Should Germany have Won WW1?

[luiz]

I think we can agree that the best possible end to WW1 would have been a swift victory for either the Allies or the Central Powers. This would have meant a more moderate peace settlement, less war devastation and no Nazi Germany or Soviet Union.

German victory, however, is the only quick victory scenario- the Allies certainly had no means to beat the Germans quickly. The only scenario I could think of where that could happen would be an immediate entry of the US and Italy, or a total collapse of A-H in 1914, both of which require a lot of imagination.

This pretty much sums my position. A quick victory by either side in WW1 is preferable to the long nightmare that was the Great War, and any consequences of the resulting settlement are certainly better than the consequences of actuall history: two of the most monstrous regimes ever, and tens of millions of deaths.

A german hegemony in the european continent, even if on a context of authoritarianism and militarism, is much preferable to what actually happened.

 

[Zardnaar]

This pretty much sums my position. A quick victory by either side in WW1 is preferable to the long nightmare that was the Great War, and any consequences of the resulting settlement are certainly better than the consequences of actuall history: two of the most monstrous regimes ever, and tens of millions of deaths.

A german hegemony in the european continent, even if on a context of authoritarianism and militarism, is much preferable to what actually happened.

Hard to see it being worse than the Soviets anyway. Would the great depression have happened if France collapsed in 1914?

 

[Dachs]

Would the great depression have happened if France collapsed in 1914?

Since Europe wouldn't be so dependent on American loans...probably not. Probably.

 

[Zardnaar]

Since Europe wouldn't be so dependent on American loans...probably not. Probably.

Thats what I thought but its been awhile since I've read up on the great depression.

 

[CheScott]

I am not much of a historian, but I saw this topic and felt a need to comment.

Since they did not, I am inclined to say 'No.'

 

[Shadowbound]

I apologize sincerely for the double post, my internet connection is stuttering or something.

 

[Shadowbound]

German victory in WW1 would not simply have led to an early European Union, with the Kaiser at the head. The German Reich, while not as out-and-out evil as the Axis Powers or Soviet Union, was the basis of many of the anti-semitic, eugenic, and pan-Eurasian ideas of the Nazis.

German intentions, if the war were victorious, was to genocide Poland's population through starvation, and resettle the country with Germans until the Germans outnumbered the Poles, and it could be incorporated as an Imperial Province. The political settlement in the East, after Brest-Litovsk, was arranged so that there would be a ruling German minority in the various independent Kingdoms, which would manage the country's economy and keep it open for further colonization by Germans. There was also some mention of deporting all the Belgians to Iraq, and annexing Belgium, but I think that's just insane. Point is, Hitler wasn't unique in his ideas.

Admittedly, some of this comes from the extended war, as the greater sacrifices demanded required politicians to promise greater rewards for their population. A quicker victory, though, is simply improbable. Germany's best way to achieve the knock-out blow necessary is to invade France through Belgium, but doing so provokes Britain. While it isn't certain that Britain would join, calling the Treaty of London a scrap of paper doesn't get on their good side, nor does the previous decade-long naval arms race, and there's the Entente to think about. A knock-out blow on Russia is possible, though, and could probably force France to sue for peace. This would likely sacrifice many of the colonial gains, but the primary worry of the General Staff was Russia, who'd begun to outpace Germany, and where a one-on-one victory wouldn't have been as likely in two or three years.

Germany's problem going into WW1 was that its only ally was Austria-Hungary, which competes with Italy as weakest Great Power. Post-Bismark, Germany had alienated its former friends in Russia, and continued to antagonize other world powers like France, Britain, and the USA, eventually leading to the Anglo-French Entente and Franco-Russian Alliance.

In the long-term, a victorious Germany is hardly in a good position. It will be competing with either the USA and UK for global hegemony, Japan will keep eyeing its Pacific islands if they managed to keep them post-war, while restricting German influence in Asia. Russia, Soviet or not, will eventually make a try for its former territories in Eastern Europe, while other European powers like France and Italy will always be looking for a shot to knock the Germans down a peg.

