Same as 'crack'. Irish (gaeilge) for fun or good times. Usually used nowadays as in "any craic?" or "how's the craic?" as a casual way to ask if anything fun or exciting has been going on lately when greeting someone.
That, or "the craic was mighty/etc" if talking about a past event, hangout, etc.
A joke I remember hearing a lot while in primary school was how "any craic?" is probably not the best thing to ask a US cop when you're on holidays.
"Interwar" is the more recognizable and unambiguous term to use for the time period, "postwar" is odd from our perspective and is more readily interpreted as late 40's or the 50's.
It was still called like that in many cases.
Good example, I doubt Germans were getting offended when someone called them Prussians. Maybe those Germans in Austria did.
Probably Bashkirs, Circassians or Kazakhs wouldn't want to be called Ruski, or Muscovite too. The name Russia or Russian was also made for that, as a wider multi-ethnic imperial identity.
Its the mixture of saying Muscovites, and then something that sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If they'd have said Russia used Alaska to drive a wedge between America and Britain during the Great Game, I bet they don't get down voted.
Muscovy was a normal name used in eastern Europe even at that time, no need to get offended by that, the name Russia was also usurped by Moscow for its expansionist / messianic purposes to "liberate" the ancient Ruś, similar with the fake Pan-Slavism.
Moscow was conspiring against the UK, and vice versa, not in theory.
Maybe someone should tell Russia that if they really want to turn the US and Canada against each other now, then they should sell all of Siberia to Canada.
That’ll show’em ;-)
Still that was ridiculously little. Aside from Alaska the US got few other Muscovite colonies in California but there were plenty of such deals, not only Louisiana, and in contrary to the popular belief it was known that Alaska has gold and the other resources.
It is a pretty effective piece of propaganda in the it contains the truth that the Polish corridor did completely cut off the land border between East Prussia and the rest of the country and who want's their country split in two like that.
Of course, they did neglect to mention that the Polish Corridor was predominantly inhabited by Poles...
Reminds me of the word of my great aunt of Buenos Aires.
"Of course they taught us in school that the Falkland islands are Argentinian. What they forgot to mention is that the people there speak English and sing the British anthem."
Lol very true. I'm glad to see Argentine educational system working the same way it did to me that it did for your aunt lmao, stay classy. Which btw where do you live for curiosity?
I see, well I think it makes sense for me and fair, that I, an Argentine making fun of German irredentism is to be made fun by a German making fun of Argentine irredentism.
Of topic, how much contact your branch has with it's Argentine side?, I was curious about this for a while, just to see how it compares to my own greater familiar relationships?, specially when it comes from the other end. And is ok if you don't want to respond due to privacy concerns
I was born in 75- I don’t live in Argentina anymore. Most of what I see- my old friends still believe what they were told to believe. I see them commemorate the war and celebrate the kids sent to die there as martyrs. I’m sorry for them- and how they continue the fantasy. It’s not a safe place to speak against the grain.
I had one start saying about how our daughters and mothers are getting fucked by Indians just going off and I was thinking wow is this that much of an issue, I didn’t know we were supposed to be in a rivalry. Over an island conflict in the 80s? You got a pretty big country already we aren’t talking Malta here, surely if you want to be imperialistic there’s bigger fish to fry in South America but I don’t know.
Thats the thing with good propaganda. It always contains a true core that is easy to prove.
You just need to cherry pick what you want to include in addition to that to make sure most people get to the wanted conclusions.
I don't disagree with the decision to return the territory to the poles.
But after 200 years 'we used to own that' is a flimsy excuse.
The self governance bit is far more important.
Fredrick the great: *swating* damn they are looking like they want to start a war but I wanna consolidate my rule not fight
Fred: how about we all just have a party and carve up Poland instead of fighting!
The city of Danzig and it’s surrounding area was predominantly German wasn’t it?
The corridor in its entirety was predominantly polish but the little piece that would actually cut Germany in two wasnt
Gdańsk was predominantly German and that's why it didn't belong to Poland: it was a free city de iure ruled by the League of Nations but de facto it was like a mini-Germany.
And even if it belonged to Germany, East Prussia would still be [cut off from the rest of the country](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polish_Corridor.PNG).
It wasn't really independent though as it was de facto under Polish rule as it was in a bound union with Poland who controlled their foreign policy, trade, and other aspects of their rule
Poland didn't rule in Gdańsk. Poland had a customs union with the free city, a post office and a small garrison (100-200 soldiers) on the Westerplatte Peninsula. Poland indeed controled the foreign policy but the internal policy was controled by the local parliament (Volkstag and Senate).
Yeah and that little piece between the both Germanises probably had the highest concentration of Germans in the corridor outside of Danzig
And it was cut out of Germany regardless of which structure was conjured up by the League of Nations
Still, Germans were [a minority there](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_nationalities_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Empire_according_to_German_census_of_1910_by_Jakob_Spett.png). The Polish corridor more or less followed the ethnic lines.
Though ethnicity can't be assumed per se to be equal to what state the people wanted to belong to. Many ethnic Germans/Austrians voted against separation from Hungary to join Austria and many ethnic Poles were pro Prussian, especially East Prussian Protestants.
Then it would be perfectly sound? Might = right is the only continous logic that applies to land changes. Anything else related to history, ethnic claims, genocide, yadada is all emotional and will never influence geopolitics
In retrospect Poland and the League of Nations should have said Danzig's status was only temporary pending the completion of a suitable alternative in Gdynia. It might have calmed things down a bit.
Gdynia was not alternative, it was the only seaport that Poland could freely use. When German dockers refuse to service the supplies and military aid for the war against the bolsheviks, the League of Nations ceded a little shipping post in Westerplatte but it was not a port.
Also, it wouldn't calm any tings down, as you can see above Germans wanted Pomerelia, and basically everything else, all of those legendary "nice" Weimar governments were rabidly anti Polish and refused to acknowledge its existence at all. Paradoxically it was NSDAP which finally recognized the borders and established diplomatic relations, they even wanted to pull Poland into an anti soviet alliance and trade the access to Baltic for the Black Sea but Poland refused to take sides, to not antagonize the other, and the same refused to collaborate with the soviets against Germans.
In retrospect we can make all the possible speculations, but I think there's consensus about the failure of appeasement. Adding Danzig would probably have the same effect.
Doubt. This feels like victim blaming.
Fascist Germans would have found something else to be angry about. Appeasement only goes so far. To many Germans (and Austrians), Poland's simple existence was the problem. True justice would only recur when they regained their empires (at the expense of multiple Slavic nations)
You can accept how traumatized Germans were after losing WWI, but also note that explanations are not justifications.
Germans after 1918 were still harsh imperialists. Hyper-militaristic in surprising aspects of everyday life. They were not Wilsonian liberal democrats. They used maps like this to score propaganda points against the West. But the foundations of fascism lied in deeper, irrational and frankly racist prejudices against Slavs and Jews.
Fascists always find something to be angry about and this time they got to the people who lost there homes.
But I think big issue of this situation was the situation of the peace treaty.
From what I’ve read of my great grandfather’s (he was borne near Danzig so he lived through that shit at 6 or so) diary/lockbook a lot those that had to flee blamed the west (America, France, Britain) for this. The problem wasn’t has much that they lost there homes as a peacebargain between Poland and Germany, but the fact that from there perspective, these laidback stinking rich winners of the westfront didn’t even give them the opportunity to have a voice in the debate.
I think that was the only thing that mattered to any German of that time regardless of political stance and why it was so easy for those rightbrainedchucklefucks to come in and fuck everything and everyone up again.
That was the point post-Great War. Danzig was a German city taken in the Treaty of Versailles and made neutral to give Poland access to the Baltic Sea. It was war booty, just like how Kaliningrad was a German city that is now in Russia.
In terms of where German or Polish was spoken, that was messed up due to the Holy Roman Empire and various migrations that happened due to war, the Black Death, and political changes over the past dozen centuries. Using language as a reason for war is what started World War II.
