NationStates Jolt Archive

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Germanborders.svg/730px-Germanborders.svg.png

Königsberg was the capital of eastern Prussia from the Late Middle Ages until 1945. Founded by the Teutonic Knights just south of the Sambian peninsula in 1255 during the Northern Crusades, the city successively became the capital of their monastic state, the Duchy of Prussia, and East Prussia. The Baltic port developed into a German cultural center, being the residence of, among others, Immanuel Kant, E. T. A. Hoffmann, and David Hilbert.

Königsberg was heavily damaged by Allied bombing in 1944 during World War II, and was subsequently conquered by the Red Army after the Battle of Königsberg in 1945. The city was annexed by the Soviet Union according to the post-war Potsdam Agreement and largely repopulated with Russians. Briefly Russified as Кёнигсберг (Kyonigsberg), it was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946 after Soviet leader Mikhail Kalinin. The city is now the capital of Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Ostpreussen_Preussen1922-1939.png

Evacuation of East Prussia
Reports of Soviet atrocities in the Nemmersdorf massacre of October 1944 and organised rape spread fear and desperation among the civilian populace. Thousands lost their lives during the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the Goya, and the General von Steuben. The capital Königsberg surrendered on April 9, 1945, following the desperate four-day Battle of Königsberg. The exact number of civilian victims of the fight has never been determined but is estimated to be at least 300 000 with most of them dying under miserable conditions.

Expulsion of Germans from East Prussia after World War II
However, most of the German inhabitants, which at that point consisted mainly of children, women, and old men, did escape the Red Army as part of the largest exodus of people in human history.[citation needed]"A population which had stood at 2.2 million in 1940 was reduced to 193,000 at the end of May 1945."[7]

About 120,000 survivors remained in the ruins of the devastated city. These survivors, mainly women, children and the elderly and a few others who returned immediately after the fighting ended, were held as virtual prisoners until 1949. The large majority of German citizens remaining in Königsberg after 1945 died of either disease, torture, mass rape or starvation.[43] The remaining 20,000 German residents were expelled in 1949-50.[44]

Russian Kaliningrad

After Königsberg's conquest by the Red Army, the city was briefly Russified as Kyonigsberg (Кёнигсберг). It was renamed Kaliningrad on July 4, 1946, after the death of the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mikhail Kalinin, one of the original Bolsheviks. The German population was either deported to the Western Zones of occupied Germany, or deported into Siberian labor camps, where about half of them perished of hunger or diseases.[45]

After the ethnic cleansing, the city's former population was entirely replaced with Russian citizens. Life changed dramatically: the city had a new name (Kaliningrad), and German was replaced by Russian as the language of everyday life. Parts of the city were rebuilt, although the former Altstadt remained an urban fallow with few buildings that survived the destruction. The city went through industrialisation and modernisation. As one of the westernmost territories of the Soviet Union, the Kaliningrad Oblast became a strategically important area during the Cold War. The Soviet Baltic Fleet was headquartered in the city in the 1950s. Because of its strategic importance, Kaliningrad was closed to foreign visitors.

So, let's cover some important facts:

Königsberg was a historically German area, conquered by the Communists in world war II along with the rest of Eastern Europe. After a mixture of ethnic cleansing, rape, murder, forced deportation and the sending of civilians to Soviet concentration camps in Siberia, the Communists "de-Germanized" the city and surrounding area.

After the defeat of the USSR and the end of the cold war, most areas that were under Communist Soviet control were freed from under the grasp of Soviet/Russian influence (see, the baltic states). There has been recent attemps by German groups (although unsuccesful) to make Königsberg/"Kaliningrad" German again.

Who do you think it belongs to? The Germans who it has historically been a part of, but who lost it during the Nazi times due to their loss of WWII, or to the Russians, who conquered it, raped it, destroyed it and ethnically cleansed it as punishment to the Nazis and in an attempt to de-Germanify it. Since the end of the cold war most of their taken territories have been freed, though Königsberg not.


Königsberg castle right before World War I, still German:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/ba/20060904081631!Königsberg_Castle.jpg

Königsberg castle, demolished by the Russians to build the "House of Soviets":
http://scripts.mit.edu/~zong/wpress/wp-content/uploads/images/436px-Dom_sovetov.jpg

Russia. There we go.

I want to say the Germans, because it was founded by the Teutonic Order, who were German, and super badass, but I dont really believe that.

The Russians currently control it, its currently populated by Russians (through rather unscrupulous tactics) so it is Russia's.

This seems way down my list of things I might care about, hence I arbitrarily award it to the Polish.

Russia. There we go.
Mind stating why you think so?
I want to say the Germans, because it was founded by the Teutonic Order, who were German, and super badass, but I dont really believe that.

The Russians currently control it, its currently populated by Russians (through rather unscrupulous tactics) so it is Russia's.
Fair enough. Let's try some hypothetical fun.

What if German interests decide to re-take it grow (right now there are interests but the groups are rather small) and Germans end up moving there en masse, eventually becoming the majority once again and wishing to break off with Russian and rejoin Germany.

Would you, hypothetically, allow this? These cases are oh, so fun. (Like Kosovo and Georgia and Spain and Chechnya....:p)

What if German interests decide to re-take it grow (right now there are interests but the groups are rather small) and Germans end up moving there en masse, eventually becoming the majority once again and wishing to break off with Russian and rejoin Germany.


I would indeed support this.

Mind stating why you think so?

Fair enough. Let's try some hypothetical fun.

What if German interests decide to re-take it grow (right now there are interests but the groups are rather small) and Germans end up moving there en masse, eventually becoming the majority once again and wishing to break off with Russian and rejoin Germany.

Would you, hypothetically, allow this? These cases are oh, so fun. (Like Kosovo and Georgia and Spain and Chechnya....:p)

If we're going to play this game, let's try someplace fun. Like who should Oklahoma belong to?

If Germany did that, then Russia would know and would be rather pissed. You do not want to piss off the world's largest nuclear power. It will just cause trouble for everyone.

Kaliningrad belongs to Russia, as that is recognised by the world and UN. It belongs to Russia as much as St. Petersburg belongs to Russia.

Mind stating why you think so?
Because it's in Russian territory and has been for 60 years. Bullshitting about the importance of previous ethnicity means fuck all to me, because that's the kind of crap that leads to the situations with Kosovo, Chechnya, South Ossetia etc., all of which can go fuck themselves.

Whoever it wants to belong to.

Gosh! Whoever it wants to belong to dammit.

The Napoleon Dynamite answer...

Conquest by force + ethnic cleansing = bad.

And "Königsberg" is so much cooler a name than "Kaliningrad."

It totally belongs to me, and I know I've got the registration papers to prove it. I just don't seem to have them right now, but I did, really. Maybe, they're on the kitchen counter, or something.

Conquest by force + ethnic cleansing = bad.

And "Königsberg" is so much cooler a name than "Kaliningrad."

AND it was founded by the Teutonic Order, arguably the most badass Knightly Order of the middle ages.

If Germany did that, then Russia would know and would be rather pissed. You do not want to piss off the world's largest nuclear power. It will just cause trouble for everyone.
Not acting because your enemy wouldn't like it is not an acceptable course of action.

Also:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

It belongs to Russia as much as St. Petersburg belongs to Russia.
Certainly not. The two are not interchangable. St. Petersburg was built by the Russians. Königsberg was built by Germans and conquered by the Soviets, then ethnically cleansed of Germans. If we're going to play this game, let's try someplace fun. Like who should Oklahoma belong to?
Nah, let's try my idea instead.
This seems way down my list of things I might care about, hence I arbitrarily award it to the Polish.
Though you cared enough to post in this thread, it seems. Thus one might reason your list of things you might care about is either rather short, thus even if Königsberg is at the bottom there may only be a few things above it which would allow you adequate time for the Königsberg issue, or, you sir, are a liar and this issue matters deeply to you.

Now which will it be?

Because it's in Russian territory and has been for 60 years. Bullshitting about the importance of previous ethnicity means fuck all to me, because that's the kind of crap that leads to the situations with Kosovo, Chechnya, South Ossetia etc., all of which can go fuck themselves.
I was hoping you would say that, in which case I, or someone slightly more, Israeli Nationalist, could argue that Palestinian territories have been in Israeli territory and others should stop "bullshitting" about the importance of previous ethnicities' ownership of said land. :wink:

AND it was founded by the Teutonic Order, arguably the most badass Knightly Order of the middle ages.
The Knights Templar were way cooler and also more badass. Not that this is entirely important.

I was hoping you would say that, in which case I, or someone slightly more, Israeli Nationalist, could argue that Palestinian territories have been in Israeli territory and others should stop "bullshitting" about the importance of previous ethnicities' ownership of said land. :wink:
And they'd be right. Doesn't mean that treating the Palestinians like shit is even remotely acceptable, just as the Russian treatment of Germans in the city was terrible.

The Knights Templar were way cooler and also more badass. Not that this is entirely important.

Lies and slander. Knights Templar got their asses handed to them by Saladin and then the Pope. Overrated pricks :p


The Teutonic Order killed fucking pagans. How awesome is that?

And this is important. 90% of the reason I actually give a shit about this city is it was founded by the Teutonic Order ;)



EDIT: Scratch 90%. I mean 100%

Dude, Russia won it fair and square. The Germans shouldn't be whiny bitches 'cos they lost. Maybe next time they'll be better at fighting if they want to keep their stuff.

Currently Russia, though it may have Teutonic ethincs in their it is still Russia, a bit like how large sections of Poland are German, it is still polish land at this point in time.

As for the demolition of Konigsberg castle for the House of Soviets. WTF? That is terrible, that pisses me off.

Though you cared enough to post in this thread, it seems. Thus one might reason your list of things you might care about is either rather short, thus even if Königsberg is at the bottom there may only be a few things above it which would allow you adequate time for the Königsberg issue, or, you sir, are a liar and this issue matters deeply to you.

Now which will it be?

Neither?

Perhaps my motivation for posting had little to do with caring about which country this city belongs to, perhaps it's idle interest while waiting to see what your actual point is, seems it's about Israel/Palestine.

seems it's about Israel/Palestine.

I saw this coming, I however intend to make this about Königsberg and keep it about them, just to be stubborn;)

And they'd be right. Doesn't mean that treating the Palestinians like shit is even remotely acceptable, just as the Russian treatment of Germans in the city was terrible.
Ok. I won't ever say I can't call you consistent. :)
Lies and slander. Knights Templar got their asses handed to them by Saladin and then the Pope. Overrated pricks :p


The Teutonic Order killed fucking pagans. How awesome is that?

And this is important. 90% of the reason I actually give a shit about this city is it was founded by the Teutonic Order ;)
And a fine reason to care for the city that is.:p

As for the demolition of Konigsberg castle for the House of Soviets. WTF? That is terrible, that pisses me off.
Yeah, well, nobody has ever claimed that in the Soviet occupation/enslavement of Eastern Europe they ever did much to "beautify" the land. :p

You can see the samy shitty Soviet built housing projects from former East Germany, to Estonia to Russia. :rolleyes:
Dude, Russia won it fair and square. The Germans shouldn't be whiny bitches 'cos they lost. Maybe next time they'll be better at fighting if they want to keep their stuff.
Hehe, that's funny. It seems that Russia is the one being a "whiny bitch" about it's major loss of influence in it's former territories. "Hey Russia, maybe next time you'll be better at creating a not-so-shitty-civilization and not losing the Cold War!

Any volunteers to go tell the Russians to get out?
...Anybody?
No?

Then eat your damn borscht and be glad for it. There are starving children in Siberia who would be glad for that borscht.

I saw this coming, I however intend to make this about Königsberg and keep it about them, just to be stubborn;)
Well you then saw wrong, look below.
Neither?

Perhaps my motivation for posting had little to do with caring about which country this city belongs to, perhaps it's idle interest while waiting to see what your actual point is, seems it's about Israel/Palestine.
No it's really not. In fact I only used it to test his consistency. I actually have an interest in this and my family's background does indeed come from Prussia (though not East-Prussia), so it's sort of part of my Family History....plus I'll be making a trip to Königsberg, sometime next school year.

My intentions for this were as stated in the OP, and that is the truth.

Well you then saw wrong, look below.

No it's really not. In fact I only used it to test his consistency. I actually have an interest in this and my family's background does indeed come from Prussia (though not East-Prussia), so it's sort of part of my Family History....plus I'll be making a trip to Königsberg, sometime next school year.

My intentions for this were as stated in the OP, and that is the truth.

I stand corrected.


Youre going to Königsberg? Awesome. Too bad the castle there got demolished because that would be awesome to see. You going anywhere else in Russia? Novgorod I hear is very cool, and if you get the chance to head into the Ukraine to see Kiev Ive heard thats very much worth it.

Where else you going in Eastern Europe? I plan on making a trip there next year (mostly Hungary but Ill explore elsewhere).

Well you then saw wrong, look below.

No it's really not. In fact I only used it to test his consistency. I actually have an interest in this and my family's background does indeed come from Prussia (though not East-Prussia), so it's sort of part of my Family History....plus I'll be making a trip to Königsberg, sometime next school year.

My intentions for this were as stated in the OP, and that is the truth.

Well, looking at the map, I can hardly justify giving ownership to Germany.

Map (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ezilon.com/eu_map_europe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ezilon.com/map_of_europe.htm&h=583&w=600&sz=78&tbnid=FAyc89DOkY0J::&tbnh=131&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Beurope&usg=__kdJmmWekqn7axpP5_6KWUF-ZWDY=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1)

I stand corrected.


Youre going to Königsberg? Awesome. Too bad the castle there got demolished because that would be awesome to see. You going anywhere else in Russia? Novgorod I hear is very cool, and if you get the chance to head into the Ukraine to see Kiev Ive heard thats very much worth it.

Where else you going in Eastern Europe? I plan on making a trip there next year (mostly Hungary but Ill explore elsewhere).
Well I'll be living / studying in Europe next year for the year, so I'm just gonna buy a Euro rail pass and visit literally every single country in Europe that I can with the pass, and some I'll have to visit without it.

