Clever. The whole state of affairs was a complete fucking mess, but it's hard to see how it could have been avoided in the circumstances. The best avoidance would be to prop up the multinational empires, but that doesn't account for the Poles, Russians and Germans, and God knows how long it would have lasted for.
Poland and Czechoslovakia stand together against the Nazis
- Thread starter Derek Jackson
- Start date
Clever. The whole state of affairs was a complete fucking mess, but it's hard to see how it could have been avoided in the circumstances. The best avoidance would be to prop up the multinational empires, but that doesn't account for the Poles, Russians and Germans, and God knows how long it would have lasted for.
Multinational federal empires are my ideal too. It's just bad it happened so few times in history without most minorities being repressed.
It was too late to prop up the multinational empires after WW1, imo; but a revival along the lines of an earlier EU of some kind could be possible - something like what happened in Weimar World. Combined with strong minority rights in all countries could have prevented a lot of misery in the middle term.
Either that or the horror of Woodrow Wilson's Europe where the tiny statelets are too weak to live. That sure would have prevented a lot of things, but could have encouraged some sort of metastate out of pure necessity - either band together or die.
On the issue of Czecholovakia, however - the army conspirators were ready to try an uprising when the Sudeten crisis came to a war (and I do not doubt that Hitler would have started a war in 1938 - he wanted one and was disappointed that he didn't get any). I do think they would have gone through with it with general Ludwig Beck as the head of the coup. After that, I think, status quo ante bellum plus reparations. Maybe a return to a monarchy.
It was too late to prop up the multinational empires after WW1, imo; but a revival along the lines of an earlier EU of some kind could be possible - something like what happened in Weimar World. Combined with strong minority rights in all countries could have prevented a lot of misery in the middle term.
Either that or the horror of Woodrow Wilson's Europe where the tiny statelets are too weak to live. That sure would have prevented a lot of things, but could have encouraged some sort of metastate out of pure necessity - either band together or die.
On the issue of Czecholovakia, however - the army conspirators were ready to try an uprising when the Sudeten crisis came to a war (and I do not doubt that Hitler would have started a war in 1938 - he wanted one and was disappointed that he didn't get any). I do think they would have gone through with it with general Ludwig Beck as the head of the coup. After that, I think, status quo ante bellum plus reparations. Maybe a return to a monarchy.
HurganPL
Banned
Multinational empires are just like prison cells where a couple of prisoners gang up on the weaker ones.
Such was situation in Austro-Hungary where one nationality was put against the other for the system to function. Poles were used against Ukrainians for example and when Poles grew too strong, Ukrainians against Poles.
Ah yes, the scenario where Germany occupies Polish territories and Poland agrees without a fight to lose its access to sea for some unexplained reason. While Germany rules Europe and puppets Poland.
I never was a fan of that Germanwank scenario...
Last edited:
Sure, but when you think of the alternative....
In any case, K specified that he desired federal multinational states, where the different groups could operate on an equal footing. I don't think anyone could argue with that, least of all the millions who have died in the collapse of the old empires, namely Hapsburg and Ottoman. The 20th century vogue for nation-states is not necessarily the wisest, as it does seem to be an admission of weakness (that we cannot co-operate with people from other ethnicities and cultures) and also they tend to be less able to assimilate immigrants from other cultures.
HurganPL
Banned
I don't recall anybody who would prefer to abandon our independence over being part of Habsburg Empire. And I am not really that certain that "milions died" due to its collapse.
Sounds similar to propaganda of Soviets about equality and rights. Human nature is different and competitive-in a multinational state one group or others will dominate others.
You confuse servitude with cooperation. There was nothing serious about cooperation in any multinational empire. Even mild multinational entities such as PLC seemed opressive to groups within.
Immigrants are an option for a state, it has no duty to take them in.
A free country ruled by a free nation that can develop in a way it sees best for its development ? Nothing wrong with that.
The alternative being the rise of extreme nationalism and the bloodbath of two world wars. I don't have to spell it out, do I? And while it's not a given fact that the collapse of the empires caused the millions to die, it's hardly an unreasonable hypothesis, given the causes of the First World War (and thus the Second)....
Who said anything about duty? I'm talking about the degree of acceptance and assimilation of those admitted into the country. Compare the assimilation of immigrants in the US and France, for one.
No, as such multinational states had existed for millennia. It was the result of a shift in emphasis from the state to the nation (from loyalty to monarch to loyalty to fellow-people). At least that is my interpretation.
HurganPL
Banned
And for millenia one group was serving the other, while another was opressing. The wars just became more bloody as technology and tactics had grown. The concept of nation state made possible the end of ethnic opression to a large degree. Just as yours that is my interpretation based on my country's experience.
But it's hardly of relevance, immigration isn't a serious issue, a state can end it in one day.
Really? So when your population is declining, and you need workers to fill key industries, you can afford to ignore it? And what of the immigrants who are already there? I think you are seeing this from the perspective of a country without many immigrants. What are France to do about it?
