Landau is not my real name but an anonymous nic I choose to use in Wikipedia. It is named after the town of Landau in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany which is a university town. It was once a part of Bavaria. Though I have great respect for the Russian physicist of the same name, the nic is not named after him. 7 is one of my favourite numbers.
"God alone knows the future, but only an historian can alter the past" (Ambrose Bierce)
"We investigate the past not to deduce practical political lessons, but to find out what really happened." (T. F. Tout)
"That generations of historians have resorted to what might be called "proof by haphazard quotation" does not make the procedure valid or reliable; it only makes it traditional." (Lee Benson)
""History" is a Greek word which means, literally, just "investigation." (Arnold Toynbee)
"If history teaches anything about the causes of revolution-and history does not teach much but still teaches considerably more than social-science theories-it is that a disintegration of political systems precedes revolutions, that the telling symptom of disintegration is a progressive erosion of governmental authority, and that this erosion is caused by the government's inability to function properly, from which spring the citizens' doubts about its legitimacy." (Hannah Arendt)
"The first law of history is to dread uttering a falsehood; the next is not to fear stating the truth; lastly, the historian's writings should be open to no suspicion of partiality or animosity." (Leo XIII)
The following is an outline project involving a team of several historians and economists of which I am a member.
The Oder-Neisse Line (click to enlarge)
Proposition 1: "The current Oder-Neisse situation was created by violence and could never be reversed without violence"
Response 1: It could be reversed in a peaceful manner. The proposed solution is complex; however it would end the injustice which has existed for years and finally bring peace to Eastern Europe. The 'magic' solution involves purchase of territory, other money payments, strategic alliances and using past crimes as leverage. In short the border changes wouldn't be for Germany alone but also for Poland, Romania, Finland and the Baltics, in short all nations which were robbed of land by Stalin, and indeed FDR. Germany and Poland would both be moved east, at the expense of the CIS which stole the land to begin with. At the same time, the Russians of Ukraine and Belarus, who numbered some in 2001, would be booted out to make room for the returning Russian colonists. If Russia complained, the man made famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine could be used to force Russia to yield, especially the throughout of Russian reparations to the victims, 7,500,000 Ukrainians dead in only 18 months.
The overall basic strategy would be to purchase the eastern German territories at $10,000,000.00 per km of German land and offering $125,000.00 per inhabitant in them to move (The reason I use USD is the inevitable failure of the EU so its artificial currency would be voided and thus useless). This may seem insulting, especially to the Kaliningrad region, but it is the only real way to avoid bloodshed, and would actually make Russia look bad, barbarism being 'countered' with an act of kindness in many ways. One might simply see that and the total of roughly $4,375,000,000,000.00 ($218,750,000,000.00 per year) as of 2000 and say its insane, however one must remember that reparation payments for Nazi aggression and mass murder haven't really been paid and that this idea could solve both problems as once, Poland getting $2,573,500,000,000.00 ($1,073,500,000,000.00 to the Polish Government) or 58.82% of the total. The total includes the area of the lagoons (Courland, Vistula and Stettin) as well as Memelland, Kattowitz (Upper Silesia), Soldau, Hultschin land and the small regions of Silesia, formally bordering Posen which were incorporated into Poland during the interwar years. Danzig is excluded due its importance to the Poles, economic and symbolic because of the anti-communist activities there, and because Kattowitz is a greater prize for Germany/Prussia. The money would also serve as an economic boost for the nations involved, making the offer even more attractive.
Something else on top of strategy would be needed though and that is nationalism. Nationalism as in a sense of patriotism. The modern 'Germany' teaches guilt to its youth and attempts to stamp out Prussia and the eastern territories, only some neo Nazis discussing them. It is brainwashing its population into submission due to the efforts of France and Russia. The EU only enhances that process of deterioration. If things are to begin, that would have to be challenged. And there is still hope, especially with dates such as 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2025, all hundredth anniversaries of major events in German/Prussian history, each being a potential rallying point. Remember, Poland didn't exist as a nation for 123 years, but the people didn't give up hope. Hope is the last thing to die.
Proposition 2: "In reality, with the EU evolving into a borderless state. we may find a new German 'Drag nach Osten' taking place peacefully but that again would require centuries if done peacefully."