I've been to Russia before, but only St. Petersburg. I've also been to Czech and Estonia before, in Eastern Europe. (Plus areas that were East Germany...where you can still see Soviet influences)

So, like I said I'm gonna visit every country in Europe I can. Some exceptions may be some Balkan places, which are just not that safe..... but the rest of Eastern Europe I'll totally do. So yeah, I'll go to Kiev and I'm totally gonna get over to Moscow... I realize that I'll have to pay alot extra for these countries because they are not on the Euro rail, but that's fine. It's worth it to me.

Let me know where you end up planning to go. We may end up being unlikely travelling / planning buddies ;) What an experience that would be. Maybe you might find out that I'm not such a Nazi extremist after all. :wink:

Well, looking at the map, I can hardly justify giving ownership to Germany.

Map (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ezilon.com/eu_map_europe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ezilon.com/map_of_europe.htm&h=583&w=600&sz=78&tbnid=FAyc89DOkY0J::&tbnh=131&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Beurope&usg=__kdJmmWekqn7axpP5_6KWUF-ZWDY=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1)

But by the same logic (that of geography) it shouldn't belong to Russia.

The the only reason it's not attached to Germany is because the areas between it in Poland were awarded to the Poles, of German land, after the Germans lost WWII. Anyway, who ever said a place has to be connected to the mainland in order to be part of that country?

Hawaii anyyone? Or Alaska? Or parts of India that are not attached at all who's names escape me....

But by the same logic (that of geography) it shouldn't belong to Russia.

The the only reason it's not attached to Germany is because the areas between it in Poland were awarded to the Poles, of German land, after the Germans lost WWII. Anyway, who ever said a place has to be connected to the mainland in order to be part of that country?

Hawaii anyyone? Or Alaska? Or parts of India that are not attached at all who's names escape me....

I'll give it to Belarus, give them a little sea access.

Fact is, it's not going back to the Germans for a long time, there's not really much to debate here.

Who do you think it belongs to? The Germans who it has historically been a part of, but who lost it during the Nazi times due to their loss of WWII, or to the Russians, who conquered it, raped it, destroyed it and ethnically cleansed it as punishment to the Nazis and in an attempt to de-Germanify it. Since the end of the cold war most of their taken territories have been freed, though Königsberg not.

The Germans, but only if it means America collectively packs its bags and goes back to Europe.

Otherwise, the Russians. The "I was there first" game never works.

I don't like it, but atrocities are part and parcel of wars of conquest, which is still favored by the world today, even if they do dress it up. If the Germans want it back, they'll have to take it back.

What should be always collapses in the face of who has superior firepower or greater staying power.

This seems way down my list of things I might care about, hence I arbitrarily award it to the Polish.

This ^

As much as it pains me to admit anything in favor of the Russians, possession being nine-tenths of the law and the precedent I'd rather have I will say that it is Russian. Entire generations have grown up and lived being Soviet/Russian there and the culture has obviously adapted to it and changed to it, like the Albanians in Kosovo. There's nothing right or wrong about it, it's just the way it lies. I'd like to think that Texas is American too, despite it once being not part of our country (although, can we give them back, maybe :) lol j/k).

Well, it obviously doesn't belong to Germany.

Ultimately it belonged to the Germans, as it was a major part of Prussia (what would eventually unite Germany under Otto Von Bismark).

Though not only this the vast majority who lived there in WW1 and WW2 were Germans. After WW2 the Russians controlled East Germany, they decided to take the city for themselves.

The city had already been basically wiped out by allied air raids and artillery strikes, most had fled the advancing red army to further into East Germany. The Russians basically brought in Russians and housed them there and effectively made Koingsberg a Russian city, all the Germans remaining there were kicked out by the Russians eventually.

However ultimately it is a German city, and the Russians stole it. However that is history,lol. It is Russian now so you can't say to the people who live there "Hey! This is German, get out!" besides the city was basically destroyed when the Russians took it over anyway. ;)

Because it's in Russian territory and has been for 60 years.

Exactly. The Atlantian Islands may think otherwise, but Kaliningrad (people have played with renaming the city Kantgrad, by the way) is a typical Soviet-era city these days and is an integral part of the Russian Federation.

Exactly. The Atlantian Islands may think otherwise, but Kaliningrad (people have played with renaming the city Kantgrad, by the way) is a typical Soviet-era city these days and is an integral part of the Russian Federation.

Well to put it simply Koingsberg belonged to Prussians (Germans), after WW2 it belonged to Russia and was renamed. Looking on wikipedia the city is over 77% Russian now.

Well to put it simply Koingsberg belonged to Prussians (Germans), after WW2 it belonged to Russia and was renamed. Looking on wikipedia the city is over 77% Russian now.
Well, because it was ethnically cleansed.

And this is important. 90% of the reason I actually give a shit about this city is it was founded by the Teutonic Order ;)

EDIT: Scratch 90%. I mean 100%

Why is it that important to you? Or is it just because a thread was made about it?

Yeah, well, nobody has ever claimed that in the Soviet occupation/enslavement of Eastern Europe they ever did much to "beautify" the land. :p

You can see the samy shitty Soviet built housing projects from former East Germany, to Estonia to Russia. :rolleyes:

I never said they did, I just said it pisses me off that they did it. And are you rolling your eyes at me? Did those shitty housing projects demolish beautiful castles? I'll tell you what if a country invaded Moscow and destroyed the Moscow Kremlin then I certainly would be just as pissed.

What would people from Konigsberg call themselves? German? Prussian? Russian?

I do no people from that area who consider themselves Prussian first and German second simply because they have the strong Teutonic ancestry, as to would a lot of other people in Poland.

It belongs to Germany in the same sense that New York City belongs to the Lenape Native Americans.

What would people from Konigsberg call themselves? German? Prussian? Russian?

Depends on their ethnicity. However there don't seem to be Germans there at all, or if there are there is less than 1% of the population. The majority are Russians.

Well, because it was ethnically cleansed.

That being the case however, why even consider making it part of Germany?

Do you really think German voters would be thrilled at the idea of having to fork out money to rebuild yet more lands destroyed by 50 years of communism?

That being the case however, why even consider making it part of Germany?

Or....why only consider Konigsberg, if we're going down the road of determining the German heritage, what about Poland itself, I think Slovakia as well, probably the Czech Republic to boot, of course Austria's just a shoe-in and if you're going to include Austria, may as well include Hungary.

A large part, if not all of France deserves another look, Holland, Belgium and the rest are really too little not to be absorbed into this.

God knows the Brits and the Russians will get all shirty at this idea but I've got some ideas about taking Russia in the winter, they won't expect it for a third time in a row, then we can put a fat alcoholic in charge of the airforce to take out the Brits.

With a little bit of luck, it might just work.

I never said they did, I just said it pisses me off that they did it. And are you rolling your eyes at me? Did those shitty housing projects demolish beautiful castles? I'll tell you what if a country invaded Moscow and destroyed the Moscow Kremlin then I certainly would be just as pissed.

It wasn't towards you, but rather towards the Soviets and their shitty enslavement of Eastern Europe.

It belongs to Germany in the same sense that New York City belongs to the Lenape Native Americans.
That analogy fails soooo badly. Natives did not at all build/contribute/add to/occupy/conquer New York City.

Do you really think German voters would be thrilled at the idea of having to fork out money to rebuild yet more lands destroyed by 50 years of communism?
Well, maybe some might feel it's an important part of their culture/history as they may feel a connection to Ostpreußen. Regardless, they could always vote on it and we'd find out....

That analogy fails soooo badly. Natives did not at all build/contribute/add to/occupy/conquer New York City.

So if I demolish your house and built a multiplex cinema on top of it, the land is mine now?

Well, maybe some might feel it's an important part of their culture/history as they may feel a connection to Ostpreußen.
I assure you, they feel a much stronger connection with their wallet.

Regardless, they could always vote on it and we'd find out....
I think you greatly overestimate how much Germans care about stuff like this. Don't get me wrong, my grandmother fled Allenstein in '45 and never returned, and I'm sure she wouldn't mind seeing the place (or maybe she would, keeping in mind what sort of stuff she experienced there). But for me, born 40 years after all this, I just couldn't give a shit. And the same is true for everyone else in my immediate family.

So if I demolish your house and built a multiplex cinema on top of it, the land is mine now?

That's effectively what happened in Konigsberg as well, it was rubble after the 2nd World War, the Russians built, contributed, added to, occupied and conquered the city so the debate seems resolved.

That's effectively what happened in Konigsberg as well, it was rubble after the 2nd World War, the Russians built, contributed, added to, occupied and conquered the city so the debate seems resolved.
... and expelled them Germans to settle Russians on the land. It's Russian, I'm not contesting that, but I'd like to point out that that what happened there is, in fact, ethnic cleansing.

... and expelled them Germans to settle Russians on the land. It's Russian, I'm not contesting that, but I'd like to point out that that what happened there is, in fact, ethnic cleansing.

I agree, and I also agree with TAI that the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe was a tragedy for Europe for 50 years.

What I don't see is the point of making a claim for this city, I don't see it as a major issue and the simple fact is that it's Russian and little will change that.

I agree, and I also agree with TAI that the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe was a tragedy for Europe for 50 years.

What I don't see is the point of making a claim for this city, I don't see it as a major issue and the simple fact is that it's Russian and little will change that.
I agree. Moreover, it'd be a headache and a liability than an asset for Germany, methinks.

(.................Der Snip.................

Loaded Question Detector overloading.....Biased Sample Alert sounding...sense impending "Aha but..."...must...warn...unwary...and..blind.....

... and expelled them Germans to settle Russians on the land. It's Russian, I'm not contesting that, but I'd like to point out that that what happened there is, in fact, ethnic cleansing.

Precisely. Also, Ethnic cleansing means that a fair way to settle questions of soverignty, such as a plebiscite, are rather moot.

... and expelled them Germans to settle Russians on the land. It's Russian, I'm not contesting that, but I'd like to point out that that what happened there is, in fact, ethnic cleansing.

What?:rolleyes: That is a claim that the actual German residents of Königsberg don't even make themselves. :confused:

This is what actually happened:

1) They were bombed and shelled out of existance by first a US/UK bombing of the city

2) Then the USSR blasted the hell out of it with artillary,

3) Then the USSR invaded and took over after defeating the Nazi army/conscripted civllians in the city.

4) After the war the Germans in Königsberg were not allowed back into the city and the population (of 50,000) was eventually deported into East Germany to make way for todays Russian inhabitants

By no means ethnic cleansing, the USSR treated the Germans/Poles/Czechsolvianks the same, and they raped and pillaged their way through Eastern Europe.

If you read what the USSR government was thinking of at the time it was preparing to take over Germany, and supress/opress it, not genocide it.

Mind stating why you think so?Probably because it's internationally recognized by all who matter, including Germany, that the Kaliningrad enclave belongs to Russia. I kind of agree, even though I wouldn't mind having my Grandfather's town of birth back if it was offered. I just don't see it happening.

Did you start this thread because you're confused about international recognition of Russian ownership or something?

Dude, Russia won it fair and square. The Germans shouldn't be whiny bitches 'cos they lost. Maybe next time they'll be better at fighting if they want to keep their stuff.

Yeah, the big wussesez..if they were any good and a real free country, they would have invaded Iraq for freedom when they were told.


4) After the war the Germans in Königsberg were not allowed back into the city and the population (of 50,000) was eventually deported into East Germany to make way for todays Russian inhabitants .

Hmmmm, and thats not ethnic cleansing...?

You start an aggressive war to seize others' land - you should be ready to have yours annexed. Like in casino, you don't win the world without betting something first.

Frankly, I think it was fairly merciful that Germany after WWII was even allowed to remain as a state (well, two states), rather than sawed apart between the Allies. Since that could happen and could be justified by preventing WWIII.

Well, maybe some might feel it's an important part of their culture/history as they may feel a connection to Ostpreußen. Regardless, they could always vote on it and we'd find out....Maybe they're idiots. But what do I know? I'm just someone with an actual connection to Königsberg and East Prussia.

What?:rolleyes: That is a claim that the actual German residents of Königsberg don't even make themselves. :confused:

This is what actually happened:

1) They were bombed and shelled out of existance by first a US/UK bombing of the city

2) Then the USSR blasted the hell out of it with artillary,

3) Then the USSR invaded and took over after defeating the Nazi army/conscripted civllians in the city.

4) After the war the Germans in Königsberg were not allowed back into the city and the population (of 50,000) was eventually deported into East Germany to make way for todays Russian inhabitants

By no means ethnic cleansing, the USSR treated the Germans/Poles/Czechsolvianks the same, and they raped and pillaged their way through Eastern Europe.

If you read what the USSR government was thinking of at the time it was preparing to take over Germany, and supress/opress it, not genocide it.I think you're confused as to what the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing mean. They are not synonymous, and you've pointed out yourself in point 4 that the Russians practiced ethnic cleansing.

Or....why only consider Konigsberg, if we're going down the road of determining the German heritage, what about Poland itself, I think Slovakia as well, probably the Czech Republic to boot, of course Austria's just a shoe-in and if you're going to include Austria, may as well include Hungary.

A large part, if not all of France deserves another look, Holland, Belgium and the rest are really too little not to be absorbed into this.

Give it all to Italy! It's all Roman territory. The rest just took it from the Roman Empire.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Roman_Empire_map.svg/557px-Roman_Empire_map.svg.png

It belongs to the people that live there.
Historical geographical claims are meaningless. For all I care they can declare themselves a part of New Zealand if they (and New Zealand) want.

Königsberg castle right before World War I, still German:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/K%C3%B6nigsberg_Castle.jpg/200px-K%C3%B6nigsberg_Castle.jpg

Königsberg castle by the end of World War II:
http://www.museumkoenigsberg.de/Panzer_Kberg-2.jpg

The "House of Soviets" in place of the castle ruins:
http://scripts.mit.edu/~zong/wpress/wp-content/uploads/images/436px-Dom_sovetov.jpg

You forgot the image in the middle. Fixed.

Not acting because your enemy wouldn't like it is not an acceptable course of action.
It certainly is when your enemy can nuke you back to the stone age.

Also:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

"A witty saying proves nothing"

Georgia

You start an aggressive war to seize others' land - you should be ready to have yours annexed.

