What if Germany had paid for the territory it took?

JJohnson

Banned
Let's say in the late 30s, instead of starting a full-scale war, Germany took (militarily) the land it believed was its own, and paid the governments for that land in compensation. So:

Poland was paid for Posen/West Prussia and Teschen Silesia
Lithuania was paid for Memelland
Czechoslovakia was paid for the Sudetenland and Teschen Silesia
Hungary was paid for the little extra parts of Burgenland
Belgium was paid for Eupen-Malmedy
France was paid for Alsace-Lorraine

And some ASB wonked the Führer on the head and negotiated peace with the countries promising no invasions and no aggressive actions in return for accepting the new borders.

Which of those countries would be least likely to accept a few billion Marks in exchange for the new border? What would be the result if all but one or two accepted the new borders and exchange of money?
 
With what money? Nazi Germany was quickly going broke…

If money could be found, there is no way whatsoever France will part with those territories peacefully. Poland is extremely unlikely but might be pressured as Czechoslovakia was OTL, but they would never just sell them without any threat of force. Czechoslovakia handed over those territories under the threat of force, combined with money they might be less unhappy, but I can't see them selling their defensive line for cash only (you'd need a serious threat of force as well). How attached Belgium and Lithuania was to their territories I don't know enough about, but I doubt the Belgians will sell.
 
How attached Belgium and Lithuania was to their territories I don't know enough about, but I doubt the Belgians will sell.
Although this was pre Hitler, I believe that Belgium was actualy considering a German offer to buy Eupen-Malmedy, but France told Belgium not to sell it. I think Belgium can be persuaded to sell Eupen-Malmedy when Germany makes an offer Belgium can't refuse.
 
France is the least likely. They spilt the blood of millions of Frenchmen for Alsace-Moselle specifically, they will do it again. Especially since it will cost the Germans much more to attach the Maginot Line frontally - any other way would cause basically WWII.
 
What if France generously agreed to let Germany pay only 50% of its share of reparations at Versailles in return for the Rhineland?
 
Good point Zaius,
The outcome depends upon which national treasury is deeper in debt.
Please remember that most countries are reluctant to sell off - even marginal - land because it becomes trip-wires and buffer-zones in time of war.

We should also consider economic productivity of disputed lands. For example, Germany would never sell the Rhur Valley because it contains far too much heavy industry.
 
Let's say in the late 30s, instead of starting a full-scale war, Germany took (militarily) the land it believed was its own, and paid the governments for that land in compensation. So:

Poland was paid for Posen/West Prussia and Teschen Silesia
Lithuania was paid for Memelland
Czechoslovakia was paid for the Sudetenland and Teschen Silesia
Hungary was paid for the little extra parts of Burgenland
Belgium was paid for Eupen-Malmedy
France was paid for Alsace-Lorraine

And some ASB wonked the Führer on the head and negotiated peace with the countries promising no invasions and no aggressive actions in return for accepting the new borders.

Which of those countries would be least likely to accept a few billion Marks in exchange for the new border? What would be the result if all but one or two accepted the new borders and exchange of money?

No amount of money would have made Poles agree to loosing the Corridor and Greater Poland (Posen region).
1. National pride: they took what is ours! About 20% of our land!
2. National identity and solidarity: they occupied land with milions of Poles, we can not leave them there. Also, as it happens, Greater Poland is a birthplace of Polish state. And if milions of Poles were expelled ftom that region, where will we put them: what about their houses, property, businesses etc.?
3. Common sence: the money from Germany eventually will run out. And Greater Poland and the Corridor are among our best developed regions. Without them and without access to the sea Poland will become German economical and political satelite. No way.
4. Ethics: you can not force someone to sell something. And German unprovoked aggression killed of thousands of Polish soldiers (and, knowing German tactics, ciivilians too).
Poles might (very grudgingly) agree to accept money in exchange of Danizg/Gdańsk returning to Germany. Greater Poland and the Corridor are out of the question.
Theoretically Poland might take the money and agree to give up her rights to those territories (since they were already taken from them), but only to wait for the first opportunity to take them back. Personally I can not imagine any Polish government to agree to that, unless with German tanks in Warsaw. And even then Poles will spendf those money on new army to get their land back.
 
Unless Germany is able to get a peace treaty with the Allies, is still capable of fighting and generally avoid being exceptionally genocidal, it won't pull off a Guadalupe-Hidalgo-style annexation as OP requested. Hell, there's no feasible way for Germany to hold on to any lands that's aren't already German. That means demands on Polish land and French Alsace-Lorraine at the very minimum. Unlike America's case with Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Germany isn't dealing with sparsely populated lands, but areas choked with very hostile locals.

Besides, why pay for land you've already took? It only makes sense to pay when you don't intend to fight.
 

trurle

Banned
Unless Germany is able to get a peace treaty with the Allies, is still capable of fighting and generally avoid being exceptionally genocidal, it won't pull off a Guadalupe-Hidalgo-style annexation as OP requested. Hell, there's no feasible way for Germany to hold on to any lands that's aren't already German. That means demands on Polish land and French Alsace-Lorraine at the very minimum. Unlike America's case with Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Germany isn't dealing with sparsely populated lands, but areas choked with very hostile locals.

Besides, why pay for land you've already took? It only makes sense to pay when you don't intend to fight.
No way. The treaty "money vs land" is too unequal. Unless Germany militarily defeats all the parties involved before starting paying compensation. Something more diplomatic like Schleswig plebiscites, 1920 in more locations is possible though.
 
Here some details about the Belgium Deal

In 1925, the area around Eupen, Malmedy, and Sankt Vith, together with the former Neutral Moresnet (Kelmis) was finally included in the Belgian state.
However, in 1926 Belgium and the Weimar Republic conducted secret negotiations which would have led to the return of the East Cantons to Germany in return for 200 million gold marks -
but the fury of the French Government on hearing about the plan led to the break-up of the talks.

source:
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Eupen-Malmedy
 
Top