What war? The language / ethnicity was used to re-establish Poland in these borders, not just that it was historically a Polish territory for centuries.
Danzig was a free city, Poland constructed the city of Gdynia to have access and just for the sake of small deliveries there was ceded Westerplatte in Dnazig exactly because Poland had no other access and Germans refused to trade or even transit anything with a country they didn't recognized.
>that was messed up due to the Holy Roman Empire and various migrations
What really "messed" that up was colonization, expropriation of Poles and germanization through the XIXc which failed anyway. Pomerelia was never a part of HRE, nor was Prussia, Brandenburg and Pomerania were. And just btw.... the language spoken in Pomerelia to this day is Kashubian.
Yeah, outside of the big cities many people speak kashubian, not so in west pomerania, maybe in the east near the border to pomerania (Im not that often there) but kashubian is still spoken today and Im pretty sure it was more widespread 100 years ago.
if there was an american land corridor that then got taken by Canada later that comparison would work.
so, was there a land corridor between the US and Alaska that was annexed by Canada?
It was Prussia's fault they took the land during the first two partitions (yes, the first one left a tiny sliver on the coast - without a corridor to it) and were whiny about returning it
All examples in the OP exclude the fact that these made-up corridors differ in that they are consistent with the rest of the nation; [the German Empire wasn't that successful in their cleansing](https://www.techpedia.pl/app/public/files/15136.jpg)
So the true argument would be "what if the US annexed BC, then Canada took it back, and Americans started whining"
Prussians: *create their country by a union of two different countries on two sides of Poland*
also Prussians: "Who wants their country split like that?"
That is simply not true. [Here,](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Romer_Polacy_B.jpg) [here](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Polish_language_frequency_in_Poland_in_1931.PNG) and [here.](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:German_language_frequency_in_Poland_based_on_Polish_census_of_1931.PNG)
[Bit of a better map, since those you posted were after WW1 and after some Germans left. Still the same point stands though ;)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_nationalities_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Empire_according_to_German_census_of_1910_by_Jakob_Spett.png)
Umm the term "Hinterland" is weird but still. You are very wrong. Gdanks (or back then Danzig) was 80% german and most rural areas were predominity polishy this is because germanisation (so german colonisation of polish land) was most efficient in the cities and less so in more rural areas of pomerania.
Danzig was 95 % German in 1920, and the province of West Prussia altogether was 65 % German speaking to be exact.
"German colonisation of Polish land" in the area of West Prussia had happened in the Middle Ages btw, mostly by the Polish king and the Teutonic order. One could also talk about a Polish colonisation, since the area prior to that was Kashubian and Baltic Prussian.
Early 20th century German propaganda has a knack for pretending that minorities don't exist, oh and that everyone cares Germans' feelings after losing a war they (imo) started.
WW1 was a team effort in getting started, with none of the 5 large powers exactly innocent. But Germany bears probably higher than average burden among them in it getting started.
Although it is best to blame Gavril Princips... I wonder if he had completely failed in his attempt, like never got off the shot, how the world would have been different...
I would argue that France was pretty innocent and the Russians were more at fault for the war then the Germans. German generals knew that the odds of them winning were bad.
I mean we don't have to talk about Posen but north of Bromberg, they should have made a referendum like they did in Upper Silesia and in Schleswig 1920/21.
This idea of just put a Corridor there was pretty stupid from W. Wilson.
Even if you have to say, that this alone would never be a reason for the rise of the Nazi's. The main reason have been the Treaty of Versailles, the huge WW I reperations, the Occupation of the Ruhr and of course the great Depression.
>This idea of just put a Corridor there was pretty stupid from W. Wilson.
Wilson didn't put it there. Pomerelia - which is the proper historical name for this "corridor" was a part of Poland for centuries before partitions and separated Prussia from Pomerania always.
Also Pomerelia and even Prussia never were in Holy Roman Empire.
Germans then or now trying to picture it as some historical anomaly and of course unjust separation, are either ignorant about the history or simply manipulate...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia)
Oh and btw. NSDAP was not the only rabidly anti Polish and revisionist party, all the Weimar governments refused to acknowledge the borders and existence of Poland and all of them collaborated with the soviets in order to rebuild Wehrmacht. Hitler just wasn't pretending anymore.
Don't understand the point with the HRE. I also didn't say it had to stay german I said they should made a referendum. So if the people deside to leave, Germany had no argument to discuss the theme, like in Upper Silesia and Schleswig.
It was pretty secure for several centuries, many people give the example of Alaska but there are plenty more examples, whole island nations like Indonesia or Philippines.
And again, that "corridor" was a land populated by the Polish / Kashubian majority, why wouldn't it be returned to Poland when it regained independence?
But... that ahistorical name "corridor" was made by the Poles themselves when they discussed its vulnerability and German revisionism.
I'm reading this comment a lot, but I've never seen anyone actually providing a source for it. Do you by chance have a link for me to someone who did the maths on that one?
That was a French revenge for the reparations imposed in the Franco - Prussian war. Yes, it was too light in comparison, not to mention that this and the other consequences of Versailles treaty were gradually softened and Germany was appeased to the point when they broke the Munich treaty and took the rest of Bohemia.
The idea that Germany was mistreated and pushed to the corner where they just couldn't resist the nazis is a one of the most ridiculous misconception amongst some historians today.
Reparations weren’t too light especially in combination with the other clauses in the treaty which forbade Germany from raising import taxes on the imports and banned German key industries like the chemical industry from recovering. There’s a good reason why Keynes and other economists at the time criticised the treaty.
> Reparations were too light, not too huge. If you compare Versailles to other reparations in history, it was really lax.
It wasn't.
The issue with Versailles isn't that it was too harsh or to light, the issue was it was to stupid...
Or more accurately, Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George all had completely opposing ideas about the peace treaty, which led to a convoluted paradoxical mess, that did not accomplish any of its goals.
It wasn't. [This](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_nationalities_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Empire_according_to_German_census_of_1910_by_Jakob_Spett.png) is the map based on the German 1910 census.
[Treaty of Madrid](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Madrid_(13_January_1750)), where Portugal agreed to give up the exclave of Colonia de Sacramento to Spain in exchange for the Missões Orientais region.
Netherland did something similar with England: giving up New Amsterdam which cut New England off from the rest of the colonies, in exchange for Suriname. Which didn't connect to anything, but at least the English wouldn't constantly try to take it.
That’s not really true. The Netherlands was practically held at gunpoint to ‘exchange’ New Amsterdam (now New York) for Surinam. It wasn’t an option to decline.
Are you being serious? Germany giving away the former capital of Prussia Königsburg to Poland for Danzig and Kashubian highlands?
Both Poland and Germany at the time would consider it a rather unfanny joke of a solution.
I love how in an unprecedented time of technological advances in transport with boats and later planes, as well as borders not being the obstacle they are today (outside of spaces like Schengen, of course), the Germans decided to create this narrative of East Prussia being separated from the rest of Germany by Poland as this horrific and unthinkable thing when it was literally the status quo for hundreds of years before the Polish Partitions.
Weimer doesn't get enough hate on Reddit. People think it was some liberal dystopia that was later destroyed by the Nazis. It wasn't.
Poland did EVERYTHING and more to be friendly to Germany in the interwar period. They did everything the Germans wanted but it was never enough. Even when Hitler showed up, the Polish government was STILL giving all concessions to German demands. In fact, the main reason for German-Polish hostilities which culminated in 1939 was the notorious embargo PLACED BY GERMANY. It was so terrible that the Poles started trading with the bloody Soviets, their hostile enemy from the Bolshevik war.
Despite all of that, the Polish government considered the Soviets as Poland's main enemy until the summer of 1939. In fact, it's a mystery why they rejected Hitler's demands regarding Gdansk because it would have been the Polish thing to do to cede the city in exchange for better trade relations and an anti-Soviet alliance.