Sure, you cannot object to the attempts of others to neutralize you as a threat... but the use of annexation to achieve that objective is problematic. While I'm not much of a believer in "land rights"--I don't honestly care who gets Königsberg at this point--the people who happen to live on a piece of land do have rights, and their membership in the political community you are trying to weaken can't simply be disregarded at your convenience. They have a right to self-determination.

To solve this problem by ethnically cleansing the people there is, of course, only to make matters worse.

Who do you think it belongs to?
Sursai.

If we're going to play this game, let's try someplace fun. Like who should Oklahoma belong to?
La Maokaoh.

Or perhaps Gdansk should become an independed country and take over Kalingrad!

*Imagines the Danzig fleet comprising of Gedanian ferries*

Georgia

The American Georgia, for comedy's sake.

Georgia
Quel?

That's effectively what happened in Konigsberg as well, it was rubble after the 2nd World War, the Russians built, contributed, added to, occupied and conquered the city so the debate seems resolved.

Maybe, but I want TAI's take on it. He's been doing a lot of these threads to justify his usual blather these days, so I figured he might as well be honest with his opinion as well.

In the interest of fairness I feel it should go to NSG.

köNigSberG

Sure, you cannot object to the attempts of others to neutralize you as a threat... but the use of annexation to achieve that objective is problematic.
Beats destruction. It's all good and fun to talk about rights and stuff, when there's no war. But if there is, what are you gonna do after defeating enemy forces in a city? Say "You bad!" and leave?

Plus, if you start an aggressive war, your opponent is in full right to annex you completely or partially (as he pleases), if he wins.


While I'm not much of a believer in "land rights"--I don't honestly care who gets Königsberg at this point--the people who happen to live on a piece of land do have rights, and their membership in the political community you are trying to weaken can't simply be disregarded at your convenience.
In a war, of course it can. And in case when the aggressive war has been started by a democratically elected leader, not only can, but should.


They have a right to self-determination.
Yes. But they lose the right to the land, if they bet it in an aggressive war and lose.


To solve this problem by ethnically cleansing the people there is, of course, only to make matters worse.
The term "relocation" is less charged and describes the situation more accurately. It's not like there have been mass shootings (not *there*).

If you retake or seize the enemy land in a defensive war, it's your right to decide whether you want to keep it together with the locals, or take just the land.

Sweden. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopparbergs_Brewery)

Since the OP won't accept the idea that there's an analogy between territory ethnically-cleansed of its non-urban indigenous population and territory ethnically-cleansed of an urban population who 'built' the city, might I take it that we're nonetheless perhaps also going to return Gdansk/Danzig to the Germans, Strasbourg to the Germans, Nice to the Italians, Istanbul/Constantinople to the Greeks, Mexico City/Tenochtitlan to the Nahuatl speakers, Alexandria to the Greeks and/or Copts, Trabzon/Trebizond and Smyrna to the Greeks, Lvov to Poland or Lithuania, Sibiu to Hungary and/or Austria.....

Gets a bit slippy after a while, doesn't it?

The arguments against 'returning' Kaliningrad to German control have been well-stated elsewhere in this thread, but include:

1) Russian control of Kaliningrad is recognised by all international bodies, and was fully recognised by the main allied powers at Potsdam:

The Conference examined a proposal by the Soviet Government that pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement the section of the western frontier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is adjacent to the Baltic Sea should pass from a point on the eastern shore of the Bay of Danzig to the east, north of Braunsberg and Goldap, to the meeting point of the frontiers of Lithuania, the Polish Republic and East Prussia. The Conference has agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet Government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the city of Koenigsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above, subject to expert examination of the actual frontier. The President of the United States and the British Prime Minister have declared that they will support the proposal of the Conference at the forthcoming peace settlement.

2) Regardless of the morality of Potsdam or the expulsion of the ethnically-German population of the city, Germany recognises the status of Kaliningrad/Konigsberg.

3) There is no serious political movement by either the current residents of Kaliningrad, or German descendents of Konigsberg's pre-war population to change the status of Kaliningrad; this isn't even on the radar of any serious politician or political movement.

Methinks the OP is confusing the issue of whether the expulsion of Konigsberg's pre-war German majority was right with the issue of who should currently control Kaliningrad.

The morality of the former is debateable; the legality of the latter isn't.

Due to solving the bridges problem, clearly Konigsberg belongs to Euler.

...Whaddya mean he's dead for over two hundred years?

If we're going to play this game, let's try someplace fun. Like who should Oklahoma belong to?

As is the case for Konisberg, the local residents.

That analogy fails soooo badly. Natives did not at all build/contribute/add to/occupy/conquer New York City.

I am certain that the aboriginal people of that region conquered and occupied that region from other aboriginal people. It was to resolve these sorts of conflicts that the Iroquois nation was developed.

They also definitely built longhouses on the island. They may have made other, more permanent dwellings of stone, earth and shell like the aboriginals farther south along the east coast of North America. And like those other structures, they would have been mostly demolished before any white person thought to record their existence.

You should not make statements about peoples and cultures that you know little about.

It belongs to the people that live there.
Historical geographical claims are meaningless. For all I care they can declare themselves a part of New Zealand if they (and New Zealand) want.

yes. I should qualify my earlier statement. It should be up to the Konisbergers and whatever country they wish to join.

It belongs to Germany, but unfortunately there's no chance of them ever reclaiming East Prussia, let alone the Danzig corridor or Klaipedia. I'd rather them manage it than allow it to remain a poor, decrepit Russian enclave whose primary purpose now is to threaten Europe with naval forces. By now, the forced deportations and emigrations from those regions have destroyed much of the Polish German culture in the region leaving little more than a historical impact on the region.

"Königsberg" ceased to exist when the Soviet Union conquered East Prussia and Germany lost WW2.

The city you are now talking about is Kaliningrad, a Russian city, and it belongs to the Russians.

There is no way that the Russians would give up control over it in any case; and why should they?

Also, I'm not interested in returning "once German" stretches of land to Germany, let alone creating exclaves without any need, especially not when it could piss off Russia.

At the time, Germany only has one exclace ("Büsingen am Hochrhein" in Switzerland) and the way it should stay. No more.

However, I've always wondered why Russia (or the Soviet Union for that matter) has never taken an approach to make Kaliningrad their "door to the West". Sort of like the Baltic Hong Kong.

Well, anyway, knowing in which kind of state of disrepair the city is, beside from the political consequences, I sincerely doubt Germany would want to pay tremendous amounts of money to get Kaliningrad up to par. Still paying off the last time the Federal Republic included new states and even that's not done yet. So why in the world create a black hole to dump billions into without any gain whatsoever? No, I say.

That analogy fails soooo badly. Natives did not at all build/contribute/add to/occupy/conquer New York City.

The analogy is perfectly acceptable, you just don't want to admit it because it puts a scratch in this perfect case you mistakenly think you've constructed. Historical geographic claims are meaningless, unless you feel that the United States should return the American Southwest to Mexico. Or, as a previous poster mentioned in jest, perhaps we should return control of the Mediterranean to Italy.

The city of Konigsberg no longer exists. You are thinking of the city of Kaliningrad, which is Russian. The Kaliningrad Oblast is 82.37% Russian and 0.87% German.

Since the OP won't accept the idea that there's an analogy between territory ethnically-cleansed of its non-urban indigenous population and territory ethnically-cleansed of an urban population who 'built' the city, might I take it that we're nonetheless perhaps also going to return Gdansk/Danzig to the Germans, Strasbourg to the Germans, Nice to the Italians, Istanbul/Constantinople to the Greeks, Mexico City/Tenochtitlan to the Nahuatl speakers, Alexandria to the Greeks and/or Copts, Trabzon/Trebizond and Smyrna to the Greeks, Lvov to Poland or Lithuania, Sibiu to Hungary and/or Austria.....

You forgot South Tyrol to Austria, which it should be but anyway why doesn't someone become Chancellor of Germany and wanting to claim back German land invade Poland that would work. Oh wait

Oops Goodwins law, well it had to happen sometime.

Actually Danzig was already apart of Germany at that time and Poland was invaded in order to link Danzig and the german people living there with the rest of the country which was why he did it in the first place.

Let me know where you end up planning to go. We may end up being unlikely travelling / planning buddies ;) What an experience that would be.

Indeed I will.

Maybe you might find out that I'm not such a Nazi extremist after all. :wink:

Remember Im the one who usually gives you the benefit of the doubt;)

You forgot South Tyrol to Austria,

I didn't forget. Since the Atlantian Islands' case is, somewhat speciously, predicated solely on the previous ownership of urban centres, I intentionally focused on cities rather than regions.


Actually Danzig was already apart of Germany at that time and Poland was invaded in order to link Danzig and the german people living there with the rest of the country which was why he did it in the first place.

Danzig wasn't part of Germany between the wars. It was a League of Nations Mandate under the direct control of the League of Nations under a League-appointed commissioner, and was called the Free City of Danzig during that period. It wasn't under the control of the German state, whether the Weimar Republic or the pre-War Nazi state.

A majority of Danzig's population (who were overwhelmingly ethnically German) undoubtedly wanted reunification with Germany, and in the last election before the war, slightly over 50% of Danzig's voters voted for the local branch of the Nazi party (but a two thirds majority would have been required for any local parties to change Danzig's League constitution), but de jure it was not part of Germany.

Plus, if you start an aggressive war, your opponent is in full right to annex you completely or partially (as he pleases), if he wins.I'd like to see some evidence backing up this ludicrous claim.

Actually Danzig was already apart of Germany at that time and Poland was invaded in order to link Danzig and the german people living there with the rest of the country which was why he did it in the first place.Actually, it wasn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig)

Lies and slander. Knights Templar got their asses handed to them by Saladin and then the Pope. Overrated pricks :pLet me get this straight, you're saying the Knights Templar suck because they lost to Saladin and the Pope, whereas the Teutonic Knights are cool because they lost to the Hungarians and Poles?
The Teutonic Order killed fucking pagans. How awesome is that?After the pagans became christian, they started killing christians, showing how important the whole "converting the pagans" issue turned out to be.

Conquest by force + ethnic cleansing = bad.Surely you are aware that the Germans conquered it by force and obliterated the Prussian ethnicity (damned pagans that they were)? It would be impossible to give it back to the Prussians, since there aren't any; and besides, no doubt the Prussians obtained it in prehistoric times by conquering and obliterating some earlier group.

I'd like to see some evidence backing up this ludicrous claim.

Most wars. Franco Prussian war, WW1, WW2.

Funny how some people here lament the plight of the innocent Germans in the first half of the twentieth century and their tragic loss of so many territories. Apparently the genocidal tactics executed by the Third Reich, their allies and a horrifying bunch of murderous collaborators should simply be forgotten.

Lots of cryptonazi ramblings here, that's for sure. Oh well, I guess it's a break from the US election insanity and the usual truckload of evangelical apocalypticisms.

Funny how some people here lament the plight of the innocent Germans in the first half of the twentieth century and their tragic loss of so many territories. Apparently the genocidal tactics executed by the Third Reich, their allies and a horrifying bunch of murderous collaborators should simply be forgotten.

Two wrongs hardly make a right.

Funny how some people here lament the plight of the innocent Germans in the first half of the twentieth century and their tragic loss of so many territories. Apparently the genocidal tactics executed by the Third Reich, their allies and a horrifying bunch of murderous collaborators should simply be forgotten.

To be fair, though, the Soviet Union's treatment of ethnic Germans was terrible. Millions were displaced and forced from their homes even if they had little or nothing to do with the policies of the Third Reich, and many were even killed at the hands of Stalin's postwar purges.

That's not to say Germany deserved to be let off without punishment for the war and genocide it inflicted on Europe, but their policies were extreme and clearly designed to ethnically cleanse that region as part of a general campaign of Russification. Those territories were historically German, but I feel ceding them to Poland was a justified move to restore Polish territories lost to Germany and Russia over the preceding centuries. Thankfully, the Poles were able to get some land following the Soviet Union's annexation of their eastern territories...

Frankly, I think it just goes to show that the Stalinist Soviet Union really was no better than the Reich. Their policies in the Ukraine, the Baltic States, and their satellites appears to have been lifted straight from Hitler's playbook (to say nothing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), and I think we can all thank God that Stalin and Hitler both died before their reigns of terror could reach another bloody apex.

I'd like to see some evidence backing up this ludicrous claim.
You find it ludicrous that the victor in a war gets the right to keep the conquered territories? Well, the evidence is the entirety of the military history. Were it not the case, wars would not be fought. And the victor in a defensive war has also a moral, not just legal right to the aggressor's former territories.

As to how this right is implemented, ensured and protected, in the old days it used to be by debellatio. In more modern history, it is by peace pact or surrender conditions.


Specifically for Germany, it's outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_instrument_of_surrender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender

By signing this document, Germany has given to Allies the right to manage its territories as they find suitable.

Russia, of course, the unscrupulous nature of the Russian territorial expansion after World War II makes one question the moral grounds on which this possession is based, but legally, it is beyond question.

Germans founded the city. The Germans also lost all rights to it when the Russians took it over as a war prize. When a nation loses a war it doesnt get much say in the aftermath. This holds true to the Native nations of the Americas, Mexico for losing in 1845 and so on and so on. Unless of course you have world opinion and strong friends to back your claim it isnt going to come back without military force.

Not acting because your enemy wouldn't like it is not an acceptable course of action.

Also:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Why is it not? Disrupting the status quo is usually not a good thing. Just look at WWII. France, GB, and the USSR all just sat around as Germany gobbled up its neighbours. Had they done anything, then WWII could have been averted. But they sat around. If the Germans try to take back Kaliningrad, the Russians would definitely not sit around, as it has infringed on its sovereign territory and will probably act as it did towards South Ossetia, which does not even lie in Russian soil.
Certainly not. The two are not interchangable. St. Petersburg was built by the Russians. Königsberg was built by Germans and conquered by the Soviets, then ethnically cleansed of Germans.
That was not my point. St. Petersburg is in Russian sovereign territory. Kaliningrad is in Russian sovereign territory. The result? Both are Russian, and the Russians will make it so through power and force. It does not matter whether or not the ethnic composition is Russian or German. Tibet is a good example. At one point, it was a kingdom, but the Mongols conquered it and it has been part of China until 1940-50 somewhere. The Chinese got angry and then stamped out resistance before reincorporating Tibet. It's now Chinese sovereign territory. What, we should give the Tibetans their own country because there are Tibetans in Tibet? Then why not create a separate Native American country? A country for the Kurds? The Scottish?