Response 2: The EU is a socialist, statist, anti-nationalist and anti Christian artificial entity. One can draw parallels between the EU and Yugoslavia as well as the USSR, even the Ottoman Empire. The main difference is that the EU conquers with propaganda and false promises as opposed to fire and sword. It offers 'free money' and 'security' to smaller nations as well as the larger, former Communist ones. The Poles, Estonians and Latvians have all compared it to the USSR and there is growing criticism in other countries. The attitude of the Estonians and Latvians is to be expected. The EU is demanding minority rights for the 1,100,000 Russian colonists who still live in those countries as of 2001, yet in all other cases is against autonomy based on ethnicity. The EU itself is a pipe dream and a horribly put together one at that. It will fail, the only question is whether that will be peacefully like in the USSR or violently like with Yugoslavia.
Proposition 3: You pose some interesting questions and possible solutions. I see some problems, though.
Firstly, economic. Where would the wealth to accomplish this come from? Germany is currently in recession.
Poland's old and new borders, 1945
Secondly, as far as German-Polish questions are concerned, it's not just a question of "pushing Poland eastwards" again. The Poles were only ever a minority in their own eastern territories (except in some cities like Lemberg/Lwów/L'viv and Vilnius/Wilno/Wilna). In fact, the Curzon line (which is more or less their eastern border today) was generous to them - in reality, the White Russians and Ukrainian ethnic border lay well to the west of it, including Bialystok/Belostok. The earlier eastern Polish boundary only came into effect as a result of military aggrandisement, initially to recreate the former Polish Empire by Pilsudski (including at one time, for survival reasons, the creation of a Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian commonwealth), but latterly in defence against a Bolshevik invasion. The annexation of Vilnius was pure military aggression and in breach of a treaty between Poland and Lithuania. And we must not forget Teschen either.
Thirdly, I do not think the EU will just 'collapse', and rotten though it may be, it is the Illuminati brainchild and is backed by powerful political and financial concerns who are determined to see it succeed at all costs.
Fourthly, I am curious that you would exclude Danzig from your equation for the reasons you give. If the Poles have any legitimate claim to a port it would be Gotenhafen/Gdynia, though I understand the psychology behind your thinking.
Fifthly, if I have understood your intent correctly, you can't just go "booting out" Russians nor can you suppose that Russia would idly stand by, quite apart from the morality of the suggestion. The colonists had little choice in their movements under Soviet repopulation schemes. They're human like Poles and Germans. Anything that smacks of 'punishing' one group of people our of a territory for the sake of addressing the legitimate grievances of others I find intolerable, if for no other reason it would cause great suffering in a country already in the economic doledrums. There would have to be fair compensation for Russians too. In that respect, an exchange of populations might be possible solution - there is still a large German population in the Russian Federation and CIS generally.
And finally, making Russia the butt of all this will just create new bitternesses to be resolved later. So I still remain to be convinced that your imaginative scheme is both just and workable.
Response 3: The question of cost is as important of a question as timing and getting support. Obviously something on this scale could not happen overnight, not with the current attitude of the EU and the brainwashed state of the people of Germany. To add to the problems, the German government, like that of many of its western counterparts, is going bankrupt due to its social security program along with national healthcare, which, combined in 2001 made up nearly 3/5 of the budget. Furthermore, as mentioned somewhat above, the other nations of Western Europe have been, more or less surprising German nationalism especially anything which leads to Prussia. It is out of fear of Germany becoming a power once again and indeed there are political leaders in Germany who also support such moves out of the ever failed appeasement attitude. Where could the hope be then with all of this bad information? A clue comes from late 1970 and into 1971. During that time period, some 1/4 of the population of 'West' Germany was for outright re-annexation of the occupied east. Posters sprang up showing Germany divided into three realms, 'West,' 'Central' and 'East' and protesting the artificial division, in many ways like some Irish posters and sayings like '26 6=1' currently do. Unfortunately, such ambitions were quickly crushed by imbeciles such as Brandt. One might ask what the clue was, and it is simple. It was the hundredth anniversary of German unification. Other such anniversaries are coming up, starting in 1914 and ending in 1925, among them the 150th anniversary of German unification, the victory at Tannenburg, the 'Peace,' the plebiscites, the occupation of the Rhineland, Rhine Palatinate and Ruhr and the detaching of Alsace-LorraineEupen-Malmedy, Kattowitz and Memel. One could in all honesty use such dates in order to restore the feelings of unification within the people and especially the Expellees, and such dates would not only apply to Germany, but to Poland, Romania, Finland and the Baltic States as well. That would first and foremost remove the politicians from office who would 'rather bury the past and hope that it doesn’t come back to haunt them' with