"Peace Without Victory"

[Adler17]

Gladi, no it wasn't. Germany did not attack France because of Alsace- Lorraine. France declared war on Germany and attacked because of the German unification (yes, they fired also the first shot by crossing the French German border, but were fastly driven back by the Germans). If Napoleon III. only agreed to a united Germany, no war would have happened. France only lost Alsace- Lorraine due to the fact of commencing a war already lost after Sedan. I mean, after Napoleon III. was caught, the German command believed in a quick cease fire with France. Bismarck wanted to make a mild peace again. Only after the Germans had to capture Paris, France had also to cede Alsace- Lorraine, as this are was inhabited by German speakers and robbed 200 years ago.
No the Paris peace treaty was not the cause of the Franco- German war.

Adler

 

[Adler17]

Didn't Hitler come to power long after the French armies had ceased to be a variable? Hitler was not the only politician offering to restore german posessions?

Hi,
Well yes, but the danger of a French invasion still existed and you do not have to forget centuries of French invasions in Southern Germany. And still plans of getting the Rhine as "natural border". Germany was defenceless there. In these days Germany and France were arch- enemies.
And yes, Hitler did not promise alone to get rid of that treaty. But he was seen as possibility to the other parties. In times of a crise the right and left wings get their chances. And here they won the majority, although none alone. It is a tragedy that Hindenburg chose him to take the lead of the government. Only half a year later the NSDAP would have been bancrupted and the economical situation so recovered that the NSDAP and KPD would never got a chance again (until the next crise, but not Hitler).

You are not saying anything which relates to the economic or social impact of the treaty, in the rise of the Nazis here.

Also, you repeatedly state that disaffection with the terretorial provisions of the treaty had an impact on Hitlers support. Is there any evidence that a)this discontentment was significant and b) it trasnslated into Nazi votes. What was the position of the other parties on the treaty?

If a) and b) are true, why did these votes not become significant till the 30s for the Nazis. Or, to put it another way, people were voting on the economic situation ie the impact of the Great Depression.

If we are to blame Versailles for the rise of Hitler, then we need to sideline the belated economic effects of waging the Great War. This consequently de-couples the First and Second wars, which I think you will agree is a historical impossiblity.

Okay, only a look on the economical situation 1919- 1929. Germany was caught in a hyperinflation in 1919. That lasted until 1923. In this time the inflation was even more fastened up by the reparations. From the reforms 1923 to 1929 Germany's economy had a boom. But it could not really recover, as due to the reparations all the money Germany got was due to short time loans by US banks. That this should end in a catastrophe was clear as soon as the the system introduced. The first problem would have caused a catastrophical cataclysm. And so it happened in 1929. The Germans were not able to prolong the loans as they did before, because the banks needed the money themselves. So the German economy crashed in a much harsher way than any other European economy. About 6 million people were unemployed, democracy was already in a crise, which lead to a massive boom of the KPD and NSDAP. Hitler was in some way now "electable" resp. "choseable". And although the crise was over in 1932, I mean the economy was out of the worst, it was too late.
Also, due to the fact that the German army was just 100.000 men strong, the parties could all build up armies themselves. The SA was the biggest of them, so that a civil war was possible, too.

No I don't, I can talk about the good and bad points of the treaty as I do with anything. In any case we are discussing versailles and the rise of Hitler. War guilt is altogether another 'can of worms'

There is little good in Versailles. And the war guilt question was also one point, why the republic had problems, when they were forced to sign the treaty, as on this way the Germans saw this partly as a kind of betrayel of the Democracy on Germany.

Democracy in Germany was damaged by Versailles not only due to the reparations.

Adler

 

[Gladi]

Gladi, no it wasn't. Germany did not attack France because of Alsace- Lorraine. France declared war on Germany and attacked because of the German unification (yes, they fired also the first shot by crossing the French German border, but were fastly driven back by the Germans). If Napoleon III. only agreed to a united Germany, no war would have happened. France only lost Alsace- Lorraine due to the fact of commencing a war already lost after Sedan. I mean, after Napoleon III. was caught, the German command believed in a quick cease fire with France. Bismarck wanted to make a mild peace again. Only after the Germans had to capture Paris, France had also to cede Alsace- Lorraine, as this are was inhabited by German speakers and robbed 200 years ago.
No the Paris peace treaty was not the cause of the Franco- German war.

