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

Susano

Banned
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.

Wow, that shows a blatant disregard for any form of ethics. Of course Nazi germany was worse than even Stalins USSR, but that has no bearing whatsoever on allied war crimes. A crime is a crime is a crime. Are you such emotionally fragile that you cant bear to think that the world isnt that black-white and that sometimes even "the good guys" do evil things and that those need to be condemned as well? Jesus, talk about simplified world views.
 
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.


Why would they bother?

Their influence over Stalin was zilch, and they knew it.
 
Last edited:
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".

"Supposedly"? Really? Forcefully removing millions of people from their homes is a "'crime' they 'supposedly' suffered"? Applying collecting punishment? How about reducing a city of low value to their military effort to ash and rubble, killing tens of thousands? A crime is a crime, even if the other side is even worse, way worse in this case. You don't think every person who suffered bombings, or was expelled, was a nazi, do you?
 
It should be said that collect punishment is fundamentally unjust. Even though it might be a scary high percentage (10%? 20%?) of people related to Germany's horrendous acts might deserve severe punishment--a lot of innocent people are going to be dislocated for this.

The Dutch could certainly redraw the lines and eject a million Germans from its soil. No one is going to voice concern over the well-being of a people who invaded their neighbors and killed off innocents, even though two wrongs don't make a right.

This might embolden France to annex the Saar and do something similar--after all, France nearly did so in OTL, and it might be accepted that after Hitler's attempt to roll borders favorably caused massive anger and suffering, that Germany deserves the same.

Ultimately, Germany would probably accept the outcome. There will still be a smaller Germany, even if it is poorer and has more difficulty rebuilding in the aftermath of the war. Germany today doesn't demand a return to 1938 borders from Poland, I don't think they'd make demands on the Netherlands today.

What this does suggest is that it will be more difficult for West Germany to support NATO after the Netherlands and potentially France have been more punitive to it. Ultimately, I think West Germany will simply accept that it has little choice but to stand with nations that have grabbed territory and ethnically cleansed its population. It is also possible that there is no West Germany--that the West simply refuses to accept an independent German state and simply builds a puppet regime that runs the show for decades.

In any case, there is a poorer and less friendly Germany as a result. The Dutch and French are richer, and Germany will eventually be their ally. But it'll be a chilly relationship for a couple decades after 1945.
 
In any case, there is a poorer and less friendly Germany as a result. The Dutch and French are richer, and Germany will eventually be their ally. But it'll be a chilly relationship for a couple decades after 1945.

I think a couple decades are underestimated, make that a few millenia, and you're right. Also, no EU, ever.
 
In any case, there is a poorer and less friendly Germany as a result. The Dutch and French are richer, and Germany will eventually be their ally. But it'll be a chilly relationship for a couple decades after 1945.

I don't know I'd agree with it being poorer, Germany would still have the majority of the Ruhr area (it's strongest economic center) and, for the scenario let's assume the only other territorial hange is the Saarland, really has'nt lost alot of economic capacity.

I think a couple decades are underestimated, make that a few millenia, and you're right. Also, no EU, ever.

I see no reason these changes would change history to that degree.

Poland annexed more territory than anyone else and Germany and Poland have good relations today.
France did'nt actually take any teritory IOTL, and has histrocially been Germany's enemy/rival, yet they have close and good relations today.
The Netherlands gaining some border area is not going to change that.

As for the EU, it and its predecessors were created initialy because they were good ideas and in the best interest of Germany and the others involved.
 
A VERY tiny version of this was implemented in OTL. The Netherlands grabbed a couple tiny slivers of land, all of which were returned to Germany except for a single hill.
 
Poland annexed more territory than anyone else and Germany and Poland have good relations today.
France did'nt actually take any teritory IOTL, and has histrocially been Germany's enemy/rival, yet they have close and good relations today.
The Netherlands gaining some border area is not going to change that.

As for the EU, it and its predecessors were created initialy because they were good ideas and in the best interest of Germany and the others involved.

The relations with France and the Netherlands are good in OTL because they refrained from any overly punitve measures towards Germany. And what Germany did in Poland (attempted genocide, large annexations, ethnic cleansing) does not compare at all to what it did in the west (harsh occupation, and, as it regards the Netherlands, no annexations). With Poland, although what happened was still reprehensible, and the German-Polish relations ARE worse than the relations Germany has with any of its neighbors (see Kaczynski, Baltic pipeline, Center against Expulsions etc. etc.), at least you could say that Poland only did what it did because Germany did so before, and additionally they were acutally somewhat forced by Stalin AND lost territory themselves, some of which was actually important (Vilnius, Lwow). The Dutch had to endure no ethnic cleansing, no genocide and nothing whatsoever what could be even compared to the Bakker-Schutt plan. If they would go through with the manic Bakker-Schutt plan, which, in my opinion is just Dutch for Lebensraum, German-Polish relations would be really cordial in comparison.
 
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.

This is a revolting post written by someone who who has no moral sense at all. "Germany" didn't chose the war, Hitler did. You don't punish an entire population for crimes committed by individuals, even if the number of individuals is very large. Collective punishment is a crime against humanity, and is inflicting Nazi-scale suffering on the Germans would make us as bad as the Nazis, and hypocrites, to boot.

Why we would trash Germany to hand territory to a neutral country and commit genocide in the process is left out of the discussion as it's too insane and stupid to seriously consider.

Also, I wasn't aware we (the USA) was fighting for "national, racial, and ethnic survival." Which race and ethnicity were we fighting to preserve again?

Framing a statement like you have makes you sound like a nauseating early 20th c. racist douchebag.
 
Top