East & West Austria

Same process, different degrees of development.

And completely implausible because of that. It's like saying that because the US returned Okinawa to Japan it figures they'd give them South Korea as well. Same process, different degrees of development.

Rather weaker to defend if kept separate (and in a very strategically critical position, linking the German and Italian NATO fronts), than if you join it with West Germany.

I guess they didn't notice that about Greece, Portugal, the Benelux, Denmark, or Iceland (which doesn't even have a standing army).

More weak NATO member = more resources committed by major NATO powers.

It's the same amount of territory under 2 governments rather than one. Which is a big deal when you don't trust one of those governments.

The Germans are equally "down" as long as their power is wholly channeled within NATO and EU supranational frameworks, and there are American troops in Germany, which this union would not change squat. The Anglo-Americans felt fully confident to allow (and indeed, strongly push for) complete German rearmement by the early 1950s, as long as it was a NATO/EDC development. In comparison to rearmement, union with West Austria is trivial. I think you grossly overextimate unreasoning fears of German resurgence after the late '40s.

I think you grossly underestimate it. It took 11 years of failed French-sponsored alternatives before Saarland was allowed to join Germany. Even in 1989-1990 there were people in France and Italy trying to stop German reunification. Anschluss is not happening.
 

General Zod

Banned
And completely implausible because of that. It's like saying that because the US returned Okinawa to Japan it figures they'd give them South Korea as well. Same process, different degrees of development.


Apples and oranges. Japan and South Korea had, and always had had, completely separate national identities, and Koreans strongly opposed union with Japan before and after WWII. Germania and Austria after WWII had strong regional differences, much like Hanover and Bavaria, Texas and California, or Lombardy and Sicily.

I guess they didn't notice that about Greece, Portugal, the Benelux, Denmark, or Iceland (which doesn't even have a standing army).


I notice that none of those states were on the frontline of the Cold War, with the exception of Greece.

It's the same amount of territory under 2 governments rather than one. Which is a big deal when you don't trust one of those governments.


As trust and potential for abuse goes, they relatively soon let that government rearm fully. In comparison, allowing union with West Austria is quite trivial. And as it concerns limited trust, the union does not imply withdrawing the nation from NATO framework nor removing Allied troops, which were the main guarantees that the government would not misbehave again.

I think you grossly underestimate it. It took 11 years of failed French-sponsored alternatives before Saarland was allowed to join Germany.


France had a long-term (very questionable) claim on Saar (and Rhineland) of their own. So they tried to exploit the opportunity. No Allied nation had ever one on West Austria. And as you point out, eventually they let national self-determination win out for Saar. They would do the same for West Austria.

Even in 1989-1990 there were people in France and Italy trying to stop German reunification.

I know that period well. No mainstream politician with any kind of decent influence or following in Western nations was ever meaning or doing anything real or serious to stop German reunification. I suppose the mention to Italy is about Andreotti making yet another of his countless “bon mot” that he loved Germany so much that he preferred to have a couple. Calling a joke a policy is ridiculous. In my memory there was very little in France really any serious than that.
 
Apples and oranges.
Then explain to me why, if in OTL they allowed Germany more than a little, it follows that they would allow even more. 'Cause that's your whole argument.

I notice that none of those states were on the frontline of the Cold War, with the exception of Greece.
Denmark and Iceland were not in a good position either. Same goes for the Benelux if the Soviets overran West Germany. Why was this ignored?

As trust and potential for abuse goes, they relatively soon let that government rearm fully. In comparison, allowing union with West Austria is quite trivial.
They allowed a limited rearmament of West Germany out of fear of the Soviet Union. Uniting West Germany with West Austria does not strengthen NATO against the Soviets - keeping 2 different German states would result in the same military might. But if the Germans ever become a menace to European peace again, something which was feared in the West, reasonably or not, then uniting West Germany with West Austria is simply a lousy idea. So let's recap: In case of Soviet attack, Anschluss provides no advantage. In case of German resurgence, Anschluss provides clear disadvantages. Not happening.

And as it concerns limited trust, the union does not imply withdrawing the nation from NATO framework nor removing Allied troops, which were the main guarantees that the government would not misbehave again.
Empty guarantees if the US withdrew its forces from Germany or an agreement was reached with the Soviets on a neutral Germany or anything else happened which could not be predicted in 1949.

France had a long-term (very questionable) claim on Saar (and Rhineland) of their own. So they tried to exploit the opportunity. No Allied nation had ever one on West Austria.
France opposed the strengthening of Germany on principle and Italy did not want to border Germany while it had to deal with the Germans in South Tyrol. This is besides the general European fear of having to fight another World War against Germany.

