Treaty_of_Versailles questions.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

It's possible, ironically, that Germany would be forced to concede an equal partnership to its former subject states in order to hold its Mitteleuropa together; if collectively, they can force Germany to the negotiating table, then you could put together a proto-EU.

Possible, yes, but how probable?

[Magnificate]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

It's possible, ironically, that Germany would be forced to concede an equal partnership to its former subject states in order to hold its Mitteleuropa together; if collectively, they can force Germany to the negotiating table, then you could put together a proto-EU.

How? You can cut Germany in half and it would still have enough resources and manpower to dominate in Central Europe.

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Possible, yes, but how probable?

Well, the other end result would be an A-H-esque blowup. But that's what we would expect from a large empire, and therefore, not ironic at all.

Originally Posted by Magnificate

How? You can cut Germany in half and it would still have enough resources and manpower to dominate in Central Europe.

In which case we have no collapse, and therefore, no irony.

But my point was that Germany, with "only" 70 million people, will inevitably have difficulty trying to maintain control in all its subject states if it tries to dominate Eastern Europe, as the USSR did. I don't agree with the position that it's impossible or at the very least, extremely difficulty, that they achieve and maintain a Warsaw Pact, which Snake advocates, but it's certainly harder with a third of the population that the USSR had.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

This is the thing though, it's a huge assertion and assumption used to hand-wave the idea that France will be irrelevant in the future. Despite the fact that, in reverse, the allies did not permanently take away any of Germany's industrial area.

At the same time the war would have resulted in no real resolution of Germany's long term balance of power issue with a growing Russia, so you've got the exact same thing you had OTL, two revisionist powers in Europe, this is in no way "stable" at all.

No, it is more analysis. Germany had two major industrial areas. One in the east and one in the west. And Germany did not even lose the full Western industrial area initially. Germany also has a much larger population. Germany also has a loyal ally that is shares a border with. Germany will also need to maintain a large army in a quick win due to the fact Russia will still be much stronger than OTL, at least initially.

While it is no certain, it will be much more difficult for France to rise back to threaten Germany than vice versa.

Originally Posted by lukedalton

And all the rest of the century Germany will be occupied in try to keep down France, and quell resistance in the rest of Europe as her plan of economic and political domination will not please many people

This may or may not be true. And even if it is true, it is compatible with avoiding another major war. There is a difference is a long resistance struggle in occupied France and WW2.

Originally Posted by lukedalton

So instead of the Nazi we must live with old type german nationalist/imperialist, ok is an improvement i concede that...unfortunaly the rest of the europe will not be satisfaied because still sucks

Once WW1 starts, it becomes impossible for all of Europe to be satisfied. It does not matter who wins or how the wins take place.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

You're right; they might instead end up with fascists collaborating with Ludendorff and the silent dictatorship, radicalizing and planning to resettle eastern Europe.

Hey, insane generals loyal to an emperor who commit atrocities? Sounds like Japan.

It is unlikely that Germany falls into fascism in a win scenario. More likely, Germany continues as a militaristic constitutional Monarchy with a weaker Kaiser. The Polish Corridor relocation plan is likely to die before implementation due to internal Germany political issue and the lack of any replacement settlers. The Germans were looking at setting up client states, perhaps with personal unions with the Kaiser. These plans are much different form the Nazi plans. The Kaiser is no more Hitler than the Tsar is Stalin. Different men, different systems of government.

The German generals in WW1 behaved much better than Japan in WW2.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by b12ox

The keyword is Kulturkampf. It would still be there with or without the Nazis.

The Nazi exterminated 11 million to 17 million civilians excluding civilians killed in battles. The Kulturkampf was limiting education in the Polish language and buying Polish land at above market prices. Two vastly different programs. Each has ethical issues attached, but they are many orders of magnitude different in terms of how evil.

[lukedalton]

No, it is more analysis. Germany had two major industrial areas. One in the east and one in the west. And Germany did not even lose the full Western industrial area initially. Germany also has a much larger population. Germany also has a loyal ally that is shares a border with. Germany will also need to maintain a large army in a quick win due to the fact Russia will still be much stronger than OTL, at least initially.

What loyal ally? A-H? good luck the Hasbourg will have their problem and in the end they will be more a greviance than an asset

This may or may not be true. And even if it is true, it is compatible with avoiding another major war. There is a difference is a long resistance struggle in occupied France and WW2.

