Should Germany regain former territories? Watch

Poll: Should Germany regain former territories?
Yes (1)
5.88%
No (16)
94.12%
Don't know (0)
0%
Prussia1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
12 million Germans were expelled from German land that had been German for thousands of years (including my family. So should Germany regain this land?
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
It would likely still be German if they hadn't started a genocidal war against their neighbours, so no IMO.
0
reply
M14B
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Prussia1)
12 million Germans were expelled from German land that had been German for thousands of years (including my family. So should Germany regain this land?
Go asked it from the Russians.
I am sure they will not mind
0
reply
SCIENCE :D
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
No
0
reply
bolly_mad
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
It is Germany's destiny to rule over Europe. It has been thwarted twice but shall prevail in the end.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Prussia1)
12 million Germans were expelled from German land that had been German for thousands of years (including my family. So should Germany regain this land?
How would it be able to regain it? With the slighty exception of Opole, which has a large German minority, all of the areas you're talking about are overwhelmingly inhabited by non-Germans.

On a more historical note, much of this was never "German land that had been German for thousands of years" - Germany, for a start, was only united in 1871. Indeed, many German expellees were forced from areas that had never been under German rule, such as the Volga Germans of the USSR, of the Vojvodina Germans of Yugoslavia.
0
reply
username2228735
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
As long as Germany is being led by a bunch of cowards, I think it's best the nation stays away from any foreign policy.
0
reply
slaven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Prussia1)
12 million Germans were expelled from German land that had been German for thousands of years (including my family. So should Germany regain this land?
Technically speaking it is still german land. Germany never capitulated or signed a peace treaty after World War II. The current German state (the BRD) is also not successor of the Third Reich.

The Constitutional court of the BRD ruled on many istances that the Third Reich still exists only it is not able to function as a state.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by slaven)
Technically speaking it is still german land. Germany never capitulated or signed a peace treaty after World War II.
Because there was no "Germany" to sign it - only two parts, West Germany/FRG and East Germany/GDR, neither of whom could legitimately sign for Germany as a whole. When Germany reunified in 1990, it did sign a full peace treaty, known as the Two Plus Four Agreement.

The current German state (the BRD) is also not successor of the Third Reich.

The Constitutional court of the BRD ruled on many istances that the Third Reich still exists only it is not able to function as a state.
You're talking about the 1973 Constitutional Court ruling. This deliberate misinterpretation comes from the line about the German Reich surviving the fall of Nazi Germany but being incapable of acting as a state. However, the very next sentence affirms that the FRG is not a successor state to the Reich because it is the Reich.
0
reply
slaven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by anarchism101)
Because there was no "Germany" to sign it - only two parts, West Germany/FRG and East Germany/GDR, neither of whom could legitimately sign for Germany as a whole. When Germany reunified in 1990, it did sign a full peace treaty, known as the Two Plus Four Agreement.

You're talking about the 1973 Constitutional Court ruling. This deliberate misinterpretation comes from the line about the German Reich surviving the fall of Nazi Germany but being incapable of acting as a state. However, the very next sentence affirms that the FRG is not a successor state to the Reich because it is the Reich.
Well, I am impressed someone is already aware of this subject, especially persons outside of Germany. In the country itself this subject is treated almost as a conspiracy theory.

Now, about the ruling from 1973 it is not quite misinterepreted. firstly, you need understand what is the Deutsches Reich (German Reich). It is the state that existed from 1871 to 1945 (and de iure still to this days). "Nazi Germany", "Weimar Republic" and "German Empire" are actually modern day hystoricall designations and all of them were called Deutsches Reich.

Here is the most recent judical instance of this subject: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/040/1804076.pdf

It is from february 2015. A member of parliament from the party Die Linke asked the BRD government some question. One of thoose question number 27. was about a demand to explain the exact judical relation between the Deutsches Reich and the modern-day BRD. in this link that I have posted the Government replied to him:
 
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in ständiger Rechtsprechung festgestellt, dass das Völkerrechtssubjekt „Deutsches Reich“ nicht untergegangen und die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht sein Rechtsnachfolger, sondern mit ihm als Völkerrechtssubjekt identisch ist (BVerfGE 36, S. 1, 16; vgl. auch BVerfGE 77, S. 137,155).

The underlined part are important. The first line literary says "Deutsches Reich" never perished. The second line means Federal Republic of Germany is not the successor state of the German Reich and the third states the FRG is only as in terms as a international subject indentical as the Germany reich. This means FRG only uses the indentity of Germany but it is not itself the same the real Germany
0
reply
slaven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
"Because there was no "Germany" to sign it - only two parts, West Germany/FRG and East Germany/GDR, neither of whom could legitimately sign for Germany as a whole. When Germany reunified in 1990, it did sign a full peace treaty, known as the Two Plus Four Agreement."
You are right, but not for the reason why you say. The allies decided to divide the country in the GDR and FRG for some different reasons.