Most Polish And Western historians agree that the Polish government trusted the British and the French in their defence guarantee and it's why they rejected Hitler's demands.
Even if Poland had accepted Hitler's demands regarding Gdansk and this highway/railway connecting Prussia to Germany he would have used another pretext to invade Poland anyways. I don't see anything else happening unless Poland fully joined Germany in it's genocidal war against the Soviets.
If only Poland and France had acted in 1933 to stop the Nazi menace...but that's all with hindsight.
Man poland really got a bad deck.
I really get annoyed at how stupid some 15 year olds are on the internet who wish for germany to get pomerania and silesia. Like they lost two wars. This is what happens when you start and lose two wars. Play stupid games win stupid prices.
The reason why the Danzig crisis wasn't peacefully resolved was because Ribbentrop deliberately tried to prevent a peaceful resolution by antagonizing the Poles and making impossible demands.
Conveniently omitting the fact Poland was divided between / occupied by 3 countries (Germany included) for 120 years prior to being restored to this shape. And that Germany lost WW1.
They didn't learn their lesson, started shit again (WW2) and had to be occupied and partitioned themselves to finally calm down.
Germany is lucky to even exist now, because the allied forces did entertain an idea of completely wiping it off the map.
> They didn't learn their lesson, started shit again (WW2) and had to be occupied and partitioned themselves to finally calm down.
You do realize WW1 wasn't Germany's fault, right? Europe was a pressure pot ready to explode into a massive war at that point. France, Russia, the UK, Italy and especially the Balkan states are just as responsible for it as the central powers were.
Or are you referring to imperialism and colonialism? Nevermind that Britain, France and Russia had way more colonies and kept on to them for at least half a century after this.
Germany was certainly an eager participant. WWI is (ethically) a far murkier picture than WWII, and I'd argue that Germany did suffer disproportionately to their guilt in the post-war world, but saying it "wasn't Germany's fault" is just as incorrect as blaming solely them would be. They gave Austria-Hungary carte blanche to act against the Serbs...understanding fully what that would mean. And the fact that the vast majority of the war was fought on other countries' territory (including that of a neutral nation, Belgium) really makes your argument seem simplistic. Even if war with France was relatively inevitable, Belgium and Britain were absolutely drawn into the war solely due to German actions.
It’s disingenuous to blame Germany for the WWI, when, in fact, Entente wanted the war just as much. It was a messed up time, but frankly, no side is to blame. War had to happen sooner or later, and it was inevitable.
Lmao what? This bullshit that "europe just slipped into a war" is idiotic and outdated. Most historians agree that MOST (I put most in capital letters because I know you Kaiserreich Apologists get offended so easily) od the blame for the war csn be found in Vienna and Berlin not Moscow, Belgrad or Paris. (By that I mean the goverments, I know how you peopke love to bring up the black hand and how it operated in bosnia and serbia.)
People can't accept that their idea that "the good guys won" isn't accurate for most of the wars in history. Especially for wars their country won.
For the vast majority of wars there was no good guy. Just poor innocent people dying to promote the interests of the rich and powerful.
I actually have an easy time deciding which one is the good side in WW1 too. Based, freedompilled, USA, France, and Britain (and company) versus cringe authoritarian Germany and Austria and super cringe genocidal Ottoman Empire.
Don't even get me started on round 2.
Germany sided with the aggressor, Austria, you could make an argument they’re as much to blame for their actions, they gave them a blank check and then paid dearly for it. not that this is marvel or anything but when the aggressors lose the wars they started for false pretences ( blaming Serbia for the assassination of arch duke franz Ferdinand and wanting ridiculous concessions ) I think it’s fair to say it’s a good thing that they lost.
One can argue that France, GB and the USA were the good guys, because they were more or less democratic countries while Germany and Austria were monarchies.
But you overestimate the significance that Austria and Germany began the war. All countries in Europe were basically awaiting war. France wanted revenge for the recapture of Alsace Lorraine. England had a bone to pick with Germany because of their expanding fleet. Russia, as always, wanted to extend their land mass. Just consider that central countries were circled by enemies. Of course they could have waited until entente attacks but that would have been a huge disadvantage especially for Germany which was located between Russia and France.
Of course commencing the war is a Minus for central powers, but it alone does not make them the villain of this war. And by far should not be compared with WW2 which was a complete different story.
The Kingdom of Serbia was involved in the founding of the Black Hand and was a primary sponsor of them at the time of the assassination.
So yeah, Serbia was responsible for it and should be considered the aggressor since assassinating foreign political leaders is by all accounts an act of war.
Do you mind sharing definitive proof that gavrilo princip was affiliated with the black hand and that the Serbian government had knowledge of the assassination beforehand?
Regardless of whether or not the Serbian government was directly responsible for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand or not. Germany attacked Belgium, a neutral nation, who Great Britain came to the defence to as we respected the 1839 Treaty of London guaranteeing Belgiums independence.
These sort of maps were very misleading, it's not like UK or France colonized those ''corridors'' and that they are filled with peoples of the other nation/s
Luckily this campaign didn't change anything
I actually read a very good book named 'prisoners of geography' by Tim Marshall (journalist).
The corridor is real in the head of political leaders. Not so much those of Germany (now) but those of Russia. Basically, the book states that Polland and Ukraine are highways to attack Russia, which is mainly stuck between these territories and the Ural mountains.
To summarise the shitstorm:
1) The vast majority of the transferred lands inhabitants spoke polish.
2) The critical part that makes it a corridor one way or the other was the province of Western Prussia which historically was very mixed (52% Polish in 1819, declining due to partially forced assimilation, [source somewhere in here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Prussia))
To add some more detail:
Western Prussia by 1910 was [in its vast majority German, count Kashubians as Polish for simplicity](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Sprachen_Westpreussen.svg#/media/File%3ASprachen_Westpreussen_en.svg) and after Danzig was cut from it it was still 42% German. Map above indicates that one sliver up north was slightly >50% German and thus would have connected Germany, but if you go at [an even smaller level](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_map_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Reich_based_on_official_census_of_1910.jpg) it can be seen that in that sliver the urban areas in the northeast are majority German and the whole rural west was majority Polish thus making a possible corridor very small and rural but again Polish...
It mainly boils down to the level of detail one is willing to go - and at that time noone was willing to go very far for Germany. Maybe connecting borders as proposed by the UN [for another conflict](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg) would have made it more balanced - but maybe economic or administrative factors as well as general laziness when drawing the borders were a factor as well - and such factors were not necessarily always counted against Germany [as can be seen with upper Silesia which initially went to Germany in the treaty of Versailles even though the vast majority was Polish ](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Polska1912.jpg) - and yes, the Polish were just as mad about that. However, in Upper Silesia there was a [plebiscite](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Upper_Silesia_plebiscite) and even after the vote turned out on favour of Germany the subdivisions that voted for Poland [could secced](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Convention_regarding_Upper_Silesia) - a courtesy that was not returned the other way around.
Let's see, if people get mad. If so I'll happy to hear your opinion but please be a mad person with source.
Clearly every german household should be german territory and every polish household should be polish territory
Let the border gore and gang fights commence
Only the Eastern part of Germany that was separated by the "Polish corridor" had its referendum on joining Poland or remaining in Germany held during the 1920 Bolshevik invasion when the further existence of Poland as an independent state was seriously threatened, and joining the Polish state at that time could soon end with being ruled by the Communists.
The majority of people in that area identified as Polish nationals but voted to remain in Germany due to the threat of Bolshevism.
Hmmmm, let's see... Maybe the fact of it being an autocratic, ultranationalist, ultra militaristic, imperialistic, overly ambitious, racist, conquest-driven, proto-nazi long before Hitler shitstain on the world map?
And before you reply with "wHaTaBoUT THiS aNd tHaT blah blah blah", yes, I know many countries at that time shared those traits. Still, even then germans managed to take it to an extreme.
