-Germans under foreign rule. Before these treaties we are talking about whole nations under foreign rule. After these treaties we are ony talking about peripheral minorities under foreign rule.
In practical terms the unification of Austria and Germany after WWI is a non-starter, because the effect would be to leave Germany stronger after its defeat in WWI than it was before.
What was fair rather depends on when one is talking about. What was fair on 21 June 1941 (17SSPG's date) would be rather different from what was fair in 1945 (Dan38's date). Given what happened between these two dates, fairness demanded a very different settlement.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Michael N. Ryan
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:10 am
It has been my experience that threaties are written up based on power rather than a desire for Justice.
Unfortunately, Britain was committed to keeping the strongest nation of europe down, France was determined to keep itself on top though its position is in decline, Poland wanted territory even though few provinces of Poland were they the majority.
Don't ask me what the US wanted at the time, I really don't know if anyone in the US knew what they wanted.
A fair treaty would have been Germany keeps those parts with majority German population while surrendering those few little bits with majority Foreign populations Or those parts getting the chance to vote whether they stay with Germany or revert to their former nation. I do include that little bit of German territory given to Belgium. Perhaps that little bit of Flemish territory that is part of France should be given the chance to be Part of Flemish Belgium.
Ironicly, this is supposed to be what the Allies were fighting for. If this had been in practice before hostilities began the war would have been avoided.
Problem is nobody has learned. Look at the Balkans.
Of course the big problem was Hitler was looking for a fight, prefurably one with the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, Britain was committed to keeping the strongest nation of europe down, France was determined to keep itself on top though its position is in decline, Poland wanted territory even though few provinces of Poland were they the majority.
Don't ask me what the US wanted at the time, I really don't know if anyone in the US knew what they wanted.
A fair treaty would have been Germany keeps those parts with majority German population while surrendering those few little bits with majority Foreign populations Or those parts getting the chance to vote whether they stay with Germany or revert to their former nation. I do include that little bit of German territory given to Belgium. Perhaps that little bit of Flemish territory that is part of France should be given the chance to be Part of Flemish Belgium.
Ironicly, this is supposed to be what the Allies were fighting for. If this had been in practice before hostilities began the war would have been avoided.
Problem is nobody has learned. Look at the Balkans.
Of course the big problem was Hitler was looking for a fight, prefurably one with the Soviet Union.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Michael,
That is true to some degree. However, if power were the only consideration, settlements such as that proposed by Nazi Germany for Poland - national annihilation - would be the norm. Fortunately they are not.
Which is why, so long as you weren't Austro-German, Versailles was a remarkably positive outcome in that it gave tens of millions of people of half a dozen nationalities an independence they hadn't enjoyed for centuries. And, even if you were Austro-German, the outcome could have been much worse if brute force had been the only consideration.
Even under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany emerged as a much more populous country than any of the Western Allies. For example, by the mid 1930s almost twice as many man could be conscripted annually for the German Army as could be conscripted for the French. The French had a lot to be justifiably nervous about regarding Germany. A united Germany was by far the biggest country in Western or Central Europe.
Cheers,
Sid.
That is true to some degree. However, if power were the only consideration, settlements such as that proposed by Nazi Germany for Poland - national annihilation - would be the norm. Fortunately they are not.
Which is why, so long as you weren't Austro-German, Versailles was a remarkably positive outcome in that it gave tens of millions of people of half a dozen nationalities an independence they hadn't enjoyed for centuries. And, even if you were Austro-German, the outcome could have been much worse if brute force had been the only consideration.
Even under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany emerged as a much more populous country than any of the Western Allies. For example, by the mid 1930s almost twice as many man could be conscripted annually for the German Army as could be conscripted for the French. The French had a lot to be justifiably nervous about regarding Germany. A united Germany was by far the biggest country in Western or Central Europe.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Alex Coles
- Associate
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: England
-
Dackel Staffel
- Associate
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm
Hi,
Dunkerque was french before the creation of Belgium. I was born in this region of France. So for you I have to be belgian. Why not ? after to have been celt, roman, frank, french, independent, burgundian, austrian, spanish and again french now the french flanders has to be belgian. And what about the belgian Hainaut, does it have to be french ?
Anyway, the border between France and Begium only exists in Paris or Bruxelles. For the people living near the border, it is just an imaginary line. There is no problem of territory between us.
So long.
Dunkerque was french before the creation of Belgium. I was born in this region of France. So for you I have to be belgian. Why not ? after to have been celt, roman, frank, french, independent, burgundian, austrian, spanish and again french now the french flanders has to be belgian. And what about the belgian Hainaut, does it have to be french ?
Anyway, the border between France and Begium only exists in Paris or Bruxelles. For the people living near the border, it is just an imaginary line. There is no problem of territory between us.
So long.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
-
Michael N. Ryan
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:10 am
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi 17SS PG,
A return to the Versailles boundaries and some local referenda to make minor border adjustments.
At Versailles none of Germany's neighbours had gained any entire provinces where Germans were in a majority, so any settlement on the grounds of fairness would not return entire provinces to Germany.
