WI: True National Self-Determination for All?

[DirtyCommie]

How could one get Wilson to actually believe in true self-determination, i.e. not splitting up German lands and not splitting up Hungarian lands? And what would the effects be?

[GTAmario]

True self determination is impossible if you're talking about heavily mixed areas like Silesia, Alsace-Lorraine and some carpathian regions. One side wants to be with one country, the other wants something else and since there isn't a huge majority of anyone, whatever choice you make will piss off somebody.

[SlideAway]

German and Hungarian (and Austrian) lands were split up because of "self-determination for all." Non-German and Non-Hungarian regions declared independence. The regions that Germany lost were largely Polish, French, or Danish-speaking. The regions that AH lost were Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian, Slovene or Croat-speaking. Moreover, Versailles didn't create states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, an expanded Romania or even Yugoslavia; the AH and German Empires had already collapsed, new governments had formed, and much of the disputed territory was already in the control of the new states.

Besides, "true self-determination" is impossible; even today, most countries in the world outside Europe are multiethnic, and in the absence of a long-existing boundary, populations are always going to be extremely mixed.

[Mulder]

Originally Posted by SlideAway

German and Hungarian (and Austrian) lands were split up because of "self-determination for all." Non-German and Non-Hungarian regions declared independence. The regions that Germany lost were largely Polish, French, or Danish-speaking.

Posen was Polish speaking, yes, but West Prussia and Upper Silesia were mixed, and Danzig was German speaking, as was Memel. With a fair plebiscite, Germany would have lost only Posen. Alsace-Lorraine might have been francophile, but the language of the population was German (over 90%). Eupen-Malmdey was overwhelmingly German. And nobody cared about North Schleswig.

The regions that AH lost were Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian, Slovene or Croat-speaking. Moreover, Versailles didn't create states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, an expanded Romania or even Yugoslavia; the AH and German Empires had already collapsed, new governments had formed, and much of the disputed territory was already in the control of the new states.

South Tyrol was 100% German-speaking, Sudetenland was overwhelmingly German (something like 70-80%) and had to be taken by force by the Czechs. Upper Hungary was also overwhelmingly Hungarian-speaking, as was central Transsylvania and parts of the areas stolen by Serbia.

Besides, "true self-determination" is impossible; even today, most countries in the world outside Europe are multiethnic, and in the absence of a long-existing boundary, populations are always going to be extremely mixed.

"True" self-determination may be, but simple fair plebiscites would have done. And in that case, at least (most of) West Prussia and Upper Silesia, all of Eupen-Malmedy, a few villages more in North Schleswig, South Tyrol, Sudetenland and at least Upper Hungary would have stayed where they belonged.

[Paul V McNutt]

Would this mean a Germany that includes Austria and Sudentland?

[SlideAway]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Posen was Polish speaking, yes, but West Prussia and Upper Silesia were mixed, and Danzig was German speaking, as was Memel. With a fair plebiscite, Germany would have lost only Posen. Alsace-Lorraine might have been francophile, but the language of the population was German (over 90%). Eupen-Malmdey was overwhelmingly German. And nobody cared about North Schleswig.



South Tyrol was 100% German-speaking, Sudetenland was overwhelmingly German (something like 70-80%) and had to be taken by force by the Czechs. Upper Hungary was also overwhelmingly Hungarian-speaking, as was central Transsylvania and parts of the areas stolen by Serbia.



"True" self-determination may be, but simple fair plebiscites would have done. And in that case, at least (most of) West Prussia and Upper Silesia, all of Eupen-Malmedy, a few villages more in North Schleswig, South Tyrol, Sudetenland and at least Upper Hungary would have stayed where they belonged.

Well, much of West Prussia WAS included in postwar Germany, albeit with the corridor (which overall lacked a German majority) stripped out. And remember that the Bohemian lowlands were defenseless against German invasion.

Basically, "true" self-determination is impossible because you can never get viable maps that way. There has to be a balance of interest that take into account economic and security considerations too. I'll grant you that Hungary's western boundary could arguably have been further West, and Eupen-Malmedy could have been German. Also, Austria and Danzig should have been permitted (after an interim time period) to merge with Germany.

Otherwise, though, I don't really think the other territorial settlements - the Sudetenland with Czechoslovakia, the Polish corridor - were unjustified.

If you're talking about ideal outcomes, the ideal outcome, short of no war at all would have been an earlier, negotiated end that: (1) left Germany's boundaries intact save for AL and S. Schleswig, (2) created a Polish-Lithuanian state out of Congress Poland, Lithuania, and Galicia, and (3) a three-way division of AH into Hungary, Croatia-Slavonia-Bosnia, and a rump Austria consisting of most of postwar Austria, Bohemia, and Slovenia. But by 1919, that was long over.

