Should East Prussia / Kaliningrad Oblast be returned to Germany?

Remove all ads!

Near the end of World War II nearly 2 million civilians evacuated East Prussia, due to the impending Soviet invasion. After the war, the Soviet Union expelled non-Russians from the region and re-settled the territory. By the time the Soviet Union fell, very few ethnic Germans, Poles, and Lithuanians remained. Today East Prussia is known as Kaliningrad Oblast and is a federated state of the Russian Federation, completely cut off from the rest of Russia. Today 86.4% of the population of Kaliningard Oblast are Russian, 3.7% are Ukrainian, 3.6% are Belarusian, 1.1% are Lithuanian, 1% are Armenian and 0.8% are German. The region is historically and culturally Prussian, Polish and Lithuanian.

When the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc were disintegrating, there wasn't much demand from within for East Prussia to be returned to Germany or become an independent state. Though it is impossible to tell how Mikhail Gorbachev would have reacted, it would seem that he would have allowed a secession to occur. Mikhail Gorbachev had allowed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to secede from the Soviet Union, as well as allowing the Eastern Bloc states to initiate right-wing, democratic reforms. However, it should be noted that Kaliningrad Oblast was a federated state under the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, meaning that Boris Yeltsin could have intervened to protect Russia's interests in the Baltic, acting without Mikhail Gorbachev's permission.

Today the Russians want to keep Kaliningrad Oblast, because it is one of the most economically important states of the Russian Federation. The state is known for it's manufacturing base, low taxes and economic prosperity. The state is also one of the very few states that in which population growth is expected. The state also houses the Russian Navy's only warm-water port in the Baltic Sea, making it vital for the continued existence of the Russian Baltic Fleet. In addition to housing the Baltic Fleet, the Russians have other significant military assets in the state, making it one of the most militarized regions in Europe. They also argue that the German, Polish and Lithuanian culture no longer exist to a meaningful extent in the region, primarily due to the "Russianification" of the region.

The Germans claim that the region has deep historical and cultural ties to Germany, especially Prussia, and that the territory should be returned. They argue that the expulsion and "Russianification" of the region was morally, and possibly even legally, wrong. It should be noted that Germans are now a minority in East Prussia and that East Prussia does not connect to modern day German territory. Others have suggested that the territory be given to Poland and/or Lithuania. While still others believe the region should become an independent country. What do you believe should become of the state?

For reference, here is Kaliningard Oblast (red), along with the rest of the Russian Federation:

 

I don't think this is a major issue which is likely to change or matter in the foreseeable future.

 

That may very well be the case, however, this is in the forum for discussing and debating historical topics.

 

Why would these not be split into 2 options? And, for that matter, why even mention the US?

Anyway, I couldn't vote because you didn't list my choice - I think it should join Bulgaria so its citizens could vote in the upcoming Bulgarian election.

 

I'm not sure how well you know your European history but you are aware that there are dozens of similar cases associated with WW I and WW II. I'm not sure why you picked this one in particular but the short answer is: No.

 

Königsberg used to be the capital of the highly belligerent state Prussia, known as an 'army with a country'. They dealt with population growth in fertile German farmlands by sending the excesses to their death in warfare, and reaped the benefits form this. The Nazi Germans derived their identity from it. It is entirely justified that this eastern offshoot of the German territories became culturally absorbed into Russia. Similarly, former German territories in modern day Poland and Czechia should also remain lost permanently. Germany got ambitious and arrogant. They gambled, they lost. They should never get their losses back. It encourages more gambling.

Germany is nowadays one of the more left-leaning countries in Europe, it puts the Netherlands and Britain to shame. There is no bitterness or revanchism after the last world war, so let it rest.

 

I voted "Other."

I think that it is extremely arrogant of all these countries to decide what's best for Kaliningrad when we're no longer in a post-war treaty state. I think Russia has the strongest claim because 1) they have it now due to the most recent treaty involving Kaliningrad, and 2) the current cultural make-up of the citizens is predominantly Russian. I think that for foreigners to claim NOW that the Russianification of Kaliningrad is unjustified and therefore Kaliningrad should return to Germany -- it's too late. If this was an issue, it should have been dealt with at the time, but now that so many people have been living there, it should be up to those people. If it was a matter of Germans wishing to return there, that's a different issue (compare to Israel/Palestine) and far more complicated, but from your write up here, that doesn't seem to be the case. It sounds more like these various countries just want to control the resources/economy.

The Russians probably have the strongest claim, unless Kaliningrad *wants* to be an independent nation, which again, is not discussed here at all. And since the other republics were able to secede, Kaliningrad should be able to as well. But if they're satisfied being a part of Russia, then that's what they should stay.

 

I put them as a single option because, in order to realistically become a U.S. state, they would have to be independent first.

 

But what if you wanted them to be independent and stay independent (which is one of my first choices)? Why would they have to be a U. S. state?

 

They wouldn't have to become a U.S. state, but they would have the option to once they became independent; should the majority of the people want to.

 

The problem is that, should anyone actually take the poll seriously and be inclined to vote, the "independent / U.S. state" option doesn't work. If it's an "one or the other" scenario, then you might as well have lumped all the options into one, and had a poll with only one choice. And if it's "independent then US", well, that precludes permanent independence.