I don't believe for an instant that the German officer corp would have risen up against Hitler in 1938. Just another attempt to rewrite history, with someone else to blame for everything.
To read the list of all of the German officers pretending they were part of the plot barely leaves a few troops of Hitler Youth uncommitted to Beck's plot yet somehow they couldn't actually stab the political leadership in the back, for the second time in 20 years, unless war actually began.
And if the war actually did begin there can be no doubt they would have sat back and waited to see how it went before...probably finding another excuse and another. And always the delay would be the fault of anyone but themselves.
To read the list of all of the German officers pretending they were part of the plot barely leaves a few troops of Hitler Youth uncommitted to Beck's plot yet somehow they couldn't actually stab the political leadership in the back, for the second time in 20 years, unless war actually began.
And if the war actually did begin there can be no doubt they would have sat back and waited to see how it went before...probably finding another excuse and another. And always the delay would be the fault of anyone but themselves.
I think they would have overthrown him in 1936, if he'd suffered a reverse over the Rhineland. By 1938 it was probably a bit late.
Well, I can't force you to think differently, although I will attempt to detail my position. We can agree to disagree afterwards, if you like.
It's certainly true that the number of conspirators was larger after the war than during the actual conspiracy, just like all the Nazis disappeared after the war ended (and then resurfaced in politics and the courts). But you need to consider that there was not one conspiracy but several, some of which likely had no idea of the others' existance.
That's certainly debatable - unlike the castrated staff of the '40s, you still have Ludwig Beck as chief of staff - someone who had at that point made several desperate attempts to convince Hitler of the idiocy of going to war (IIRC it was called the "memorandum war"), but had problems convincing fellow officers to go along with the violent overthrow. Overthrowing a head of state that you have sworn an oath to is a bit problematic, doubly so if you are a prussian (or prussified) General. With a war, I'm sure that Beck could have found the leverage to remove Hitler. After he was removed from his position, that chance went away.
For one thing, many have wept for the fall of Austria-Hungary. It was not the perfect one, but a good option IF IT COULD transform into multinational federation. You may cry about being a prison of nations, and yet most of population was happy until the WWI, and THEN the distress was caused by the war, not primarily by the existence of Empire.
On the other hand, multinational or national empires, make no difference. Wars are being waged by both of them, and in greater meaning, war WOULD come anyway. There were just too many small and great wrongdoings on all sides.
Calgacus & HurganPL: Idea of national state comes with the French revolution earliest. Until then, it wasn't national or multinational states. Yes people identified with groups, but unlike today, it was more ethnic. Just two examples: in Middle ages, many times a country or land changed rulers often. But people's loyalities were not to the "nation" nor country, rather they were to their respective Lord, and the nobility was loyal either to itself or the ruling House. Uprisings of common people then, were not motivated by national ideas, but a desire for better life.
Another example: Roman empire (I'm talking about early Empire). It consisted of many ethnic groups ( I use the term ethnic rather than nations, as the very term of nation was not used then). Romans called themselves "people of Rome". Social and political status was different not by nationality, rather by birth, or wealth, or freedom. Slaves could work to their freedom, barbarian mercenaries or cities and groups could gain the status of Roman Citizen. Roman Empire was multi-ethnic, multi-religion, multi-whatever-you-like, but NOT a multinational.
And I can give you an idea of multinational state going to hell... Yugoslavia. Before WW2, large dominated by Serbs, after then, national problems were mostly held under carpet by Tito and Communist party. Once Tito gone, the problems started to reappear again, and after not more than 10 years not even communist party was united. What followed we all know. Another round of Balcan wars.
On the other hand, multinational or national empires, make no difference. Wars are being waged by both of them, and in greater meaning, war WOULD come anyway. There were just too many small and great wrongdoings on all sides.
Calgacus & HurganPL: Idea of national state comes with the French revolution earliest. Until then, it wasn't national or multinational states. Yes people identified with groups, but unlike today, it was more ethnic. Just two examples: in Middle ages, many times a country or land changed rulers often. But people's loyalities were not to the "nation" nor country, rather they were to their respective Lord, and the nobility was loyal either to itself or the ruling House. Uprisings of common people then, were not motivated by national ideas, but a desire for better life.
Another example: Roman empire (I'm talking about early Empire). It consisted of many ethnic groups ( I use the term ethnic rather than nations, as the very term of nation was not used then). Romans called themselves "people of Rome". Social and political status was different not by nationality, rather by birth, or wealth, or freedom. Slaves could work to their freedom, barbarian mercenaries or cities and groups could gain the status of Roman Citizen. Roman Empire was multi-ethnic, multi-religion, multi-whatever-you-like, but NOT a multinational.
And I can give you an idea of multinational state going to hell... Yugoslavia. Before WW2, large dominated by Serbs, after then, national problems were mostly held under carpet by Tito and Communist party. Once Tito gone, the problems started to reappear again, and after not more than 10 years not even communist party was united. What followed we all know. Another round of Balcan wars.
