Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What territories would the Germans want if given rational leadership prior to WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What territories would the Germans want if given rational leadership prior to WWII?

    Here's my question elaborated:

    I know that this question depends a LOT on personality. But let's forget about Hitler's obsessive Drag noch Ostern policies. Say, for instance, the Germans want their colonies back in Africa to get their precious Lebensraum. If I remember the British weren't dead set against this in the beginning, and the German leadership begins negotiations in earnest.

    What would they want to annex territorially?
    Here's my thinking:
    1. Austria. Eight million ethic Germans, a must have
    2. Sudatenland. A powderkeg ready to erupt, and three million Germans needing protection
    2. Bohemia. Not populated by ethnic Germans. Skoda would be nice but the long term problems of ruling non Germans would lead to Balkanization.
    3. South Tyrol. Not worth fighting over, but peaceful annexation might be nice.
    4. The Belgian concessions. Get them back by any means short of war.
    5. Alsace-Lorraine. Populated by Germans, proper part of the Reich. Not a chance in hell without starting Great War II. But if the Wehrmacht kicks the crap out of the French then justice will be served.
    6. Northern Schwelsig. Populated by Danes, no need for it other than pride
    7. Memel. German people, anschluss it!
    8.Polish concessions. East Prussia must be relinked with Germany proper at any cost!
    9. German enclaves in the Balkans. No way to defend them or annex them, they will have to fend for themselves.

    Now the question is not would there be war, but what would the German Government, and especially the German military want to have out of the fruit basket that is middle Europe?
    Last edited by Wolery; 20 Jun 08, 06:29.
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

  • #2
    1) Why ? never been part of Germany
    2) Questinnable, but they don't need protection & Sudetenland is a major defense line for Czechoslovakia
    2a) No reason to have Bohemia
    3) Why ?
    4) Why ?
    5) Partition might be possible
    6) No need then
    7) Why ?
    8) Why ?
    9) Quite.

    Only Hitler was on about lebensraum

    Rationally they wouldn't fight for any of them

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by peteratwar View Post
      15) Partition might be possible
      Alsace-Lorraine was overwhelmingly pro-French as I understand it - and why not, they kept the quality beer and their cuisine improved markedly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Pre WW I borders for a start. That pretty much takes care of most of your list.

        #2 Please tell my brother in law who was born in Bohemia as his larger family was that they arn't German. Bring you lunch

        #3 Why????????? Never German and barley Austrian

        #5 Sounds good, except the kicking part. Alsace and Lorraine, no -, is the Maginot Line
        not that ez for the Germans to "kick the crap".

        #6 Has been a part of Germany since 1866.

        #9 No need, both Hungary and Romania were friendly towards Germany.

        interesting thread

        HP
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          My appologies, I meant South TYROL, not Trento, and northern Schwelig, not Schwelig-Holstein proper. I will correct.
          How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
          275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

          Comment


          • #6
            In that case

            Tyrol fits by pre WWI borders. Italy was an ally.

            This brings up a question. In the real history, after the Austrian Anschulss, did South Tyrol revert back to German/Austrian control or did it remain a part of Italy?

            The Danish lands would not have been given up by the Danes, without some resistance.
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think you need to look at the question from the perspective of German security. Before World War I the German military and establishment viewed the country as the 'nut between the crackers'. i.e. surrounded by powerful France and Russia. In terms of a rational German leadership, I would have though the primary issue would be how to best achieve this security?

              Alex
              -----------------------------------
              www.historyofwarfare.blogspot.com

              Comment


              • #8
                A rational government would want no territory. The last attempt cost them millions of dead.
                FoxNEWS "The World is unfair and we are running scared"

                Comment


                • #9
                  I say Norway and Demark so as not to suffer another Allied Blockade, as well as gaining naval bases. Maybe the Polish Corridor so as to gain more access to the Baltic. I doubt the Germans would even entertain the thought of peacefully annexing Alsace-Lorraine. Other than that, I don't see the need for the Germans to gain more territory just becasue 'other Germans live there'. That would be a waste of manpower.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From my reading on the subject I get the impression that the more rational Germans in the Nazi regime wanted little different to Hitler in terms of uniting the German peoples within the Reich.

                    Edit: Further to that, the non-Nazi nationalists sought at a bare minimum to restore the borders of the Wilhelmine Reich.
                    Last edited by Full Monty; 06 Jul 08, 11:52. Reason: Additional information
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                      Further to that, the non-Nazi nationalists sought at a bare minimum to restore the borders of the Wilhelmine Reich.
                      From my readings I have come to the conclusion that the major grievance was the polish corridor. It is even said that Hitler had a practical reason for hating this, as he got sea sick when traveling to East Prussia.

                      If you gave the Germans back their corridor and maybe a few other concessions like Upper Silesia, i'm sure that would have been enough to restore national pride; which is what I think a rational government (and as it turns out also an irrational government) would want to achieve.

                      I see territories like Alsace Lorraine more as something Germany annexed to punish France for attempting to prevent German unification and to establish her continental dominance, as the German population there was a minority. I can't speak fro the Danish territories seized but I thought these had been part of Denmark a long time.

                      Cheers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PatBC View Post
                        A rational government would want no territory. The last attempt cost them millions of dead.
                        err. when was that? ww1 was not for Germany about territory.

                        before ww1, Germany went to war in 1901 in china, in 1870-71 vs. France and 1866 vs. Austria, oh yes and with the danes also.
                        before that was the napoleonic times.

                        I should add the fights against the africn natives too.

                        actually Germany in 19th century was a much more peacefull than say, Britain or France.


                        the versailles treaty was really unfair. even alsace and german lorraine had populations who prefered to be german than french. ditto for pomerania and Silesia. it was one of the cruel victors making a peace that was a guarantee for more wars.

                        mind you if not for the brits and americans, in 1918-1919, France would have annexxed parts of Germany beyond Alsace and Lorraine.... Clemenceau wanted to take the Sarre as well and also more lands beyond the rhine.
                        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It would be total hell for the french to keep those lands beyond the rhine and would be a caytalst for the nazi party and would allow it to rise quicker with a pretty big chunk of germany under control of the french. I could see the nazi engaged in a grueilla war with teh frenchs in the eary 30's and possibly in the late 20's

                          Sgt. Ace_General

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                            It would be total hell for the french to keep those lands beyond the rhine and would be a caytalst for the nazi party and would allow it to rise quicker with a pretty big chunk of germany under control of the french. I could see the nazi engaged in a grueilla war with teh frenchs in the eary 30's and possibly in the late 20's

                            Sgt. Ace_General
                            in that case, with the french holding the ruhr, etc. the german rebels would hve been crushed by the very strong french army. of course this is a very far fetched what if. but in the occupied Sarre, germans coudl not rebel agains the french occupation.
                            "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Borders change through winning and losing wars, that is a fact of life, fair or unfair. "Germany" had no right to correct the 1919 borders anymore than any other country could. If the justifications used above for reclaiming territory were applied universally in Europe, Poland could reclaim huge amounts of territory from when it was partioned between Austria, Germany and Russia. Likewise Austria could then reclaim the entire A-H Empire,...and so on.

                              There is no justification for Germany's aggression, regardless of who was in power after 1919.
                              The Purist

                              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X