 

Kaliningrad does not really warrant any serious discussion. It's about as seriously discussed as the expansion of Switzerland. In other words, it's really not discussed at all by anyone of any importance. Kaliningrad is one of dozens of cases of just or unjust territorial changes during WW II. Finland lost a fifth of its terretory during the winter- and continuation wars to Russia and while some nut jobs are still clinging on the fact that they should be returned it's not really realism.

Terretorial claims in Europe have generally only produced misery and war and people who claim injustice in cases like say, the treaty of Trianon, should get on with it and accept the loss. That way would be best for everyone involved.

A more interesting question is of course the issue of separatism. Should Scottland be allowed to leave the UK? Should belgium be split into two states? Have the Catalans got the right for independence? What about the continuing international limbo of Kosovo? These are real questions within Europe which may actually be of some importance in the forseeable future. Kaliningrad on the other hand, is irrelevant for now.

 

I can't say I'm 100% certain but I don't think the old city of Köningsberg or East Prussia ever was under Danish rule.

 

What is undisputable is that eastern Sweden needs to return to the fold and stop this independence silliness. They even think they have their own name in their language, "Suomi" bah, it is Finland and it is the eastern half of the kingdom of Sweden! Also which was pointed out the southern parts of what is now Sweden is rightfully Danish and the scars of the ethnic cleaning perpetrated by the Swedes here are still visible.

 

And the British Empire wasn't equally ambitious and arrogant? Leading up until WW1 the British Empire's power was waning, while Germany's was waxing. The only thing the British Empire could do to prevent Germany's domination of the economic and political sphere was to defeat them in war.

 

And Greenland? oh wait, Greenland already is part of Norway...

All of these are territorial issues, and have the same potential to explode into bloodshed. The Catalunyans have placed themselves squarely in the same category as Northern Ireland, as they resort to assassinations and other acts of terrorism. It's relatively quiet on both the IRA and ETA fronts, but I doubt they're both gone, despite claims to the contrary.
Belgium and Scotland are still in the non-violent category so far. I believe the Flemings and Wallonians have more in common than they're willing to admit to, which includes inflated pride. Hopefully they won't go their separate ways in the future, because they already have very little to say in Europe as it is. When a new country is formed, the case is also made that they'd have to re-apply to the EU, and that would take a lot of effort and time. And probably money.
Great Britain has maintained their attitude that secession (or 'devolution') is a matter open to debate, but they have so far succeeded in keeping the Scots in the Union mostly through propaganda. Scotland is fearful whether it will fare well if they say farewell to England. It would probably be beneficial to the Scots, but considering that Scotland gets huge subsidies from London, it isn't a transparent matter. But I have no illusions that the English will remain non-violent if the matter were to become more risky, like say, a prominent Scotsman voices support for secession, and makes a convincing case of it. If propaganda doesn't work, maybe they might try assassination. Scotland is an important part of Britain after all. I'm half-Scottish, so I can't claim to be objective on this matter.

This may be true, but the matter remains that Britain did not start a war, and definitely wasn't jumping at the opportunity. They let Hitler conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia, while they had alliance obligations to the latter. Only when Hitler invaded Poland did they declare war as they should have. Britain's power lay in the colonies, and they were only interested in maintaining a balance of the major powers in Europe. They had a history of changing allegiances to make sure nobody got the upper hand.

Germany has fared very well as a major power through trade and commerce, and didn't really need European territory for that. It was just the outdated attitude towards territory, which Arctic Daishi has wonderfully demonstrated, that lead them inevitably into a path of warfare rather than peace. The same case can be made for Japan's invasion of China - they didn't need China, and shouldn't have attacked.

It's all about fear. If your country has a high infrastructure level and thriving industry, then you need a steady supply of resources. You can trade for them, but the government would prefer to get a more reliable source by conquering territory instead. That plan overlooks the other nations and cultures which must be subjugated, and that's what I call arrogance. If it was 100 years earlier, the colonial period, then you'd definitely be right about Great Britain being arrogant, though.

 

I vote for democracy. The residents of the state in question should be able to vote in a referendum* as to their independence or unification to one country or another. Countries that want them should make their offers and then let the people decide. I'm pretty sure the Russian offer would beat any of the competition, and so the status quo would likely be how the vote would go.

Given, therefore, my supposition that the will of the residents in question would be to stay with Russia, my final answer is that it stays with Russia. I'd abide by any internationally supervised referendum* that said otherwise.

*or referendums if it took a few to whittle away stupid choices.

 

There's no significant movement in Kaliningrad for independence. I fail too see the point of one and it's not like Russia will allow one. Kaliningrad is also surrounded by countries with some (legitimate) hostility towards Russia and their own Russian minorities. Especially the baltic states. I doubt the Russian majority would feel safer with independence and much worse being part of some country in that region.

 

I was just thinking: Arctic Daishi, have you ever played Europa Universalis II? It's unofficially credited by historians as the most historically educational game you can play. Hearts of Iron is a similar game for the world war scenarios. I have a feeling you will like it a LOT. I certainly did.