Germany got screwed? [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

willemvanoranje

Mar 05, 2007, 05:59 AM

Well I realize any attempt to get Germany's rightly owned lands back will immediatley be shot down by @$$holes who think its Nazism. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt Russia control Konigsberg, or w/e its called now? Theres no way in hell they'll get that back if so, Russia wouldnt give up a port over there. But now I'm thinking if, over the decades, the majority has changed, if Germans are still the most populous in these places. If so, than, sorry Poland, but thats Deutsch. I don't mean to be rude, and I dont want war, I want justice and jesus christ! If its german territory, than it should be German. god i sound like hitler, sorry...

Nowadays Germany has nothing to look for in those areas. Take the Königsberg area, now Kaliningrad. There are almost no Germans left. Many left during the Russian siege, others right after it, and others were just killed and raped (not necessarily in that order). The now Polish parts and Sudetenland do not have many Germans anymore either. Most of them ran from the Russians or were evicted by the Poles and Czech. If I remember correctly, a total of about 15 million people was displaced because of this. Most of them moved into Germany. So, nowadays, there is no reason to give those territories back. Besides, Germany confirmed those borders by treaty.

LDeska

Mar 05, 2007, 10:45 AM

What a nazi crap here! Probably in Germany you could be judged for claiming such things!
Thinking this way would lead us to new war.
What is making me feel better is that you do not live in Germany, only in US and you're far away from Europe.

To be correct: Prussians were separated ethnic group, they had nothing to do with Slavians. Polish prince Konrad Mazowiecki invited German Teutonic Order to those areas to fight Prussians - they were pagans, so such Order was keen to bring Christianity there (with sword - strange idea, but that's how it worked then). This Order grew and finally started to pose a threat to Poland (later to Commonwealth, when Poland and Lithuania formed an union). Order lost wars with Commonwealth in XV century and ceased to be a threat. Then it was secularized into Prussia.
In 1945 lands of Prussia was taken by Russians, slices were given to Poland and Lithuania. Today there is no Germans there as they were expelled right after the war.
About other parts of Germany which are now in Polish borders - first of all we, Poles would like to keep our pre-war borders, we lost many historical cities in the east and literally millions of Poles were expelled by Russians from there and forced to move into new lands.
Last thing - about historically German lands - what is ironic it that those lands which we gained in 1945 were Polish long times ago. In the time when Poland was formed - in X century Wrocław (Breslau) and almost whole territory that is now Polish was then Polish. For centuries Poland shifted east and when in 1945 Russians, Americans and English draw a map of Europe once again, Poland was shaped in almost the same way as it looked like over 1000 years ago, when it emerged.
So, thinking in your way, we get what was ours :) (at least that was the official, communistic propaganda after WW2).

sydhe

Mar 05, 2007, 10:55 AM

The Germans were expelled from those regions after World War II. When you consider that Hitler used the German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia as an excuse to invade his neighbors, you can understand why they got expelled. It was Stalin, not Khrushchev, who was mostly responsible for it.

And when you consider what happened to certain minority groups under German occupation...

Adler17

Mar 05, 2007, 11:00 AM

Okay to say something of the situation and to confirm the prejudice I am a flaming nationalist (NOT NAZI), although I am not, I have to say some things.

1. The areas east of the Oder and Neiße rivers were German since Medievel times. The Slavic and Baltic tribes living there were assimilated. Indeed only the Sorbs and Kashubs (and the Masurs) kept at least partly their traditions. The Sorbs living west of the border and are excluded here. Although having Polish attempts to control these areas they were not successful. However in the time of 1919 the population was mostly German. Also many Polish at least in Upper Silesia voted to stay German citizens. That is only a small overview about the ethnical population structure in 1919.

2. Deportation of people (not speaking about killing and raping) is a crime against humanity and only a genocide is worse (and indeed the deportation had genocidical elements). Also EU and UN did never accept that and demand the return of the displaced persons.

3. Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned. In how far it is debated (like nearly everything in law) though. Most of the lawyers nevertheless do not accept annexions in any case.

4. Germany could have accepted the border at last in 1991 with the treaty with Poland. But there are two problems: Once that a ban of annexions has to be either totally, so that the acceptance must be void, so that the annexing party can never be sure about the situation and has no rights doing so (except perhaps they have older rights, which in this case did not exist). So the treaty can only accept the status quo ante, meaning these areas are still German but only governed by Poland and Russia.
The second problem is that Germany did not reunite the way the German constitution thought. Indeed the Basic Law, our constitution here in Germany, was only made for the Bundesrepublik. But after 1990 there is still another German state existing: The German Reich! The Reich is still existing, but it is "out of order" since 1945. The Constitution of 1945 was never put out of action. Only the organs are not active (and that is one thing not debated in law circles). In how far the Bundesrepublik could act as or for the Reich is debated. It is clear it can accept payments or artifacts of the Reich. Also it can pay some old depts, but to accept a treaty loosing 1/4th of the territory is very questionable. The Reich could have done so, but indeed the Reich was never dissolved (Only Prussia was dissolved, but that is IMO also void, not only for making a historial idiocy but the occupation states were never allowed doing so! But that is another topic).
Thus the treaty with Poland is able to be debated.

The Chech Republic has much better chances, as the Sudeten were never a part of Germany from 1867 to 1938. Although here the right of self determination was not accepted in 1919.

At last: I am very sorry for the crimes Germans did in Poland, the Chech republic and the Soviet union. But these crimes do not justify the crimes done later by the victors.

Adler

Adler17

Mar 05, 2007, 11:05 AM

LDeska: The Poles had lost the control over Silesia and East Pommerania soon after, so that is not true. And to say all, who want the areas back are Nazis is an offence. However I agree that Poland should also got their territories lost after ww2, as far as there were mostly Poles living) back.

Adler

Tank_Guy#3

Mar 05, 2007, 11:16 AM

Of course they did, but recently I've been thinking, Germany lost more than it should of, land-wise, at the end of WWII then I think it deserved, so I'm bringing this up to debate to see if there's any truth behind this. Examples: Danzig, Stettin, Pressburg, Konigsberg, Breslau, and the regions surrounding them, you know, those good old Prussian lands, I'm no nazi but if terratories belong to a certain culture, why are they given to another? To me, Germany deserved those lands, and really theres no way to get them back without starting WWIII. So there you go, wtf mates?

The Polish Corridor didn't work (keeping Danzig German), while I agree that many of the lands that were taken, shouldn't have been, I think it's a little late to ask for them back now.

And what about all the lands taken from Poland by both the Russians and the Germans (pre-World War I)? They had amassed a sizeable empire before they got screwed over. I'm talking (of course) about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Many major empires have had land that is rightfully theirs taken away at one point or another. This is just one more example.

kittenOFchaos

Mar 05, 2007, 12:41 PM

Of course they did, but recently I've been thinking, Germany lost more than it should of, land-wise, at the end of WWII then I think it deserved, so I'm bringing this up to debate to see if there's any truth behind this. Examples: Danzig, Stettin, Pressburg, Konigsberg, Breslau, and the regions surrounding them, you know, those good old Prussian lands, I'm no nazi but if terratories belong to a certain culture, why are they given to another? To me, Germany deserved those lands, and really theres no way to get them back without starting WWIII. So there you go, wtf mates?

Germany deserved all it got and more for WWI and WWII having caused more misery than nearly any other country or people in history. It worries me that we've Germans in this thread thinking Germany got a raw deal after WW2.

Stolen Rutters

Mar 05, 2007, 01:06 PM

Norseone

Mar 05, 2007, 02:11 PM

Yep. Losers in war tend to get screwed. It's actually the whole point of starting a war, to screw someone over for your benefit. Considering that the Germans actually started WWII and lost, I am honestly surprised so many Germans survived, and that they kept what they did.

I guess I'm more surprised by the level of mercy they were given once it became clear what was really happening within the Reich.

Killing off the Germans would have been a larger genocide than that which was perpetrated by the Nazi's, so I am not suprised many germans survived. Also, Mercy was shown? half the country was occupied by Russia for many years.

Commy

Mar 05, 2007, 02:40 PM

besides, I understand the Ukranians lived in crimea before Russians did ;)

EDIT: correct me if i'm wrong
I'll correct you. Crimea was a territory of Crimea khanate (satellite of Ottoman empire). It Crimea khanate had very agressive foreign policy and often its forces invaded Russia. In 1783 Catherine II the Great conquered Crimea. From that moment to 1950-s or 1960-s Crimea was a part of Russian Empire/RSFSR/USSR.
In 1950-s Khruschov took Crimea from Russian SFSR (Russia) and gave it to Ukranian SSR (Ukraine). Crimea was a Soviet territory before and after that, but from this moment it was admimnistratively a part of Ukraine.
I think this act was illegal, but it is problem of foreign policy, not law
It's because the Russians were so greedy and took parts of Poland
It's because Polishes were so greedy and took parts of Russia under the crush of Russian empire
Indeed

you should be thanking the Lord for that unusually cold weather
All 4 years of Eastern campaign was winter? :lol:
BTW, during battle for Moscow weather was not too cold.

PS One interesting fact: during 7-years war in 18-th century Russians conquered Koenigsberg. One of the first Germans who oathed the Russia was famous philosoph Immanuil Kant (sorry, but I don't know how correctly write his name in English). Russian forces conquered even Berlin :crazyeye: . Key from it is now in Isaac cathedral in St-Petersburg.

Mirc

Mar 05, 2007, 03:18 PM

I actually agree Germany got screwed much more than it deserved. Unfortunately, central and eastern Europe have still a lot of problematic territories, countries with these troubles are: Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ukraine, Poland, also my country, Romania, and Moldova, which is an artificial country. A lot would be needed to give everyone the territory the rightfully deserve.

West 36

Mar 05, 2007, 03:54 PM

complications complications.. I dont like this talk that sounds like Germany wasn't screwed quite enough. 2 things: not every german was murdering other people and does the fact that the Nazis were such jackasses allow the victorious nations to rape and pillage Germany in return?
And you must understand, I am a bit nationalist, as in I am proud of the mutt I am and feel cultures should be able to rule themselves- ex. India shouldn't be ruled by England, Iraq by U.S. etc. I'm also a bit socialist in that I feel people are equal, I don't feel superior to other countries, you know, peace is best, always. Those lands were german, they were screwed, but it does seem too late for change now... sadly.
hmm. i'm a bit nationalist. i'm a bit socialist. I'm a national socialist... interesting.

sabo

Mar 05, 2007, 04:21 PM

Yep. Losers in war tend to get screwed. It's actually the whole point of starting a war, to screw someone over for your benefit. Considering that the Germans actually started WWII and lost, I am honestly surprised so many Germans survived, and that they kept what they did.

I guess I'm more surprised by the level of mercy they were given once it became clear what was really happening within the Reich.

I agree, I have not heard of a country that has started a war and lost and actually gained territory. There may have been "cease fires" and case of countries joining a losing side but I've never heard of a country starting a war, losing the war, and gaining territory. Like the old saying "the spoils of war"

smalltalk

Mar 05, 2007, 04:30 PM

Uhmm, just two words:

unconditional surrender

:p

s.c.dude

Mar 05, 2007, 04:49 PM

Uhmm, just two words:

unconditional surrender

:phow dare you bring that up:mischief:

Tortosa

Mar 05, 2007, 05:32 PM

Let the locals vote, like the 1935 Saar plebicite (90% in favour of unifying with the Fatherland)

privatehudson

Mar 05, 2007, 05:43 PM

The way Germany was "screwed" at the end of WW2 was very much a product of the way the Nazi war machine fought the war. Hitler intended a war of ideology and conquest and in the end a total war whereby the country would either suceed or die. Between his (and the various nazi leaders) incompetence, calousness, inhumanity and detachment from reality they very nearly managed the latter. They waged a war of destruction on many of their foes and a campaign of genocide on various peoples. Does any of that justify what happened at the end of the war - of course not. But sh*t happens, and if you sow the wind...

What happened to Germany was no more than she could have expected. Even the soldiers knew it, Beevor's Berlin quotes one of them saying something like "If the Russians do to us only half of what we've done to them Germany will cease to exist, so we have to win this war". It was the final throw of the dice for Hitler and his regime, the concept that people would fight the death to avoid a peace which would make them wish they were dead. Unfortunately much of the propaganda and rumours about what would happen if the Soviet army invaded were if not exactly true not very far wrong.

Having said all that these events are nearly 60 years ago now, so any attempt to right the wrongs of WW2 is incredibly difficult. I certainly would not agree with any transfer of land which went against the ethnic background of the majority of the inhabitants.

Germans didn't deserve what happened to them but neither did the Londoners deserve the Blitz, nor the Jews the holocaust or any number of other non combatant victims. In a war people usually don't get what they deserve.

willemvanoranje

Mar 05, 2007, 05:58 PM

It's because Russians were so greedy and took parts of Russia under the crush of Russian empire

Somehow I get the feeling one of the "Russias" used in that sentence was meant to be something else?

Verbose

Mar 05, 2007, 11:47 PM

Germans didn't deserve what happened to them but neither did the Londoners deserve the Blitz, nor the Jews the holocaust or any number of other non combatant victims. In a war people usually don't get what they deserve.
Exactly. War is not providence in disguise.

Adler17

Mar 06, 2007, 01:38 AM

Uhmm, just two words:

unconditional surrender

:p

Does not justify the annexions nor the deportations.

Adler

silver 2039

Mar 06, 2007, 10:44 AM

For all purposes those territories are now Polish, but you can really blame the Russians for that, they took the Western parts of Poland, and compensated the Poles by giving them eastern Germany.

GinandTonic

Mar 06, 2007, 11:16 AM

WW1, Germany was screwed.

The problem with WW2 is that there was nothing that could be done to Germany that could be a reasonable punishment for the scale of their crimes - without being as guilty as they were. Rather the same problem they had with the more grotesque war criminals, how an you punish them in any way that reflects the severity of their crimes? Any punishment is pissing into an ocean.

To complain that after the horrors they inflicted on the world that their country was rebuilt for them minus desputed regions is sickening. The western govs showed incredible restraint and gentility in the light of what had just transpired - at least far in excess of what their publics wished them to.

It is abserd to discuss the situation as if it was a civilised war - it was the greatest crime of the modern world.

Adler17

Mar 06, 2007, 12:26 PM

But the displaced persons were not guilty. There is no collective guilt.
Also indeed the Russians are to blame most but not entirely.

Adler

Verbose

Mar 06, 2007, 12:38 PM

To complain that after the horrors they inflicted on the world that their country was rebuilt for them minus desputed regions is sickening. The western govs showed incredible restraint and gentility in the light of what had just transpired - at least far in excess of what their publics wished them to.
Bolding by me.

Problem is, it's no longer so very recent is it? It's quite a long time ago by now. 67 years and counting. Pretty soon it's going to be a lot longer ago too.

History is funny in the way that it's based on collective amnesia. All nations have to forget more history than anyone can ever remember if they are going to progress and not get hung up on past ill-deeds.

This is specifically true in modern societies (those who consider themselves so). When something become "history" it means it's no longer relevant for day to day affairs and politics.

Germany is in that place right now in every way except the most symbolic.

The ones who might not want to consider the military side of things "history" is mostly the US and UK who have built powerful positive "mythologies" around WWII.

And then there's the Holocaust, to complicate matters further. And everyone agrees, for the time being, that this is an event not permissible to become "just history". And the Germans have done more to foster this attitude among themselves than everyone else.

All in all, we have a bit of a problem deciding what's just "history" (no longer relevant really) and what's "history", as in fundamental assumptions about ourselves and others.

The German defense here is of course that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is true. You cannot however rectify these wrongs without starting up a domino-effect of screwing most of central and eastern Europe all over again.

Instead it will be resolved when people in these countries decide that what's done is done, and has no real relevance for today.

The real issue seems to be if the world is yet willing to acknowledge that Germany historically was anything more than the breeding ground for Nazism? At least that this is the overriding meaning of historical Germany.

At the mo', the Germans seem excited by the possibility of thinking of themselves as people who also suffered and were screwed over by their leadership and events. Most of them were after all. Even WWII Hollywood was very compunctous about separating "Bad Nazis" from "Good Germans".

Still, it is obvioulsy very provocative to face Germans claiming they were wronged too. Otoh there are lots of Germans claiming the defeat of Nazi Germany was their liberation just as much as for say the French.

smalltalk

Mar 06, 2007, 01:48 PM

3. Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned.:chuckles

Didn't stop Hitler and Stalin to divide Poland. Remember Ribbentrop-Molotow-Pact?
The German Reich! The Reich is still existing, but it is "out of order" since 1945. The Constitution of 1945 was never put out of action.1945! :lol:

Actually, the German Reich went "out of order" in 1933.

No, correction. It went down in 1919 when it was replaced by the Weimar Republic.

Your claim is an extremly right wing minority view shared by about 5% of the Germans.

Commy

Mar 06, 2007, 02:59 PM

Somehow I get the feeling one of the "Russias" used in that sentence was meant to be something else?
Yes, I meant Polishes

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 06, 2007, 03:01 PM

I do not think the deportation of Germans was correct. What I think is that considering that the regions are so clearly Polish in every way now, they should remain Polish. How exactly do we define what a sufficient period of time is, before a territory belongs to a different nation?

If we were to take all claims going back 2,000 years, Europe would be entangled in an almost infinite debate.

Out of curiosity, where did most of those dislocated in the east end up? Did they end up going to West Germany, or East Germany? If they ended up in West Germany, I would say Germany is better off now then it would have been if they had kept Prussia. Land is all well and good, but the powerful economy that resulted from having these people in the free West Germany is more important. That doesn't justify the deportations, but it is a silver-lining.

@Adler: Out of curiousity, are you a historian by training? You seem to know a lot about European history.

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 06, 2007, 03:12 PM

Most of them were after all. Even WWII Hollywood was very compunctous about separating "Bad Nazis" from "Good Germans".
A bit off-topic: what is interesting is how this contrasts with how Hollywood, and western society in general viewed the Japanese. The Japanese were considered as a whole to be rotten and deserving of collective guilt much more than the Germans. During WWII the Japanese were probably more hated in America and even Britain than the "Nazis" (like you said, they often didn't even say "German"). Perhaps it is because 23% of Americans are of at least partial German descent.

Still, it is obvioulsy very provocative to face Germans claiming they were wronged too. Otoh there are lots of Germans claiming the defeat of Nazi Germany was their liberation just as much as for say the French.

While it may be true that there were lots of Germans opposed to the Nazis, it should be kept in mind that probably a clear majority of Germans supported the Nazis at the outbreak of the war. This idea should not be exaggerated. The circumstances of the Nazi rise should be taken into account, and it should not be believed that the German nation is in any way unique for falling for such extremism... but to pretend the German nation as a whole was largely on the allied side is not true. Maybe by 1944 or 45, but not before.

Nylan

Mar 06, 2007, 04:25 PM

Well I realize any attempt to get Germany's rightly owned lands back will immediatley be shot down by @$$holes who think its Nazism.

What a nazi crap here! Probably in Germany you could be judged for claiming such things!
Thinking this way would lead us to new war.

Thanks for proving West 36's point LDeska. Clever debate tactics there.

The whole point is that Germany got screwed and it would be nice if it had never happened. Can't we be justified in our unhappiness?

we're not planning an invasion! :crazyeye:

calm down, will you

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 06, 2007, 04:51 PM

Nylan, if you really want to tally up the "got screwed" score from WWII, Germany owes the Soviet Union about 10 million more dead Germans.

