Alternate Cold War scenario

[Eurofed]

Britain and France opposed German reunification in 1990 OTL,

That "opposition" was little more than tiny Germanophobe fringes of political personnel that made farfetched schemes that utterly failed to get any serious following in the public political discourse. The only real issue was that united Germany was not going to put 1945 borders into question, and France bargained its support to the unification for German support to the Euro and greater European unification.

how do you think they would react to Anschluss in the 60's?

France in all likelihood does what it did OTL about German recovery of independence and later reunification: it bargains its assent for German support to greater European integration. Really, within a quasi-federal EU, a second democratic Anschluss is no such a big thing.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

That "opposition" was little more than tiny Germanophobe fringes of political personnel that made farfetched schemes that utterly failed to get any serious following in the public political discourse.

bolded part really does describe Maggie, doesn't it?

 

[Eurofed]

This is why anschluss is never an option post '45.

It never was IOTL because Austria was partially occupied by the Soviets, and had to invent a separate national consciousness, and a neutral status, which made unity with NATO West Germany a no-no, in order to get the Russkies off its back. After the Cold War had wound down, separateness had indeed taken root, creating a national consciousness that had never existed before. If the Western Allies run the show, this cannot happen, and Austria goes the Saar way sooner or later.

 

[Citizen Samuel]

That "opposition" was little more than tiny Germanophobe fringes of political personnel that made farfetched schemes that utterly failed to get any serious following in the public political discourse.

No, it was Margret Thatcher and Francois Mitterand.

 

[Eurofed]

To expand the discussion a bit more beyond German concerns, if the Soviets have a firm grasp of Yugoslavia (minus Istria), Albania, and Greece, they have a very good access to the Mediterranean (one of their major geopolitical goals historically), if they can but seize control of Turkey. True, they can surely build shipyards in their Balkan satellites and raise a fleet that way, but they would still want to unplug the Straits as a top priority. I was wondering, if Stalin gets control of mainland Greece and northern Iran, would not he push hard to destabilize Turkey, Iraq, and southern Iran ? Maybe staging a quick conquest in 1945 of a neutral country would be too big a provocation to the West, he would risk WWIII (Russian control of the Straits has been an absolute casus belli for Britain for centuries), but I can see him giving major support to Kurd separatism in all three countries.

 

[Eurofed]

No, it was Margret Thatcher and Francois Mitterand.

And again, in the end it amounted to nothing more than Mitterrand bargaining German reunification for the Euro. Maggie never went anywhere. Such "opposition" was nothing more than half-voiced tentative doubts, and very quickly it died off except for the Franco-Germans turning it in yet another step of their big Euro bargain.

 

[Krix]

And again, in the end it amounted to nothing more than Mitterrand bargaining German reunification for the Euro. Maggie never went anywhere. Such "opposition" was nothing more than half-voiced tentative doubts, and very quickly it died off except for the Franco-Germans turning it in yet another step of their big Euro bargain.

You are incorrect, the agreement of former Allied powers plus 2 that allowed the reunification had several clauses. One of which included recognition of territorial changes by Germany that happened after 1945, and signing a separate border treaty with Poland.

Austria is a purely German land

Austrian identity is different from German one.

and its unity with Germany proper does not threaten their rights of any non-German nation or minority.

Incorrect. The annexation of Austria increases German industry, manpower and thus war making potential. Additionaly it eliminates a buffer zone separating Germany from Balkans and allows for encirclement of Czechs. All of this would be valid points to neighbouring countries that were victims of German aggression, and certainly for Allies way up into 70s.

But it would not be any really different from OTL, where such movements have been strongly marginalized to the far right fringes in Germany & Austria.

And again wrong. The believers in reversing territorial changes after the end of Second World War were not marginalised, and were even members of governmental commissions and institutions in West Germany. Without East Germany which dealt more decisively with former Nazis and nationalists, their influence(already strong in OTL), will be even stronger.
Which btw effectively influences Polish situation and serves as very strong reason to stay united and pursue finlandization rather then be subject of possible German threat, as Soviets represent a smaller threat to well being of Polish nation.

 

[Eurofed]

The map is taken from Wikipedia and is original creation.

Instead the tons of lies and distortions Germanohone and Russophobe crap that the Pole-chauvinist clique poisons Wikipedia with, are pure gold truth, I surmise.

