Volksgemeinschaft In International Law

What international treaty are you referring too? The only ones im familiar with that covers minority rights are from 89, 92 and 95.

Would really appreciate a link.:)
 
I'm not really sure why it's an exagerration to mock your statement. Your basic stance is that any German effort to promote pluralism and minority rights was a machivallian scheme to expand German influence, and that, implicity in your statement, is that German influence is a prelude to bids to annex territories.

The idea that Germans might promote minority rights because it's the right thing to do, or simply have a desire to stop the destruction of centuries-old communities, does not seem to have occurred to you.

Yes, I have little doubt that if implemented, it would have worked as a instrument of German dominance. It undermines the soveregnity and legitimacy of the newly-created Eastern European states (which were quite shaky anyway) by allowing some of it's citizens self governance and semi-official ties with foreign powers. The only state lacking significant minorities? German one. The most influencial, best educated and organized minority? German one. I think it's logical extenstion that it would be Germany that would have gained by it, while other countries would have find it harder to pursue independt policy.
I'm not saying it was some devilish plot by dear Mr. Schiemann, but I think any sane German statesman would have taken advantage of it.
 
But if we go back on topic, lets say a similar treaty is enacted between all league members, and with some sort of League arbitration and sanction articles, would that fit the bill?

Yes, this would be a good start. I'm not sure how it differs from the purported Erasmus Generation, of course.
 
This does not automatically confer the same amount of trans-national mobility I think.
At least to start. If the Danish speaker from northern Germany attends school in Denmark, one could argue that there isn’t any reason to have Danish in German schools. Maybe one could have a larger number of treaties between European states, more like what Norway has with the EU, the EØS, than the EU . Or we can take it to the extreme, and say that several states gives citizenships. A Baltic German would need to go to the embassy in Riga, and would then have German citizenship too. Different forms of citizenship, your allowed to go there for school etc but as you doe not live there or pat taxses you wont be allowed to vote or be drafted. Passport light.

Still one would need doe to something about the mistrust, the fifth Colum stuff. It might not be true but that has never stopped anybody before.
 

Susano

Banned
Yes, I have little doubt that if implemented, it would have worked as a instrument of German dominance. It undermines the soveregnity and legitimacy of the newly-created Eastern European states (which were quite shaky anyway) by allowing some of it's citizens self governance and semi-official ties with foreign powers. The only state lacking significant minorities? German one. The most influencial, best educated and organized minority? German one.
So? That makes it right to deny German minorities minority rights? Of course Germany did advocate minority rights because it felt connection to German minorities in East Europe, and I see no reason why this is a bad thing. Germany was and is the state of the Germans after all, and before WW2 one could add "inside or outside of the German state". It is hardly the fault of those minoriteis that the new states suddenly cover the territories they live in, after all! Or to ask more directly: Why have the Polish people in Poland a right to national self-determination and souvereignity, but the German people in Poland no right to autonomy? If you deny the latter, you set the logical precedent to have the former denied.
 
Of course Germany did advocate minority rights because it felt connection to German minorities in East Europe, and I see no reason why this is a bad thing.
It not only felt connected to them but to land their lived on as well, and German minorities organizations were used quite openly as means to push for possibility of reannexation of territories German Empire was forced to let go. So it was somewhat a "bad thing" unless of course you consider enforcing German rule on its eastern neighbours as something good.


Yes, this would be a good start. I'm not sure how it differs from the purported Erasmus Generation, of course.
You seem to have a belief that nothing is different from Europe of today and Europe of almost a century ago. For one thing Erasmus students aren't as threatened by harassment by nationalist or racist groups including student's organizations that were widespread in Europe of the past. Furthermore they are not used as spies or for training of paramilitary groups-as they would be in the Europe of 20s or 30s. Thirdly many of students of the past would be more interested in joining nationalist or communist militias then anything resembling Erasmus.

Why have the Polish people in Poland a right to national self-determination and souvereignity, but the German people in Poland no right to autonomy?
Because German people were not native in those locations and considerable portion of them were there due to Germanization policies and settlement organised by Prussian and German state ? A considerable portion manifested their opposition to existance of Polish state. Poles represented the native population that was under a repressive regime largely enforced by them by military force, and in part due to violation of international obligations(made in Congress of Vienna for example). No sane government will cede its sovereignty to a group that whose main organisations openly oppose its state's existance and is result of policies aimed at diminishing the native population. An exclusion of colonists, civil servants, military personal, clerks etc. who were sent as part of Germanization could be an option-but it would likely exceed a large number of Germans and likely would be opposed by German minority organizations who were quite militant and nationalist(in general the German Eastern provinces were more nationalistic in nature then the rest of German Empire for several reasons).

Anyway it's kind of non-relevant since Germans did receive minority rights in OTL interwar Poland.


It is hardly the fault of those minoriteis that the new states suddenly cover the territories they live in, after all!
Surely the militias created by German colonists sent by government(and I mean direct colonists that were settled, not for example merchants attracted by state) who fought against Polish uprising in 1848 and those who fought after 1918 knew very well why they received special economic and property privilages in those territories by German government. I mean, nobody in German Empire hid that it was aimed at introducing Germans in and reducing Polish population.