Perhaps Poland would like their 6 million people back as well.

Germany may have lost 6 million people, but it pales in comparison to the rest of the damage done by the Germans. Territory isn't the only way to measure loss.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if Germany is going to complain about how it was treated in WWII, then it should be free reign for every other country to complain about MUCH worse. Best course of action would be to just let bygones be bygones.

Nylan

Mar 06, 2007, 05:07 PM

Tally up the number of Russians Stalin himself had killed

THEN we'll talk about what Germany did to Russia

I'm not even going to start on why screwing over Germany after WWI helped the rise of Hitler in the first place

but then again, Adler and I are the only ones that don't buy the anti-German kill the Nazis propaganda. Or at least it seems that way.

GinandTonic

Mar 06, 2007, 06:06 PM

West 36

Mar 06, 2007, 10:35 PM

A bit off-topic: what is interesting is how this contrasts with how Hollywood, and western society in general viewed the Japanese. The Japanese were considered as a whole to be rotten and deserving of collective guilt much more than the Germans. During WWII the Japanese were probably more hated in America and even Britain than the "Nazis" (like you said, they often didn't even say "German"). Perhaps it is because 23% of Americans are of at least partial German descent.Ok, well heres the brutal honesty: Majority of American is white, and when given two enemies, one white, one asian, some sort of racism, whether consciously or not, will provoke the people to be lighter on the Germans. Hell, this is the 40's, the prejudice would be right out, they were different, foreign, much easier to victimize and so it would have been easier to hate them. And as far as we are still being taught, German citizens didnt all support the cause, Japanese citizens were all ready to fight to the death, so the books say, true or not. honestly, I would probably feel the same way, and I'm not racist, its just there.

While it may be true that there were lots of Germans opposed to the Nazis, it should be kept in mind that probably a clear majority of Germans supported the Nazis at the outbreak of the war. This idea should not be exaggerated. The circumstances of the Nazi rise should be taken into account, and it should not be believed that the German nation is in any way unique for falling for such extremism... but to pretend the German nation as a whole was largely on the allied side is not true. Maybe by 1944 or 45, but not before.
Ok, its the 40's, be for all this political correctness B.S. and you hear this: "Our country is noble and right! You belong to the greatest race on the earth! Our people have a great history. Truely we are the master race" ok, I suck at propaganda, oh well, but hearing this would motivate you in some way. I am white and now with it being ok to insult whites, but not for whites to insult others, i get a little pissed, thinking up things like "hey! we counqured the majority of the world, and most likley, YOUR people!!!" but that would never fly.. but when I'm saying is, when you are provoked and your mind is stimulated in thinking that you're better than others, you'll like it, and may even latch on to that a bit. The Germans may not all have been nazis, but I can assure you many were damn proud to be German as it took Europe.
I'm only an 8th German, and still I feel a bit pride when I think these guys, after being united for what, only 40 years, almost take Europe twice. If only they hadnt disintegrated in the middle ages, who knows what empires may have been forged... we took Rome remember? ah yeah... I'm a quarter Austrian too, I'm entitled to a little of this.

Gabryel Karolin

Mar 07, 2007, 12:48 AM

But the displaced persons were not guilty. There is no collective guilt.

This. Ordinary people had their property confiscated and were forceably removed from their ancestral homelands. The fact that the Germans had the same plans for Eastern Europe (Lebensraum) doesn't make it right to do it to them. In "we only do to them what they had planned for us" any claims of moral highground is lost. Again, these were ordinary people, their only crime was being German.

Also the logic that since mostly Polish/Russians live in those territories now there is nothing to do about it rings a bit false in my ears. What if for example there was a mass influx of Chinese in occupied Tibet, so much that they became the majority? It would now legally and moraly be Chinese?

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 02:14 AM

Good post Gabryel.

@smalltalk: I gave a hint on the legal point of view concerning the German Reich, which was the name of Germany before 1945. If a nation is occupied by another this nation does not cease to exist, although her organs might be not working.
Also my general political point of view is much more in the center as you might believe.

@ Sobieasky: History is something I love and indeed I thought about studying history. But as it is a bit diffucult to get a good job there it remains only my hobby.
Are they Polish now? They are inhabited (mostly) by Poles and Russians indeed. But that is not allowed to be an acception for an annexion. Also remember the French demanded back the Alsace in 1919 although having lost it in 1871.
Also the Germans did support that Austrian due to "his" successes fighting the problems. Also they were in no way belligerent or enthusiastic to go for war in 1939. Hitler had massive problems to get the population behind him for that. Again in 1940 he had the support from nearly all Germans (including Jews and communists) at least partly for his victory over France. But then the war continued and with the attack on Russia his star was sinking. When it became critical for him another thing happened: The British attacked the German civil population with their bomber. That gave Hitler another boost. Also many were afraid about the dictatorship. One whisper joke about the time is really showing the situation:
Berlin is burning by another British attack. Hitler and Göring are standing on a tower and see the city burning. Hitler is desperate. He says: "My poor people of Berlin. Göring, what can I do to make the people happy again?" "Well, that's quite easy. Jump from the tower!"
Also do not forget that the opposition tried to kill Hitler since 1938!

@ West 36: My Great grand father was a man being in the social democratic party for his life, even when the party was banned. He was ever proud to be a German. But being an official in the Social administration of Hamburg he got to know what was happening. So he smuggled Jews out of Hamburg in the nights. He had ties to the German resistance as well. Later he had to stop his actions as one neighbour, a strong nazi, heard him listening BBC. Only because his wife and my great grand mother were close friends they were able to persuade him not to go to the Gestapo. But having wife and children he had to abandon his works for the resistance. He was not a help anymore though as he was somewhat "burnt". Being a German and to be proud of it is not the same like being a nazi. IMO only one being no nazi can say correctly to be proud to be a German.

Adler

Verbose

Mar 07, 2007, 02:59 AM

Also remember the French demanded back the Alsace in 1919 although having lost it in 1871.
But they didn't get until the Alsatians voted in favour of France in a referendum.

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 04:01 AM

Big can of worms there. Germay didn't get screwed. By rights the Allies should have marched the population into the Rhin and Elbe and machine gunned the lot of them.

As brutal as the Russians were I always thought they were somewhat restrained given what the troops had been through and what they had seen in the territories they liberated in the U.S.S.R. It sucks for the individual Germans involved but Germany still exists. Compared to the German occupations Germany got off lightly. 2 wrongs don't make a right but if you hit me in the face I'll punch you back harder (hopefully). Multiply that to the level of a nation state and add guns.

The real point is that Germany still exists. Poland didn't under German occupation and I'm sure we all know German policies regarding a defeated U.S.S.R.

privatehudson

Mar 07, 2007, 04:56 AM

But they didn't get until the Alsatians voted in favour of France in a referendum.

Sorry to interject here for a moment but when I first read this I found it quite amusing. In Britain an alsatian is a type of dog - also known as a German Shepard. Whilst I know what you meant my sleep deprived mind had some strange images passing through it for a moment :D

As brutal as the Russians were I always thought they were somewhat restrained given what the troops had been through and what they had seen in the territories they liberated in the U.S.S.R. It sucks for the individual Germans involved but Germany still exists. Compared to the German occupations Germany got off lightly. 2 wrongs don't make a right but if you hit me in the face I'll punch you back harder (hopefully). Multiply that to the level of a nation state and add guns

Well I've been thinking and the problem with that argument is that if you study the way the Soviet army behaved in Germany and Poland its perfectly clear that revenge was only a part of their motivation. A great deal of their army by then came from areas in Russia that had never been invaded by the Germans so had no great grievance with them. Also evidence shows that (for example) it wasn't just German women who were raped, quite often Poles, Czechs and sometimes even liberated Russian female civilians became targets. Throw in the inherent calousness of the soviet state (many "liberated" POWs ended up in Gulags or similar) and you can see that whilst there was some sense of revenge crimes like the rapes derived more from the lack of control exerted by the military authorities on their soldiers.

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 05:34 AM

Steph

Mar 07, 2007, 05:51 AM

Germany has a long history of being screwed over by the rest of Europe. 100 years war
Can you clarify how the rest of Europe screwed Germany during the 100 years war?

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 06:02 AM

That's exactly the position of the Nazis.

Adler

Except when the German soldiers marched into France, Poland, Russia etc the armed forces of those countries had done very little to Germany at large. Early Wehrmacht units were treated as liberators in many areas of the USSR until German behaviour turned the locals against them. Soviet tropps entering Germany in 44/45 had traveled trough Poland and the USSR and had seen the concentration camps, what was left of Warsaw/Kiev. Mercy and compassion probably weren't high priorities. Of course the Soviet troops were brutal but they were a product of the German invasion. The Germans only had themselves to blame for starting a war of naked aggression, expansion and extermination.

Our modern government is paying money to tribal groups here (the Maori) for acts commited in the 1800's by the colonial British government. How much money did Germany pay Poland and Russia last year for war reparations? Around about $0 at a rough guess. Germany's debt to eastern europe can never really be repaid. The modern German is innocent of crimes commited by the nazi regime but eastern europe is still coping with the aftermath of Hitlers decision to invade the USSR in 41.

Germany is still one of the richest countries in the world and got off lightly for the acts of the government 1939-45.

Mirc

Mar 07, 2007, 06:37 AM

Our modern government is paying money to tribal groups here (the Maori) for acts commited in the 1800's by the colonial British government. How much money did Germany pay Poland and Russia last year for war reparations? Around about $0 at a rough guess. Germany's debt to eastern europe can never really be repaid. The modern German is innocent of crimes commited by the nazi regime but eastern europe is still coping with the aftermath of Hitlers decision to invade the USSR in 41.

Germany's debt to Eastern Europe can never be repaid? :dubious: It might surprise you, but Russia is the country that damaged Eastern Europe. How about Russia's debt? It's like, 10 times bigger. Russia after WW2 was a much more criminal state than any other country in the world, in the whole XXth century, maybe only competing with Cambodia or China.

Germany is still one of the richest countries in the world and got off lightly for the acts of the government 1939-45.

You know, you should admire that Germany is one of the richest countries in the world. The use of the word "still" makes me realize you probably think Germany was rich since the end of WW2. Well, that's not true at all. In how many parts was Germany divided? How rich was Germany after WW2? It's only their merit that they are rich now. They did what no Eastern European country managed: rise again from its ashes. They had a REALLY bad period, and saying they got off lightly shows how much you know about recent history.

Bad Player

Mar 07, 2007, 06:46 AM

Given how crazy left wing liberal Germany is at the moment perhaps it's better for those folk to stay with the Polish or someone who are more conservative! :p

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 06:50 AM

You can still blame Germany for Russia occupation of eastern Europe. You can play the blame game all day long but that why I think the status quo is the way to go. Germany lost territory 62 years ago as a consequence of a war they started. If the German troops ha stayed at home no rampaging Soviet troops would have entered Germany, no Soviet occupation of eastern Europe and I'm sure some deal could have been worked out about the Danzig corridor-ie Germany pays Poland for transit rights or something.

Wars have a habit of snowballing or unintended side effects (such as Iraq now).

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 07, 2007, 08:28 AM

Also do not forget that the opposition tried to kill Hitler since 1938!

Well, ETA have killed Spaniards many a time, yet I would hardly say they represent most of Spain. You are right that there was significant opposition to Nazism in Germany, and perhaps the Allies could have had a slightly easier time if they made better use of the German resistence.

But to characterize the German population as being just as against the Nazis as say, the French, before later in the war when it was obvious the Germans were going to lose, is wrong.

As for the annexed lands, I think enough time has past, and the lands are so integrated into the Polish state and nation that any referendum on which state to belong to would keep the area Polish. Let's put it this way. If Germany tagged on that land, their population would rise by probably 15 million, but their German population would remain almost constant.

However, I think the important lesson is like Verbose was saying. Eventually history has to be treated as not relevant to the present, and people should move on.

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 09:39 AM

@GinandTonic - I totally agree. After all that happened in my country, Germany was treated really gently. It's impossible for me to imagine: when they invaded us they wanted to kill every single Pole (that was official policy of German state then). Now they complain that they were treated badly after war... I miss words to describe how senseless it is.
@Commy - in English it is "Poles", not "Polishes" :) Soviet Union lost war with Poland in 1920 - territories which were seized by Poland were simply regained - that was how Poland looked like in 1790, before partitions... take a look at map:
I Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Rzeczpospolita.png
II Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:RzeczpospolitaII.png
and now: III Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:LocationPoland.png
@Adler17 - "Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned." Ribbentrop-Molotov - you remember? So you should modify this point to
"Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned unless Germany _is_ annexing".
Concerning your grand father - you agree that this is an exception, there was practically no resistance in Germany, almost all Germans supported Hitler and millions of them were fighting and killing innocent and defenseless civlians in whole Europe. Come to Warsaw and try to find at least one street here without a plate saying 'Here Germans shoot 300 civilians' or something similiar. Then visit Auschwitz and then we may start to talk if Gemrany 'got screwed'
The truth is that it was Poland that lost most in this war. We had our state which was democratic (at least much more democratic than our neighbours), capitalistic and our economy was starting to improve (taking into consideration 123 years of Russian-German-Austrian occupation). We were the first one to be invaded, our soldiers fought on every front of that war in Europe and many outside of Europe, from RAF and Battle for Britain, invasion of Netherlands, of Italy, Africa, Middle East. 6 millions of Poles were executed or died in fight and what we get after all those sacrifices? We were given as an artifact to Stalin and get 45 years of communistic regime with a HQ in Moscow... and you say that you were screwed up? At least more than half of Germany was in the 'free world' and became an economic power house, which we coul be by now as well. Instead of that, we are only now trying to rebuild our economy almost from scratch.

REDY

Mar 07, 2007, 10:04 AM

Given how crazy left wing liberal Germany is at the moment perhaps it's better for those folk to stay with the Polish or someone who are more conservative! :p

Hmm Polish government is realy crap and reflects Polish strangeness.

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 10:27 AM

I agree that today's Polish government is really crap - I'm also really frustrated about it. But keep in mind that they won by very narrow margin with Civic Platform, which are totally different. They took two small parties and are a reason for us to be ashamed... What is optimistic is that even this conservative and nationalistic government is keeping the main direction - EU and NATO, free market, freedom of speech etc.
People start to be fed up with our government and hopefully soon they will quit. One more thing - if you would check the type of people who voted for current government you would see that they were chosen by older people and people from countryside. Young people and people living in cities mostly voted for Civic Platform, which is also a right-wing party, but not nationalistic, only liberal (as opposed to social PiS which is in power now).
Tell me REDY what has this to do with the topic 'Germany got screwed?' ???

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 10:28 AM

Zardnaar, concerning Stalin's plans nothing is sure. Anyway most of the crimes committed against Germans were not motivated by revenge of the soldiers but the system. Remember Ilya Ehrenstein, the Russian Goebbels.

@Ldeska:
I never justified the Molotow- Ribbentrop pact. It was as bad as the Yalta conference.
Also it is complete BS that nearly all Germans were Nazis as you intend to say. Infact Hitler's NSDAP got never the majority in the Reichstag (before his "Machtergreifung), even not in spring 1933. Yes he had support because of the reasons I explained. But that he had lost most of it by 1942/1943 is also clear. Only fear and the allied bombings kept the regime on power.
Also I never said, the Poles were not fighting bravely. However we should also not forget that Poles actively helped in the Holocaust, too. Also because of the history from 1919-1923 and the Polish invasions in upper Silesia you can also say they were partly responsible for Hitler, too (to a certain degree and indirectly).
That you came under Russian influence, do not balme us, but Churchill.

Adler

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 10:29 AM

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 10:45 AM

It's all about scale - in nation of many millions like Germans and Poles you always can find murderers, thieves etc. It's really offending to say that "Poles actively helped in the Holocaust". This is an insinuation that _many_ of them did so. I think that really few did it, uncomparable few if you compare it to people who acted in resistance. Poland had largest underground army in occupied Europe and _never_ created a puppet regime that would cooperate with Nazis.

You wrote that I intend to say "nearly all Germans were Nazis" - it was not only few people who was responsible. Each human being has it's soul and conscience. Would you shot in head a baby only because Hitler said so (because baby is jewish or polish)? German soldiers did it, not one or two, tenths thousands of them.

"Polish invasions in upper Silesia you can also say they were partly responsible for Hitler" - hard to discuss it even, sorry but have you forgot your meds today??? Read it once again and tell me how does it links to each other? And why you wrote 'Polish invasions'? Those lands were occupied by Germany, since the times when Germans seized it in 1790-1800. Why do you treat any piece of land where one German lives as a Germany? That's exactly how was Hitler thinking.
"And I thought, you were a supporter." - stop joking - 31 years old man who supports our government? Really rare. I repeat - I'm ashamed by my current government just like all my friends. In fact, it's impossible to find now even one person who would say publicly that voted for them :) Maybe they're not proud of it :)

Stolen Rutters

Mar 07, 2007, 10:57 AM

Yes, it appears from what I have read that Germany actually lost far less than they should have and Poland lost much, much more from the metric of "the victim" at least.

Everybody lost a lot in that war. Well, now that the borders are open and people can move where they want, I don't know why reparations to reverse the previous reparations are an issue for people now. I was under the impression that nationality in Europe is geographical based. Can't you just move to Ireland or Scotland for jobs now? It's the way the United States is set up at least... I assumed the EU open borders would let you move to whatever state holds the most opportunity for you.

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 11:14 AM

LDeska, look a bit in your history books and you'll find evidences, where Polish people attacked Jews after the Germans marched in. Antisemitism was not uncommon to Poland, too. Also I say this with the same rights and the same logic as you say most Germans were Nazis.
Erm, Silesia was not conquered from Poland but from Austria.

If you didn't vote for them and so many do not like the two ducks then Poland might not be lost yet ;).

Adler

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 11:27 AM

Again - it's all about scale. There are only few cases you've mentioned. The worst one concerned killing of 2-3 hundreds of people. I value each human life and consider each loss of life something horrible and impossible to justify, but I can not understand why we even discuss this issue here. How can we compare killing 3 millions of Jews, commited by German State with precision which should be used for better things to literally few acts of violence (BTW - some of them inspired by special Gestapo troops) which cause death of few hundreds of people? Those acts were horrible and I'm not trying to say that it was not important. As I said - each life is very important, but writing about it in this thread leads to a sentence 'everybody was killing, so we are equal'.

About our government - it's really a puzzle - who voted for them? We know how it looks like for you and I'm even more ashamed when I have to go abroad and hear what are those politicians saying :( My cousin lives near Dortmund (for 13 years already) when he had a meeting with his classmates from high school, everyone said that didn't voted for ducks :) in my work also noone voted for them... so who chose them :D ???

@Stolen Rutters - it is as you write, this is not an issue in today's Europe. Noone is thinking about shifting borders. Poland ratified it's borders with all neighbours long time ago. That's why I was surprised with this thread - it is really a bit too late now and secondly it's pointless as there is freedom of movement in EU now. Poles can go visit Wilno, Germans can go and visit Gdańsk - no problem, even if you want to move permanently.

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 01:13 PM

Poland got screwed in WW2.

West 36

Mar 07, 2007, 01:20 PM

Poland got screwed in WW2.

By Russia. Remember that Warsaw rising in '44? The Poles rose up since the Russians were knocking at the gates.. but the Russians decided to let the Poles do it themselves. They lost. THEN Russian put them under Soviet control for 50 years. Good stuff.