That was never the goal of Valkyrie group. In fact it couldn't be since the term of Iron Curtain was invented much later after their attempt to keep German occupation of Central and Eastern Europe by killing Hitler and making deal with Western Allies(which they wouldn't make).

The Valkyrie government would discover that they have no hope of bargaining anything but a conditional surrender the moment they start a diplomatic talk with the Western allies, and they shall adjust their demands accordingly, since they were sane patriots concerned with saving their country from destruction and not megalomanic madmen like Hitler, despite what Pole-chauvinist may think.

Incorrect. The territorial changes were decided long before by the Allies. Some changes were last minute like Szczecin or deciding or giving Lower Silesia but the Oder River was decided long before fights on German soil.

Churchill and Roosevelt only gave a reluctant assent (Churchill vehemently protested that it was "giving the Polish duck so much German food that it would suffocate") at Teheran about the general idea as part of Stalin's insistence on getting Eastern Poland again. This means nothing, when the Western Allies are in full and sole control of Germany and faced with the perspective of staging a huge ethnic cleansing of a land that Poland has no reasonable claim upon whatsoever. This is politically ASB, it's the equivalent of the Americans ethnically cleansing Kyushu for Chinese settlement as compensation.

Not to mention nobody wanted to give East Prussia to Poland, since Stalin demanded and was given Konigsberg as warm water port early on.

Not a concern for Western Allies in 1945, since East Prussia is on the other side of the Iron Curtain, Stalin can do with it and East Poland whatever it bloody likes, annex it all, deport East Poles in Kazakhstan and settle it with Russians, they can do little about it.

The parts of East Prussia were very small and not considered a compensation for its eastern losses, nor enough to secure its safety from Germany.

What the Western Allies bloody care ?

There would be no ethnic cleansing but population transfer just like in OTL.

And the Holocaust was not a genocide, just a mass killing. Playing with words to justify support of ethnic cleansing. Welcome back, Hurgan.

Parts of Upper Silesia was already part of Poland before WW2

And it stays with West Poland. No question about that.

and like in its other parts where German minority organisations assisted Nazi invasion and overwhelmingly took part in atrocities-Germans would be transferred away. Just like in Czechoslovaki.

There is huge political difference between Czechoslovakia getting back the Sudetes, and Poland getting stuff that was never hers and is overwhelmingly stuff.

As to your claim of no Polish population-I am afraid that again you have to reach for historical material on that subject. There were milions of Poles in Silesia, mainly in Upper Silesian part, but also in cities like Wrocław (known as Breslau) where for instance the local minority engaged in resistance against the Nazis during the war.

There was a significant number of Rhineland folk that were former Pole immigrants. Are the Western Allies supposed to ethnically cleanse Rhineland and nnex it to Poland, too, since it harbors another tiny Polish minority ? The attempt to equate nearly entirely German Breslau with occupied Poland or Czechoslovakia is uttterly ridiculous and another sign of Hurgan-ness.

As to claim "ever was Polish in the last millennium" -that is a gross historical ignorance. Polish kings resigned the dynastic right to inherit Silesia in 1348, however parts of Silesia were restored to Polish kings in 1645 in the Opole region, until bought back by Habsburgs in 1666.

And before Germanic tribes vacated it and Slavic tribes took their place in the Migration period, Silesia was inhabited by Germanic folks. The historical argument, besides being utterly illiberal and undemocratic, sucks to establish rightful possession of a land, since there cannot be no fair and obejective method to establish a threshold, the chain of possessions always goes back to the Neolithic.

Flimsly historical claims many centuries old to justify enthusiastic support for ethnic cleansing. I am by now convinced that you are either Hurgan or someone utterly like him, and I know that attempting any kind of reasoned debate with such Pole-chauvinists is a huge waste of effort. Goodbye and welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Eurofed]

Incorrect. The annexation of Austria increases German industry, manpower and thus war making potential. Additionaly it eliminates a buffer zone separating Germany from Balkans and allows for encirclement of Czechs. All of this would be valid points to neighbouring countries that were victims of German aggression, and certainly for Allies way up into 70s.

And again wrong. The believers in reversing territorial changes after the end of Second World War were not marginalised, and were even members of governmental commissions and institutions in West Germany.

The usual Hurgan claims that West Germany was ruled by closet Nazis, and that butchering German national integrity was somehow necessary to European security. Hurgan, why can't you fulfill your Pole-chauvinist urges by writing a nice Polewank TL where the super-lucky and super-efficient Polish Empire conquers and assimilates everything from the English Channel to the Volga back in the Middle Ages without need of ethnic cleansings, and you leave the 20th century alone, just for a change ?