Germany, in a different diplomatic position and some proper allies, can probably win, as it's an enormous string of bad luck and stupid mistakes that prevented it from getting a war it can win. But it will remain a tough fight, and nothing could stop it from having to compete in a Cold War-esque situation with the United States, who'd inherit the automatic allegiance of much of the Anglophone world with the decline of the British Empire and have an economy to match Germany, even if they managed to set up a Mitteleuropa.

EDIT: Ah, regarding the Great Depression, the causes would have been different. But the nature of the German economy only sets itself up for a bigger fall, especially if the tighter government control that was introduced to cope with the First World War remains (which it might have, as it was hugely effective). I'm also a believer in the Kondratiev Wave theory.

 

[Adler17]

I disagree. Yes, there were anti semitic, eugenic and pan Eurasian ideas, but not so much like in every other country of that time, too. Perhaps less. Hitler was never elected because of his anti semitism, but despite of it. And he never got the majority on his own in the Reichstag! Anyway, to see the Imperial Germany as a successor to Hitler is wrong.
Never a German government before the Austrian leadership has tried to starve Poland into death. Yes, there were voices demanding huge areas for colonization. But despite their attempts Brest Litowsk lead to the creation of several states, which were all independent. And some of them chosed a German to become their king (like Finnland). As Germany was guaranteeing their independence they would have welcomed this alliance. In contrast to the rule of the Bolshevics and Russians.
Yes, it would have lead to a kind of European Union lead by Germany, not neccessarily by the Kaiser. The constitutional reform of 1918 would have taken place in the case of a victory, making the de facto situation legal (since the dismissal of Bismarck no German chancellor was chosen who had not the trust of the parliament).
So in the case of a German victory we had a kind of European Union, solved colony disputes and a France under German influence. While this is perhaps still problematic, the chances of ww2, in the form it happened, was 0.
Would have the crash of 1929 happened? That is an interesting question. I think so. But the consequences were much milder for Germany but more devastating for France, as I am sure they would still have to pay reparations.
But no Hitler, no ww2 in this way. If there might have been a ww2 against Stalin, or another Great War against Britain would be interesting to see, but only speculation. And the US in isolationism...
So yes, a German victory would have been much better for the whole world.

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

Wow me and Adler agree on something. Maybe Germany could do the world a favour and occupy France.

 

[Squonk]

Germany did act as bad guys in ww1, at least in Poland. They've used the oldest town in Poland, Kalisz, for a target practice, though there was no military there, reducing it from 50 000 people to 5 000. They wanted to annex further territories in Poland.

And they weren't treaten all that harshly in Versailles, at least when it comes to eastern border. Au contraire, UK and Italy did everything possible to preserve their territory.
Sadly, it's a common misconception that Versailles led to ww2, but it was german grief over that they have lost, german nationalism, and tolerance of it by the west, that led to ww2.

 

[Squonk]

Adler, German victory would be better for many countries, but surely not for Poles or the nations of Austria-Hungary (but Hungarians), or Danes. Germany didn't mind independant Finland or Belarus, for they were too far to colonise. But Poland was already halfly german, and Prussia wanted a bit more of it too. It's easy to grant freedom to nations, if You are giving it to nations of some other state. Poland had bad luck being both under german and russian rule, thus none really wanted it to stay free.

 

[Dachs]

They wanted to annex further territories in Poland.

This statement is misleading. According to most published statements of German war aims in the First World War, the Germans did want to annex a few strips of territory, but by and large their plan was to rule over Poland via allies and puppet states. They had a Kingdom of Poland's framework set up, after all. It's true, though, that the Kingdom of Poland itself was basically a vehicle for Germanization and eventual annexation into the Reich.

And they weren't treaten all that harshly in Versailles, at least when it comes to eastern border. Au contraire, UK and Italy did everything possible to preserve their territory.

Considering a) how many Germans lived in the 'Polish' corridor and b) the fact that Germany was a hegemon in the Eastern Front, the loss of any territory in the East was considered to be a crime by Germans.

