Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

Huh... wonder who those would be :p

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.
Of course, you have to take into account the succinimidic torylation of hyperbolocyclates. :winkytongue:
 
Draco, I know you’re just trying to get a rise out of me :p
Southeastern Prussia had a strong Polish minority at the time already. And Poland needed either a port, or the Vistula (and probably Niemen) internationalised.
Now Danzig itself, was said port for a while. But the Poles later built Gdynia, which meant afterwards they no longer needed it.
 
Southeastern Prussia had a strong Polish minority at the time already. And Poland needed either a port, or the Vistula (and probably Niemen) internationalised.
Now Danzig itself, was said port for a while. But the Poles later built Gdynia, which meant afterwards they no longer needed it.
South East Prussia, yea, but not the entirety of East Prussia. Self-determination does get sketchy though as we go between minority vs majority. But as I said, the desire for a port should not trump the desires of the people that live in the area.
 
South East Prussia, yea, but not the entirety of East Prussia. Self-determination does get sketchy though as we go between minority vs majority. But as I said, the desire for a port should not trump the desires of the people that live in the area.
In the end, it's the desires of a couple hundred thousand against the needs of fifteen million, roughly speaking.
Germany tried to strangle Poland economically IOTL. It failed, but it would have succeeded if Poland hadn't had a port.
 
In the end, it's the desires of a couple hundred thousand against the needs of fifteen million, roughly speaking.
Germany tried to strangle Poland economically IOTL. It failed, but it would have succeeded if Poland hadn't had a port.
Would Germany even try to strangle Poland in the first place if it had no territorial grievances against Poland?
 
Would Germany even try to strangle Poland in the first place if it had no territorial grievances against Poland?
Considering Germany was trying to create a sphere of influence in Central Europe no matter how, most probably, yes, it would try to bring a strong Poland down to the status of German vassal.
Not that the city of Danzig would have been the sole territorial grievance. Even if they had kept the Corridor they would have complained about Silesia or Poznania.
 
Considering Germany was trying to create a sphere of influence in Central Europe no matter how, most probably, yes, it would try to bring a strong Poland down to the status of German vassal.
Not that the city of Danzig would have been the sole territorial grievance. Even if they had kept the Corridor they would have complained about Silesia or Poznania.
And what was done OTL somehow prevented this?

I think vassalage is preferable to carnage and genocide.
 
Not when it means Germany then comes for round 2 against the Western Allies.
That is a very determinist interpretation of history.

There's a significant chance that, if the Treaty of Versailles allowed Germany to retain Danzig and German-majority regions of the corridor, the years following would have been radically different.
 
That is a very determinist interpretation of history.

There's a significant chance that, if the Treaty of Versailles allowed Germany to retain Danzig and German-majority regions of the corridor, the years following would have been radically different.
The Dolschtosslegende was created before, not after, the Treaty of Versailles.
Germany's preexisting structural economic issues would have remained, and the "break ourselves paying reparations to show we can't pay" would still have remained.
Which means there still is the Ruhr occupation crisis.
Similarily, this doesn't butterfly away the American stock bubble.
And both of those were more influential in radicalizing the German people than Versailles ever was.
 
The Dolschtosslegende was created before, not after, the Treaty of Versailles.
Germany's preexisting structural economic issues would have remained, and the "break ourselves paying reparations to show we can't pay" would still have remained.
Which means there still is the Ruhr occupation crisis.
Similarily, this doesn't butterfly away the American stock bubble.
And both of those were more influential in radicalizing the German people than Versailles ever was.
Radicalization can still happen, yes, and odds are it will happen regardless, but acting as if we will get another Hitler regardless of how the treaty was set up is a very OTL state of mind. The issue that comes is that Hitler's racism and xenophobic thoughts and speeches were able to cling onto the German people so fiercely because he kept to his "German land for Germany" rant. The Sudetenland, Alsace, and even Danzig were all reasons that he was able to push for war. Without such major losses, especially in Danzig where the populace actively wanted to be German, Hitler would have never been able to push such a radical platform. Odds are, his rantings never would have caught on as much as they did, the simple addition of Danzig can change the entire mindset of the German people as a whole.

The old mindset of Versailles creating the space Hitler needed is absolutely true, but changes can be made to stop anyone like Hitler from coming to power, starting with keeping self-determination for all people, including the Germans.
 