[Bee]

The previous posters are right, Wilson meant well but the idea was impossible in practice. All over Europe, there was a choice between leaving populations on the side of the border they didn't want to be, or else breaking countries up into patchwork quilts of tiny, indefensible microstates and enclaves.

Also, Wilson was influential but couldn't dictate all the terms to everybody. Japan, in particular, wasn't going to let go of seized territories easily, and France considered the security of its eastern frontier to count for more than self-determination in the Rhineland.

Outside Europe, the colonial powers had assembled African territories without regard to ethnic boundaries; it would have been impossibly difficult to undo everything they had done since the Congress of Berlin, but determining what the native people wanted would have been a nightmare in itself. Similarly, conditions in the old Turkish and Russian empires were such that no meaningful inquiry could take place, and any solution on the basis of self-determination would have to be imposed by force.

[Wendell]

True national sel determination might have also meant border changes against the entente, but as others have said, true national self-determination is immensely difficult in both semantic and practical respects. It becomes easier if you can have detached bits of a nation constituting their own due to isolation from the main portion of their population, but even that is an unsustainable situation. What the Congress of Vienna did was it established and propped up a series of stable states. Had anyone been paying attention to reality, Versailles would have had results structurally similiar to Vienna.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Alsace-Lorraine might have been francophile, but the language of the population was German (over 90%).

That's a pretty dodgy argument. Others have already pointed out the contradictory nature of "true national self-determination for all", and it becomes glaringly apparent in a case like this one. There are plenty of examples of peoples who speak a similar language without having the same "national" identity. If language was the sole determinator of national identity, Switzerland wouldn't exist, and there would be only four countries on the American continent.

Your argument smacks of pangermanism, which has a less than stellar record in OTL.

[thrashing_mad]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Posen was Polish speaking, yes, but West Prussia and Upper Silesia were mixed, and Danzig was German speaking, as was Memel. With a fair plebiscite, Germany would have lost only Posen. Alsace-Lorraine might have been francophile, but the language of the population was German (over 90%). Eupen-Malmdey was overwhelmingly German. And nobody cared about North Schleswig.

Pomerelia with exception of Gdańsk had Polish (Kashubian) majority, so calling that area 'mixed' is a bit of a stretch. With fair plebiscite, and lack of Bolshevik invasion during plebiscite in Eastern Prussia, Poland would have most likely got more land in Upper Silesia and Masuria.

[I Blame Communism]

Blame the Russians again? Actually, as I understand it some overenthusiastic Polish officers more or less tried economic blackmail on the mostly bilingual and apathetic Masurians and they voted German out of spite.

[Mulder]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

That's a pretty dodgy argument. Others have already pointed out the contradictory nature of "true national self-determination for all", and it becomes glaringly apparent in a case like this one. There are plenty of examples of peoples who speak a similar language without having the same "national" identity. If language was the sole determinator of national identity, Switzerland wouldn't exist, and there would be only four countries on the American continent.

Your argument smacks of pangermanism, which has a less than stellar record in OTL.

I said that the population of Alsace-Lorraine was pro-French and I did not include the region in the list of those Germany would retain, but still, they spoke German there, in a variety of dialects which were closer to those of neighboring areas (Saar, Palatinate, Baden, North Switzerland) than to each other. In fact, someone from Forbach would have (in 1910) understood someone from Siegen/Westphalia better then someone from Thann/Alsace, since both Siegen and Forbach were Moselle-Franconian-speaking. And except for Alsace, Luxemburg and Switzerland, I would say that in 1919 all other German-speaking populations had the exact same national identity. And the "Poland would have won something at all in Masuria if not for the Polish-Soviet war"-argument is just a Hurganist fairy tale. Germany got by far over 95% of the votes there. My grandmother was from (Northern) East Prussia, and her opinion of Masurians was that they even tried to out-Prussia the German East Prussians. They had no love for Poland at all and I would say that Masuria and Alsace are actually comparable cases (ethnicity |= nationality). Same goes for the (completely assimilated) Ruhr Poles, and West Prussia on a province level was close to 50% German, 50% Polish/Kashubian. Since not a single German would have voted for Poland, but at least 5% of Kashubians would have voted for Germany, a plebiscite on the province level would have ended up in Germanys favor. Grante, a district level plebiscite would have given Poland probably an exclave on the Baltic coast, but I repeat, West Prussia as a whole was ethnically mixed. And Upper Silesia was a mess even worse than West Prussia, but the cities were overwhelmingly German and the province as a whole as well. And I think, unless a relatively clear border can be drawn (like in Schleswig or say, between South Tyrol and Trentino), plebiscites on a province level are the fairer alternative. And as far as pan-Germanism goes, if that means that all Germans who want so should live in one country, yeah, then I'm a pan-German. If you meant the whole völkisch-crap, then I take that as an insult.