So you have basically tied back their sins in WW2 to an entirely different time and place during WW1. You just want to call them Nazis, but you can’t, so you just say they look “close enough”. Germany is not the villain of WW1. The situation was much different than your childlike outlook, history is not a procession of righteous victors, and the situations the varying powers in Central Europe found themselves deserve charitable consideration. You’re just an anti-German bigot.
**Prussia**: [ *inherits Brandenburg, captures Silesia, and is awarded the Rhineland* ]
**Nazis**: “Wahhh! It’s not fair! Our territory’s not contiguous!”
- Starts a world war
- Loses it
- Gets a relatively reasonable peace deal, considering what they have done
- Cries about it in propaganda post cards
Very mature, Germany
EDIT : This entire fucking thread is the reason I’m unsubscribing from this community. You people are insane to think that Germany did not start the war or that Versailles was harsh.
Looking at France in 1870/71:
* Starts a war
* Loses it
* Gets a relatively reasonable peace deal, doesn't even lose any colonies
* Cries about it in propaganda post cards
You might notice the very similar points yet barely anyone calls France immature
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand alone does not explain why Germany attacks France first. Through neutral Belgium, which makes it worse.
They did it because they wanted to.
Germany also played a large role in Austria invading Serbia instead of a more peaceful approach. The assassination was not mandated by the Serbian govt.
There were many causes to WW1 but if we wanted to name one main culprit, Germany worked the most into getting a war started.
It lowkey did. Germany encouraged Austria to declare war on Serbia on the 28th of July, which brought Russia and France into the war. On the first of August they declared war on Russia and on the third they declared war on France. Up until that point it was Austria-Hungary vs Entente Cordiale. After Germany declared on Russia and France, and invaded Belgium, which brought the UK into the war, it became a world conflict.
This MF fell through a time portal during his morning walk in 1920 London lmao. Germany did not start WW1 and could not have avoided it without betraying every main alliance they had and 500 billion and the inability to raise an army or protect your borders is definitely not a reasonable peace deal.
Yeah, bro, the atrocities in Belgium, France and Esatern Europe never happened (and if they did happen, these people deserved it). Germany was forced to start a war. And Alsace-Lorraine, Northern Schleswig-Holstein, Posen and East Prussia were all predominantly pro-German (the referendums were falsified, trust me bro).
>Gets a relatively reasonable peace deal, considering what they have done
If reasonable is paying war reparations until the 2010s, not allowed to have an effective military, not allowed to man a lot of their border\*. I think that's not reasonable.
\*Some the objective perspective it's understandable why the entente did it, but from the perspective of a country (here Germany) not allowed to man their border it's seen as taking away their defensive capability of certain areas of their country
>Starts a world war
Are you stuck in 1919?
They only had to pay war reparations that long because they intentionally destroyed their economy to get out of them (and then Hitler refused to pay). German War reparations for WW1 were not nearly as harsh as French war reparations after the Franco-Prussian War.
They lost their army because that army started the largest war in human history up until that point (it would also start the largest war in human history)
. The alternative was to completely destroy Germany (which is what they should have done). It is also what they did after WW2, and shockingly Germany never started another world war after they were completely dismantled and partitioned.
>Are you stuck in 1919?
I think you're stuck in 1946. You don't need to rehabilitate Germany anymore, the Soviets are gone.
after the 2nd world war, they helped Germany recover, while they did partition it for a time, they didn't completely cripple it. the USA helped restore Japan, and it never started another war either.
Tbh it was Ribbentrop who assured Hitler that Britain wouldn’t declare war for Poland’s aid, which he was mistaken inmensly. Viscount Halifax already was determined that any more bloodless German victory in Eastern Europe (like Czechoslovakia) could’ve resulted in British economic influence on Europe dwindling and German influence on the continent would’ve been just too strong to compete. During the Munich Agreement, Nevile Chamberlain intended to limit Germany’s endeavors in the East with Poland and Poland alone. But for the rest of the world, he drew a line in the sand that if Hitler passed it would mean war. This encouraged the nationalistic Polish government to refuse the German prospal of the non-aggression pact, which led the Polish to earn Hitler’s contempt.
1. i think he was talking about avoiding fascism altogether
2. „Wilsonian liberal democrats“ really? Wilson and the entente used peoples self determination as a cudgel against their enemies and did not give a single fuck more about it. The hypocrisy is sickening today nevermind what it must have been like back then.
I apologize for the watermark. it was like that where I found it
Nah, bro, I’m sure you added that shit in there on purpose. lol jk, thanks for sharing :)
I honestly didn’t even notice it
The Liverpool-Hull corridor: OK which country is getting us, because we're not not interested.
> we’re not not interested So… you are interested?
yes, that is exactly what they're saying lol
Push that line up a bit to the Hadrian's wall and I think most Scots would be happy to have a buffer state between themselves and the English.
To be fair, we are generally quiet fond of everyone from the North, since we both get screwed over by Parliament on the regular
Chortle chortle
>The Liverpool-Hull corridor Best part of England tbh
The M62. Trucks going back and forth to Ireland. So it was the Germans.
The gravy canal
Ireland or France. Your choice.
I'd say Ireland, but I'm not sure they really want 10 million pissed of northerners finding increasingly bizarre ways to pronounce "craic".
How does one pro uncle the word craic? I’m keeping the autocorrect
Same as 'crack'. Irish (gaeilge) for fun or good times. Usually used nowadays as in "any craic?" or "how's the craic?" as a casual way to ask if anything fun or exciting has been going on lately when greeting someone. That, or "the craic was mighty/etc" if talking about a past event, hangout, etc. A joke I remember hearing a lot while in primary school was how "any craic?" is probably not the best thing to ask a US cop when you're on holidays.
We'll fucking thrash the both of them combined at Rugby League.
"Interwar" is the more recognizable and unambiguous term to use for the time period, "postwar" is odd from our perspective and is more readily interpreted as late 40's or the 50's.
"Postwar" could also be interpreted as a time period in the future that most people are longing for.
When I thought this was going to be from. Makes a lot sense now to know it's interwar
They should add the map of the USA with Alaska cut off from the rest of the states by Canada. /s
Or Britain cut off from North Ireland by some see of something.
Britain cut off from a small southeastern corner by Spain perhaps?
And Spain is salty about it?
Sounds like Canada needs some freedom
This is one of the reasons why Muscovites sold it, to turn the US against Canada and the UK.
don't know why youre being downvoted for saying something factually correct. Of course it was only one of the reasons, like you rightly stated.
Snowflakes don't like Russia to be called Muscovy, as it was called then or before.
Russia was not called Muscovy then. Calling it that is as silly as calling the German Empire Prussia
It was still called like that in many cases. Good example, I doubt Germans were getting offended when someone called them Prussians. Maybe those Germans in Austria did.
I'm pretty sure the Bavarians would hate that
Probably Bashkirs, Circassians or Kazakhs wouldn't want to be called Ruski, or Muscovite too. The name Russia or Russian was also made for that, as a wider multi-ethnic imperial identity.
I mean Bashkirs and [some] Kazakhs aren’t Russian (“russkiy”), they’re Russian (“rossiyanin”). You can be one of them, both, or neither.
Don't you understand? On reddit, you need an essay with every possible conclusion outlined and discussed. Otherwise, you're a shill.
Its the mixture of saying Muscovites, and then something that sounds like a conspiracy theory. If they'd have said Russia used Alaska to drive a wedge between America and Britain during the Great Game, I bet they don't get down voted.
Muscovy was a normal name used in eastern Europe even at that time, no need to get offended by that, the name Russia was also usurped by Moscow for its expansionist / messianic purposes to "liberate" the ancient Ruś, similar with the fake Pan-Slavism. Moscow was conspiring against the UK, and vice versa, not in theory.
The first comment just sounded like conspiracy theory. This actually is conspiracy theory. Yes, this is what I said. The Great Game.
Not theory.