some who would actually look for a solution. Why such people are continually elected is beyond me....one can just look at what happened in Yugoslavia to see what happens with that approach. In both cases, the politicians in question tried to stop a volcano from erupting by piling boulders on top of it, hoping that such actions would halt the eruption, however they only make the eruption all the more violent. Such a policy would also aide in the complete severing of ties with the EU. With a good chance that the populous would be 're-energized,' the question of money comes in. That question may at first appear to be a major one, however it is simpler than it seems. The answer, unfortunately for many lies in social security. It has become too large of a burden for the western world to maintain. Not enough money can be collected to pay people regularly living into their 80s and 90s no matter how one tries it, and with the continuing lengthening of the life-span; more and more money would need to be collected. Already tax rates are far too high, and indeed such high rates are a major component in the recession in the whole of Western Europe (Italy having a GDP growth rate of 0.1% in 2005) for they deter economic growth. In one way or another, Social Security will have to be discontinued, for there is no way, short of raising taxes into the 60% range, of continuing to keep up with the expenses, but with that there would be economic collapse. In short, the money for the purchase of territory and the financial incentive of the people currently living there to move would come from that which would be saved as a result of the discontinuing of Social Security.
Such ideas though would require a lot of work and the close monitoring and dismantling of Nazi parties to have any chance of success. However it appears that such an idea or something close would be the only chance. Some people have put forth that the EU is the solution given that the easterners could return via the 'free movement of people,' however that would not work. Once the number of Germans living in Poland reaches a certain level, it would withdraw from the EU and I am willing to bet that relations would become hostile. The Czechs and Lithuanians would almost centennially follow suit. What one needs above all else is to make as many allies as possible by attempting to aide as many people as possible.
As for the Curzon Line, it made as much sense as the 'Oder Line' proposed for Germany (basically including all of Silesia south of the Oder River). There were the 'peninsulas' of Wilno and Galicia which had Polish majorities, including the two main cities, Lwow and Wilno, each being around 2/3 Polish (shown on a map on the link below). As for the Wilno region, even the Russians who hated (and in many cases still hate) the Poles admitted that the city of Wilno was around 30.1% Polish in 1897 compared to 2.1% Lithuanian. Furthermore, the 1916 German census of the city of Wilno (which both the Poles and Lithuanians agree on the results of) put the Poles at 50.2% (the Russians had left) and the Lithuanians at 2.6%. In both censuses of the city, Jews made up roughly 2/5 of the population, the main reason why the other numbers are so low. Either way, there was no doubt that Wilno had a Polish majority and a small Lithuanian minority. Lithuania claimed it on medieval historic grounds....much like France claimed Alsace-Lorraine despite the fact that population dynamics completely contradicted those claims. Like the German cities of the east, Wilno was ethnically cleansed, though on a lesser scale, being only some 20% Polish as of 2001 as opposed to 65.9% in 1931.
As for Teschen, the official Austrian census data put the Poles as the majority of the region and later Hungarian interpretations of census data in the form of ethnic maps puts the Poles as the majority over the whole of Teschen, not 3/4 as in the official data (yes I have looked into virtually all interwar border disputes). The 1910 Austrian census shows the figures as 43.00% Austrian, 31.08% Polish, 23.82% Czech The 1910 Austrian census shows the figures as 43.00% Austrian, 31.08% Polish, 23.82% Czech, 1.78% Jewish and 0.32% Other. In the case of the previous census, the Poles were wholly in Teschen, the Austrians were almost wholly in Troppau (save the Bielitz area and in the other larger cities) and the Czechs were scattered in both regions, though slightly more so in Troppau. In both cases the Czechs had relatively poor claims...Germany having superior claims to Troppau on ethnic (approx 68% German/Austrian in 1910 as opposed to 30% Czech) and historic grounds. The struggle over Teschen was rather odd. In 1910, Teschen had 45% of the population of Austrian Silesia and 43% of the territory. Czechoslovakia claimed all of Austrian Silesia while Poland claimed Teschen. The Czechs claimed it solely on economic grounds while the Poles claimed it on ethnic and economic grounds (Out of a total population of 340,000 in 1910, 235,000 of the inhabitants of Teschen were Poles and there were at least 35,000 Austrians and 6,500 Jews). The Poles were willing to have a plebiscite but that was never held and the territory was eventually split in Czechoslovakia's favor (55%-45%). I believe the main reason for that was because Poland had just been awarded Kattowitz/Upper Silesia from Germany (despite the plebiscite results being roughly 60% in favor of Germany) and there was the thought that Poland was getting too much, which it was. Thankfully the Poles didn't get the borders proposed by Dmowski in 1919, for interwar Poland would have been over 50% larger than it was, amassing Lithuania, southern Latvia and Soviet Territories as well as German/Prussian lands as large as pre WWII Brandenburg and Berlin combined.