AND to say that Russia never would have taken those lands if it weren't for Germany.. no, he may not have gone so far west but I'm sure Stalin would have found a way to take some more land.

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 01:38 PM

@Zardnaar - Poland before war had two plans of war: defense from attack from west (Germany) and defense from attack from east (Russia). There was no way to defend from Germany and Russia attacking us together... Poland was too weak as it was trying to recover from being a colony in heart of Europe for last 123 years. It was also capitalistic state with free market unlike Germany and Russia which both had forms of communism. Germany was arming for many years, Poland did but in far less scale.
@West36 - wehad communistic regime for 44-45 years, not 50. As start we have to consider 1944-1945 when Poland was "liberated" by Red Army (in fact only occupier changed), the end was 1989, when Poland as the first in communistic bloc had elections that were not totally controlled by communists. Later Berlin Wall fell and other communistic countries overthrown as well...
Warsaw uprising was a horrible thing - 200k civilians died, over 90% of building were razed in a city of almost 2 milions. But it shown our true value - some historician say that it was a reason why there was no such intervention in Poland as was in Czechoslovakia, because Russians knew that Poles would rather fight till last man than surrender to them.

Mirc

Mar 07, 2007, 01:40 PM

Commy

Mar 07, 2007, 02:40 PM

@Commy - in English it is "Poles", not "Polishes" :)
I forgot it :hammer2:
Soviet Union lost war with Poland in 1920 - territories which were seized by Poland were simply regained - that was how Poland looked like in 1790, before partitions... take a look at map:
I Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Rzeczpospolita.png
II Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:RzeczpospolitaII.png
and now: III Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:LocationPoland.png
I know that. But the population of this territories was mostly East-Slavian (Russians, Ukrainians and... err... Belorussians (is it correctly in English? :confused:)), not West-Slavian (Poles). They also was mostly Orthodoxes, not Catholics.
I think pan will not dispute aboute it :)
Ribbentrop-Molotov - you remember?
I don't know about Germany, but in Russia parliament declare this pact illegal.

Commy

Mar 07, 2007, 02:48 PM

By Russia. Remember that Warsaw rising in '44? The Poles rose up since the Russians were knocking at the gates.. but the Russians decided to let the Poles do it themselves. They lost. THEN Russian put them under Soviet control for 50 years. Good stuff.
Our armies crossed all Belorussia and western part of Poland within one month, as I remember. They need in supply and reinforcements in that time.

privatehudson

Mar 07, 2007, 03:31 PM

Our armies crossed all Belorussia and western part of Poland within one month, as I remember. They need in supply and reinforcements in that time.

Considering that the units that reached the outskirts of Warsaw had in fact advanced a shorter distance and managed to operate quite well during the period of the uprising North and South of the city that argument is at best weak. Also if Stalin knew his own armies couldn't help what was stopping him letting the western armies do it? The early RAF attempts to airdrop supplies had to fly from (and return to) British and Italian bases because despite specific requests Stalin refused to allow soviet bases to be used.

Its far more likely that Stalin viewed the Home Army as a danger to his post war occupation plans and viewed the uprising as a way to let the Germans do his dirty work for him. I believe he referred to them (the Home Army) at one point as criminals and Beria tried to have them branded as fascists, despite how ludicrous that claim clearly was.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 05:24 PM

"Poland liberated by Red Army" - most typical Soviet propaganda. It's a shame it still has effect on real people in our days. That's why Germany is rich while Poland and Eastern Europe are poor, because they believe in any crap they are told.

1. Russia was not only let off easy, but possibly benefitted most from the war, which they by far did not deserve. They've (The Stalinists) committed more atrocities than the Nazis...although admittedly it was mostly to their own people.

EDIT: forget #2, I misread the post :crazyeye:

Pokurcz

Mar 07, 2007, 06:32 PM

Well this is first and foremost a touchy issue, especially in Poland, where feeling mistreated as a people is a part of the national identity.

I as a person born in Poland can really identify with the German wish for regaining cities like Köningsberg, because of my wish to regain Lwow, which was the second most important city in Poland before WW2.

But at the same time I feel ashamed of said feelings because of the suffering the Ukrainians have gone through during the last century, partly because of non kept Polish promises of military help against the Soviets; but especially because I find it deeply distasteful to hurt a nation further which is in a worse state than "mine" because of my nationalistic fancies. It would be much better for Poland and the Ukraine for Poland to promote swifter admittance of Ukraine to NATO and the EU (and give those meddling Muscovites a swift kick in the groin). Not to mention those unfortunate schmucks in Belarus.

The best thing really, as several have voiced, is to let bygones be bygones.

Not listening to my own advice I'm of the opinion that the whole mess is the Soviets fault, ravenous imperialists that they where/are.:p

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 06:53 PM

privatehudson

Mar 07, 2007, 07:29 PM

Threads evolve and touch on relevant topics. This one began with the question of whether Germany deserved to loose territory at the end of WW2. To determine that it would be relevant to look at the actions of Germany during the war to see if anything she did would be "deserving" of punishment in the context of previous peace agreements. Obviously though the manner in which that punishment was carried out was just as wrong as many of the things the Nazi state did.

I don't see any reason to turn specifially it into a thread where we all regret that Germans got screwed, that would make a very quick discussion and cut short what is at present a rather interesting one.

Pokurcz

Mar 07, 2007, 07:30 PM

"Only problem is the same people who are saying "let bygones be bygones" aren't doing so. They're getting angry and blaming everything on Germany and being bitter, NOT letting things go"

That is not an accurate description of Verbose's posts and personally I believe that it is also far from descriptive of my post. Maybe your getting the touchiness of the issue get to you and react ever so slightly in a overtly defensive manner?
I think you'll find those that say "let bygones be bygones" and those who promote unchanged borders because they find them more fair, to be separate individuals in most cases.

As to the last sentence of my post:
The Polish government that displaced Germans from their native soil was a Soviet puppet, whilst the true government sat in exile in London. Which is why I totally blame the Soviets for the atrocity.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 07:44 PM

Saying "who cares about you! What about so-and-so?" is not a relevent evolution of the thread privatehudson. I'd also like to point out the title of the thread... :goodjob:

I wasn't saying everyone was saying such Pokurcz, and I wouldn't describe accusing someone of being overly defensive as a logical and rational argument, in a sense negating such a statement by the principle upon which it is founded: being overly defensive

My stance is that I don't think Germany deserved to have so much taken from them after WWII, and used how so many others even benefitted from commiting similar atrocities, that after the overly harsh Versailles treaty (which in itself was a large measure of ingratitude on the behalf of the French in return for the kind treatment offered them at the end of the Napoleonic wars) Germany shouldn't have been so badly abused, and lands that at the time were rightfully German and had a dense German population should have stayed German, rather than being partitioned out to imperialistic ambitions, which is exactly the same thing that happened to Poland (hence my disappointment on the Polish agreement on this view, with no offense to the Polish intended of course ;) )

And Adler has provided ample evidence to back up my opinion, although it may not be for the same reasons.

Take into account, what are the three most harsh treaties and war ending agreements imposed on a losing nation?

How many of them were imposed on Germany by so-called lovers of democracy and fairness?

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 07, 2007, 07:48 PM

Only problem is the same people who are saying "let bygones be bygones" aren't doing so. They're getting angry and blaming everything on Germany and being bitter, NOT letting things go

that wasn't the point of the thread. It was a "wish Germany hadn't been mistreated" thread. We can start one for Ukraine, Poland, or any other nation. We never said that they weren't mistreated.

We were just talking about the mistreatments in Germany

and I do agree with the last sentence somewhat ;)

You cannot separate the mistreatment of the Germans from the context of the far greater mistreatment of the non-Germans by the Germans.

Either forget and forgive both, or we can have a "tally" contest; an argument which the German-supporters can only lose.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 07:58 PM

Germany lose to Russia?

I think not

look at it from more than just a western perspective. I saw the war from Russia's and it supported my argument.

and you cannot separate the distinction between Nazis and Germans

Very few Germans were truly Nazis. Most did not approve of what happened.

Otherwise, would the German Republic have lasted at all?

Pokurcz

Mar 07, 2007, 08:09 PM

"I wasn't saying everyone was saying such Pokurcz, and I wouldn't describe accusing someone of being overly defensive as a logical and rational argument, in a sense negating such a statement by the principle upon which it is founded: being overly defensive"

Now look here, my statement that triggered your answer cited above was based on the claim in my first post that this is a sensitive issue and was not meant as some sort of pun. I only meant to point out that "perhaps" your feelings got you carried away and resulted in IMO claims not supported by the facts.

You forget the war between France and Germany in the 1870s, when the Germans where less than "kind", but I do agree that the Allies where excessively vengeful in deed in the Versailles treaty.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 08:12 PM

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 07, 2007, 08:33 PM

Very few Germans were truly Nazis. Most did not approve of what happened.

Otherwise, would the German Republic have lasted at all?

What is "truly" a Nazi then? Most didn't know exactly what was happening, that is true. But that doesn't change the fact that they largely supported the government that did it, at the time they did it; and if the war had ended in 1940 with a peace treaty, leaving Germany most of Europe, the Germans probably would have kept on supporting the Nazis for a long time. Odds are they would have pushed the "hey, what happened to all the Jews? Weren't there 33 million Poles before the war? Because now there are only 10 million..." questions out of their heads as long as possible.

Having to get carpet bombed by the combined power of most of the freaking democratic (and Stalinist) world to learn your collective moral mistake is not something to take pride in.

That being said, I am impressed with how intelligently most Germans with even basic education handle the history of WWII. Probably more objective than most of the rest of the world. However, as time goes on and generations pass, lots of Germans seem to feel the need to connect emotionally with the Allied cause. Hence the exaggeration of the local opposition to Hitler in the first years of the war. Unfortunately for the Germans, this just isn't how it was.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 08:39 PM

Read some books about life in Germany during the Nazi reign.

You either cheered in public and "supported" the Reich or you died/went to a camp. Voicing your opinion on ANYTHING could very well get you and your entire family deported and slaughtered. There was no option. You lived in fear.

As Adler mentioned, the Nazis NEVER got an honest majority in the Reichstag

and I'd ask Stalin about the Jews.

as well as the rest of the 28 million (I think that's the right number) "missing people"

West 36

Mar 07, 2007, 08:46 PM

A lot of arguments have ended with saying "Well the Germans deserved to lose territory for killing so many people" but I don't believe that taking land is in anyway a punishment for killing people. "AH! The Poles have lost millions, lets give some German land to them, and that will solve the problem!" does that make sense? If the U.S. invades... Canada, and alot of other nations get involved, and America loses, and Canada gains, say, Maine, Washington, etc, does this make sense. Should countries be rewarded with territory for what they have had to deal with? I'm wondering now what the reason was for giving the Poles that territory, and if it truely was because of the tremendous toll their population took.

Verbose

Mar 08, 2007, 12:30 AM

The Germans were more than kind

The French rejected the generous peace terms-hence the continuing war and siege of Paris. The war should have ended with the capture of Napleon III, that's when peace was offered. Therefore it's not Germany's fault, but that of the French who refused peace.
It's a bit OT to the thread, but never mind Napoleon III, the French people didn't consider the war over.
Would the people of the US have accepted defeat at a point where they had more armies in the field than when the war started and didn't feel beat yet, trusting to the "kindness" of the enemy? I don't think so.

privatehudson

Mar 08, 2007, 01:55 AM

Saying "who cares about you! What about so-and-so?" is not a relevent evolution of the thread privatehudson

Just because some people may hold that view does not give others the ability to dictate how the thread should run. Since many do not hold the above view it seems silly to suggest such a thing.

I'd also like to point out the title of the thread...

Well if you want to be that pedantic I'd point to the question mark in the title, or the first post. It doesn't say that the thread is only to lament the events of WW2 on Germany, it talks about a thread to discuss whether the loss of land was deserved or not. I personally find the notion that any population might have deserved what happened to them in WW2 to be of little relevance though. Like I said earlier, people didn't get what they deserved.

I prefer to question whether what happened was to be expected rather than if it was deserved. It is therefore entirely relevant to compare what happened to the Germans to what happened to other people, and also relevant to consider the nature of the war in understanding why the peace was so harsh on Germany.

You'd like to lament what happened to Germany, fine. I'm sure the majority of people here would agree that the German civilian population were by and large as much victims of Hitler and the war as anyone else. Its impossible to read a book on the last months of fighting without feeling sorry for those trapped by circumstance between Nazi incompetence and inhumanity and the advancing Soviet army. Lets be quite clear on this matter though, the fate that befell the German people was not just the fault of the Soviets or Poles. You could look at the refusal to allow evacuation of major urban areas, the use of civilians in military formations, the incompetence and hypocrisy of Nazi leaders, the desperate attempts to save their own skin or reputation or any of the other insane acts of the Nazi regime in its final year.

Adler17

Mar 08, 2007, 01:57 AM

At first many say Versailles was hard because of Frankfurt 1871. But then you have to see Tilsit 1806, too.
Anyway Versailles is the major reason for the catastrophe of 1939-1945/90. But that is not topic here. Sobieski II. the Nazis committed crimes of an unknown degree. That is bad. But does one crime justify another? The Germans killed, abused and displaced were mostly innocent. The few really guilty persons were either dead, imprisoned or on the run. But not in that areas. Also the Holocaust is mostly said as an excuse to justify the crimes against Germans. I am so daring and say that indeed the Holocaust was in no way causing the displacements. Stalin wanted to do so and the western Allies let him do so. Only his Imperialistic dreams were making that possible. So yes, the Russians are to blame first. OTOH that does not lower the guilt of the Nazis. Indeed both has to be very well seperated. And yes, I know, Poland lost also lands. And of that areas at least the territories where a Polish majority was living in before the war should be given back to Poland.

@Verbose: The Germans made in 1870 an offer of peace. The French would have paid a small sum and agreed to the German unification and all was okay. It was the French who declined the offer but fought further.

Adler

Steph

Mar 08, 2007, 02:03 AM

The French rejected the generous peace terms-hence the continuing war and siege of Paris. The war should have ended with the capture of Napleon III, that's when peace was offered. Therefore it's not Germany's fault, but that of the French who refused peace.

When we surrender to the Germans in 1940 "without figthint" we are called cowards. When we decide to continue the fight in 1870, we are criticized as well..
No body likes us :cry:

Zardnaar

Mar 08, 2007, 02:33 AM

Adler17

Mar 08, 2007, 02:43 AM

No, as it was the cause for Adolf.

Adler

Knight-Dragon

Mar 08, 2007, 03:16 AM

While I realise this is a sensitive topic for some, here's a gentle reminder to pls restrain yourselves and mind the forum rules. Thanks.

Zardnaar

Mar 08, 2007, 03:44 AM

Wouldn't the greta depression be a more direct cause for Hitler?

LDeska

Mar 08, 2007, 04:15 AM

@Mirc - don't you get the irony in my post??? In my post I put word 'liberated' in quotation marks to show that it was not liberation, simply change of occupier.
I wrote:

As start we have to consider 1944-1945 when Poland was "liberated" by Red Army (in fact only occupier changed)
Believe me, we do not treat years 1945-1989 as a period of independence. As I wrote before - it was a communistic regime with HQ in Moscow.
And the reason why Poland is not as rich as Germany today is what I wrote before - 45 years of communism in Poland and 45 years of free market in Germany. If you compare East Germany to Poland today you will see that Poland is doing better - for example we have lower unemployment than in East Germany (and remember that West Germany is pumping money in East for last 15 years, they have even special tax which they pay in western lands to help the eastern lands).
@Commy - I agree that in eastern parts of II Rzeczpospolita were huge minorities. I don't know the exact proportions, so I can not dispute it. I know that cities were populated mostly by Poles and villages mostly by Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians. About Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - when was it declared illegal in Russia? I didn't knew about it...
About Warsaw Uprising '44 - it was clearly cruel way to fight Home Army which was still loyal to Polish Government in exile (in London) and wanted a really independent Poland after war. Stalin wanted a puppet regime so he (for the last time in WW2) cooperated with Germans - he denied western Allies the right to land in his territory so they could not help Poles, they flown from Italy and England risking huge loses to supply Warsaw (223 sorties and lost 34 aircraft). Stalin halted his troops and waited until Warsaw was razed and all people expelled from Warsaw.
@privatehudson - it's very sad but it was true that after the war during 'stalinism' people from Home Army were arrested and killed without a trial or after a fake trials. Those fake trials were even worse, because communists blamed people who devoted their lives to free Poland as nazi collaborators and sentenced to death or long prison. After few years, when Stalin died, most of those murdered people were rehabilitated and those who were not killed had their sentences shortened.
@Pokurcz - I think the same as you and it's happening now. Hopefully even ducks didn't forget about Ukraine - wasn't yesterday when he met with president of Ukraine? Poland is supporting Ukrainian aspirations to join EU and NATO from the very beginning.
@West 36 - you're messing up facts. Poland lost territory in WW2, not gained! Take a look at maps I've provided in one of previous posts... Russia took much more from Poland in east, than we gained in west.

Mirc

Mar 08, 2007, 04:25 AM

@Mirc - don't you get the irony in my post??? In my post I put word 'liberated' in quotation marks to show that it was not liberation, simply change of occupier.
I wrote:

Believe me, we do not treat years 1945-1989 as a period of independence. As I wrote before - it was a communistic regime with HQ in Moscow.
And the reason why Poland is not as rich as Germany today is what I wrote before - 45 years of communism in Poland and 45 years of free market in Germany. If you compare East Germany to Poland today you will see that Poland is doing better - for example we have lower unemployment than in East Germany (and remember that West Germany is pumping money in East for last 15 years, they have even special tax which they pay in western lands to help the eastern lands).

I know and agree that Eastern Europe is poorer because of the communism. Basically after WW2 the west abandoned the area leaving it in the sphere of influence of Russia. But I also have to say unemployment is not the right criteria for judging this: Romania has lowest unemployment in Europe, yet Poland is doing better. :) Also East Germany has the huge advantage of a lot of funds from West Germany, that were given to them for free.

Also, yes, I do agree Russia took more of Poland than what it gave to it. It's exactly the same thing that they did with Romania (took the big important region of Bugeac and also northern Bukovine, and gave Moldova the insignificant region of Transnistria "in exchange").

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 08, 2007, 10:13 AM

and I'd ask Stalin about the Jews.

as well as the rest of the 28 million (I think that's the right number) "missing people"

Stalin undoubtedly killed many people, but however you wish to revise history, the Germans were responsible for almost all of the dead Jews. How could Stalin have killed the 3 million Polish Jews when they were in German-occupied Poland? And how do we explain the fact that a bulk of the Jews in the rest of the former Russian "Pale" were killed once the German troops arrived? Perhaps you should read some history.

And who were those men the Germans were mowing down with their machine guns on the Eastern Front then? They were Soviets. True, at least in the case of non-Jewish Soviets, the Germans mostly killed them in battle, but then you were the invader so you take most of the blame... even if Soviet battle tactics were criminally negligent to the lives of their troops.

willemvanoranje

Mar 08, 2007, 11:01 AM

Wouldn't the greta depression be a more direct cause for Hitler?