True, at the moment when Germany was defeated there was no Government who will legaly act upon the country. Who could negotiate the peace treaty and so on.
This problems were to be solved by calling the elections according to the 1919. Weimar constitution. There would be a new parliament who would install a legal governemnt and than negotiate with the allies a peace treaty.
For techincall reasons it was not imposible to do this because the elections would have to be made in the borderd from 1937 which were by than considered as international recognised border of Germany. also, it means East Prussia would be included.
By 1945 all germans moved from East Prussia and the territory is given to Poland. And because of this Deutsches Reich cannot act as a state.

The allies than decided to create FRG and GDR as completely new states.

The 4+2 Agreements were not a peace treaty but a regulation under which the GDR joined te FRG. You have to know also under this agreement FRG is not a souvereign state.
0
reply
Snufkin
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Not sure where you got "thousands of years" from, that isn't true. It is true that ethnic Germans lived in parts of Central and Eastern Europe for many hundreds of years, with the oldest communities probably dating back to the middle ages. But these lands weren't intrinsically 'German', they were also inhabited by Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Czechs, Sorbs, Romanians etc.

The forced migration of Germans after the end of WW2 is not as widely known about in the UK as it should be, a lot of people died and millions of people were made homeless, but there were good (and some bad) reasons for the expulsions. There is a strong case for saying more lives would have been lost had these German communities been allowed to stay.

Oh, just realised the OP was banned.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by slaven)
Now, about the ruling from 1973 it is not quite misinterepreted. firstly, you need understand what is the Deutsches Reich (German Reich). It is the state that existed from 1871 to 1945 (and de iure still to this days). "Nazi Germany", "Weimar Republic" and "German Empire" are actually modern day hystoricall designations and all of them were called Deutsches Reich.

Here is the most recent judical instance of this subject: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/040/1804076.pdf

It is from february 2015. A member of parliament from the party Die Linke asked the BRD government some question. One of thoose question number 27. was about a demand to explain the exact judical relation between the Deutsches Reich and the modern-day BRD. in this link that I have posted the Government replied to him:
 
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in ständiger Rechtsprechung festgestellt, dass das Völkerrechtssubjekt „Deutsches Reich“ nicht untergegangen und die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht sein Rechtsnachfolger, sondern mit ihm als Völkerrechtssubjekt identisch ist (BVerfGE 36, S. 1, 16; vgl. auch BVerfGE 77, S. 137,155).

The underlined part are important. The first line literary says "Deutsches Reich" never perished. The second line means Federal Republic of Germany is not the successor state of the German Reich and the third states the FRG is only as in terms as a international subject indentical as the Germany reich. This means FRG only uses the indentity of Germany but it is not itself the same the real Germany
You're correct up to the bolded sections. You've added in the 'only' part, and completely inferred the last sentence, which is largely meaningless. When it says the FRG is not a successor state, the conclusion therefore is that it is a continuing state, which is what is meant by saying it is identical to the Reich.

To say that the FRG is a continuing rather than successor state "only in terms of being an international subject" is meaningless, because that's the only context in which these terms apply in the first place. Succession of states as a concept pertains to international law and state obligations.
0
reply
Magic Member
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
The allied powers should have split Germany up even more than they did, giving additional land to France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and Denmark
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Magic Member)
The allied powers should have split Germany up even more than they did, giving additional land to France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and Denmark
That went well after they were defeated in WWI. No negative consequences whatsoever. No sirey.
0
reply
Magic Member
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
That went well after they were defeated in WWI. No negative consequences whatsoever. No sirey.
Perhaps we were not hard enough on them.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Prussia1)
12 million Germans were expelled from German land that had been German for thousands of years (including my family. So should Germany regain this land?
Rubbish. As mentioned, German nation doesn't even have 1 thousand year, and talking of "ancient" owners, Berlin was founded over a Slavic village, so even better Poland would demand regaining eastern Germany as a succesor of Slavic tribes and contribution for WWII. Ok, the very first known owners were probably Hallstatters, so Austria would demand "reganing" these lands also.



Your nickname is kind of funny I may add to that, because true Prussians had nothing common with Germans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians

Not to mention that justification for regaining those territories is against international law, and has false fundamentation, it is not possible unless you start another agressive war.

The Poles will never let anyone to take Silesia or Pomerania, since last 60 years went under establishing modern national entity and attachment to boarders from times of the Piast dynasty. Moreover, memory of WWII is still fresh, (I personally live in a town where Germans killed 60% of population, my grandfather was a slave worker, and by great grandmother was badly beaten by SS)

Russia neither. The former Prussian territories have too strong strategic meaning to them.

(Original post by Snufkin)

The forced migration of Germans after the end of WW2 is not as widely known about in the UK as it should be, a lot of people died and millions of people were made homeless, but there were good (and some bad) reasons for the expulsions. There is a strong case for saying more lives would have been lost had these German communities been allowed to stay.
.
Which means that they have no knowledge of the Postdam Conference in a first place.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Is the plastic tax enough to protect the environment?

Yes (13)
5.58%
No (220)
94.42%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise