Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As far as I am aware its a russian colony built around the naval base and was established by Stalin after the German population was deported. Before then it had several centuries of german inhabitation going back to the middle ages when the Teutonic order ruled it to its union with Brandenburg to eventually lead to the creation of the Prussian State.

So, logically, with the fall of the USSR, this is an anachronistic left over thats now surrounded by EU countries.

I don't think any action taken by Stalin can be upheld in the modern era. So IMO the land was seized from the Germans in an act of ethnic cleansing. I don't buy into the notion that territorial loss was some kind of just punishment ala old testament. Ending the Nazi government and the crimes of the concentration camps was just. Clearing Germans off their land and upholding decisions made by Stalin?

Will it happen though? No. Goes without saying the Russians would never concede any territory to the EU. More pertinently, Poland and Lithuania cut deals with Stalin to take German land in order to buy their loyalty to communism and in the case of Poland "compensation" for parts of what is now Belarus to be given to the USSR. You can say that they were compelled to do this; but they certainly never shied away from the benefits. The Germans don't want to rock the boat. Any claim or interest in regaining the Oblast would be opening a can of worms. Poland and Lithuania would feel nervous at any notion of land lost during WW2 being returned to Germany; because a fair chunk of their countries are comprised of such land. This is no doubt why both Lithuania and Poland have actively been pressing their own claims to the Oblast whilst the Germans have not. Frankly I view the Polish and Lithuanian position as cynical since they are safeguarding what Stalin gave them and realistically theres no reason to believe returning the Oblast to Germany would suddenly have the german government asking for parts of Poland. It ain't going to happen. I think it demonstrates very well how little trust there is and how much resentment there still is in Europe over the German Question and WW2.

Don't give Putin any more ideas please

Germany has acknowledged multiple times, and passed multiple laws to the same effect, that the current eastern border is the limit for all things German.

Assuming your question is the one in the title, the answer is no.

1) Germany has repeatedly stressed that it has no further claims on formerly Prussian territory.

2) There is no one left in Kaliningrad who would identify himself as "German".

3) All the previous thought experiments regarding a non-Russian future for Kaliningrad that I'm aware of and that I would consider "serious" propose a sovereign state of Kaliningrad outside of the Russian Federation.

4) After the bottomless barrel that the GDR proved to be, I'd wager Germany has had enough reunifications for a while.

 d-usa wrote:
Germany has acknowledged multiple times, and passed multiple laws to the same effect, that the current eastern border is the limit for all things German.

I am asking if it should. Not the current position and stance of the German Government.

Plus that stance exists for two major reasons:

1) No desire to antagonise the Russians

2) No desire to antagonise their European neighbor. Frankly Germany is the dominant power in the EU anyway and stands far more to gain by pushing itself as an unbiased "European" country rather than bringing up the ghost of German nationalism.

Also, something that isn't conceivably on the table does not mean that the Germans have to adopt a stance and things can change. I am pretty certain that if the Oblast did split with russia and the question were truly raised it would cause more comment. Theres no point making controversial territorial claims when any change is so unlikely.

Plus, it was only during German Reunification that the german government acknowledged the territorial changes made in the east during WW2. Before then they were considered under "polish and communist occupation". I doubt that stance would have been adopted for so long if there was not some sense of injustice over the issue of Stalins border changes.

But yes. So long as Germany stays at the heart of Europe and committed to the European ideal it would never try to rock the boat. Even if it meant getting land back off the russians.


Still I find the Polish and Lithuanian claims to the Oblast unsettling. Theres just something wrong and grasping about it. I get that "day hates russians" but that doesn't give them any right to the territory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:
Assuming your question is the one in the title, the answer is no.

1) Germany has repeatedly stressed that it has no further claims on formerly Prussian territory.

2) There is no one left in Kaliningrad who would identify himself as "German".

3) All the previous thought experiments regarding a non-Russian future for Kaliningrad that I'm aware of and that I would consider "serious" propose a sovereign state of Kaliningrad outside of the Russian Federation.

4) After the bottomless barrel that the GDR proved to be, I'd wager Germany has had enough reunifications for a while.

The question of "should" is not a question of intent. Its asking about whether because of the very close links of East Prussia to German culture, history and such it is a part of the German homeland and has been for centuries until mass deportations by Stalin. Its a moral question, not a question of intent. The russians living there are ultimately colonists. Its a little hypocritical for Vladimir Putin to argue that he should have Crimea on the basis of its historic russian ties and yet keep a chunk of Germany for himself.

1) Not the question I was asking, but I think it has a perfectly just claim if viewed from a moral perspective.

2) A huge issue. But they are Stalins settlers. Whether they should be there at all is a big question. If Poland or Lithuania absorbed that region they would no doubt try to adopt efforts to de russify the culture and population. I don't see how this is a better notion at all.

3) The Oblast is too small to exist as a state in its own right. I suspect such EU proposals are more about containing russian influence then any sense of whats right.

4) Thats a very short term view. In the long run having a larger population, territorial base and resources will increase German influence in Europe. Theres a reason why the Western allies carved germany up into zones of control "to keep the Germans down".

I say yes, and I wouldn't stop there, DANZIG IST DEUTSCH!

But seriously, it seems that the more right leaning Germans (and I'm not even talking about hardcore right wing, just right-leaning), particularly those in the Bundeswehr, seem to be of the opinion that those territories should come back to being German... this is coming from my conversations with a few enlistees/officers I've met over the years, so its by no means indicative of a general mentality, needless to say I was surprised to here this opinion echoed at all, esp. since I haven't heard the same from German civilians.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I say yes, and I wouldn't stop there, DANZIG IST DEUTSCH!

But seriously, it seems that the more right leaning Germans (and I'm not even talking about hardcore right wing, just right-leaning), particularly those in the Bundeswehr, seem to be of the opinion that those territories should come back to being German... this is coming from my conversations with a few enlistees/officers I've met over the years, so its by no means indicative of a general mentality, needless to say I was surprised to here this opinion echoed at all, esp. since I haven't heard the same from German civilians.

Well, I think the army is the sort of place that encourages right wing sentiment and they are more likely to be aware of the history behind such regions. Military history especially and an awareness of what historically constituted Prussia for instance.

I am not sure how the national curriculum works in Germany but I imagine it would play down the issue of the changes to the post WW2 borders. The UK national curriculum does something similar. We learn a huge amount about the relatively minor changes following the Treaty of Versailles but the much larger changes following the second world war aren't. Its a bit disingenuous actually to say that the treaty of V was too harsh and yet apply a "woe to the vanquished" mentality to post WW2 changes.

Say what you will about the EU, its role in ending the old Franco-German hostility is a great achievement. Perpetual peace in Western Europe was unthinkable 60 years ago.

Yeah, you european types (not to say I lump you brits in with the continentals) have been doing a remarkable job of not killing yourselves since the end of the war, though I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the Germans realized they could conquer the continent more successfully via economics rather than force

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, you european types (not to say I lump you brits in with the continentals) have been doing a remarkable job of not killing yourselves since the end of the war, though I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the Germans realized they could conquer the continent more successfully via economics rather than force

There does seem to have been a bit of a dry spell...

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Plus that stance exists for two major reasons:

1) No desire to antagonise the Russians

2) No desire to antagonise their European neighbor. Frankly Germany is the dominant power in the EU anyway and stands far more to gain by pushing itself as an unbiased "European" country rather than bringing up the ghost of German nationalism.

Also, something that isn't conceivably on the table does not mean that the Germans have to adopt a stance and things can change. I am pretty certain that if the Oblast did split with russia and the question were truly raised it would cause more comment. Theres no point making controversial territorial claims when any change is so unlikely.

Plus, it was only during German Reunification that the german government acknowledged the territorial changes made in the east during WW2. Before then they were considered under "polish and communist occupation". I doubt that stance would have been adopted for so long if there was not some sense of injustice over the issue of Stalins border changes.

Quite a lot of conclusions you're jumping to there. Anyway, the claims of the FRG have to be seen in light of the immediate post-war era and of a country that did not even control its capital anymore. The reassurance of honoring the GDR's border agreement with Poland after the reunification was not a consideration of Realpolitik, but the signal that the last "wrong to be righted" had been overcome (and that everybody who still cared about his "old home" was either dead or would be dead soon).

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Still I find the Polish and Lithuanian claims to the Oblast unsettling.

I do not know of these. Care to enlighten me with a source?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The question of "should" is not a question of intent. Its asking about whether because of the very close links of East Prussia to German culture, history and such it is a part of the German homeland and has been for centuries until mass deportations by Stalin. Its a moral question, not a question of intent. The russians living there are ultimately colonists. Its a little hypocritical for Vladimir Putin to argue that he should have Crimea on the basis of its historic russian ties and yet keep a chunk of Germany for himself.