 

[Krix]

Instead the tons of lies and distortions Germanohone and Russophobe crap that the Pole-chauvinist clique poisons Wikipedia with, are pure gold truth, I surmise

Seems like touched a nerve ? Your claims about "Polish poisonabsolutely do not change the fact that this not a historical map and just a imaginative creation not based on actual discussed changes.

The Valkyrie government would discover that they have no hope of bargaining anything but a conditional surrender the moment they start a diplomatic talk with the Western allies, and they shall adjust their demands accordingly

I have my doubts considering their lack of touch with reality.

since they were sane patriots concerned with saving their country from destruction and not megalomanic madmen like Hitler, despite what Pole-chauvinist may think.

Those "patriots" were actually also included war criminals who believed it was patriotic to kidnap children(Tresckow ), or massacre Jews and Roma people(Arthur Nebe), or strip majority of Jews of civil rights and send them to Latin America( Goerdeler)

Churchill and Roosevelt only gave a reluctant assent

You are confusing Lower Silesia with Upper Silesia. The two are different regions

when the Western Allies are in full and sole control of Germany

Poles and Czechs are part of the Allies, and they will soon control German land as well.

and faced with the perspective of staging a huge ethnic cleansing of a land that

Not to worry, Allies would not engage in ethnic cleansing, population exchanges and transfers(all valid terms in international law) are of course other legal means(and we have to remember respectable to the point of awarding Noble Prize award for the coordinator of last major one)

Poland has no reasonable claim upon whatsoever.

Oh Poland has made several claims based on geostrategic and historic rights, as well as ethnic ones and in OTL they were considered largely legitimate by the Allies.

This is politically ASB, it's the equivalent of the Americans ethnically cleansing Kyushu for Chinese settlement as compensation.

As pointed above, no ethnic cleansing will take place. Also a very flawed comparision with Kyushu. Now if Japan would take Shanghai, tried to make it Japanese for 300 or 400 years, then proceeded to exterminate Chinese and got beaten surrendering its legal powers to Alies, and as result forced to remove its Japanese presence from the city that would be more valid.

o

t a concern for Western Allies in 1945, since East Prussia is on the other side of the Iron Curtain, Stalin can do with it and East Poland whatever it bloody likes, annex it all, deport East Poles in Kazakhstan and settle it with Russians, they can do little about it.

In 1945 there was no Iron Curtain yet dear Eurofed. Really try to read more on history, will you ?
And Stalin can't do whatever he likes, he is constrained by realities of politics and limits of his resources-which he as a sane politician acknowledged. Thus till 1947 in OTL he tried to win over as much as possible support from Polish population without risking his interests, before communist party takeover.

What the Western Allies bloody care ?

They do and they did care dear Eurofed, because they fought two titanic wars due to Germany in the past. It was natural for them to prevent happening it again by preventing possibility of new German rearmament, and improving defence conditions of its neighbours.

And the Holocaust was not a genocide, just a mass killing.

Really comparing population transfer from Nazi party strongholds to mass genocide of Jews, seems to me a very bad form of revisionism.

Playing with words to justify support of ethnic cleansing. Welcome back, Hurgan.

I am flattered. Is Hurgan the nickname of Matthew Frank, the author of :

Expelling the Germans: British Opinion and Post-1945 Population Transfer in Context ? Printed out by Oxford University Press btw. That Hurgan must be quite good to be represented by such university as you suggest.

and Poland getting stuff that was never hers .

Which part of post-1945 Poland was never part of Polish state in the past ?

There was a significant number of Rhineland folk that were former Pole immigrants.

Are you claiming that Poles in Wrocław were immigrants rather then remaining Polish population ? Do you have anything to back that up ?

The attempt to equate nearly entirely German Breslau with occupied Poland or Czechoslovakia is uttterly ridiculous

You claimed they were no Poles there. I pointed out you are wrong. What's ridiculous about that ? Or are you claiming the anti-Nazi Olimp resistance organisation created by Polish citizens of Wroclaw never existed ?

And before Germanic tribes vacated it and Slavic tribes took their place in the Migration period, Silesia was inhabited by Germanic folks.

Too bad that they weren't able to form any states, and came after Celts though.

Goodbye and welcome to my ignore list.