I think it isn't possible to achieve something like Faelin envisioned, even today after WW2 tensions exists in Central and Eastern Europe. The 20s and 30s Europe was far more nationalistic, and dominated by that kind of thinking. Any such right would as Prem Rack pointed out serve actually to destabilize European countries more and perhaps led to earlier war.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
It not only felt connected to them but to land their lived on as well, and German minorities organizations were used quite openly as means to push for possibility of reannexation of territories German Empire was forced to let go. So it was somewhat a "bad thing" unless of course you consider enforcing German rule on its eastern neighbours as something good.
Not worse or better than enforcing Polish, Czech or Romanian rule on Germans. Of course those lands which were in majority Polish, Czech or Romanian should have gone to those countries, but that is what minority rights are there for, to cover those who are not the majority. Besides, its the best way if you do not want minorities to (rightfully) radicalise.

Because German people were not native in those locations and considerable portion of them were there due to Germanization policies and settlement organised by Prussian and German state ?
Bullshit. Germanification efforts by Prussia and the GErman Empire existed, but were utterly ineffective, with only a neglectable trickle of people actually going east. Those Germans who lived in those areas were as native as the Polish. If you say they were not native, maybe you should also advocate all Slavs going back to the Belarussian Swamps they originally came from:rolleyes:

A considerable portion manifested their opposition to existance of Polish state.
Understandable, given Polish politics towards them.

Anyway it's kind of non-relevant since Germans did receive minority rights in OTL interwar Poland.
Tsk.

Surely the militias created by German colonists sent by government(and I mean direct colonists that were settled, not for example merchants attracted by state) who fought against Polish uprising in 1848 and those who fought after 1918 knew very well why they received special economic and property privilages in those territories by German government. I mean, nobody in German Empire hid that it was aimed at introducing Germans in and reducing Polish population.
Err, what has that to do with the part of my text you quoted? Somehow, I miss the connection...:confused:

The 20s and 30s Europe was far more nationalistic, and dominated by that kind of thinking. Any such right would as Prem Rack pointed out serve actually to destabilize European countries more and perhaps led to earlier war.
Ah, yes, trampling on rights in the name of stability and order! Thats very 30s Europe, I agree.
 
If you say they were not native, maybe you should also advocate all Slavs going back to the Belarussian Swamps they originally came from:rolleyes:

He does, actually. Another thread (which, ended when he ran and failed to respnd to my reminding him of it several times) had me slicing myself up to be shipped back to Norway and wherever it is Celts come from. It hurt like a bitch, let me tell you.

I recomend that you folks give up on Hurgan II: Return of the Killer Hurgan, who is not so much a Polish chauvinist as a rather unflattering caricature of one. He has confirmed in other threads that the borders of 1919 ought to have been drawn on the basis of reversing everything that had happened since 1772. He also believes that a hypothetical east-Slav federation with reasonable political and economic freedom would be a murderous arch-foe for Poland. He prefers ignoring people he consistently disagrees with to the main alternatives, namely conceding arguments of justifying his national babblings with something outright bannable.

In short, I consider my name on his sig to be a badge of honour as well as a great mercy on the blood pressure.

Now, wasn't there a topic, in days of yore? Ah, yes!

This is very interesting stuff, and reminds me of observations my dad has been making about the future envisaged by the present Scottish government, who he works for. A phrase Mr.Salmond likes to drop is that the Council of the British Isles (only SNP apartchiks appear to have heard of this, but they're mustard-keen on it) is right now two sovereign states, three devolved regions, and two miscellanies. After Scottish independence, it would be three, two, two, which phrased like that isn't such a change. Power is to go simultaneously up and down from London. "Volksgemeinschaft" seems like a similar concept, with the added fun of being interstate.
 
Not worse or better than enforcing Polish, Czech or Romanian rule on Germans.
Hmm, I don't think that by 1918 they were similiar plans in leadership of those communities that would compare the plan to expell 2 million Jews and Poles by German state, or turn majority of Central and Eastern population into de-facto serfs ruled by German minority, or use artificial famine to reduce their population so I would disagree.

Bullshit. Germanification efforts by Prussia and the GErman Empire existed, but were utterly ineffective, with only a neglectable trickle of people actually going east.
300,000 colonists alone by Frederick are not trickle, 154,000 colonists by Bismarck are not trickle either. And that's not counting clerks, soldiers, officials and all kinds of civil servants sent as well. In Pomerania civil servants and similar people made more then half of the German population there.