Adler

I cannot take you seriously any longer. Stating the the French goal as preventing German unification, completely ignoring the Spanish Candidacy issue and Ems dispatch is... laughable at best. (posted accidentaly too soon) And Alsace-Lorraine was robbed from Germany? So when another state takes teritorry from Germany it is vile robbery, but when Germany does it, it is glorius.. what? After Franco-Prussian War nobody asked Alsassers where they want to be. The French held the referendum- and Alsassers choosed France. You go on and on about ocupation of left bank of Rhine- whole of France was ocupied by Germany till it managed to pay the war reparation, which were not small either (but the world was in economic boom).

 

[Adler17]

Gladi, who was opposing the German unification? The Ems depeche and the Spanish Candidacy were only the cause for the outbreak of the war and not the cause! Napoleon III. hoped to avoid a German unification without being involved directly. That's why he supported Austria and believed in another 7 years war. But this time the war lasted only 7 weeks. And the fields of Königgrätz/ Sadowa were for Napoleon III. a huge diplomatical defeat as it was for the Austrians a military one. That day it became clear France must face the German unification directly. The Spanish Candidacy was only a cause for the outbreak.
Straßburg and Alsace- Lorraine were German until it was annexed by France under Louis XIV. So I can say, it was robbery.
And at last only Verdun was occupied until the French payed the last sum.

Perhaps you should read a good history book about that time. Even the wikipedia can help.

Adler

 

[Gladi]

Gladi, who was opposing the German unification? The Ems depeche and the Spanish Candidacy were only the cause for the outbreak of the war and not the cause! Napoleon III. hoped to avoid a German unification without being involved directly. That's why he supported Austria and believed in another 7 years war. But this time the war lasted only 7 weeks. And the fields of Königgrätz/ Sadowa were for Napoleon III. a huge diplomatical defeat as it was for the Austrians a military one. That day it became clear France must face the German unification directly. The Spanish Candidacy was only a cause for the outbreak.
Straßburg and Alsace- Lorraine were German until it was annexed by France under Louis XIV. So I can say, it was robbery.
And at last only Verdun was occupied until the French payed the last sum.

Perhaps you should read a good history book about that time. Even the wikipedia can help.

Adler

By advising me to read a good history book, you are trying to say I am uneducated and ill-informed, . Or at least it sounds like that .

During the Austro-Prussian War the France was lining up to side with Prussia. The common wisdom was that Prussian were going to be defeated by Austrians. Napoleon could then come to rescue the Prussia and status quo.

So the Ems dispatch was not a provocation? The Napoleon would have declared war even if Bismarck had not put out such a message?

And you know, I somehow missed that there was Germany in 17th century... And if you take this than surely you cannot have any problems with Poland which was merely returned the land "Germany" "stole" and "ethnicaly cleansed".

 

[tossi]

During the Austro-Prussian War the France was lining up to side with Prussia. The common wisdom was that Prussian were going to be defeated by Austrians. Napoleon could then come to rescue the Prussia and status quo.

After the battle of Königgrätz/Sadowa the French called for "Revanche pour Sadowa!" They called for revenge, as they saw the Austria defeat as a diplomatical defeat of Napoleon III.

 

[Gladi]

After the battle of Königgrätz/Sadowa the French called for "Revanche pour Sadowa!" They called for revenge, as they saw the Austria defeat as a diplomatical defeat of Napoleon III.

I am not arguing about that. I am arguing that at the time Napoleon was not supporting Austria.

 

[Adler17]

At first I have to apologize the sound of my words, as they seem to be harsh, Gladi. Nevertheless Napoleon III. still did not want a German unification. Indeed he believed in another 7 years war and in another near Prussian defeat. He strongly underestimated the Prussian army. So he kept neutral. He wanted to take the side of Prussia indeed, but only after territorial gains in Germany. If it was loosing the war as he estimated. That diplomacy ended on the Bohemian fields of Königgrätz/ Sadowa. Prussia had beaten the Austrians and the war was over. France lost here the diplomatic game as well and was now the only power to oppose the German unification.
The Emd depeche was only the cause for the outbreak. It was indeed a provocation, but a war with France was inevitable, considering the fact, Napoleon III. was in a crise in France and the French strongly opposed a German unification. He started in 1870 a diplomatic offensive to get Denmark and Austria as allies for an offensive war with Germany. So there was a great danger for Germany and Bismarck wanted the war as soon as possible. Before that alliance was ready.
In the case of the Spanish candidacy Wilhelm I. did not follow Bismarck and his wishes. France here had a great diplomatic success. But then the French ambassador was sent to Bad Ems, were Wilhelm made his holidays. He was ordered to humilate Prussia and demanded, that no Prussian ever will candidate for the Spanish throne. So he spoke with Wilhelm. Both was very against the diplomatic protocoll, to go to him in the holidays and to speak to him without permission. Wilhelm sent Bismarck at once a depeche, which was indeed edited in that way to be formulated much harder. Nothing was added though. This edited depeche was published in the German newspapers the next day (13.07.1870). Six days later France delcared war.
Indeed France was caught in the trap, as now Bismarck's plan succeeded. France was the aggressor for a very small price. In the open scene. But behind it was to stop the German unification. Had Napoleon accepted a German unification, this would have happened in 1867 without a war.
Concerning Poland: This is too OT for a discussion here.
So at last, no, the Peace of Paris did not lead to the war of 1870.

Adler

 

[Gladi]

No problem .

Bismarck had more reasons for lenient peace in 1867 than merely France. The war in south was over and Austrian armies were on the move north, while large portions of Prussian army fell sick. Also Southgerman states were finally ready to join the war fully.

War in 1870 was great Bismarck victory, especially on propaganda front- but the atmosphere in the Mirror Sall still wasn't as cheerfull as that famous picture makes it look.

But it was a lost in the sense that it birthed monstrum of revanchism in France. Monster that was fed by Wilhelm's II incompetent diplomacy, resulting in the harsh peace dealings in 1919. The French trauma was that considerable. Thus I find talk, how "Versailles", ie French, are responsible for national socialism, bad. French did not have to be petty for Versailles, they could have chosen to be behave well, same goes to German public, whatever they possible grievances are.

 

[Adler17]

The main reasons for the mild peace with Austria was, he needed it as ally. He wanted to have no more trouble with them. And after the victory of Königgrätz, German troops were ready to move to Vienna without being in danger of being stopped before. Here he made a wiseful peace.
The situation with France was thought to be the same one: a fast victory and a mild peace. Both was possible, but the nationalistic heated situation in France made this impossible. The French population wanted to continue the war despite being beaten. For the first time the war became a "total" one, a modern one. The others before were still, except perhaps the American civil war, cabinet's wars to a certain extent. In this situation I severly doubt France would have not kept the animosities against Germany even if they did not loose Alsace- Lorraine. Too deep the opposition against a united Germany was spread.
And yes, the French nationalism was in the end the cause for nationalsocialism.

Adler

 

[Gladi]

Ah, so the French are guilty of Holocaust! Those filthy murdering Frenchies, trying to blame Germans for their crimes!

And to the Prussian army being ready to march all way to Vienna- why was it then sitting in Moravia on latrines?

 

[Adler17]

I did not say guilty! I said, they were one reason for causing this.

Adler

 

[Dachs]

And to the Prussian army being ready to march all way to Vienna- why was it then sitting in Moravia on latrines?

Who was in its way? Benedek was in no position to contest a move by First and Elbe Armies. The Prussians were still in condition to march on Vienna; we could see from the American Civil War (not long before) that troops, even with disease ravaging their encampments, can still not only move but put up a fight when they're doing it, too. The Austrian armies weren't moving north IIRC - Garibaldi had them tied up down south with his victory at Bezzecca.

 

[Gladi]

Who was in its way?

Half of army was ill, that dents it fighting abily somewhat.

And what a glorious victory Bezzeca was ! Austrians definitely cold muster some kinfd of army- possibly not enough te defelct the incoming thrust, but enough to give empire time.

 

[Dachs]

Half of army was ill, that dents it fighting abily somewhat.

When no army worth speaking about is in your way, it doesn't matter if you're sick or not.

And what a glorious victory Bezzeca was ! Austrians definitely cold muster some kinfd of army- possibly not enough te defelct the incoming thrust, but enough to give empire time.

