Poland didn't need sea access. It was just to weaken Germany

>having to use a boat because of that strip of land that's 40% Germany anyway has been given to neighboring nation isn't impractical
Remember the Germans had all their colonies taken away as well. They really didn't need their land corridor to East Prussia taken away as well.

Why did they make Czechoslovakia one country?

What the fuck is up with that map? It's the interwar borders, except for some reason Belarus and Ukraine have their current-day borders leaving a much smaller Poland, and Greece has the Izmir zone, but the other parts of the Treaty of Sevres aren't represented.

No, it's not remotely impractical. It's significantly less impractical than having Poland give up 60% Polish land and their only access to the sea. If you're butthurt about the dis-contiguity, giving East Prussia to Poland would also solve that problem.

I downloaded this map years ago. Doing a google search of "westermann" shows they are a map and history company. westermanngruppe.de/en/business-areas/publishing/westermann.html
All I know it as is an interwar period map.

The peoples of Czechoslovakia wanted it to be one country at that time (though they had very different expectations of how that country would work)

and then you'd something like the modern day Israeli Palestine conflict because you gave 95% German inhabited territory to Poland. Its not even like the Sudetenland which was the only geographic defense for Czechoslovakia . Poland didn't need sea access, and they certainly didn't need east Prussia.

I see dates saying 1918 on certain countries which were newly formed or altered. Perhaps this is 1918 Europe?

>All I know it as is an interwar period map.
An inaccurate one though. Pic related is how Europe actually looked in the interwar period.

see I think it showing the formation of the nations circa 1917-1918. They obvious changed after that.

>and then you'd something like the modern day Israeli Palestine conflict because you gave 95% German inhabited territory to Poland
As opposed to giving 60% Polish territory to Germany?

>Poland didn't need sea access, and they certainly didn't need east Prussia
And Germany didn't need a contiguous territory with the corridor, so why not give majority Polish territory to Poland? Poland both had a better claim on ethnic grounds, and needed the corridor more than Germany did

Except Ireland exists, which didn't happened until 1922, and Ukraine and Belarus never looked anything like that any time in the interwar period.

Look next to Ireland. It says 1922 right beside it.

I know, but by the time Ireland exists in 1922, Greece had lost the Izmir/Smyrna territory. And none of that explains Belarus and Ukraine, which never looked like that any time before 1939. It's just a terrible, anachronistic map.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People's_Republic
Ukraine

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_People's_Republic
Belarus

Neither had the borders as portrayed on the map. Never in history did the map of Europe look like OP's map. Ever. Here is a site that has maps from different dates in this period: omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19181111/ Start with 1918 and scroll through, you will see never in the interwar period or at any other time did Europe have the borders in this map.

I guess the Germany company used other sources.

No, they were just wrong. Those borders never existed. The person who made the map was probably just lazy, so he put in the modern day borders of Belarus and Ukraine without looking if they were historically accurate (which they weren't)

What about this. It looks similer if you count the light green as being Ukraine. Even if it only existed for a brief moment in 1918.

wikiwand.com/en/Ukrainian_People's_Republic

It's only somewhat similar. Pic related compares that to current borders, as you can see they are not the same. It's just a bad map dude, don't why you are so adamant about defending it.

I'm not admit. I'm seriously considering the idea that for like one month , one week or even one day Ukraine had those borders and the German company knew based on first hand accounts. Still, you may very well be right. I don't care and I'm not arguing. Just wondering if a moment existed where that is accurate during .

>I'm seriously considering the idea that for like one month , one week or even one day Ukraine had those borders and the German company knew based on first hand accounts
Yes, I understand. The thing is, they didn't. Ukraine and Belarus never had those borders for even one second before 1939. The company was just lazy and used contemporary borders anachronistically.

maybe they didnt want to be a microstate? having the means to ship and trade directly with other large nations helps you to grow.

Prussia/Germany didn't need land access to East Prussia. It was just to weaken Poland

>the US doesn't have direct access to Alaska
>France doesn't have a land bridge to Corsica
>Austria didn't have direct access to some possessions (Austrian Netherlands)
>Prussia didn't have direct access to Kleve, East Frisia...
>various microstates didn't have land access to their enclaves

Why was it so "imperative" that Prussia have direct access to East Prussia? A lot of nations didn't have it historically and then contemporary and it didn't matter in the slightest. Plus they must of known partitioning Poland was a stupid idea.

>Why was it so "imperative" that Prussia have direct access to East Prussia?

Because Prussia/Germany was a special snowflake and deserved everything. They were the proto-feminists.

(Checked)

>Prussia and Austria get all the great cities
>Russia gets all the peasants

Poland was first brought again into existence in order to weaken Germany. This is common sense really.

>Germany loses war
>hands over territory because it lost said war
>Naziboos cry about it

I like this thread. So much salt.

>Poland was first brought again into existence in order to weaken Germany.