Occupied France? Think more occupied Europe, the rest of the continent will not be very happy to be just a Germany tools for enrich herself at their expense and when the shit will hit the fan, because this is what always happen in the end there will be a major war or more probably a series of minor wars plus various revolution that will devastate the continent.

Once WW1 starts, it becomes impossible for all of Europe to be satisfied. It does not matter who wins or how the wins take place

Bingo, so all this talking that a CP victory will be better for anyone is useless

[lukedalton]

It is unlikely that Germany falls into fascism in a win scenario. More likely, Germany continues as a militaristic constitutional Monarchy with a weaker Kaiser.

Basically like Italy during the fascist dictatorships?

The Polish Corridor relocation plan is likely to die before implementation due to internal Germany political issue and the lack of any replacement settlers. The Germans were looking at setting up client states, perhaps with personal unions with the Kaiser. These plans are much different form the Nazi plans. The Kaiser is no more Hitler than the Tsar is Stalin. Different men, different systems of government.

The German generals in WW1 behaved much better than Japan in WW2

Wait some years of continuing rebellion and see what that generals will do

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

No, it is more analysis. Germany had two major industrial areas. One in the east and one in the west. And Germany did not even lose the full Western industrial area initially. Germany also has a much larger population. Germany also has a loyal ally that is shares a border with. Germany will also need to maintain a large army in a quick win due to the fact Russia will still be much stronger than OTL, at least initially.

While it is no certain, it will be much more difficult for France to rise back to threaten Germany than vice versa.

But that's my point: the allies did not strip Germany of any one of its industrial areas permanently so there is no reason to believe that the reverse is certainly going to happen when the war was much shorter in the first place. France could be expected to retain around it's prewar level of capabilities in this scenario.

You can try to argue the balance of power in the subsequent scenario however you like, but the point remains you are going to have two revisionist powers in Europe, one of which is almost certainly going to be stronger relative to Germany. Regardless of who you think would win the hypothetical war between Germany/Ah vs Russia/France or w/e, the situation is not going to be stable German hegemony.

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

The people in the empire certainly did, which is pretty much why they wanted independence in the first place.

I am not arguing they might have perceived oppression. However, in a real sense and compared to some of the A-H neighbors, people really were better off. I realize comparing to the Tsarist Russia or Ottoman Empire would make anyone but the Nazis look positively fantastic. Of course, I will change this opinion the moment you show me where did Austria-Hungary oppress people based on either their creed or nation in a systemic fashion? As I said, locals here in Bosnia could become mayors, judges, police and military officers. Local language, customs and religion were respected. I think it was similar in Croatia. I do not know about Italy, though, and Czech, though the fact that Czechoslovakia was the industrial heartland of the Empire shows they couldn't have been all that bad.

And mind you, I am not trying to idealize the Empire. It had its faults, for sure. Byzantine bureaucracy, inflexibility, inability to make sensible decisions in regards of foreign policy, constant struggle between Hungarian and Austrian parts of the empire, inability to come with satisfactory answer to nationalistic challenge and myriad other faults.

The most damning evidence against them is that they started the WWI over minor issue, that could have been resolved. This fact alone shows that they could not have evolved towards more functional entity and would eventually fall apart with results being similar or worse than what happened in the actual aftermath. However, one can not but grieve that people could not be smarter than that and found a way to make a better solution for all involved.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

You're right; they might instead end up with fascists collaborating with Ludendorff and the silent dictatorship, radicalizing and planning to resettle eastern Europe.

Hey, insane generals loyal to an emperor who commit atrocities? Sounds like Japan.

Sounds like Star Wars...

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Yes and by the time of WWI was 47 years old or 110 if we count the proper founding of the austrian empire so what? All things have their time, and the A-H empire was coming to an end of this, WWI had simply accelerated the things

Possibly by several generations. Given a CP victory, the Monarchy was in no particular danger of disintegration unless its German neighbour so decreed.

Probably they can see it better, and frankly by the end of the war the A-H was a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire, so there is not really much difference.

There was a considerable difference for the non Germans in the Austrian half of the Monarchy, who had education in their own languages, and could use those languages in the courts etc, rights which a Prussian Pole would have given his eye teeth for. Ditto for the Croations and Bosnians. The minorities in Hungary proper didn't, but were nowhere near strong enough to rebel with any chance of success.