Germany was in an almost constant great depression because of Versailles. It had to make payments it never could have made. The first signs of disaster showed up years before the '29 crash already. The Weimar Republic was never able to consolidate democracy. Hitler showed up in 1922 already, but his march to Berlin was of course stopped in the streets of München already. That's what you get from starting a revolt when you're drunk. But by 1925 Germany was full of fighting groups belonging to political parties, most of them having WWI veterans that just had nothing better to do since Versailles had cut down Germany's army from a few million (incl. conscripts obviously) to 100.000. In the Weimar Republic, issues were not solved by talking to each other, but by massive fights on the street. There was no civil society that knew how to deal with democracy.

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 08, 2007, 02:08 PM

Well, Germany may have been in a Depression, but that is only a reason, not an excuse for Hitler.

I assure you the Great Depression was worse on the Canadian Prairies than it was in Germany, where it was combined with massive drought. Perhaps Germany had it worse in the 20s, but in the 30s, almost everyone had it bad.

Commy

Mar 08, 2007, 02:14 PM

About Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - when was it declared illegal in Russia? I didn't knew about it...
About 17 years ago. If you want, I'll say you exactly.
About Warsaw Uprising '44 - it was clearly cruel way to fight Home Army which was still loyal to Polish Government in exile (in London) and wanted a really independent Poland after war. Stalin wanted a puppet regime so he (for the last time in WW2) cooperated with Germans - he denied western Allies the right to land in his territory so they could not help Poles, they flown from Italy and England risking huge loses to supply Warsaw (223 sorties and lost 34 aircraft). Stalin halted his troops and waited until Warsaw was razed and all people expelled from Warsaw.
Why you think my arguments about Warsaw uprising are baseless?
Communists blamed people who devoted their lives to free Poland as nazi collaborators and sentenced to death or long prison. After few years, when Stalin died, most of those murdered people were rehabilitated and those who were not killed had their sentences shortened.
This communists were Polish, not Russian.
Poland is supporting Ukrainian aspirations to join NATO
Why? To let Americans set their wareheads somewhere near Poltava, and set their military bases in Crimea?
Russia took much more from Poland in east, than we gained in west.
Eastern Polish lands were mostly East-Slavians than Polish. Now this territories are parts of Ukraine and Belorussia, so you can raise your claims to this countries and their presidents. For example, to Lukashenko :lol:

Commy

Mar 08, 2007, 02:23 PM

It's exactly the same thing that they did with Romania (took the big important region of Bugeac and also northern Bukovine, and gave Moldova the insignificant region of Transnistria "in exchange").
But Romania occuped Moldova after WWI and Rusian revolution. Before Romanian occupation Moldavia was Russian.
Bukovine was old Austrian crown land. It was mostly populated by Ukrainians.

Mirc

Mar 08, 2007, 02:47 PM

^ What? ????? Never heard this ever in my life! It was Russian? :lol: :rotfl: :lol:

Please do tell me if you are being sarcastic.

smalltalk

Mar 08, 2007, 02:52 PM

Also it is complete BS that nearly all Germans were Nazis as you intend to say. Infact Hitler's NSDAP got never the majority in the Reichstag (before his "Machtergreifung), even not in spring 1933. Very few Germans were truly Nazis. Most did not approve of what happened.Not true.

10% of the Germans were member of the Party.
44% voted Nazi in the last free elections.
Conservative parties cheered when members of the communist party were seized.

You either cheered in public and "supported" the Reich or you died/went to a camp. Voicing your opinion on ANYTHING could very well get you and your entire family deported and slaughtered. There was no option. You lived in fear.Not true, either.

Many people, who didn't want or couldn't afford to emigrate went into "inner emigration." They just fell silent.

For example, there was the option for conscientious objectors to be sent to flak squads instead of being assigned to fighting duty.
Obviously though the manner in which that punishment was carried out was just as wrong as many of the things the Nazi state did.I don't feel what happened was a punishment.

The Soviets just didn't want to roll back their territory gain from Molotow-Ribbentrop pact, and they didn't mind devouring Köningsberg/Kaliningrad-area, when the opportunity arose.

The Polish tried to egalise their territorial losses by moving westward, not to punish but just to stay afloat.

Very practical reasons, I feel.
I'm wondering now what the reason was for giving the Poles that territory, and if it truely was because of the tremendous toll their population took.See above.

privatehudson

Mar 08, 2007, 03:38 PM

I don't feel what happened was a punishment.

I wasn't just talking about land loss but the overall fate of Germans and Germany of which loss of land is but one part.

willemvanoranje

Mar 08, 2007, 03:48 PM

Perhaps Germany had it worse in the 20s, but in the 30s, almost everyone had it bad.

And by that time, it was too late already. :(

Nylan

Mar 08, 2007, 04:24 PM

Wouldn't the greta depression be a more direct cause for Hitler?

The great depression was so horrible in Germany because of Versailles. That was the point Adler and I were making. Forced to pay huge indemnities, stripped of their colonies which would have helped them pay them as well as a large portion of their lands and population which would also have helped with payment and with the economy...humiliated to the utmost degree for being the one nation to be punished by the rest in a war when there were no "good guys". It had a serious effect on the harsh conditions that led to a desire for a strong leader. Adolf comes along and provides them with that, and of course deceives the German people into giving him power, which he used to tighten the leash and start his reign of terror.

Chain reaction

EDIT: Yes, smalltalk, it is true. You couldn't really get along without being a member of the party and supporting it. Furthermore those few "favors" of not being sent to camps and going on flak squads etc. were few and far between. That's what all the evidence I've seen supports. Can you show me examples saying otherwise?

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 08, 2007, 04:51 PM

I would say that the Great Depression would have been pretty terrible to Germany even without Versailles. Why would Germany avoid what the rest of the world couldn't?

Here is what the Great Depression looked like in my area of the world:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/20388/kansasdustbowl.jpg

Nylan

Mar 08, 2007, 07:53 PM

and beforehand?

West 36

Mar 08, 2007, 10:15 PM

Ok, so I understand now how Poland didint gain territory, but rather shifted, and in so doing took land from Germany, because that megalomaniac in Moscow had to please his fancy of expansion by any means, so the USSR is the culprit here, agreed? probably not. But next topic, I'm not so sure of how the Great Depression helped Hitler, because of their own, and this may have been inevitable despite what happened globaly. Just a thought.

Commy

Mar 08, 2007, 11:01 PM

^ What? ????? Never heard this ever in my life! It was Russian? :lol: :rotfl: :lol:

Please do tell me if you are being sarcastic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Bessarabia-sce.png
Yellow territories were part of Russia

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 09, 2007, 12:34 AM

and beforehand?

Umm... imagine some crops for one.

Adler17

Mar 09, 2007, 01:12 AM

Sobieski, the Great Depression would have hit Germany not as hard as it did. There would have been not 6 million unemployees and thus not so many votes to Hitler and the Communists.

@ smalltalk:
44 % in a hardly fair and free elections. It is more significant as Hitler did not come over 50% (as he tried). Also the communists were not very well seen in all other parties.
Also 10% of the Germans might have been in the party. Okay. But how many were in just to have no trouble at work? Who were in to oppose Hitler and not to be detected? Who were in who were in someway forced to be so? And who were the hard core of the party? In the elections before 1929 Hitler got only about 3% of the votes. That is the significant number.

Adler

LDeska

Mar 09, 2007, 04:21 AM

@Commy
About 17 years ago. If you want, I'll say you exactly.
So it was just a symbolic act (more than 60 years after this pact was signed) - it's just, however before 17 years ago Russia not only was obeying this pact, also denied even it's existing. In our schools children listen to a story that Russians helped us - took our lands to protect those lands from Hitler. This was official communistic propaganda in Poland...
Why you think my arguments about Warsaw uprising are baseless?
Because they are... how can we discuss this issue if you do not have knowledge in this area? Please read any source on Warsaw Uprising which was not written in Soviet Union. Even wikipedia, which is not best source. What happened is so obvious and clear - there is so many historical sources that proves that Stalin on purpose halted his troops (which were in Warsaw, only on other bank of river) that it's really baseless to say it was different...
This communists were Polish, not Russian.
And who put them in that position? Who made it possible and gave them power? They were criminals, who's only source of power in Poland was millions of Red Army's soldiers who left Poland only in 1991 or something similiar. Poland never was and never wanted to be communistic. We were a republic since 1791 (our first constitution). Don't you know that in the beginning most important posts were held by Russians or people who Russians trusted enough to put them in those posts? What was happening when someone was trying to something else that was planned in Moscow? I'll give an example: first secretary of Polish Communistic Party went to Moscow on 12.III.1956 for XX summit of Soviet Union Communistic Party. He returned in a coffin, 'cause he was not good enough.
Think a bit before you post - you're offending my country by insinuating that communism in Poland was our internal thing. Isn't strange that in every part of the world where Red Army entered there was a communistic revolution?
It was simply a way to take over the power in those countries and enslave people living there.
Hopefully Russians didn't thought that taking Poland will be their fault - Solidarity was stronger than Russian tanks and now we may enjoy our free country without even one foreign soldier on our soil. :D
Why? To let Americans set their wareheads somewhere near Poltava, and set their military bases in Crimea?
Each state where Americans entered is doing quite well: Germany, Japan, South Korea, with Russians it is quite different: Russia itself, East Europe, North Korea... so it's all up to Ukrainians, but if in their place I would accept such help.
Secondly - really Russia is not a threat to USA anymore, so what are you afraid of? USA have no interest in attacking Russia, they are much more interested in China, India and Middle East now.
Eastern Polish lands were mostly East-Slavians than Polish. Now this territories are parts of Ukraine and Belorussia, so you can raise your claims to this countries and their presidents. For example, to Lukashenko
Maybe eastern parts were, but Russians took a lot of land - what you are saying is again taken from communistic schools.
And why do you think that anyone in Poland wants to raise any claims? As I wrote - borders are untouchable in Europe - we had too much problems with this.
Claims that we raise is against ignorance of people who think that Russia was the victim in WW2 - in fact until 1941 Russia was the attacker just like Germany and started the war together with Hitler by attacking Poland in September 1939.

@smalltalk
The Polish tried to egalise their territorial losses by moving westward, not to punish but just to stay afloat.
I would like it to be true, however the truth is that Poles had nothing to say in Jalta conference, we were not invited even, only USA, England and Russia took part in it and they decided how Europe will look like after WW2. They had to move somewhere those millions of Poles who lived in eastern Poland (yes Commy, there were millions of Poles) so they decided to took lands from Germany and move Poles to those new lands.

@Commy - tell me why you, Russians have to have so much land? You are always not pleased: Moldova is Russian, Kuryl islands are Russian, Chechnya is Russian, I do not understand this...

Pokurcz

Mar 09, 2007, 05:15 AM

LDeska
"tell me why you, Russians have to have so much land?"

Because Russia (perhaps inspired under the yoke of the golden Horde) has always been a ravenous totalitarian expansionist beast that much like locust does not consolidate land captured effectively enough not to be forced to expand on to new land to ravage? ;)

At least that is my fathers opinion, and I actually do not think that it is far from the truth. :sad:

(let it be known that the top notion is meant as a description of Russia as a collective and the doings of its ruling classes and not about its individual members)

Mirc

Mar 09, 2007, 05:16 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Bessarabia-sce.png
Yellow territories were part of Russia

Wait, let's not start a serious discussion about this here, as we would be going off-topic. Let me state an answer to your post, and then if you want to discuss this further start a new thread. :)

Have you ever heard about Osiesti family? They were a family from Moldova, who were writing letters to each other, and produced the oldest surviving document in Romanian, in late 1200. Actually, the oldest well-preserved document is Neacsu's letter, from 1521, but the oldest document from which only fragments were preserved was from 934. Guess in what language that thing was written? ;)

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/balkans/moldvall1500s.gif
1500 AD

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Mihai_1600.png
The Principalities, 1600 AD

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/1606_map_Ward_1912.jpg
1606-1700

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Rom1793-1812.png
Quote from source:
"Principalities with Romanian population before Moldavia was stripped of Bessarabia, 1793-1812"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rom1856-1859.png
Romania 1856-1859

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Romania_MASSR_1920.png
Romania after WW1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Romania_WWII.png
Results of WW2 for Romania

Want any more proof? I can give it. ;)

StarWorms

Mar 09, 2007, 06:46 AM

Verbose

Mar 09, 2007, 07:40 AM

They lost the war. They're pretty lucky to still have a country at all.
Why? Should German national destruction have been an allied war-objective, instead of simply the defeat of Nazism? They weren't equating Germany with Nazism.

Zardnaar

Mar 09, 2007, 04:27 PM

Adler New Zealand and Australia suffered some of the highest casualties in WW1 per capita in the world. Our economy was built around exporting food (still is) and we were paying off WW1 war loans- the government borrowed money IIRC to build the HMS New Zealand a Battlecruiser amoung other things. The farms were abandoned as men went off to fight the war as we had one of the highest %%%% of men enlisted for the size of the population in the world. The great depression came along and we were screwed. The governments response was to create social security and provide jobs via public work schemes. Revenge was a popular concept in Germany not just propaganda from the Nazis.

The myth of stabbed in the back was also around as German troops were still in France in November 1918. If the war dragged on a few more months Germany would have been invaded. The treaty of Versailles was only an excuse as the amount of money payed out by Germany was less thanthe damage inflicted on France in 1914-1918. My point being other countries had it tough as well but since we won the war (at great cost BTW) didn't develop any desire for revenge or rearmament.

Modern German tourists in New Zealand often comment on at the centre of virtually every small town in New Zealand is a war memorial with the names of the dead inscribed on it. They were built in the 20's to remember the war dead. As I said we had one of the highest casualty figures per capita in the war. The tourists say that war memorials are rare in Germany. Lest we forget is used on ANZAC day (Australia,New Zealand Army Corp) every 25th of April to remember them. April 25th 1915 was the Gallipoli landings in Turkey. Attendence is going up and it is the closest thing we have to a national day. Other countries remember revolutions or declearations of independence. Our national day is a military defeat to remember the dead.

Most countries suffered but the Nazis were either a perversion of national pride or a dark reflection of the German national pride.

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 09, 2007, 05:18 PM

Sobieski, the Great Depression would have hit Germany not as hard as it did. There would have been not 6 million unemployees and thus not so many votes to Hitler and the Communists.
Adler

Well, naturally it aggravated it, but I would say the worldwide effects of the Great Depression would have hit Germany pretty hard anyway. Maybe 5 million instead of 6 million.

My point is that the Depression is an excuse that seemed valid at the time for Germans looking for someone to blame, but in reality was hurting everyone badly (some places, such as the Canadian prairies, had it MUCH worse than Germany), and would have hurt Germany almost as badly without reparations.

It is hard to dodge global economic forces.

Nylan

Mar 09, 2007, 05:34 PM

It is hard to dodge the far-reaching economic effects of losing colonies, land (valuable land), industrious workers, and many, many jobs

including (not that I supported rearmament) all the soldiers and military contractors who lost their jobs due to downsizing

Having to resort to insane inflation of the Mark as payment for ridiculously high war reparations (which mortally wounded the economy in and of itself) is an example

There was twice or three times as much to deal with in Germany than the rest of Europe

Zardnaar

Mar 09, 2007, 05:40 PM

Colonies tend to cost money rather than provide it.

Commy

Mar 09, 2007, 06:08 PM

In our schools children listen to a story that Russians helped us - took our lands to protect those lands from Hitler. This was official communistic propaganda in Poland...
Auschwitz was built in 1940 in western part of Poland. If USSR not entered armies in East Poland (more correctly will be in West Ukraine and West Belorussia), nazi would built concentration camps there too.
Because they are...
Great argument :goodjob:
Who made it possible and gave them power?
May be USSR give tham power. But legally Poland was independent state and USSR or Russia haven't to respond for their policy.
Think a bit before you post - you're offending my country by insinuating that communism in Poland was our internal thing. Isn't strange that in every part of the world where Red Army entered there was a communistic revolution?
And isn't strange that "democracy" in compliance with American standarts is setting in every part of the world where US Army entered? ;)
It was simply a way to take over the power in those countries and enslave people living there.
USSR collapsed more than 15 years ago - why China, Cuba, Venezuela still have socialistic governments?
Hopefully Russians didn't thought that taking Poland will be their fault - Solidarity was stronger than Russian tanks and now we may enjoy our free country without even one foreign soldier on our soil. :D
...only setting American missiles in Polish territory, isn't it?
USA have no interest in attacking Russia
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Claims that we raise is against ignorance of people who think that Russia was the victim in WW2 - in fact until 1941 Russia was the attacker just like Germany and started the war together with Hitler by attacking Poland in September 1939.
It's unmorally to say so.
Tell me why you, Russians have to have so much land? You are always not pleased: Moldova is Russian, Kuryl islands are Russian, Chechnya is Russian, I do not understand this...
1. Moldova WAS Russian. Now Moldova is independent state.
2. Kuryls are Russian according with Yalta conference and Potsdam declaration. Also Russia (not Japan!) was the first great power who colonized Kurils.
3. Chechnya is Russian according with both Russian constitution and Chechen constitution.
4. "Why some countries have so much land, and we have not?" - I seen such phrase in Main Camph

Nylan

Mar 09, 2007, 10:39 PM

Ah...USA DOESN'T have any interest in attacking Russia

what do we have to gain?

And Russia was a major player in causing the destruction and atrocities of WWII. Keep in mind the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

That is the only reason Russia was part of the allies, and not just a seperate imperialistic state. The allies had to accept a necessary evil to ensure the fall of Nazism, which more immediately affected them. Before and after the war, westerners did not like Russia at all...and not without reason.

Russia is played in a soft light by so many because it was an ally. However, that was an alliance of convenience. They were just as much to blame for the agression in Europe that caused and sustained WWII

and one of the main purposes for colonies was to GAIN money. It's one of the founding principles of imperialism.

look at the British Empire

Zardnaar

Mar 09, 2007, 11:09 PM

Bristish empire lost money in the colonies. Cost money to maintain the army/fleet required for it and to develop the colony so resource can be extracted. Individuals and companies can make money from a colony.

Nylan

Mar 09, 2007, 11:14 PM

Individuals and companies make money=lots more money in the economy=greater profit and strength for nation

it was more than repaid for Britain at least

BEHIND_THE_MASK

Mar 09, 2007, 11:22 PM

Didn't the British Colony of India actually bring turn Britain into the empire it was, I mean, didn't Silver and such from India pay for the Royal Navy at the time?

Nylan

Mar 09, 2007, 11:37 PM

Yep

East India Trading Company...most powerful corporate organization at the time...perhaps ever?

People didn't just get colonies because they felt like it. Yes, there were other reasons, but economics played a very large role

BEHIND_THE_MASK

Mar 09, 2007, 11:43 PM

plus the colonies provided great resorces, wasn't one of France's main reasons for colonizing Vietnam was for the rubber which was at the time a very valuable resource in the construction in tanks.

Ultimately, the Colonies pay off more then the expense, in a way. A revolting empire could bankrupt ya.

Nylan

Mar 09, 2007, 11:46 PM

Yes, that was part of it

the other part was to regain lost prestige if I remember correctly

the sad irony of the allies taking Germany's colonies is that despite their talks of self-determination, freedom, and democracy...they just took Germany's colonies and split them amongst themselves. :rolleyes:

BEHIND_THE_MASK

Mar 09, 2007, 11:49 PM

Commy

Mar 10, 2007, 01:48 AM

That is the only reason Russia was part of the allies, and not just a seperate imperialistic state. The allies had to accept a necessary evil to ensure the fall of Nazism, which more immediately affected them. Before and after the war, westerners did not like Russia at all...and not without reason.