Kabraloth, it was the Prussians who betrayed the Kaiser in 1918, threw out their oaths to him, and then not only convinced the Germans people but themselves that the German officers had been the victims of the 'stab in the back' or Dolchstoss, at a time when the German military's power in society was as close to supreme as can be imagined.
So Beck couldn't convince the senior officers to repeat in 1938 exactly what went on in 1918 without benefit of an actual disastrous war? Or the officers understood exactly where their standing would be once they had provided a pattern of German officers as Latin American junta in the making?
Of course, the fact that Beck had already been proven wrong and Hitler correct on several issues didn't help. Another rewrite of history is how Hitler was constantly blundering when the reality is that from 1933 to 1941 he was generally more accurate than the Wehrmacht officer corps en masse.
Just be grateful he couldn't warm to Manstein.
So Beck couldn't convince the senior officers to repeat in 1938 exactly what went on in 1918 without benefit of an actual disastrous war? Or the officers understood exactly where their standing would be once they had provided a pattern of German officers as Latin American junta in the making?
Of course, the fact that Beck had already been proven wrong and Hitler correct on several issues didn't help. Another rewrite of history is how Hitler was constantly blundering when the reality is that from 1933 to 1941 he was generally more accurate than the Wehrmacht officer corps en masse.
Just be grateful he couldn't warm to Manstein.
that's true. Prussians in common, and officier in particular, had very strong sense of duty to the state and goverment, whoever it was. Put it in view of '39: Nazis were anti-communist, which was really good with the nobility and military, and the industrial and banking elite of the pre-ww2 Germany. Landowners large supported them as well. All these people saw what happend in Russia after communists took power, and remember how communists were strong before Nazi came to power. The second reason is the traditional prussian mind. Even after the war some of them argued that officier has to follow orders no matter what. Only case of a prussian officer not following orders was perhaps one-sided Prussian Corps leaving Napoleon's side in 1813, but, this switching sides was secretly with consent and later approval King of Prussia
Either he was luckier or accurate... I'd say the first, cause accurate and well minded person would realize the situations later and wouldn't ordered disastrous "no falling back" in 42 -44 years. It's true that Hitler's orders to stand firm in '41 winter saved the Wehrmacht... but the fact that same orders in '42 and '43 were disasters for Wehrmacht, it's actually a prove of Hitler being lucky.
HurganPL
Banned
Were the Serbs happy ? Were Ukrainians happy ? Were Poles happy till 1848 ? The answer is:no not much.
The concept of nationality comes much much earlier then French revolution, as well as concept of a state of a nation.
That's not exactly true-see rebellion of Wojt Albert in Kraków where Germans rebeled against Poles, Hussite Wars or numerous Slavic uprisings in Germanic states.
Yes the concept of nation might have not been present in Middle Ages in form we now accept but it doesn't mean they weren't ethnic conflicts and people didn't see a difference in background and descent between various groups.
1st, I am speaking about much earlier than French revolution, which is earlier than 1848. Second, I do say that it was not the NATIONALITY idea what led their uprisings time by time, until again, the idea of nation came up in 19th century. Well, if you want to be precise, then perhaps earlier, but in a modern concept of nation, there was not. Yes ancient Greeks were identifying themselves as Greeks, for example against Persians, but it was again on ETHNIC base. They seen it as Greek was man born in Greece. They distinguished among themselves as Spartans, Athenians, Macedonians etc. etc... and once the threat was gone, they entered their own bloody intercity fights again.
I will put it to you this way. A common Polish peasant was not unhappy because he was Polish and was ruled by austria. People were unhappy because the way their living was, and that's not a matter of nationality. Who was unhappy were the nobility and rich, and that was because they were denied their self-goverment. Late Poland had very weak goverment, and nobility was happy about this. With Hapsburgs came the strong authority, which of course made the semi-autonomous nobles very unhappy.
Common Serb was perhaps happier in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which at least left him alone, unlike the Ottomans which were worse option. Generaly, Austrian Slaves had better doing than their brothers under ottoman rule. It was rather more about religion.
Hussite wars: were RELIGIOUS and SOCIAL issue, not a NATIONAL one. Do not rewrite history here please! Main thing with Husites was that they were christian reformist movement, which was denied by catholic church. In Husite wars you later see Bohemian catholics fighting husites. Prove: Husite wars begin with Crusades declared on them. Emperor Zikmund (and later Bohemian King) was Bohemian by birth, but was not accepted because he didn't keep the Husite Church.
ADD: Slavic uprising in German states are very rare and early issue. It was either because Slavic states (more precise - the rulers thereof) were fighting for indepedence from feudal vassalation. Or it was a ethnic conflict, as there is no Slavic nation. It was a conflict of German- speaking ethnic to push the Slaves out of the territory. And the Slavic people fighting back because being attacked etc... so no national uprisings again. Note that where the Slavic minorities were untouched by their German rulers (very rare, but Yes that happened), there were no conflicts such alike.
Ethnic conflict is different than national conflict... it is near one another, and sometimes gets mismatched, but still it has some differences.
Last edited: