What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?

BigBlueBox

Banned
No, we`re talking about revenge fantasies apparently, which is where all threads on different Versailles inevitably go.
What revenge fantasies? I've already said that OTL Versailles was the most fair treaty that could possibly have happened.

You implied that since Silesia was a a part of the HRE, it belongs to Germany. But Silesia was part of Bohemia while it was in the HRE, so if you are going to base claims of the HRE then it should go to the Czechs.
 
What revenge fantasies? I've already said that OTL Versailles was the most fair treaty that could possibly have happened.

You`ve seen this thread.

You implied that since Silesia was a a part of the HRE, it belongs to Germany. But Silesia was part of Bohemia while it was in the HRE, so if you are going to base claims of the HRE then it should go to the Czechs.

I implied nothing of the sort. I was replying to that absurd "never mind the fact that we stole it from you" part you added in your post. My point was that Upper Silesia was not taken in the Partitions, and had not been a part of Poland for a very long time.

The rest of this post doesn`t logically follow from anything I wrote. But if you want to get pedantic, it Upper Silesia had been an integral part of Prussia since the early 18th century. If we`re going to make "historical" arguments for annexations, then it should belong in Germany.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
You`ve seen this thread.



I implied nothing of the sort. I was replying to that absurd "never mind the fact that we stole it from you" part you added in your post. My point was that Upper Silesia was not taken in the Partitions, and had not been a part of Poland for a very long time.

The rest of this post doesn`t logically follow from anything I wrote. But if you want to get pedantic, it Upper Silesia had been an integral part of Prussia since the early 18th century. If we`re going to make "historical" arguments for annexations, then it should belong in Germany.
Okay, so there isn't a historical claim to Upper Silesia. Which is why the Allies chose to hold referendums there and partition it, and both Germany and Poland gave their chunk a limited amount of autonomy. Which proves my point about OTL Versailles being a fair treaty.
 
Elaborate, please.

1. The 1903 Coup in Serbia - carried out with the foreknowledge and support of the Austro-Hungarian government.

2. The Polish paramilitaries of Pilsudski, who created quite a bit of havoc in Russian Poland - operating with the support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence.

3. The 1907 Flaminzi revolt in Romania - inflamed, if not wholly instigated, by Austro-Hungarian agents.

Case #1 was a coup involving the death of the King, the Queen, and like 3-4 other people. Case #2 was a series of operations involving the death of hundreds of Russian officials. And case #3 was a rather devastating disturbance that led to the death of around 2,000 people. Any one of these events, which Vienna was involved in to varying degrees, kinda makes Princip (and Apis) look like small-time amateurs.
 
1. The 1903 Coup in Serbia - carried out with the foreknowledge and support of the Austro-Hungarian government.

2. The Polish paramilitaries of Pilsudski, who created quite a bit of havoc in Russian Poland - operating with the support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence.

3. The 1907 Flaminzi revolt in Romania - inflamed, if not wholly instigated, by Austro-Hungarian agents.

Case #1 was a coup involving the death of the King, the Queen, and like 3-4 other people. Case #2 was a series of operations involving the death of hundreds of Russian officials. And case #3 was a rather devastating disturbance that led to the death of around 2,000 people. Any one of these events, which Vienna was involved in to varying degrees, kinda makes Princip (and Apis) look like small-time amateurs.

I thought you - and most contemporary Serbs - approved of the 1903 coup because of how bad the ruling dynasty was.
 
Wow! I wanted to leave this thread, but this! Wow!
Okay, so there isn't a historical claim to Upper Silesia.
For centuries it belonged to Prussia, before this to Austria & before this to Bohemia. Which where all part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. It even belonged to the fucking KINGDOM OF GERMANY in 1000.
But all of this is pretty much irrelevant, because this matterd jack shit to the Entente.
Which is why the Allies chose to hold referendums there and partition it,
Funny how they decided to ignore the will of people when its collided with their "secruity" intrests. A recurring phenomenon & not only in Versailles, but all treaties ending WW1.
and both Germany and Poland gave their chunk a limited amount of autonomy.
Cant remember that. Care to share some informations?
Which proves my point about OTL Versailles being a fair treaty.
Versailles is probably the worst treaty of all times. Designed to be a Carthaginian peace by the victors they where to weak to enforce it. I spare me the hybris the Entente nations showed when dealing with national self determination.

It was a shitty treaty, driven by nationalism, revanchism & imperialism and haven't even had the decency to admit it.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I thought you - and most contemporary Serbs - approved of the 1903 coup because of how bad the ruling dynasty was.
He's a Serb?
1. The 1903 Coup in Serbia - carried out with the foreknowledge and support of the Austro-Hungarian government.

I did not know that; however, why would A-H conduct regime change in one of its own client/puppet states? Also, did A-H not see that the new Serbian royal family would be pro-Russian?

2. The Polish paramilitaries of Pilsudski, who created quite a bit of havoc in Russian Poland - operating with the support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence.

When exactly was this?

3. The 1907 Flaminzi revolt in Romania - inflamed, if not wholly instigated, by Austro-Hungarian agents.

What exactly was the point of the A-H intervention here?

Case #1 was a coup involving the death of the King, the Queen, and like 3-4 other people. Case #2 was a series of operations involving the death of hundreds of Russian officials. And case #3 was a rather devastating disturbance that led to the death of around 2,000 people. Any one of these events, which Vienna was involved in to varying degrees, kinda makes Princip (and Apis) look like small-time amateurs.