Sadly, it's a common misconception that Versailles led to ww2, but it was german grief over that they have lost, german nationalism, and tolerance of it by the west, that led to ww2.

That's a huge oversimplification if I ever heard one. Not so say that those elements weren't a huge part of it, but frankly if Versailles had either been better enforced or if it had been lessened in its impact, Germany probably wouldn't have gone to war. If Versailles had been properly enforced in the 1930s, the Germans wouldn't have had the means to go to war; if it had been lessened, they wouldn't have had the motivation. As it was, the 'happy medium', combined with the West's immersion in its own problems as opposed to stopping that nutcase in charge of Germany, helped ensure war. Again, this doesn't change the fact that it was the Germans' decision to go to war, and that they were the aggressor, but they certainly had a fairly good reason, at the beginning. Remember, even the Weimar Republic was revanchist in the East.

Not that this applies to you, or anything, but it always amuses me when the same people who piss and moan about how the German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine and their gigantic war reparations for the French caused World War I, turn around and defend Versailles as 'not having had as much to do with the causes of World War II as the Germans themselves'.

 

[Squonk]

This statement is misleading. According to most published statements of German war aims in the First World War, the Germans did want to annex a few strips of territory, but by and large their plan was to rule over Poland via allies and puppet states. They had a Kingdom of Poland's framework set up, after all. It's true, though, that the Kingdom of Poland itself was basically a vehicle for Germanization and eventual annexation into the Reich.

Misleading? Since when naming things what they were is misleading? These "few strips of territory" is much of Congress Kingdom of Poland, with almost no german population and which have never been german but during 1793-1807, for 14 years...

Considering a) how many Germans lived in the 'Polish' corridor and b) the fact that Germany was a hegemon in the Eastern Front, the loss of any territory in the East was considered to be a crime by Germans.

I do agree that due to the fact that Germans were successful in the east, they didn't understand the loss of territory, but it doesn't mean Germany was harmed. You are apparently unaware of the facts here:
The name "Corridor" is part of German propaganda, to make it look as if Poland has gained / was given this land just to gain access to the sea, while, except for a small part of Silesia, these were MAJORLY POLISH (!!!) lands that belonged to Poland before the 1st and 2nd partages, that is before 1772, and 1793. Germany kept the majorly german parts of the pre-partages Poland, as well as some majorly polish ones. Compare it to the situation of the Czechs, who got all the historical Bohemian Kingdom lands, though much of it was majorly german. They even got part of Upper Silesia, without any plebiscite.

When it comes to Upper Silesia, Poland only got 29% of the territory, while it won the plebiscite on the majority of it. True, Germans won over the majority of the population, but the plebiscite rules were that the region shall be devided according the voting in municipalities, and majorly german cities were en exclave in polish territory.

There were more Poles left in Germany than Germans in Poland. And the situation of Poles was much, much worse.

if it had been lessened

what do You mean by "lessened"?

Again, this doesn't change the fact that it was the Germans' decision to go to war, and that they were the aggressor, but they certainly had a fairly good reason, at the beginning. Remember, even the Weimar Republic was revanchist in the East.

As well as You are. What "good reasons" did Germany have?
Actually, I wouldn't mind Gdansk entering teh Reich, because, while historically polish, it was majorly German, and it was given a special status by Versailles because Poland had no other port city. It's built itself another one, Gdynia, but is independance of one city instead of it being part of Germany enough reason to go to war? You suprise me. No-one was persecuting Germans in Gdansk (in fact Poles were not being treaten nicely there), nor in Poland, while the situation of Poles in Hitler's Germany was dramatic.

 

[Dachs]

Misleading? Since when naming things what they were is misleading? These "few strips of territory" is much of Congress Kingdom of Poland, with almost no german population and which have never been german but during 1793-1807, for 14 years...

Uh, no. Polish Frontier Strip expanded and contracted several times due to statements by Reichstag jingoists, but it never was so large as to control all of Congress Kingdom Poland. Are you having some kind of selective memory issue wherein you consider the Kingdom of Poland to be a de facto German annexation, or something?