What, we should give the Tibetans their own country because there are Tibetans in Tibet? Then why not create a separate Native American country? A country for the Kurds? The Scottish?
The Native tribes have a degree of internal sovereignty. So does Scotland. So does Iraqi Kurdistan (de facto, if not sorted out de jure). So does Tibet, on paper, but not de facto. I would certainly say Tibet is entitled to the "autonomous" status the Chinese have always promised but never actually given.

Specifically for Germany, it's outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_instrument_of_surrender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender

By signing this document, Germany has given to Allies the right to manage its territories as they find suitable.
If you were going to use legal documents, at least pick the right one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%2B4_Treaty

If you were going to use legal documents, at least pick the right one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%2B4_Treaty
That's the final settlement-- but under the "unconditional surrender" document, the Allies were under no obligation to offer such generous terms, or any terms at all. We could have abolished any independent Germany, or partitioned it in any manner. France was not originally inclined to go along with merging its occupation zone with "Bizonia" (the US/British creation); de Gaulle said, "Germany is such a wonderful country, there ought to be more of them" and spoke of chopping it up into little pieces like under the Holy Roman Empire, some of which, along the Rhine, France might just annex (in the end, only Saarland was hived off, and eventually allowed to join West Germany).

If you were going to use legal documents, at least pick the right one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%2B4_Treaty
The later one, you mean.
However, the initial right to lands has been established by the instrument of surrender.


The 1990 treaty just confirmed it:
(1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. [...]
(3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future.

I think you're confused as to what the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing mean. They are not synonymous, and you've pointed out yourself in point 4 that the Russians practiced ethnic cleansing.

1) Both the residents of the city and the USSR believe it was an act in war not ethnic cleansing, need I repeat this again.:rolleyes: Most died of rape, torture, starvation, disease and the initial attack. It was lack of compassion on the USSR side, but need people be reminded that Stalin wiped out 20 million of his own people.

I consider that more than enough evidence that had Stalin wanted to conduct ethnic cleansing he would have done a lot better than leaving 20,000-50,000 he would have killed them all! :rolleyes:

2) Ethnic cleansing is one of the various ways you commit genocide, it is a type of genocide. Ethnic implies ethnicity or in effect race. So ethnic cleansing is the cleansing of a race, when applying this phrase in a war context this means genocide.

3) Why are people still discussing this? A waste of time if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Link: http://www.smso.net/K%C3%B6nigsberg

Funny how some people here lament the plight of the innocent Germans in the first half of the twentieth century and their tragic loss of so many territories. Apparently the genocidal tactics executed by the Third Reich, their allies and a horrifying bunch of murderous collaborators should simply be forgotten.

Lots of cryptonazi ramblings here, that's for sure. Oh well, I guess it's a break from the US election insanity and the usual truckload of evangelical apocalypticisms.

:rolleyes:
So because certain sections of it did something bad, then we should forget about any other atrocities committed to them.

3) Why are people still discussing this? A waste of time if you ask me. :rolleyes:

What a question to ask, and you have been on NSG how long?

:rolleyes:
So because certain sections of it did something bad, then we should forget about any other atrocities committed to them.

No, but because "certain sections" of the Reich committed atrocities, placing the Reich in the role of a victim in an attempt to play the sympathy card in support of gifting back Nazi territories to modern Germany is a simpleton's game that only works with people who are already predisposed to favor fascist states like the Reich. People who are bigoted and racist. And lo and behold, a bigot and racist is making this very thread. Coincidence? Surely!

No, but because "certain sections" of the Reich committed atrocities, placing the Reich in the role of a victim in an attempt to play the sympathy card in support of gifting back Nazi territories to modern Germany is a simpleton's game that only works with people who are already predisposed to favor fascist states like the Reich. People who are bigoted and racist. And lo and behold, a bigot and racist is making this very thread. Coincidence? Surely!

Regardless of his objections, the actual point of this thread was to have people say that history doesn't matter in terms of who currently owns a piece of land and then to launch an attack on double standards over Israel.

All part of the 'whiny liberals support fashionable causes' and only strong Nietzchean types can see the truth, which is that rich, educated white elites should rule the world.

Note his drop off in participation once this was raised.

In Australia, the traditional aboriginal view is the the land does not belong to th epeople, the people belong to the land.
And yes, they have been dispossessed of much of that land - but they are still there.
My family came from Scotland to Australia. Now I am part of that land. I Love to travel. Last year I was temporarily part of Europe and Noth America.
It's lucky that we are born with two feet and can move around on the land. One day I will die and the earth will take me back.
The earth remains. The people pass on.

Most wars. Franco Prussian war, WW1, WW2.Proves that it happened, not that there's a right to it.
You find it ludicrous that the victor in a war gets the right to keep the conquered territories? Well, the evidence is the entirety of the military history. Were it not the case, wars would not be fought. And the victor in a defensive war has also a moral, not just legal right to the aggressor's former territories.The entirety of military history has far more examples of the aggressors keeping lands they conquered than the people they attacked.
As to how this right is implemented, ensured and protected, in the old days it used to be by debellatio. In more modern history, it is by peace pact or surrender conditions.

Specifically for Germany, it's outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_instrument_of_surrender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender

By signing this document, Germany has given to Allies the right to manage its territories as they find suitable.Good job. Didn't answer my question in the slightest. Now please provide evidence that there is a right to strip aggressors of territory. All you've done is stipulated that such a right exists and gone on from there.
1) Both the residents of the city and the USSR believe it was an act in war not ethnic cleansing, need I repeat this again.:rolleyes: Most died of rape, torture, starvation, disease and the initial attack. It was lack of compassion on the USSR side, but need people be reminded that Stalin wiped out 20 million of his own people.

I consider that more than enough evidence that had Stalin wanted to conduct ethnic cleansing he would have done a lot better than leaving 20,000-50,000 he would have killed them all! :rolleyes:It's funny, because I could swear ethnic cleansing can be objectively verified without need for people's opinions. Were people driven from and/or prevented from returning to the area in question? If so, then it's ethnic cleansing. Whether the people that pulled it off say otherwise is irrelevant. Likewise, I'd like some evidence that the Königsbergers claim it wasn't ethnic cleansing. My understanding is that the Bund der Vertriebenen does indeed call it ethnic cleansing.

2) Ethnic cleansing is one of the various ways you commit genocide, it is a type of genocide. Ethnic implies ethnicity or in effect race. So ethnic cleansing is the cleansing of a race, when applying this phrase in a war context this means genocide.Entirely incorrect. Genocide is one means of committing ethnic cleansing, not the other way around. Genocide is the specific killing of an ethnicity, whereas ethnic cleansing consists of removing an ethnicity from an area. While you can engage in genocide to achieve ethnic cleansing, you can also pull it off by driving the population off without killing them and then preventing them from returning.
3) Why are people still discussing this? A waste of time if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Link: http://www.smso.net/K%C3%B6nigsbergWhat exactly is that pseudowiki article meant to say?

Proves that it happened, not that there's a right to it.
The entirety of military history has far more examples of the aggressors keeping lands they conquered than the people they attacked.
Of course, because the defendants usually didn't proceed to attack the aggressor in his own soil, even when they won.

So you assert that the aggressor has more rights than the defendant?


Good job. Didn't answer my question in the slightest. Now please provide evidence that there is a right to strip aggressors of territory.
Surrender conditions. In case of Germany and Japan, unconditional surrender, giving the Allies the right to do as they please.

This is the legal right.
The moral right is compensation for the damage dealt.


All you've done is stipulated that such a right exists and gone on from there.
The only thing in here that is my opinion is that it's not just the defendants' right, but a moral duty to take the necessary measures to prevent the repeat of such a war. If the Treaty of Versailles was more strict, the WWII wouldn't happen to the same extent as it has. Which would be better for everyone including (or even especially) Germany.

Of course, because the defendants usually didn't proceed to attack the aggressor in his own soil, even when they won.

So you assert that the aggressor has more rights than the defendant?Am I?
Surrender conditions. In case of Germany and Japan, unconditional surrender, giving the Allies the right to do as they please.

This is the legal right.
The moral right is compensation for the damage dealt.So basically the "Might makes right" argument? It's a flawed argument to begin with, considering that it states "I get what I take or I hit you." Not in any way morally or legally defendable.

On the other hand, one could also argue that because they agreed to the Atlantic Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter), the Soviets and Poles were wrong in annexing East Prussia, Pommerania, and Silesia, and the other Allies were wrong in letting them do it.
The only thing in here that is my opinion is that it's not just the defendants' right, but a moral duty to take the necessary measures to prevent the repeat of such a war. If the Treaty of Versailles was more strict, the WWII wouldn't happen to the same extent as it has. Which would be better for everyone including (or even especially) Germany.
You have a very, very flawed view on the issue. I suggest an education on WWI, the Treaty of Versailles, Europe and Germany between the Wars, and the rise of the Nazi Party as topics to start with.

This seems way down my list of things I might care about, hence I arbitrarily award it to the Polish.

And for the same reasons, I name it part of the British Empire.:D

My thoughts on land owenership, as some of you I'm sure are aware, go along the lines of nobody owns land, although I would have to say that whatever the nationality the residance of the place claim to be, is what the place is.

If they say they are Russian, then it is Russian soil.

The only thing in here that is my opinion is that it's not just the defendants' right, but a moral duty to take the necessary measures to prevent the repeat of such a war. If the Treaty of Versailles was more strict, the WWII wouldn't happen to the same extent as it has. Which would be better for everyone including (or even especially) Germany.

Well it probably would have led to 1) Russia fighting Britain and France in central europe, ala the 30 years war, and/or 2) A falling out between France and Britain (and France or Britain taking up the extremist views that were in Hitler's NSPD), Japanese further assaulting China, Italy continuing with it's shenanigans, etc.

Proves that it happened, not that there's a right to it.
The entirety of military history has far more examples of the aggressors keeping lands they conquered than the people they attacked.
Good job. Didn't answer my question in the slightest. Now please provide evidence that there is a right to strip aggressors of territory. All you've done is stipulated that such a right exists and gone on from there.
It's funny, because I could swear ethnic cleansing can be objectively verified without need for people's opinions. Were people driven from and/or prevented from returning to the area in question? If so, then it's ethnic cleansing. Whether the people that pulled it off say otherwise is irrelevant. Likewise, I'd like some evidence that the Königsbergers claim it wasn't ethnic cleansing. My understanding is that the Bund der Vertriebenen does indeed call it ethnic cleansing.

Entirely incorrect. Genocide is one means of committing ethnic cleansing, not the other way around. Genocide is the specific killing of an ethnicity, whereas ethnic cleansing consists of removing an ethnicity from an area. While you can engage in genocide to achieve ethnic cleansing, you can also pull it off by driving the population off without killing them and then preventing them from returning.
What exactly is that pseudowiki article meant to say?

I could give evidence. But it is on a satellite pay tv network and I am not going to carry out copyright abuse.

There are several History Channel programs on the ending of world war two and afterwards, they interviewed people from Koenigsberg and no where throughout all the programs have I seen (and I have watched 100s) anyone claim that Russians were guilty of ethnic cleansing/genocide towards Germany, let alone Koenigsberg. The Russians are guilty of raping and killing people, and the allies guilty of bombing.

It is really no use trying to say that one side is more innocent than the other. If you were to say that then it was the Russians that were the most innocent after all Germany did declare war on Russia and try to exterminate and enslave the whole population.

It's just new age people that are making this Koenigsberg genocide/ethnic cleansing rubbish, the veterans of the actual conflict on both sides say there was not genocide/ethnic cleansing but deportation. I believe the veterans.

It's just new age people that are making this Koenigsberg genocide/ethnic cleansing rubbish, the veterans of the actual conflict on both sides say there was not genocide/ethnic cleansing but deportation. I believe the veterans.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing aren't interchangable, it's not valid to just seperate them with a /. There may not have been genocide, but the idea was clearly to remove the German population. That was especially true for the areas that went to Poland rather than Russia. That makes it ethnic cleansing.

Or, to use the words of Winston Churchill:
"Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made."http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3528506.stm

I could give evidence. But it is on a satellite pay tv network and I am not going to carry out copyright abuse.

There are several History Channel programs on the ending of world war two and afterwards, they interviewed people from Koenigsberg and no where throughout all the programs have I seen (and I have watched 100s) anyone claim that Russians were guilty of ethnic cleansing/genocide towards Germany, let alone Koenigsberg. The Russians are guilty of raping and killing people, and the allies guilty of bombing.So no evidence, and the evidence that you're not providing wasn't relevant in the first place...
It is really no use trying to say that one side is more innocent than the other, if you were to say that. Then it was the Russians that were the most innocent after all Germany did declare war on Russia and try to exterminate and enslave the whole population. What's innocence got to do with it? Who's alleging it? We're discussing whether what the Russians did in Northern East Prussia was wrong and ethnic cleansing. That the Germans did worse isn't part of it, nor would trying to add it to the discussion really have merits.
It's just new age people that are making this Koenigsberg genocide/ethnic cleansing rubbish, the veterans of the actual conflict on both sides say there was not genocide/ethnic cleansing but deportation. I believe the veterans.Somehow I get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. Specifically your use of "new age people" to discredit the other position and "veterans" to provide credit to yours, along with the inability to understand the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". I'd love to debate the issue with you, but you're going to have to prove you've got a minimum of basic knowledge on the issue first.

So basically the "Might makes right" argument? It's a flawed argument to begin with, considering that it states "I get what I take or I hit you." Not in any way morally or legally defendable.
Reparations for damages is not "might makes right".
You don't argue that someone who has willfully destroyed your property is under no obligation to pay for it, do you?


As for the legal part, the Atlantic Charter didn't specify that USSR can't annex territories.


You have a very, very flawed view on the issue. I suggest an education on WWI, the Treaty of Versailles, Europe and Germany between the Wars, and the rise of the Nazi Party as topics to start with.
I have a different position than you, although "flawed view" is a good replacement for "your opinion is wrong because it differs from mine".