[quote[Those Germans who lived in those areas were as native as the Polish.[/quote] How could colonists be native ?
If you say they were not native, maybe you should also advocate all Slavs going back to the Belarussian Swamps tyhey originally came from
Only if the Germans go to the coasts of Scandinavia, but I think you are confusing origin of Man with origin of statehood. Plus I don't think Slavs originated in Belarussian Swamps ;]
Understandable, given Polish politics towards them.
What Polish politics in 1918 ? Abolishing of opressive rule and priviliages for German ruling class that was minority ?
Er, what has that to do with the part of my text you quoted? Somehow, I miss the connection...
I find it difficult to imagine that German colonists sent for the sole purpouse manifested by their political leadership as Germanization of Polish lands did not know those territories were not German.
Ah, yes, trampling on rights in the name of stability and order! Thats very 30s Europe, I agree.
Ah yes using the cover of demanding rights in the name of destability, annexations and war-something Nazi Germany did in Europe of 30s in Sudetes or Poland.
Frankly how likely is it that such rights would not be abused for that by Germany ?
Also since you care so much about fairness, how do you propose to deal with the issue of colonists and what tools do you propose to reverse effects of century of discriminating Germanisation ? Surely it would be just to provide the newly freed people to have some means of bypassing the unfortunate situation they found themselfs by that events. Affirmative action or perhaps reperations by Germany for the years of repressive rule ? Surely it would be just to amend the wrongdoings of German state in the past ? Of course I suppose you also would be in for some action helping Sorbs(and their right to self-determination) to deal with the issue of past Germanization right ?
 
If you would prove that actions followed their quotes like in German case ?

Cecil Rhodes strikes from beyond the grave! Ahem.

In his will, the always-tactful Cecil laid out his vision for a British Empire of Nearly Everywhere, all to be colonised by us, 'cos we're Top Nation, Lords of all Creation, and Light of Civilisation, donchaknow. Was it acted on? Ask the Zimbabweans.

Well, obviously you won't, since you ignore people when you've run out of faulty or prejudiced arguments to make at them. This post if for the benefit of those of us who know how to have civilised debates.

Affirmative action or perhaps reperations by Germany for the years of repressive rule ? Surely it would be just to amend the wrongdoings of German state in the past ? Of course I suppose you also would be in for some action helping Sorbs(and their right to self-determination) to deal with the issue of past Germanization right ?

And then we evacuate the white people from Australia. It's only fair.

What ESA has shown, in multiple threads, is that he doesn't believe in human rights. I told him he was discounting the rights of ordinary decent folks in favour of the grievances of blobs of ink on maps. He essentially told me that I was disregarding the rights of those ink-blobs. I really can't recommend the essay in my sig enough.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Hmm, I don't think that by 1918 they were similiar plans in leadership of those communities that would compare the plan to expell 2 million Jews and Poles by German state, or turn majority of Central and Eastern population into de-facto serfs ruled by German minority, or use artificial famine to reduce their population so I would disagree.
And I dont think there were such plans in the leadership of Weimar Germany, either. Fringe Groups dont count, so dont bother listing nonsense.


300,000 colonists alone by Frederick are not trickle, 154,000 colonists by Bismarck are not trickle either. And that's not counting clerks, soldiers, officials and all kinds of civil servants sent as well. In Pomerania civil servants and similar people made more then half of the German population there.
Frederick as in Frederick II of Prussia? Thats earlier than most white settlement in the USA. But its good to see how you demontage yourself with such ridicolousness, means I dont need to :D And source on the numbers from Bismarck's times, I havent heard anything more than 100k.

Those Germans who lived in those areas were as native as the Polish.
How could colonists be native ?
Circular logic?

Only if the Germans go to the coasts of Scandinavia, but I think you are confusing origin of Man with origin of statehood.
Its the same thing. If 200 years are not enough to make a population native, than neither will be 1000 years.

What Polish politics in 1918 ? Abolishing of opressive rule and priviliages for German ruling class that was minority ?
Not granting German a minority status (well, de facto), depropriation, economical politics de facto aimed at the German population...

I find it difficult to imagine that German colonists sent for the sole purpouse manifested by their political leadership as Germanization of Polish lands did not know those territories were not German.
Yes, well, thats the point: Those people were not sent. They were born on those lands. Maybe their great-great-xxx-grand parents were originally sent, but thats got nothing to do with the then current generation.

Ah yes using the cover of demanding rights in the name of destability, annexations and war-something Nazi Germany did in Europe of 30s in Sudetes or Poland.
Consideirng the Sudetenland was conquered by force by forming Czechoslovakia in 1918/19, any reconquest was justified. And as we know, even GB and France agreed on that.

Frankly how likely is it that such rights would not be abused for that by Germany ?
Completly irrelevant. Rights are rights, and minorities have the right to official minority status granting them at the very least cultural autonomy and protection from discrimination.

Also since you care so much about fairness, how do you propose to deal with the issue of colonists and what tools do you propose to reverse effects of century of discriminating Germanisation ?

None. That after all has nothing to do with the then current generation.

Surely it would be just to amend the wrongdoings of German state in the past ? Of course I suppose you also would be in for some action helping Sorbs(and their right to self-determination) to deal with the issue of past Germanization right ?
The Sorbs did have extensive autonomy rights in Weimar Germany. As for amends, one of Weimar Germanys major problems was reperations.
 
Reasoned arguments

Sorry, old boy, but you might as well try that logic on a brick wall. This chap isn't ignorant, so he can't be educated. He's a bigot who doesn't believe in universal human rights, let alone that they take primacy over those of ink-blobs.

I recomend that you ask him my "Australia" question upfront. He can back down, get banned, or ignore you. Probably the last. My insidious scheme is that he will eventually ignore the entire board!
 
Top