ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Description
Here's the basic context: Alternate Versailles 1935 - A Europe Built to Last
See below for some good dialogue on the issue:
Arminius1871 Dec 21, 2015 Hobbyist Digital Artist
See below for some good dialogue on the issue:
Arminius1871 Dec 21, 2015 Hobbyist Digital Artist
... the Allies should have made fair eastern borders with good ethnic borders. Difficult in Poland of course,
but look at Czechoslovakia, an artificial state where they forced 4 ethnicities to live suddenly after 1000
years together in a new state. That this won´t work was obvious, and there were not many language islands,
they could have made some very good language borders. I think even 5 ethnicities, there were also some Poles
in a tiny region^^
but look at Czechoslovakia, an artificial state where they forced 4 ethnicities to live suddenly after 1000
years together in a new state. That this won´t work was obvious, and there were not many language islands,
they could have made some very good language borders. I think even 5 ethnicities, there were also some Poles
in a tiny region^^
You encounter a similar (and to my mind, more justified) problem in Taiwan - it's been quite the painful process for them to distinguish between Chinese cultural and Chinese political identity.I'm perfectly sympathetic to that, but I do lose patience when they disclaim their Chinese heritage altogether... ^^
Yeah Masaryk could have spared the region a ton of grief by being a bit less greedy about the key Sudeten towns and the PURELY Hungarian swathes of territory in southern Slovakia. They'd have ended up with some Germans even so, but the culturally sensitive bits would have been very easy to let go of without any harm to Czechoslovakia's territorial integrity OR military defensibility. He was a bit cheat, and it bit the poor Czechs in the ass in the end :/ ... all the more sad when you consider that of all the new nations formed out of Austria-Hungary's corpse, Czechoslovakia was by FAR the best-run new democracy, and had the best minority protections. It was something of a model, really. So very sad the way that all worked out.
As a matter of interest, here are the more conservative concessions that basically defuse tensions vis a vis Germans, Hungrarians, and Poles by lopping off easy give-aways that return key culturally or industrially significant areas (short of Henlein's time bomb) wile still leaving Czechoslovakia with plenty of of advanced industrial capacity, uninterrupted transport links the length of the country, and easily defended mountain frontiers. To my mind, Pressburg is a small price to pay to keep the Slovaks in the union.
Yeah Masaryk could have spared the region a ton of grief by being a bit less greedy about the key Sudeten towns and the PURELY Hungarian swathes of territory in southern Slovakia. They'd have ended up with some Germans even so, but the culturally sensitive bits would have been very easy to let go of without any harm to Czechoslovakia's territorial integrity OR military defensibility. He was a bit cheat, and it bit the poor Czechs in the ass in the end :/ ... all the more sad when you consider that of all the new nations formed out of Austria-Hungary's corpse, Czechoslovakia was by FAR the best-run new democracy, and had the best minority protections. It was something of a model, really. So very sad the way that all worked out.
As a matter of interest, here are the more conservative concessions that basically defuse tensions vis a vis Germans, Hungrarians, and Poles by lopping off easy give-aways that return key culturally or industrially significant areas (short of Henlein's time bomb) wile still leaving Czechoslovakia with plenty of of advanced industrial capacity, uninterrupted transport links the length of the country, and easily defended mountain frontiers. To my mind, Pressburg is a small price to pay to keep the Slovaks in the union.
That map shows a very interesting way to find a compromise. But it would be still a loss.
I still think, if a nation is not able to survive on its own being independent,
it is not the problem of other peoples and I am completely for perfect ethnic borders.
And if they need German industry and can´t live with their own, they don´t seem to be
ready for independence. And I don´t mean that bad or that they´re less worth,
it´s just what I think.
Also the Slovaks were not very happy with the Czechs as dominators someone from there
told me. Bohemia should´ve stayed inside a new Germany maybe and just get extra autonomy
rights. Only supporting the Reich in the case of war and getting great trading and economy extras.
But it was the time of nationalism and even small ethnicities felt like they´re the masters of the world XD
I still think, if a nation is not able to survive on its own being independent,
it is not the problem of other peoples and I am completely for perfect ethnic borders.
And if they need German industry and can´t live with their own, they don´t seem to be
ready for independence. And I don´t mean that bad or that they´re less worth,
it´s just what I think.
Also the Slovaks were not very happy with the Czechs as dominators someone from there
told me. Bohemia should´ve stayed inside a new Germany maybe and just get extra autonomy
rights. Only supporting the Reich in the case of war and getting great trading and economy extras.
But it was the time of nationalism and even small ethnicities felt like they´re the masters of the world XD
Hmm... *perfect* ethnic borders along the lines of the Henlein map (thinly populated rural areas beyond the arguably more important border cities included 
) is a pretty tall order for this sort of project - nobody would ever walk away 100% satisfied, methinks. And sure, even under the improved Treaty, the Slovaks might well have separated off eventually, if they truly were that prepared to screw themselves economically before 1940. But in 1919, the Czechs would never have accepted incorporation into any German state whatsoever. My understanding in the case of Czechoslovakia is that it wasn't so much a matter of needing industry associated with this or that ethnicity, but having geographic features that allowed them to defend themselves, which before 1938 they most certainly did enjoy. But the little chunks of land I colored in would have been easy, culturally significant concessions to extract from Masaryk at the conference to at LEAST show the Germans and the Hungarians some reasonable goodwill without basically asking for a future invasion.