And as far as France was concerned, their complains about AL ring hollow if you think about what they would have done had they won the Franco-Prussian war, since the Rhineland was not pro-French at all and would have resented French rule far more then Alsace resented German rule.

[Carinthium]

Assuming this somehow happens (e.g a more idealistic Wilson) you'll either have Wilson backing down, him making concessions the Senate wouldn't accept to get his way, or no agreement amongst the major powers.

From what I remember of my history class, the French considered the historical Versallies treaty not harsh enough (the French President wanted Germany split up into seperate states, the Prime Minister pressed for much greater gains for Poland), and only accepted the treaty because the British and Americans promised a defensive alliance which was then voted down in Parliament and Congress.

[yourworstnightmare]

Originally Posted by DirtyCommie

How could one get Wilson to actually believe in true self-determination, i.e. not splitting up German lands and not splitting up Hungarian lands? And what would the effects be?

ASB. Most of the land Hungary lost had non- Hungarian majorities anyway. And when it comes to Germany, well the border areas with Poland were quite messy.

[kasumigenx]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

That's a pretty dodgy argument. Others have already pointed out the contradictory nature of "true national self-determination for all", and it becomes glaringly apparent in a case like this one. There are plenty of examples of peoples who speak a similar language without having the same "national" identity. If language was the sole determinator of national identity, Switzerland wouldn't exist, and there would be only four countries on the American continent.

Your argument smacks of pangermanism, which has a less than stellar record in OTL.

In East Asia, the concept of countries is based on territory and history, the same was for Japan and Korea initially before the age of colonialism came..

German and Hungarian (and Austrian) lands were split up because of "self-determination for all." Non-German and Non-Hungarian regions declared independence. The regions that Germany lost were largely Polish, French, or Danish-speaking. The regions that AH lost were Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian, Slovene or Croat-speaking. Moreover, Versailles didn't create states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, an expanded Romania or even Yugoslavia; the AH and German Empires had already collapsed, new governments had formed, and much of the disputed territory was already in the control of the new states.

I actually want to write a TL where in the France, Italy, Spain, Austro-Hungary balkanize after the World War I or after an analog World War I while Yugoslavia survives to the present..

I think Austro-Hungarian Empire over-extended itself in OTL..

[thrashing_mad]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Blame the Russians again? Actually, as I understand it some overenthusiastic Polish officers more or less tried economic blackmail on the mostly bilingual and apathetic Masurians and they voted German out of spite.

Well, it certainly had some impact - if I were Masurian, I wouldn`t vote for Poland which cannot defend it`s borders from evil hordes*(as they were percieved at a time ). I`m sure that most of them preferred to remain in 'Prussia', but in some areas people might have voted differently.

And the "Poland would have won something at all in Masuria if not for the Polish-Soviet war"-argument is just a Hurganist fairy tale. Germany got by far over 95% of the votes there. My grandmother was from (Northern) East Prussia, and her opinion of Masurians was that they even tried to out-Prussia the German East Prussians.

Ah - grandma`s tale is so much better argument.

[Mulder]

Originally Posted by thrashing_mad

Well, it certainly had some impact - if I were Masurian, I wouldn`t vote for Poland which cannot defend it`s borders from evil hordes*(as they were percieved at a time ). I`m sure that most of them preferred to remain in 'Prussia', but in some areas people might have voted differently.



Ah - grandma`s tale is so much better argument.

Well, if not for that war Poland would have gotten some more votes, yes, but enough to make a difference? No. The pro-German majorities were, as I said before, in the 90% range, and there are several reasons (economic, nationalist [as me and others have said, nationality does not always equal ethnicity], "this place has always belonged to Prussia", and even religious) for a Masurian to vote for Germany.

[Whanztastic]

Two words - population transfers.

[Falecius]

True self-determination accord to linguistic identity means no France, no Spain, no Italy, no Belgium, probably no Germany, and whole clusterfuck anywhere further east, let alone Scotland or Lapland. And how about Kurds, Assyrians, or basically any colony in the world?
Nobody at the time meant self-determination to be taken literally, unless he or she was unaware of the implications (that was possible in some cases). The principle just does not work if applied seriously and coherently. Or works causing unresolvable conflicts.

[octaviuz]

There's always the millet system I suppose. Everyone lives intermixed but each ethnic group has its own separate administrative structure. (I suppose the Canadian school systems approximate this somewhat).