Poor Eurofed. None of your sentences dispute the obvious fact that Poland was indeed in possession of those territories a couple of centuries ago. Not like you claimed "never in millennium". But you are welcome to ignore me, if that helps you keep to fanaticism, even when the facts are against you.

that West Germany was ruled by closet Nazis, and that butchering German national integrity was somehow necessary to European security

The presence of former Nazi's in West German society and government and their influence is not a big historic secret, and was even discussed in Germany itself. So really I don't see the reasons for outrage. And if you consider Nazis and maniac nationalists to be the apex of German national integrity then I feel sorry for you and Germans who are insulted that way.

Hurgan, why can't you fulfill your Pole-chauvinist urges by writing a nice Polewank TL where the super-lucky and super-efficient Polish Empire conquers and assimilates everything from the English Channel to the Volga back in the Middle Ages without need of ethnic cleansings, and you leave the 20th century alone, just for a change ?

While I am not this mythical "Hurgan", it is true that due history I prefer the Polish state to German one. Unlike you however my preferences do not make me supportive of Polish nationalism nor desire to destroy non-Polish cultures, which you are enthusiastic about when it comes to Germany. A nice compact state, with developed industry and good relations with its cultural kin would do nicely for me.

 

[Aranfan]

Krix, Eurofed doesn't hate Poland and he doesn't love Germany. Start a thread talking about a POD in the 1600s and Eurofed will be trying to figure out ways for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to achieve hegemony over Europe. Do one with a POD in the early years of the 1800s and he'll be outlining ways for France to hold it's Empire. And do one from Bismark to WWII he'll be trying to get Germany as Hegemon of Europe. After WWII he focuses on the EU.



Eurofed, slightly off topic, but what do you think of the Mongol Empire?

 

[Mulder]

Poles and Czechs are part of the Allies, and they will soon control German land as well.
Not to worry, Allies would not engage in ethnic cleansing, population exchanges and transfers(all valid terms in international law) are of course other legal means(and we have to remember respectable to the point of awarding Noble Prize award for the coordinator of last major one)

Then what Croatia and Serbia did to each other during the 1990s was perfectly legitimate. And according to your view NATO should have transferred all Serbs from Kosovo to Serbia, since that's such a great idea and will greatly contribute to peace?

Oh Poland has made several claims based on geostrategic and historic rights, as well as ethnic ones and in OTL they were considered largely legitimate by the Allies.

Geostrategic claims are utterly irrelevant from a moral point of view. Some countries have natural borders and some don't. And Germany has a by far more legitimate historic claim to anything insides its Versailles borders than any other state. If Obrodites and Slovincians are Poles, then Dutchmen, Englishmen and Frisians are Germans and Germany should subsequently annex their land, kick those people out and replace them with Hessian and Thurinigian settlers.

As pointed above, no ethnic cleansing will take place. Also a very flawed comparision with Kyushu. Now if Japan would take Shanghai, tried to make it Japanese for 300 or 400 years, then proceeded to exterminate Chinese and got beaten surrendering its legal powers to Alies, and as result forced to remove its Japanese presence from the city that would be more valid.

Your comparison is even worse.

oIn 1945 there was no Iron Curtain yet dear Eurofed. Really try to read more on history, will you ?
And Stalin can't do whatever he likes, he is constrained by realities of politics and limits of his resources-which he as a sane politician acknowledged. Thus till 1947 in OTL he tried to win over as much as possible support from Polish population without risking his interests, before communist party takeover.
They do and they did care dear Eurofed, because they fought two titanic wars due to Germany in the past. It was natural for them to prevent happening it again by preventing possibility of new German rearmament, and improving defence conditions of its neighbours.

Then you surely would have supported cutting France into pieces back in 1815 since Britain, Prussia and Russia also had to fight a number of wars against French domination. And, of course, the territories France lost (such as Alsace or Corsica) should be returned to their "rightful" owners, i.e. a German and an Italian state because the inhabitants were originally German or Italian. Of course, those inhabitants won't be staying, since only the land is German/Italian but not those pesky Francified people.They should be replaced with wonderful settlers from, say Venice or Bavaria.

Really comparing population transfer from Nazi party strongholds to mass genocide of Jews, seems to me a very bad form of revisionism.

If Silesia was a Nazi party stronghold, then what about Schleswig-Holstein, where the Nazi party got one of its best results? And remember 40 % of the population of pre-1945 Eastern Germany voted for democratic parties (SPD, Zentrum etc.). They were not guiltier than Hessians or Thuringians.