Russia is played in a soft light by so many because it was an ally. However, that was an alliance of convenience. They were just as much to blame for the agression in Europe that caused and sustained WWII

You are victim of anti-Russian and anti-Soviet propaganda :D

Mirc

Mar 10, 2007, 04:36 AM

1. Moldova WAS Russian. Now Moldova is independent state.

Yes, it was invaded by Russia after being independant or united with Romania, and speaking Romanian since before 1000 AD, and taken back by Romania after WW1, then divided between the Soviet Union (who took Bessarabia, Northern Bukovine and Bugeac) and Romania (who kept the rest). Then after 1989, Bessarabia (not Moldova!) became independant, and Bugeac and Northern Bukovine (Cernauti/Chernivtsy region) are in Ukraine, though the still have about 40% moldovan/romanian population. :) I'd say you are victim of propaganda. ;)

Adler17

Mar 10, 2007, 07:16 AM

Well, in my part of Germany there are memorials to German WW1 soldiers also in nearly each at least bigger village and old official buildings.
However, yes, Germany would have hit hard by a world economic crises anyway. I never said something else. Also the revision of Versailles was in the program of ALL political parties, so to vote Hilter only for that was not the case. Also he was not voted because of but despite of his antisemitism as most voters were indeed protest voters, people who feared or lived in misery. And most of them did not trust the other parties anymore and elected radical parties as the KPD and NSDAP. However if Germany was not hit as bad the crise would have been over earlier and with much less votes for the radical parties.
To say it was only an excuse is ignoring or not knowing the facts. I think you both, Zaardnaar and Sobieski, should read books about that chapter of German history.

Adler

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 10, 2007, 10:24 AM

Any (English-language) recommendations?

aelf

Mar 10, 2007, 11:30 AM

Hmm... Let's say Iran nukes America out of sheer madness and is eventually completely defeated in the ensuing war. Are Americans then going to argue that they should not take away Iran's nuclear arms and facilities because it would cause unemployment? Would America not demand reparations for the damage inflicted on it by Iranian aggression?

It's all fine and well to adopt some imaginary moral high ground when you're living in a different time and place. But if you were to experience a devastating war yourself, would you still hold on to these high-minded beliefs?

Zardnaar

Mar 10, 2007, 12:48 PM

Adler I have read books about that era of Germany. 1923 hyper inflation, Treaty of Locarno etc. The treaty was an excuse by Hitler as most of its effects were done away with by 1933. Even with some of the more drastic measures in it like 100 000 man army were to stop Germany attacking france/Allies again. Really who was going to invade Germany anyway. Poland, Czechslovakia, Denmark, Belgium,Holland? France had no inclination for a military showdown even with a reduced military and Germany got the Rhineland back in 1936- which was only demilitarised.

The only reason for Germany to go to war (apart from Hitler being nuts) was the amount of foreign debt the Nazis used to rearm. The Wehrmacht failed in its duty to defend Germany by allowing Hitler to take control. The American political system for example despite its flaws has some built in safeguards to stop things like that from happening. Hell you could probably blame Frederick the Great for the rise of Prussian militarism which bore fruit in the 1st Reich which laid the ground work for WW1 and then onto Versailles.

Germany didn't need to go to war and the Nazis used the treaty to justify an agressive war of expansion. Hitler gambled on France and Britain caving to his demands. They didn't and the rest is history. One of the few things the Nazis may have done right was to rip the treaty up which didn't have much teeth left in in by 33 anyway.

Commy

Mar 10, 2007, 01:27 PM

after 1989, Bessarabia (not Moldova!) became independant
I think I know base of our non-coordination. I don't know about Romanian language, but in Russian words Bessarabia, Moldavia and Moldova are synonims. I talked about Bessarabia.

Pokurcz

Mar 10, 2007, 01:48 PM

West 36

Mar 10, 2007, 01:49 PM

They lost the war. They're pretty lucky to still have a country at all.

umm.. no

Hmm... Let's say Iran nukes America out of sheer madness and is eventually completely defeated in the ensuing war. Are Americans then going to argue that they should not take away Iran's nuclear arms and facilities because it would cause unemployment? Would America not demand reparations for the damage inflicted on it by Iranian aggression?

It's all fine and well to adopt some imaginary moral high ground when you're living in a different time and place. But if you were to experience a devastating war yourself, would you still hold on to these high-minded beliefs?

could you please compare this directly to Germany?

BEHIND_THE_MASK

Mar 10, 2007, 01:59 PM

The Soviet Union basically started the Second World War in 1939 on the Nazi side.

Actually, russia didn't rellay start the war on Germany's side, we just need time to prepare and we saw the Non Agressions Pact as a way to buy time, we took Poland to act as a buffer state.

Pokurcz

Mar 10, 2007, 02:04 PM

"basically", and I would say morally.

Zardnaar

Mar 10, 2007, 02:21 PM

umm.. no

could you please compare this directly to Germany?

umm yeah. Its not to unusal for defeated countries to either be split up amoung the victors (Poland for example through various time periods) or be incorporated into the victors territory. Germany was an empire which implies conquest of foreign nations/people so in either war Germany could have ceased to exist as a nation state.

West 36

Mar 10, 2007, 02:27 PM

Oh I understand, but if you look at what WWII was about, the allies weren't there to conquer, they were there to stop Hitler, and Germany was split, East and West, but I don't consider it 'lucky' they still exist, I'm sure not every nation would have agreed with dissolving Germany anyway, and I'm damn sure the German people would have something to say, be it through voice or, well, other means..

BEHIND_THE_MASK

Mar 10, 2007, 02:36 PM

If I was leading the allies, Id have just torn Germany up into several parts, Saxony and such, destroy their unity. Couse, Im a Russian and like most Russians I want Germany divided so its not a threat again.

Pokurcz

Mar 10, 2007, 02:52 PM

Judging by the impressive way that Germany has come to terms with the least memorable parts of its past, I would say that the threat of Germany being a threat to Russia or other European countries is minuscule inside the foreseeable future.

Russia on the other hand has seemingly not taken any steps towards coming to terms with its own past if compared to the huge effort of Germany.

As a direct result it is rather Russia who poises a threat towards its neighbors.

Nylan

Mar 10, 2007, 02:56 PM

@ BTM

and therefore would have committed a horrible crime against the German people, who would have rearmed and come back at the world with a vengeance

and with the division amongst the UN...they might have won (MIGHT is the active word ;) )

everyone who has fought Germany has wanted to shatter it so it's "not a threat"

should the US rip Russia into little tiny pieces after winning the mythical war we're supposedly going to wage with the Russians?

Germany can never truly be divided again. Take a look at what happened to France and Austria when they tried to stop unification :p

Nationalism is too powerful a force, and Germany doesn't tolerate being pushed around very well

Mirc

Mar 10, 2007, 05:07 PM

I think I know base of our non-coordination. I don't know about Romanian language, but in Russian words Bessarabia, Moldavia and Moldova are synonims. I talked about Bessarabia.

No, you got my post wrong. :)

Let me make it clear (what I meant):
Moldova - an Eastern Orthodox Romance speaking country formed in the late middle ages by Bogdan I, after unifying small native and nomad kingdoms
Bessarabia - a region in Moldova. The North-Eastern region.

After WW2, (as my maps state) the Soviet Union took control of Bessarabia, northern Bukovine and Bugeac (Budjak).

That region was abusively called Moldova ("Moldavia" being the Russian/international version of the name). I am saying abusively, because only about half of the actual Moldova was in that region, the Moldova region of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the real (historic and politic) Moldova.

After 1989, after some really strange treaties signed by some very corrupt politicians from both Romania and Ukraine, Bugeac (Budjak) and northern Bukovine stayed in Ukraine, while the so-called "Moldova" became independent, being given a small region of Ukraine, Transnistria (Transdniestria). This way, none of those territories belong to the people that should have them. Transnistria is pro-Russian, yet trapped in Moldova, while the big and important regions of Bugeac and northern Bukovine (Cerauti/Chernivtsy) are trapped in Ukraine. :crazyeye:

That's where the confusion comes from. :) Giving the name of a big region to a small state that was split from it. So Moldova =/= Bessarabia, but the current nation-state Moldova = Bessarabia (Basarabia). This means there is the real, historical province of Moldova, that includes Bessarabia; there is the current state Moldova (also called Moldavia), that is the Bessarabia region; and there is a region in Romania, that is what was left from Moldova after Bessarabia, half of Bukovine and Bugeac were taken. That's all.

Gogf

Mar 10, 2007, 05:28 PM

Nylan

Mar 10, 2007, 05:42 PM

You know there was a lot more to it than that. Read the thread.

and if your principle is true, I think Mexico and Canada should invade the US for killing the Native Americans

and all of Europe should be burnt to a crisp for killing jews, not just Germany

and the Arabs should all be nuked

The Chinese should be oblitterated for the boxer rebellion

I can keep going...

West 36

Mar 10, 2007, 07:14 PM

I think you deserve to lose a lot of territory if you go on a genocidal attempt to conquer the planet and kill 50 million people.

I agree with Nylan, Germany isn't the only country that went on with genocide. and PLEASE remember it was not as if every German was pitching in to this. Territory is lost as punishment for genocide? It was that Facist government that took to such extremes. If America were invaded to make up for those native american lives, would it make sense to punish everyone? Or just those responsible... which by now would be a bit hard, but even so it would be those in the government that take responsibilty, and of course there were people who helped out, but not everyone.

Commy

Mar 10, 2007, 07:54 PM

That's where the confusion comes from. :) Giving the name of a big region to a small state that was split from it. So Moldova =/= Bessarabia, but the current nation-state Moldova = Bessarabia (Basarabia). This means there is the real, historical province of Moldova, that includes Bessarabia; there is the current state Moldova (also called Moldavia), that is the Bessarabia region; and there is a region in Romania, that is what was left from Moldova after Bessarabia, half of Bukovine and Bugeac were taken. That's all.
Yes, I'm agree with you.
PS Thanks for information :)

aelf

Mar 11, 2007, 12:42 AM

could you please compare this directly to Germany?

I have a feeling people are just refusing to see things here.

The German army was the tool with which it pursued its policy of aggression and inflicted death and destruction in Europe, corresponding to Iran's nuclear arsenal in my scenario. When it was finally defeated, you expect the victors not to remove that tool because it would cause unemployment? Get real.

The thing is if you've lived in a war-torn country that was pillaged and where its people suffered from genocide because of the aggression of another country, would you not want to be assured at the end of it that the latter will not do so again and that it compensates your country for the wanton destruction caused by it? If you say that WWI or II was no exception, and that many countries have suffered from aggression and not been compensated in wars, then you've already defeated your own argument that one evil does not justify another.

West 36

Mar 11, 2007, 01:30 AM

I have a feeling people are just refusing to see things here.

The German army was the tool with which it pursued its policy of aggression and inflicted death and destruction in Europe, corresponding to Iran's nuclear arsenal in my scenario. When it was finally defeated, you expect the victors not to remove that tool because it would cause unemployment? Get real.

The thing is if you've lived in a war-torn country that was pillaged and where its people suffered from genocide because of the aggression of another country, would you not want to be assured at the end of it that the latter will not do so again and that it compensates your country for the wanton destruction caused by it? If you say that WWI or II was no exception, and that many countries have suffered from aggression and not been compensated in wars, then you've already defeated your own argument that one evil does not justify another.

Ok, agreeable, although this is going off topic of if there was justification in losing ground. But it should be remembered that Germany was not supposed to rearm the Rhineland after WWI, it did and nothing happened. And to this day the German military isn't really allowed to advance outside its borders except for defense, so this is a restriction the Germans have recieved. Although I do not fully agree comparing the Wermacht to nukes, this was an army, and it was invading, doing what armies do, nukes are WMDs, and I just don't see this as a proper comparison.

Adler17

Mar 11, 2007, 05:09 AM

@ Sobieski: I am sorry, I do not know any English books.

@ Zardnaar: WW2 started by Hitler was only intended as bank rubbery. It was totally unjustified, I agree. But I never said something contrary. However 100.000 men without heavy weapons were not able to defend Germany in a proper way. And indeed Polish, French, Belgish and Lithunian troops invaded Germany after 1919. The danger was not imminent in 1933 but according to its geographical position in central Europe there was still a danger.
I assume you mean the treaty of Versailles and not Locarno. This treaty lead to instability. Although writing the ideas of self determination, abandoning of annexions and dearmament into the treaty nothing was granted to the Germans. I can only repeat me once again: Colonies, territories and the fleet were lost. The military of only 100.000 men were not able to defend Germany properly. That lead to a massive fears in the population. The question of the war guilt. The massive and ridiculous high reparations, the French even wanted Germany to pay until 1988, were indeed payed because of US short term loans. As long as the economy could grow, the system worked, but only because of several plans for modifying the payings. That this had to crash was obvious. The hard crise lead because of this to Hitler (whose success of dissolving the treaty was indeed only harvesting the crops others planted).
Anyway the treaty of Versailles lead to Hitler. That he later used it as excuse to attack Poland makes that not wrong.
But that was not the topic of this thread.

umm yeah. Its not to unusal for defeated countries to either be split up amoung the victors (Poland for example through various time periods) or be incorporated into the victors territory. Germany was an empire which implies conquest of foreign nations/people so in either war Germany could have ceased to exist as a nation state.

But that was only common before banning of the annexions.

Also if the Allies splitted up Germany like they planned it would have been another wars of unification. If the Soviets did not take care about the situation in 1953 a unification would have happened again.
Also Churchill wanted to stay the Wehrmacht (controlled by the Allies) under arms for the war with Russia. Also, aelf, I do not get the point, why the Germans living in Königsberg or Breslau or Kolberg were a danger for world peace.

Adler

Zardnaar

Mar 11, 2007, 06:54 AM

The mere existence of Germans living outside Germany was a threat as ethnic Germans were used as an excuse in the Sudenten land and parts of Poland for the German troops to invade. Also German conduct during the war left any German living outside of Germany to be under threat form a large amount of P.O. civilians. They got to reap the consequences of defeat. Fair. No. Right no. Understandable yes.

warpus

Mar 11, 2007, 07:48 AM

Germany got SERVED.

But they came to play and they lost.. tough luck!

Better luck next time Germany ;)

aelf

Mar 11, 2007, 10:26 AM

Although I do not fully agree comparing the Wermacht to nukes, this was an army, and it was invading, doing what armies do, nukes are WMDs, and I just don't see this as a proper comparison.

Well, WMD stands for weapon of mass destruction. The Wermacht was a WMD, sure enough. At that time nukes hadn't been invented, so millions of men in an aggressive an organised military is the closest thing you get. And you can't argue that disarming an army of swordsmen is any different in principle than disarming an army of riflemen, can you?

I'm just addressing the idea that has floated in this thread that Germany shouldn't have been made to disarm because it hurt their national pride and caused unemployment, and that reparations were some sort of a punishent made out of spite. About Germany losing territory, I don't have any useful comment to offer.

Adler17

Mar 11, 2007, 12:30 PM

@ aelf, we spoke about the disarming after WWI not wwII!

@Zardnaar: Understandable only of the point of view of people like Stalin.

Adler

Nylan

Mar 11, 2007, 08:06 PM

Germany got SERVED.

But they came to play and they lost.. tough luck!

Better luck next time Germany ;)

Germany played the bigger person in WWI, finally deciding to end the conflict when all sides were decimated, being the only ones man enough to admit nothing would come from the conflict

so they back down and what happens?

Rubber truncheons, knuckle noogies, tarred and feathered, the works

So they come back

play 4 to 1 (approx) odds

and almost win

that's not getting served

that's winning by a nose...when Germany is on a pony and everyone else a thoroughbred

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 11, 2007, 08:16 PM

Well, to the people saying that these lands should belong to Germany, what exactly do you propose? Tagging on homogenous Polish territory to a modern German state? Do you plan on kicking the Poles out?

And considering that it seems hard to get people to stay in east Germany right now, how do you plan on getting comfortable Germans to leave west Germany for Poland?

Even if this territory were to be incorporated into Germany it would make not rational sense. Having ethnically homogenous Polish land under German control when a Polish state exists right next to it is crazy.

In the long run, territory can only be part of a nation if the people of that nation live on it.

Germany played the bigger person in WWI, finally deciding to end the conflict when all sides were decimated, being the only ones man enough to admit nothing would come from the conflict

Umm, noooo. Germany stopped fighting because for the Germans to fight much longer would have resulted in even more German territorial/financial/human losses. Germany was being rolled back to her own territory... what makes you think it would have stopped at the border?

West 36

Mar 11, 2007, 09:52 PM

Well, to the people saying that these lands should belong to Germany, what exactly do you propose? Tagging on homogenous Polish territory to a modern German state? Do you plan on kicking the Poles out?

And considering that it seems hard to get people to stay in east Germany right now, how do you plan on getting comfortable Germans to leave west Germany for Poland?

Even if this territory were to be incorporated into Germany it would make not rational sense. Having ethnically homogenous Polish land under German control when a Polish state exists right next to it is crazy.

In the long run, territory can only be part of a nation if the people of that nation live on it.
Read whats been said, its been pretty well stated that now is too late, the point was if Germany got screwed right after WWII.

Umm, noooo. Germany stopped fighting because for the Germans to fight much longer would have resulted in even more German territorial/financial/human losses. Germany was being rolled back to her own territory... what makes you think it would have stopped at the border?
Whats wrong with agreeing to peace if you realize a war is lost? You can't say Germany didn't do well, it was only the last year of the war they really were pushed back, but before that, the war wasn't in German territory, sure it wasn't rolling, but they weren't losing.

Verbose

Mar 12, 2007, 01:55 AM

Adler17

Mar 12, 2007, 04:23 AM

@ Sobieski:

Given the German border of 31.12.1937 is restored what should be done to the population already living there? Well for the ethnical Germans, who still live there, there is no problem, but that is a little minority.
At first the German state should offer all Poles to be paid off. That means "their" real estates are bought by the German state. Then however they have to leave their homes within a reasonable time. A year should be sufficient. For them, who do not want to sell these do not have any problems if they had got their real estates from the former owner in a legal way, so excluding forced "sells". The same is for objects not claimed within a reasonable time. So the only problems occur if someone is claiming a special real estate and the "new" owner does not want to take the money and both parties do not want to get a nearby similar real estate, which is free. But that should be a minority of cases the judges have to deal with that after bona fides as a law here might have been to strict for both parties.
The real estates bought by the German state is given back to the former land owners. The Poles however living still there have to become Germans. That means they have to accept our laws, have to learn German (of course not an old grandma of 92!) and have to accept the German borders. I mean they are not allowed to demand an "Anschluß" to Poland ever. Therefore they are accepted as national minority. Poles, who do not accept that are forced to leave as well as such, who commit serious crimes after a period of, let's say, five years. Old crimes committed before do not count, to give all a chance
The same has to be said for the Russians in North East Prussia. And if Putin, or the guy follows him, wants to keep a harbour, they can keep Pillau for 25 years for free with an option of another 25 years for rent.

That is only a brainstorming.

Adler

LDeska

Mar 12, 2007, 05:27 AM

Adler - you forgot to add - those of Poles who will not agree, go to gas chambers. The problem with Poles will be solved once and finally.

Warned for flaming/trolling. Pls be nice. - KD

Pokurcz

Mar 12, 2007, 06:08 AM

West 36
"Read whats been said, its been pretty well stated that now is too late, the point was if Germany got screwed right after WWII."

