Minchandre, thank you, thank you oh so very much for reminding me why I like Central Powers victories so much.
[Actually, my enthusiasm for CP victories has waned over time. As of late, I REALLY like Napoleonic Victory scenarios like these... For the record, I am fairly confident that we would all have been a little better off had the Central Powers won the Great War, and MUCH better off had Napoleon emerged more successfully from his endeavors. The former had a relatively conservative vision for the world and the latter had a very liberal vision for the world, but it is hard to argue that either was worse than the machinations of Perfidious Albion. Of course, this is all a tangential discussion, worth debating, but I digress!]
Granted, neither Imperial Germany nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were perfect, but the fact that the Czech Corridor was ever a serious proposal at the Paris Peace Process strongly suggests that the wrong side won World War One. Nevermind that US President Woodrow Wilson was a hypocritical and racist shit stain who suffered from delusions of grandiosity, that the reasons for US entry in the European Great War were dishonest, such as the Lusitania false flag incident [I do not deny that a German torpedo struck the ship, but the torpedo was not by itself the cause of the sinking. It detonated an explosive cargo of armaments concealed from the public. In fact, unexploded ordnance in the form of rifle ammunition was recovered from the wreckage, as well as evidence that the explosion was internal, the hull was punctured outward! In fact, the German government attempted to post print ads warning Americans against boarding the ship, but the Lusitania was part of a false flag campaign in which "civilian" ships that were armed and/or covertly shipping weapons and/or ammunitions were sent into hazardous waters.] or the distorted Zimmerman note [originally a contingency plan in the event that the US enters the war, which should have been read as an ultimatum, not an unconditional attack plan to be read as a threat], or that US involvement was unprecedented [When was the last time the United States fought in an internal European war?], or the fact that the Entente Powers were (indirectly) fighting on the side of terrorism. [ADDENDUM: The genuine reason behind the Zimmerman Note is debatable but entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Of course, it was probably reasonable to dismiss it as a hoax at the time, even though it did turn out to be genuine. Regardless it certainly was not intended as an ultimatum to the USA as it was a secret communication to Mexico after all. The point is that Wilson dishonestly presented it as an unconditional plan to ally with Mexico for an attack rather than a proposal for an alliance in the event that the US joins the Entente powers. This was, of course, an extremely desperate move on the part of the German government, a sign that they were grasping at straws, perhaps tempted to capitulate. I happen to think that absent US involvement, the Central Powers would almost certainly win but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Remember that the Zimmerman Note was sent AFTER Wilson severed diplomatic ties with the Germans. Wilson's sound byte version or "Cliff Notes" presentation of the Zimmerman Telegram was far from the only dishonesty on the part of his administration in dragging a neutral nation into a European War. There was that whole false flag campaign. Don't forget that the US history textbooks make sure to emphasize the "barbarity" of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, but always neglect to mention the British blockade that not only starved ethnic Germans, but also Poles, Hungarians, and others.]
Nevermind the unintended/unforeseen consequences of the War and the Peace which would plague the world for decades after, namely a global depression, a Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and a sequel war eclipsing the prior in terms of destruction by any measure.
Just consider the fact that there were serious proposals to make Burgenland a "Czech corridor" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. WHY?!?
This proves how out of touch with reality at least some of the representatives of the victorious powers were. To be fair, they eventually vetoed the idea, it was just too transparently ridiculous, but the fact that it was even seriously considered says something.
Did anyone seriously entertain the possibility of some future pan-Slavist state (with Hungary and Romania together forming a Gambia-like coastal enclave) forming up? The idea of national self-determination is a fundamentally good idea, at least on paper and in principle if not always in practice. But other than fulfilling the pipe dreams of the most radical pan-Slavists, I can not fathom the justification for creating such a "Czech corridor."