Which part of post-1945 Poland was never part of Polish state in the past ?

Which part of current Poland was never part of Germany, Austria or Russia in the past?

Are you claiming that Poles in Wrocław were immigrants rather then remaining Polish population ? Do you have anything to back that up ?

Most likely they were, since there were no Poles at all in the surrounding Villages. And if there were any remaining ungermanized SLavs in Lower Silesia, those would have been Sorbs, who were also ethnically cleansed from their homes in Eastern Lusatia by their Polish "brothers".

Too bad that they weren't able to form any states, and came after Celts though.

What difference does that make?

Poor Eurofed. None of your sentences dispute the obvious fact that Poland was indeed in possession of those territories a couple of centuries ago. Not like you claimed "never in millennium". But you are welcome to ignore me, if that helps you keep to fanaticism, even when the facts are against you.


The presence of former Nazi's in West German society and government and their influence is not a big historic secret, and was even discussed in Germany itself. So really I don't see the reasons for outrage. And if you consider Nazis and maniac nationalists to be the apex of German national integrity then I feel sorry for you and Germans who are insulted that way.


While I am not this mythical "Hurgan", it is true that due history I prefer the Polish state to German one. Unlike you however my preferences do not make me supportive of Polish nationalism nor desire to destroy non-Polish cultures, which you are enthusiastic about when it comes to Germany. A nice compact state, with developed industry and good relations with its cultural kin would do nicely for me.

Whether or not you are Hurgan, your arguments are just the same stuff he keeps on throwing around.

 

[Eurofed]

Krix, Eurofed doesn't hate Poland and he doesn't love Germany. Start a thread talking about a POD in the 1600s and Eurofed will be trying to figure out ways for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to achieve hegemony over Europe. Do one with a POD in the early years of the 1800s and he'll be outlining ways for France to hold it's Empire. And do one from Bismark to WWII he'll be trying to get Germany as Hegemon of Europe. After WWII he focuses on the EU.

And before that, you get my true love , Rome, then the Carolingians (Franco-German-Italian stuff), Byzantium, the Hohenstaufen Empire (German-Italian stuff), the Angevin Empire (Franco-British stuff), etc, etc.

Admittedlly, some PoDs (say Napoleon, Bismarck, and the EU, to quote from your list) look easier to me than others because I know the relevant history better. But Krix AKA Hurgan has my sincerest blessing and eager support to write a Polewank TL where the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth unifies Germany, Italy, and the Low Countries, kicks the Ottomans all the way back to Constantinople, and the Russians at the outskirts of Moscow. Much better than reading yet another chauvinist tirade on why the ethnic cleansings in Eastern Germany were so wonderful, which just pushes my lack of sympathy for obnoxious Polish nationalism to even more abyssal depths.

 

[Krix]

Then what Croatia and Serbia did to each other during the 1990s was perfectly legitimate.

Neither Croatia nor Serbia resigned from their sovereignty to the other side.
Germany passed over all of its legal competences to Allies by unconditional surrender, thus changing the legal aspect of actions taken on its territory.

Geostrategic claims are utterly irrelevant from a moral point of view.

In this case geostrategic needs went hand in hand with moral ones and supported each other.

Some countries have natural borders and some don't.

Indeed. The German border on Oder and Nysa river is quite fitting as natural border. Plus it isn't the first time it had such shape, once the German colonisation begun of the East of it then all sorts of conflicts and problems arose in that region of the world.

And Germany has a by far more legitimate historic claim to anything insides its Versailles borders than any other state.

Since it exists as state only from 1871 that's not really true.

If Obrodites and Slovincians are Poles, then Dutchmen, Englishmen and Frisians are Germans and Germany should subsequently annex their land, kick those people out and replace them with Hessian and Thurinigian settlers.

But nobody used that argument actually.

Your comparison is even worse.

It's certainly better then Eurofed, who tried to portay those areas as never having contact with Poland or Polish people.

Which part of current Poland was never part of Germany, Austria or Russia in the past?

Which part of current Poland was part of Germany, Austria or Russia before being part of Poland ?

Most likely they were, since there were no Poles at all in the surrounding Villages.

