It was a reward for staying neutral, as Denmark, which was basically deeply in the German sphere of influence and power, joining the war would have caused problems for the Allies. Also, Wilson was trying to bolster his self-determination credentials (since otherwise he had very little, especially where Germans were concerned)Wendell said:
Germany Austria-Hungary total plebicide
- Thread starter NomadicSky
- Start date
My point about Andorra still stands, thoughbenedict XVII said:
Liechtenstein might have actually been a Central Power, as it was often in this period just an attachment to Austria that happened to be independent (The Prince of Liechtenstien often spent more time in Vienna than in Vaduz), so it got off rather easily, I'd say.
That's not the point.Imajin said:My point about Andorra still stands, though
Liechtenstein might have actually been a Central Power, as it was often in this period just an attachment to Austria that happened to be independent (The Prince of Liechtenstien often spent more time in Vienna than in Vaduz), so it got off rather easily, I'd say.
No, I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that they shouldn't benefit territorially from a war in which they were not involved. All Imajin as done is make it seem even more absurd that the Schleswig referendum even took place.Red said:Are you suggesting that they should voluntary let themselfe be occupied, to serve as a distraction from the west front?
If Marshall or some other sensible person was running America back then?NomadicSky said:
Austria, the Polish Correidor, north Tyrol, and the Sudetenland to Germany.
A little bit more of Schleswig to Denmark.
Finland twice as large because it had all of Karelia.
Independent West Ukraine.
Independent Belarussia.
Independent Crimea.
Independent Central Asian Turkestanni Federation.
Independent Caucasian Federation of Armenia and Georgia..
Only four counties in northern Ireland.
Kosovo and some other territories of Serbia part of Albania.
Greek Macedonia part of Macedonia.
Bulgaria touching the Sea of Marmara.
Trieste part of Slovenia, which would probably still vote to be Yugoslavian.
Transylvania as an independent country with Rumanian, Hungarian, German, and Ukranian population. It's just too mixed up for partition.
The Aland islands voted to be part of Finland instead of Sweden, IIRC. I have no idea why.
Austr
Wendell said:
Give me a break. Anything that weakened Germany after WWI was good to take!
Wendell said:
The Germans did not seek retribution because they were humiliated, but because they did not really believe they had been defeated...
As to Foch's remark, he was referring to the fact that the Rhineland remained part of Germany...
Are there any advantage or disadvantages in terms of voting rights to being one state or many?Steffen said:
I agree that Wilson sort of half-assed it, which was a dangerous thing to do. But remember that "the Paris writ does not run" (i.e. the Allies couldn't enforce all their decisions as it was. It would be harder to enforce all of these too.wkwillis said:
All of the Polish Corridor?
The Paris conference did not deal with the lands involved in the Russian Civil War, only those affected by Great War, and controlled by a country party to the talks, which the Soviets were not.
Yes, West part makes sense because the East is part of Russian Civil War. You also have a problem that the largest city in the region was majority Polish. (L'viv / Lwów) The surrounding country-side. and most of eastern Galicia, was all Ukrainian, but not the city. You have to get the Poles to agree to a partition that still leaves the Ukrainians with a viable state, and that’s tough because they really wanted Lwów, it was the second largest Polish city in the old A-H. Also OTL, the Poles quickly changed their mind about supporting Ukrainian nationalism and annexed and attempted to Polonise the region. That's why there was a Polish-Ukrainian war in 1918-1919, which in turn led to the Russo-Polish war in 1920. In other words, it didn't matter what the Paris powers said if they couldn't enforce it. The Poles, Ukrainians, Red Russians, White Russian, Anarchists, all fought it out on the ground.
Again, only the west.
Nope, Russian. Unless the Allies decide to send massive amounts of troops to finish what they sort-of half-assed started by intervening in the Russian Civil War, they have no say here. That or let the Germans off their leash to do it for them.
Nope, considered an internal problem of Britain. US and France had no desire to antagonise them by bringing it up. Only a still-powerful Germany could suggest it, but they would have other matters as higher priorities.
Kosovo wasn't as Albania in those days. It became Albanians after the Croats, Italian, and Germans evicted (or cleansed) all the Serbs in WWII.
Is Greek Macedonia Slavic?
If such a union ever gets started that is.
Ethnic partitioning every else is okay, but not here? I dunno. I agree it is one of the most mixed up regions of all. But so was Teschen, the mixed areas between Yugoslavia and Romania (the Bant? Banat? something like that). I agree a multiethnic federation would be better than an all or nothing mentality, but that’s not the trend of your TL. You’ve have to make a compelling case for this change of character. My personal thought? Multiethnic federations work better when they don’t include the heartland, or only territory of a given nation. E.g. Switzerland doesn’t need to work to preserve French or German or Italian language or culture because it is sounded by them. Same with Belgium vis a vis French and Dutch, and Canada vis a vis French and English (although less so because Québécois hate to be called French, and think of themselves as a separate “nation”. Czechoslovakia failed because it encompassed the sum-total of the Czech and Slovakia nations, and therefore was too conflicted as to its identity and direction. This is the same as Yugoslavia and the USSR.
So in other words, a federation of ALL of Hungary and Romania would never work. I think you figured that, but so many people tried and failed to make multiethnic states in Eastern Europe on this model and failed.
You could sell it to the people if Romania and Hungary both exist as independent and viable states, with relatively few minorities. And Transylvania is an official neutral, bi- (or multi-) lingual state forbidden from union with either neighbour. That could work.
Nothing about that in Wikipedia. It says there was a petition to join Sweden, actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aland_IslandsWikipedia said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Åland_crisis