The name "Corridor" is part of German propaganda, to make it look as if Poland has gained / was given this land just to gain access to the sea, while, except for a small part of Silesia, these were MAJORLY POLISH (!!!) lands that belonged to Poland before the 1st and 2nd partages, that is before 1772, and 1793. Germany kept the majorly german parts of the pre-partages Poland, as well as some majorly polish ones.

Ah, no. While much of the Polish Corridor did have a majority Polish population, as did Posen, there was a majority German population along the coast and in Danzig, extending inland (although not that far). Poland got it without a plebiscite, after all, mostly because the Western Allies figured it was too important to risk a plebiscite with so many Germans in the critical seacoast regions that the Poles 'needed'. As to the partition business, yes, I know that the Corridor didn't officially belong to any German state before then, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a large German population at that time, and it certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't a majority German population in parts of the Corridor in 1919.

There were more Poles left in Germany than Germans in Poland. And the situation of Poles was much, much worse.

That's neither here nor there, as is the previous part of the argument. I didn't say jack about Polish nationalism or Polish reasons for war, and frankly I couldn't care less about either. I was talking about the Germans' reasons for invading anybody. I mean, it's not as though most of Alsace-Lorraine was majority French, either, but the Germans still got booted out of it.

what do You mean by "lessened"?

Lower war reparations, no war guilt clause, retention of the merchant marine, less territorial cession, permission to have an air force or navy...I mean, there's so much to choose from! Hell, even eliminating the war guilt clause alone would probably have satisfied many Germans.

As well as You are.

No. Please don't label me with political positions that I've not assigned myself. Nowhere have I indicated support for German jingoism and revanchism, only stated that it is a reasonable response given the circumstances.

Actually, I wouldn't mind Gdansk entering teh Reich, because, while historically polish, it was majorly German, and it was given a special status by Versailles because Poland had no other port city.

Nice of you. As to 'historically Polish', I'd kind of agree, but that goes so far back (the 15th century, actually, was the last time it could be reasonably called 'Polish' before 1945) that we might as well claim territory as disparate as the Ukraine to be 'German' or the entirety of the Roman Empire to be 'Italian'.

It's built itself another one, Gdynia, but is independance of one city instead of it being part of Germany enough reason to go to war? You suprise me. No-one was persecuting Germans in Gdansk (in fact Poles were not being treaten nicely there), nor in Poland, while the situation of Poles in Hitler's Germany was dramatic.

You're right about the treatment of Poles. Whoop-de-doo. My point was that if the majority of the population of Danzig is made up of flag-waving, slogan-hurling, Pole-lynching Nazis, then there ought to be little reason to oppose its acquisition by the Reich de jure, because it was already German de facto. Compared to the whole Sudetenland affair as well as that of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, it's so insignificant as to warrant disbelief that such a thing would be contested so strongly by a Poland hitherto acquiescent in Nazi plans.

 

[rod beauchamp]

when i saw this question i had a different take entirely/

By "should" I thought it meant "did they have the resources and just blow the strategy." The question "should" as in "it would have been better or worse for the world," didn't occur to me,

But to answer it- Germans have an authoritative bent and cold efficiency which frightens me. they killed my whole extended family in Kiev. So no they shouldn't win anything. Ever.

 

[Ace of Gold]

But to answer it- Germans have an authoritative bent and cold efficiency which frightens me. they killed my whole extended family in Kiev. So no they shouldn't win anything. Ever.

I agreee with you

 

[Squonk]

Uh, no. Polish Frontier Strip expanded and contracted several times due to statements by Reichstag jingoists, but it never was so large as to control all of Congress Kingdom Poland. Are you having some kind of selective memory issue wherein you consider the Kingdom of Poland to be a de facto German annexation, or something?

Can You read? I've written "much of" Congress Kingdom, not "entire" nor "most of"...

Ah, no. While much of the Polish Corridor did have a majority Polish population, as did Posen, there was a majority German population along the coast and in Danzig, extending inland (although not that far).

Not true when it comes to the coast. And when it comes to Gdansk / Danzig, and its extention - yes, it was majorly german, and that's why it wasn't given to Poland, but was made a free city, de facto putting it under german rule, but not under direct control from Berlin.