The Germans had indeed gone some way toward taking over the Habsburg army (According to Norman Stone, late 1916 they supplied two fifths of its NCOs and junior officers) but this meant they had most of the advantages of controlling it without the political inconvenience of formal anexation. They might well have tightened their grip over the Monarchy iro foreign affairs, but showed no particular inclination to run it internally.

[lukedalton]

Possibly by several generations. Given a CP victory, the Monarchy was in no particular danger of disintegration unless its German neighbour so decreed.

Only if the victory if quick, after 1917 it's over for A-h whatever win of lose; yes Germany can prop up A-H but not forever and she had her internal problems and the other 'new nation' in the east to support, she is not omnipotent. It's more probable that instead of the French entrenched defensive mentality and reluctancy to go to war due to what suffered in the last, we will get the German one, as without the 'stabbing in the back myth' and the rage over versailles i don't see much room for prolonged militarism

There was a considerable difference for the non Germans in the Austrian half of the Monarchy, who had education in their own languages, and could use those languages in the courts etc, rights which a Prussian Pole would have given his eye teeth for. Ditto for the Croations and Bosnians. The minorities in Hungary proper didn't, but were nowhere near strong enough to rebel with any chance of success.

The Germans had indeed gone some way toward taking over the Habsburg army (According to Norman Stone, late 1916 they supplied two fifths of its NCOs and junior officers) but this meant they had most of the advantages of controlling it without the political inconvenience of formal anexation. They might well have tightened their grip over the Monarchy iro foreign affairs, but showed no particular inclination to run it internally.

Because there were a war and the foreign policy was what directly give German problem, in time of peace things will be different and counting on the usual diplomatic 'prowness' of Germany, i doubt that the Austrian Emperor will own his own pants in a couple of years, between that and the general dissacfection with the old ruling class after the war the Hasbourg are history.
You basically bet that all the parts of the empire will remain together continuing a bickering between them, in a nation who is basically told what to do by Berlin, crippled by a byzantine burocracy, with a deligitimized ruling class, various ethnic groups who don't like each other, an almost non existent national identity because Berlin will always support them out of what? After a while they will probably cut out their lose and go for a simpler controlled demolition, absorb what they can, and create some more manageble nations out of the corpse of A-H

[JakeKr]

Originally Posted by Adler17

What did RUSSIA lose in Brest? Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia. Look, what RUSSIAN territories were indeed lost. None. Indeed this treaty was giving many peoples the right of self determination.

There was no self-determination. Those were to become puppet states of Germany, ruled by German aristocracy and military of OberOst, colonized by German settlers in Baltics and Poland, with their economies plundered. Its not even any Allied propaganda. German planners were quite open about this.
And it might be good to remind that while for example Poles were part of talks in Versailles, Germans simply refused them any voice during Brest-Litovsk. In fact the treaty doesn't mention Poland in any way.

No plebiscite in the Corridore

What plebiscites did Brest Litovsk Treaty plan? Please name at least one. Did Germans plan a plebiscite in Chelm where Poles were majority and which was promised to puppet Ukraine by them? Did they even thought about a plebiscite?

Oh, and there were invasions by Poles.

Remember France and Poland invaded Germany 1919-1923.

1921: Invasion of Polish troops into Silesia (officially irregulars), who were beaten by the German militias in the Battle of the St. Annaberg.

You know, calling uprisings of Polish population(who was a majority in those areas even according to Germans pre-war census ) against oppressive German rule invasions seems to be pretty close to repeating extreme German nationalist propaganda that Poles in Polish lands were in fact foreigners/invaders on 'rightful German soil'. In other words denying Poles the right to live on their own land. Despite those territories being part of Prussia/Germany only around 18-19th century and Polish despite a century of efforts by German state.

Despite the plebiscite result (60% for Germany), Upper Silesia was parted.

Upper Silesia was going to be partitioned according to Treaty to Versailles. It never was a vote for all of Upper Silesia. In fact Poles didn't even want a vote in all Upper Silesia, but in East only where they had majority and which in majority voted for Poland.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partiii.asp
The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919 :
Part III

5. On the conclusion of the voting, the number of votes cast in each commune will be communicated by the Commission to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, with a full report as to the taking of the vote and a recommendation as to the line which ought to be adopted as the frontier of Germany in Upper Silesia. In this recommendation regard will be paid to the wishes of the inhabitants as shown by the vote, and to the geographical and economic conditions of the locality.