Radicalization can still happen, yes, and odds are it will happen regardless, but acting as if we will get another Hitler regardless of how the treaty was set up is a very OTL state of mind. The issue that comes is that Hitler's racism and xenophobic thoughts and speeches were able to cling onto the German people so fiercely because he kept to his "German land for Germany" rant. The Sudetenland, Alsace, and even Danzig were all reasons that he was able to push for war. Without such major losses, especially in Danzig where the populace actively wanted to be German, Hitler would have never been able to push such a radical platform. Odds are, his rantings never would have caught on as much as they did, the simple addition of Danzig can change the entire mindset of the German people as a whole.

The old mindset of Versailles creating the space Hitler needed is absolutely true, but changes can be made to stop anyone like Hitler from coming to power, starting with keeping self-determination for all people, including the Germans.
Except there could have been no Allied peace where the ratio of strength of Germany to the Allies was higher after the peace than before the war. It would have been the same as granting Germany the victory.
The minimal terms of an Allied victory would have been Alsace-Lorraine to France, and Germany cannot acquire more land. That means no union with Austria, and no acquisition of the Sudetenland.
For Germany to have no territorial grievances against Poland the latter would have to be already strangled
This, essentially.
 
Except there could have been no Allied peace where the ratio of strength of Germany to the Allies was higher after the peace than before the war. It would have been the same as granting Germany the victory.
The minimal terms of an Allied victory would have been Alsace-Lorraine to France, and Germany cannot acquire more land. That means no union with Austria, and no acquisition of the Sudetenland.

This, essentially.
I'm not saying the Germans should be given all of the land I mentioned, but I am saying unfairly taking away land that wishes to be German is how you get a xenophobic nationalist in charge. AL should go to France, I'm not arguing that, but you also have to realize you cannot start taking away the rights of sovereign states to do what they please. If Austria wishes to join Germany, that is between Austria and Germany, that is a German issue, if you put a stopper on that, it creates an Us VS Them mindset for the German people. Germans VS Them, Germans VS the Allies. Revanchanism all over again.

This should not be a peace about containing Germany, this should be a peace about keeping peace. Punishment VS Rehabilitation, you don't want to treat Germany like they are somehow less of a people, less of a fellow European, for simply answering an ally's call in the Great War, but then we get into the old argument of where the blame should lay.

Hitler is a direct result of how the world handled Germany, Hitler was a direct result of how the German people handled the treaty. A shit show and poor performance on both sides. Let the Germans be Germans, let the Poles be Poles, the French French, and treat the nation with the respect a sovereign state deserves. There is no reason the peace deal has to obliterate Germany, they aren't a ghost coming back time and time again, they are a people that just lost a war they could have won, they damned near reached Paris. Yes, I understand the mindset of attempting to stop Germany from swinging its weight around again, but you can't treat someone like a bully their entire life and not expect it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Treat Germany as an equal, before, after, and during the treaty. Offering them a spot in the LoN, allow Austrian annexation if Austria wishes for it. Don't treat the Germans like the boogymen of Europe or they will become the very monster you see them as, that goes for any nation, people group, or person in general.
 
I'm not saying the Germans should be given all of the land I mentioned, but I am saying unfairly taking away land that wishes to be German is how you get a xenophobic nationalist in charge. AL should go to France, I'm not arguing that, but you also have to realize you cannot start taking away the rights of sovereign states to do what they please. If Austria wishes to join Germany, that is between Austria and Germany, that is a German issue, if you put a stopper on that, it creates an Us VS Them mindset for the German people. Germans VS Them, Germans VS the Allies. Revanchanism all over again.

This should not be a peace about containing Germany, this should be a peace about keeping peace. Punishment VS Rehabilitation, you don't want to treat Germany like they are somehow less of a people, less of a fellow European, for simply answering an ally's call in the Great War, but then we get into the old argument of where the blame should lay.

Hitler is a direct result of how the world handled Germany, Hitler was a direct result of how the German people handled the treaty. A shit show and poor performance on both sides. Let the Germans be Germans, let the Poles be Poles, the French French, and treat the nation with the respect a sovereign state deserves. There is no reason the peace deal has to obliterate Germany, they aren't a ghost coming back time and time again, they are a people that just lost a war they could have won, they damned near reached Paris. Yes, I understand the mindset of attempting to stop Germany from swinging its weight around again, but you can't treat someone like a bully their entire life and not expect it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Treat Germany as an equal, before, after, and during the treaty. Offering them a spot in the LoN, allow Austrian annexation if Austria wishes for it. Don't treat the Germans like the boogymen of Europe or they will become the very monster you see them as, that goes for any nation, people group, or person in general.
I believe the reparations were mishandled, and so was their integration to the LoN.
However, the territorial clauses were essentially a minimum.
Germany breached the Belgian neutrality and seriously mistreated Belgian civilians, case in point Louvain. Germany burned half of France's industrial capacity as it left the lands it occupied.
Germany is the bully of Europe at the time the treaty is signed.
A harsher treaty, that contains incentives for Germany to behave, would probably have been better. But then, it runs into the issue of the enforcement of said treaty.
 