You do realise this is incorrect ? There were Polish villages in Lower Silesia near Wroclaw. Not many, actually very small , but still they did exist. I can bring them up if you wish.
The claim that Lower Silesiaw was 100% German is actually a myth. Now the minorites were not overwhelming, but still denial of their existance seem strange to me.

those would have been Sorbs, who were also ethnically cleansed from their homes in Eastern Lusatia by their Polish "brothers".

Except the part that Sorbs tried to be part of Polish or Czech state after 1945, still remembering the how their people were murdered in concentration camps. And not by "Polish brothers" but by Russian imposed communists not having much connection to Polish identity.

What difference does that make?

Claims based on tribal migrations are very weak, compared to claims based on stable, reckognised states.

Whether or not you are Hurgan, your arguments are just the same stuff he keeps on throwing around.

Well if somebody claims Poland never existed in Lower Silesia before 1945 then anybody with a bit of historic knowledge will be able to deny that. I mean it's just silly to claim that.

Krix, Eurofed doesn't hate Poland and he doesn't love Germany.

I doubt that considering his unending tirades against Poland, enthusiasm for Germany, or just propaganda about Valkyrie group. Not to mention barely concealed dislike for Slavic people in certain posts of his.

Rome, then the Carolingians (Franco-German-Italian stuff), Byzantium, the Hohenstaufen Empire (German-Italian stuff), the Angevin Empire (Franco-British stuff), etc, etc.

Funny, why there is no Caliphate, Ottomans, Mongols, Russians...

and eager support to write a Polewank TL where the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth unifies Germany, Italy, and the Low Countries, kicks the Ottomans all the way back to Constantinople, and the Russians at the outskirts of Moscow.

How disgusting. Who would like to have such an idiotic scenario, where so many cultures are eradicated into a cancer-like blob. I prefer many and diverse cultures each developing in its own specific way.
Really your proposition to trun PLC into such an agressive and opressive culture seems insulting.
I would even dissolve PLC, let Lithuania and Ukraine develop on their own, just as Poles on their territories in Masovia, Greater Poland, Pomerania, Silesia and so on.

 

[Mulder]

Neither Croatia nor Serbia resigned from their sovereignty to the other side.
Germany passed over all of its legal competences to Allies by unconditional surrender, thus changing the legal aspect of actions taken on its territory.

In this case geostrategic needs went hand in hand with moral ones and supported each other.
Indeed. The German border on Oder and Nysa river is quite fitting the name of natural border. Plus it isn't the first time it had such shape, once the German colonisation begun of the East of it then all sorts of conflicts and problems arose in that region of the world.

Since it exists as state only from 1871 that's not really true.
But nobody used that argument actually.
It's certainly better then Eurofed, who tried to portay those areas as never having contact with Poland or Polish people.

Which part of current Poland was part of Germany, Austria or Russia before being part of Poland ?
You do realise this is incorrect ? There were Polish villages in Lower Silesia near Wroclaw. Not many, actually very small , but still they did exist.
The claim that Lower Silesiaw was 100% German is actually a myth. Now the minorites were not overwhelming, but still denial of their existance seem strange to me.


Except the fact that Sorbs tried to be part of Polish or Czech state after 1945, still remembering the how their people were murdered in concentration camps.

Claims based on tribal migrations are very weak, compared to claims based on stable, reckognised states.

Well if somebody claims Poland never existed in Lower Silesia before 1945 then anybody with a bit of historic knowledge will be able to deny that. I mean it's just silly to claim that.

Well, I guess I should just leave you alone in your sad little world. People like you are the reason that there won't be any reconciliation between Germany and Poland ever. France stood before the same decision back in 1945 and it decided to leave German territory alone. If France would have ethnically cleansed say Baden and the Rhineland, France and Germany would still be enemies by now. But they made the right decision and by now Frenchmen and Germans live peacefully side by side. I have never seen any comment on a German website that Frenchmen who have moved to Saarbrücken or Kehl since the borders were opened are not welcome there. On the other hand, Poles in the area west of Stettin (say in Löcknitz) are pretty unpopular with the locals and I don't think that will ever change.

 

[Krix]

Well, I guess I should just leave you alone in your sad little world. People like you are the reason that there won't be any reconciliation between Germany and Poland eve

Sad world in which people like me know Poland had Lower Silesia before 1945 in its past ? I don't know exactly what you mean...

France stood before the same decision back in 1945 and it decided to leave German territory alone.

Half of France was not assigned to Soviet Union, nor were the French considered untermenschen for extermination, nor was France partitioned by German states for over a century and so on. I could list the differences but I think the picture is clear. In short-France was a rival of Germany, a position Poland never could hope for being much smaller and unable to compete with its large German neighbour.

