Should eastern Europe's borders be restored to pre-World War II status?

Question

This is really a matter of opinion but I couldn't help but ask other knowledgeable people about this considering everything going on in Crimea. World War II and geography are two of my biggest interests and the two are certainly linked. In eastern Europe after the war Stalin not only redrew the borders but deported entire ethnic groups west. Since then they have remained and the situation has stabilized, but let's not forget that this happened only about 70 years ago when my grandfather was fighting in Europe himself. Should the borders be restored?

For the past few centuries Silesia, Pomerania, and Prussia were undoubtedly German. Vilnius was dominated by Jews and Poles, not Lithuanians. Western Belarus, like the area around Brest, and far western Ukraine, like the area around Lviv, were firmly Polish. Northern Bukovina belonged to Czechoslovakia. The border regions in Karelia, the Vyborg Peninsula, and the Petsamo region were Finnish. Another slightly unrelated possibility could be the return of the Romanian and Ukrainian parts of Bessarabia to now independent Moldova.

Should these borders be restored and resettlement allowed? I'm American and haven't the money to take trips to these areas, so any of you from these areas should let me know if you are.

Also, the Sudetenland is out of the question for a border change. It definitely belongs in the Czech Republic but Germans really should be allowed to return home.

Answer 1

The borders of Europe were different before WWI, before 1871, before Napoleon - where do you stop?



The current countries of Eastern Europe are now more ethnically homogeneous than at any time in history - i.e. more Poles live in Poland, more Finns in Finland. Re-drawing the borders would cause massive displacement of people, and businesses. Much, much more trouble than its worth.

Answer 2

Do you realise that if that was to happen there would be another world war bringing misery and deaths of thousands or millions of people?

Do you really know much about the history of these lands that you can so undoubtedly claim that a certain land belongs to a certain country.

Take Crimea - last year they were part of Ukraine but suddenly now they're Russian .... hmmm .... If you're American, imagine living in Texas and waking up as a citizen of Mexico one day. You may claim that the majority of people in Crimea are Russians but then you forget that Crimean Tatars were expelled from Crimea by Soviets in 1944 even though they had lived there since the 15th century. Should we return Crimean to Tatars? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

I'm Polish so I'm also quite interested in your suggestions concerning the borders of my country. As for Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia (region), I don't know why you state they are 'undoubtedly German' as all of these lands belonged to Poland longest in their history. They were occupied by Prussia (the state) from the 1790s to 1914 due to the partitions of Poland but they weren't Prussian. In fact, they were Polish before even the state of Germany was founded and rulers of Prussia were vasals to the Polish king.

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

Prussia (region) was for some time inhabited by Germanic Teutonic Knights but they were also brought to the Polish lands by the Polish king Konrad Mazowiecki to spread Christianity - what they spread was terror and killing which resulted with the Polish-Lithuanian- Teutonic War won by the Polish_Lithuanian Commonwealth and the order was expelled from the lands.

For example, parts of Silesia used to belong to Bohemia as well (hmm, should we divide Silesia into three equal parts for Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic?

As for pre-war Polish lands, they were inhabited by Poles because of the territories of Poland in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poles were expelled from these lands into Poland and Siberia by Soviet authorities and as much as I feel sorry for these people I don't want present day people of these lands to share the same fate - pack your stuff and get out of here, you don't belong here anymore ...

You say that Northern Bukovina used to belong to Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore - should we give it back to the Czech Republic or Slovakia?

If your grandfather fought in WW2, ask him what he witnessed. Shifting borders brings death and misery of people, we don't want that. Moreover, many of the territories you talk about used to belong to different countries in its history so it's impossible to say which country deserves a certain land. Also, keep in mind that the population of these lands is far more homogenous than it actually was before WW2.

So for example 'returning' Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia to Germany would result in expelling Polish inhabititants (and interestingly enough that's what Nazis did in 1939 - 3 million Poles were made to left their homes for good without looking back)

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

Answer 3

I've long been in favor of restoring pre-WWII borders (and restoring the kings of Romania and Bulgaria, who are still around), simply to right historical wrongs, but:



(1) When asked, people in the region don't want to restore those borders. Moldova doesn't want to be part of Romania. Poland has stated that it wouldn't consider taking parts of Ukraine back. Finns don't want Karelia back.



Much of the reason for not wanting to retake lost territories is from the costs of "upgrading" those territories to have the same standard of living as the parent country.



(2) With WWII territorial changes, countries became more ethnically homogenous, which cut down on a lot of fighting in the region. Multiethnic states just don't work in Eastern Europe.



(3) If we restore pre-WWII borders, what's to stop Hungary, for example, wanting pre-WWI borders back? It lost a ton of land (in my view, wrongfully) after WWI.



So yes, I'd love to right some historical wrongs and restore pre-WWII borders. King Michael and Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria deserve their thrones back (although they live large, and King Michael got much of his royal life back). But the practical consequences of restoring those borders are negative.

Answer 4

Give us some more information.

Answer 5

the ceo of sberbank says he is worried about russia's economy.