If France and Poland had accepted to disarm, ww2 would have been delayed significantly, perhaps avoided

That's like saying if someone wouldn't resist a robbery he wouldn't get beaten.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

. Now the Belgium civilians did not deserve what happened to them, but neither did the civilians of Poland.

Funny you should mention this, as Germany army engaged in mass murder and destruction in Poland that was compared to actions in Belgium. One of the reasons that Polish public opinion was strongly anti-CP and pro-Entente, as well as tolerant of Russians. Here's a nice modern article about this event:
"A Belgium of our own": the sack of Russian Kalisz, August 1914

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n57667328/

One incident at the very start of the war gave Russians the opportunity to position themselves as the moral equivalent of the suffering Belgians and offset their image as the eastern analogue to Germanic barbarity. This incident involved the modest textile town of Kalisz, located on the Prosna River, at the outermost limit of the Kingdom of Poland, not far from the Prussian border. Like all Polish towns and cities, Kalisz contained a mix of cultures. Half of the almost 25,000 residents were Roman Catholic, a third Jewish. These proportions had remained stable for 50 years, despite continuous expansion culminating ina spurt of prosperity after the opening in 1902 of a railway connecting Russia and Prussia through Kalisz and the industrial powerhouse of Lodz. (9) In 1897, three-quarters of city residents considered Polish their native tongue (reflecting the degree of Jewish cultural adaptation). About 10 percent were either Russian-speaking Eastern Orthodox or German-speaking Protestants and Catholics. Manufacture was dominated by Poles, commerce by Jews. The wealthiest residents were mostly Polish, the military and bureaucracy mostly Russian. (10)

The German sack of Kalisz during the first two weeks of August 1914 became a cause celebre in the Russian press. The attack was a textbook case of wartime atrocity in two senses. First, in terms of what occurred, German behavior anticipated the excesses soon to follow in Belgium. Second, in terms of how it was represented, the accounts of all interested parties--Russians, Germans, and Poles--used the evidence to convey a political message, shaping the Kalisz story with an eye to public opinion, both at home and abroad. Despite their different perspectives, the versions offered by the victims, both Russians and Poles, share two striking features: on the one hand, the inability of those who experienced the events to determine how exactly the violence began; on the other, the absence, under circumstances in which opportunities for mutual hatred abounded, of the ethnic stereotypes that otherwise pervaded wartime opinion.
(...)
German troops reduced the center of Kalisz to ash and rubble, slaughtered many of its inhabitants, and caused others to flee in panic and terror. People were torn from their homes and gunned down in the streets, rabbis and priests taken hostage, corpses left on the pavement to rot, physicians threatened at gunpoint, the hospital damaged in artillery fire, entire city blocks set aflame. Indeed, the invading Germans treated the civilian population of Kalisz with much the same brutality they would display in Louvain two weeks later. For Russians, Kalisz became, like Belgium in the west, a symbol of German aggression. (14)

UK still had illegal blockade that resulted in 100K's of civilian death. It was and is a war crime. The USA was supervising the feeding of Belgium, so there is no moral excuse for the UK deny enough food for the Belgium population.

And how many people died from German actions when it plundered conquered countries for food and slave labor. Slave labor which was hardly fed properly and which counted in hundreds of thousands of Poles and Russian prisoners ?

A CP quick win is better for the world than a Entente quick win not due to any virtue of the Germans, but due to the geopolitical reality.

1) France was fighting above here weight class. France -45 million people. Germany 70 million. If Germany tried to impose a treaty to make France too weak to start another war, Germany is more likely to succeed due to greater initial strength. Taking the industrial region from France would have largely crippled France.

Russia on the other hand,with whole Poland turned into autonomous state(which Sazonov planned to create in 1914), allied Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would completely dwarf Germany.
And both UK and France were quite prosperous democracies. I would prefer their quick win than German one, as German Empire was quite influenced by racism ideology by that time towards its future conquests in the East. Nor was Russia planning any atrocities towards to Poles as Germany was, or as racist towards them. At the same time it promised to abolish a more oppressive rule over many more Poles in Poznan and Pomerania. So a quick Entente victory seems better.