If France would have ethnically cleansed say Baden and the Rhineland, France and Germany would still be enemies by now.

In you insist on naming the population transfer that way, who am I to correct you sigh...Had Germany not started the war, had German minority organisations not overwhelmingly supported atrocities and Master Race ideology towards its non-German neighbours, the calls for transfer would be far less strong their they were, and perhaps Great Britain, Soviet Union, France and USA would not engage in it on the scale they did..

But they made the right decision and by now Frenchmen and Germans live peacefully side by side. I have never seen any comment on a German website that Frenchmen who have moved to Saarbrücken or Kehl since the borders were opened are not welcome there.

Too bad for Poles they don't have the luck of being in French position. I am certain they would be happy if Geramans wouldn't have had the history of Teutonic Knights, Prussian partition along with its discrimination of Polish population, Kulturkampf, being treated as second class citizens before WW1, then German state's constant attempts to destroy their country, finally the WW2 untermensch treatment, and after the war former Nazi mass murderers like Heinz Reinefarth being elected by German people.
So in short you are comparing two different things. The French were never mistreated nor had the amount of negative imagery like Poles in German society.

On the other hand, Poles in the area west of Stettin (say in Löcknitz) are pretty unpopular with the locals and I don't think that will ever change.

The fact that that Poles west of Szczecin enter a province that is the stronghold of neo-nazi NPD party might have something to do with that.
Anyway the German nationalists didn't need the excuse to classify Poles as untermenschen before Second World War, so I don't think anything done by the Poles could change the attitude.

 

[Aranfan]

I doubt that considering his unending tirades against Poland, enthusiasm for Germany, or just propaganda about Valkyrie group. Not to mention barely concealed dislike for Slavic people in certain posts of his.

I don't remember any of this from his posts. The most I can see is that he thinks the Polish government shouldn't have acted like it did to the two great powers it was sandwiched between.

Funny, why there is no Caliphate, Ottomans, Mongols, Russians...

He wanks Russia just as much as he wanks Germany. His favorite Bismark era change is to keep the Germany-Russia alliance.

I agree that he has an irrational dislike of the Ottoman empire, but that stems from his dislike of Theocracies, and when the Sultan is also the Caliph it's easy to mistake a liberal constitutional monarchy for a theocracy.

With the mongols, I haven't really heard much from him on this topic, but the mongols get a lot of undeserved flak for being nomads. Also, the Mongols had zero chance of taking over Europe, way too many trees.

How disgusting. Who would like to have such an idiotic scenario, where so many cultures are eradicated into a cancer-like blob. I prefer many and diverse cultures each developing in its own specific way.
Really your proposition to trun PLC into such an agressive and opressive culture seems insulting.

I don't recall him saying that the PLC should crush cultures, and I don't see why having the PLC be European Hegemon means that it has to piss on other cultures. It could easily be a federation that respects the various cultures of it's people/subjects.

 

[Blue Max]

Looking at this TL, I wonder certain things:

1. Whether the Allies would really let the Soviets have all of Yugoslavia, or they'd try to grab a piece of it as well. I'm not sure that Tito is going to want to be a Soviet Puppet and the situation in that country can safely be described as complicated. Given the position of armed forces on this map, I'd think if the Allies got any of Yugoslavia, they'd keep it--thus there would probably be a Croatian state on the map as a member of the allies.

1b. This would probably mean that the Soviets would have a Serbian ally, a Montenegrin one, a Bosnian one, etc...

2. Republic of Greece would probably also hold Athens, unless the Soviets are willing to risk war against the Allies for all of it, which I doubt. That would be the breakdown of the Greek Civil War, but with the Allies ready to back Greece I'd think a Partition would be in place.

3. North Japan is often discussed as a possibility, but I think this would be harder than one might expect. The Soviets lack the naval forces to move into Honshu, and I'm not at all sure that Hokkaido alone is worth claiming as a "Soviet Japan". Given that the Soviets were quite happy to roll the Japanese off Sakhalin, I'd suspect that the outcome is probably a simple annexation of Hokkaido.

Finally, there is one more place for the Soviets to push the Allies--Iran. If the Soviets continue on their course of going to broke, they annex Tabriz and the Northwest corner of the country to the Azerij SSR and probably impose a puppet regime on Tehran.