As for the Riga Line in general, nowadays it really is the only border which would make sense for Poland. Firstly, the Poles had the second highest population growth rate of any non-Muslim people in Europe during the 20th century (after the Dutch with nearly 175%), an increase of nearly 160% from the 1900 population (15,200,000 in 1900, 39,130,000 in 2001), despite having some 6,000,000 killed as a result of WWI, the war with Russia, WWII, Ukrainian/Lithuanian nationalists, Hitler and Stalin. Secondly, the eastern lands, even with extensive colonization by Russians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians have yet to reach their 1939 population again, being some 600,000 short in 1995 when most nations peaked their population, and currently (2006) being 1,435,000 short. Thirdly, there were genocidal practices carried out against the Poles of Volhynia/Wolyn and Vilnius/Wilno by the National armies of Ukraine and Lithuania. Fourthly, and most importantly, is where would the some 11,100,000 Poles (11,850,000 if you count Danzig) in the Prussian lands go?
As I said before, Danzig is confusing. On the eve of deportations, there were only some 25,000 Poles living in the territory along with some 375,000 Germans. Ethnically, Danzig was German without a doubt, as German as Marienwerder. The problems lie in both the resent historical significance and economic significance to the Poles as well as the fact that the Danzig territory includes the city of Zoppot (Sopot) which is also economically important to Poland. Furthermore, it blocks Polish access to the mouth of the Vistula, on which both its 'old' and 'new' capitol cities are built, and not to mention, the Vistula is Poland's main artery. Also, as I mentioned before, it would leave Poland with extremely limited access to the sea (approx 140 km of coastline), even more restricted than modern Slovenia, nearly as bad as the 'territory' of Bosnia. In all honesty, I don't foresee Poland ever agreeing to any plan for eastern re-settlement which involves Danzig, namely because of what Hitler's ambitions were in that area which have left a dark history. Danzig's strategic location on the Vistula is akin to Stettin on the Oder, especially with Silesia, Neumark and Pomerania restored. Indeed, one could accurately say that Hitler lost the 'Polish corridor' as a result of his megalomania. The fear of Poland being 'choked' off from the Baltic would only be increased by the annexation of the Danzig territory, a fear of history repeating itself. Not surprisingly, due to their location and importance, Danzig, Zoppot and the surrounding territory have a much higher population than they did in 1944, some 750,000 people as of 2006. The last thing which is needed is more hostility. Also, as I said before, one could 'trade' Danzig for Kattowitz (Upper Silesia), Soldau and the regions of Silesia 'absorbed' into interwar Posen, Danzig's strategic location being used to justify the larger territory (1,953 km for 4,216 km, a net gain of 2,263 km over the interwar situation counting Danzig as German) acquired by Germany. Also, perhaps the region of interwar Danzig east of the Vistula, the 'island of Tiegenhof' could be incorporated into East Prussia, but that appears to be the most.
Unfortunately there is an even greater threat than Poland to this and that is in the Czech Republic. The main problem is the Czechs obsession with Benes, a Nazi himself in many regards, especially his 'ethnic purification' policies. Aside from his expulsion of the Austrians living there, he expelled virtually all of the Poles (from 105,000 in 1931 to 14,000 in 1950) and sought to expel all of the Hungarians as well, though he could only deport around 2/7 of them or around 200,000 people before Churchill and Stalin (yes Stalin because of Hungary's attempt to sue for peace in 1943) said enough is enough. Also, the Czechs only report '15,000-30,000' Germans killed during the expulsions. On the other hand, most other sources state 265,000-300,000 and that is excluding deaths caused by the Red Army. It appears that they are in denial of their crimes, like the Serbs (Milosevic wars) and Turks (Armenia and crimes of Kemal). The Czechs even refuse to allow the royal family of Lichtenstein, which was neutral during the war, to re-gain its historic lands there. With regards to the Austrians (German refugees from the Czech lands), they are doing all they can to prevent the expellees from re-settling, not recognizing property claims prior to 1948. Even with money, the re-settling of the 'Czech Austrians' in the Sudetenland seems next to impossible through friendly means, mainly because there is a lack of the truth about Benes, that he forcefully deported some 3,200,000 people and killed nearly 300,000 more, being put forward.
The EU is full of problems. Granted it is backed by a lot of powerful bureaucrats who use it to line their pockets; however it still has glaring weaknesses. Firstly, the EU has a slow industrial growth rate, only 1.3% compared to the US at 3.2%, India at 8.2% and China at 27.7%. Secondly is the lack of economic growth. The GDP increased by 1.7% in 2005, compared with the US at 3.5%, India at 7.1% and China at 9.2%. In fact, the increase in inflation (2.2%) in the EU was higher than its GDP increase in 2005, a horrible sign. Also a disproportionately large percentage of the growth for the EU's GDP came from Eastern Europe (22.86% of the total gain), the 10 new members, while a disproportionately small percentage of the growth came from the 'old EU,' the original 6 members (28.29% of the total gain). Another problem is the GDP itself. The EU had a 2005 population of roughly 457,000,000 and a GDP of $12,357,000,000,000.00. The US on the other hand had a population of some 296,000,000 and a GDP of $12,370,000,000,000.00. China only had a GDP of $8,859,000,000,000.00 compared to its population of 1,310,000,000, however, taking inflation into consideration, that GDP slightly more than doubled between 1993 and 2005 while that of the EU (its current size) only increased by around 30% and the US by 35% over that same time period. The main problem with the EU however is its debt. Combined, the 25 member states had a total debt of $21,400,000,000,000.00 in 2005 that is some 55% of the global total. Even worse, the GDP gain for the EU in 2005 was $213,120,000,000.00 while the yearly debt was $396,700,000,000.00, the debt being nearly twice the gain! The whole idea of the EU was to create an economic entity to rival the US and China, however its relatively low economic and industrial growth rate, massive debt, massive bureaucracy, population decline and relatively low GDP with regard to its population show that the opposite is happening. It is plainly going bankrupt, both financially and industrially. Furthermore, it is becoming statist and going against the very principles that the founders of the EEC envisioned, especially the centralization, 'corrosive liberalism' (Dutch legalization of narcotics and the talk of it in other countries, pro homosexuality, pro abortion, legal prostitution and most recently the Dutch pedophile political party) and promoting atheism. Even with the support of the bureaucrats, the EU, due to its failing economy, will eventually break up. Another threat to the EU looms on the horizon as well, the immigrant workers. As of 2001, there were some 20,000,000 from Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Some of them brought radical Islam with them while virtually all refuse to assimilate. This causes the creation of ever enlarging alien minority groups and of neo-Nazi movements (most failing due to lack of support) and smaller, unorganized groups in response, along with hyper xenophobic groups like the FN. It also causes grave instability, as the riots in France have shown. Worse is yet to come as the governments of Western Europe, and indeed the EU itself, continue to encourage the mass immigration. I have a feeling that by 2010 the number will have climbed to at least 30,000,000. The only result of this will be increased hatred and bloodshed, those people who are currently not the happiest in the world joining neo-Nazi movements in order to vent their frustration on the economy, jobs, their government and the union benefits and promises which cannot possibly be kept. As time passes, it is possible that the hatred on both sides could plunge the EU into outright civil war with multiple fronts, a future I would much like to avoid.