@ OP: I may be mistaken, but I thought Burgenland (the proposed "Czech corridor") was majority-German. IIRC, Burgenland was an ethnically German Hapsburg territory outside of the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire until the HRE was disbanded, and it remained outside of the German Confederation, becoming part of the Kingdom of Hungary upon creation of the dual monarchy. Hungarian territory but majority-ethnic German. Burgenland was then added to the Republik Osterreich (modern Austria) as a concession. But I may be wrong about ethnic composition...
Of course, I hate to pick nits, but I found your usage of the term "personal union" ironic. That would be impossible by definition because the Paris Peace Process established both Germany and the nations carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as republics, and a personal union between two states requires that at least one of them is some form of monarchy. (Could be two monarchies like Poland-Lithuania, or one monarchy with the other state being a "dominion." Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some tiny island nations such as the Bahamas are theoretically part of the United Kingdom by virtue of "Commonwealth" status, even though they are de facto sovereign independent states, governed in a republican fashion.) But I do not think the Czech Corridor was ever proposed to prevent reunification of Austria and Hungary. If anything, the victors feared an Anchluss between Austria and Germany.
And how was such a pan-Slavist superstate supposed to even work? Considering how miserably Yugoslavia failed, and that was a nation that spoke basically the same language (maybe not the exact same language, but Bosnian, Croat, Serb, and Slovene dialects were not unintelligible), over the issue of religion, how exactly would a superstate speaking 5-7 distinct Slavonic languages, and having so much religious and sectarian division (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Uniate, Muslim) possibly have a chance?
[ADDENDUM: Well, thank you Admiral Matt for explaining the strategical justification for this Czech Corridor though Burgenland. Deprive Austria of an ethnically German territory that just so happens to be good quality productive farmland, provide a "highway" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia... but what's to say that pan-Slavism was not part of it? In a way, the First World War was a sort of pan-Slavist conspiracy after all, though there was of course much more to it: naval arms race between Britain and Germany (and British fears of rising German economic and political prowess), competition over colonies and hegemony... Whatever stategic considerations beyond making a geographically contiguous pan-Slavic bloc, it is nevertheless telling that the victors scrapped the proposal.]
[Actually, my enthusiasm for CP victories has waned over time. As of late, I REALLY like Napoleonic Victory scenarios like these... For the record, I am fairly confident that we would all have been a little better off had the Central Powers won the Great War, and MUCH better off had Napoleon emerged more successfully from his endeavors. The former had a relatively conservative vision for the world and the latter had a very liberal vision for the world, but it is hard to argue that either was worse than the machinations of Perfidious Albion. Of course, this is all a tangential discussion, worth debating, but I digress!]
Granted, neither Imperial Germany nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were perfect, but the fact that the Czech Corridor was ever a serious proposal at the Paris Peace Process strongly suggests that the wrong side won World War One. Nevermind that US President Woodrow Wilson was a hypocritical and racist shit stain who suffered from delusions of grandiosity, that the reasons for US entry in the European Great War were dishonest, such as the Lusitania false flag incident [I do not deny that a German torpedo struck the ship, but the torpedo was not by itself the cause of the sinking. It detonated an explosive cargo of armaments concealed from the public. In fact, unexploded ordnance in the form of rifle ammunition was recovered from the wreckage, as well as evidence that the explosion was internal, the hull was punctured outward! In fact, the German government attempted to post print ads warning Americans against boarding the ship, but the Lusitania was part of a false flag campaign in which "civilian" ships that were armed and/or covertly shipping weapons and/or ammunitions were sent into hazardous waters.] or the distorted Zimmerman note [originally a contingency plan in the event that the US enters the war, which should have been read as an ultimatum, not an unconditional attack plan to be read as a threat], or that US involvement was unprecedented [When was the last time the United States fought in an internal European war?], or the fact that the Entente Powers were (indirectly) fighting on the side of terrorism. [ADDENDUM: The genuine reason behind the Zimmerman Note is debatable but entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Of course, it was probably reasonable to dismiss it as a hoax at the time, even though it did turn out to be genuine. Regardless it certainly was not intended as an ultimatum to the USA as it was a secret communication to Mexico after all. The point is that Wilson dishonestly presented it as an unconditional plan to ally with Mexico for an attack rather than a proposal for an alliance in the event that the US joins the Entente powers. This was, of course, an extremely desperate move on the part of the German government, a sign that they were grasping at straws, perhaps tempted to capitulate. I happen to think that absent US involvement, the Central Powers would almost certainly win but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Remember that the Zimmerman Note was sent AFTER Wilson severed diplomatic ties with the Germans. Wilson's sound byte version or "Cliff Notes" presentation of the Zimmerman Telegram was far from the only dishonesty on the part of his administration in dragging a neutral nation into a European War. There was that whole false flag campaign. Don't forget that the US history textbooks make sure to emphasize the "barbarity" of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, but always neglect to mention the British blockade that not only starved ethnic Germans, but also Poles, Hungarians, and others.]