So, basically A-H tried to play in the big leagues and ended up getting its ass owned, correct?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Wow! I wanted to leave this thread, but this! Wow!
For centuries it belonged to Prussia, before this to Austria & before this to Bohemia. Which where all part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. It even belonged to the fucking KINGDOM OF GERMANY in 1000.
But all of this is pretty much irrelevant, because this matterd jack shit to the Entente.
Funny how they decided to ignore the will of people when its collided with their "secruity" intrests. A recurring phenomenon & not only in Versailles, but all treaties ending WW1.
Cant remember that. Care to share some informations?
Versailles is probably the worst treaty of all times. Designed to be a Carthaginian peace by the victors they where to weak to enforce it. I spare me the hybris the Entente nations showed when dealing with national self determination.

It was a shitty treaty, driven by nationalism, revanchism & imperialism and haven't even had the decency to admit it.

Well I said already, Bohemia is Czech so anyone who tries to claim Silesia should be German because it was in HRE is really saying it should be Czech. You might be able to make a case with Prussian ownership, but not HRE ownership.

From Wikipedia: "The Polish Government had decided to give Silesia considerable autonomy with the Silesian Parliament as a constituency and the Silesian Voivodeship Council as the executive body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings#Aftermath

I read about Germany giving autonomy to its part somewhere, but I can't remember it.
 
I Repeat myself WHICH MATTERS WHY don't bring current poltics out of chat
The point is that historical claims to a territory don't actually matter much to Great Powers compared to their national interests; Palestine is just an example of a larger trend in international politics. Wars and diplomacy often have nothing to do with what's right, or fair, or true, so much as what the powers think they can get away with; it's the art of the possible, in Bismarck's formulation. So claiming Poland should get Upper Silesia because of a historical claim misses the point; they claim it because they can, because the Allies have the power to give it to them and weaken their enemy.
 
Well I said already, Bohemia is Czech so anyone who tries to claim Silesia should be German because it was in HRE is really saying it should be Czech. You might be able to make a case with Prussian ownership, but not HRE ownership.

From Wikipedia: "The Polish Government had decided to give Silesia considerable autonomy with the Silesian Parliament as a constituency and the Silesian Voivodeship Council as the executive body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings#Aftermath

I read about Germany giving autonomy to its part somewhere, but I can't remember it.
The question is, what's your cutoff point for historical claims? Germany currently has Upper Silesia; Bohemia had it before them, and Poland before them. Alsace-Lorraine was German for centuries before France stole it, held it for centuries, and Germany stole it back. Most of these border territories have no true, 'rightful' owner; it's just a question of what you have the strength and cunning to take and hold.
 
Well I said already, Bohemia is Czech so anyone who tries to claim Silesia should be German because it was in HRE is really saying it should be Czech. You might be able to make a case with Prussian ownership, but not HRE ownership.

From Wikipedia: "The Polish Government had decided to give Silesia considerable autonomy with the Silesian Parliament as a constituency and the Silesian Voivodeship Council as the executive body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings#Aftermath

I read about Germany giving autonomy to its part somewhere, but I can't remember it.

giphy.gif


...and this is my signal to leave, since a discussion with you seems to be futile.
 
I thought you - and most contemporary Serbs - approved of the 1903 coup because of how bad the ruling dynasty was.

Approve? Not exactly the word I'd use. It was still an ugly deed, if often exaggerated. And only some of its perpetrators were in it for good reasons. But I do believe the Karadjordjevic period of governance was a dozen times better than the Obrenovic, in a dozen different ways...so you're not really wrong.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The question is, what's your cutoff point for historical claims? Germany currently has Upper Silesia; Bohemia had it before them, and Poland before them. Alsace-Lorraine was German for centuries before France stole it, held it for centuries, and Germany stole it back. Most of these border territories have no true, 'rightful' owner; it's just a question of what you have the strength and cunning to take and hold.

The point is, people claim that Versailles was some especially massive injustice, and therefore the Entente was responsible for the rise of Hitler. It's not. Borders change, and Germany only lost some outer regions. If you want an example of an unjust treaty, look at Trianon or Sevres. The mistake of the Allies wasn't being harsh on Germany, it was being complacent. If the Allies kept their defense budgets high and were willing to intervene against Germany at earlier points then the Second World War could have been avoided. In fact, this is the only way to avoid another war. And the people who claim that giving Germany a fairer peace would prevent another war are extremely optimistic.
 
He's a Serb?

Yes.
I did not know that; however, why would A-H conduct regime change in one of its own client/puppet states? Also, did A-H not see that the new Serbian royal family would be pro-Russian?

A-H believed that Alexander Obrenovic had become pro-Russian after 1900, which was actually not true. They also believed that the Karadjordjevic dynasty was loosely pro-Austrian, which was mostly (though not completely) incorrect.
When exactly was this?

For a couple years after 1905.
What exactly was the point of the A-H intervention here?
Some historians argue that A-H wanted a pretext to invade Romania, end any sporadic support for the Transylvanian Romanians, and impose a stricter relationship with Bucharest. I'm not sure.
So, basically A-H tried to play in the big leagues and ended up getting its ass owned, correct?

You could say that. Or that A-H wanted to throw rocks, while living in one of the biggest glass houses in the neighborhood.
 

CaliGuy

Banned

OK.

Also, off-topic, but out of curiosity--what do you think about Kosovo's independence?

A-H believed that Alexander Obrenovic had become pro-Russian after 1900, which was actually not true. They also believed that the Karadjordjevic dynasty was loosely pro-Austrian, which was mostly (though not completely) incorrect.

OK.

For a couple years after 1905.

OK; also, what was the reason for this?

Some historians argue that A-H wanted a pretext to invade Romania, end any sporadic support for the Transylvanian Romanians, and impose a stricter relationship with Bucharest. I'm not sure.

OK.

You could say that. Or that A-H wanted to throw rocks, while living in one of the biggest glass houses in the neighborhood.

OK.
 
Top