Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[HansMustermann]

There was a National Council in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs - encompassing current Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina - that voluntarily declared they wanted to merge their new country with Serbia.

Quite so, old chap, but I'm not sure why you think it contradicts anything I've said. It IS an example that the right to self-determination DOES include the right to move yourself to another state, right? Which is what Craig was questioning.

It wasn't so much the version that UK and France had been preaching as much as Wilson had.

Wilson DID originate the idea, but most of the splitting Germany and Austria-Hungary was supervised and supported by the UK and France, unless my memory fails me. Seems to me like they were at the very least more than happy with that idea.

And the nations living within the Austrian-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires didn't need the call from the UK or France to strive for independence, as nationalism had been brewing there for at least half a century.

I'll agree, of course, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying that the UK or France gave them the idea. I was just saying all along that the idea of self-determination was that if you want to split, you should be able to have a referendum and split.

Which made it kinda hard to turn around and say "unless you're the Sudeten" in '38. Is all I'm saying.

 

[ddt]

Quite so, old chap, but I'm not sure why you think it contradicts anything I've said. It IS an example that the right to self-determination DOES include the right to move yourself to another state, right? Which is what Craig was questioning.

You made it sound like Serbia somehow annexed them, whereas the process was voluntary from the Slovenes, Croats and Bosnians.

But there's a difference here with the Sudeten Germans: the Slovenes and Croats and Bosnians had already attained de facto independence from Vienna.

Wilson DID originate the idea, but most of the splitting Germany and Austria-Hungary was supervised and supported by the UK and France, unless my memory fails me. Seems to me like they were at the very least more than happy with that idea.

I'm a bit hazy on AH, but as to Germany, politics equally played a role as national self-determination. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, no questions asked. Belgium had to get some territorial compensation so it got Eupen-Malmedy, and thus its German-speaking minority. There was a plebiscite in Schleswig about the border with Denmark. Poland should get a corridor to the Baltic, never mind population wishes; ditto Danzig should become an independent city-state. The rest of the border with Poland was informed by population ratios, with a plebiscite in Upper Silesia. Lastly, Austria was forbidden from joining Germany even though there were strong wishes for that among the Austrian population and politicians. I count 5 political decision and only 2 based on self-determination.

I'll agree, of course, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying that the UK or France gave them the idea. I was just saying all along that the idea of self-determination was that if you want to split, you should be able to have a referendum and split.

It's not so clear cut. The plebiscites on Schleswig and Upper Silesia were held against a defeated country. The independence of, e.g., the Czechs and the Slovenes etc. was simply proclaimed against a crumbling empire that could not control its territory. That's basically the declarative notion of statehood.

Which made it kinda hard to turn around and say "unless you're the Sudeten" in '38. Is all I'm saying.

There were actually enough exceptions in 1918 that one more in 1938 would not have been noticed.

Of course, there was also that Vietnamese cook in Paris who petitioned Wilson for an audition...

 

[HansMustermann]

You probably realize that I was answering to this, "Is the transfer of a territory from one polity to another a case of self determination, in particular if the receiving state is vastly more tyrannical and imperialistic than the relinquishing one? Did the Sudeteners, idiots that they were, seek self determination, or a change of suzerain? And if it was the second, is that a recognised right possessed by peoples?"

I thought it was obvious that my examples are about THAT question, which is pretty explicitly about whether self-determination includes the right to "a change of suzerain" or not. You know, since that's what I was answering to.

To "make it sound like Serbia somehow annexed them" kinda needs reading it out of context, innit?

 

[ddt]

You probably realize that I was answering to this, "Is the transfer of a territory from one polity to another a case of self determination, in particular if the receiving state is vastly more tyrannical and imperialistic than the relinquishing one? Did the Sudeteners, idiots that they were, seek self determination, or a change of suzerain? And if it was the second, is that a recognised right possessed by peoples?"

I thought it was obvious that my examples are about THAT question, which is pretty explicitly about whether self-determination includes the right to "a change of suzerain" or not. You know, since that's what I was answering to.

To "make it sound like Serbia somehow annexed them" kinda needs reading it out of context, innit?

The latter is only a nitpick from my side. But your reaction does not address the two other, major points I raised.

First, Slovenes, Croats and Bosnians achieved independence first and setup their own state while Vienna could not do one thing about it, because Austria-Hungary had been utterly beaten in WW1, to the point that Vienna donated the fleet to the new Slav state (poor Horthy...). By contrast, in 1938 Prague could have crushed a Sudeten uprising like a bug, even if they'd gotten some more covert help from Hitler.