Nevermind the unintended/unforeseen consequences of the War and the Peace which would plague the world for decades after, namely a global depression, a Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and a sequel war eclipsing the prior in terms of destruction by any measure.
Just consider the fact that there were serious proposals to make Burgenland a "Czech corridor" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. WHY?!?
This proves how out of touch with reality at least some of the representatives of the victorious powers were. To be fair, they eventually vetoed the idea, it was just too transparently ridiculous, but the fact that it was even seriously considered says something.
Did anyone seriously entertain the possibility of some future pan-Slavist state (with Hungary and Romania together forming a Gambia-like coastal enclave) forming up? The idea of national self-determination is a fundamentally good idea, at least on paper and in principle if not always in practice. But other than fulfilling the pipe dreams of the most radical pan-Slavists, I can not fathom the justification for creating such a "Czech corridor."
@ OP: I may be mistaken, but I thought Burgenland (the proposed "Czech corridor") was majority-German. IIRC, Burgenland was an ethnically German Hapsburg territory outside of the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire until the HRE was disbanded, and it remained outside of the German Confederation, becoming part of the Kingdom of Hungary upon creation of the dual monarchy. Hungarian territory but majority-ethnic German. Burgenland was then added to the Republik Osterreich (modern Austria) as a concession. But I may be wrong about ethnic composition...
Of course, I hate to pick nits, but I found your usage of the term "personal union" ironic. That would be impossible by definition because the Paris Peace Process established both Germany and the nations carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as republics, and a personal union between two states requires that at least one of them is some form of monarchy. (Could be two monarchies like Poland-Lithuania, or one monarchy with the other state being a "dominion." Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some tiny island nations such as the Bahamas are theoretically part of the United Kingdom by virtue of "Commonwealth" status, even though they are de facto sovereign independent states, governed in a republican fashion.) But I do not think the Czech Corridor was ever proposed to prevent reunification of Austria and Hungary. If anything, the victors feared an Anchluss between Austria and Germany.
And how was such a pan-Slavist superstate supposed to even work? Considering how miserably Yugoslavia failed, and that was a nation that spoke basically the same language (maybe not the exact same language, but Bosnian, Croat, Serb, and Slovene dialects were not unintelligible), over the issue of religion, how exactly would a superstate speaking 5-7 distinct Slavonic languages, and having so much religious and sectarian division (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Uniate, Muslim) possibly have a chance?
[ADDENDUM: Well, thank you Admiral Matt for explaining the strategical justification for this Czech Corridor though Burgenland. Deprive Austria of an ethnically German territory that just so happens to be good quality productive farmland, provide a "highway" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia... but what's to say that pan-Slavism was not part of it? In a way, the First World War was a sort of pan-Slavist conspiracy after all, though there was of course much more to it: naval arms race between Britain and Germany (and British fears of rising German economic and political prowess), competition over colonies and hegemony... Whatever stategic considerations beyond making a geographically contiguous pan-Slavic bloc, it is nevertheless telling that the victors scrapped the proposal.]
Last edited: