German desires for territorial revisions under the Weimar Republic?

[Futurist]

From : "History of Schleswig-Holstein" :

"After Germany occupied the whole of Denmark, there was agitation by local nazi leaders in Schleswig-Holstein to restore the pre WWI border and re-annex to Germany the areas granted to Denmark after the plebiscite ."

Irrelevant. Hitler never responded to any such agitation.

Yes; correct!

Indeed, Hitler didn't even annex northern Schleswig after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, correct?

[Futurist]

I think there is some confusion between the declared aims of the German nationalist opposition and the declared policies of the various German Governments of the Weimar era.

The German Government formally abandoned all claims to former German territory in the West under the Locarno Pact.

Yes; correct! However, in spite of this recognition, didn't Germany try purchasing the Eupen-Malmedy area from Belgium afterwards (specifically in 1926, one year after the signing of the Locarno Pact)?

However, it never abandoned claims to former German territory in the East, and never officially recognised the borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia; there was no "Eastern Locarno".

Out of curiosity--how much revanchism was there in the Weimar German governments in regards to the Sudetenland?

It was not until October 1938 that a German Government made an official offer to recognise as definitive the existing border between Germany and Poland, in exchange for Poland's agreeing to the reunification of Danzig with Germany; and that was the Government of Hitler.

Hitler never made such an offer to Czechoslovakia (considering that he wanted Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland), correct?

The Governments of the Weimar period also did not abandon the aim of unifying Austria with Germany. In 1930, under the Bruening quasi-dictatorship, there was an attempt to create a German-Austrian customs union (with Austrian agreement), but that was disallowed by the League of Nations under French pressure.

Yes, this information appears to be correct.

[ljadw]

From : "History of Schleswig-Holstein" :

"After Germany occupied the whole of Denmark, there was agitation by local nazi leaders in Schleswig-Holstein to restore the pre WWI border and re-annex to Germany the areas granted to Denmark after the plebiscite ."

Irrelevant. Hitler never responded to any such agitation.

Not irrelevant : it proves that there was a desire for a territorial revision; that Hitler (temporarily) did not respond to this desire is something different .

[michael mills]

Yes; correct! However, in spite of this recognition, didn't Germany try purchasing the Eupen-Malmedy area from Belgium afterwards (specifically in 1926, one year after the signing of the Locarno Pact)?

I do not know about that, but if such an offer was made, it was not so much a revisionist ambition as a proposed business deal, rather like the US purchasing Alaska.

Out of curiosity--how much revanchism was there in the Weimar German governments in regards to the Sudetenland?

So far as I know, the revisionist policies of the Weimar governments were limited to the revising of the Versailles Treaty so as to regain former German territory in the East which had been given to Poland and Lithuania. The Sudetenland had of course not been German territory before 1914.

Hitler never made such an offer to Czechoslovakia (considering that he wanted Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland), correct?

Correct, Hitler always wanted to eliminate Czechoslovakia as a state, to break it up into separate components under German hegemony.

Bear in mind that Hitler's German nationalism was formed in the context of the Habsburg Empire, where there was an intense ethnic conflict between Germans and Czechs in Bohemia-Moravia, where the ethnic German element that had dominated that province in the 18th Century was now losing out to the upsurge of Czech nationalism. That is why Hitler was so hostile to the Czechs as a people.

By contrast, there was no ethnic conflict between Germans and Poles in the Habsburg Empire; indeed, the Austrian part of the Habsburg Monarchy can be seen as a German-Polish condominium. The lack of such conflict is the reason why Hitler was initially not hostile to Poles and the Polish State, unlike the Prussians (even the Social Democrats who ruled Prussia throughout the Weimar period were intensely hostile to Poland).

Paradoxically, despite Hitler's contrasting personal attitudes toward Czechs and Poles, the former suffered far less under his rule than did the latter, mainly because the Czechs submitted without a fight.

Not irrelevant : it proves that there was a desire for a territorial revision; that Hitler (temporarily) did not respond to this desire is something different .

A desire on the part of whom?

Is there any evidence that Hitler or any other leading figure in the National socialist regime, eg Himmler, harboured any ambition to take back the territory lost to Denmark in 1918?