It took being Germany in the state it was, as a single nation, but with the people discontent about their losses in WWI, to give Nazi a platform to rise to power. In Britain or France, that wouldn't work, at least not nearly as easily.
Japan and Italy weren't be a sufficient power to make a world war on the extent of WWII, if at all not be confined to local fighting.

Reparations for damages is not "might makes right". And what land did the Soviets, Poles, and others lose to the Germans after the war was over?
You don't argue that someone who has willfully destroyed your property is under no obligation to pay for it, do you?Do I?
I have a different position than you, although "flawed view" is a good replacement for "your opinion is wrong because it differs from mine".No, your opinion is wrong because it ignores that the bitterness and anger over the Versaille Treaty is one of the prime causes of World War II.
It took being Germany in the state it was, as a single nation, but with the people discontent about their losses in WWI, to give Nazi a platform to rise to power. In Britain or France, that wouldn't work, at least not nearly as easily.
Japan and Italy weren't be a sufficient power to make a world war on the extent of WWII, if at all not be confined to local fighting.And that's stupid. Since we're stipulating that we can go back in time to change the way the Treaty was done, why not model it after Wilson's 14 points and thus avoid the discontent about the losses in WWI, and thus remove the Nazi platform from which they rose to power? Making Versaille stricter instead is a shitty idea, and I'm going to call you on your shitty idea and assume its because you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about.

So no evidence, and the evidence that you're not providing wasn't relevant in the first place...
What's innocence got to do with it? Who's alleging it? We're discussing whether what the Russians did in Northern East Prussia was wrong and ethnic cleansing. That the Germans did worse isn't part of it, nor would trying to add it to the discussion really have merits.
Somehow I get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. Specifically your use of "new age people" to discredit the other position and "veterans" to provide credit to yours, along with the inability to understand the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". I'd love to debate the issue with you, but you're going to have to prove you've got a minimum of basic knowledge on the issue first.

1) I will not reduce myself to personal attacks. I feel the one above is. It is a very poor argument if you assume that people do not understand.

2) Regardless of what you feel about the History Channel it takes its information from historians on the subjects it covers, personally I consider anything relevant that includes University professors on a subject. You are entitled to discount my source yet where are these miracle sources that claim it was ethnic cleansing? the sites I have seen have no eye witness accounts from the people who were actually there at the time that have told their stories in recent times.

3) As for your definition of genocide that is not consistent with the UN Resolution on genocide, which clearly states ethnic cleansing being part of genocide not the other way round.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Notice that ethnicity is mentioned. Also ethnic cleansing as no legal standing in the Hague, genocide is the term always used never ethnic cleansing.

Although the UN and the US State Department both have working definitions of the term, it has no legal definition. All of the defendants at the Hague-based International Tribunal for War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia (as of February 2002) have been charged under existing UN statutes, including crimes against humanity and genocide. In none of the indictments is the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ used. It remains therefore a political rather than a legal term. http://www.answers.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing

4) New Age is a correct term to use as they are new people, meaning people who were born well after the event occurred and then speculate often incorrectly without talking to the actual people involved in the event. By veterans I mean the soldiers on both sides, plus the civilians who actually managed to survive.

It is something to be concerned about, new age ideas are what fuel Neo-Nazi movements, because they ignore totally ignore what the people at the time felt and instead work off statistics and Nazi propaganda that was working to portray everything the allies and USSR did as genocide or evil.

And what land did the Soviets, Poles, and others lose to the Germans after the war was over?
Barter has been invented millenia ago. How do you imagine compensating in kind for the millions of deaths and destruction worth many times the German's whole economy of the time?


No, your opinion is wrong because it ignores that the bitterness and anger over the Versaille Treaty is one of the prime causes of World War II.

It takes power, not just bitterness and anger to start a world war. Germany was given enough bitterness, but nonetheless left with enough power to start and wage WWII.

You don't spank someone strong and then let him walk away in plastic shackles.


Since we're stipulating that we can go back in time to change the way the Treaty was done, why not model it after Wilson's 14 points and thus avoid the discontent about the losses in WWI, and thus remove the Nazi platform from which they rose to power?
Maybe that could work too.


Making Versaille stricter instead is a shitty idea,
It would hurt even more than it did, but it would prevent WWII, which has hurt a thousand times more.

And by "stricter" I don't mean just "more the same".

Who does Königsberg belong to?

Obviously Lithuania, can there be any doubt about that?

Barter has been invented millenia ago. How do you imagine compensating in kind for the millions of deaths and destruction worth many times the German's whole economy of the time?



It takes power, not just bitterness and anger to start a world war. Germany was given enough bitterness, but nonetheless left with enough power to start and wage WWII.

You don't spank someone strong and then let him walk away in plastic shackles.



Maybe that could work too.



It would hurt even more than it did, but it would prevent WWII, which has hurt a thousand times more.

There are several factors that worked together to encourage Nationalism and eventually Nazism in Germany, here are a few:

1) Global Depression which was triggered by the 1921 war debt pay off scheme
2) Isolation and lack of interaction with Germany as a whole by France and Britain, they basically ignored Germany
3) The German government failure to curb Nazi violence in Germany
4) The election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany
5) Abolishment of Democracy and Freedom of speech by Hitler
6) Militarization of Germany
7) Appeasement Policy of Neville Chamberlain

No, but because "certain sections" of the Reich committed atrocities, placing the Reich in the role of a victim in an attempt to play the sympathy card in support of gifting back Nazi territories to modern Germany is a simpleton's game that only works with people who are already predisposed to favor fascist states like the Reich. People who are bigoted and racist. And lo and behold, a bigot and racist is making this very thread. Coincidence? Surely!

Yeah, so the Reich is still going then? Oh and just because people living in Konigsberg were citizens of a country that did these things if they are ethnically cleansed or kicked out then that makes it alright? But you are drawing a long bow there, perhaps you would like to try again and tell me why we should ignore atrocities against a some people because some people from their background or country committed other atrocities. TAI may be a bigot but at least he is consistent.

Obviously Lithuania, can there be any doubt about that?

At last someone can lay the issue to rest. ;)

1) I will not reduce myself to personal attacks. I feel the one above is. It is a very poor argument if you assume that people do not understand. Should I assume that you're intentionally pretending that you don't understand instead? Sorry if you take being told that you don't know what you're talking about as a personal attack. Perhaps it is, but its based on your inability to discern between genocide and ethnic cleansing.

2) As for your definition of genocide that is not consistent with the UN Resolution on genocide, which clearly states ethnic cleansing being part of genocide not the other way round. It does nothing of the sort. All it does is define genocide as the destruction of one of those groups, ethnic groups obviously being part of it. Nowhere does it even mention the use of expulsion, in fact it specifically states "intent to destroy". You may be working under a different definition of what "clearly states" means than the rest of the English speaking world, much like you're working with a different definition of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".

Genocide is the destruction of a group.
Ethnic cleansing is the removal of a group from an area. This can be achieved by expulsion and killing, among other things.

Ethnic cleansing does not equate to genocide, though often genocide is part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Notice that ethnicity is mentioned. Also ethnic cleansing as no legal standing in the Hague, genocide is the term always used never ethnic cleansing. Legal language is rather different from regular language. We have a number of lawyers on NSG that can point that out to you. The lack of a legal definition of ethnic cleansing only means the no one can be tried for it, which no one was arguing in the first place.

Also, maybe you should read what you're linking to:
Dictionary:
ethnic cleansing

n.

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.US Military Dictionary: ethnic cleansing

The mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.
Most of those support exactly what I've been trying to tell you, only you seem to have completely ignored them.
3) New Age is a correct term to use as they are new people, meaning people who were born well after the event occurred and then speculate often incorrectly without talking to the actual people involved in the event. By veterans I mean the soldiers on both sides, plus the civilians who actually managed to survive. No, it's not. It's about as correct as referring to me as a Native American because I'm a natural born US citizen, which is not what Native American means. This is what New Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age) means, by the way. The term also often gets used by social conservatives and right-wingers to discredit "the left".
The veterans bit is misleading as well. Civilians aren't veterans, and certainly not in wars. Their opinion (which you haven't provided) as to whether or not the expulsion was ethnic cleansing is meaningless when it comes to establishing whether it was ethnic cleansing or not. If people were removed from an area for their nationality or ethnicity, then it was ethnic cleansing, even if you can get them to say the opposite.
It is something to be concerned about, new age ideas are what fuel Neo-Nazi movements, because they ignore totally ignore what the people at the time felt and instead work off statistics and Nazi propaganda that was working to portray everything the allies and USSR did as genocide or evil.Indeed, the spreading of factually incorrect information is something to be worried about. However, you've been doing it the whole time by alleging false definitions of ethnic cleansing.

Regardless of his objections, the actual point of this thread was to have people say that history doesn't matter in terms of who currently owns a piece of land and then to launch an attack on double standards over Israel.

All part of the 'whiny liberals support fashionable causes' and only strong Nietzchean types can see the truth, which is that rich, educated white elites should rule the world.

Note his drop off in participation once this was raised.

Or maybe, just maybe Barry, I had other things to do I can't spend my entire life on NSG.

There is nothing about complaining about how 'lefties' only care about fashionable causes or anything you may be trying to paint me as, as for rich white educated white elites should rule the world bit, how bout you show me where I have said this before, hey? I was responding to a post by another poster who said we should ignore any atrocities committed to Germans because they have committed atrocities themselves. And you would notice that I had already posted saying that Konigsberg belongs to Russia

Barter has been invented millenia ago. How do you imagine compensating in kind for the millions of deaths and destruction worth many times the German's whole economy of the time?You imagine something like that can be compensated?
It takes power, not just bitterness and anger to start a world war. Germany was given enough bitterness, but nonetheless left with enough power to start and wage WWII.

You don't spank someone strong and then let him walk away in plastic shackles.It takes a motive to start a war. Virtually every German was pissed off at the Allies for Versaille. Every one: the Nazis, the Centrists, the Conservatives, the Social Democrats, even the Communists. All of them cheered when Hitler revoked it, even if they hated his guts. Had Versaille not stripped Germany of territory or legally enshrined that only Germany was to blame for WWI, or had it adhered to more than one or two of Wilson's 14 points (which were one of the big causes of the November Revolution), perhaps Germany would not have been inclined to allow warmongers to take over the government in the first place.
It would hurt even more than it did, but it would prevent WWII, which has hurt a thousand times more.Highly doubtful. Versaille was as strict as it got. Had it been any more strict and it might just have prolonged WWI.

You're a bit confused as to just how pivotal the Dolchstoßlegende was for bringing the Nazis to power.

Yeah, so the Reich is still going then? Yes, actually it is. It's under different management and name, but the Kaiserreich of Germany is still around.
I agree with the rest of what you posted.

Should I assume that you're intentionally pretending that you don't understand instead? Sorry if you take being told that you don't know what you're talking about as a personal attack. Perhaps it is, but its based on your inability to discern between genocide and ethnic cleansing.

It does nothing of the sort. All it does is define genocide as the destruction of one of those groups, ethnic groups obviously being part of it. Nowhere does it even mention the use of expulsion, in fact it specifically states "intent to destroy". You may be working under a different definition of what "clearly states" means than the rest of the English speaking world, much like you're working with a different definition of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".

Genocide is the destruction of a group.
Ethnic cleansing is the removal of a group from an area. This can be achieved by expulsion and killing, among other things.

Ethnic cleansing does not equate to genocide, though often genocide is part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Legal language is rather different from regular language. We have a number of lawyers on NSG that can point that out to you. The lack of a legal definition of ethnic cleansing only means the no one can be tried for it, which no one was arguing in the first place.

Also, maybe you should read what you're linking to:

Most of those support exactly what I've been trying to tell you, only you seem to have completely ignored them.
No, it's not. It's about as correct as referring to me as a Native American because I'm a natural born US citizen, which is not what Native American means. This is what New Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age) means, by the way. The term also often gets used by social conservatives and right-wingers to discredit "the left".
The veterans bit is misleading as well. Civilians aren't veterans, and certainly not in wars. Their opinion (which you haven't provided) as to whether or not the expulsion was ethnic cleansing is meaningless when it comes to establishing whether it was ethnic cleansing or not. If people were removed from an area for their nationality or ethnicity, then it was ethnic cleansing, even if you can get them to say the opposite.
Indeed, the spreading of factually incorrect information is something to be worried about. However, you've been doing it the whole time by alleging false definitions of ethnic cleansing.

Again that is still a personal attack and not at all relevant to the argument e.g. Person A says Person B is stupid, simply because you believe that person is stupid that does not mean the argument is.

1) They are true definitions of ethnic cleansing, surely the UN Resolution is not a false definition. I would disagree that the analysis was wrong as it blatantly stated that the term genocide and not ethnic cleansing has ever been used in the Hague. Can't distort the truth there.

2) Ethnicity does not determine your age. That is insane to argue that it does. I was arguing that the people I have listened to and spoke their views on Koenigsberg in WW2 were there at the time and lived in Koenigsberg.

3) Ethnic cleansing can mean forced removal, but I would call that relocation and forced removal not ethnic cleansing.

4) It is likely you have been reading sources sympathetic to Nazi Propaganda, as most reports of people from that time would have been filled with Nazi propaganda. The only ones you can rely on are from after the war.

5) This argument is pointless as I cannot see your sources and you cannot see mine, though I might add I have provided sources and you have not.

The mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.

That just supported what I said earlier, when you tried to claim ethnic cleansing is different from genocide. :rolleyes:

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

You imagine something like that can be compensated?
Completely, never, like one can never completely compensate for a major crime. But paying in land and property is a start.


It takes a motive to start a war. Virtually every German was pissed off at the Allies for Versaille. Every one: the Nazis, the Centrists, the Conservatives, the Social Democrats, even the Communists. All of them cheered when Hitler revoked it, even if they hated his guts. Had Versaille not stripped Germany of territory or legally enshrined that only Germany was to blame for WWI, or had it adhered to more than one or two of Wilson's 14 points (which were one of the big causes of the November Revolution), perhaps Germany would not have been inclined to allow warmongers to take over the government in the first place.
Perhaps. Or possibly. It wasn't the only reason.

Better safe than sorry.