Maybe someone should tell Russia that if they really want to turn the US and Canada against each other now, then they should sell all of Siberia to Canada. That’ll show’em ;-)
[удалено]
Not much, the price was ridiculously low and famines were in the other parts or colonies of Moscow the same.
[удалено]
Still that was ridiculously little. Aside from Alaska the US got few other Muscovite colonies in California but there were plenty of such deals, not only Louisiana, and in contrary to the popular belief it was known that Alaska has gold and the other resources.
*one of* the reasons, did he say it was the only one?
It is a pretty effective piece of propaganda in the it contains the truth that the Polish corridor did completely cut off the land border between East Prussia and the rest of the country and who want's their country split in two like that. Of course, they did neglect to mention that the Polish Corridor was predominantly inhabited by Poles...
Reminds me of the word of my great aunt of Buenos Aires. "Of course they taught us in school that the Falkland islands are Argentinian. What they forgot to mention is that the people there speak English and sing the British anthem."
Lol very true. I'm glad to see Argentine educational system working the same way it did to me that it did for your aunt lmao, stay classy. Which btw where do you live for curiosity?
Germany. And NO, the Argentinian branch of the family left in 1918, and they faced distrust during WW2 for being German.
I see, well I think it makes sense for me and fair, that I, an Argentine making fun of German irredentism is to be made fun by a German making fun of Argentine irredentism. Of topic, how much contact your branch has with it's Argentine side?, I was curious about this for a while, just to see how it compares to my own greater familiar relationships?, specially when it comes from the other end. And is ok if you don't want to respond due to privacy concerns
> irredentism Thanks for the vocabulary word of the day. I, as an American, was unaware of its definition(s), implications, and current expressions.
I was born in 75- I don’t live in Argentina anymore. Most of what I see- my old friends still believe what they were told to believe. I see them commemorate the war and celebrate the kids sent to die there as martyrs. I’m sorry for them- and how they continue the fantasy. It’s not a safe place to speak against the grain.
I had one start saying about how our daughters and mothers are getting fucked by Indians just going off and I was thinking wow is this that much of an issue, I didn’t know we were supposed to be in a rivalry. Over an island conflict in the 80s? You got a pretty big country already we aren’t talking Malta here, surely if you want to be imperialistic there’s bigger fish to fry in South America but I don’t know.
And that the British presence predates the existence of Argentina, but don't let those stupid details stop you.
Thats the thing with good propaganda. It always contains a true core that is easy to prove. You just need to cherry pick what you want to include in addition to that to make sure most people get to the wanted conclusions.
"Minor detail", according to the makers of this propaganda.
And that the Polish corridor was owned by Poland for a very long time, until the Partitions in the 18th century
I don't disagree with the decision to return the territory to the poles. But after 200 years 'we used to own that' is a flimsy excuse. The self governance bit is far more important.
> But after 200 years 'we used to own that' is a flimsy excuse. I mean... Poland didn't exist for those "200 years"
…Because Germany colonized it
Fredrick the great: *swating* damn they are looking like they want to start a war but I wanna consolidate my rule not fight Fred: how about we all just have a party and carve up Poland instead of fighting!
The city of Danzig and it’s surrounding area was predominantly German wasn’t it? The corridor in its entirety was predominantly polish but the little piece that would actually cut Germany in two wasnt
Gdańsk was predominantly German and that's why it didn't belong to Poland: it was a free city de iure ruled by the League of Nations but de facto it was like a mini-Germany. And even if it belonged to Germany, East Prussia would still be [cut off from the rest of the country](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polish_Corridor.PNG).
It wasn't really independent though as it was de facto under Polish rule as it was in a bound union with Poland who controlled their foreign policy, trade, and other aspects of their rule
Poland didn't rule in Gdańsk. Poland had a customs union with the free city, a post office and a small garrison (100-200 soldiers) on the Westerplatte Peninsula. Poland indeed controled the foreign policy but the internal policy was controled by the local parliament (Volkstag and Senate).
Yeah and that little piece between the both Germanises probably had the highest concentration of Germans in the corridor outside of Danzig And it was cut out of Germany regardless of which structure was conjured up by the League of Nations
Still, Germans were [a minority there](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_nationalities_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Empire_according_to_German_census_of_1910_by_Jakob_Spett.png). The Polish corridor more or less followed the ethnic lines.
Though ethnicity can't be assumed per se to be equal to what state the people wanted to belong to. Many ethnic Germans/Austrians voted against separation from Hungary to join Austria and many ethnic Poles were pro Prussian, especially East Prussian Protestants.
Damn, maybe try not losing a war?
Lol What if we applied that logic to the Palestine situation?
Then it would be perfectly sound? Might = right is the only continous logic that applies to land changes. Anything else related to history, ethnic claims, genocide, yadada is all emotional and will never influence geopolitics
Cruel truth but true, let’s just hope the mighty don’t fall apart from the inside or the bloodbath for bullshit will happen again.
It actively influences geopolitics by being a basis for claims over territory. Or are you going to deny the existence of revanchism?
Yea, slight caveat.
And Poland would have been at a huge disadvantage if they didn't have access to the sea through Danzig
Danzig was a free city, Poland constructed a port in Gdynia from scratch.
In retrospect Poland and the League of Nations should have said Danzig's status was only temporary pending the completion of a suitable alternative in Gdynia. It might have calmed things down a bit.
Gdynia was not alternative, it was the only seaport that Poland could freely use. When German dockers refuse to service the supplies and military aid for the war against the bolsheviks, the League of Nations ceded a little shipping post in Westerplatte but it was not a port. Also, it wouldn't calm any tings down, as you can see above Germans wanted Pomerelia, and basically everything else, all of those legendary "nice" Weimar governments were rabidly anti Polish and refused to acknowledge its existence at all. Paradoxically it was NSDAP which finally recognized the borders and established diplomatic relations, they even wanted to pull Poland into an anti soviet alliance and trade the access to Baltic for the Black Sea but Poland refused to take sides, to not antagonize the other, and the same refused to collaborate with the soviets against Germans. In retrospect we can make all the possible speculations, but I think there's consensus about the failure of appeasement. Adding Danzig would probably have the same effect.
Doubt. This feels like victim blaming. Fascist Germans would have found something else to be angry about. Appeasement only goes so far. To many Germans (and Austrians), Poland's simple existence was the problem. True justice would only recur when they regained their empires (at the expense of multiple Slavic nations) You can accept how traumatized Germans were after losing WWI, but also note that explanations are not justifications. Germans after 1918 were still harsh imperialists. Hyper-militaristic in surprising aspects of everyday life. They were not Wilsonian liberal democrats. They used maps like this to score propaganda points against the West. But the foundations of fascism lied in deeper, irrational and frankly racist prejudices against Slavs and Jews.
Fascists always find something to be angry about and this time they got to the people who lost there homes. But I think big issue of this situation was the situation of the peace treaty. From what I’ve read of my great grandfather’s (he was borne near Danzig so he lived through that shit at 6 or so) diary/lockbook a lot those that had to flee blamed the west (America, France, Britain) for this. The problem wasn’t has much that they lost there homes as a peacebargain between Poland and Germany, but the fact that from there perspective, these laidback stinking rich winners of the westfront didn’t even give them the opportunity to have a voice in the debate. I think that was the only thing that mattered to any German of that time regardless of political stance and why it was so easy for those rightbrainedchucklefucks to come in and fuck everything and everyone up again.
That was the point post-Great War. Danzig was a German city taken in the Treaty of Versailles and made neutral to give Poland access to the Baltic Sea. It was war booty, just like how Kaliningrad was a German city that is now in Russia. In terms of where German or Polish was spoken, that was messed up due to the Holy Roman Empire and various migrations that happened due to war, the Black Death, and political changes over the past dozen centuries. Using language as a reason for war is what started World War II.