If Austria and the Sudetenland are to be allowed the right to join Germany, then Germany must agree to abide by certain conditions. This time free and fair plebiscites must be arranged to evaluate the public will. (No more rigged plebiscites as in Austria or failure to hold internationally agree plebiscites as in the Sudtenland). Furthermore, Austria and the Sudetenland (and any other German state) must have the constitutional right to secede and a guaranteed mechanism for doing so.
Of course, all this is pie in the sky. Nazism would sign anything if it was advantageous and renege on it when it was not. As a birthday joke, Ribbentrop was once reportedly given a casket with manuscript copies of all the treaties that he had both signed and breached!
Nazi Germany never had any interest in a fair and reasonable settlement. It was only interested in territorial expansion. Its treatment of Poland since 1939 illustrates that. June 21 1941 is already far too late to achieve a fair and reasonable settlement. The chance for that disappeared at latest on 15 March 1939 when Germany occupied Bohemia-Moravia and gave up any pretence that it ony wanted to revise the Treaty of Versailles.
Cheers,
Sid.
A return to the Versailles boundaries and some local referenda to make minor border adjustments.
At Versailles none of Germany's neighbours had gained any entire provinces where Germans were in a majority, so any settlement on the grounds of fairness would not return entire provinces to Germany.
If Austria and the Sudetenland are to be allowed the right to join Germany, then Germany must agree to abide by certain conditions. This time free and fair plebiscites must be arranged to evaluate the public will. (No more rigged plebiscites as in Austria or failure to hold internationally agree plebiscites as in the Sudtenland). Furthermore, Austria and the Sudetenland (and any other German state) must have the constitutional right to secede and a guaranteed mechanism for doing so.
Of course, all this is pie in the sky. Nazism would sign anything if it was advantageous and renege on it when it was not. As a birthday joke, Ribbentrop was once reportedly given a casket with manuscript copies of all the treaties that he had both signed and breached!
Nazi Germany never had any interest in a fair and reasonable settlement. It was only interested in territorial expansion. Its treatment of Poland since 1939 illustrates that. June 21 1941 is already far too late to achieve a fair and reasonable settlement. The chance for that disappeared at latest on 15 March 1939 when Germany occupied Bohemia-Moravia and gave up any pretence that it ony wanted to revise the Treaty of Versailles.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Chris von D..............
- Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
I believe Germany should be given back all the Germanic lands.
I want the current German lands currently under occupation returned - as a minimum, that being the lands of 1914.
I also want to see all foreign military units out of Germany.
Until the day that Germany has the lands back and has it's own military as the only military, World War II and World War I are not over.
I also want the Bundeswehr scrapped and the Wehrmacht re-constituted.
I do not support Nazism or their policies of hatred. However, I do believe in a strong Germany, democratic and cultural. Not what we have today, a defeated nation still subservient to this day - I find this unacceptable.
It may take a time, but the lands belonging to the Germans must be returned in full.
I also believe that Austria should become part of Germany and arguably Switzerland be carved up, with most being German.
The only other possible acceptable outcome is a borderless Europe.
I would favour a greater Europe consisting of blocks, like Germany and France for instance.
The present situation is unacceptable to me. If I could change it I would.
I want the current German lands currently under occupation returned - as a minimum, that being the lands of 1914.
I also want to see all foreign military units out of Germany.
Until the day that Germany has the lands back and has it's own military as the only military, World War II and World War I are not over.
I also want the Bundeswehr scrapped and the Wehrmacht re-constituted.
I do not support Nazism or their policies of hatred. However, I do believe in a strong Germany, democratic and cultural. Not what we have today, a defeated nation still subservient to this day - I find this unacceptable.
It may take a time, but the lands belonging to the Germans must be returned in full.
I also believe that Austria should become part of Germany and arguably Switzerland be carved up, with most being German.
The only other possible acceptable outcome is a borderless Europe.
I would favour a greater Europe consisting of blocks, like Germany and France for instance.
The present situation is unacceptable to me. If I could change it I would.
It may take awhile but I think that is the future of Europe. Inside the EU people can live where they want, work where they want, no borders.The only other possible acceptable outcome is a borderless Europe.
So it will come to another "Völkerwanderung" a wandering of people in the next hundreds of years.
The counting of minorites, the majorities oppressing minorities or ethnic cleansing will be problems from yesterday...
Will ethnic groups clash with each other? What if the law Poland has against Germans to buy lands ends in few years? Poland a full member in the EU, Germans able to buy land in the old territories again? Will be interesting to watch....
(That is the same with nearly every region Germans once settled in)
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi MH,
Nobody claimed Versailles and related treaties were perfect, but surely, in the greater scheme of things, they were an advance for most of the peoples covered by them. Certainly the Austro-Germans suffered, but then losing a war usually has such a result. The problem with Versailles was that its original principles of self determination by plebiscite were not fully implemented in the east and it was these areas that Hitler later exploited.
Cheers,
Sid.
Nobody claimed Versailles and related treaties were perfect, but surely, in the greater scheme of things, they were an advance for most of the peoples covered by them. Certainly the Austro-Germans suffered, but then losing a war usually has such a result. The problem with Versailles was that its original principles of self determination by plebiscite were not fully implemented in the east and it was these areas that Hitler later exploited.
Cheers,
Sid.