I believe the reparations were mishandled, and so was their integration to the LoN.
However, the territorial clauses were essentially a minimum.
Germany breached the Belgian neutrality and seriously mistreated Belgian civilians, case in point Louvain. Germany burned half of France's industrial capacity as it left the lands it occupied.
Germany is the bully of Europe at the time the treaty is signed.
A harsher treaty, that contains incentives for Germany to behave, would probably have been better. But then, it runs into the issue of the enforcement of said treaty.
Germany did that, not the German people. Especially when the nation takes on a democratic form after the war, you can't treat them as if the population of Germany should be punished for the actions of the Kaiser and his military.

A harsher treaty would have ruined Germany, turned it into a backwater, and may have ended with something worse than we got. If you poke an injured animal and it hisses, the response is not to hit it in hopes that it stops hissing. The issue is not the enforcement, the issues lays in the fact that Germany, nor should any nation, be disenfranchised utterly as a sovereign state.

You can punish Germany, yes, but not ruin the entire nation to the point of no return, especially after an administration change.

The Weimar Republic is not to blame for the Kaisrreich's sins, but it should help mend them regardless, but you shouldn't put Germany down like a rabid dog as so many Alt-Versailles suggest. Harsher treatment is not the response, a fairer treatment is. Germany needs to be punished, yes, but not ruined. You need to make a difference between Germany and the German people, the treaty doesn't dictate the lives of the current generation, the treaty dictates if you'll be fighting the next. Treat it as such.

I will say, you put up a good argument, as you always do, and I know it's something you're passionate about, Draco, but you know me well. You know me as someone that cares a great deal about the world as a whole, I hope you don't take any of this as a personal attack :p

EDIT: And the line about territorial losses, its not something I'm getting into as I already states I think the Weimar Era borders were a fair response, besides the exclusion of Danzig, I think that it represents a fair medium. A minimum would have been Alsace, a maximum and insane degree would be to the west bank of the Rhine and Oder-Neisse to the east
 
Germany did that, not the German people. Especially when the nation takes on a democratic form after the war, you can't treat them as if the population of Germany should be punished for the actions of the Kaiser and his military.
The thing being, that the military still represented a significative portion of the German people. One in thirty, forty, maybe.
A harsher treaty would have ruined Germany, turned it into a backwater, and may have ended with something worse than we got. If you poke an injured animal and it hisses, the response is not to hit it in hopes that it stops hissing. The issue is not the enforcement, the issues lays in the fact that Germany, nor should any nation, be disenfranchised utterly as a sovereign state.

You can punish Germany, yes, but not ruin the entire nation to the point of no return, especially after an administration change.
It essentially depends on the method of the harshness.
Temporarily spinning out parts of Germany, to return if they behave, while recognising them as a Great Power still, would probably have worked.
The Weimar Republic is not to blame for the Kaisrreich's sins, but it should help mend them regardless, but you shouldn't put Germany down like a rabid dog as so many Alt-Versailles suggest. Harsher treatment is not the response, a fairer treatment is. Germany needs to be punished, yes, but not ruined. You need to make a difference between Germany and the German people, the treaty doesn't dictate the lives of the current generation, the treaty dictates if you'll be fighting the next. Treat it as such.

I will say, you put up a good argument, as you always do, and I know it's something you're passionate about, Draco, but you know me well. You know me as someone that cares a great deal about the world as a whole, I hope you don't take any of this as a personal attack :p
To be fair, I think the treaty should have had an end date.
It wasn't suited to a permanent peace. Not while it limited the German army to a ridiculously low level while doing no such thing for the French and Polish.
EDIT: And the line about territorial losses, its not something I'm getting into as I already states I think the Weimar Era borders were a fair response, besides the exclusion of Danzig, I think that it represents a fair medium. A minimum would have been Alsace, a maximum and insane degree would be to the west bank of the Rhine and Oder-Neisse to the east
I was thinking spinning Baden-Wurtemberg, Bavaria and Rhenania off temporarily - for five to fifteen years, with a referendum whether or not to rejoin Germany.
And Austria could have had a similar referendum at the end of the 20 years.
Not something permanent.
 
Top