Highly doubtful. Versaille was as strict as it got. Had it been any more strict and it might just have prolonged WWI.
Yes, but averted WWII. It wouldn't take all too long to bring WWI closer to debellatio and require an unconditional surrender.

By stricter I mean following the advice from France - "Germany is so great, there should be more of them".

By the way, I hope the same mistake of being too lenient hasn't been made with Russia. It was just allowed to hang in the balance, left in financial depression, but still with its potential. And now there's Putin with his imperialist ambitions, which we can only hope not to grow into Cold War II or something worse.
This could be averted by applying more pressure to install an ultra-libertarian or at least business-friendly constitution there, without a functional federal government (effectively broken down into states), and then apply tight economic grip through international corporations. A corporate grip scheme worked with Japan, an even more different country - economic dependence keeps it a safely controlled ally.

It took being Germany in the state it was, as a single nation, but with the people discontent about their losses in WWI, to give Nazi a platform to rise to power. In Britain or France, that wouldn't work, at least not nearly as easily.

Japan and Italy weren't be a sufficient power to make a world war on the extent of WWII, if at all not be confined to local fighting.
All the major european powers were discontent about the end of WWI, not to mention the chaotic and negative years afterwards.

Britain: Harder, though not that difficult, especially if it was aimed to further suppress colonial peoples (and gain more land for the British to settle in).

France: Such an extreme array of political problems, not to mention the increasingly militarist power of some the right could have caused some kind of dictatorship to form.

Japan: If there had been no european conflict Japan wouldn't have dreamed of attacking the U.S.A, it would have continued it's march through China (and would probably easily bypass the oil embargo via an under the table deal with a european nation).

Italy: It wouldn't do that much more, probably continue to suppress Ethiopia, though it would do as much as possible to promote like-minded governments.

It would hurt even more than it did, but it would prevent WWII, which has hurt a thousand times more.
Only four problems:
1) Germany was one of the big economies in Europe, and it suffering complete devastation would result in most of central europe being poorer.

2) Britain did not want France to get any more powerful, and would have done it's best to weaken it, it's colonies, military and economy.

3) That would have solved nothing when the USSR came along, as central europe would be weakened (due to a destitute Germany) and the major powers (Britain and France) would have been weakened and unwilling to work together.

4) No european conflict would have meant that the U.S.A would have had a much more difficult time getting into a war, thus giving Japan more general leeway.

4) The election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany
He was appointed by Hindenburg, not elected by the public.

Again that is still a personal attack and not at all relevant to the argument e.g. Person A says Person B is stupid, simply because you believe that person is stupid that does not mean the argument is.No, I was pointing out that you may not be educated because your argument sucks, after pointing out why it sucked. Your analogy is wrong.
1) They are true definitions of ethnic cleansing, surely the UN Resolution is not a false definition. Yes, it is a false definition of ethnic cleansing, just like it is a false definition for dog. It defines genocide.
I would disagree that the analysis was wrong as it blatantly stated that the term genocide and not ethnic cleansing has ever been used in the Hague. Can't distort the truth there.Your alleging that the legal terms used in the Hague are the basis of every English dictionary. This is not the case. You're guilty of distorting the truth there.
2) Ethnicity does not determine your age. That is insane to argue that it does. I was arguing that the people I have listened to and spoke their views on Koenigsberg in WW2 were there at the time and lived in Koenigsberg. Which you a) still haven't provided anything to back up your claims for, and b) aren't relevant. If there was a forced expulsion, then yes, there was ethnic cleansing. You don't need the people that it happened to to acknowledge it.
3) Ethnic cleansing can mean forced removal, but I would call that relocation and forced removal not ethnic cleansing. Tricky word there, "can". It means that ethnic cleansing is not limited to forced removal or relocation. Also, you do know that both relocation and removal talk about removal, right?
4) It is likely you have been reading sources sympathetic to Nazi Propaganda, as most reports of people from that time would have been filled with Nazi propaganda. The only ones you can rely on are from after the war.Like I said, I have the feeling you don't know what you're talking about. First off, you're the one who's arguing we should rely on people from the war, not me. Secondly, whether the source is tainted in one way or not is irrelevent, seeing as its been historically established that A) Germans fled or were driven from former German territories during and immediatly after WWII, and B) they were prevented from coming back.

This fulfills the definition of ethnic cleansing, because the people were subjected to expulsion so "... There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...", in Churchill's words.
5) This argument is pointless as I cannot see your sources and you cannot see mine, though I might add I have provided sources and you have not.Sources for what? You haven't sourced any of your statements on that the people disagreed. You also haven't asked me to source my statements until now, then suddenly cry foul that I haven't. What exactly do you want sourced? The definitions of ethnic cleansing and genocide that I'm working with were available from the links you provided. That the German population was removed and that they weren't allowed to return is common knowledge, but here's the wiki article on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II)
That just supported what I said earlier, when you tried to claim ethnic cleansing is different from genocide. :rolleyes:Are you intentionally being dense? The latter definition (of genocide) only refers to killing and destruction of ethnic groups and nationalities, while the former (on ethnic cleansing) refers to both the killing and expulsion of ethnic groups. Ergo, genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing but ethnic cleansing is not a form of genocide because the definition of ethnic cleansing is broader. (It being broader meaning it's also "different" [as in "not the same"] from the other).

Yes, actually it is. It's under different management and name, but the Kaiserreich of Germany is still around.
I agree with the rest of what you posted.

What? Could you please explain this to me as I would like to know. Kaiserreich translated means something along the lines of Emperor Empire, if my German is still up to scratch which it isn't.

Completely, never, like one can never completely compensate for a major crime. But paying in land and property is a start.It's also against the Hague conventions on land wars.
Perhaps. Or possibly. It wasn't the only reason.

Better safe than sorry.Like I said, I have the feeling you would benefit from reading up on the topics I listed, because if you knew what you were talking about, perhaps you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.
Yes, but averted WWII. It wouldn't take all too long to bring WWI closer to debellatio and require an unconditional surrender.Causing plenty of suffering and certainly not guaranteeing that the humiliated population would give the Allies their comeuppance.
By stricter I mean following the advice from France - "Germany is so great, there should be more of them".Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.
By the way, I hope the same mistake of being too lenient hasn't been made with Russia. It was just allowed to hang in the balance, left in financial depression, but still with its potential. And now there's Putin with his imperialist ambitions, which we can only hope not to grow into Cold War II or something worse. Really? What armed conflict did someone win against Russia to warrant anything like Versaille?
This could be averted by applying more pressure to install an ultra-libertarian or at least business-friendly constitution there, without a functional federal government (effectively broken down into states), and then apply tight economic grip through international corporations. A corporate grip scheme worked with Japan, an even more different country - economic dependence keeps it a safely controlled ally.The current regime is business friendly.

What? Could you please explain this to me as I would like to know. Kaiserreich translated means something along the lines of Emperor Empire, if my German is still up to scratch which it isn't.Kaiserreich translated means Empire. "Reich" is similar to the latin "imperium" in meaning "realm" or "dominion" and not "empire", though its more of a suffix that has come to mean empire or at least an autocraticly ruled realm on its own. To clarify: Königreich means kingdom.

As far as the German law is concerned, the modern German Republic is not the successor state of either Nazi Germany, the Weimar Republic, or the German Empire, but that all four are the exact same entity just with different names and laws.

It's also against the Hague conventions on land wars.
It is NOT.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm

Nowhere here it forbids a nation to transfer its land in a voluntary agreement, and unconditional surrender is one kind of such.


Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.
I do. Dividing Germany into territories administrated by different states after WWI would make it incapable of bringing Nazi to power and starting WWII.


Really? What armed conflict did someone win against Russia to warrant anything like Versaille?
Cold War. The fact it was cold doesn't change the fact that it has been won.

The current regime is business friendly.
Not enough. There are still high taxes, and the federal government still has enough power to fight wars.

It is NOT.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm

Nowhere here it forbids a nation to transfer its land in a voluntary agreement, and unconditional surrender is one kind of such. Apart from Surrender not being a voluntary agreement, try reading through section three, specifically article 50.
I do. Dividing Germany into territories administrated by different states after WWI would make it incapable of bringing Nazi to power and starting WWII.No, you don't. This is by far not the best option for having prevented WWII.
Cold War. The fact it was cold doesn't change the fact that it has been won.You don't know what you're talking about. The Cold War wasn't a war.
Not enough. There are still high taxes, and the federal government still has enough power to fight wars.Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Kaiserreich translated means Empire. "Reich" is similar to the latin "imperium" in meaning "realm" or "dominion" and not "empire", though its more of a suffix that has come to mean empire or at least an autocraticly ruled realm on its own. To clarify: Königreich means kingdom.

As far as the German law is concerned, the modern German Republic is not the successor state of either Nazi Germany, the Weimar Republic, or the German Empire, but that all four are the exact same entity just with different names and laws.

Ah ok yes that is right, I knew my German was a bit rusty. I see what you mean though how it still continues.

Apart from Surrender not being a voluntary agreement, try reading through section three, specifically article 50.
"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible."

First, surrender is a voluntary agreement, an alternative to debellatio (forcible elimination of the belligerent as a subject of international law).

Second, land annexation is not a penalty on population.

Third, NSDAP has been voted into power by the population. And Germany has been ordered to pay monetary reparations, so it has been recognized.


No, you don't. This is by far not the best option for having prevented WWII.
Certainly not the best one. But one.


You don't know what you're talking about. The Cold War wasn't a war. Yet it has been won. In the 1990s, there was a chance to turn Russia into a tightly controlled, integrated part of the West and NATO in particular, ensuring it won't rise again as an independent power. It has been missed due to negligent and unsubstantiated confidence that it won't happen anyway.
The price of this negligence will be measured in blood, and what has been spilled so far is just the beginning.


Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

A bit stuck on one phrase, like a scratched LP?
See Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Business in Russia is only free as long as it's on the ruling party's side. And its political system is single-party "democracy". Nothing good is going to come out of that.

"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible."Yeah. That one.First, surrender is a voluntary agreement, an alternative to debellatio (forcible elimination of the belligerent as a subject of international law). Most definitely not. Voluntary is of your own free will. If you're being coerced (such as with the threat of forcible elimination) it's not voluntary.
Second, land annexation is not a penalty on population.Expulsion, on the other hand...
Third, NSDAP has been voted into power by the population. And Germany has been ordered to pay monetary reparations, so it has been recognized.Oh yes, monetary. Incedentally a step up from barter, which you suggested.
Certainly not the best one. But one.As I've stated before, you don't know what you're talking about. Apart from that solution being even more unrealistic, you fail to take into account the repurcussions the lack of Germany would have had for European geopolitics. World War II between France and the UK would have been possible.
Yet it has been won. In the 1990s, there was a chance to turn Russia into a tightly controlled, integrated part of the West and NATO in particular, ensuring it won't rise again as an independent power. It has been missed due to negligent and unsubstantiated confidence that it won't happen anyway.
The price of this negligence will be measured in blood, and what has been spilled so far is just the beginning.No shit it has been won. And just like winning in checkers doesn't make that a war, winning the Cold War didn't make that a war either.
A bit stuck on one phrase, like a scratched LP? Hey, you keep repeating bullshit.
See Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Business in Russia is only free as long as it's on the ruling party's side. And its political system is single-party "democracy". Nothing good is going to come out of that.No shit. Pro-business isn't a good stance to have in the first place, because it ruins the lives of business' natural enemies: the consumer and the worker.

Yeah. That one.Most definitely not. Voluntary is of your own free will. If you're being coerced (such as with the threat of forcible elimination) it's not voluntary.
Well, having a job is voluntary, but you won't have any money otherwise, so there's coercion too.
Even if less than entirely voluntary, it's an agreement. Thus the laws for occupational forces don't apply - not to mention that Germany has broken enough of these laws to fall out of their protection anyway.


Oh yes, monetary. Incedentally a step up from barter, which you suggested.
Except that Germany didn't have enough money to pay for even a fraction of just the property damages alone.

Apart from that solution being even more unrealistic, Such things have happened, debellatio is a pretty traditional way to end the war.

you fail to take into account the repurcussions the lack of Germany would have had for European geopolitics. World War II between France and the UK would have been possible.
It would be a war between France and the UK - but not a world war.

No shit it has been won. And just like winning in checkers doesn't make that a war, winning the Cold War didn't make that a war either.
Sure. But this victory gave US the might to bring Russia into its sphere of influence. And might... in such purely economical matters, for bloodless deeds, it does.

No shit. Pro-business isn't a good stance to have in the first place, because it ruins the lives of business' natural enemies: the consumer and the worker.
Wow, so you're a communist.

Corporations, at least, don't fight wars.

Well, having a job is voluntary, but you won't have any money otherwise, so there's coercion too.
Even if less than entirely voluntary, it's an agreement. Thus the laws for occupational forces don't apply - not to mention that Germany has broken enough of these laws to fall out of their protection anyway.While the voluntary nature of a job is debateable, the involuntary nature of surrender is not. And you don't somehow fall out of an agreement's protection.
Except that Germany didn't have enough money to pay for even a fraction of just the property damages alone.Reparations rarely got paid all at once.
Such things have happened, debellatio is a pretty traditional way to end the war.Talking about the UK agreeing to divide Germany. That would indeed have been less likely than getting France to defuse the Versaille Treaty.
It would be a war between France and the UK - but not a world war.You don't know that.
Sure. But this victory gave US the might to bring Russia into its sphere of influence. And might..."...makes right?" Prove it. Also, I'm pretty sure that just because the US won the Cold War doesn't mean they had the power to simply waltz over Russia, merely that Russia no longer had the power to prevent the US from doing that to anyone else (save the threat of nuclear war).
Wow, so you're a communist.Nah. I've just come to realize that companies when given power will usually abuse it, so the amount of leeway they have to abuse should be limited.
Corporations, at least, don't fight wars.Corporations do enough harm as it is. In Russia, for instance, they burn down privately owned houses and then by the land the house owner lost from the government.

While the voluntary nature of a job is debateable, the involuntary nature of surrender is not. And you don't somehow fall out of an agreement's protection.
You do. Treaties generally only protect those who have signed and ratified them, and follow them.

Reparations rarely got paid all at once.
The amount would be too great to be paid even in time.