Well apparently not, judging by Adler's brainstorming

So if people are to be nationalistic in that manner, feeling indignant about things in the past, I'll have a swing at it as well.:p

Wroclaw/Breslau was settled/founded by the Czech about 840 AD.

Ive made some swift calculations and Silesia has been:

Czech for at least 280 years
Polish 406 y.
Hungarian 21 y.
Austrian 215 y.
Prussian/German 204 y.

Clearly there is a historic reason for Polish people feeling entitled to Silesia, the Czech being second in line from this point off view. Even the Austrians seem to have a greater right to it than Germany!

German colonization started roughly in the fourteenth century, going on until aprox 1945.

Now with Polish people now being in undisputed majority in the area, the reason for giving it "back" to the Germans who slowly colonized it "behind the Slavs back":crazyeye: , would seem rather wrong. :mischief:

Forgetting what I've written above, ousting the Polish from those disputed lands now, seems to bee the way of greatest resistance.

IMO a interesting situation right now is the Serb right to Kosovo, It being a part of their historical heritage and all and now having been settled by Albanians "behind their back", the Albanians all of a sudden want autonomy.

What ever should the UN do?:(

jonatas

Mar 12, 2007, 07:17 AM

Adler - you forgot to add - those of Poles who will not agree, go to gas chambers. The problem with Poles will be solved once and finally.

haha exactly, why didn't we think of this earlier?

If you really have nothing better to say, can you refrain from saying it? Thanks. - KD

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 12, 2007, 08:38 AM

@Adler: According to wiki, Poland is over 96% ethnic Polish, and the Polish province with the highest percent of Germans is only 10% German.

Now lets assume that it is perfectly okay to evict the Poles to allow Germans to return, do you actually think more than a handful would? Why would people leave prosperous Germany to live in not so prosperous (former) Poland?

In the end, Germany would be left worse off than it was before, trying to incorporate a Polish minority that is geographically coherent, with almost no German minority living amongst them. Think about a much crappier version of unification, where the Poles never feel part of your state.

The net benefit would be a central Europe that is worse off, because it simply isn't an efficient way to organize people with national identities.

As for the morality... if people think that having a law passed saying annexations are illegal means that countries should get to retake land that is now clearly part of another nation, whereas anything taken the day before the law passed shouldn't be returned, then they are morally stunted. Laws are only a tool, and should not be followed to the point of damaging society. Common sense needs to reign, and this territory is so obviously Polish, today.

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 12, 2007, 08:43 AM

Whats wrong with agreeing to peace if you realize a war is lost? You can't say Germany didn't do well, it was only the last year of the war they really were pushed back, but before that, the war wasn't in German territory, sure it wasn't rolling, but they weren't losing.

It was being suggested that Germany was the "bigger man" amongst a group of equals; I am saying Germany was not an equal, and only stopped the war because continuing would have been even more catastrophic for Germany. If Germany had been winning, or if it was a stalemate still, Germany probably wouldn't have been the "bigger man".

Read whats been said, its been pretty well stated that now is too late, the point was if Germany got screwed right after WWII.

And Germany screwed Poland so much worse, that forgive me if my sympathy for Germany is overshadowed by my understanding of Auschwitz, Dauchau, the destruction of Warsaw, and etc. People are more important than territory, and Poland lost 20% of its population (higher than any other state).

warpus

Mar 12, 2007, 09:30 AM

Read whats been said, its been pretty well stated that now is too late, the point was if Germany got screwed right after WWII.

While everyone else got screwed during WW2.

That is only a brainstorming.

My brain hurts after reading what you just wrote.

aelf

Mar 12, 2007, 10:59 AM

@ aelf, we spoke about the disarming after WWI not wwII!

The principle is the same.

Germany played the bigger person in WWI, finally deciding to end the conflict when all sides were decimated, being the only ones man enough to admit nothing would come from the conflict

Nope. They were man enough to admit that they were losing. If they were man enough to admit that a European war was or would be pointless, they wouldn't have pursued weltpolitik in the first place, would they? They probably only realised that when they didn't stand to gain anything from it anymore. But at that point it was pointless to them, not to the allies, who saw it fit to end German belligerence.

Adler17

Mar 12, 2007, 11:21 AM

LDeska, I was asked, what could be proposed. That was a mere brainstorming. That you ironically propose people sent into gas chambres is not only offensive to me but all who had this fate. You're leaving the way of civilization.

If you have a problem with it, report the post. Don't retaliate. Thanks. - KD

@Prokurcz: Medievel history is history. Hey, you can now say, why not leaving this aside and then not the 1945 thingie as well? Isn't that the same? Well, it isn't because of reasons I explained already (self dertemination, banning of annexions and deportations,...). So the cut is indeed 1919.

@ Sobieski: We already integrated a huge ammount of Polish people into the German society in the 19th century. However YOU invited ME to make a proposal. As a kind of brain storming I added this.
Also again you talk about Dachau and Auschwitz. But here again we do have the worst crimes in history. But that has nothing to do with the situation here. The deportations were a crime, too. And they were and are in no way justified by the other. Or am I allowed, if you killed my brother/friend/mother to kill your cousin, raping his wife and send her and her remaining family into the snow? If you say yes, and with your argumentation you have to do so, I can't help you.
And at last I agree. Law is only a tool. But in 1945 no German was able to do anything against the deportations. So if I follow your logic, it would be okay to invade Poland again and retake all and go even further to Warsaw and deport all people. When Poland is able to reclaim it after 50 years, I argue the very same way! No. That can't be the civilized way. Such a law is senseful. That Stalin and his Russian and Polish gangster deported the population and settled new people there has to be irrelevant without causing a collaps of the whole system. However, as you said, the situation of the people living there today has to be seen, to. And that's what you asked me what could be done. To attack me, and that is not against you Sobieski, without constructive critics but polemics is unfair.

Adler

Adler17

Mar 12, 2007, 11:24 AM

aelf, the situations before ww1 and ww2 were completely different.

Adler

jonatas

Mar 12, 2007, 11:55 AM

Adler it sounds like you want some lebensraum baby. The rightwing German nationalism thingy went out of style a lonng time ago :lol:

warpus

Mar 12, 2007, 12:20 PM

Adler17, why revisit wounds of the past?

Look to the future.

privatehudson

Mar 12, 2007, 12:35 PM

I would have thought that in an era in which EU countries are trying to work together in more ways it would be ludicrous to redraw borders and enforce either a removal of population (paid or otherwise) or a change of nationality on that population.

We should try to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.

aelf

Mar 12, 2007, 01:29 PM

aelf, the situations before ww1 and ww2 were completely different.

They were certainly not the same, but the principle of disarmament is the same. In both cases, the victorious party wanted to ensure that the aggression they suffered would not be repeated by removing the tool with which the aggression was conducted. And in both cases, reparations were not imposed as punishment, but as means of compensation, although I can't say for sure about the attitude of the Soviet Union.

Stolen Rutters

Mar 12, 2007, 03:37 PM

Germany played the bigger person in WWI, finally deciding to end the conflict when all sides were decimated, being the only ones man enough to admit nothing would come from the conflict

That is an interesting take on the end of the first world war...

considering that Germany:
- had just been pushed back to the Hindenburg line,
- basically lost Belgium in a month,
- had effectively lost the Balkans (their main access to oil and food... Germany has no local source of oil and food was scarce even with sources in the Balkans),
- finally lost their Ottoman Allies, and was beginning to lose their Austro-Hungarian allies,
- was facing internal unrest,
- and had no more manpower reserves (6 million men dead),
and the Americans, I am afraid to say, were just getting mobilized... no decimation there (not the margin of victory in my opinion, but closed any chance at all of keeping the stalemate in place).

Right about then, the Imperial Government collapsed and was replaced with a civilian government that had to pick up the pieces (announce the abdication of the Kaiser and pursue peace).

Pokurcz

Mar 12, 2007, 04:59 PM

Adler

"Medievel history is history."

No, history is history, now is now.
Now that is Poland and it would be equally bad to force them out of their land as it was to move out the Germans after WW2.

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 12, 2007, 06:08 PM

:lol: @Adler. Sorry, your brainstorming was perfectly fine. However, I would say that integrating Poles in the 19th century was different. One, there was a local German majority in many areas, and two, Polish nationalism was not yet as well-defined, and three, the population wasn't educated enough to mount a large cultural opposition. It would be far more difficult to force Poles who had lived since 1919 under an independent Polish state to give up their nationhood to join Germany.

As for the "forgive and forget" idea, that is what I have been saying should happen this whole thread. Especially from the German point of view. My argument is that if Germany wishes to hold Poland to account for crimes against Germany, Germany should be prepared to face a much larger wrath for the much larger German crimes against Poland.

Anyway people, Warpus came up with probably the key point of this thread. Practically everyone in Europe and East Asia got screwed during or after the war.

A thread entitled "Germany got screwed?" is either redundant (join the club), or it implies that Germany got more screwed than other states/nations. And there is no way Germany got more screwed than Poland.

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 12, 2007, 06:47 PM

Anyway: My solution to this problem. Create some sort of larger European federal system. Let's call it...I don't know... Confederate Union of European People's Democratic Republics of Asia. Then, open up internal migration so that it is free for all citizens. Then if Germans wish to move back to the province of Poland en masse and buy up local land from the local "owners", then so be it. It doesn't really matter, because they are all part of the same state.

And hey, the land will seem cheap to wealthy west Germans, and the payment will seem huge to the relatively poorer Poles. Not to mention with the plummeting Polish birth rate, I am sure rural areas would love wealthy Germans to come and revitalize the area. The remaining Poles who choose to breed can take the money and move to a nice new condo in the burgeoning cities of the sub-region known as Neo-Polish-Prusso-Silesian-Germany.

Of course there is one thing both sides can definitely agree on: Taking back Kaliningrad :evil:

Nylan

Mar 12, 2007, 07:26 PM

Adler17, why revisit wounds of the past?

Look to the future.

Why post in this thread?

It's not like the past belongs in the history forum :mischief: ;)

We should stop taking history altogether and only concentrate on the future, because we all know that has gone over well before. Certainly no repetition of mistakes from lack of learning there...

Nope. They were man enough to admit that they were losing. If they were man enough to admit that a European war was or would be pointless, they wouldn't have pursued weltpolitik in the first place, would they? They probably only realised that when they didn't stand to gain anything from it anymore. But at that point it was pointless to them, not to the allies, who saw it fit to end German belligerence.

No, it was a stalemate. Don't try to pin all of this on Germany. That's why I hate talking to people about World War I as well, everyone assumes it's all Germany's fault

propaganda: It can happen to you too :eek:

Umm, noooo. Germany stopped fighting because for the Germans to fight much longer would have resulted in even more German territorial/financial/human losses. Germany was being rolled back to her own territory... what makes you think it would have stopped at the border?

And the allies weren't losing finances and men? That's rather one sided

And as I recall the Germans were still in French territory to some extent, therefore they were still on the "offensive" so to speak (not literally of course). It was a stalemate. No one was winning. I stand to think that the war would still have been going on in 1933 if no one had just stopped to declare peace, if someone had to clearly lose.

Historically Germany doesn't just quit because it's starting to lose. It's an all or nothing thing if they're in it to win

They were being the bigger people by ending a pointless war no one was benefiting from

and they got hammered for it

sydhe

Mar 12, 2007, 09:35 PM

I don't think the war could have gone on past 1919 in any case. Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire had already surrendered and Austria-Hungary was falling apart, which meant Germany was going to have to fight on yet another front while facing hundreds of thousands or millions of American troops. Add to that the effects of starvation and loss of resources and I don't see how Germany could have held out.

Nylan

Mar 12, 2007, 09:45 PM

aelf

Mar 13, 2007, 12:46 AM

No, it was a stalemate. Don't try to pin all of this on Germany. That's why I hate talking to people about World War I as well, everyone assumes it's all Germany's fault

propaganda: It can happen to you too :eek:

Yup. Apparently it happens to you too. But the funny thing is you fell for something made almost 90 years ago. So you do believe in the stab-in-the-back theory, don't you? Do you really think the Germans surrendered because they were 'man enough to admit the war was pointless'? That is purely delusional. There's no such thing in politics. Which government in the right mind would just surrender in a war unless things are not going well for its country?

There are a few branches of thought on this subject. One is the classic post-war German thinking that the politicians surrendered and that Germany wasn't losing the war. Yours evidently belongs to this branch. Another says that America saved the day by joining the war, and without them it would have been a stalemate. This theory is popular among Americans and American-supporters. The last theory says that the war was going badly for the Germans even without American intervention, thanks to the failure of the Ludendorff Offensive, which terminated any German prospect of ending the previous stalemate and exhausted the German army. The entry of the Americans only sealed the fate of the Germans and hastened the end of the war. I believe this theory.

Anyway, the system of alliances is indirectly Germany's fault. What do you think pushed France, Russia and Britain into a loose alliance, in the first place? And the Kaiser openly and aggressively courted Austro-Hungary and, in doing so, put Germany at odds with Russia, which is what eventually sparked the war. If things had been handled by a less volatile and belligerent man on the German throne, things might have been very different. But you can't blame him alone either. He is the head, but the body agreed to go along with him.

Verbose

Mar 13, 2007, 01:08 AM

You have to analyze France's instability as well, and Russia's pullout reducing the war to one front

and consider Germany had been nearly fighting the war by itself anyways.

How would losing it's allies open up another front? Unless the Americans had the resources to go through the mediterranean and then push though an already surrendered Austria. Idk how practical that would have been however.
No need.
By the summer of 1918 Germany was beaten on the west front. The spring offensives were the last hurrah, when they tried to win the war once and for all. When that failed Germany was no longer able to either mount offensives or control events. From then on all the German armies could do was receive the offensives of the entente, and both the French and the British armies were demonstrating that they had worked out how to make break-throughs. The was was turning mobile again due to massive entente usperiority in men, artillery, tanks and aircraft. There was no way the German armies could hold them off anymore.

Germany capitulated because the were totally outfought by 1918. Too bad the German generals lacked the guts to admit the plain facts of the situation, instead resorting to conspiracy theories and blaming the politicians.

LDeska

Mar 13, 2007, 04:41 AM

Adler - because of your 'brainstorming' I get so upset that I wrote very stupid thing. It was a scream of irony against the unimaginable stupidity of your proposal. Suggesting that we should move out of our houses because over 60 years ago Stalin, Roosvelt and Churchill divided Europe as it looks now is really so stupid, that I saw no other choice than to write such ironic add-on. You may be sure that I would never let any German to send even one Pole to gas chamber - it was just an irony and I'm saying sorry to all whom I offended. I was in Auschwitz and saw it by myself, so I know how inhuman it was. I'm 31 and in case of war I would surely defend my country. Even more - I graduated from Military University of Technology in Warsaw (Cybernetics Faculty), so beside of having Masters Degree in Computer Science (and now I'm finishing PhD in the same area) I'm also an officer of Polish Army (Second Lieutenant), so you may count on me - I would be on the first line :)

Hopefully it was just Adler's brainstorming - BTW if we discuss politics - are you NPD supporter? Or Erika's Steinbach? Why do I ask - you go even further than Steinbach. One thing about her - she is the head of Union of Expelled (Vertrieben Bund?). Do you know that she was born in occupied Rumia - city which was Polish before war, and occupied by Germans when she was born? Her father was a German army soldier - an occupier. So, now she says that she is expelled. From where??? Her father entered those lands two years earlier. Then when this city was taken back after 5 years of occupation she says that she is expelled... It's total misunderstanding.

I repeat - lands given to Poland were given as a reparation for lands taken by Russians in the east. Look at my example - I was born in Lębork (in German: Lauenburg), a city which before war was German (but really close to Polish border). The house where we lived were inhabited before war by Germans. But this house was given to our family as a reparation for a household (or rather a farm - several buildings) which my uncle left in Eastern Poland (today's Belarus or Lithuania). And what you propose now is to remove people from this house, and where would they go? The household in Lithuania or Belarus is inhabited by other family - you want to expell them too to give us back our real estate?

Before war my mother's family lived very close to Lębork, but in Poland - on the other side of border. As far as I know there was a huge anti-germanism in those lands among Poles, but it was caused by the fact of official anti-polish policy of German state during partitions of Poland (1795-1918). Bismarck was trying to kill our national identity and it caused the outrage. But as my mother said between ordinary people it was not so bad. My grandma had some German families with whom they were maybe not friends, but something similar. It helped her to save my grandfather when he was captured by Germans (for helping Polish Underground Army) during war and hold in prison. He would be dead then, but thanks to my grandma, who bribed Germans, he survived.

This whole thread becomes uninteresting for me - I'm only getting upset instead of working :)

Adler17

Mar 13, 2007, 05:13 AM

At first I am in no way a supporter of the NPD, who are the last scum. A party to be forbidden. Also Sobieski asked just what could be proposed IF. That I only let me post these thoughts. That was all. So I accept your apology. I also did not propose (I never would do so) to deport families again. I only said, they might sell them again and move on their own will or stay there. I never said invading Poland is okay now because of that. But if your ducks attack us... ;).
Please read carefully what I wrote and why I wrote that. It was a mere theoretical thinking because of Sobieski's question, nothing more or less.

Adler

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 13, 2007, 10:18 AM

And the allies weren't losing finances and men? That's rather one sided

And as I recall the Germans were still in French territory to some extent, therefore they were still on the "offensive" so to speak (not literally of course). It was a stalemate. No one was winning. I stand to think that the war would still have been going on in 1933 if no one had just stopped to declare peace, if someone had to clearly lose.

Historically Germany doesn't just quit because it's starting to lose. It's an all or nothing thing if they're in it to win

They were being the bigger people by ending a pointless war no one was benefiting from

and they got hammered for it

The ability of the allies to lose men and equipment, especially with the addition of a massive number of Americans was greater than Germany's. And Germany was not on the offensive in either an operational or strategic sense.

The allies were undoubtedly winning. If Germany had fought a few more months, her defeat would have been profoundly worse.

Your responses in this thread make me wonder about your personal agenda....

Pls do not get personal. Thanks. - KD

Cullyn

Mar 13, 2007, 10:33 AM

The movement of peoples and boundaries in Europe are massive. Many different peoples could claim to own various pieces of grass, the fact is boundaries move, it is those who live there at the time who define where the boundary is.

Europe in 900s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe998newer.png

Europe in 1300s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe1328ujabb.jpg

Europe in 1400s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_in_1470.png

Europe in 1600s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_map_1648.PNG

Germany in 1600s - http://bss.sfsu.edu/jacksonc/germany_1648.htm

Europe in 1812 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe1812.jpg

Europe in 1914 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_1914.jpg

Europe in 1939 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EUROPE_1919-1929_POLITICAL_01.png

Europe Today - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_countries_map_en.png

German Land Lost 1919 – 1945 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Germanborders.gif

(Lost of wiki I know, but I don’t have a lot of time to get better maps)

It was still the Wehrmach who fought the war. It is very easy and very revisionist to let all the blame fall on the Nazis. Germany was the aggressor, led by the Nazi party.

nice poem, sums up Germany 1933 - 1945

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
(New England Holocaust Memorial Version)

LDeska

Mar 13, 2007, 11:09 AM

And now borders are unchangeable - this is a warrant of peace. Considering the right for free movement in EU, it also makes no sense to raise any territorial claims.
I prefer different approach to the subject of expulsion. The one presented by Christian Graf von Krockow you can read some thing about him here http://kaszuby.bytow.pl/radde/Krockow.html or in wiki.

