The Germans would never allow them to take the entirety of Prussia or Bavaria. The Saar is possible though.
Well if it's after WWII then I assume that some part of Germany would be taken, 'depopulated' of Germans and offered up as a 'Neo-Israel' (or something like that.
It could be Prussia, Saar, or Bavaria.
If you want a POD before WWII then the Russian Empire could, for whatever reason, take a bit of territory it had taken over and offer it up for Jewish settlement, that could evolve into a Jewish state.
But if you push it back farther, the Khazars (converts to Judaism) could push further into Europe and create a Jewish kingdom in what we know as western Ukraine.
Surely what the Germans would allow is kind of irrelevant, given the unconditional surrender? I don't consider this a good idea, but given an even vaguely OTL Cold War, it would be at least 50 years before the Germans could do anything about it, by which point they would probably have given up on it.
Even if what you say is true would it be clearly enough for the Jews to accept considering they would be living near people who tried to exterminate them only a few years earlier?
Surely what the Germans would allow is kind of irrelevant, given the unconditional surrender? I don't consider this a good idea, but given an even vaguely OTL Cold War, it would be at least 50 years before the Germans could do anything about it, by which point they would probably have given up on it.
Surely what the Germans would allow is kind of irrelevant, given the unconditional surrender? I don't consider this a good idea, but given an even vaguely OTL Cold War, it would be at least 50 years before the Germans could do anything about it, by which point they would probably have given up on it.
If the principle is wrong when applied to Palestinian Arabs, why is it right when applied to German civilians? I think something rather ugly is going on here.
I wasn't talking about 'Eastern Europe' I was talking about taking a piece of Germany, you know? That country that actually did the Holocaust rather than the Arabs that hadn't much of anything to do with the worst atrocity to ever happen to the Jewish people.
In the aftermath of WWII, the Allied powers were removing Germans by the MILLIONS from lands they intended to give to other countries, like Poland and France. Since they were already engaged in ethnic cleansing anyway, why not push Germans out of Bavaria or the Rhineland and hand it over to the Jewish people with the promise of protection from further attack?
One will argue "the Nazis", or "weakening the German state after two global conflicts in 30 years". If the last one, especially, I think Euroisrael taking the Rhineland would make sense. The most intensively industrialized section of continental Europe.
I'm an anti-nationalist personally, but I could see the idea as historically plausible, maybe.
One will argue "the Nazis", or "weakening the German state after two global conflicts in 30 years". If the last one, especially, I think Euroisrael taking the Rhineland would make sense. The most intensively industrialized section of continental Europe.
I'm an anti-nationalist personally, but I could see the idea as historically plausible, maybe.
If anyone's going to take the Rhinelands, wouldn't the French want it?
Germany was misblamed for WW1. The only thing they were guilty of was not accepting British domination and they were right too. They were militarily, economically and industrially a stronger country.
The west was ready to enact the Morgenthau Plan until they decided an industrialized West Germany would work to their benefit.
Nope if they were stronger than britain they would have won. Not I care to blame them for the war that was something pretty much everyone jumped into gladly.
They didn't lose the war because Britain was stronger (in fact, I'd say that France did most of the fighting against Germany). They lost because ultimately it was 2 Great Powers fighting against 5. In 1914 the Germans were outproducing the UK, they had more money, they had a bigger population (When excluding their Colonies).
Like you said Britain had better and more allies then Germany to me that makes them stronger. In a vacuum what your saying is true that if you narrow down the facts and exclude some of then Germany is stronger however this ultimately meaningless because it's not the full picture.
the fault of WWI escalation going on Britain doesn't make sense anyway. They didn't enter the war until Belgian neutrality was violated.
In any case Germany and Britain were at about industrial parity in 1914, but Germany had a real army and vast steel production while Britain was superior financially and at sea and thus had the drop on access to global markets and resources.
Besides if we're talking Allied motivations, well, they would still want to blame Germany, obviously.
They didn't lose the war because Britain was stronger (in fact, I'd say that France did most of the fighting against Germany). They lost because ultimately it was 2 Great Powers fighting against 5. In 1914 the Germans were outproducing the UK and they had more money, they had a bigger population (When excluding their Colonies).