"...makes right?" Prove it.
It's self-proving. Laws are written by those with the might.


Also, I'm pretty sure that just because the US won the Cold War doesn't mean they had the power to simply waltz over Russia, merely that Russia no longer had the power to prevent the US from doing that to anyone else (save the threat of nuclear war).
Whoa, why waltz all over. Just use the same strategy as in Marshall plan, or the methods used on Japan. Russia was pretty US-friendly in the 1990s, all it would take is spending some money on buying out its industries and establishing new entirely export-oriented ones, using local labor, but dependent on their US sections. That way, Russia would be dependent on its industrial exports, and as such the will of US and EU.


Nah. I've just come to realize that companies when given power will usually abuse it, so the amount of leeway they have to abuse should be limited.
Probably. But jailing Hodorkovsky hardly had anything to do with limiting abuse. And US policies in this matter are more developed than the newborn post-USSR ones anyway.

Corporations do enough harm as it is. In Russia, for instance, they burn down privately owned houses and then by the land the house owner lost from the government.
Not corporations, but the mafia. It's because Russia was allowed to try developing on its own, and what used to be NKVD became mafia. If it was handled by US and EU, the corporations could at least be a bit more civilized.

Yeah, so the Reich is still going then?

No and it doesn't have to be for what I said to make sense.

Oh and just because people living in Konigsberg were citizens of a country that did these things if they are ethnically cleansed or kicked out then that makes it alright?

No and I never said that it was "alright" at all.

But you are drawing a long bow there, perhaps you would like to try again and tell me why we should ignore atrocities against a some people because some people from their background or country committed other atrocities.

I could do that, if I were in the habit of burning strawmen.

TAI may be a bigot but at least he is consistent.

Your own deliberate misunderstandings aside, I am consistent.

No and it doesn't have to be for what I said to make sense.
No and I never said that it was "alright" at all.
I could do that, if I were in the habit of burning strawmen.
Your own deliberate misunderstandings aside, I am consistent.

Well that was a whole lot of nothing, didn't respond to my orginal point but whatever hey?

Well that was a whole lot of nothing, didn't respond to my orginal point but whatever hey?

For a guy who responds to what I say with strawmen fallacies I'm not sure you have grounds to complain here. Particularly when I did respond to everything you said... the same cannot be said of you.

For a guy who responds to what I say with strawmen fallacies I'm not sure you have grounds to complain here. Particularly when I did respond to everything you said... the same cannot be said of you.

Well let me get back to you on that (it is late and I want to sleep) I hardly think I misrepresented your position, but you would no all about that wouldn't you?

I say Germany just because the Soviets tear down such beautiful old buildings so they can build total crap.

I say Germany just because the Soviets tear down such beautiful old buildings so they can build total crap.
To be fair, there wasn't much left standing after Allied bombs and Soviet shells. What they tore down was ruined anyways.

There are plans though to remedy the situation: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463530,00.html
Kaliningrad Wants Its Castle Back

For years Kaliningrad has been allowed to decay as a forgotten Russian enclave surrounded by Europe. But now a movement is afoot to rebuild the city center. The castle too may soon dominate the skyline once again.

I say Germany just because the Soviets tear down such beautiful old buildings so they can build total crap.
Beautiful buildings such as this:

http://www.museumkoenigsberg.de/Panzer_Kberg-2.jpg


Since it used to be a fortification, the defensive walls are still not entirely crumbled, but look into the windows - there's nothing but rubble behind them.
The castle had wooden beams, they burned out, and everything but some strongest walls collapsed.
And this isn't even its final condition, there was more combat after this picture.

Reconstruction would anyway likely involve complete rebuilding, and post-war years were hardly the time to afford that.

Of course, TAI, in the usual manner, skipped this picture, and made a comparison between the Castle before the war, at its best, and the House after the collapse of USSR, at its worst, not including what happened in between.

).Third, NSDAP has been voted into power by the population.
Yet again: NSDAP was not voted into majority power - The most it received was 42% of the vote (even with their allies they were just over the number needed for a majority).

It would be a war between France and the UK - but not a world war.

France and Britain going at it would suffice a world war, don't you think? They both had substantial colonial interests, along with substantial land forces and naval forces. I think Japan could have taken advantage of the situation as well (probably by realigning themselves with Britain).

You're also forgetting the Russian factor.

Or maybe, just maybe Barry, I had other things to do I can't spend my entire life on NSG.

There is nothing about complaining about how 'lefties' only care about fashionable causes or anything you may be trying to paint me as, as for rich white educated white elites should rule the world bit, how bout you show me where I have said this before, hey? I was responding to a post by another poster who said we should ignore any atrocities committed to Germans because they have committed atrocities themselves. And you would notice that I had already posted saying that Konigsberg belongs to Russia

I was talking about Atlantian Islands actually.

-snip-

-snip-

Why not? It was a beautiful building and should have been repaired, plenty of castles and palaces in Germany were ruined because of massive revenge carpet bombings by the Allies. One such example is the Munich Residenz, a lot of that was completely flattened, and the Hall of Antiquities, which if you have ever been inside is almost breath taking, it was rebuilt admittedly not until the 1970's but still.

I hope that they do decide to rebuild it both inside and out as I would think like a lot of other castles the walls had some beautiful paintings and if records of what was on the inside, then they too did this.

Regardless of his objections, the actual point of this thread was to have people say that history doesn't matter in terms of who currently owns a piece of land and then to launch an attack on double standards over Israel.
Yes. After all, who am I going to believe, myself or an anonymous internet personality? I didn't continue the Israel debate simply because I didn't want it to take over the thread. It was never my intention thus I didn't keep it up. I wanted this subject to be about the war, Koenigsberg and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

All part of the 'whiny liberals support fashionable causes' and only strong Nietzchean types can see the truth, which is that rich, educated white elites should rule the world.
Well, the strong Nietzchean type does have some attributes that appeal to me, from a realist point of view, but let's not get carried away. I never claimed that rich educated White elites should rule the world. Mind sourcing me on that?

Note his drop off in participation once this was raised.
This may be shocking, but being the important and desired people I am, real life does have certain needs that call for my attendance.
Funny how some people here lament the plight of the innocent Germans in the first half of the twentieth century and their tragic loss of so many territories. Apparently the genocidal tactics executed by the Third Reich, their allies and a horrifying bunch of murderous collaborators should simply be forgotten.
Actually, I didn't, in fact, talk about any of the Nazi war crimes because they were irrelevant to this discussion. I should never wish that the Nazi war crimes be forgotten. Do not entertain the notion that you to know me, or my thoughts. I've visited a KZ and I know what horrors were commited there. It is not my wish, nor the wish of any sane man, for those horrors to be repeated.

What is interesting to me is, that when addressing Soviet war crimes, conquest and injustices, you respond, not by addressing those issues, but by turning around blaming the Nazis. As if the actions of the latter refute the actions of the former....:rolleyes:
Lots of cryptonazi ramblings here, that's for sure.
Do entertain us. Name one.
Why is it not? Disrupting the status quo is usually not a good thing. Just look at WWII. France, GB, and the USSR all just sat around as Germany gobbled up its neighbours. Had they done anything, then WWII could have been averted. But they sat around. If the Germans try to take back Kaliningrad, the Russians would definitely not sit around, as it has infringed on its sovereign territory and will probably act as it did towards South Ossetia, which does not even lie in Russian soil.
And IF German citizens moved en masse to Koenigsberg, eventually became the majority and declared their independence and/or allegiance to Germany, that would not be Germany trying to gobble up it's neighbors.
That was not my point. St. Petersburg is in Russian sovereign territory. Kaliningrad is in Russian sovereign territory.
It was an awful analogy. The two cities have totally different histories and reasons for being in the Russian sphere of influence.
No, but because "certain sections" of the Reich committed atrocities, placing the Reich in the role of a victim in an attempt to play the sympathy card in support of gifting back Nazi territories
Mistake number 1. Who ever said these were "nazi territories"? We are not talking about giving back Norway or Holland to Germany. Koenigsberg and it's relation to the German Empire has ZERO to do with Nazism.
to modern Germany is a simpleton's game that only works with people who are already predisposed to favor fascist states like the Reich.
As opposed to fascist states like the Soviet Union?

People who are bigoted and racist.
As opposed to people who are pro-Soviet, totalitarian and Communist? See, I can play that game too.
And lo and behold, a bigot and racist is making this very thread.
Prove it.

I was talking about Atlantian Islands actually.
In a completely false manner, if I may add.

Reconstruction would anyway likely involve complete rebuilding, and post-war years were hardly the time to afford that.

A newer picture of the House of Soviets (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Dom_sovetov_kaliningrad.jpg)

Yeah, but considering East Germany built the beautiful Karl Marx Allee (formerly the Stalinallee until 1963) (http://www.bigfoto.com/europe/germany/berlin/karl-marx-allee-67z6.jpg) in the 1949-1961 timeframe in East Berlin, which was hardly the best of economic times for the nation, I have no doubt the Soviets could have reconstructed Koengisberg. I think the primary reason for not doing so was first to have the ruins serve as a war memorial and secondly to clear out as much of the German cultural presence in favor of a Russified Soviet culture.

Why not let the people who live there decide? It's a no brainer to me. Or does everybody want to keep playing "Age of Empires"?

Why not let the people who live there decide? It's a no brainer to me. Or does everybody want to keep playing "Age of Empires"?

I was thinking more Hearts of Iron 2, myself.

This seems way down my list of things I might care about, hence I arbitrarily award it to the Polish.

Ditto. Poland has had its borders screwed with enough over the years, by both the Russians and the Germans - throw 'em a bone, I say. :)

You do. Treaties generally only protect those who have signed and ratified them, and follow them.Nope. Signing a treaty obliges you to follow it and should administer punishment if you break it. By no means does it mean that you're not violating it when doing prohibited things to someone who hasn't signed, ratified, or adhered to the treaty.
The amount would be too great to be paid even in time.And? You seem to have a rather flawed view on how punishment works.
It's self-proving. Laws are written by those with the might.Incorrect. Try harder.
Whoa, why waltz all over. Just use the same strategy as in Marshall plan, or the methods used on Japan. Russia was pretty US-friendly in the 1990s, all it would take is spending some money on buying out its industries and establishing new entirely export-oriented ones, using local labor, but dependent on their US sections. That way, Russia would be dependent on its industrial exports, and as such the will of US and EU. Haha.
Probably. But jailing Hodorkovsky hardly had anything to do with limiting abuse. And US policies in this matter are more developed than the newborn post-USSR ones anyway.Yeah, US policies do appear good compared to worse ones.
Not corporations, but the mafia. It's because Russia was allowed to try developing on its own, and what used to be NKVD became mafia. If it was handled by US and EU, the corporations could at least be a bit more civilized.Mafia's still strong in the EU.

Why not let the people who live there decide? It's a no brainer to me. Because self-determination of peoples is moot when the area has been subjected to ethnic cleansing.

Because self-determination of peoples is moot when the area has been subjected to ethnic cleansing.

Is there some sort of expiration date on that?

Is there some sort of expiration date on that?Hard to say, but a public poll regarding who the people want to belong to isn't valid if people have been removed. Self-determination of peoples gets real tricky with the Russians, considering their practice of relocating Russians into non-Russian soviet republics and their tendency to hand out passports to people that live in areas they want.

Nope. Signing a treaty obliges you to follow it and should administer punishment if you break it. By no means does it mean that you're not violating it when doing prohibited things to someone who hasn't signed, ratified, or adhered to the treaty.
Depends on the treaty. IIRC, it worked with treatment of POW.

And? You seem to have a rather flawed view on how punishment works.
I agree that I've got too mild views on punishment, but this is rather retroactive explanation/justification of what has already happened.

Haha.
Controlled investment scheme worked with Japan. More than worked, it's now one of the most reliable allies.
Defeated enemies can be turned into allies, as the practice of US consistently demonstrates. And it pays off.

Mafia's still strong in the EU.
But not that strong, right?

Depends on the treaty. IIRC, it worked with treatment of POW.Indeed, however it certainly doesn't apply in this case.
I agree that I've got too mild views on punishment, but this is rather retroactive explanation/justification of what has already happened.Haha.
Controlled investment scheme worked with Japan. More than worked, it's now one of the most reliable allies.
Defeated enemies can be turned into allies, as the practice of US consistently demonstrates. And it pays off.I'm wondering where the idea that Imperial Japan after WWII is somehow comparable to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union came from. It's pretty funny or sad, depending on how serious you're being.
But not that strong, right?Hard to say, since it's difficult to guage behavior that gets hidden from the light of day, but I do think you're underestimating just how much power the Mafia wields in Italy and the rest of the EU.

Hard to say, but a public poll regarding who the people want to belong to isn't valid if people have been removed. Self-determination of peoples gets real tricky with the Russians, considering their practice of relocating Russians into non-Russian soviet republics and their tendency to hand out passports to people that live in areas they want.

It's definitely a difficult question. If one were to take a really hardline stance on such a rule almost nobody could have self determination as, at one point, most nations have booted other ethnicities out of their territory.

In 100 years if Kaliningrad wanted to join some Baltic political union, would they be denied that solely based on the actions of their forefathers?

Yes, yes I know they'd be denied it by the Russian Army, I've heard the "RAGHR! Separation is war!" crap 1000 times and I don't care

It's definitely a difficult question. If one were to take a really hardline stance on such a rule almost nobody could have self determination as, at one point, most nations have booted other ethnicities out of their territory.

In 100 years if Kaliningrad wanted to join some Baltic political union, would they be denied that solely based on the actions of their forefathers?

Yes, yes I know they'd be denied it by the Russian Army, I've heard the "RAGHR! Separation is war!" crap 1000 times and I don't careNah, this is mainly to counter the "Ask the people there" argument to determine whom it should belong to. Whatever argument is right, that one isn't.

Hard to say, but a public poll regarding who the people want to belong to isn't valid if people have been removed.
Fine. how about we ask everyone on the planet whether they would like to move to Kaliningrad (if they do not live there already), and if so, what country they would want it to be part of.
I doubt the result will be very different. For fairness sake you can even exclude Kaliningradinians that would rather live elsewhere.