Local National Socialist leaders in Schleswig-Holstein may have had that desire, but they had no influence on Hitler's thinking. His ambitions lay in the East, and I doubt that he had any desire to take territory from the Danes, a kindred Germanic people.

After all, the National Socialist leader in Schleswig-Holstein, Hinrich Lohse, was given a territory in the East to rule over, rather than being given a bit of Denmark.

[Futurist]

Yes; correct! However, in spite of this recognition, didn't Germany try purchasing the Eupen-Malmedy area from Belgium afterwards (specifically in 1926, one year after the signing of the Locarno Pact)?

I do not know about that, but if such an offer was made, it was not so much a revisionist ambition as a proposed business deal, rather like the US purchasing Alaska.

Yeah, this offer is mentioned here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150707044 ... ead-27185/

"From 1st January 1926 onwards, the ‘"new Belgians" of Eupen and Malmedy applied the Belgian constitution and laws as full Belgians. However, the Belgian State really needed money and had secret negotiations with Germany in order to sell its territory to it for 200 million gold marks but this attempt came to nothing since France definitely objected to it."

Also, this 1980 book appears to mention these negotiations but unfortunately I can't see this book itself:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JKcfA ... cQ6AEIHDAA

Anyway, though, the difference between Eupen-Malmedy and Alaska is that, unlike Eupen-Malmedy, Alaska was never previously a part of the U.S. before the U.S. purchased it (in 1867). In contrast, Eupen-Malmedy was previously a part of Germany (specifically until 1918-1919).

Out of curiosity--how much revanchism was there in the Weimar German governments in regards to the Sudetenland?

So far as I know, the revisionist policies of the Weimar governments were limited to the revising of the Versailles Treaty so as to regain former German territory in the East which had been given to Poland and Lithuania. The Sudetenland had of course not been German territory before 1914.

What about the idea of an Anschluss, though?

Hitler never made such an offer to Czechoslovakia (considering that he wanted Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland), correct?

Correct, Hitler always wanted to eliminate Czechoslovakia as a state, to break it up into separate components under German hegemony.

OK; that's what I thought.

Bear in mind that Hitler's German nationalism was formed in the context of the Habsburg Empire, where there was an intense ethnic conflict between Germans and Czechs in Bohemia-Moravia, where the ethnic German element that had dominated that province in the 18th Century was now losing out to the upsurge of Czech nationalism. That is why Hitler was so hostile to the Czechs as a people.

By contrast, there was no ethnic conflict between Germans and Poles in the Habsburg Empire; indeed, the Austrian part of the Habsburg Monarchy can be seen as a German-Polish condominium. The lack of such conflict is the reason why Hitler was initially not hostile to Poles and the Polish State, unlike the Prussians (even the Social Democrats who ruled Prussia throughout the Weimar period were intensely hostile to Poland).

Out of curiosity--what exactly were German-Ukrainian relations like in Austria-Hungary? Indeed, I'm curious if these relations influenced Hitler's view of Ukrainians later on.

Paradoxically, despite Hitler's contrasting personal attitudes toward Czechs and Poles, the former suffered far less under his rule than did the latter, mainly because the Czechs submitted without a fight.

OK; frankly, this certainly makes sense.

Not irrelevant : it proves that there was a desire for a territorial revision; that Hitler (temporarily) did not respond to this desire is something different .

A desire on the part of whom?

Is there any evidence that Hitler or any other leading figure in the National socialist regime, eg Himmler, harboured any ambition to take back the territory lost to Denmark in 1918?

Local National Socialist leaders in Schleswig-Holstein may have had that desire, but they had no influence on Hitler's thinking. His ambitions lay in the East, and I doubt that he had any desire to take territory from the Danes, a kindred Germanic people.

After all, the National Socialist leader in Schleswig-Holstein, Hinrich Lohse, was given a territory in the East to rule over, rather than being given a bit of Denmark.

Frankly, the very fact that Nazi Germany didn't annex northern Schleswig after it occupied Denmark in 1940 strongly confirms your point here, Michael. Indeed, in this regard, northern Schleswig was even luckier than Alsace-Lorraine (which was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1940) was!