Core Polish lands liberated themselves in 1918 already. You'd need a new war to bring them back under heel.

...

I'm not saying that's not impressive, but don't hold your breath for a full century without it

That's beautiful.

>A nation without an army

Poles tend to believe everything, kek

germans tend to feed poland territory

>Poles tend to believe everything, kek

Poland was already successfully fighting wars in late 1918, while other nations were demoralized by the war. It would be hard as fuck to bring the own and literally no one was willing to die for destroying Poland.

>>Russia gets all the peasants
Peasants are nice people. What's wrong with having more peasants?
But one of the reasons Russia wanted the partition was the fact that Russian peasant were emigrating to Poland were the social conditions were not as bad, and this was an economic drain to Russia.

>Poland was first brought again into existence in order to weaken Germany.
>Prussia and Austro-Hungary wanted to establish a small kingdom of Poland as a buffer state
Really gets the neurons firing.

Poles already defeated the Russia in 1920.

Poland should have been congress polands borders. period.

Delete this thread

Why was it so imperative that Germany have Danzig?

>muh poor Germans
>nazism was justified

Shut the fuck up. Don't hate the playa hate the game.

Damn, that map was almost perfect.

>Europe map with Germany on it
>perfect
Pick one

They should have given East Prussia independence and memed them into resurrecting Old Prussian as the language.

One meme country - Ireland - is enough.

Germany should of been partitioned desu

Nation-states are a dumb idea.

The world should be split into an uncountable number of non-countries.

>posting the papist version

Don't underestimate how easy it is to drum up ethnocentric sentiment, commie. Why would you want to create such a powderkeg?

At least be cool and suggest a world of city-states.

>Prussia and Austro-Hungary wanted to establish a small kingdom of Poland as a buffer state
This.

Pollacks refused to work together with Germans though because they believed the Entente / Russia would give them a better deal.

For the banter.

Powderkegs make for cool history.

Actually czechoslovakia got access to some German harbors, which still lasts until now. In Hamburg there is a piece of harbor which has czech names all over the place.

>refused to work with Germany
theres a reason why no one wants to work with Germans

I was assuming we were aiming for a prosperous, stable and peaceful world.

But in that case, I agree. I think it's funnier when you have huge empires that disintegrate like during WW1 though.

>It was just to weaken Germany

And apparently it wasn't enough. If the G*rm had simply accepted its punishment like a big boy, it wouldn't have needed round two to hammer the lesson home. But then thinking was never a G*rm strong point.

Both Austria and Hungary had sea access at their height(Trieste and Fiume come to mind). Access to a coast and to large navigable rivers is vital to a strong economy, stop saying bullshit. Poland also had a sea access before WWI and many poles lived on the Corridor. Of course it was made to weaken Germany, just like Trianon and Saint Germain, but you can't deny they had valid claims to the land.

To surround Hungary by countries bigger than them for whatever reason.

blame the lower pic on nationalism, the biggest cancer of all time

>Really gets the neurons firing.
The best Poland would have gotten from the Entente was a status similar to Finland. If Russia didn't get knocked out of the war Poland never would have been independent. If the Germans won Poland would have been carved out of Russian territories (not Polish-speaking German territories) and tied to them in a similar situation to the Warsaw pact. Fortunately for Poland, both Germany and Russia lost the war.

Poles, including national hero Josef Pilsudski, actually worked quite a bit with the Central Powers. But it became clear that they would lose and the Germans were not fun to work with. I don't have access to any relevant statistics as to how much the Poles voluntarily contributed to either side though, which would be interesting to see.

Vistula.

Yugoslavia was a civil war. Without G*rm belligerence, Europe was able to deal with a Yugo meltdown without wiping out half the continent's population.

You mean the us dealt with it. The euros tried and failed for years to do something

A G*rm can't help being a G*rm, we can't expect it to behave like a human being. The G*rm needs full-time supervision to even approximate civilization, leaving it with its own country was a mistake.

Fortunately, the self-hatred we bred into the little buggers after the last war seems to have resulted in them replacing themselves with Turks and Arabs, so some good may come of that region eventually.

Euros failed to end the war but they weren't drawn into it, either. A step in the right direction. Now we just need to do the same to France and Russia, and then maybe Europe will know lasting peace.

Germany exists because of nationalism

>implying there was a single nation that wasn't nationalist (whatever this is supposed to mean)

WWI and WII were caused by Slavic aggression towards Western powers. Know your enemy.

Wut

Just western anti-Slavic propaganda.

Go to bed Hans.

WW1 was actually set off by Serbian expansionism/Yugoslav nationalism leading to a Slav assassinating Austrian royalty

WW2 according to nazi history was started by the Polacks, as with Operation Himmler (false flag attack by the Germans basically) and the oppression of Germans or whatever.

We don't need Germany to start off with

>WII
wadaminute

>Königsberg will never be great again