1) Not the question I was asking, but I think it has a perfectly just claim if viewed from a moral perspective.

2) A huge issue. But they are Stalins settlers. Whether they should be there at all is a big question. If Poland or Lithuania absorbed that region they would no doubt try to adopt efforts to de russify the culture and population. I don't see how this is a better notion at all.

I see. Well, morally it's still "no". The people living there today, who have never wronged a German in their lifetime, are entitled to be part of whatever political entity they please.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
3) The Oblast is too small to exist as a state in its own right. I suspect such EU proposals are more about containing russian influence then any sense of whats right.

Andorra disagrees.

Why would Kaliningrad be too small when the three dwarf-states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania directly north of it are doing rather fine?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
4) Thats a very short term view. In the long run having a larger population, territorial base and resources will increase German influence in Europe. Theres a reason why the Western allies carved germany up into zones of control "to keep the Germans down".

Population, territory, resources, influence... sorry, but in which world is that still the currency of European nations? You're constructing a WW2-mindset that has been dead for decades.

Population, territory, resources, influence... sorry, but in which world is that still the currency of European nations? You're constructing a WW2-mindset that has been dead for decades.

Also a mindset that caused WW2... So. Yeah. Lets not repeat that one.

What do the local population identify as, German or Russian?

Assuming that Kalinigrad was part of the unification of Germany in 1871, it would have been German territory for 75 years. It will now have been under Russian control (since 1946), for 68 years.

To me, that says that the Russians have as good a claim to the place on the basis of 'history' as the Germans do.

 LuciusAR wrote:
What do the local population identify as, German or Russian?

Russian. The Germans fled or were deported after WW2.

Except for, y'know, the whole 'Prussia' thing...

If we are still giving back seized land despite current demographics then we should give Texas back to Mexico.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Except for, y'know, the whole 'Prussia' thing...

And previously Prussia was part of the Holy Roman Empire, along with a bunch of other smaller states. You can't pull that one without having to concede that practically all of that area of Europe can technically lay claim to Kaliningrad on the same principle. It would be a bit daft if Italy could lay claim to ex-Prussian territory on the basis that part of Italy is descended from a state that once administered that section of land. It's no less daft if the Germans do it now.

Clearly, Germany doesn't have the right to do so.

...and by "right", I mean covered military forces and a huge amount of nuclear weapons.

Said before I'll say it again. "I was here first" is a terrible argument.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If we are still giving back seized land despite current demographics then we should give Texas back to Mexico.

Or wait 10 more years and give it back to Mexico based on then current demographics

@Allod

The Germans were told they had to accept that or the other European countries would not accept German reunification. The likes of Margaret Thathcer were extremely hostile to the idea of a united Germany at the heart of Europe. Treaties such as that are all part of the general "keep the Germans down" mentality of the post war world.

Yes, I believe the Turks would argue that the Armenians should accept a similar reality. Most of the Armenians who lived in eastern Anatolia are dead. That does not mean people in Armenia feel any less strongly about this and retain a sense of wrongness about it.

So you're saying squatters rights essentially? Possession being 9/10 of the law?

That not whats just. That's real politick.



Um, okay right. Influence, demographic, resources...these a re hugely important to every country in the world. Why do you think the United States wants a friendly government in Ukraine, why they have fought a war for oil in the middle east, why people are so anxious about the rise of China with its billion inhabitants? Just because European countries have none of these things doesn't mean they aren't important. .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Assuming that Kalinigrad was part of the unification of Germany in 1871, it would have been German territory for 75 years. It will now have been under Russian control (since 1946), for 68 years.

To me, that says that the Russians have as good a claim to the place on the basis of 'history' as the Germans do.

 LuciusAR wrote:
What do the local population identify as, German or Russian?

Russian. The Germans fled or were deported after WW2.

You're being disingenuous.

Germany was only created in 1878 but it was part of Prussia, the duchy and later the Kingdom for centuries going back to the middle ages. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Austria has only existed after the first world war because before then it was the Hapsburg Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prussia

And during the Middle Ages, a bunch of German's named 'The Franks' invaded Gual took it over and renamed it France. Should the Germans get France too? They've been after that one for awhile Or maybe we should give France back to the Irish, I mean, the Celts had been there for centuries before any Germans showed up.

And you know, let's just give Israel back to the Palestinians and then the Palestinians can give it back to Iran, and then Iran can give it back to Egypt who can give it back to Iraq.

Well, if they held it long enough before... sure.

