Yalta - from a new angle...

[klazlo]

Hi guys,
I'm just reading the book of Sandor Kopatsy, a Hungarian economist and historian about the Kadar-regime. It's not totally unbiased and it has certain flawed arguments, but he raised an interesting point about the Yalta treaty, when the WWII winners agreed on splitting Europe into Soviet and Western zones (that's how Eastern European countries were forced to be socialists).

Anyway, he claims two things:
1. The split of Germany made it possible to create a democratic West German state as the prussians (who he blames to be the most agressive groups) were in the East, under Soviet occupation.
2. The fact that the Soviet rule was allowed to swallow Eastren Europe, made possible the French and Germans allience (or axis), creating the foundation of the present day EU. If the Soviets were stopped within their original borders, the biggest fear in Europe would have been the German threat again, but letting the Soviets grow into a quasi-imperialist superpower made the cooperation of Western Europe much easier.

So what do you think about this?

 

[Vrylakas]

Hey Laci -

I've read this basic idea somewhere before, but just can't place where. Old age is not a pretty thing.

Note to Non-Eastern Europeans: The Yalta conference is a bit of an obsession with those east of the Elbe, as everyone is trying to discern the origins of the half century of Soviet servitude. Discussions on Yalta and Potsdam generate a lot of anger towards the West; the word most commonly used is "abandonment", though some debate if that's a fair term. Almost every 20th century history exam I took in university involved questions about Yalta.

His first point I'm not so sure about. The Prussians deserve to have the First World War lain at their feet, but the Second World War was much more Pan-German in origin. If any region should get saddled with the blame, I would reach for Bavaria and Saxony before Prussia in WW II; both were hotbeds of nationalist radicalism even before Hitler. Prussia was by the 1930s the shell of an old feudal state, trying to preserve its privilaged class and their luxuries. It was primarily the traditional Prussian officer corps that resisted Hitler and tried to kill him in 1944. They were much more comfortable with their old Kaiser than a wacko southern schlämperei German. Hitler directed from Berlin (a city he hated) but the soul of National Socialism lay in the south. I've heard stories of other Germans shouting "Sau Preus!" at cars with Prussian license plates after the war, but Munich was a home to Naziism in ways Königsberg never could be. I wonder if Hitro or other Germans could comment more on this?

In that sense I think West German democracy could have been established even if Prussia had been added to the American zones. The best I could say is that because of Western and Soviet propaganda about Prussian militarism, perhaps it was psychologically easier for the Allies to accept a German democracy if Germany were prostrate and divided.

The second part is more convincing, that the Franco-German reproachment was probably driven by a desire to fend off potential Soviet military dominance and, from a French point of view, potential Anglo-American political dominance in Western Europe. A weak and dependent Western Germany would need a Continental sponsor like France to help rebuild itself and integrate itself back into Europe, a la France in 1815. I know there were some extreme proposals floated around the U.S. government during the war to the effect that Germany should be left a large daisy patch, with no industry and no means of any economy beyond the most basic, subsistive agriculture. Perhaps a divided Germany indeed allowed the West (and the USSR) to accept a certain level of German re-integration.

We must keep in mind that most historians agree (though not all) that Germany's division was not intended, at least from the West's perspective. Some have suggested that with the onset of the Cold War both sides were quite happy to leave Germany divided, but the original intent behind the divisions was purely a temporary division of military labor.

Good topic Laci!

 

[Kennelly]

Actually Prussia was the last resort of democracy in the late Weimar Republic.Otto Braun,Prussian Prime Minister was the last one from the SPD and Prussia was (in comparison to Saxony,Bavaria or Braunschweig) quite stable and democratic.In july 1932,however President Hindenburg (or,more precise,his "Kamarilla") decided to neutralize this last blockade on the already planned way to the elimination of democracy.Franz von Papen was made Governor of Prussia and Prussia came under direct control of the Imperial government.This was an essnetial advantage for Hitler in January/February 1933,as he had immediately direct control over Prussia and its security organs,when Goering replaced von Papen as Prussias governor.

I don't think Prussia was still that important as it had been in WW1.Of course regional identity did not diminish,but I think right after local identification (East Prussia or Silesia or Hanover) did the people not feel Prussian but German (that's what my grandparents told me).

Also,if Prussia (the 'real' Prussia,not Hanover or the Schleswig-Holstein)had also been added to the Western zones,there wouldn't have been much left for the Soviets to occupy (Prussia made up 2/3 of Germanys territory and population).

 

[klazlo]

Thanks for the input! I also thought that his argument about Prussia is somehow mixes the two wars...
It was interesting to see how France and Germany became the core of EU, regardless of their long history. That was kind of an unintended result of Yalta, I guess - at least the English probably didn't think of this outcome...

 

[Grille]

As already stated, Kopatsy's (first) point is very weak. The militaristic *habit* of Prussia had become kind of a cliche after wwI. And the splitting of Germany did not force the whole area formerly called Prussia to be East Germany. Prussia's provinces were covering the whole northern part of Germany except for some blank spots among (like Bremen). Here's a map, note it's from 1918, but showing Prussia at the *militaristic decline*: http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/webpages/Koenigreich_Preussen.gif
And the density of population in the western and eastern parts can be considered balanced. What is more, ships evacuated many people (fearing the Soviet invasion) from the eastern parts to Baltic ports in the north-west at the end of wwII.
I'm sitting here in Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein (part of former West Germany), so you could call me *Sau-Preuß'*.
The conference in Yalta was dealing with "spheres of influence". The partition was roughly based on occupations: Stalin claimed for territory occupied by Soviet forces.

 

[Kennelly]

I think for Bavarians every non-Bavarian is a "Sau-Preuß"
But in Cologne or Hanover I doubt the people ever felt Prussian (my family here in Lower Saxony always still felt obliged to the Welfish Royals,not the one in Berlin).Through the enormous land gains in 1866 Prussia slowly but steadily lost its old Prussian identity and became more "multicultural" (with different kinds of Germans of course).West of the Elbe there were hardly any Gigantic land owners (the "Junkers") like there were East of it and even they disapperead after WW1 quite rapidly.