Adolf Hitler’s speech on 30 January 1939 and Lebensraum

[Gorque]

Annexations de facto vs de jure

Something which was used (and is used ) by the West to avoid condemnations .

It was used extensively by the Third Reich.

We are now in the parking lot.

[ljadw]

See post 22 ,where it was claimed that the Coup of Prague was a violation of the Munich Agreement .
The truth was that it was not a violation for the British and French governments, but only for the media who were full of indignation because they were woke ,or because it was an opportunity to sell paper . Or both .
The influence of the Coup of Prague is a myth ,reality is that appeasement continued.
And that it was used extensively by the Third Reich is a big exaggeration :only Bohemia and Moravia were de facto ''annexed ''
The influence of the Coup of Prague of 1948 is also a myth : it did not start the Cold War .He already started before .

[Gorque]

And that it was used extensively by the Third Reich is a big exaggeration :only Bohemia and Moravia were de facto ''annexed ''

* ahem* Wartheland, Danzig-Westpreußen, Zichenau, Ostoberschlesien, Luxemburg, Elsass, Lothringen, Eupen, Malmedy, Untersteiermark, Krain

If they were annexed de jure, kindly show the treaties that transferred ownership to the Third Reich.

[ljadw]

The Third Reich did not need treaties to transfer ownership.
Conscription was imposed in the Alsace,which means that this region was annexed .
Treaties are not needed for annexation de jure .
And in the examples you gave such treaties were impossible as there was no Belgian, Polish, etc government that could sign such a treaty : these countries were still at war with Germany .

[Gorque]

^^^ Try looking up the definitions for de jure and de facto in order to have a meaingful dialogue.

In regards to the Belgian, Polish, etc. governments, they were in exile in London. They were still at war.

But what about France? The French had signed an armistice with the Germans, where is the treaty that transferred ownership of Alsace and Lorraine? Where is the treaty?

And since you accurately pointed out that they were still at war, no legal documents were signed agreeing to the transfer; therefore the annexations were de facto. Much like the Crimea.

Take a look at today's Germany. Were the lands east of the Oder annexed by Poland de facto or de jure. Is there not a formal treaty that recognizes these lands as Polish?

[ljadw]

For France : Germany did not need a treaty to annex the Alsace . But : no treaty does not mean de facto .If Germany imposed German law and conscription in the Alsace, that does not mean an annexation de jure.
The Alsace was annexed de facto in 1942 when the Germans imposed conscription .
Germany was at war : in 1940 the inhabitants of the Alsace were not conscripted,meaning that they were not considered as Germans .If they were not Germans, the Alsace was not a part of Germany .

[Gorque]

https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/legal- ... tode-jure/

Second sentence says it all.

[ljadw]

https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/legal- ... tode-jure/

Second sentence says it all.

No :the American definition is based,as usual, on the wrong assumption that there is a law,meaning ONE law ,and this is wrong : there were two laws :German and French :as long as the French law considered the inhabitants of the Alsace as French, there could be no annexation de jure .And as long as the German law did not consider them as German,there could be no annexation de facto .

[Gorque]

Well then Ludo, perhapd you can provide a link, as I have, to a site that supports your definition of de jure and de facto.

[Gorque]

Deutsch: de jure: https://www.dwds.de/wb/de%20jure

de facto: https://www.dwds.de/wb/de%20facto

From the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure/de_facto

In German, the definitions of the two words look the same to me as in English.

Which would then leave you to producing the treatys that legally ceded these lands.

Would you care to produce them in order to prove your point?

[ljadw]

Look : after WW 2 Poland and the USSR annexed big parts of Germany and declared these territories parts of Poland and the USSR .
The DDR recognized this situation in 1950, the BDR in 1970,unified Germany in 1990 .
Was there an annexation de jure/de facto between 1945-1950, the same for 1950/1970. the same for 1970/1990 and 1989/1990 ?
All depends NOT on what lawyers are saying that the jure/de facto mean,,but on what did the several governments .
For the DDR the annexation was an annexation de jure since 1950, for West Germany it was de jure since 1970,for unified Germany it was de jure since 1990 .
For Poland it was de jure since 1945 .
What it was for other countries is irrelevant .
But if tomorrow the German government no longer recognizes the annexation?
The same can be said about the annexation of Western USSR by Poland in 1920 and of Eastern Poland by the USSR in 1939 .
And what about the annexation of the Baltics by the USSR in 1940,which US State Department stupidly refuse to recognize, because it was incompatible with what US diplomats had learnt at Yale and Harvard ?
The final conclusion is that there is no difference between the facto and the jure ,because foreigners can not refuse the recognition saying it is not compatible with their principles .
When Trump recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel, there was a lot of indignation in certain groups,although Trump did not recognize it the jure ,but de facto .There is no international (= foreign ) law saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,thus recognition de jure is a fiction ,a plaything for lawyers .
In 1938 Hitler said that he had after Munich no longer any (territorial ) claims in Europe,when,6 months later,Czechia became a German protectorate,but remained an independent state, there was also a lot of indignation,but these indignant people forgot wisely that France had 2 protectorates in Africa (Tunisia and Morocco ),that Britain had protectorates in Africa, the ME and India.
Thus, if France and Britain could do it, why not Hitler ?

[Gorque]

So where are the treaties necessary to elevate a de facto annexation to a de jure annexation?

You're the one who picked this fight.

And that it was used extensively by the Third Reich is a big exaggeration :only Bohemia and Moravia were de facto ''annexed ''

Put up or...... Where are the treaties?

[ljadw]

Treaties were not necessary .Posen became German in 1939 ,not because of a treaty between Germany and the Polish government in exile, but by a decree from Hitler on 8 October 1939 .
I don't know why you are talking about treaties .
The fact that the Polish government did not accept this decree,did not change the fact that Posen, West Prussia, Upper Silesia and Dantzig became parts of Germany .
Treaties are not necessary to transform a de facto annexation in a de jure annexation,because only the law of the winner is decisive .

[Gorque]

So you're unable to back up your statement. Got it.

What about the definition of de facto and de jure that you claimed were:

No :the American definition is based,as usual, on the wrong assumption that there is a law,meaning ONE law ,and this is wrong : there were two laws :German and French :as long as the French law considered the inhabitants of the Alsace as French, there could be no annexation de jure .And as long as the German law did not consider them as German,there could be no annexation de facto .

So where are these other definitions that are based on the correct assumption? I provided you with the German definition which, surprisingly is similar to the American one. Or is this one wrong as well.

[ljadw]

What the Americans and today Germans are saying is totally meaningless for what happened 80 years ago .There are no other definitions needed, there are even no definitions needed .De jure and de facto are terms of private law and should not be used into international law,because international politics ( especially during a war ) have no place for the law .
If A takes a part of B and B accepts it, there can be an annexation de jure .If B does not accept it: no annexation de jure .
For an annexation de jure,you need two parties .
For an annexation de facto ,you need one party .
For the Alsace there was between 1940 and 1942 no annexation de jure,as the French continued to consider the inhabitants of the Alsace as French citizens .
There was also between 1940 and 1942 no annexatio de facto ,as for an annexation de facto it was needed that the Germans considered the inhabitants of the Alsace as Germans, which they did not .