One could say that Russia would be bearing the brunt, and indeed the attempt to voluntarily reverse the Russification of the CIS does put a burden on Russia, even with its population decline. One must also realize that the vast majority of the Russian population in the Baltics is the result of Stalinist colonization though, Latvia going from 77% Latvian in 1935 (83% if one removes the Jews and Germans from the equation) to only 52% in 1989 while the Russian population went from 12% in 1935 (13% if one removes the Jews and Germans from the equation) to 34% in 1989. Even in the mid 90s, the population of Riga was over half Russian. At the same time however, Russia is in dire need of a population increase, so it'd only seem natural for Russia to try to call home as many Russians abroad as possible. Also there is a very large chunk of territory which is currently and has historically, for over 200 years been inhabited mostly by Russians which is not part of Russia. This land makes up the northern 1/4 or so of Kazakhstan as well as all territory west of the Ural River, which became Russian in the 1500s. Combined, those territories are roughly the same size as modern Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine (save the Crimea), Belarus, the Baltics or Moldova, the Russian element was strong prior to Stalin, and, indeed prior to WWI (around 17% of the total in 1897 with other Europeans making up 4%). As of 1999, there were some 4,600,000 Inhabitants living in the regions in question of whom some 3/4 were Russians (in the 1999 census, some 4,500,000 Russians lived in Kazakhstan as well as some 1,250,000 Ukrainians, Germans and other East Europeans). As for the 'dividing line' separating the Russian majority area from the Kazakh area, it is just south of the 52nd parallel and north of the Irtysh and Buatyrma Rivers further east. The Russians there form a relatively homogeneous group, as the language map from Ethnologue on the link below shows. In short, Russia would get backing to annex that territory as compensation for restoring the stolen territories and creating an incentive for all other Russians abroad to return home (as well as a sparsely populated region for them to settle in). Why those territories weren't included in Russia in 1991 when the Russian population there was around 6,300,000 I don't know, but apparently those regions could be of use, especially because many Russians consider them an 'extension of Siberia' or simply part of Siberia.
Russia has other problems as well. First and foremost it has a massive population decline, and the population of Russians alone has declined even further, from around 145,700,000 in 1989 to some 133,800,000 in 2001 (though I think that there are around 2,000,000 who immigrated to both the US and western Europe following the Cold War bringing the total to around 136,000,000). Also, as of 2001 there were some 4,000,000 foreign residents from Turkistan working in Russia, mirroring the situation in Western Europe. Indirectly they intensified the Orthodox-Muslim 'power struggle' with regard to the youth population of Russia who had been brought up in the atheist USSR. This is a very real threat to Russia's stability, not only because you have migrant workers from abroad but because they are converting the Russian youth. This could cause a situation similar to Bosnia to explode within Russia in the middle part of this century. Russia is unique. One needs it to be weak enough to be overridden by the states of the rest of Europe if need be, but at the same time strong enough to fend off China and US influence, so long as it doesn’t go Nazi or Communist (hence the nations of Europe being able to hold it in check). Fortunately there are around 2,250,000 Russians in Turkistan (excluding Kazakhstan, though an additional 1,000,000 Russians and other Europeans live in south-central Kazakhstan) and Azerbaijan as well as some 250,000 other East Europeans, so a population exchange could be the solution, not only to Russia but to the newly independent Turkic states as well. Not to mention that combined some 5,000,000 Ukrainians (who form 3/5 of the total) and other peoples of the European regions of the former USSR as well as Finland, Germany and Poland live within Russia. The more minority problems solved in Eastern Europe and Russia, the better the prospect of the future and international relations become.
The overall position of Russia in all of this is highly confusing. It still holds to its imperialism and the post WWII border changes, despite the fact that they were in violation of as many treaties as Nazi aggression. Furthermore, Russia grew furious with Latvia when, only a few years ago it stated that it was occupied and exploited by Soviet Russia following WWII. It appears that the Russians are in denial of their atrocities and guilt. The fact that more Russians view Stalin as the greatest leader in the history of their country speaks for itself. Unfortunately it appears that bringing up Russia's past crimes will be necessary in order to counter this imperialist and 'victimization' attitude.