Second, the "self determination" rule was maybe preached, but in practice not much put into practice. We can go over the dismemberment of AH as well, but IIRC, South Tyrolia was still in majority German in character and Istria was Slavic, i.e., neither was Italian or in favour of change to Italy.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm still not usre what the point is.

1. While all those states may have started proclaiming their independence on their own -- as you say, the ethnic tensions were already boiling over in Austria-Hungary -- ultimately they were recognized in the Paris Peace Conferece. And you're not a country, no matter what you've proclaimed, until enough other countries recognize you.

Guess which right was invoked? That of self-determination.

2. "Maybe preached, but in practice not much put into practice" only works as long as either nobody calls you out on it, or you have enough support for that at home anyway.

And in 1919 it was either the latter or both. It wasn't exactly a political problem to reward a few allies or punish one's enemies, after losing some millions of soldiers to those enemies. In fact, it would have been more of a problem not to.

But in '38 neither was true. Hitler was explicitly call them out on it, AND there really wan't much support for the idea of going to war to prevent some Germans from living in Germany.

How do we know the latter? Well, because there actually were a lot of folks talking to the parliament for or against it. Including Churchill, since we talk about him lately. Yet we don't see the parliament being moved by the anti-german sentiment until after Czechoslovakia was dismembered.

And in France -- because let's not forget, France also had a say at Munich -- the popular support for war remained somewhat low even AFTER Czechoslowakia got dismembered. The "Why die for Danzig?" slogan was coined in May 1939, and not by fascist sympathizers, but by the socialists.

 

[Klimax]

I'm not sure why anyone introduced Stalin into this discussion. I don't think Benes needed Stalin's encouragement for one iota to kick out the Sudeten Germans.

Correct. I wasn't also the one to introduce him.

===

Reminder: The only reason why Germans were in lands called later Sudetes is, they were invited to settle there by Charles IV! Those lands were always part of Bohemia!

They never had any right for self-determination.

 

[Tolls]

Reminder: The only reason why Germans were in lands called later Sudetes is, they were invited to settle there by Charles IV! Those lands were always part of Bohemia!

They never had any right for self-determination.

What?

I'm sorry, but 600+ years is plenty enough time to be considered native.

 

[Klimax]

What?

I'm sorry, but 600+ years is plenty enough time to be considered native.

Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

ETA: Again, They were invited to settle there. They never lived there before! They had no a priory right to lands. Original settlements were long gone by the time Germans were invited.

 

[Craig B]

Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

ETA: Again, They were invited to settle there. They never lived there before! They had no a priory right to lands. Original settlements were long gone by the time Germans were invited.

They may have had a right to self determination in the circumstances you refer to. The use of the German language was common in nineteeenth century Bohemia, but that did not extinguish the right of Czechs to gain self determination from Austria.

What interests me, however, is that the desire of the Sudeteners was not for independence but for annexation by the Reich. Were they entitled to demand that? I think probably not.

Can Catalans demand independence from Spain? I would say yes. Can they demand that their region should be annexed by France? I'm not so sure about that. Of course they are demanding no such thing.

 

[HansMustermann]

Craig, have you even SEEN the borders of the Sudetenland? If you forbid them to join anyone, it's not even a CONTIGUOUS country. You're going to enforce... what? That they need a passport and to go through Germany or Czechoslovakia just to move from point A to point B in the same country?

Plus, again, see up the thread, the allies hadn't prevented other break-off countries from joining another country.

After WW1 Transylvania LITERALLY decided to break off from Hungary and be "annexed" (as you call it) by Romania.

Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina LITERALLY decided to break off from Austria-Hungary and glue themselves to Serbia.

Can you see a palatable reason -- as in, one you could actually sell to the Parliament and press back home -- for why those were any different from the situation the Sudeten were in?

I mean, sure, in retrospect we can come up with reasons like "because Hitler is a dick", but that wasn't very clear to most people in 1938, so I doubt that it would have worked.

 

[HansMustermann]

Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

ETA: Again, They were invited to settle there. They never lived there before! They had no a priory right to lands. Original settlements were long gone by the time Germans were invited.

Mate, did you even stop to think about the fact that the same can be said for you and Israel? The original settlements from the 2nd century AD are long gone. The Sudeten had been invited there 600 years before, you were invited there 60 years ago.

Now mind you, I'm all for Israel existing and all. But I find it jarring and hypocritical that you'd deny the Sudeten the same rights when they literally have 10 times the history there.