And if the Entente wins quickly, then Russia is likely to gain the most. Do you believe Russia dominating continental Europe would be better than Germany for the average worker or farmer?

Yes. The majority of of population that Germany would control due to its conquest would be Polish or Slavic. German political ideologies at this time embraced a lot of racist and volkisch thought that expressed hatred and contempt towards Poles and Slavs, and German leaders engaged in several Germanization attempts. It was believed that Poles and Slavs are inferior to Germans and need to be either Germanized with their culture eradicated or ethnically cleansed. In any case they were to make room for German settlement.
Russian Empire while authoritarian was not keen on racism so much. Russifications programs existed but were mostly based on trying to expand use of Russian language rather than settlement of Russian population. Repressions were motivated mostly by political reasons rather than racist ones. Russians didn't plan to remove millions of Poles and replaced them with Russians in Congress Poland. There was no Russian Settlement Commission comparable to Prussian Settlement Commission

It was largely due to fact that Russian Empire was more experienced with dealing and embracing other nationalities than German Empire, which was created as nation state by Germans and for Germans. Russians had more history of using non-Russians in their state administration.

So in general, Russian rule over continental Europe would be more less prone to racism, efforts to ethnically cleanse Poles from Congress Poland or Poznan and so on.

Tsarist Russia was worse to live in than Kaiserreich.

If it was so worse to live in Russia than perhaps you would like to tell us why the largest Polish pre-war independence movement Endecja was pro-Russian,while there was no pro-German party of any significance at all among Poles hmmm? And why Poles not only in Russian Poland but in German Poland voted for Endecja in overwhelming numbers?

Germany did not do pogroms.

Of course it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_deportations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Kalisz

The destruction and sacking of the city of Kalisz (Polish: zburzenie Kalisza) occurred in August 1914. It was perpetrated by the German Empire troops. From August 2 until August 22, 1914 at the beginning of World War I, one of the oldest towns in Poland (then under foreign Partitions), was shelled, bombed and burned down. The act was committed on a defenceless, open town with a rich historical tradition and monuments of mediaeval architecture; which the Russian army had left without fighting. The event is also known as Pogrom of Kalisz or Poland’s Louvain (see Schrecklichkeit atrocities).

And worse things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_...maqua_Genocide

And yes, Poland can easily endup a client state. And West Prussia and Posen will not be a part of this client state.

And what will happen to Poles in German territories? Well German planners believed that those 4-5 million Poles would be "encouraged to move" to puppet Poland. And from Poland itself they planned to ethnically cleanse 2-3 million Poles.
So overall there is potential for ethnic cleansing of around from 2 to 8 million Poles.
Even if the ethnic cleansing is minimal, the Poles will be under an oppressive and racist regime that treats them as inferior culture at best.

Hapsburg Poland will be better than Tsarist Poland.

In 1914 Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov planned a self-rule in Poland made out of Poznan, Pomerania, parts of Upper Silesia, and West Galicia plus Congress Poland. How is this worse than a rump, exploited state made only of Congress Poland and West Galicia, with rest of the Poles still under oppressive German regime?

And the Kaiser dominated Poland has a good chance of being better than Tsarist Poland.

So a racist state that engaged in settlement programs and displaced Poles is somehow better for them than one that had no such actions and which was actually preferred by Poles ? Really?

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Avoids Holocaust. Jews in Poland are also Polish citizens. Avoids the substantial number of non-Jews that died in Poland. Avoids all the German civilians expelled after WW2. Avoids all the Poles expelled from Eastern to Western Poland.

Instead we get Poles expelled from Western Poland to East under appalling conditions or abused as slave labor(which happened OTL already in WW1). Jews were Polish citizens in OTL anyway, in a German puppet Kingdom of Poland the only true citizens would be the German ruling class. And all the events you mentioned are of course avoided, but that doesn't mean that worse things can't happen. For example a second world war with mass use of gas weapons and atomic exchange on European continent. Mass ethnic cleansing of Poles. Central Europe after three decades of German domination turning into giant Balkans, Volhynia massacre events between majorities that were oppressed and those who ruled over them, when Germany finally losses its grip on the continent. If Germans exploit Jews as administrators of their conquered territories it will only exacerbate the already strong antisemitism in Poland and Ukraine. The ruling German and Jewish minorities won't be in good position if German hegemony falls-which it likely will one day due to simple lack of strength of Germany to dominate Europe.