But then, if we go that route, then basically all of France is now Germany as well. since they took it not once, but twice. BUUUUTTTT... if we want Germany to have France, then the Germans have to fight the English, since England owned much of the country for a long time as well.

Sorry France (not really), guess you're screwed.

 LordofHats wrote:
And during the Middle Ages, a bunch of German's named 'The Franks' invaded Gual took it over and renamed it France. Should the Germans get France too? They've been after that one for awhile Or maybe we should give France back to the Irish, I mean, the Celts had been there for centuries before any Germans showed up.

And you know, let's just give Israel back to the Palestinians and then the Palestinians can give it back to Iran, and then Iran can give it back to Egypt who can give it back to Iraq.

No because the Franks ARE the French...

Their Chief Clovis (Louis)was the first King of France.


Hint is in the name.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


No because the Franks ARE the French...

Their Chief Clovis (Louis)was the first King of France.


Hint is in the name.

Clearly you've not studied Charlemagne.

And of course you completely missed the point. All "I was here first" gets you, is land endlessly changing hands because whoever was there last time took it from who was there before ad naseum. It's not a practical way to solve anything anywhere unless you want to return to the ethno-national view of history, which is great if you're okay with more World Wars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know, this is simpler so I'll just put this here;




Good luck reconciling all that land with its proper owners.

Ah, now that's simplicity itself- long before the dark days of the Pax Romana, when mad Caesars forced Europe to learn Latin, the proud and warlike Celtic people held all of this land. So let's turn it over to the Celtic League.

and if we can also swing a return to traditional Celtic warfare, with cattle raiding and individual combat, the stage will be set to focus on equipping individual warriors with the greatest possible weapons-

I dare you to imagine a world of Robot Jox with bagpipes, and then tell me I'm crazy.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, you european types (not to say I lump you brits in with the continentals) have been doing a remarkable job of not killing yourselves since the end of the war.

Things have improved a lot. It used to be that if we wanted to fight with someone: France and Germany were our only real options. However the technological leaps that were made throughout the last century have freed-us-up to pick fights with people all over the world. We had a really good long-distance thing going with Argentina in the 80s, It would be great if we could rekindle that some time. We've amassed loads of new gear since then which would blow their minds. Cristina de Kirchner is totally hot for it too. Even though it has been a blast fighting Iraqis and Afghans: with their "different culture" and stone age technology. it's just not the same as fighting white Europeans. Arabs don't seem to understand that if you want to blow up innocent civilians you have to do it with a fleet of billion dollar super planes... Otherwise it's cheating.

 Smacks wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, you european types (not to say I lump you brits in with the continentals) have been doing a remarkable job of not killing yourselves since the end of the war.

Things have improved a lot. It used to be that if we wanted to fight with someone: France and Germany were our only real options. However the technological leaps that were made throughout the last century have freed-us-up to pick fights with people all over the world. We had a really good long-distance thing going with Argentina in the 80s, It would be great if we could rekindle that some time. We've amassed loads of new gear since then which would blow their minds. Cristina de Kirchner is totally hot for it too. Even though it has been a blast fighting Iraqis and Afghans: with their "different culture" and stone age technology. it's just not the same as fighting white Europeans. Arabs don't seem to understand that if you want to blow up innocent civilians you have to do it with a fleet of billion dollar super planes... Otherwise it's cheating.

Honestly, with your leaps and bounds in technology, I'm surprised you havent gone for round three with the US of A Just for the sake of argument here, we'll fight over Canada again, they won't terribly mind if we do.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, with your leaps and bounds in technology, I'm surprised you havent gone for round three with the US of A Just for the sake of argument here, we'll fight over Canada again, they won't terribly mind if we do.

Oh gwad!.. As if Americans don't shoot at us enough when we're on the same team.

 Smacks wrote:

Oh gwad!.. As if Americans don't shoot at us enough when we're on the same team.

It's just some friendly fire

The whole ancestral claim to land is just bonkers. Basically it relies on the idea that who used to live somewhere at some specific point in the past is more important than who lives there now, and also more important than who lived there at any other point in human history. "The absolute, correct and proper owner of a territory is whoever lived there in 1936 or whatever random year I happen to pick".

Thing is, the people who live there now didn't do anything wrong. They were either born there to parents who were born in the area, or they migrated to an area in what they believed was entirely legal and above board (in some cases they were force migrated there by their governments). Telling them they no longer get to be part of the country they always thought they belonged to, or even worse that they have to give up their homes and leave the area is not acceptable.