And as you point out, eventually they let national self-determination win out for Saar. They would do the same for West Austria.
There you go again, the same faulty logic.

In my memory there was very little in France really any serious than that.
According to Kissinger in 1989 Mitterrand talked to Gorbachev about a common front against German reunification. Gorby, too busy at home for such an active foreign policy and probably hoping for German aid (which Kohl did later give to the Soviet Union and Russia), said no.
 
According to Kissinger in 1989 Mitterrand talked to Gorbachev about a common front against German reunification. Gorby, too busy at home for such an active foreign policy and probably hoping for German aid (which Kohl did later give to the Soviet Union and Russia), said no.
Dubious. Would French agree to bankroll such an enterprise, USSR could keep Germans from unification indefinitely. Would be an interesting TL, though. "France whoring itself to the USSR to keep as many Germanies on the map as possible".
 

General Zod

Banned
Then explain to me why, if in OTL they allowed Germany more than a little, it follows that they would allow even more. 'Cause that's your whole argument.

You have missed my point in the Apples and Oranges commnent, it seems. Your comparison between Germany/Japan and Austria/South Korea is completely faulty since the Korea had had a completely separate national identity from Japan for centuries and the vast majority of Koreans hated the Japan domination. West Austria could be described as having a strong regional identity, much like Bavaria, and it is very very questionable that most Austrians would oppose a second Anschluss in these circumstances.

Denmark and Iceland were not in a good position either.

They lacked a land border with the Soviet bloc. And the Soviet threat was 98% a land one up to the 1970s.

Same goes for the Benelux if the Soviets overran West Germany.

If the Soviets overran West Germany NATO would be hours or days from using nukes.

They allowed a limited rearmament of West Germany out of fear of the Soviet Union.

Limited in the sense that the Bundeswehr was not allowed to own WMDs, yes. Failed to see much of limitation otherwise.

Uniting West Germany with West Austria does not strengthen NATO against the Soviets - keeping 2 different German states would result in the same military might.

Yup, sure, the armies of two allied state train, supply, and develop just as well as if you unify them in the same state, the massive benefits of integration and standardization have just disappeared. Not to mention the benefits from complete integration of the economies. Guess the USA ought to scrap the Constitution and restate the Articles of Confederacy, since who needs national unity to stay a great power, you just need a good alliance treaty. :rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::eek:

But if the Germans ever become a menace to European peace again, something which was feared in the West, reasonably or not, then uniting West Germany with West Austria is simply a lousy idea.

There were far more clever ways of keeping the Germans into line, without harming their effectiveness as anti-Soviet bastion.


Empty guarantees if the US withdrew its forces from Germany or an agreement was reached with the Soviets on a neutral Germany or anything else happened which could not be predicted in 1949.

If the USA would withdraw its forces from Germany (effectively putting an end to NATO and hance the whole cornerstone of their foreign policy) or would agree about a neutral Germany, then such massive butterflies would be at work that the union would strategically trivial.

Besides, who said the union had to happen specifically in 1949 ? it could happen later, as it was with Saar. In mid-late 1950s concerns about German resurgence had diminished greately.

France opposed the strengthening of Germany on principle and Italy did not want to border Germany while it had to deal with the Germans in South Tyrol.

Italy would only be concerned that Greater West Germany would confirm the DeGasperi-Gruber Accords that recognized Italian sovreignity in South Tyrol in exchange for large autonomy for the local Germans. Something that West Germany would have difficulty to do. As for France, they need German goodwill once European economic integration has started, and if America okays the union, they shall simply be overruled. That France was a nominal victor power of WWII was but a polite fiction of the Anglo-Americans.


This is besides the general European fear of having to fight another World War against Germany.

Steadily dwindling by the years.

According to Kissinger in 1989 Mitterrand talked to Gorbachev about a common front against German reunification. Gorby, too busy at home for such an active foreign policy and probably hoping for German aid (which Kohl did later give to the Soviet Union and Russia), said no.

Allow me to show the deepest skepticism about something that would be effectively the 1989 French President having a Nixon moment and proposing a treasonous complete betrayal of the very cornerstones of French national security and economic livelihood for two generations, namely NATO and EU, to indulge into an ASB anti-German scheme.
 