And in all likelihood in CP win, a client Poland exists. It will just be east of the Poland of OTL, and the Kaiser's finger will be lighter than Stalin's finger. .

Kaiser's finger could be heavy indeed as seen in Herero Genocide or Kalisz Pogrom. If Poles get treated like Herero, or even less(which they already were OTL) I am doubtful they will be grateful for not being under the rule of Stalin about whom they know nothing.

[Adler17]

I am commenting it in this post in bold letters.

Originally Posted by JakeKr

There was no self-determination. Those were to become puppet states of Germany, ruled by German aristocracy and military of OberOst, colonized by German settlers in Baltics and Poland, with their economies plundered. Its not even any Allied propaganda. German planners were quite open about this.
And it might be good to remind that while for example Poles were part of talks in Versailles, Germans simply refused them any voice during Brest-Litovsk. In fact the treaty doesn't mention Poland in any way.

There were not so many settlers to do so. This is propaganda. Also being a German client state is much better than being a Soviet SSR. Also Poland was independent due to Germans and Austrians since 1916.


What plebiscites did Brest Litovsk Treaty plan? Please name at least one. Did Germans plan a plebiscite in Chelm where Poles were majority and which was promised to puppet Ukraine by them? Did they even thought about a plebiscite?

Brest Litowsk did not mention any plebiscite, true. They were planned nevertheless. Not in any case though.



You know, calling uprisings of Polish population(who was a majority in those areas even according to Germans pre-war census ) against oppressive German rule invasions seems to be pretty close to repeating extreme German nationalist propaganda that Poles in Polish lands were in fact foreigners/invaders on 'rightful German soil'. In other words denying Poles the right to live on their own land. Despite those territories being part of Prussia/Germany only around 18-19th century and Polish despite a century of efforts by German state.

Many of these rebels indeed did not come from Silesia, where btw. many Poles voted for Germany and not for Poland. I guess there would be a similar result in the corridore as well. Which was BTW mostly inhabited by Germans.


Upper Silesia was going to be partitioned according to Treaty to Versailles. It never was a vote for all of Upper Silesia. In fact Poles didn't even want a vote in all Upper Silesia, but in East only where they had majority and which in majority voted for Poland.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partiii.asp
The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919 :
Part III

This clause is very vague. It also allows the interpretation, that no border change might happen. Nevertheless, many German areas were departed from Germany and it was not recognized, that many Poles voted for Germany as well.


That's like saying if someone wouldn't resist a robbery he wouldn't get beaten.

It is a question, who the real robbers were.

Adler

[Svetonius21]

Originally Posted by Adler17

Which was BTW mostly inhabited by Germans.

Province of West Prussia was inhabited mostly by Germans (about 2/3), but Corridor was not whole province-it was smaller, lacked biggest cities in region-Danzig and Elbing, where population was about 90% german. Teritory of future Corridor, according to german 1910 census were 58% polish 42% german, including troops which stationed here.

[JakeKr]

There were not so many settlers to do so. This is propaganda.

What is propaganda? Clarify.
Plans to remove Poles existed. Settlement actions were made already before WW1 in XIX century.
Doesn't matter if there were enough Germans to replace whole Polish population. It would be removed anyway.
Also even if there would be minimum ethnic cleansing, it wouldn't change that the German national-conservative regime would be led by people believing in inherent inferiority of Polish nation, with strong influence by racist ideologies.
Such regime would hardly be friendly to Poles, nor would Poles like it.

Also being a German client state is much better than being a Soviet SSR

Soviet SSR? Where did you pull that out? Anyway being a Russian client state is better than being a German client state or Soviet SSR....An independent Poland is better than all of the above.

Also Poland was independent due to Germans and Austrians since 1916.

Maybe in alternate universe, but not in ours. In 1916-two years after Russia already made such promises-Germany and Austria declared that in future they might create a Polish state. They didn't create one. In fact they refused to recognize any Polish statehood and Polish territories were ruled by German military. When token Polish authorities nominated by German military asked for representation at Brest Litovsk-the Germans simply refused to admit them. In any case, the Germans never planned any independence for Poland at all. I don't recall English planning to place an Englishman on Polish throne...
Another nice reminder of differences between Versailles and German Brest Litovsk.