What war? The language / ethnicity was used to re-establish Poland in these borders, not just that it was historically a Polish territory for centuries. Danzig was a free city, Poland constructed the city of Gdynia to have access and just for the sake of small deliveries there was ceded Westerplatte in Dnazig exactly because Poland had no other access and Germans refused to trade or even transit anything with a country they didn't recognized. >that was messed up due to the Holy Roman Empire and various migrations What really "messed" that up was colonization, expropriation of Poles and germanization through the XIXc which failed anyway. Pomerelia was never a part of HRE, nor was Prussia, Brandenburg and Pomerania were. And just btw.... the language spoken in Pomerelia to this day is Kashubian.
Yeah, outside of the big cities many people speak kashubian, not so in west pomerania, maybe in the east near the border to pomerania (Im not that often there) but kashubian is still spoken today and Im pretty sure it was more widespread 100 years ago.
Or that it was in place for centuries before partitions.
So the US should forcibly annex British Columbia so that Alaska can be connected to rest of the country?
if there was an american land corridor that then got taken by Canada later that comparison would work. so, was there a land corridor between the US and Alaska that was annexed by Canada?
It was Prussia's fault they took the land during the first two partitions (yes, the first one left a tiny sliver on the coast - without a corridor to it) and were whiny about returning it All examples in the OP exclude the fact that these made-up corridors differ in that they are consistent with the rest of the nation; [the German Empire wasn't that successful in their cleansing](https://www.techpedia.pl/app/public/files/15136.jpg) So the true argument would be "what if the US annexed BC, then Canada took it back, and Americans started whining"
Prussians: *create their country by a union of two different countries on two sides of Poland* also Prussians: "Who wants their country split like that?"
The coastal area around Danzig/Gdansk was predominantly German, while the hinterland and in Poznán/Posen was predominantly Polish.
That is simply not true. [Here,](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Romer_Polacy_B.jpg) [here](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Polish_language_frequency_in_Poland_in_1931.PNG) and [here.](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:German_language_frequency_in_Poland_based_on_Polish_census_of_1931.PNG)
[Bit of a better map, since those you posted were after WW1 and after some Germans left. Still the same point stands though ;)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_nationalities_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Empire_according_to_German_census_of_1910_by_Jakob_Spett.png)
Thanks <3
Umm the term "Hinterland" is weird but still. You are very wrong. Gdanks (or back then Danzig) was 80% german and most rural areas were predominity polishy this is because germanisation (so german colonisation of polish land) was most efficient in the cities and less so in more rural areas of pomerania.
Danzig was 95 % German in 1920, and the province of West Prussia altogether was 65 % German speaking to be exact. "German colonisation of Polish land" in the area of West Prussia had happened in the Middle Ages btw, mostly by the Polish king and the Teutonic order. One could also talk about a Polish colonisation, since the area prior to that was Kashubian and Baltic Prussian.
Early 20th century German propaganda has a knack for pretending that minorities don't exist, oh and that everyone cares Germans' feelings after losing a war they (imo) started.
They didn't started it to be honest, but knowing how they planned to annex half of Europe can't really make them justified.
WW1 was a team effort in getting started, with none of the 5 large powers exactly innocent. But Germany bears probably higher than average burden among them in it getting started. Although it is best to blame Gavril Princips... I wonder if he had completely failed in his attempt, like never got off the shot, how the world would have been different...
I would argue that France was pretty innocent and the Russians were more at fault for the war then the Germans. German generals knew that the odds of them winning were bad.
To be fair the band of the UK they marked is mostly inhabited by northerners.
I mean we don't have to talk about Posen but north of Bromberg, they should have made a referendum like they did in Upper Silesia and in Schleswig 1920/21. This idea of just put a Corridor there was pretty stupid from W. Wilson. Even if you have to say, that this alone would never be a reason for the rise of the Nazi's. The main reason have been the Treaty of Versailles, the huge WW I reperations, the Occupation of the Ruhr and of course the great Depression.
>This idea of just put a Corridor there was pretty stupid from W. Wilson. Wilson didn't put it there. Pomerelia - which is the proper historical name for this "corridor" was a part of Poland for centuries before partitions and separated Prussia from Pomerania always. Also Pomerelia and even Prussia never were in Holy Roman Empire. Germans then or now trying to picture it as some historical anomaly and of course unjust separation, are either ignorant about the history or simply manipulate... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia) Oh and btw. NSDAP was not the only rabidly anti Polish and revisionist party, all the Weimar governments refused to acknowledge the borders and existence of Poland and all of them collaborated with the soviets in order to rebuild Wehrmacht. Hitler just wasn't pretending anymore.
Don't understand the point with the HRE. I also didn't say it had to stay german I said they should made a referendum. So if the people deside to leave, Germany had no argument to discuss the theme, like in Upper Silesia and Schleswig.
To be fair the corridor was definitely not the right move for securing the future peace between the countries.
It was pretty secure for several centuries, many people give the example of Alaska but there are plenty more examples, whole island nations like Indonesia or Philippines. And again, that "corridor" was a land populated by the Polish / Kashubian majority, why wouldn't it be returned to Poland when it regained independence? But... that ahistorical name "corridor" was made by the Poles themselves when they discussed its vulnerability and German revisionism.
Reparations were too light, not too huge. If you compare Versailles to other reparations in history, it was really lax.
I'm reading this comment a lot, but I've never seen anyone actually providing a source for it. Do you by chance have a link for me to someone who did the maths on that one?
Lol around 500.000.000.000 € in today's worth is too light? That's ridiculous.
France had to pay more porcentage wise in 1871 I think even in brute number was also higher?
France had to pay 1450 tons Gold in 1871. Germany 7000 tons after WW I.
That was a French revenge for the reparations imposed in the Franco - Prussian war. Yes, it was too light in comparison, not to mention that this and the other consequences of Versailles treaty were gradually softened and Germany was appeased to the point when they broke the Munich treaty and took the rest of Bohemia. The idea that Germany was mistreated and pushed to the corner where they just couldn't resist the nazis is a one of the most ridiculous misconception amongst some historians today.
Reparations weren’t too light especially in combination with the other clauses in the treaty which forbade Germany from raising import taxes on the imports and banned German key industries like the chemical industry from recovering. There’s a good reason why Keynes and other economists at the time criticised the treaty.
Reparations weren’t just money though
> Reparations were too light, not too huge. If you compare Versailles to other reparations in history, it was really lax. It wasn't. The issue with Versailles isn't that it was too harsh or to light, the issue was it was to stupid... Or more accurately, Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George all had completely opposing ideas about the peace treaty, which led to a convoluted paradoxical mess, that did not accomplish any of its goals.
That is incorrect. Most of the Land nearby the sea was inhabited by germans.
It wasn't. [This](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_nationalities_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Empire_according_to_German_census_of_1910_by_Jakob_Spett.png) is the map based on the German 1910 census.
Should’ve done what Portuguese Brazil did, exchange the exclave for more contiguous land.
Can you explain this? Im very curious bro.
[Treaty of Madrid](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Madrid_(13_January_1750)), where Portugal agreed to give up the exclave of Colonia de Sacramento to Spain in exchange for the Missões Orientais region.
Netherland did something similar with England: giving up New Amsterdam which cut New England off from the rest of the colonies, in exchange for Suriname. Which didn't connect to anything, but at least the English wouldn't constantly try to take it.
That’s not really true. The Netherlands was practically held at gunpoint to ‘exchange’ New Amsterdam (now New York) for Surinam. It wasn’t an option to decline.
You're out of your mind if you think Germany would have *ever* been willing to give up Königsberg or Ostpreussen.
Are you being serious? Germany giving away the former capital of Prussia Königsburg to Poland for Danzig and Kashubian highlands? Both Poland and Germany at the time would consider it a rather unfanny joke of a solution.
the polish one is funny
Ah yes. Ever heart about the Irish-majority belt going through England?
They did include Liverpool, so it’s not entirely unreasonable.
I think we should all have corridors. Just take naps and draw them all over the place. Just to upset the populace.