Soviet Russia is guilty of all the same crimes, from unprovoked wars of aggression, to ethnic cleansing, to genocide, to illegal annexations and to breaking the very laws upon which the UN was based as Nazi Germany was. Indeed, it is guilty of starting the Second World War with the unprovoked attack on Poland 16 days after Hitler's assault began, as Hitler himself was. Those UN laws; that stated that there would be no territorial changes against the will of the majority of the people living in the area in question, however that was violated with regards to the eastern German lands, the eastern Polish lands, the eastern and southeastern Finnish lands, eastern Romania, as well as the slight shift in the borders of Estonia and Latvia. As a result of the above mentioned blatant violations of the principles in question, principles which were signed into treaty twice by Soviet Russia herself, the current situation is to be voided, and all who oppose such a voiding oppose the UN laws, and indeed laws protecting basic human rights themselves.
The Soviet regime itself committed more crimes against humanity and affected far more people than did Hitler's Nazi regime. Events such as the man made famine in Ukraine, a massive act of genocide of which, population wise Ukraine has not fully recovered, was committed during 'peace' time where 10,000,000 people were starved to death in only 18 months of whom 7,500,000 were in Ukraine, the rest in the northern Caucasus and Russian territory adjoining Ukraine. As was the Kazakh genocide in which 1/3 of the entire Kazakh population of 4,500,000 was starved to death, just prior to the event in Ukraine. The Kazakh genocide, given the sheer percentage of the population killed thus ranks near the Nazi genocide against the Jews. The massacre of the Kazakhs also aloud Russian colonization of their lands to take place. In stead of being around 1/4-1/3 European (mainly Russian), Kazakhstan ended up at some 55% European and only 45% Kazakh and other Turkics combined. Then there were the war atrocities, the eastern Germans and eastern Poles faring worst, with tens of millions forcefully deported and millions either killed outright or died as a result of being exposed to the elements. There was also internal slaughter directed mainly against the Ukrainians, the favorite scapegoat of Soviet Russia. The Russification policy, implemented after the Second World War mirrored Hitler's Germanization program, however Russia has the gaul to still try to 'defend' such settlers whose sole purpose was to dilute the native population and make it easier to rule, as opposed to 'calling them home.'
Perhaps the hardest thing mentioned above would be to generate sympathy for Russia as in working with it as opposed to laying out guidelines. The time period in question, especially near the end has much meaning for the peoples of Eastern Europe. Aside from Poland's victory in 1921, the Baltics and Finland got their independence, while Bessarabia was finally re-united with Romania after 104 years of being detached from Moldavia. Ukraine, with Polish aide had been fighting a war of independence against the disorganized forces of the Red Army but ultimately lost, as did Belarus, the Caucasus and the nations of Turkistan. Temporarily liberated by the fighting of WWI, they were re-conquered. Then again if no peaceful program of any sort is put into place, there could be harsh anti-Russian feelings, and at the same time a rebirth of Russian imperialism, sparked by Lenin's conquest of the separated territories. However I must emphasize that this isn't 'the answer' or 'the only solution,' something which 'must happen' in order for there to be justice for the expellees. It is an idea, obviously not flawless at that and nothing more.
Proposition 4: I think this is the first workable model that I have ever seen for the rectification of historical injustices. I appreciate your hard effort in delineating it. History turns on small and often unexpected hinges so one can never know what conditions may prevail in the future.
Evolution of German linguistic area from 700 to 1950
My only real disagreement renmains your proposed Danzig solution even if I understand your demographic and political reasoning. It simply isn't just. In a region known for its enclaves historically I still think that the fairest solution would be to give Poland a Gdingen/Gothenhafen/Gdynia enclave, possibly even making it a Free State like the interwar Danzig, with access rights by rail, road and water through West Prussia, or simply make it the regional capital of an autonomous Kashubian region (a bit like the Sorb region in the former DDR). I have a feeling also that the Germans have stronger sentimental attachments to Danzig than to Kattowitz.
Anciently the Poles never had a Baltic Seabord. Long before the Slavs came onto the scene, Germanic tribes occupied most of what is contemporary Poland, their eastern border extending along most of the length on the Vistula and Bug and as far east as the former imperial province of East Prussia. The 'East Germans' were indeed located between the Oder and Vistula-Bug - Rugians (Pomerania), Goths (West Prussia), Vandals (Posen/Wartheland), Burgundians (Neumark), Helvecones & Lugians (Lower Silesia), and the Basarnae (from Warsaw in the north, to Kraków in the west, and to the old eastern Galiciean boder in the east). They also occupied half of Bohemia-Moravia (Marcommani, Buri, Osi & Quadi). This was the state of Germanic settlement by the time of the birth of Christ. And though, of course, the Poles, Kashubs and Pomeranians were to move westwards and drive the Germanic tribes to the approximate German-Polish border today, this was at the expense of Gauls, the German ethnic territory occupying about a third of modern France. What, then, are legitimate historical claims? Do we base it on tribal settlements (which were fluid), the establishment of cities (most cities in the east were established by Germans), or what? One could argue a good case for there being no legitimate Polish claims in the West Prussian area at all, including Danzig.
