Since 1793, during the Second Partition, before which it had been part of Poland for even longer. Danzig was always a red herring for Polish annexation and was admitted as such by German officials. It was entirely reasonable to give Poland access to the sea so that it might have a better chance at survival as an independent state free from German or Russian imperialism.
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
Always this argument. It's the same as "natural borders" bullshit. When will people learn that the only thing that matters is who lives there, and what they want? Danzig was literally over 95% German. That's not a "red herring", that's just a fact. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat this discussion here -- there was a discussion here a while back where I argued my point in some detail -- and will only say that I simply value self-determination much, much (in fact: infinitely) higher than "what is reasonable for [x]". Had Danzig been 95% Polish, it should've gone to Poland. But it wasn't. It was German. So the criminal thing here was never that Germany wanted Danzig, but that a bunch of spiteful bastards wanted to deny Danzig to Germany, no matter what resentment this caused.
People like that made Hitler possible, and they deserve to burn in hell next to him.
It sounds like you prioritize self-determination for Germans rather than value self-determination in general. Access to the sea was crucial for allowing Poland to establish diplomatic and trade relations with countries other than its immediate neighbors which itself was crucial for its survival, as otherwise it would have simply been partitioned again between Germany and Russia; as had happened before, as indeed happened again, and as was Germany's real reason for making a fuss over Danzig. There are surely communities of wackos in the US that would vote to be independent if given the chance; that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so. That you can equate Hitler with the authors of Versailles is astounding. Versailles was not a good treaty, I agree, but a few Germans being made to live in Poland is emphatically not the same as systematic genocide against the Jews, Romani, Slavs, etc.
I see that you're conveniently leaving out the fact that aside from Danzig, most of the rest of the Polish corridor was majority Polish. Not that that mattered to Hitler of course, because again, Danzig was simply a casus belli, a pretense to invade.
Skallagrim
Banned
You could actually read the thread I linked, instead of repeating a lot of assumptions I debunked there already. But whatever. You can have your opinion-- it's just that I think it's wrong. Not least in a moral sense.
No, I apply it to everyone, and as locally as possible. (My favourite country on Earth is Liechtenstein, which is already pleasantly tiny... consisting of just a handful of municipalities... each of which has a constitutionally recognised right to secede by democratic vote. It's almost perfection.) You seem to think that Polish economic interests correspond to "self-determination", but that's not how it works. That's why that map is so funny, and why you can't see it. Because the fact that Switzerland has no coastline doesn't give Switzerland a right to annex any part of France (except any hypothetical part that genuinely wished to join Switzerland)-- just as the fact that Poland had no coastline didn't entile Poland to any part of Germany (except any part that would genuinely wish to be Polish-- which for sure wouldn't include Danzig).
Most, yes. And most should indeed go to Poland. But not all. Conversely, Poland should probably get some bits that stayed German in OTL. In the thread that I linked, I posted this map as a rough mock-up of what an alternative proposal might look like, aimed at more closely respecting the actual situation. (But do observe that this is not some "final proposal", but rather an indication of what things could also have been like, if "who actually lives here" had been the prime consideration.)
I genuinely believe that it does mean that. Or at least: that it should mean that. You apparently prefer to force people to stay with somehing they don't like, rather than letting them do as they wish and go their merry way. I'm sure many people think that way, but I find that such an attitude is the truly "wacky" thing.
I followed the link and didn't find your arguments particularly convincing. Suffice it to say, what you suggest seems to me to be in favor of anarchy instead of functional governance. Regardless, our disagreements clearly run deeper than this issue and you seem to think poorly of me so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Skallagrim
Banned
Oh, to hell with it-- I claim everything between the Atlantic and the Urals for Neutral Moresnet. That should solve all disputes nicely. Right? Right.....?
Barry Bull
Donor
How about dissolution of nation-states and formation of world government?
Also, the support for Nazism (or at least indifferent to what the Nazis preach) can be attributed to the whole "backstabbing" myth of which the Denzig issue was a result rather than cause.
Drawing up borders that value the functionality of one nation over another is an equal crime to the holocaust?
ninel
Banned
What are you even talking about? Danzig wasn't part of Poland in the interwar period (it was a free city), and the so called "Polish corridor" was ethnically majority Polish:
And the interwar western border of Poland was roughly following the ethnic divisions, that's why for example Frontier March of Posen-West Prussia remained part of Germany.