When it comes to the rest, it was majorly polish, but city of Bydgoszcz/Bromberg, Torun / Thorn and villages along Wisla river in between them, perhaps.

As to the partition business, yes, I know that the Corridor didn't officially belong to any German state before then, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a large German population at that time, and it certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't a majority German population in parts of the Corridor in 1919.

It did have a german population prior to partages, mosly gentry and citizens of towns. After the partages, Frederic II and his successors introduced many german settlers there, too. Parts of "the Corridor" had a german majority, but really small one, while many majorly polish areas remained in Germany.

Lower war reparations,

They didn't pay most of them anyway, while they received USA financial help, so that they could rebuild their economy to pay them, and while english determination to give Upper Silesia to Germany had to do with german claim they can't pay them without this region...

less territorial cession,

What would You keep by Germany, precisely?

permission to have an air force or navy...

If this clause was implemented with determination, ww2 would have never happened.

Hell, even eliminating the war guilt clause alone would probably have satisfied many Germans.

Surely, Germans were so offended by blaming them for starting a war that they have started a new one.

No. Please don't label me with political positions that I've not assigned myself. Nowhere have I indicated support for German jingoism and revanchism, only stated that it is a reasonable response given the circumstances.

Less territorial concessions, Germany was de facto forced to war by the evil treatment of it, Germany had good reasons to go to war... Yes, that's not revanchism at all.

Nice of you. As to 'historically Polish', I'd kind of agree, but that goes so far back (the 15th century, actually, was the last time it could be reasonably called 'Polish' before 1945) that we might as well claim territory as disparate as the Ukraine to be 'German' or the entirety of the Roman Empire to be 'Italian'.

Thank You for that part, because it once again proves your ignorance in this subject. Gdansk was in polish hands since X century and earlier until 1308, temporily in 1410, and since 1454, when it has revolted against TK and voluntarily submitted to polish king, until 1793. So it was part of polish state until the very end of XVIII century. You were +300 years wrong.
Truth is that in 1308 (I may be wrong by 1 year) Teutonic Knights slaughtered the kashub / polish population and established a new, german, city, so since XIV century, the city was probably majorly german, but so was Ryga (since XIII century), the capital of Latvia, and even Hitler didn't demand it for Germany.

You're right about the treatment of Poles. Whoop-de-doo. My point was that if the majority of the population of Danzig is made up of flag-waving, slogan-hurling, Pole-lynching Nazis, then there ought to be little reason to oppose its acquisition by the Reich de jure, because it was already German de facto.

Giving it to Germany would mean even less possibility for Poland from stopping persecution of Poles there.

Compared to the whole Sudetenland affair as well as that of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, it's so insignificant as to warrant disbelief that such a thing would be contested so strongly by a Poland hitherto acquiescent in Nazi plans.

Do You really believe that if Poland has given up Gdansk the war wouldn't have started? Hitler wanted the war, though he wanted Poland to be on his side. It's highely controversial in Poland, but one historian claimed recently Poland would be better off alligning with Germany. Loss of Gdansk and a highway through Pommerania is not a grand price, especially since Poland in return could get concessions for polish minority in Upper Silesia, Masuria, Ermland, Babimosc, Zlotow, etc., and Hitler was promising access to Black Sea in return.
But the goal of Hitler was war with USSR and great colonial gains for Germany in Russia. Poland could become Hitler's ally like Italy, and participate in a war against USSR. And in this case, I am afraid SU would have fallen, with the Axis being considerably stronger, and starting much closer to Warsaw.
But Poland didn't want any gains nor a war.
And a war with USSR with neutral Poland was not possible, simply because Poland was in the way. So if Poland gave Hitler Gdansk, but denied alliance, Hitler would probably demand something more... and if he was given it, even more... until either Poland became it ally under pressure, or it would have ceased to exist.

 

[Dachs]

Can You read? I've written "much of" Congress Kingdom, not "entire" nor "most of"...