I don't propose to have all the answers. In fact, I'm still not sure there are any.
"Love is a primary reality: before it is a human fact love exists in God. Remember that we love people because they are there, but with God it is the other way round: because he loves them they are there. This is an important truth because it means there is something loveable in all that has been created. It means there is something lovable in every person; if it were not so, that person would not have been created. It is our task to look for whatever is lovable in others." (Cardinal Hume, Searching for God)
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." (C. S. Lewis )
"...that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (C. S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity)
"If all you have found [in Christianity] is advantage, whether it is fun or profit or security, then you haven't started following Him yet. His way is the way of the Cross. The world can be very hard on those it hates. If it is not hard on you, perhaps it sees nothing in you to hate. But then it doesn't see Jesus in you, for it hates Jesus with an undying hatred. While your way is still all fun, all easy, all jolly, it is only your way: when you turn from it to follow His way, it will cost. It may cost you everything you have. That is what it cost Him." (Robert MacColl Adams, Of Rice and Men)
"The word "sinner" often proves a great obstacle to understanding, but let us use other words. Let us say that man is the kind of creature who naturally sees the world from a very limited perspective, that he tends to be self-centered and to prefer the interests that are closest to himself and to his own social group. Let us say that man is naturally unwilling to accept his limited or finite status, that he is always seeking to extend his control over others, that he seeks to maintain his own security by means of power over all who may threaten it, that he likes to be in a position to compare himself with others to their disadvantage, that he seeks to be self-sufficient and to deny in effect his dependence upon God and to set up his own group or system or ideal in the place of God." (John C. Bennett , Commemoration of Crispin & Crispinian, Martyrs at Rome, c.285)
"The Gospel used to be presented as an appeal to believe in the Saviour who "did it all for me long ago", and then retired to a remote heaven where He receives the homage of believers till He comes again to inaugurate the Millennium. The mind of our generation, having little comprehension or taste for such a message, is usually content to try to discover "the Jesus of history", conceived as a human example and teacher of a distant past. Meanwhile, there exists always alongside all forms of religious belief the great tradition of mystical experience. The mystic knows that, whatever be the truth about an historic act or person, there is a Spirit dwelling in man. In our time, even natural science abates its arrogant denials and admits the possibility of such immanence... The weak point of mysticism, as seen at least by a matter-of-fact person, is that it is apt to be so nebulous ethically. What the Immanent is, those who claim most traffic with It can often least tell us. Is It a power making for righteousness, or is It a higher synthesis of good and evil? Or is It not a moral -- that is to say, not a personal Being at all?... The raising of these questions is not intended to throw any doubt upon the validity of mystical experience as such; but we have a right to ask what content is given in the experience. Paul was a mystic, but all his mystical experience had a personal object. It was Jesus Christ, a real, living person --historic, yet not of the past alone; divine, yet not alien from humanity." (Harold Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for Today)
"After all, Brethren, the whole end of Theology is love. It seems hard to realize that that is so, but so it is. If your theology does not make you more loving, it has not Christianized you and to that extent is not a Christian theology... All ecclesiasticism and all doctrinalizing are in order to form character, and the soul of character is love. Preach the truth in love, and for the development of love." (Nathaniel J. Burton)
"To the Christian, love is the works of love. To say that love is a feeling or anything of the kind is really an un-Christian conception of love. That is the aesthetic definition and therefore fits the erotic and everything of that nature. But to the Christian, love is the works of love. Christ's love was not an inner feeling, a full heart and what-not: it was the work of love which was his life." (Søren Kierkegaard, Journals)
Matthew 7:1-5 (New International Version): Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Luke 6:27-28: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you [1].Occasionally I do get into edit conflicts, but like St. Paul, I occasionally have Road to Damascus experiences, and embrace the other side.
.png)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