You have missed my point in the Apples and Oranges commnent, it seems. Your comparison between Germany/Japan and Austria/South Korea is completely faulty since the Korea had had a completely separate national identity from Japan for centuries and the vast majority of Koreans hated the Japan domination. West Austria could be described as having a strong regional identity, much like Bavaria, and it is very very questionable that most Austrians would oppose a second Anschluss in these circumstances.

Talk to me again when you're able to explain why B (German rearmament + Anschluss) follows from A (German rearmament). I don't need a lesson in either Austrian or Korean history.

They lacked a land border with the Soviet bloc. And the Soviet threat was 98% a land one up to the 1970s.
Denmark was not far from East Germany and the Soviets dominated the Baltic. And you still haven't addressed the issue of Greece.

If the Soviets overran West Germany NATO would be hours or days from using nukes.
As if anyone in 1949 had any clear idea of how nuclear war would be conducted and what effects it would have.

Limited in the sense that the Bundeswehr was not allowed to own WMDs, yes. Failed to see much of limitation otherwise.
Then read a little about the Bundeswehr.

Yup, sure, the armies of two allied state train, supply, and develop just as well as if you unify them in the same state, the massive benefits of integration and standardization have just disappeared.
Do the words "NATO standard" ring a bell?

Not to mention the benefits from complete integration of the economies.
How about "European Coal and Steel Community"?

Guess the USA ought to scrap the Constitution and restate the Articles of Confederacy, since who needs national unity to stay a great power, you just need a good alliance treaty. :rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::eek:
No, the United States was built with the best interests of the United States in mind. West Germany was not built with the best interests of West Germany in mind. Whether the area of West Germany and West Austria is covered by one state or 2 makes no difference as far as resisting communism is concerned, provided it's entirely within NATO, but makes a great difference if you want to "keep ... the Germans down".

There were far more clever ways of keeping the Germans into line, without harming their effectiveness as anti-Soviet bastion.
Their effectiveness against the Soviets is unharmed. It's either 6 of one or half a dozen of the other.

If the USA would withdraw its forces from Germany (effectively putting an end to NATO and hance the whole cornerstone of their foreign policy)
Tell that to Eisenhower.

or would agree about a neutral Germany, then such massive butterflies would be at work that the union would strategically trivial.
Tell that to all the West Germans who hoped they could get East Germany as the price of neutrality.

Besides, who said the union had to happen specifically in 1949 ? it could happen later, as it was with Saar. In mid-late 1950s concerns about German resurgence had diminished greately.
Those concerns never ended and their minimal price is keeping Austria out of Germany.

As for France, they need German goodwill once European economic integration has started,
Yeah, and West Germany doesn't need French goodwill, right?

and if America okays the union, they shall simply be overruled. That France was a nominal victor power of WWII was but a polite fiction of the Anglo-Americans.
The French troops in the Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden, Wurttemberg-Hohenzollern, the North Tyrol, Vorarlberg, parts of Berlin and Vienna, and the Saar were not a fiction.

Allow me to show the deepest skepticism about something that would be effectively the 1989 French President having a Nixon moment and proposing a treasonous complete betrayal of the very cornerstones of French national security and economic livelihood for two generations, namely NATO and EU, to indulge into an ASB anti-German scheme.
Allow me to remind you that French foreign policy under the 5th Republic has been obsessively independent and that in 1989 the Cold War was considered to be either over or nearly so.
 

General Zod

Banned
Allow me to remind you that French foreign policy under the 5th Republic has been obsessively independent and that in 1989 the Cold War was considered to be either over or nearly so.

If you think seriously a French president in 1989-90 could ever sell the nation with the policy line of "hey the Cold War is winding down, we are now free to destroy our national security and economy by wrecking our NATO and EU membership with an anti-German Soviet alliance" instead of being sent on the fast lane to impeachment, you obviously have no idea of what European integration and the partnership with Germany meant to France in the 1980s and 1990s and I have no obligation to keep taking the rest of your arguments seriously. Enjoy your ASB world where Germanophobic French Hamas rules in Paris for the ages.
 
If you think seriously a French president in 1989-90 could ever sell the nation with the policy line of "hey the Cold War is winding down, we are now free to destroy our national security and economy by wrecking our NATO and EU membership with an anti-German Soviet alliance" instead of being sent on the fast lane to impeachment, you obviously have no idea of what European integration and the partnership with Germany meant to France in the 1980s and 1990s and I have no obligation to keep taking the rest of your arguments seriously. Enjoy your ASB world where Germanophobic French Hamas rules in Paris for the ages.

There's really no need for me to respond to this absurdity, I'm just quoting it for the record in case you edit it.
 
Top