The point was that the Austrians were losing. von Kuhn's Army probably would have needed reinforcements to stay a threat to the Hunters of the Alps, and that would have sucked troops away from meeting a Prussian attack, which wouldn't have happened. Bottom line, the Austrians were going to lose, mainly due to the dual pressure from Prussia and Italy, and that the K.u.K. was just acknowledging the inevitable.

I still don't see what this has to do with Versailles being an inherently bad treaty, but okay...

 

[Squonk]

The French occupation of the Ruhr Valley and the demilitarization of the Rhineland go hand in hand with this. The creation of Poland and the other countries out of the land ceded to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk I can understand, but using Germany territory, including the Polish Corridor, fits in with this as well: bad idea.

What do You mean by "Polish Corridor"? It's a Goebbels' name. "The Corridor" consisted of Major Poland, the craddle of polish civilisation and polish for all the history (except for 1793-1807, 1815-ww1, and it was at least officially autonomous), and Pomerania, Polish for most of its history (except for 1308 or so - 1466 with short pauses, 1773-ww1)...
Both provinces, at least in the post-ww1 boarders, had a definite polish autochtonic majority. Speaking of them as german territory is idiotic. They were the same German as Algieria was French.
You'd expect someone to know some basics of history of some region before he starts discussing it.

Germans were treaten mildly after ww1, as shown in Upper Silesian case.

Poland is perhaps the only one I would have changed. It should have been made purely out of Brest-Litovsk Treaty land, not German soil, and no access to the sea. Or, if it does get access, then it should be Lithuania, not Pomerania.

WHY shouldn't it have been given Pomerania and polish by ethnos and by history lands under german rule?

but Silesia indeed decided to stay in Germany. That should have been recognized completely and not departed the country. West Prussia I let open, but according to the latest population figures they mainly would have voted for Germany. Also as connection with East Prussia a Polish corridore here was ever a casus belli for Germany. Either Poland got its port via Lithunia, as a revival of the Polish- Lithunian union

Upper Silesian plebiscites was voted not as a plebiscite of entire region as a unity, but as a plebiscite of separate municipalities. Majority of municipalities and of territory of Upper Silesia voted for Poland, though majority of population (6 in 10) voted for Germany. The problem was that big industrial cities, who have voted for Germany mostly, were exclaves in polish-supporting territory. Therefore, it was finally decided to cut industrial region in half, yet all the polish territory west to it was given to Germany to connect the industrial region with it.
Indeed, Germany got much more than it should have and had no reason to complain.

I don't find German population stats reliable, but, again, Poland did not demand all the prussian province of Western Prussia, but majorly polish areas of it and Gdansk - Danzig. What was given to Poland had 80% or so polish majority... and was polish for most of its history... I see no reason why it shouldn't have been given to Poland.

That was in the 1400s and 1500s

Actually it was 1200s and 1300s...

Well, first off, the Polish corridor only consisted of ethnic Poles after the Germans were forced to leave in '18-'19.

they were not Unlike Germany, Poland signed pact protecting minorities.
Some of Western Prussia had polish majority, some had german majority... Poland got part that was majorly polish. Even on XIX century german maps these territories are shown as majorly german... so please...

and Upper Silesia would never have left.

majority of its territory wanted to leave

Without Versailles, there is no possible chance of the NSDAP forming at all. The other various causes - German nationalism, the rise of autocracy in Germany - would never have had to form together in a repressive, evil, anti-Semitic, anti-Slav, etc. government

It may shock You, but Germany was evil, repressive, anti-Slav gouverment also prior to ww1... with a great dedication to supress Poles and other minorities in (not so long ago) acquired lands in the east.

Also, the last census of 1910 in West Prussia lead to a German majority of about 60- 65 %.

Even if we assume these numbers are true, West Prussia is not the same with territories Poland demanded.
Also, it is after a heavy prussian exert to colonise this land with Germans, since Frederick II, to make Germans a majority.

14-16 million Germans had to leave their homes after ww2. 2,1 million died during these deportations. That can be determined as genocide.