 

[Craig B]

Craig, have you even SEEN the borders of the Sudetenland? If you forbid them to join anyone, it's not even a CONTIGUOUS country. You're going to enforce... what? That they need a passport and to go through Germany or Czechoslovakia just to move from point A to point B in the same country?

Plus, again, see up the thread, the allies hadn't prevented other break-off countries from joining another country.

After WW1 Transylvania LITERALLY decided to break off from Hungary and be "annexed" (as you call it) by Romania.

Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina LITERALLY decided to break off from Austria-Hungary and glue themselves to Serbia.

Can you see a palatable reason -- as in, one you could actually sell to the Parliament and press back home -- for why those were any different from the situation the Sudeten were in?

I mean, sure, in retrospect we can come up with reasons like "because Hitler is a dick", but that wasn't very clear to most people in 1938, so I doubt that it would have worked.

Following its defeat in 1918 the Austrian Empire disintegrated and the "Compromise" union with Hungary was dissolved. The constitutional arrangements, including monarchical sovereignty, by which these possessions had been tied together were no longer in place. Nobody took anything from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. It wasn't there any more, and its former vassals decamped.

The Czechoslovak Republic, by contrast, was a state in reasonably good order, and part of it (including much of its territorial defence system) was removed and given to its main enemy, causing its speedy collapse.

 

[HansMustermann]

I suppose, but once you allow the Sudeten to separate, you're back to the same situation anyway. Now they can vote to glue themselves to Germany, just like the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs voted to glue themselves to Serbia. Now what? Decide that a country isn't allowed to do that, after all?

I mean, the precedent kinda existed with Austria being forbidden to join up with Germany, but that was because of the whole causing-a-world-war thing. It's kinda hard to impute the Sudeten the same.

Plus, the precedent of the Anschluss also existed, where Austria was allowed to join up with Germany after all. So now what excuse could they claim? Claim that the Sudeten are a bigger threat to world peace than Austria?

 

[Tolls]

Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

No.
Natives, as in natives of the land they occupied for 600 years, in whatever way they wish to be recognised.

 

[Klimax]

No.
Natives, as in natives of the land they occupied for 600 years, in whatever way they wish to be recognised.

What part of "They were invited by Czech King" is unclear to you?

 

[Craig B]

What part of "They were invited by Czech King" is unclear to you?

Its relevance. If the Czech king invited their ancestors into the country 600 years previously, they had in 1938 the same rights as any other natives of the country.

Do these rights possessed by all inhabitants include separation of various chunks of that country with the intention of their being then annexed by another country? That's the thing I'm not sure about.

 

[Klimax]

Its relevance. If the Czech king invited their ancestors into the country 600 years previously, they had in 1938 the same rights as any other natives of the country.

Do these rights possessed by all inhabitants include separation of various chunks of that country with the intention of their being then annexed by another country? That's the thing I'm not sure about.

Yes, they had same rights. But those rights never included right to secede! Nobody had them. That land was always under Czech kingdom.

Frankly, I am not even sure where the hell you get notion that settlers of land under one country should be somehow entitled to that thing...

 

[Border Reiver]

Yes, they had same rights. But those rights never included right to secede! Nobody had them. That land was always under Czech kingdom.

Frankly, I am not even sure where the hell you get notion that settlers of land under one country should be somehow entitled to that thing...

Until the Czech Kingdom was absorbed by the Hapsburgs. Essentially, if the Czechs had the right to break away from the Hapsburg polity, then the Sudetens had the right to break away from the Czechs.

Or like the Americans had the right to break away from the British Empire. Or Mexico from Spain, etc.

However, they are only entitled to it if:

a. They have the ability to have other polities recognize their rights;
b. They have the ability to make the other polity recognize their right to secede.

Which is why the CSA was not entitled to that right.

 

[Roboramma]

However, they are only entitled to it if:

a. They have the ability to have other polities recognize their rights;
b. They have the ability to make the other polity recognize their right to secede.

Which is why the CSA was not entitled to that right.

That sounds like "they are entitled to secede if they secede successfully" in which case why talk about it in the language of rights at all?

 

[Border Reiver]

That sounds like "they are entitled to secede if they secede successfully" in which case why talk about it in the language of rights at all?

In the society of nations, you've only got the rights that the other members of society accept that you have. It's a lot like legal rights for people - we can argue that human rights are intrinsic, etc - but in the end if society will not allow you to exercise those rights then you really don't have them.