Pokurcz

Mar 13, 2007, 01:25 PM

Adler So you claim that WW2 is not history? When will it start to be history?

The middle ages are history in deed, IMO things hat happened in WW2 are only marginally less silly to squabble about than things that happened in the beginning of the renaissance.

Those areas now having been Polish for some 62 years, and having a overwhelming Polish majority amongst the populace would be a crime to force to move just as much as it was a crime to force the Germans out of there before.

Only blind/childish nationalism could drive a person to pursue a goal such as that.:hammer2:

Besides, as has been mentioned before, were all part of the EU, if everybody would just lighten up about their nationalism and their oh so precious boundaries, freedom of movement and living and owning land wherever you want will settle these matters naturally. Without people trying at state led superhuman tasks that quickly turn in to atrocities.
If Germans would want to live there they'd move there.

Simplicity and liberty, cant go wrong.:beer:

Mirc

Mar 13, 2007, 01:26 PM

Pokurcz

Mar 13, 2007, 01:49 PM

http://kaszuby.bytow.pl/radde/Krockow.html:thumbsup:

Mirc

Mar 13, 2007, 02:04 PM

Check post #196... :mischief:

Pokurcz

Mar 13, 2007, 02:25 PM

I meant it as a compliment to LDeska, nice find!

Was in to much of a hurry...

Adler17

Mar 14, 2007, 07:28 AM

Pokurcz, I never ever said I want to deport the people. I also made this clear earlier.
However if national borders become more and more unimportant, why should the areas not become German again?
However this was a mere rhetorical question as we should come here to an end. Let's say we agree in some points and in some we agree to disagree.

Adler

LDeska

Mar 14, 2007, 09:19 AM

I've found that site many years ago, when Krockow was still alive (he passed away in 2002). I'm happy that that site is still operating :) Those are my regions - I was born and grow up there... it's really a beautiful place - Kaszuby.

See you in another flame thread ;) :) :D

warpus

Mar 14, 2007, 11:52 AM

However if national borders become more and more unimportant, why should the areas not become German again?

Why should they not become Spanish?

Desmond Hawkins

Mar 14, 2007, 03:42 PM

However if national borders become more and more unimportant, why should the areas not become German again?

You mean other than the complete lack of Germans? I mean, calling it German when there are almost no Germans isn't a very useful description.

Pokurcz

Mar 15, 2007, 11:48 AM

"However if national borders become more and more unimportant, why should the areas not become German again?"

Well that is pretty much what I said, if the borders ain't important, people can move however they want. If Germans want to move to former German areas then why not.

As I wrote in my previous post, my problem lies in an artificial state run enterprise of resettlement, that would be criminal.
A natural flow of people, dough, is not a problem for me.

Chill dude!

Atlas14

Mar 15, 2007, 12:19 PM

Pokurcz

Mar 15, 2007, 12:45 PM

Yes Germany got Screwed in WW1, but managed to even out the score quite well in WW2.

aelf

Mar 15, 2007, 02:23 PM

Germany has always been screwed over by the nations of Europe, they can't handle Germany on their own. WWI was pinned on Germany for no other reason than their military might, not because they actually started the war. France was still pissy over the Franco-Prussian War, and their military incompetence.

It's funny how people would randomly pop in and repeat the whole dumb statement all over again. Read some good history books, or at least read the whole thread first.

Nylan

Mar 15, 2007, 04:10 PM

At least he has an honest opinion, and at least he doesn't accept everything his world history book tells him to be the absolute truth. He's simply adding his voice to the underrepresented side of the argument (numbers wise)

That's no need to flame him just because he has a point, an opinion, and a mind

:)

Adler17

Mar 16, 2007, 02:15 AM

Aelf, all of us here have their opinions. As long as they are not offending we must respect them and do not flame. Also you have to see that all history sources are written by humans, meaning they all had their attitudes. A Ranke might have had another position about Prussia than perhaps Churchill or Marx (although Ranke at least tried to be as objective as possible; and if Marx is a real historian is doubtful (as well as Churchill but to have known names here))). You have to see the facts and the reasons why. But be careful about that and use several sources. Only then you see all aspects.

Adler

aelf

Mar 16, 2007, 02:44 PM

Not bothering to read the thread first is not part of good forum ethics. If he had done it, I'm sure he would have something better to add besides repeating something that has already been said and, it seems, debunked.

Anyway, if I accepted all that my textbooks said is true, I would be holding views that are closer to both of yours. Fortunately, I read up on my own and found out that my textbooks were over-simplified at best. I am trying to be objective, and in doing so, I would expect people to do the same.

PS: Being objective means refuting the opposition's argument factually and logically, instead of plainly saying "Germany was great and noble while all the other countries were just evil and jealous!"

Ammar

Mar 16, 2007, 04:51 PM

Maybe it was wrong that those regions were annexed. I don't really have much of an opinion on that.

But does it matter anymore? The Germans who lived there are mostly dead and so are those who drove them out. To take those regions back would be just one injustice more. It just creates bad blood for little benefit. I don't even think many Germans would actually want to move there now.

BTW, one similar matter was in regards to our own East Germany. When it was founded the State claimed much property and redistributed it.

After the Union many East Germans who were not responsible (many did not even live then), lost the property they were given by the State to the heirs of the original owners and were left with nothing. It was a stupid move than alienated many of our new citizens.

Sometimes, to rectify an injustice that lies back too far (one generation will actually do) will just create more suffering.

Nylan

Mar 16, 2007, 05:58 PM

@Aelf

and you would have had something better to add then to just laugh at those who didn't read the whole 11 page thread and decided to just voice their own opinion. I was under the imipression that stating your honest opinion was the right thing to do, rather than basing everything on others.

I have seen no posts that state that Germany was noble and all the rest were just jerks, but I have seen a lot of "they lost, they suck, stupid Nazis". The fence swings both ways.

That's objectivity for ya ;)

REDY

Mar 17, 2007, 01:59 AM

No, changing boarders absolutely not, Germany got what deserved.
If some individual Germans want move, they should.

Zardnaar

Mar 17, 2007, 02:08 AM

How come Germans weren't booted out of their homes in other countries in WW1? German troops conduct in the war caused the Germans to be persecuted. Not fair but understandable. A few of our older generation from the war years here still don't like Germans/Japanese due to their conduct in the war.

Tekee

Mar 18, 2007, 12:42 AM

Commy, your answers to LDeska make it painfully clear that if anyone on this thread is the victim of propaganda it is you.

The problem with Russia is that the country has been a totalitarian one since its creation and only had a brief time of democracy between the fall of the USSR and Putin.

Now with a history like that, the fact that most of the people in the country are literate and the hardships that have been bestowed upon them by their government the last ninety years or so, including the economic misery in the countryside since the fall off communism it can sometimes be perceived as unbelievable that the people have not risen several times over and done something about it.

The answer, of coarse, is that propaganda, either communist, before the nineties or nationalist lately, is what has kept people reasonably content. Because despite their misery they have always been able to think “that people in the USA had it worse” or look back on their “proud history”. For example that they entered WW2 in 1941 when they were attacked by Nazi Germany, and saved the world.
It is a known historical fact in the rest of the world that The Soviets attacked Poland from the east only weeks after the First German attack in 1939, because the Russians where all but allied with the Nazis through the Ribbetrop-Molotov Pact.

The Soviet Union basically started the Second World War in 1939 on the Nazi side.

That would have, of coarse, been rather difficult for the common citizen to swallow, so it was effectively erased from public knowledge.
Much like the famine atrocity against the Ukrainians in 1933, when Stalin killed ca. ten million (10 000 000) Ukrainians by starvation. Now that is a bad piece of information for the national pride if I ever heard one!

You live in a labyrinth of lies man. :crazyeye:

HOld up there partner!
I think you make it sound way worse then it actually is,
Communism riuned the image but Russia was very much well liked by America before it,
And most people in Russia are literate, there alot more illiteracy in America and Britain, just not on these forums
I don't think people are exactly miserable, The Gross national Product was as like Mexico's and even more becuase in late 70's it was at 8000 and that is where MExico is at now, but money was worth more then

The Countryside is the best, I live in the Country, not exactly a farmer but you don't always have to live in an Ugly Flat

And Russia was the most free country before it's time, it was only when Peter wanted to be more like West Europe did he make serfs and elimineted the previous harmony between the Lower and Upper Class as well as the Kieven Middle Class so it was not Communist since it was created,
The people did change alot, 80 years is not that long considering Civilizations stayed under Mongol Yoke for hundreds of years
Slavic Culture was inherantly more free then Western European, it has helped Womans rights before their time, ever hear of the Woman's Army? and there is even a statistic that says Slavic Women hit men more often then men hit women, It is independence
And this whole time the others have been trying to make Women equal while they were all along, no it is ok to hit a woman, as long as it is a fair fight and not someone who is much weaker then you, a weaker woman or man? Not acceptable

In my opinion Western Media sucks in dealing with Russia, it has never said anything positive about it, it is biased, (Not Propaganda becuase it has been used many times before in this TOPIC:mad: :mad: )

So if anything don't listen to any media just make up your own stories,
You are living in a labyrinth of lies too,:crazyeye:

aelf

Mar 18, 2007, 02:47 AM

and you would have had something better to add then to just laugh at those who didn't read the whole 11 page thread and decided to just voice their own opinion. I was under the imipression that stating your honest opinion was the right thing to do, rather than basing everything on others.

And it is my honest opinion that uninformed declarations deserve to be shot down. You can have opinions that are different, but you should state it in the context of the whole debate, or else it would just be irrelevant.

I have seen no posts that state that Germany was noble and all the rest were just jerks, but I have seen a lot of "they lost, they suck, stupid Nazis". The fence swings both ways.

I don't want to make more criticism of the same post, but for the sake of demonstration, let me show you what I mean:

Germany has always been screwed over by the nations of Europe, they can't handle Germany on their own [other countries are wimps and jerks]. WWI was pinned on Germany for no other reason than their military might, not because they actually started the war [Germany was great and not in the wrong at all]. France was still pissy over the Franco-Prussian War, and their military incompetence [other countries are wimps and jerks].

So, which part of this statement is objective and offers any kind of proof or explanation?

Yes, there are people who are not objective on both sides, but I'm not one of them, so surely I can comment about it, can't I?

Adler17

Mar 18, 2007, 04:24 AM

Hmm, well let's see the facts (and only them):

1. A Serbian assasinates the Austrian throne heir and soon all powers are at war. The deed was done under knowledge of big parts of the Serbian government. Also the role of the Russian secret service is still not completely known. The only powers who tried to rescue the peace were Britain and Germany.
2. After the war Germany got the blame for the war, was humiliated and had to pay for everything in a time noone can pay. The whole system for repaying is based upon short term loans from the US. A catastrophe is programmed.
3. When this happened a certain Austrian just got the opportunity to take over the power (Billy Wilder, an Austrian himself, once said, the Austrians are a strange people making Beethoven to an Austrian and Hitler to a German). That guy and his gang commit crimes nobody could immangine before.
4. In this time the German resistance tried to get rid of him over 40 times. None is successful. Allied support for them? Nearly zero.
5. After the war the Polish and Russians annex 1/4th of Germany and displacing/abusing/murdering 12,5 million Germans. Nearly all of them had nothing to do with the crimes committed. BTW, the German annexions and displacings and so on were called criminal in 1946 in the Nuremberg trials...

Adler

REDY

Mar 18, 2007, 06:41 AM

Slavic Culture was inherantly more free then Western European, it has helped Womans rights before their time, ever hear of the Woman's Army? and there is even a statistic that says Slavic Women hit men more often then men hit women, It is independence
And this whole time the others have been trying to make Women equal while they were all along, no it is ok to hit a woman, as long as it is a fair fight and not someone who is much weaker then you, a weaker woman or man? Not acceptable
Its not because Slavic culture, its because communism. (Yes positive part of communism was progress in feminism)

In my opinion Western Media sucks in dealing with Russia, it has never said anything positive about it, it is biased, (Not Propaganda becuase it has been used many times before in this TOPIC:mad: :mad: )
Have you some examples?

A Serbian assasinates the Austrian throne heir and soon all powers are at war. The deed was done under knowledge of big parts of the Serbian government. Also the role of the Russian secret service is still not completely known. The only powers who tried to rescue the peace were Britain and Germany.
Never heard about it. I know that Germany didnt want war in this time. Serbian individuals in parliament should be connected with some terrorists, but you forget Austrian regime and Bosnia annexation. In this era it was called fight for independence. Serbian government accepted majority of demands, Austria refused it.

privatehudson

Mar 18, 2007, 08:00 AM

Adler why undertake to list the facts if you only make a very selective and simplified list?

Adler17

Mar 18, 2007, 08:01 AM

Redy, Bosnia was annexed before indeed. But the Serbs there were also (only) a (strong) minority there like today. Anyway the Serbian government was de facto controlled by the Black Hand. The Serbian Prime minister got knowledge about the assassination and tried to prevent it, but he feared for his life and only used complicated ways and formulations the Austrians only realized when it was too late. However it was a deed of a Serbian terrorist with the knowledge about in the Serbian government. And remember that is exactly why ww1 broke out: The Serbs were denying the right of Austrian investigations in Serbia (what they got granted by Austria in a similar case before).

Adler

Adler17

Mar 18, 2007, 08:04 AM

What should I have added? Of course I made this list short. I do not have the time to write the whole history of Europe from 1871 to 1945 here. And what should I have added? What is so important that I missed? There we can discuss indeed.

Adler

privatehudson

Mar 18, 2007, 08:21 AM

No-one's suggesting the whole history, merely that you offer more than one side of the story. Take the conspirators for example. You didn't offer any reason why the Allies didn't support German attempts, didn't mention that the conspirators often lacked internal support as much as external or that they frequently disagreed on their aims and methods of opposition.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the vast majority of the Germans who opposed Hitler, but what you said makes it sound like they failed because the allies simply ignored them just to be spiteful.

Pokurcz

Mar 18, 2007, 08:22 AM

Tekee

Well you do not seem to have any problems with my main points except my generalization of earlier Russian history.

You have unfortunately misunderstood the literacy part, I meant that because there is such high literacy in Russia propaganda has to be very thorough and very important for the national self image. Afraid I was a bit in a hurry there.

Well I am Slavic but I have not heard about the "Woman's Army", womens rights I do not find important for my overall argument.

The thing With the Mongol Yoke, The proximity to the more remote east and the heritage of the East roman empire have given Russia historically a extremely centralized governing system with the Tsar essentially deified along Asian custom. The tsar was an emperor and a pope in one, so he had power both over peoples bodies and souls. Or am I wrong?

This Deification was easily transfered to Stalin and that power tradition is still discernible in Putin today.

Western Leaders did not have such power.

aelf

Mar 18, 2007, 09:06 AM

I know that Germany didnt want war in this time. Serbian individuals in parliament should be connected with some terrorists, but you forget Austrian regime and Bosnia annexation. In this era it was called fight for independence. Serbian government accepted majority of demands, Austria refused it.

But Austria was only emboldened to act, and to present the demands in the first place, after being assured of German support in case Russia intervened. The Austrian government was asking for it by insisting on the only demand Serbia refused, which compromised the sovereignity of Serbia itself. However, this was only the case because of Germany's encouragement, so Germany is definitely one of the bigger culprits in sparking the war.

IIRC, the Kaiser did get cold feet at the last minute, but it was too late. Russian mobilization had already begun.

Adler's list is selective from the first point.

Pokurcz

Mar 18, 2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekee View Post
"In my opinion Western Media sucks in dealing with Russia, it has never said anything positive about it, it is biased, (Not Propaganda becuase it has been used many times before in this TOPIC"

A problem lies in the misunderstanding between Russians and "Westerners": if one is constantly wading in a soup of common knowledge, values and general attitude that prevails or is predominant in ones country, as in Russia or Sweden, these values can differ in key areas to an extent that arguments put forward by one side just skim on the other sides surface, not being able to connect with key common knowledge.

The base certainties are just different enough so that communication becomes difficult to an extent so that common ground becomes impossible to achieve.

An easier explanation that exists at the same time is that if one side points out problems that the other side perceives as unproblematic or taken care of, but the first side wont stop complaining about. The other side quicly grows tired of the situation and furthermore deaf to the first sides further arguments.
So one can see it as a bilaterally caused problem, where the first side isn't pedagogical enough and the other side is to proud to care to listen.

I have a very firm impression that Russians are very proud.

Pokurcz

Mar 18, 2007, 09:23 AM

About the start of WW1 I've heard this explanation that all greater powers were changing propellants from coal to oil in their fleets, that the main source of Oil was in Iran under British power and a main reason for the war was that the Germans where extending their oriental express to Baghdad and the British felt their fuel source threatened.

Sounds a bit more like a real reason for world war than the killing of some Prince.

aelf

Mar 18, 2007, 09:40 AM

Sounds a bit more like a real reason for world war than the killing of some Prince.

Well, he was after all the heir to the throne in a monarchy. And there were really many reasons why the war broke out.

REDY

Mar 18, 2007, 11:51 AM

Adler: I am not good in WW1 history, but Austria had very aggresive politics in Balkan. You should blame small country which was in extremous situation, but true is that Austria knew what to do, and they only hoped that they should annex another country without much challenge. Pity was that Russia had own interest in slavic friends and defenisive pacts started work. And Germany was supporting Austria-Hungary. Funny is that Austria, most catholic super-power coorporated with Ottoman empire againist small christianist states in Balkan. If you want realy find some another country than from Central powers, look at France.

Cuchullain

Mar 18, 2007, 12:26 PM

After reading all of the previous posts, I think the solution is clear: all of the disputed territory should be given to a neutral country, with no stake at all in all of this ethnic bickering. Switzerland, perhaps? Or Ireland? Maybe Micronesia?

warpus

Mar 18, 2007, 12:51 PM

Raki

Mar 18, 2007, 02:48 PM

Can you clarify how the rest of Europe screwed Germany during the 100 years war?

Steph - you're right. It wasn't the Hundred Years War which is so relevant to understand German history, it was the Thirty Years' War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War)

As a bottomline one can say that the German empires (still called the Holy Roman Empire at this time) was completely ripped to pieces, leading to a blockage in nation founding for centuries. During this war, the german countries were a warground for almost all other european powers and after that, more than 50% of population was gone. After the war the german empire consisted of hundreds small countries. Only common language and culture kept this jigsaw somehow together over the coming centuries.

And only in 19th century the german people started thinking of building one big central governement (Schiller was a big supporter, for example). However, for multiple reasons the first unification in 1848 failed - one strong reason was that all other european states didn't like the idea of a strong Germany at this time. Can you imagine? ;)

1871 the war against France and earlier against Denmark was a milestone in unifying Germany under external pressure as war always is. After the 1871 Prussian unification Germany became a little bit too ambitious getting it's share of the world with regards to colonies, resources - in general the "Lebensraum" philosophy was born. 1914 and 1939 were only sequels to this expansion.

Long story short - there is always a story behind the story. There are good but little known reasons why a country like Germany suddenly "decided" to become expansionistic in the late 19th century. Maybe it also helps to understand how the country of Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Humboldt, Leibniz, Kant, Luther, Gutenberg, Bach etc. suddenly turned into a prussian barrack and later became the biggest slaughterhouse of human history.