Adler

These are highly exagerrated numbers gathered by Germans in the fifties...
and they have little to do with the subject anyway.
Also, Germans were not the only ones to be resettled. And at least they were the definite causers of ww2

The Polish Corridor would have also stayed German

 

[Adler17]

What do You mean by "Polish Corridor"? It's a Goebbels' name. "The Corridor" consisted of Major Poland, the craddle of polish civilisation and polish for all the history (except for 1793-1807, 1815-ww1, and it was at least officially autonomous), and Pomerania, Polish for most of its history (except for 1308 or so - 1466 with short pauses, 1773-ww1)...
Both provinces, at least in the post-ww1 boarders, had a definite polish autochtonic majority. Speaking of them as german territory is idiotic. They were the same German as Algieria was French.
You'd expect someone to know some basics of history of some region before he starts discussing it.

Germans were treaten mildly after ww1, as shown in Upper Silesian case.

I already said, the history of West Prussia is very complicated and the lack of sources and a great ammount of different archaeological artifacts complicates this even further. So I could say with the same rights, West Prussia was German or even Danish. But that is too OT to discuss here, however if you want to discuss, please open a new thread.
Also I gave you already figures of the last German census shortly before the war. This indicates a German majority.
The datas from the official censi since 1831- 1910 (from wikipedia.de):

Anteil der Polnisch- und Kaschubischsprachigen [3]
Jahr 1831 1861 1890 1910
offizielle Statistik ¹ 30,0% 32,4% 34,4% 35,5%
korrigiert (Schätzung) 41,8% 40,4% 37,8% 38,2%
1) unter Hinzurechnung der Gruppe der Zweisprachigen

The first is the official figure, the second an estimated one. Bilinguar speaker were added to the Polish and Kashubs (so that these figures for only Polish speakers have to be lowered again).
Also the name corridor was used commonly before the name Goebbels was known to anyone, as it was the commonly used name.

Upper Silesian plebiscites was voted not as a plebiscite of entire region as a unity, but as a plebiscite of separate municipalities. Majority of municipalities and of territory of Upper Silesia voted for Poland, though majority of population (6 in 10) voted for Germany. The problem was that big industrial cities, who have voted for Germany mostly, were exclaves in polish-supporting territory. Therefore, it was finally decided to cut industrial region in half, yet all the polish territory west to it was given to Germany to connect the industrial region with it.
Indeed, Germany got much more than it should have and had no reason to complain.

I don't find German population stats reliable, but, again, Poland did not demand all the prussian province of Western Prussia, but majorly polish areas of it and Gdansk - Danzig. What was given to Poland had 80% or so polish majority... and was polish for most of its history... I see no reason why it shouldn't have been given to Poland.

It was decided only after the plebiscite to depart the province. Indeed Poland got several German cities with mainly German speakers, like Kattowitz. This separation was not accepted by the Germans as they felt betrayed. It was thought to be a plebiscite of the whole region and not about a separation of the region.

majority of its territory wanted to leave

You just admitted that about 60 % of the population did not want to leave. You contradict yourself!

Also you are attacking my figures as exaggerated or undoubtworthy. Well, according to an Allied study of 1990 16,5 million Germans were expelled from the eastern territories and East European states (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II) Also 1- 3 million people died in that.
Please show me other figures and please show me the source. But be aware of older Polish sources.
Also I know, that 1,5 million Poles were deported by the Russians. And yes Germany was the starter of ww2. But these crimes do not justify another crime, do they?

Adler

 

[happy_Alex]

Okay, only a look on the economical situation 1919- 1929. Germany was caught in a hyperinflation in 1919. That lasted until 1923. In this time the inflation was even more fastened up by the reparations. From the reforms 1923 to 1929 Germany's economy had a boom. But it could not really recover, as due to the reparations all the money Germany got was due to short time loans by US banks. That this should end in a catastrophe was clear as soon as the the system introduced.

Adler, firstly you are ignoring historical fact. I have repeatedly quoted sources showing that hyper-inflation was NOT caused by reparations. If there’s going to be any progress in this discussion we need to start talking around the facts. Additionally,
you are confusing correlation with causality. Even if we accept that people voted for Hitler because of the effects of the depression (a questionable assumption, as many countries suffered the same effects yet not all elected nationalist demagogues) we cannot assume that reparations exacerbated the effects of the great depression in Germany to a point where people voted for Hitler. Again, other countries suffered the effects of the depression quite profoundly, including, of course the USA. So I am sorry, but I don’t see the connections. Lots of correlation, but not the causality you expect.