Brest Litowsk did not mention any plebiscite, true. They were planned nevertheless.

Really? Where did Germany plan any plebiscites? In Poznan? In Pomerania?

Many of these rebels indeed did not come from Silesia. many Poles voted for Germany and not for Poland

Around 479.259 voted for Poland. The Polish forces fighting for Silesia were around 65,000 with around 6,000 coming out of Silesia to help their fellow countrymen. Are you saying they were all invaders and not part of around 480,000 people who voted for Poland ? Sources please.

I guess there would be a similar result in the corridore as well. Which was BTW mostly inhabited by Germans.

You know, even Nazis admitted that the area was majority Polish with their census in 1939 December(which we can assume was as favorable to Poles as a wolf to a lamb) giving number of Poles in the area as 71%.
As to before the war the the census of 1910 showed that there were 528,000 Poles compared to 385,000 Germans(including settles, administration and military stationed in the region)

This clause is very vague. It also allows the interpretation, that no border change might happen.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partiii.asp
Germany hereby renounces in favour of Poland all rights and title over the portion of Upper Silesia Iying beyond the frontier line fixed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers as the result of the plebiscite.

Nevertheless, many German areas were departed from Germany

Which area that was part of Poland had German majority? Pomerania didn't. Neither did Great Poland or Upper Silesia.

It is a question, who the real robbers were.

Since it was Germany which invaded Poland and France, plundered and destroyed several countries and engaged in massive genocide in WW2 I think the answer is clear, isn't it.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

What loyal ally? A-H? good luck the Hasbourg will have their problem and in the end they will be more a greviance than an asset

A-H was a valuable asset. A-H has a similar power level to France, and was much more useful than Italy in WW2. While A-H has major issues, it has value. No ally is perfect.

Occupied France? Think more occupied Europe, the rest of the continent will not be very happy to be just a Germany tools for enrich herself at their expense and when the shit will hit the fan, because this is what always happen in the end there will be a major war or more probably a series of minor wars plus various revolution that will devastate the continent.

You greatly exaggerate. Spain and Scandanavia will not care. Italy will have other issues it cares about. The Baltic, Poland and Ukraine will have fears of Russia/Soviet retaking them. It will not be near as bad as you make it sound.

Bingo, so all this talking that a CP victory will be better for anyone is useless

No, in life, you don't always get to chose between good choices. Often you have to optimize for the least worst.

[JakeKr]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

No, in life, you don't always get to chose between good choices. Often you have to optimize for the least worst.

A victory of democratic France and UK, with modernizing Russia that lacks German volkisch ideas, ethnic cleansing plans and racism>>>>than victory of militarist, nationalist Germany with racist and volkisch ideas and plans of ethnic cleansing.

A German victory and domination over Central Europe would be pretty awful considering its behavior and plans towards the people living there. The fact that people there preferred Russian Empire to German Empire also speaks volumes about conditions in both states.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Basically like Italy during the fascist dictatorships?

No, more like prewar Germany with the Kaiser having less power. A militaristic constitutional Monarchy also describes the UK in 1909 quite well. Ireland was not in continual revolt, why do yo assume a Poland will be? Yes, it could happen, but it could also be peaceful.

Originally Posted by RousseauX

But that's my point: the allies did not strip Germany of any one of its industrial areas permanently so there is no reason to believe that the reverse is certainly going to happen when the war was much shorter in the first place. France could be expected to retain around it's prewar level of capabilities in this scenario.

You can try to argue the balance of power in the subsequent scenario however you like, but the point remains you are going to have two revisionist powers in Europe, one of which is almost certainly going to be stronger relative to Germany. Regardless of who you think would win the hypothetical war between Germany/Ah vs Russia/France or w/e, the situation is not going to be stable German hegemony.

France was too weak to keep Germany down without another nations help. Germany is strong enough to keep France down. 45 million v 70 million.

You will get Germany as the dominant power in Europe with Russia the only possible equal rival. A lot depends on what happens to Russia. If B-L is used to shave off a big chunk or Russia's population and provide buffer states, there will be little to challenge German domination for the next few generations except blunders by the Germans. The Germans are now playing the Great Game where they only have to avoid unforced errors.