Fine. how about we ask everyone on the planet whether they would like to move to Kaliningrad (if they do not live there already), and if so, what country they would want it to be part of.
I doubt the result will be very different. For fairness sake you can even exclude Kaliningradinians that would rather live elsewhere.I think your underestimating the Bund der Vertriebenen. Their hopes that the territories would some day be returned got dashed by past German governments. I'm quite sure they'd jump on a chance like the one you're suggesting and assign Kaliningrad back to Germany.

Apart from which, I'm not actively seeking Kaliningrad being returned to Germany nor am I contesting that currently belongs to Russia. I'm pointing out that a plebiscite would grant a mantle of false legitimacy since all people that would have voted otherwise have longs since been driven from Kaliningrad.

I was thinking more Hearts of Iron 2, myself.

Looks like it is time for Poland to conquer western europe!

I think your underestimating the Bund der Vertriebenen. Their hopes that the territories would some day be returned got dashed by past German governments. I'm quite sure they'd jump on a chance like the one you're suggesting and assign Kaliningrad back to Germany.I'm sure quite a lot would want the territory returned to Germany, but I doubt they'd be willing to move there en mass. But perhaps you're right, and I'm underestimating people's will to pack up and leave their livelihood behind for political goals.
(Aside from that, under my harebrained scheme, the territory would probably be taken over by Africans.)

I'm pointing out that a plebiscite would grant a mantle of false legitimacy since all people that would have voted otherwise have longs since been driven from Kaliningrad.After 50 years, I don't think that really matters any more. I don't see people outside Kaliningrad having much of a claim to it just because their ancestors lived there once upon a time. And I would hazard to guess many of the ancestors of the Russians in Kaliningrad didn't come there entirely voluntarily either; but it has become their home.
What happened then can easily be considered a crime against humanity. But reversing that today, would be no less. I think I'll take the idea under review that a territory belongs to the generations born and raised there (which is a bit more nuanced than my earlier "those living there").

Apart from which, I'm not actively seeking Kaliningrad being returned to Germany nor am I contesting that currently belongs to Russia.So; what, you just want to raise people's standards of argumentation? Outrageous! *shakes fist*
;)

I'm sure quite a lot would want the territory returned to Germany, but I doubt they'd be willing to move there en mass. But perhaps you're right, and I'm underestimating people's will to pack up and leave their livelihood behind for political goals.
(Aside from that, under my harebrained scheme, the territory would probably be taken over by Africans.)Actually, there's a chance it will happen. Poland and the Czech Republic certainly had real fears now that Germans will be able to legally settle in their and their ancestor's former homes.
After 50 years, I don't think that really matters any more. I don't see people outside Kaliningrad having much of a claim to it just because their ancestors lived there once upon a time. And I would hazard to guess many of the ancestors of the Russians in Kaliningrad didn't come there entirely voluntarily either; but it has become their home.My German grandparents are still alive, actually.
What happened then can easily be considered a crime against humanity. But reversing that today, would be no less. I think I'll take the idea under review that a territory belongs to the generations born and raised there (which is a bit more nuanced than my earlier "those living there").I agree with that.
So; what, you just want to raise people's standards of argumentation? Outrageous! *shakes fist*
;)Well, only on this particular issue =P

Looks like it is time for Poland to conquer western europe!

Or Yugoslavia. Frankly, I want to see Tannu Tuva take over India.

Whatever the answer is, it's obvious that this issue is still at least a bit interesting and highly divise, if the poll above is any indication of things...

No, I was pointing out that you may not be educated because your argument sucks, after pointing out why it sucked. Your analogy is wrong.
Yes, it is a false definition of ethnic cleansing, just like it is a false definition for dog. It defines genocide.
Your alleging that the legal terms used in the Hague are the basis of every English dictionary. This is not the case. You're guilty of distorting the truth there.
Which you a) still haven't provided anything to back up your claims for, and b) aren't relevant. If there was a forced expulsion, then yes, there was ethnic cleansing. You don't need the people that it happened to to acknowledge it.
Tricky word there, "can". It means that ethnic cleansing is not limited to forced removal or relocation. Also, you do know that both relocation and removal talk about removal, right?
Like I said, I have the feeling you don't know what you're talking about. First off, you're the one who's arguing we should rely on people from the war, not me. Secondly, whether the source is tainted in one way or not is irrelevent, seeing as its been historically established that A) Germans fled or were driven from former German territories during and immediatly after WWII, and B) they were prevented from coming back.

This fulfills the definition of ethnic cleansing, because the people were subjected to expulsion so "... There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...", in Churchill's words.
Sources for what? You haven't sourced any of your statements on that the people disagreed. You also haven't asked me to source my statements until now, then suddenly cry foul that I haven't. What exactly do you want sourced? The definitions of ethnic cleansing and genocide that I'm working with were available from the links you provided. That the German population was removed and that they weren't allowed to return is common knowledge, but here's the wiki article on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II)
Are you intentionally being dense? The latter definition (of genocide) only refers to killing and destruction of ethnic groups and nationalities, while the former (on ethnic cleansing) refers to both the killing and expulsion of ethnic groups. Ergo, genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing but ethnic cleansing is not a form of genocide because the definition of ethnic cleansing is broader. (It being broader meaning it's also "different" [as in "not the same"] from the other).

1. Excuse me. Firstly you claimed that the people on the documentary I watched are lying by dodging the point and ranting on about the definition of what is ethnic cleansing.

2. Every time a definition doesn't suit you, you then claim it is wrong, with no explanation except provide another definition that suits you. Then claim that I don't know the definition of genocide. As I said before in my last post you are entitled to your opinon.

3. I am asking you to source because you claim firstly that the people in the all the History Channel programmes I watched (which included Germans from the time) are lying when they called it "being not let back in" and never ethnic cleansing.

4. Then you claim that the Germans were victims of "ethnic cleansing" when you provide no evidence of a person who said it was.

5. My ideas have been already established in the History Channel, they never use the term ethnic cleansing in WW2, and never called the bombing or attack against Koenigsberg ethnic cleansing. Nor afterwards did US or European officials call Koenigsberg ethnic cleansing.

6. Lets say I record the programmes I watch, then post them online on You Tube. I can't because I haven't recorded them. Thus how can I provide evidence when I don't have it at hand.

7. I am not interested in arguing because you quote sources like wikipedia. Just to let you know wikipedia means nothing. Universities won't accept it. That's good enough for me.

8. Get into your head that no one is wrong in arguments like this. Mainly because WW2 history is still unresolved.

9. I am stating the obvious, if you claim that Koenigsberg is ethnic cleansing then you are saying every city attacked by Germany or the USSR, or the USA, or the UK in WW2 is ethnic cleansing. When everyone at the time on all sides viewed such actions like Koenigsberg as a part of war.

10. Koenigsberg was viewed as a place of sovietification, they rebuilt the city, dragged in Russians (probably against their will) and forced them to live there.

11. Koenigsberg was not ethnically cleasened, that involves racial prejudice or hatred. Read up on Soviet views and you will here a different story

Or Yugoslavia. Frankly, I want to see Tannu Tuva take over India.
Or invade Britain by using a single transport to draw the home fleet away :p.

Talk to me about Democracy in China though and I will have you running Laerod. I dislike WW2, but current issues on China and Middle East I can do. :p

1. Excuse me. Firstly you claimed that the people on the documentary I watched are lying by dodging the point and ranting on about the definition of what is ethnic cleansing.Lying is a funny thing. It means someone has intentionally made an untrue statement. I'm merely implying that, if these interviews and this documentary actually exist, that they are wrong if they claim it wasn't ethnic cleansing and that their opinions on the matter aren't relevant to determining whether it was or wasn't ethnic cleansing in the first place.
2. Every time a definition doesn't suit you, you then claim it is wrong, with no explanation except provide another definition that suits you. Then claim that I don't know the definition of genocide. As I said before in my last post you are entitled to your opinon.Hold on. You claim that the definition of genocide includes ethnic cleansing. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that that is not the case.
Ethnic cleansing is when you "clean" a given area of an ethnicity or nationality. This includes, among others, forced removal, killing, or prevention of return. If you were to kill them to achieve the goal of an "ethnically pure" area, then it is also genocide.

So far, you provided a quote that pointed that there is no legal definition of ethnic cleansing in the Hague. All other definitions that you've pointed to or skipped agree with the interpretation I've put forth.
3. I am asking you to source because you claim firstly that the people in the all the History Channel programmes I watched (which included Germans from the time) are lying when they called it "being not let back in" and never ethnic cleansing. Hilariously enough, you need to provide a verifiable source for your claim that's what they said first. Though I would welcome evidence supporting my point, as Germans saying they weren't let back in would be.
4. Then you claim that the Germans were victims of "ethnic cleansing" when you provide no evidence of a person who said it was. You provided the definitions for me. NL provided a quote from Winston Churchill where he specifically states that the areas should be "swept clean" of Germans. I've quoted Churchill as well and provided a Wiki link that had "ethnic cleansing" referring to what happened in the first paragraph.

You seem confused: I don't need to provide evidence of someone saying that it was ethnic cleansing, I need to provide evidence that ethnic cleansing occurred, namely that Germans were either driven or fled from an area, killed, and/or prevented from returning. And I'd love to see you provide evidence that that didn't happen.
5. My ideas have been already established in the History Channel, they never use the term ethnic cleansing in WW2, and never called the bombing or attack against Koenigsberg ethnic cleansing. Nor afterwards did US or European officials call Koenigsberg ethnic cleansing. Neither have you provided quotes to undermine that statement nor is the History Channel some relevant authority on the matter.
6. Lets say I record the programmes I watch, then post them online on You Tube. I can't because I haven't recorded them. Thus how can I provide evidence when I don't have it at hand.There are undoubtedly transcripts of interviews, quotes from the people in the
7. I am not interested in arguing because you quote sources like wikipedia. Just to let you know wikipedia means nothing. Universities won't accept it. That's good enough for me.For longer papers perhaps. I've been to two Universities where wiki is perfectly acceptable for smaller assignments. Of course, Wiki, unlike "I saw some shows on the History Channel" is a verifiable source, that can be proven wrong.
8. Get into your head that no one is wrong in arguments like this. Mainly because WW2 history is still unresolved. This ain't an argument about WW2 history, we're arguing about the definition of ethnic cleansing.
9. I am stating the obvious, if you claim that Koenigsberg is ethnic cleansing then you are saying every city attacked by Germany or the USSR, or the USA, or the UK in WW2 is ethnic cleansing. When everyone at the time on all sides viewed such actions like Koenigsberg as a part of war. Nope. I'm claiming that if the Germans in East Prussia that fled or were forcibly kicked out were subsequently prevented from returning, then it was ethnic cleansing. So, in turn, I claim that every city that was under Axis or Allied control where a portion of the local population was forcibly removed with the intention of them never returning, then that too was ethnic cleansing.
10. Koenigsberg was viewed as a place of sovietification, they rebuilt the city, dragged in Russians (probably against their will) and forced them to live there.Yeah. Just cause it's sovietification doesn't mean it wasn't ethnic cleansing.
11. Koenigsberg was not ethnically cleasened, that involves racial prejudice or hatred. Read up on Soviet views and you will here a different storyYou'd have to be a real ignorant fool to believe that there was no racial prejudice or hatred against Germans after the Wehrmacht and SS tromped through Eastern Europe.

Talk to me about Democracy in China though and I will have you running Laerod. I dislike WW2, but current issues on China and Middle East I can do. :pWe haven't been discussing WW2, we're discussing ethnic cleansing and your faulty definition thereof.

Yeah. Just cause it's sovietification doesn't mean it wasn't ethnic cleansing.

I always figured the policy of Sovietization and more specifically Russification of annexed territories is one of the best (?) examples of ethnic cleansing in existence.

I was talking about Atlantian Islands actually.

Ah ok, that's who I thought you were talking about originally but then I reread the post and I thought you may have been talking about me. Apologies Barry, I must admit I was a bit wtf? when I was reading it as a post against me.

Whatever the answer is, it's obvious that this issue is still at least a bit interesting and highly divise, if the poll above is any indication of things...
Admittedly the Germans here have all voted for Russia's claim.

I'm afraid I must side with my people. I think Königsberg ought to belong to Germany.

But really, what can we do about it now?

And you registered just to say that? Strong determination.

If it's that important, I'd consider purchasing it (see Alaska) or trading for some favor, i.e. support votes in organizations, when a suitable moment comes.

And you registered just to say that? Strong determination.

If it's that important, I'd consider purchasing it (see Alaska) or trading for some favor, i.e. support votes in organizations, when a suitable moment comes.

Sorry. Varisavia is a puppet. I didn't realise.

Admittedly the Germans here have all voted for Russia's claim.

I have a feeling the colossal expense of bringing East Germany up to Western standards plays a big role. Konigsberg hasn't exactly prospered over the past 30 years of the Brezhnev stagnation and Gorbachev collapse...by the end of the Cold War I'd say it was economically behind East Germany and Poland, let alone the Western countries. Needless to say, that's quite a bit of money to spend on a piece of land that isn't even connected to Germany anymore.

Personally, I'd just give it to Poland or one of the Baltic States and be done with it. At least we wouldn't have to worry about nukes being stationed there anymore.

Admittedly the Germans here have all voted for Russia's claim.
Indeed.

Admittedly the Germans here have all voted for Russia's claim.
Indeed.

So, can we now start debating when the U.S., Australia, and pretty much all other countries in the Americas will be handed back to those they belong to?

Whatever the answer is, it's obvious that this issue is still at least a bit interesting and highly divise, don't y'all think...?

So, can we now start debating when the U.S., Australia, and pretty much all other countries in the Americas will be handed back to those they belong to?

Whatever the answer is, it's obvious that this issue is still at least a bit interesting and highly divise, don't y'all think...?

I just want the US to annex the entirety of the Americas. From the Bering Strait to the Tierra del Fuego...

I just want the US to annex the entirety of the Americas. From the Bering Strait to the Tierra del Fuego...
Haven't ruined the part you already got bad enough?

Haven't ruined the part you already got bad enough?

Nah, this way American will always mean a citizen of the USA.

I just want the US to annex the entirety of the Americas. From the Bering Strait to the Tierra del Fuego...
We will support our Chilean bretheren against such actions!

For the Davis Cup!