WI: A (less ambitious) Bakker-Schut Plan Accepted

While most are aware of the more popular 'Plan's' for partitioning Germany following the end of WW2 one of the leser known is the Bakker-Schut Plan, which itself had three different versions.

Now the plan was eventually rejected by the Allies, but let's say for some reason that a version of it is accepted, with the German inhabitants given the choice of either accepting 'Dutchification' or moving to Germany.

How would the Netherlands, with several million more people and nearly 30% more land, develop, how would German-Dutch relations develop, would the Netherlands position in Europe change?


(Assume the Q-BAM version to be the most correct.)

Bakker-Schut Plan.png
 
Ah, the megalomanic Bakker-Schutplan. I love it for its insanity. Personaly I am glad it was never accepted, as that would have meant that the Netherlands would have been guilty of commiting warcrimes.
 
All of the other countries that annexed parts of Germany forcefully expelled the native German populations (or worse), so he's assuming that if the Netherlands annexed a large chunk they to would as well.

Actually it is even mentioned on the Wikipedia page
Forced migration
A big point of discussion in Bakker Schut's expansion plan was the proposed forced migration of the original German population. Millions of Germans would have to be transferred to the remaining German territories, because it was feared that increasing the Dutch population from 9 to 11 million people could cause trouble in providing everybody with food. A pamphlet titled Oostland - Ons Land (East land - Our land) contained a complete schedule for the extradition of the population, starting with all inhabitants of municipalities with a population of at least 2500, all former members of the NSDAP and related organizations, and all inhabitants who had settled in the area after 1933. In special cases, the inhabitants could request to be naturalized, for instance if they had made efforts for the Dutch state during the war, if they usually spoke Lower Saxon instead of German, if they had no family members up to the second degree that lived in Germany, or if they wished to become Dutch.
 

Susano

Banned
All of the other countries that annexed parts of Germany forcefully expelled the native German populations (or worse), so he's assuming that if the Netherlands annexed a large chunk they to would as well.

Theres no assumption. That was explicit part of the plans. The idea was to ethnically cleanse 90% of the population as it was assumed teh remaining 10% would be few enough to be assimilated.
 
Theres no assumption. That was explicit part of the plans. The idea was to ethnically cleanse 90% of the population as it was assumed teh remaining 10% would be few enough to be assimilated.

One can only assume about things that did'nt happen.

Probability may say so, however it's possible that's not what would happen.


And for this thread in particular I did say they only kicked out the ones who did'nt accept Dutchification (IE learning and using Dutch as their first language), rather than mass deporatation.
 

Susano

Banned
And for this thread in particular I did say they only kicked out the ones who did'nt accept Dutchification (IE learning and using Dutch as their first language), rather than mass deporatation.

Thats also ethnic cleansing.
 
All of the other countries that annexed parts of Germany forcefully expelled the native German populations (or worse), so he's assuming that if the Netherlands annexed a large chunk they to would as well.


Which is probably why it never happened.

Turning a blind eye while Stalin (or countries in his half of Europe), did it was one thing. For the Western Powers to do it themselves was quite another, whatever may have been talked about in wilder moments.
 

Susano

Banned
Which is probably why it never happened.

Turning a blind eye while Stalin (or countries in his half of Europe), did it was one thing. For the Western Powers to do it themselves was quite another, whatever may have been talked about in wilder moments.

I dont think the Western Allies were really concerned about one of their allies becoming, err, morally corrupted. It was rather a more pragmatic concern: The German Zones already could hardly carry the burden of the expellees (that is, the ethnically cleansed) from the east. They couldnt carry even more expellees,
 
Which is probably why it never happened.

Turning a blind eye while Stalin (or countries in his half of Europe), did it was one thing. For the Western Powers to do it themselves was quite another, whatever may have been talked about in wilder moments.

The Allies were hardly angels.

In the end most of them simply did'nt care, they knew what would happen and what did, yet they did'nt even try and persuade the Soviets to not do it.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a group that actually considered (if only for a short time) a plan that would lead to a genocide rivalling, if not surpassing that of Nazi Germany itself.
 
Let's not forget that we're talking about a group that actually considered (if only for a short time) a plan that would lead to a genocide rivalling, if not surpassing that of Nazi Germany itself.

There's a big difference between forced deportation and mass murder!
 
Um, yes?

I was pointing out that the Allies were dicks.

Must have misunderstood, I thought you were saying that the Bakker-Schut Plan would have lead to a worse genocide than the various ones committed by the Nazis.

Anyway. As others have said it would always have been rejected for purely pragmatic reasons - i.e. adding millions of unneccesary refugees into an already swamped West Germany.

Purely speculation, but perhaps this would be more likely in some kind of scenario where the western allies manage to capture more territory instead of the Soviets. Less refugees from the East would seem to make it more possible, but then there are the moral arguments.
 

Susano

Banned
Purely speculation, but perhaps this would be more likely in some kind of scenario where the western allies manage to capture more territory instead of the Soviets. Less refugees from the East would seem to make it more possible, but then there are the moral arguments.

The zone borders were drawn according to negotiations, not frontlines. The Americans ended up being a good bit further east than their zone border ended up to be, after all. And even if the zone border does end up further east that would in most cases simply mean a smaller Soviet Zone, and not a Soviet Zone being more to the east.
 
Must have misunderstood, I thought you were saying that the Bakker-Schut Plan would have lead to a worse genocide than the various ones committed by the Nazis.

Oh, no, not saying that.


Anyway. As others have said it would always have been rejected for purely pragmatic reasons - i.e. adding millions of unneccesary refugees into an already swamped West Germany.

Perhaps, under the scenario in the thread we can assume that their would only be 4-5 million refugee's, but to make it better, let's say the Dutch don't imediately kick them out, but support a gradual immigration process over the following decade.


Purely speculation, but perhaps this would be more likely in some kind of scenario where the western allies manage to capture more territory instead of the Soviets. Less refugees from the East would seem to make it more possible,

Perhaps so, that's more or less why I left the why open.


but then there are the moral arguments.

I don't think their really would be any, the Allies at the time really did'nt care to much if something was moral or not when it came to Germany, unless it was to an extreme.
 
The Allies were hardly angels.

Even when you include the Soviet Union, there is no moral equivalency between the Allies and Germany. None.

The Allies didn't start the war, but the Allies finished it and, because they did so, the war was finished on the Allies terms. Humanity is far better off that it was the Allies, rather then Germany, finished the war.

Germany, having chose war and having sparked each escalation in it's frightfulness, has no standing whatsoever when it wants to whine about the postwar "crimes" it supposedly "suffered".

The Allies weren't angels, but no one is when you're fighting a war of national, ethnic, and racial survival.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a group that actually considered (if only for a short time) a plan that would lead to a genocide rivalling, if not surpassing that of Nazi Germany itself.

And we shouldn't forget, as you deliberately have, that the same group ultimately rejected that plan on the basis of it's immorality, something that never would have occurred in Germany if that nation won the war.

Every nation in the war planned frightful things, only a few made those plans a reality and Germany tops that short list.
 
Top