Democracy in Germany was damaged by Versailles not only due to the reparations.

Adler

Democracy was damaged by those who failed to support and fight for it.

@Squonk, good post v. informative.

It may shock You, but Germany was evil, repressive, anti-Slav gouverment also prior to ww1... with a great dedication to supress Poles and other minorities in (not so long ago) acquired lands in the east.

Exactly, let’s start looking at the continuities and threads in German history even if they are uncomfortable to look at.

 

[Squonk]

I already said, the history of West Prussia is very complicated and the lack of sources and a great ammount of different archaeological artifacts complicates this even further. So I could say with the same rights, West Prussia was German or even Danish. But that is too OT to discuss here, however if you want to discuss, please open a new thread.

German or Danish? On what basis Since when? At the dawn of polish history, there was a slavic majority even west to Laba/Elbe...
Germanic, not german, presence is disputed passing of Goths there on their way south... that's it. Danes, lead by half-polish king, controlled the coastline for a couple of years... that's it. The population was slavic, pomeranian, and so were the duchies that existed in this land.

Also I gave you already figures of the last German census shortly before the war. This indicates a German majority.
The datas from the official censi since 1831- 1910 (from wikipedia.de):

As I've mentioned, prussian politics towards Poles was a hostile one and I wouldn't be suprised if these figures were underestimation: still, it is about entire province of West Prussia, while Poland didn't demand it whole, just like it did not demand all the Upper Silesia.

Also the name corridor was used commonly before the name Goebbels was known to anyone, as it was the commonly used name.

You know well that this name is misleading. Many people think, and express it here or at Poly, that Pomerania was an ancient german province and rights of Poles towards it was merely to get the access to the sea, while this was an old polish province with polish population.

It was decided only after the plebiscite to depart the province. Indeed Poland got several German cities with mainly German speakers, like Kattowitz. This separation was not accepted by the Germans as they felt betrayed. It was thought to be a plebiscite of the whole region and not about a separation of the region.

It was EXACTLY settled about the plebiscite that it's held by municipalities. So if Germans couldn't read, it's their problem.

You just admitted that about 60 % of the population did not want to leave. You contradict yourself!

No, my dear, but You're proving my point about Germans and reading... I've written: majority of territory, not majority of population.

Also you are attacking my figures as exaggerated or undoubtworthy. Well, according to an Allied study of 1990 16,5 million Germans were expelled from the eastern territories and East European states (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II) Also 1- 3 million people died in that.

I can not open this link, because of internet settings of the place I am right now. But 16,5 mln sounds like entire number of Germans in the east... and more, while majority of them fled before Red Army came, and rightly so,
over a million of local population declared polish nationality (Upper Silesia) etc.
Yup, 16,5 mln was entire German or allegedly German population, according to wikipedia.
I also found there

These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In recent years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...nnection_with_expulsion_of_Germans_after_WWII

Also I know, that 1,5 million Poles were deported by the Russians.

By Soviets. You mean during ww2, or after? If after, more; there were two turns of deportation.
Some were deported into inner USSR from eastern Poland, and then into post-ww2 Poland, like my grandma. a couple times more way to go, in worse climate.

And yes Germany was the starter of ww2. But these crimes do not justify another crime, do they?

Sometimes they do. Putting someone in prison can be treated as crime as well, not to mention capital punishment. Yet people do it.
Germany started ww2 to get lebensraum... and Germans seemed pretty enthusiastic about it. They failed, they got punished. They haven't lost as much as they should (there should be independent Luzyce for example).
Of course, that's bad. But I won't cry for them. Poland got more crippled by ww2 than Germany. Polish western gouverment was against expulsion of Germans and even against giving Poland Wroclaw (Breslau) and Szczecin (Stettin).

Anyway, why are we discussing it while we were talking about ww1's results?