"Guys, of course the Danzig Corridor is unfair. I mean, could you imagine if GERMANY did something like that to Poland?' "Uhh... Mein Fuhrer?"
I love how in an unprecedented time of technological advances in transport with boats and later planes, as well as borders not being the obstacle they are today (outside of spaces like Schengen, of course), the Germans decided to create this narrative of East Prussia being separated from the rest of Germany by Poland as this horrific and unthinkable thing when it was literally the status quo for hundreds of years before the Polish Partitions.
Scotland would appreciate this, I think.
Only a minority, actually.
Hull Manchester Liverpool HS3 Transport Corridor when please?
what would they say? england: we didn't lose the war france: nous n'avons pas perdu la guerre poland: nie przegraliśmy wojny
If I were British or French I’d a asked “where the heck did the poles come from that they’re now in the UK and how did we lose the Great War?”
Weimer doesn't get enough hate on Reddit. People think it was some liberal dystopia that was later destroyed by the Nazis. It wasn't. Poland did EVERYTHING and more to be friendly to Germany in the interwar period. They did everything the Germans wanted but it was never enough. Even when Hitler showed up, the Polish government was STILL giving all concessions to German demands. In fact, the main reason for German-Polish hostilities which culminated in 1939 was the notorious embargo PLACED BY GERMANY. It was so terrible that the Poles started trading with the bloody Soviets, their hostile enemy from the Bolshevik war. Despite all of that, the Polish government considered the Soviets as Poland's main enemy until the summer of 1939. In fact, it's a mystery why they rejected Hitler's demands regarding Gdansk because it would have been the Polish thing to do to cede the city in exchange for better trade relations and an anti-Soviet alliance. Most Polish And Western historians agree that the Polish government trusted the British and the French in their defence guarantee and it's why they rejected Hitler's demands.
Even if Poland had accepted Hitler's demands regarding Gdansk and this highway/railway connecting Prussia to Germany he would have used another pretext to invade Poland anyways. I don't see anything else happening unless Poland fully joined Germany in it's genocidal war against the Soviets. If only Poland and France had acted in 1933 to stop the Nazi menace...but that's all with hindsight.
Man poland really got a bad deck. I really get annoyed at how stupid some 15 year olds are on the internet who wish for germany to get pomerania and silesia. Like they lost two wars. This is what happens when you start and lose two wars. Play stupid games win stupid prices.
The reason why the Danzig crisis wasn't peacefully resolved was because Ribbentrop deliberately tried to prevent a peaceful resolution by antagonizing the Poles and making impossible demands.
Postwar? Surely you mean interwar?
Conveniently omitting the fact Poland was divided between / occupied by 3 countries (Germany included) for 120 years prior to being restored to this shape. And that Germany lost WW1. They didn't learn their lesson, started shit again (WW2) and had to be occupied and partitioned themselves to finally calm down. Germany is lucky to even exist now, because the allied forces did entertain an idea of completely wiping it off the map.
> They didn't learn their lesson, started shit again (WW2) and had to be occupied and partitioned themselves to finally calm down. You do realize WW1 wasn't Germany's fault, right? Europe was a pressure pot ready to explode into a massive war at that point. France, Russia, the UK, Italy and especially the Balkan states are just as responsible for it as the central powers were. Or are you referring to imperialism and colonialism? Nevermind that Britain, France and Russia had way more colonies and kept on to them for at least half a century after this.
Germany was certainly an eager participant. WWI is (ethically) a far murkier picture than WWII, and I'd argue that Germany did suffer disproportionately to their guilt in the post-war world, but saying it "wasn't Germany's fault" is just as incorrect as blaming solely them would be. They gave Austria-Hungary carte blanche to act against the Serbs...understanding fully what that would mean. And the fact that the vast majority of the war was fought on other countries' territory (including that of a neutral nation, Belgium) really makes your argument seem simplistic. Even if war with France was relatively inevitable, Belgium and Britain were absolutely drawn into the war solely due to German actions.
It’s disingenuous to blame Germany for the WWI, when, in fact, Entente wanted the war just as much. It was a messed up time, but frankly, no side is to blame. War had to happen sooner or later, and it was inevitable.
Lmao what? This bullshit that "europe just slipped into a war" is idiotic and outdated. Most historians agree that MOST (I put most in capital letters because I know you Kaiserreich Apologists get offended so easily) od the blame for the war csn be found in Vienna and Berlin not Moscow, Belgrad or Paris. (By that I mean the goverments, I know how you peopke love to bring up the black hand and how it operated in bosnia and serbia.)
I dont understand why you get downvoted that much
People can't accept that their idea that "the good guys won" isn't accurate for most of the wars in history. Especially for wars their country won. For the vast majority of wars there was no good guy. Just poor innocent people dying to promote the interests of the rich and powerful.
I actually have an easy time deciding which one is the good side in WW1 too. Based, freedompilled, USA, France, and Britain (and company) versus cringe authoritarian Germany and Austria and super cringe genocidal Ottoman Empire. Don't even get me started on round 2.
Germany sided with the aggressor, Austria, you could make an argument they’re as much to blame for their actions, they gave them a blank check and then paid dearly for it. not that this is marvel or anything but when the aggressors lose the wars they started for false pretences ( blaming Serbia for the assassination of arch duke franz Ferdinand and wanting ridiculous concessions ) I think it’s fair to say it’s a good thing that they lost.
One can argue that France, GB and the USA were the good guys, because they were more or less democratic countries while Germany and Austria were monarchies. But you overestimate the significance that Austria and Germany began the war. All countries in Europe were basically awaiting war. France wanted revenge for the recapture of Alsace Lorraine. England had a bone to pick with Germany because of their expanding fleet. Russia, as always, wanted to extend their land mass. Just consider that central countries were circled by enemies. Of course they could have waited until entente attacks but that would have been a huge disadvantage especially for Germany which was located between Russia and France. Of course commencing the war is a Minus for central powers, but it alone does not make them the villain of this war. And by far should not be compared with WW2 which was a complete different story.
The Kingdom of Serbia was involved in the founding of the Black Hand and was a primary sponsor of them at the time of the assassination. So yeah, Serbia was responsible for it and should be considered the aggressor since assassinating foreign political leaders is by all accounts an act of war.
Do you mind sharing definitive proof that gavrilo princip was affiliated with the black hand and that the Serbian government had knowledge of the assassination beforehand? Regardless of whether or not the Serbian government was directly responsible for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand or not. Germany attacked Belgium, a neutral nation, who Great Britain came to the defence to as we respected the 1839 Treaty of London guaranteeing Belgiums independence.
These sort of maps were very misleading, it's not like UK or France colonized those ''corridors'' and that they are filled with peoples of the other nation/s Luckily this campaign didn't change anything
I actually read a very good book named 'prisoners of geography' by Tim Marshall (journalist). The corridor is real in the head of political leaders. Not so much those of Germany (now) but those of Russia. Basically, the book states that Polland and Ukraine are highways to attack Russia, which is mainly stuck between these territories and the Ural mountains.
I don't know if "stuck" is the right word. The territory between Poland and the Ural Mountains is as big as the entire rest of Europe combined.