In @Skallagrim's defence the argument was specifically about Danzig rather than the Polish corridor as a whole.What are you even talking about? Danzig wasn't part of Poland in the interwar period (it was a free city), and the so called "Polish corridor" was ethnically majority Polish:
And the interwar western border of Poland was roughly following the ethnic divisions, that's why for example Frontier March of Posen-West Prussia remained part of Germany.
Either way, I think this is useful information here:
If I can throw my hat in here, I have to say I understand the argument Skallagrim is presenting, and it’s one I’ve given myself. If a certain group of people are the majority of a region and wish to be part of a certain nation, I think they should be allowed.
If a city is 95% German, and want to be part of Germany, they should be part of Germany. If that city under those same circumastances decide they’d rather be part of Poland? That’s fine too, but I think self determination needs to be brought down to a matter of public opinion rather than simply demographic numbers though.
In Danzig’s case, they were majority German, they wished to live in Germany, I won’t speak for the rest of the Eastern Territories though. I will say, many losses on German territory during that period was justified, as it was to create a Poland of Poles that wanted to be Polish, I don’t see much wrong with that but I do see something wrong with the Danzig situation.
Someone’s self determination doesn’t end where your coast begins.
If a city is 95% German, and want to be part of Germany, they should be part of Germany. If that city under those same circumastances decide they’d rather be part of Poland? That’s fine too, but I think self determination needs to be brought down to a matter of public opinion rather than simply demographic numbers though.
In Danzig’s case, they were majority German, they wished to live in Germany, I won’t speak for the rest of the Eastern Territories though. I will say, many losses on German territory during that period was justified, as it was to create a Poland of Poles that wanted to be Polish, I don’t see much wrong with that but I do see something wrong with the Danzig situation.
Someone’s self determination doesn’t end where your coast begins.
The idea that a nation should have territory simply because of economic benefits and to secure economic sovereignty is preposterous, and presumes that a nation can ever be completely economically autarkic.
Say a nation completely depends on Saudi oil imports--does it now have the right to own Saudi territory with oil deposits, in the name of economic sufficiency?
Say a nation completely depends on Saudi oil imports--does it now have the right to own Saudi territory with oil deposits, in the name of economic sufficiency?
Huh... wonder who those would be
Honestly though, if I can be honest, I don’t see where anyone gets the idea that anyone can decide who can and who can’t wish to be an independent entity. Self-determination is a basic right, at least in my eyes, and for the Post-Westphalian and Post-Versailles world, it seems to be the common view.
Let’s say, for example the majority of Chicagolanders wished to leave the Union? Simply for the fact that a separate national identity became a concept in the region, and people started filling out census information as Chicagolanders instead of American? Who are you, or anyone, to say they don’t have the right to self-determination? A vote is a vote, and if the majority of Chicagoland wish for independence, we should happily give it to them. If Chicago stopped feeing American, I see no reason why they should be forced to stay American. This, however, is a massive hypothetical, but national groups can form, new identities can be made, and personally I don’t think anyone of us has a right to dictate which line in the sand should be drawn. It comes down to the population of the region, the hearts and minds of the people, not people viewing from the outside.
Fortunately for Poland and unfortunately for Germany, even when it comes down to self-determination, the corridor would have been Polish.
Of course, you have to take into account the succinimidic torylation of hyperbolocyclates.Huh... wonder who those would be
Honestly though, if I can be honest, I don’t see where anyone gets the idea that anyone can decide who can and who can’t wish to be an independent entity. Self-determination is a basic right, at least in my eyes, and for the Post-Westphalian and Post-Versailles world, it seems to be the common view.
Let’s say, for example the majority of Chicagolanders wished to leave the Union? Simply for the fact that a separate national identity became a concept in the region, and people started filling out census information as Chicagolanders instead of American? Who are you, or anyone, to say they don’t have the right to self-determination? A vote is a vote, and if the majority of Chicagoland wish for independence, we should happily give it to them. If Chicago stopped feeing American, I see no reason why they should be forced to stay American. This, however, is a massive hypothetical, but national groups can form, new identities can be made, and personally I don’t think anyone of us has a right to dictate which line in the sand should be drawn. It comes down to the population of the region, the hearts and minds of the people, not people viewing from the outside.
The power play answer would probably have been leaving the Corridor be German but taking Ostpreussen.
After all, Krolewiec is a good name for a city, right ?