On the flip side, however, I'd expect the United States to not tolerate a communist Cuba at all...

 

[Eurofed]

I don't remember any of this from his posts. The most I can see is that he thinks the Polish government shouldn't have acted like it did to the two great powers it was sandwiched between.

Indeed.

He wanks Russia just as much as he wanks Germany. His favorite Bismark era change is to keep the Germany-Russia alliance.

And/or to gut the failed Habsburg Empire to raise sturdier Grossdeutchsland and Greater Italy in the "nice" eternal liberal constitutional monarchy Berlin-Rome Axis in its place as a core of a future proto-EU, with or without uber-Russia. So I wank Italy as much as I wank Germany and Russia, too.

I agree that he has an irrational dislike of the Ottoman empire, but that stems from his dislike of Theocracies,

Indeed as well. Now, I'm all about keeping a nice Ataturkian liberal-constitutional reformed Ottoman Empire around to keep the Middle East bound to moderation instead of plummeting into vicious nationalism & fundamentalism. The Jews surely deserve a homeland, but there are far less geopolitically troublesome spots to raise it. Alas, if you wank Russia you can't do that, even if the right kind of CP victory (as long as Italy stays the right side) can easily do that. Who knows, a future TL idea...

But make no mistake, I'm a friend of modernized Turkey, if I was given sweeping powers to rule EU by decree, Turkey (and Ukraine) would enter tomorrow (well, Turkey should grow some sense about Northern Cyprus before). I don't fancy Middle Age & Early Modern Arab/Ottoman Empires because of their theocratic leanings, but you would get the same negative reaction about a TL where theocratic Middle Age Popes become Emperor-Priests of Europe.

With the mongols, I haven't really heard much from him on this topic, but the mongols get a lot of undeserved flak for being nomads.

The Mongols get more bad press than they indeed deserved, given their big perchant for tolerance, even if it must be remembered they also wrote the manual for large scale atrocities centuries before Hitler and Stalin, they turned the Middle East into a waste. I'm ambivalent about them. In all likelihood, they would have wrecked Europe as bad as they did the Middle East.

Also, the Mongols had zero chance of taking over Europe, way too many trees.

True. However, I prefer to contemplate TLs where my beloved successful Early Modern Romans kick their asses back in the steppes.

I don't recall him saying that the PLC should crush cultures, and I don't see why having the PLC be European Hegemon means that it has to piss on other cultures. It could easily be a federation that respects the various cultures of it's people/subjects.

As I said in other threads, I support suppression of cultures within a successful empire only to the degree that it becomes truly necessary to suppress political separatism. As long as the citizens are loyal and are willing to learn the imperial lingua franca as second linguage to ensure the necessary cohesion, subject cultures are fine by me. Subject cultures only become a real problem when they start to breed the Milosevic equivalent.

 

[Krix]

I don't remember any of this from his posts.

Here he calls people who want to learn Slavic languages:
irresistible nationalistic fascination for quaint peasant dialects
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=2607443#post2607443

Also almost every third of his topics deals on the issue how Germany effectively exterminate Slavs from existance, either by physical or cultural genocide.
There so many examples that I don't bother listing them all, let's just say that Eurofed believes extermination of Slavs would increase somewhat and worsen the negative judgement on Nazism, but not radically . Those are his own words by the way.

Really his views are obvious, even if he tries to conceal them under a mask, and to me seem nothing more then a form of neo-fascism(note the fascination with two Axis powers Italy and Germany) combined with Germanophilia, and I think other's have pointed it out also. Mind you this seems more of a modern fascist thought, with careful seperation from issue of Jews in order to succesfully present other ideas(and note again how the barely concealed bias against Slavs is kept in the posts, while the issue of Jews is always considered with great care to avoid criticism). Eurofed may think his original or tricks some people here, but I do believe some others just like me have encountered those kind of ideologists before and can classify them. Certainly I have seen similiar behaviour before-keeping nationalists German views while opposing Holocaust and discrimination of Jewish people, but keeping the prejudice against Slavs, Poland and so on, combined with accusing Allies of all kinds of war crimes.
Of course he can correct me if I am wrong and condemn the oppressive German Empire for racist treatment of Slavic minorities and taking of their land, condemn the racism against nations of Slavic culture as they have an impressive culture(certainly accomplishments of just one nation can't reach the heights of so many various don't they Eurofed ? ), or the destructive German nationalism that ruined Europe...