Again, i'm limited by the nature of this particular project, which is much more about identifying as many realistic opportunities as I can for an *improved* middle ground between *easy* ethnic border fixes, guarantees for minority rights, and in all cases basic military defensibility for any state represented at the Conference. They needed mountain ranges and so forth. And Masaryk could have still had those while offering Eger, Karlsbad, Reichenberg, etc. to Germany, and Komarno, Dunajska Streda, etc. to Hungary.
To incorporate Bohemia, you'd need to go back much further, to before 1871 at least... if not 1848! Pity Bismark was so afraid of a Catholic-dominated Grossdeutschland, I suppose. But at that point, any romantic notions of each ethnicity neatly gathered inside its own respective boundary sort of goes out the window and we're back to the whole nationalism vs patriortism trap
) is a pretty tall order for this sort of project - nobody would ever walk away 100% satisfied, methinks. And sure, even under the improved Treaty, the Slovaks might well have separated off eventually, if they truly were that prepared to screw themselves economically before 1940. But in 1919, the Czechs would never have accepted incorporation into any German state whatsoever. My understanding in the case of Czechoslovakia is that it wasn't so much a matter of needing industry associated with this or that ethnicity, but having geographic features that allowed them to defend themselves, which before 1938 they most certainly did enjoy. But the little chunks of land I colored in would have been easy, culturally significant concessions to extract from Masaryk at the conference to at LEAST show the Germans and the Hungarians some reasonable goodwill without basically asking for a future invasion.Again, i'm limited by the nature of this particular project, which is much more about identifying as many realistic opportunities as I can for an *improved* middle ground between *easy* ethnic border fixes, guarantees for minority rights, and in all cases basic military defensibility for any state represented at the Conference. They needed mountain ranges and so forth. And Masaryk could have still had those while offering Eger, Karlsbad, Reichenberg, etc. to Germany, and Komarno, Dunajska Streda, etc. to Hungary.
To incorporate Bohemia, you'd need to go back much further, to before 1871 at least... if not 1848! Pity Bismark was so afraid of a Catholic-dominated Grossdeutschland, I suppose. But at that point, any romantic notions of each ethnicity neatly gathered inside its own respective boundary sort of goes out the window and we're back to the whole nationalism vs patriortism trap
Sorry for late reply^^
Well Wilhelm I wanted Bohemia 1866 from Austria after the German brother war,
but Bismarck said no, cause he wanted the Germans in Austria will still unite later
with them. That was maybe the last chance.
You are right they surely wanted geographically good borders to defend. But it is still the same,
it´s not the problem of the Germans they don´t have it, and it´s their land, so they should not
be forced to live in it. Or they must give the Germans such an extreme autonomy, that no-one
complains.
It was as always a mistake, that Germans and the peoples of the east did not talk fair to each
other and decide together about the borders, it was bad that France could decide it. I also read
that after both world wars, the Czechs gave the western allied wrong maps, with much lower Germans
on it, and only with Czech city names, so that they got confused and agreed. It was not even close to
be fair in any way.
Well Wilhelm I wanted Bohemia 1866 from Austria after the German brother war,
but Bismarck said no, cause he wanted the Germans in Austria will still unite later
with them. That was maybe the last chance.
You are right they surely wanted geographically good borders to defend. But it is still the same,
it´s not the problem of the Germans they don´t have it, and it´s their land, so they should not
be forced to live in it. Or they must give the Germans such an extreme autonomy, that no-one
complains.
It was as always a mistake, that Germans and the peoples of the east did not talk fair to each
other and decide together about the borders, it was bad that France could decide it. I also read
that after both world wars, the Czechs gave the western allied wrong maps, with much lower Germans
on it, and only with Czech city names, so that they got confused and agreed. It was not even close to
be fair in any way.
Oh, no problem at all! And happy new year!
Yeah, I realize what I'm proposing is not perfect by any single measure. But the perfect has always been the enemy of the good. And that applies no differently to a perfect "Heim ins Reich" fantasy. Realistically, a stable, democratic post-WWI European peace could never really be built around making EVERY German happy.
At some point there are trade-offs between (a) equal national dignity -> stability and order -> liberal democracy (where many irredentists who think their culture is special often get fixated); (b) freedom from fear of foreign invasion; and (c) MINIMAL (but still some) disruption to the social and economic basis of everyday life for all the people of Europe. If (a), (b), and (c) each could be scored from 1 (catastrophe) to 10 (perfection), no practical balance in 1919 could possibly achieve a score of 10 for (a), (b), OR (c) by themselves, let alone in combination. I think the original treaty was something like (a)=4, (b)=7, and (c)=6, giving a "chance for peace" score of 17/30 (57%, an F+ basically)... such a low score for (a) was what allowed fascism to take root in the first place.