Back to the initial question - was Germany screwed after WWII? Yes, obviously it was, but there were good reasons to do it at this time (and it could have been worse - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan)
And there is no reason to complain now or to claim regions back.

My perspective is that the European Union is our common future in Europe. Everybody should be allowed to live where he wants so the question of "getting back your land" is void.

My two cents. :)

Verbose

Mar 18, 2007, 05:37 PM

As a bottomline one can say that the German empires (still called the Holy Roman Empire at this time) was completely ripped to pieces, leading to a blockage in nation founding for centuries. During this war, the german countries were a warground for almost all other european powers and after that, more than 50% of population was gone. After the war the german empire consisted of hundreds small countries. Only common language and culture kept this jigsaw somehow together over the coming centuries.
It think it's fairer to say that Germany ripped itself to pieces in the 30 Years War. This happened because Germany was already in tatters, and had in fact been so ever since the Hohenstaufen emperor lost the power-struggle with the Pope (backed by France), which happened already in the 13th c.

Religion messed up European politics no end in the 16th and 17th centuries, as it allowed foreigners butting in in the name of religious solidarity. The adoption of the principle of sovreignity adopted in the Peace of Westphalia reflects how well aware people were of this.

But it wasn't as if the wars over religion screwed Germany up worse than it did France in the 16th c. The French carnage was every bit as bad as the later German. The difference was that France was already a resonably centralised kingdom when it happened, whereas Germany was still a patchwork ad hoc political solutions. That made all the difference, but it wasn't the war itself which caused the political fragmentation.

Pokurcz

Mar 18, 2007, 05:46 PM

Last two post where certainly interesting...

sydhe

Mar 18, 2007, 06:09 PM

That article on the Morganthau plan is very interesting. Apparently Germany was not only going to be screwed, it was to be gang-raped and mutilated. Check out the memos from the Truman Library on the talk page as well.

Pokurcz

Mar 18, 2007, 06:13 PM

Well that settles it then! Germany was lucky!:beer:(Warsteiner)

aelf

Mar 19, 2007, 03:18 AM

Adler17

Mar 19, 2007, 03:28 AM

@ PH: The German resistance was indeed a conglomerate of several origins, from communistic to nationalistic and monarchistic. Except the communists nearly all were united at least in 1944. Although they all represented different political views they all agreed to get rid of Hitler. But for that they needed support in the population and a chance to kill Hitler. The first assassination plot was started in 1938, but the chance was missed when Mussolini surprisingly entered Hitler's car. To assassinate him, too, was not dared. And little later Hitler had success and in 1940 he was considered as hero after the fall of France. Only a year later the situation was becoming better with the invasion of Russia and finally a support was there in the population after Stalingrad. However the Allies indeed accepted them as resistance fighters but only as a kind of traitors. I am critizising them for this attitude. To say Hitler was killed with their help though I do not say. Hitler must have had a number of "protection devils" (as no Angel coud have helped him).
Anyway I could not have made a full list and every aspect. Yes, it is selective. And we can discuss what to add though. But that does not rebuts the statement of this thread.

@aelf: Serbia accepted the Austrian ultimatum except for the police investigations in Serbia (as they could not accept it as the government was involved into the plot, a fact no one would have helped them anymore if that became public).
Also Austria was annexing in 1908 "only" something they controlled since 1878. They tried to make Bosnia a model province to cope with the pan Slavic ambitions of the Serbian resp. Russian government. Indeed with the many problems wih minorities the last thing the Austrians could need was yet another minority. In 1914 the war was waged not to annex Serbia, too.

@Raki: I think it is daring to see in the German wish for colonies in the 19th century a forerunner of the Nazi policy. Or you have to say the same for the other nations, too.
The infamous Morgenthau plan was only a symbol of the lack of a post war order in Europe in England and the US. That plan, if conducted, would have lead to massive problems. Indeed it would have lead to a new series of wars. It was unpracticable and indeed the best present for Goebbels.

Adler

aelf

Mar 19, 2007, 06:04 AM

@aelf: Serbia accepted the Austrian ultimatum except for the police investigations in Serbia (as they could not accept it as the government was involved into the plot, a fact no one would have helped them anymore if that became public).
Also Austria was annexing in 1908 "only" something they controlled since 1878. They tried to make Bosnia a model province to cope with the pan Slavic ambitions of the Serbian resp. Russian government. Indeed with the many problems wih minorities the last thing the Austrians could need was yet another minority. In 1914 the war was waged not to annex Serbia, too.

So how does any of that justify German-backed Austrian insistence on the point and subsequent declaration of war, in spite of Russian support for Serbia?

The Archduke knew it was dangerous, and yet he went there. He merely paid the price. The demands Austria made because of that incident were widely seen as unfulfillable, and the Serbian government had agreed to all except one. So, Austria was clearly looking for trouble where it didn't have a strong case. And guess whose support gave Austria the guts.

Anyway, any government has been involved in a plot somewhere. There was no real hostile act on the part of Serbia. It certainly did not kidnap the Archduke and kill him.

Adler17

Mar 19, 2007, 11:08 AM

aelf

Mar 19, 2007, 11:53 AM

Well, I do not think that the Austrian government wanted the death. But although the ultimatum was harsh this point was most likely the most interesting for the Austrians. Do you realize that you try to justify that assassination btw? Anyway the Austrian throen heir was murdered and there were traces towards a foreign government. If Condi Rice is murdered by a British terrorist with traces to the British government, only to take an example, you can switch the persons and states easily, then the US would also demand investigations of FBI agents in the UK. Any nation would do so. And indeed if the Austrians attacked Serbia at once, a (great) war would not have happened. However to say it was his own fault is very cynical.

I don't think your analogy is correct. Rather, if Condi Rice went to Sadr City and got herself shot, would the US have any right to blame and attack the current Iraqi government?

Yes, initial Austrian hesitation did play a part in sparking the war. But, again, guess who finally convinced it to take such harsh action (you do realise that there are at least a few difficult demands in the ultimatum)?

privatehudson

Mar 19, 2007, 02:57 PM

The German resistance was indeed a conglomerate of several origins, from communistic to nationalistic and monarchistic. Except the communists nearly all were united at least in 1944. Although they all represented different political views they all agreed to get rid of Hitler.

Therein lied the problem for the allies, understanding what would replace Hitler's regime and if it would meet with their requirements. Considering that one of the conspirators (Poppitz) met with Himmler and offered to support any move he made to displace Hitler if he would negotiate a peace its not like the concerns of the allies were unfounded.

But for that they needed support in the population and a chance to kill Hitler. The first assassination plot was started in 1938, but the chance was missed when Mussolini surprisingly entered Hitler's car. To assassinate him, too, was not dared. And little later Hitler had success and in 1940 he was considered as hero after the fall of France.

It would help if some had not been distracted by their own aims too. In 1939 for example many Prussian officers withdrew their objections to Hitler's plans. They didn't like the idea of going to war with the west or Czechslovakia but were quite happy to invade Poland to regain lost land.

Only a year later the situation was becoming better with the invasion of Russia and finally a support was there in the population after Stalingrad.

And yet still not widespread support from the army - witness Manstein or Rundstedt's comments on the matter at that stage. Whilst they were quite happy not to tell tale on their fellow officers the concept of a unified army movement was quite impossible. Its also worth noting that after Stalingrad even men like Stauffenberg were still struggling to accept assasination as the solution to the problem. Nor was support so widespread in Nazi Germany that it sparked extensive outbreaks of open opposition such as in the occupied countries. Nor was such opposition impossible - witness the Rossenstrasse protest for example. Having said that it would be interesting to speculate what may have occurred had this kind of opposition been more widspread.

However the Allies indeed accepted them as resistance fighters but only as a kind of traitors. I am critizising them for this attitude. To say Hitler was killed with their help though I do not say. Hitler must have had a number of "protection devils" (as no Angel coud have helped him).

They didn't "accept" them at first probably because no-one realised the seriousness of the situation. Assasinating a head of state or his removal from power by military coup was not always to be encouraged as the first resort. Later the West may not have trusted the conspirators due to the lack of coherent aims after Hitler was removed. The allies were after unconditional surrender to all the allied powers, I don't think that the conspirators would have agreed with that until the July plot. The allies also had to deal with the paranoia of Stalin that they would betray him, and also had to try and avoid another "stab in the back" myth arising from a Germany feeling it was unbeaten in the field.

SomethingWicked

Mar 19, 2007, 05:42 PM

To get back to topic (sorry if I may repeat something someone may have said earlier, reading through 11 pages of talk is just a little too much ;)):

Germany got screwed?

No, Germany did not "get screwed".

"Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people."

This excerpt from the preamble of Germany's constitution, the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) illustrates the point-of-view of Germany's community of constitutional law experts, as well as the point-of-view of the Government and the vast majority of Germans. The success of Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik (lit. "Eastern Policy", the policy of rapprochement towards East Germany and the countries of the Warsaw Pact, following the slogan Wandel durch Annäherung, or change through rapprochement) generally isn't seriously questioned nowadays, not even by the conservative party.
This policy included a series of treaties that, among other things, fixed the Oder-Neisse line - the German-Polish border - as Germany's eastern border (the Warsaw Treaty of 1970) and officially repealed the Munich Agreement that ceded the Sudetenland from Czecheslovakia to Germany before World War II (the Prague Treaty of 1973). Thus, Germany has relinquished every claim of territories east of the current border - and rightly so.

While a large number of Germans were indeed brutally expelled from the eastern territories by the Red Army, these Germans found a home in West Germany and contributed significantly to Germany's Wirtschaftswunder of the 60ies. I don't know many people who would like to give up what they themselves built over decades just because of pseudo-romantic nationalism.

Borders change. The former German territories in the East have lost most of their German character - they are home to others now. More than 60 years have passed since the end of the Second World War - a war, in which millions of soldiers perished and in which over 6 million Jews, homosexuals, handicaped, political prisoners, etc. were brutally done to death by the Nazi regime. This War is over now - it has been since 60 years. The generation now in power in Germany, in politics, culture and economy, does not bear the stain of Nazi tyranny. We - and that includes everyone, from the occasional "Blitz the Fritz"-shouting Brits to a fex Germans and others screaming "We want our territories back" - should stop living in the past and look forward. Of course, we'll always have to remember what happened over 60 years ago, both as a warning to ourselves and to future generations, but we musn't fight the War all over again.

warpus

Mar 19, 2007, 05:47 PM

SomethingWicked, I applaud what you have just written.

Most excellent first post :goodjob:

Adler17

Mar 20, 2007, 03:01 AM

@ aelf, what would happen if Condi is killed in Sadr City by an Iranian agent with traces to Ahmedinedshad (sp?)? That is a much better example!

@ PH: The German resistance had to be accepted by most parts of the population. That's why it was important to have nearly all "in the boat". That they all had different ideas was only logic, but also neccessary if you want to rebuild a nation. In a few points however they were totally agreeing: Removing the Nazis, stopping the Holocaust and the war, reenforcing the constitution and reforming it. In any case, except the KPD, a democracy should be reinstalled. IMO that were the most important and most urgent targets to achieve. To me saying this splintering was causing no help is just a (bad) excuse.
Well despite the missing support Hilter avoided his own end twice luckily only little later, just before Charkow. General Hyazinth Graf von Strachwitz awaited Hitler to imrpison him (or to shoot him in the case of resistance, what was much more realistic). But Hitler did fly to manstein and not to his location. So Adam von Trott zu Stolz smuggled a bomb within Congac bottle on board of his plane. But because of the low temperatures the bomb did not detonate!
Churchill wanted Hitler to sit on the Electric Chair and then had scruples because of his assassinating?!? Although this was also debated in the German resistance it was clear that it was impossible to imprison Hitler and then taking over the power. That would only be possible if he was sent to a prison he could never escape or liberated, but in any case it was better to have him dead. Also Stalin was betraying the Allies, too. Churchill knew that. With Hitler's death war was over anyway. So what was more important? A war won now with most targets achieved and Stalin out of Central Europe? Or a conditional surrender of Germany? With all consequences of another year of war.
At last, what happened in the Rosenstraße was indeed remarkable. However I do not want to make the courage smaller of those demonstrants, but it was planned to release their husbands. The Gestapo/ SS had other plans: To deport other Jews. I do not remember the whole story though. However the demonstrants (unfortunately) did not break the will of the Nazis. (Although I do not think it wasn't possible like Cardinal Clemens Graf von Galen showed.)

@ Something Wicked:
Wellcome here and have fun!
However a few remarks: Brandt was not able to cede the German territories in the East to Poland. And the Präambel of our GG is true. And indeed it has the Spirit of the constitution. And also we all agree that this constitution is one of the best in the world (only to clarify that). However from a juristical point of view that is not so clear, as I already explained. But that is not the point of the discussion. The point was, if Germany was screwed. Nobody denies that the expellees were a factor of the Witschaftswunder. However that does not justify the expelling of the people.
Also it is another question if there are still claims now on that territories any if it would be "okay" to claim that indeed. But we already discussing here the role of the German resistance and I think that is not even a topic of the history forum but off topic forum here. So I suggest to end that discussion here. The same I propose for our discussion with the German resistance, PH. Let us just return to our topic, if Germany was screwed.

Adler

Dachs

Mar 20, 2007, 07:25 AM

I don't think your analogy is correct. Rather, if Condi Rice went to Sadr City and got herself shot, would the US have any right to blame and attack the current Iraqi government?
That analogy doesn't work either., unless you say "shot by an Iranian" and "blame and attack the current Iranian government" or something similar, for all of the reasons that that would need to apply.

SomethingWicked

Mar 20, 2007, 08:10 AM

SomethingWicked, I applaud what you have just written.

Most excellent first post :goodjob:
Thanks. :)

Wellcome here and have fun!
However a few remarks: Brandt was not able to cede the German territories in the East to Poland.

He was. The German Chancellor has, ex officio as the person that lays down the guidelines of government (Richtlinienkompetenz in German, that's Art. 65 of the Grundgesetz), the power to negotiate treaties that have to be signed by the Federal President (Art. 59 GG) and, last but not least, ratified by parliament. This has been done, thus the Prague and Warsaw treaties are directly binding law until revoked.

And the Präambel of our GG is true. And indeed it has the Spirit of the constitution. And also we all agree that this constitution is one of the best in the world (only to clarify that).
I totally agree.

However from a juristical point of view that is not so clear, as I already explained.
The has been a low-scale debate among jurists some time ago. However, from a legal point-of-view, the matter is settled since the preamble was changed in 1990 to encompass the new East German states. So, legally speaking, Germany has revoked every claim on territories east of Oder-Neisse.

But that is not the point of the discussion. The point was, if Germany was screwed. Nobody denies that the expellees were a factor of the Witschaftswunder. However that does not justify the expelling of the people.

No, of course, it does not. I have heard recent estimates that as much as a million people may have perished during the forced explusion of Germans from the East. Of course, there is no question of Biblical "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"-style justice. However, a discussion if this deeds, brutal as they were, did indeed constitute crimes is not really useful, as every country passed legislation specifically allowing the expulsions and confiscation of German (and in some areas, Austrian and Hungarian) property. For the legal point-of-view, a legal opinion by the Lord Kingsland and two other professors about the Beneš decrees and their relation to EU law is available here (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies/benesdecrees/pdf/opinions_en.pdf).

That said, enough about legal peculiarities. Perhaps a little look at the entry question serves to bring this discussion back on track.

Of course they did, but recently I've been thinking, Germany lost more than it should of, land-wise, at the end of WWII then I think it deserved, so I'm bringing this up to debate to see if there's any truth behind this. Examples: Danzig, Stettin, Pressburg, Konigsberg, Breslau, and the regions surrounding them, you know, those good old Prussian lands, I'm no nazi but if terratories belong to a certain culture, why are they given to another? To me, Germany deserved those lands, and really theres no way to get them back without starting WWIII. So there you go, wtf mates?

This question is not about the morality or legality of the forceful expulsion of Germans; it is about whether the Eastern German territories should be given back to Germany.
West 36 argues that these territories belong "to a certain culture". Indeed they do. For the most part of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries they were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or one of its fiefdoms until the partition of that nation between Prussia, Russia and the Habsburg Empire at the end of the 18th century. So, for almost three centuries, these lands were Polish-Lithuanian. Prussia and, later, the German Empire, held the eastern provinces from 1795 to 1918 and 1945 respectively. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, like the German Empire, has been long gone.

Moreover, since the end of the 1940ies, these territories aren't part of the German culture. There is only a minority of German-speaking people left and the Polish, Czech or Slovenian influence is far greater than any putative German influence. Of course, that is, because these territories are now integral parts of these countries. They are no longer part of the German Empire, because there is no German Empire anymore. As I've said before, borders change. Cultures change. The German identity nowadays is radically different from the German Imperial identity of 1900 or the Nazi mindset. And, as far as I'm concerned (and I dare say, the vast majority of Germans would agree), irredentism is not part of that cultural identity.

Also it is another question if there are still claims now on that territories any if it would be "okay" to claim that indeed. But we already discussing here the role of the German resistance and I think that is not even a topic of the history forum but off topic forum here. So I suggest to end that discussion here. The same I propose for our discussion with the German resistance, PH. Let us just return to our topic, if Germany was screwed.

I disagree. As quoted above, West 36 argued that Germany was "screwed" because it was deprieved of its former eastern territories after the War. I have argued against this. If anything is off-topic, it is a discussion about the morality and legality of the expulsion of Germans from the former eastern territories. While an interesting and exhaustive topic, it is not exactly the subject of this debate. You have to discern between the political act of annexation of the former German territories (done by the Allies) and the expulsion of its ethnic German inhabitants (done by each country on its own).

Adler17

Mar 20, 2007, 10:22 AM

Okay, then let's discuss it here.
For the legal point of view (you're studying law, don't you?): The Bundesverfassungsgericht said, that the Bundeskanzler could only do so, if the Allies dealt with the whole question. That did not happen before 1990. I do have not the time now, but I could give you the citation.
So indeed we had a treaty in 1991 with Warsaw. This treaty is still in force. However it is accepting an Annexion. And as I already told annexions are banned. So nearly no annexion since 1945 was really accepted (Israel as new state left out, however their annected lands (Westbank, Gaza, Golan) are also not accepted). To ban annexions you have to do it completely. Otherwise the ban is not working. A annecting country may never be save about the annected lands. All treaties accepting that are in so far void. So being no part of the Federal Republic these lands are still German but only under Polish resp. Russian administration. They are in no way parts of that countries either.
That is a strong legal discussion here!
From a morale point of view: These people had nothing to do with the Holocaust or any crimes against poland or Russia. As also no crime is justifying another we have to be sorry about both but leave that crimes out of this discussion.
At first who lived there in 1945. We have to get rid about the medievel times. There are not many infos nor were there any national states. However in these areas from 1740 (and even before) the majority of the population was German (excluding the old province of Posen, but as we are talking about only the areas of 1937 this is academic). Anyway all these areas were German in 1945. Poland did not have any claims about these areas. Otherwise the Neanderthals would have the claims for all of Europe. So we have to make a cut and we have to do so in 1919. Anyway in 1945 the land belonged to the German culture. To annex them was a crime and therefore ther is no morale acceptance of the result. It can't be. The only morale point I admit, is the fact of people living there. So another deportation is not possible as that would be a crime, too. It is a dilemma indeed.
Oh, the German Reich was never dissolved. It is indeed "only" "out of order" since 1945. Also for this I could give you some literature.
So, yes, Germany was screwed!

Adler