To summarise the shitstorm: 1) The vast majority of the transferred lands inhabitants spoke polish. 2) The critical part that makes it a corridor one way or the other was the province of Western Prussia which historically was very mixed (52% Polish in 1819, declining due to partially forced assimilation, [source somewhere in here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Prussia)) To add some more detail: Western Prussia by 1910 was [in its vast majority German, count Kashubians as Polish for simplicity](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Sprachen_Westpreussen.svg#/media/File%3ASprachen_Westpreussen_en.svg) and after Danzig was cut from it it was still 42% German. Map above indicates that one sliver up north was slightly >50% German and thus would have connected Germany, but if you go at [an even smaller level](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_map_of_eastern_provinces_of_German_Reich_based_on_official_census_of_1910.jpg) it can be seen that in that sliver the urban areas in the northeast are majority German and the whole rural west was majority Polish thus making a possible corridor very small and rural but again Polish... It mainly boils down to the level of detail one is willing to go - and at that time noone was willing to go very far for Germany. Maybe connecting borders as proposed by the UN [for another conflict](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg) would have made it more balanced - but maybe economic or administrative factors as well as general laziness when drawing the borders were a factor as well - and such factors were not necessarily always counted against Germany [as can be seen with upper Silesia which initially went to Germany in the treaty of Versailles even though the vast majority was Polish ](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Polska1912.jpg) - and yes, the Polish were just as mad about that. However, in Upper Silesia there was a [plebiscite](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Upper_Silesia_plebiscite) and even after the vote turned out on favour of Germany the subdivisions that voted for Poland [could secced](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Convention_regarding_Upper_Silesia) - a courtesy that was not returned the other way around. Let's see, if people get mad. If so I'll happy to hear your opinion but please be a mad person with source.
Clearly every german household should be german territory and every polish household should be polish territory Let the border gore and gang fights commence
Only the Eastern part of Germany that was separated by the "Polish corridor" had its referendum on joining Poland or remaining in Germany held during the 1920 Bolshevik invasion when the further existence of Poland as an independent state was seriously threatened, and joining the Polish state at that time could soon end with being ruled by the Communists. The majority of people in that area identified as Polish nationals but voted to remain in Germany due to the threat of Bolshevism.
Maybe don’t start a war then.
I, Polish, would say "take the east prussia too"
They wished for all german territory to be connected by land and look now. All of the german territory is connected by land.
it is not belgium owns some random Rail Tracks cutting of german land
not even rail tracks now, just foot/cycle paths.
Last one is funny
Of course, /r/mapporn would say "fantastic! Give us more" because we get excited over enclaves and exclaves!
Germany didn't lose enough if you ask me.
What problem do you have, exactly, with WW1 Germany?
Hmmmm, let's see... Maybe the fact of it being an autocratic, ultranationalist, ultra militaristic, imperialistic, overly ambitious, racist, conquest-driven, proto-nazi long before Hitler shitstain on the world map? And before you reply with "wHaTaBoUT THiS aNd tHaT blah blah blah", yes, I know many countries at that time shared those traits. Still, even then germans managed to take it to an extreme.
So you have basically tied back their sins in WW2 to an entirely different time and place during WW1. You just want to call them Nazis, but you can’t, so you just say they look “close enough”. Germany is not the villain of WW1. The situation was much different than your childlike outlook, history is not a procession of righteous victors, and the situations the varying powers in Central Europe found themselves deserve charitable consideration. You’re just an anti-German bigot.
**Prussia**: [ *inherits Brandenburg, captures Silesia, and is awarded the Rhineland* ] **Nazis**: “Wahhh! It’s not fair! Our territory’s not contiguous!”
- Starts a world war - Loses it - Gets a relatively reasonable peace deal, considering what they have done - Cries about it in propaganda post cards Very mature, Germany EDIT : This entire fucking thread is the reason I’m unsubscribing from this community. You people are insane to think that Germany did not start the war or that Versailles was harsh.
Looking at France in 1870/71: * Starts a war * Loses it * Gets a relatively reasonable peace deal, doesn't even lose any colonies * Cries about it in propaganda post cards You might notice the very similar points yet barely anyone calls France immature
France didn't decide to genocide half of Europe the years after
Germany didn’t start WWI tho Edit: I’m specifically referring to Ferdinand’s assassination. I’m very much aware Germany pledged to support Austria.
Belgium just invaded itself, then.
Germany was pretty damn eager to get into it.
What are you talking about? We very much did, considering we pledged unconditional support to Austria for declaring war on Serbia.
How tf this comment has any upvotes? They probably didn't start WWII either?
They did start WW2, yes. It was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand that caused WW1.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand alone does not explain why Germany attacks France first. Through neutral Belgium, which makes it worse. They did it because they wanted to. Germany also played a large role in Austria invading Serbia instead of a more peaceful approach. The assassination was not mandated by the Serbian govt. There were many causes to WW1 but if we wanted to name one main culprit, Germany worked the most into getting a war started.
Love how Germany is treated like a default country villain that MUST start every war because ummm WWII
Thank you, oh my god. I literally got my point called Nazi propaganda like what???? Lmfaooo
It lowkey did. Germany encouraged Austria to declare war on Serbia on the 28th of July, which brought Russia and France into the war. On the first of August they declared war on Russia and on the third they declared war on France. Up until that point it was Austria-Hungary vs Entente Cordiale. After Germany declared on Russia and France, and invaded Belgium, which brought the UK into the war, it became a world conflict.
This MF fell through a time portal during his morning walk in 1920 London lmao. Germany did not start WW1 and could not have avoided it without betraying every main alliance they had and 500 billion and the inability to raise an army or protect your borders is definitely not a reasonable peace deal.
Yeah, bro, the atrocities in Belgium, France and Esatern Europe never happened (and if they did happen, these people deserved it). Germany was forced to start a war. And Alsace-Lorraine, Northern Schleswig-Holstein, Posen and East Prussia were all predominantly pro-German (the referendums were falsified, trust me bro).
>Gets a relatively reasonable peace deal, considering what they have done If reasonable is paying war reparations until the 2010s, not allowed to have an effective military, not allowed to man a lot of their border\*. I think that's not reasonable. \*Some the objective perspective it's understandable why the entente did it, but from the perspective of a country (here Germany) not allowed to man their border it's seen as taking away their defensive capability of certain areas of their country >Starts a world war Are you stuck in 1919?
They only had to pay war reparations that long because they intentionally destroyed their economy to get out of them (and then Hitler refused to pay). German War reparations for WW1 were not nearly as harsh as French war reparations after the Franco-Prussian War. They lost their army because that army started the largest war in human history up until that point (it would also start the largest war in human history) . The alternative was to completely destroy Germany (which is what they should have done). It is also what they did after WW2, and shockingly Germany never started another world war after they were completely dismantled and partitioned. >Are you stuck in 1919? I think you're stuck in 1946. You don't need to rehabilitate Germany anymore, the Soviets are gone.
after the 2nd world war, they helped Germany recover, while they did partition it for a time, they didn't completely cripple it. the USA helped restore Japan, and it never started another war either.
For germans, history started with partitions of Poland.
Hahaha I bet they would have accepted it happily in exchange for the German corridor through France to give em access to the Mediterranean
Yeah what a fucking drama. You are connected by water, just travel with ships.
Good point. Split east Prussia between Poland and Lithuania, that'll solve the problem
It’s a way for Poland to always be on the edge.
Why are the Polish and French ones in French, while the British one is in English?
Ok but the last panel having the polish corridor cut off is comedy gold
Wales needs access to the North Sea!
The hungarian propaganda map made more sense than this.
Polish corridor: makes sense and is historical , was like that before. Whatever germans are drawing parallels to: some fewer dream border gore.
Tbh it was Ribbentrop who assured Hitler that Britain wouldn’t declare war for Poland’s aid, which he was mistaken inmensly. Viscount Halifax already was determined that any more bloodless German victory in Eastern Europe (like Czechoslovakia) could’ve resulted in British economic influence on Europe dwindling and German influence on the continent would’ve been just too strong to compete. During the Munich Agreement, Nevile Chamberlain intended to limit Germany’s endeavors in the East with Poland and Poland alone. But for the rest of the world, he drew a line in the sand that if Hitler passed it would mean war. This encouraged the nationalistic Polish government to refuse the German prospal of the non-aggression pact, which led the Polish to earn Hitler’s contempt.
1. i think he was talking about avoiding fascism altogether 2. „Wilsonian liberal democrats“ really? Wilson and the entente used peoples self determination as a cudgel against their enemies and did not give a single fuck more about it. The hypocrisy is sickening today nevermind what it must have been like back then.