But, IIRC, it wasn't even much of...but yeah, I did misread your post.

Not true when it comes to the coast.

I've found conflicting sources on that, actually.

And when it comes to Gdansk / Danzig, and its extention - yes, it was majorly german, and that's why it wasn't given to Poland, but was made a free city, de facto putting it under german rule, but not under direct control from Berlin.

Yes, exactly. Which is why the Germans ought to be reasonably understood when they clamor for its reentry into Germany.

They didn't pay most of them anyway, while they received USA financial help, so that they could rebuild their economy to pay them, and while english determination to give Upper Silesia to Germany had to do with german claim they can't pay them without this region...

That's not the point. If some mugger on the street holds a man at gunpoint for his wallet, but the man runs away and the police later catch the would-be mugger, would the man not still want the mugger to be punished?

What would You keep by Germany, precisely?

Hell, I don't know, it was a bloody example.

If this clause was implemented with determination, ww2 would have never happened.

Thank you for agreeing to one of my points.

Surely, Germans were so offended by blaming them for starting a war that they have started a new one.

Fine. You explain the reason for the German outrage at being blamed for the entire war.

Less territorial concessions, Germany was de facto forced to war by the evil treatment of it, Germany had good reasons to go to war... Yes, that's not revanchism at all.

If you care to look at my original post, I said that it was more complicated than just German revanchism, etc., etc., but that Versailles was partly to blame, because it was neither enforced well enough to prevent a further war nor lenient enough to prevent the Germans from getting angry over its clauses. I have attempted to paint the German reaction to Versailles as 'reasonable' and that I can see that particular side of their argument, not that I support it. Is it anathema to be able to see both sides of a coin? That's all I'm proposing to do here.

Thank You for that part, because it once again proves your ignorance in this subject. Gdansk was in polish hands since X century and earlier until 1308, temporily in 1410, and since 1454, when it has revolted against TK and voluntarily submitted to polish king, until 1793. So it was part of polish state until the very end of XVIII century. You were +300 years wrong.

The country to which a given territory belongs does not determine the ethnicity of the people in it. For example, during much of the same period, what eventually became East Prussia was officially under the Polish crown, but I hardly think anyone would attempt to claim that Königsberg was Polish in ethnicity. Danzig was majority German from a period around the middlish of the 14th century, although God knows that's not my particular field of expertise so I wouldn't be able to give any sort of exact date.

Truth is that in 1308 (I may be wrong by 1 year) Teutonic Knights slaughtered the kashub / polish population and established a new, german, city, so since XIV century, the city was probably majorly german, but so was Ryga (since XIII century), the capital of Latvia, and even Hitler didn't demand it for Germany.

...which is basically what I said above. As to Riga, Hitler may not have demanded it for Germany but Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to create a Courish state in personal union with the German imperial crown. Which, again, I can see the motivation for but would not necessarily support if it had occurred.

Giving it to Germany would mean even less possibility for Poland from stopping persecution of Poles there.

Did they even try, ever, to stop said persecution?

Do You really believe that if Poland has given up Gdansk the war wouldn't have started?

I don't believe that a war would have been averted (I mean, come on, it's that lunatic Hitler we're talking about here); a war between Germany and Poland might have been, though. With the caveats that you yourself mentioned later.

 

[REDY]

Compare it to the situation of the Czechs, who got all the historical Bohemian Kingdom lands, though much of it was majorly german. They even got part of Upper Silesia, without any plebiscite.

I would add that we didnt get from Germany nothing, we claimed our land from Austria-Hungary. Czech lands would be little problematic, we should have Silesia though that of course Poles would have more right to have it, and Lusatia which was in foreign state (Germany).

 

[Squonk]

But, IIRC, it wasn't even much of...but yeah, I did misread your post.

I've found conflicting sources on that, actually.

