For those who think Germany wouldn't have kept territory. (Further explanation in comments)
(joeldavis.substack.com)
This is an article Joel Davis wrote arguing against Keith Woods. I am not here picking a side. I think both have points. Nonetheless the article is an excellent read. The reason I'm sharing this is because Joel seems to make the case the Germans would have kept the territories they captured in the war, here are just a few of the things he said, there is more than this. Let me know what your thoughts are.
>A meditation upon these facts should put Pan-Europeanist complaints about the expansionism and “national chauvinism” exhibited by National Socialist Germany in defense of a delusional equality of nations in perspective. Germany has no equal in Europe, without German leadership the entire European race has fallen under existential threat. German attempts at expansion to increase its geopolitical power were ultimately measures that if successful would have secured the future of the European race. The alternative to German imperialism was not a Europe of equal nations, but a Europe subordinated to the genocidal superpowers of the Soviet Union and the United States.
>There is a hierarchy of nations, this is the law of nature. Nevertheless, during the war as Germany had to take on the responsibility for ruling and defending Europe it became increasingly pan-European in outlook and activity. Meanwhile its SS became the first large scale pan-European martial order since the Knights Templar, with German citizens only making up a minority of its members by the end of the war. Had the Germans prevailed, had National Socialism prevailed, Europe would have prevailed. If you are on the side of the White race, you are on the side of National Socialist Germany, there is simply no legitimate alternative position on history you can coherently take.
>As I just argued in the prior section, the German pursuit of ‘Lebensraum’ was fundamentally its right according to the law of nature and justified by the necessity of expanding German national strength to compete with the superpowers that otherwise had designs upon subordinating Europe - namely, the USA and USSR. The nations which stood to lose territory because of this, particularly Poland, were in retrospect victims of an agenda that would have saved Europe had it been successful.
>One must remember that Germany was in the case of Poland simply taking back territory that had been taken from it in the treaty of Versailles. And the territories that ultimately came under its power after war was declared with the Soviet Union were literally territories they liberated from Bolshevik control in an existential war with communism in defense of Europe.
>Again, the alternative to German rule was either Soviet or American rule - one would have to argue that one or both of these outcomes was better for the European people in order to condemn Germany from the perspective of the ultimate interests of the White race. Keith didn’t make this argument because he knows its indefensible, so instead he abstracts the issue from its geopolitical and historical context like as if Poland exists in a vacuum.
>A meditation upon these facts should put Pan-Europeanist complaints about the expansionism and “national chauvinism” exhibited by National Socialist Germany in defense of a delusional equality of nations in perspective. Germany has no equal in Europe, without German leadership the entire European race has fallen under existential threat. German attempts at expansion to increase its geopolitical power were ultimately measures that if successful would have secured the future of the European race. The alternative to German imperialism was not a Europe of equal nations, but a Europe subordinated to the genocidal superpowers of the Soviet Union and the United States.
>There is a hierarchy of nations, this is the law of nature. Nevertheless, during the war as Germany had to take on the responsibility for ruling and defending Europe it became increasingly pan-European in outlook and activity. Meanwhile its SS became the first large scale pan-European martial order since the Knights Templar, with German citizens only making up a minority of its members by the end of the war. Had the Germans prevailed, had National Socialism prevailed, Europe would have prevailed. If you are on the side of the White race, you are on the side of National Socialist Germany, there is simply no legitimate alternative position on history you can coherently take.
>As I just argued in the prior section, the German pursuit of ‘Lebensraum’ was fundamentally its right according to the law of nature and justified by the necessity of expanding German national strength to compete with the superpowers that otherwise had designs upon subordinating Europe - namely, the USA and USSR. The nations which stood to lose territory because of this, particularly Poland, were in retrospect victims of an agenda that would have saved Europe had it been successful.
>One must remember that Germany was in the case of Poland simply taking back territory that had been taken from it in the treaty of Versailles. And the territories that ultimately came under its power after war was declared with the Soviet Union were literally territories they liberated from Bolshevik control in an existential war with communism in defense of Europe.
>Again, the alternative to German rule was either Soviet or American rule - one would have to argue that one or both of these outcomes was better for the European people in order to condemn Germany from the perspective of the ultimate interests of the White race. Keith didn’t make this argument because he knows its indefensible, so instead he abstracts the issue from its geopolitical and historical context like as if Poland exists in a vacuum.
Poland was arbitrarily carved out to spite Germany and Russia alike - just like Napoleon had done before.
And Ukraine, as the name suggests, was simply the borderlands of the Russian Empire.
If redrawing borders was legitimate in 1918, it was equally legitimate in 1939, plain and simple.