 

[Adler17]

Adler, firstly you are ignoring historical fact. I have repeatedly quoted sources showing that hyper-inflation was NOT caused by reparations. If there’s going to be any progress in this discussion we need to start talking around the facts. Additionally,
you are confusing correlation with causality. Even if we accept that people voted for Hitler because of the effects of the depression (a questionable assumption, as many countries suffered the same effects yet not all elected nationalist demagogues) we cannot assume that reparations exacerbated the effects of the great depression in Germany to a point where people voted for Hitler. Again, other countries suffered the effects of the depression quite profoundly, including, of course the USA. So I am sorry, but I don’t see the connections. Lots of correlation, but not the causality you expect.

No, it is not correlation. Also in other states dictators emerged (Franco for example) resp. democratic institutions gave up their work and let the executive do what it pleased (USA 1933). Also radical parties got more votes in other countries. So the depression caused Hitler.
And yes, the hyper inflation had its causes due to the lost war. However the last and worst phases were caused mainly due to the reparations and the French invasion of the Ruhr area.

Democracy was damaged by those who failed to support and fight for it.

I agree. But the ones, who are neccessary, must love it. And that's the people. It was the tragedy, that due to the very harsh crises of 1923 and 1929- 32 democracy was damaged, as radical parties could emerge. And most of the causing was done by Versailles.
Again I say most, as nothing is caused by a single cause, especially here.

At Squonk:

German or Danish? On what basis Since when? At the dawn of polish history, there was a slavic majority even west to Laba/Elbe...
Germanic, not german, presence is disputed passing of Goths there on their way south... that's it. Danes, lead by half-polish king, controlled the coastline for a couple of years... that's it. The population was slavic, pomeranian, and so were the duchies that existed in this land.

No I did not mean the Goths, who indeed crossed the Baltic sea near Danzig, but the Danes. However, do you really mean all Slavic tribes in this area were Poles? Sorry to say, but no. Although the English name for Germany is a derivete coming from Germanic, we call us Deutsche. This comes from the old high German word for belonging to the people. It is a legend, only Germanic tribes belong to that. Indeed also Slavic and later with the Prussians Baltic tribes belong to that. The Polish word is Niemcy (IIRC) and means, the ones, who are not understandable. Please correct me, if I am wrong here. So to say the tribes living in that area were Poles is also not correct. However as I already said, the question, who was there at first, we should agree after 500 AD, is very difficulty at West Prussia and belongs to another thread. Open it, and I will answer there. Here we should only see the 19th and 20th century.

As I've mentioned, prussian politics towards Poles was a hostile one and I wouldn't be suprised if these figures were underestimation: still, it is about entire province of West Prussia, while Poland didn't demand it whole, just like it did not demand all the Upper Silesia.

Then you do not know the buerocrats we had and partly have in Germany. However although this policy was wrong, and I apologize for that, if it means to you, you again doubt that, but do not give other figures.
Also the plebiscite was in March 1921 and the decision to split in October. Facti sunt: 59,6 % of the population, including Polish speakers, wanted to stay in Germany. In May the third Polish uprising/invasion took place which again failed. In October the province was departed.

These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In recent years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified.

This quote is one of three estimated figures. However there are three others with about 2 million deaths.

By Soviets. You mean during ww2, or after? If after, more; there were two turns of deportation.
Some were deported into inner USSR from eastern Poland, and then into post-ww2 Poland, like my grandma. a couple times more way to go, in worse climate.

Be aware of Polish figures as they are exaggerated. Indeed Polish figures claim, that from East Poland over 5 million people were expelled. Indeed only 1,2- 1,5 million people were expelled from the Polish areas in the East.
As a personal note: One of my grandmas was also a displaced person from Danzig.

Sometimes they do. Putting someone in prison can be treated as crime as well, not to mention capital punishment. Yet people do it.
Germany started ww2 to get lebensraum... and Germans seemed pretty enthusiastic about it. They failed, they got punished. They haven't lost as much as they should (there should be independent Luzyce for example).
Of course, that's bad. But I won't cry for them. Poland got more crippled by ww2 than Germany. Polish western gouverment was against expulsion of Germans and even against giving Poland Wroclaw (Breslau) and Szczecin (Stettin).

So why don't you give it back? Anyway, no crime is justified by another crime. Or my mom could go to Poland and steal your car, as once a Pole stole hers! That's the same logic. No crime justifies another. Also it was the Nazi government, what acted.

Adler