Each german and polish census showed a polish majority in the, very short, shoreline that was given to Poland after ww2. Really, no doubt here. I was searching for an old book I have on this subject, but I lost it somewhere, unf. Therefore, I attach 1912 polish map, based on official censuses; while the russian parts are extremly biased against the Poles (f.e. Wilno and Grodno areas even today have a polish majority, but on this map there are hardly any Poles there), prussian and austrian numbers seem not to be very biased.
I've painted three lines here:
red - territory with polish majority
yellow - post-ww1 polish border
green - pre-partages polish border
As You see, Poland only got territories with clear polish majority, and only some of it. the majorly non-polish cut are the regions of majorly german cities of Torun and Bydgoszcz, which I have mentioned earlier.

Yes, exactly. Which is why the Germans ought to be reasonably understood when they clamor for its reentry into Germany.

But You do understand there were majorly polish areas in Germany and Poland didn't demand them, right?

That's not the point. If some mugger on the street holds a man at gunpoint for his wallet, but the man runs away and the police later catch the would-be mugger, would the man not still want the mugger to be punished?

In this case, the man at the gunpoint got his wallet back, earlier got insurance money for the loss and financial aid from the community, and later started killing his neighbours, and stealing their money.

Hell, I don't know, it was a bloody example.

There's no such thing as bloody example. You must take responsibility for your words. If You say Germany should've lost less land, be precise. I think Germany could have lost much, much more lands, based on ethnicity
To Poland
- entire Masuria
- southern Ermland
- Powisle region
- Zlotow region
- Babimosc region
- the rest of Upper Silesia
To Czechoslovakia
- the part of Klodzko/Glatz region that was czech
To Luzyczans
- Luzyce (they could've been made independant
To Frisians
- Frisia (could've been made independant

Fine. You explain the reason for the German outrage at being blamed for the entire war.

No-one likes to be blamed for anything bad. But it's not a reason to go to war.

nor lenient enough to prevent the Germans from getting angry over its clauses.

If Germans lost anything in the east, but only didn't GAIN anything, they would still be angry, probably. If there was no polish part of Pomerania and Silesia, they would be complaining about Major Poland ("Posen") region.

Is it anathema to be able to see both sides of a coin? That's all I'm proposing to do here.

The problem is that "understandable" has a slight meaning of being right.
I would say that, hm, people should not be suprised at German reaction, but their reaction was not right, and not reasonable.

The country to which a given territory belongs does not determine the ethnicity of the people in it. For example, during much of the same period, what eventually became East Prussia was officially under the Polish crown, but I hardly think anyone would attempt to claim that Königsberg was Polish in ethnicity. Danzig was majority German from a period around the middlish of the 14th century, although God knows that's not my particular field of expertise so I wouldn't be able to give any sort of exact date.

When it comes to East Prussia, a significant part of its population was polish, the first polish paper was being published in it, many important Poles lived there, it was the biggest centre of polish reformation, and southern part of Eastern Prussia indeed was majorly polish until ww2.

But that's not the point. You mix historical rights with ethnical rights. Both are important. The city belonged to Poland for the definite most of its history. Originally it was polish. It was located at the mouth of a polish river. Imagine in XV century Algeria claimed Marseilles, because "since XXI century the city is majorly algerian"
Gdansk was german by ethnicity since XIV century, but was nevertheless a polish town, sharing polish history, being part of Poland, and being happy with that.


Also, the language didn't mean nationality before XIX century. Gdansk joined Poland voluntarily. I remember that during a war that broke out for polish succession (I, sadly, don't remember if it was the one between count Conti and August II or Stanislaw Leszczynski and August III, but notabene, Gdansk supported non-german candidate) a song of this city, in german, claimed the city to be "the heart of Poland". After Gdansk was captured by Prussia, many Danzingers, including Schoepenhauers, emmigrated from the city in protest, and german-speaking citizens of Thorn welcomed Frederic II with bullets.

Did they even try, ever, to stop said persecution?

in vain

I don't believe that a war would have been averted (I mean, come on, it's that lunatic Hitler we're talking about here); a war between Germany and Poland might have been, though. With the caveats that you yourself mentioned later.

Isn't it better, then, that Poland was so strict about Gdansk? If not, the war would have started later, with even better prepared to war Germany, and probably with Poland on german side, therefore with much bigger chance for Axis to win.