I'm convinced that the conference could have produced an IMPROVED (but not perfect) score for (a), at ZERO cost to (b) and in fact ADDING to (c). I think in 1919, were matters settled rationally and without bias, it would have been possible to achieve (a)=8, (b)=7, and (c)=7 - a total "chance for peace" score of 22/30 (73%, still only a C, but at the end of the day, that's enough to pass the test). That's all this map can hope to do. Raise the individual score for only (a), (b), or (c) any higher, and the other two lose several points very quickly. So yeah, it's true, even (a)=8 and (c)=7 leaves SOME Sudeten Germans under Czech rule. Unavoidable, really.
There's no denying that Masaryk did indeed take unfair advantage of the Allies' biases, and that was truly a pity, but there's also ample evidence that meaningful autonomy within Czechoslovakia was steadily emerging by the 1930s - to the point where people were quite comfortable comparing Czechoslovakia to Switzerland. Henlein and company didn't have much of an audience until Hitler gave people an excuse to indulge more primitive, tribalist fantasies. And with tribalism comes war - revenge for prior revenge for prior revenge ad infinitum. It's no coincidence that term "Slav" itself reflects enslavement at the hands of Germans... and that Czech nationalists took their revenge at the conference and for years thereafter... and that Hitler and Henlein hit back in their turn, arousing the equally vengeful assasination attempt on Heydrich, with horrible consequences for the people of Lidice, leading to horrible consequences for innocent Germans expelled from Bohemia in 1945.
It's the same old dialectic wherever you look - even Israel, civilization's noblest (and for decades its most successful) attempt to redeem itself from the unspeakable horrors of the camps, has fallen into the same endless cycle of revenge.
I suppose what I'm saying is that given humanity's appetite for revenge, everyone is better off when we score a B's and C's on EVERY section of the peace test than an A on ONE section and an F on the others...
Yeah, I realize what I'm proposing is not perfect by any single measure. But the perfect has always been the enemy of the good. And that applies no differently to a perfect "Heim ins Reich" fantasy. Realistically, a stable, democratic post-WWI European peace could never really be built around making EVERY German happy.
At some point there are trade-offs between (a) equal national dignity -> stability and order -> liberal democracy (where many irredentists who think their culture is special often get fixated); (b) freedom from fear of foreign invasion; and (c) MINIMAL (but still some) disruption to the social and economic basis of everyday life for all the people of Europe. If (a), (b), and (c) each could be scored from 1 (catastrophe) to 10 (perfection), no practical balance in 1919 could possibly achieve a score of 10 for (a), (b), OR (c) by themselves, let alone in combination. I think the original treaty was something like (a)=4, (b)=7, and (c)=6, giving a "chance for peace" score of 17/30 (57%, an F+ basically)... such a low score for (a) was what allowed fascism to take root in the first place.
I'm convinced that the conference could have produced an IMPROVED (but not perfect) score for (a), at ZERO cost to (b) and in fact ADDING to (c). I think in 1919, were matters settled rationally and without bias, it would have been possible to achieve (a)=8, (b)=7, and (c)=7 - a total "chance for peace" score of 22/30 (73%, still only a C, but at the end of the day, that's enough to pass the test). That's all this map can hope to do. Raise the individual score for only (a), (b), or (c) any higher, and the other two lose several points very quickly. So yeah, it's true, even (a)=8 and (c)=7 leaves SOME Sudeten Germans under Czech rule. Unavoidable, really.
There's no denying that Masaryk did indeed take unfair advantage of the Allies' biases, and that was truly a pity, but there's also ample evidence that meaningful autonomy within Czechoslovakia was steadily emerging by the 1930s - to the point where people were quite comfortable comparing Czechoslovakia to Switzerland. Henlein and company didn't have much of an audience until Hitler gave people an excuse to indulge more primitive, tribalist fantasies. And with tribalism comes war - revenge for prior revenge for prior revenge ad infinitum. It's no coincidence that term "Slav" itself reflects enslavement at the hands of Germans... and that Czech nationalists took their revenge at the conference and for years thereafter... and that Hitler and Henlein hit back in their turn, arousing the equally vengeful assasination attempt on Heydrich, with horrible consequences for the people of Lidice, leading to horrible consequences for innocent Germans expelled from Bohemia in 1945.
It's the same old dialectic wherever you look - even Israel, civilization's noblest (and for decades its most successful) attempt to redeem itself from the unspeakable horrors of the camps, has fallen into the same endless cycle of revenge.
I suppose what I'm saying is that given humanity's appetite for revenge, everyone is better off when we score a B's and C's on EVERY section of the peace test than an A on ONE section and an F on the others...
Image size
466x235px 56.35 KB
Date Taken
Dec 26, 2015, 9:45:44 AM
© 2015 - 2024 espion80
Comments10
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Is it just me, or is that a Flame War I hear over the horizon?