Guten Tag, Michael, you wrote :

> Christian,
>
> I think somebody refered to the Saarland.
> They were for some years annexed by france and when giving
> the choice to
> vote, they wanted to belong back to germany and that was done.
>
> Michael

After half a century, it certainly is a technicality, but, to the best of my
knowledge, Saarland was not annexed by France. When the Third Reich went
down in 1945, an administration had to be setup in its place. At that time
(1945-1949), there was no longer any such thing as a German state, but
current affairs concerning the residents/citizens had to be handled anyway.
So I think it is true to say that Saarland was administered by France. I
think most of Saarland, if not all, was also part of the French sector of
then-occupied Germany.

When the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was founded in 1949, Saarland was not
immediately a part of it. It was voted in by a referendum of its own
residents  in 1953, I think (please correct me if that's wrong). Of course,
it is not disputable that the residents of Saarland wanted to be German -
they had always been !

I do not see under which applicable law or jurisdiction or internationally
accepted principle Saarland could have been part of France. As far as I can
think of, it's always been German, as long as Germany has been in existence
! I'm not even sure a referendum was useful, or even needed to right the
wrong of having Saarland in any other place than where it belongs to :
Germany. To be honest, my country has accomplished better deeds in history
than attempt to carve out a piece of yours. Tit-for-tat is not, IMHO, the
best negotiation tactic one can think of.

BTW, Saarland is one of the places I happen to know a little in Germany. I
did my military service in Trier in 1983.

Mit freundliche Grüsse (sp.?),

Christian

>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:04:25 +0100, Christian Lheureux
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >Wayne after William wrote :
> >
> >> > You would get the same argument with the Alsace Lorrain
> >> (sp?) area - over
> >> > the centuries passed between Germany and France. If by your
> >> logic Hitler
> >> > was perfectly justified in marching back to the Rhineland
> >> area then he was
> >> > justified in marching back to Alsace Lorraine - which
> >> Germany lost after
> >> > WW1, and retaking if from France.
> >
> >Alsace and part of Lorraine have been shuttled back and forth between
> >Germany and France over the centuries. They are now two
> French regions, and
> >have continuosly been since 1944. Before that, they were
> annexed by the
> >Third Reich (I can't, in my mind, equal the infamous Third
> Reich with the
> >Germany that gave the World Goethe and Beethoven). Before
> that, they were
> >taken back by France in 1918. Before that, they were taken
> back by Prussia,
> >soon to become Germany, in 1871. Before that, they were
> taken by France
> >between 1648 and 1659, from a then not-yet-existent German
> nation (more a
> >collection of semi-autonomous regions).Before that, they belonged
> >(like -ironically ?- both what are now called France and Germany) to
> >Charlemagne's empire (so far the only European leader in
> history). Before
> >that, they were part of the Roman Empire. Before that ...
> >
> >My point is to say that the inhabitants of these regions
> have at least
> twice
> >chosen to belong to France. CHOSEN is the important word.
> >
> >> If the Rhinelanders wanted to be part
> >> of Germany then they should have been allowed to do so and
> >> Hitler allowed
> >> them to have their wish.
> >
> >But they've always been part of Germany !!!!
> >
> >The West Bank of the Rhine was demilitarized in 1919, but it
> was never
> >carved out of Germany ! Never !
> >
> >That being said, It is relatively easy to imagine the
> frustration of the
> >inhabitants of these regions who, though fully German by
> law, were not
> >allowed to have the army of their own contry on their own
> land. It may be a
> >technicality that does not change much to Hitler's popularity.
> >
> >If you really need a comparison, the fate of Alsace and
> Lorraine is more
> >comparable to the fate of Saarland, a Land (state, if you
> like) of Germany
> >bordering France and Luxemburg. After WWII, after the
> Federal Republic of
> >Germany was created in 1949, residents of Saarland were asked in a
> >referendum whether they wanted to be French or German.
> Useless to say, they
> >voted en masse to belong to Germany. See more about
> self-determination
> >below, but it all makes sense. Let's assume that referendum
> was a cheap
> >retaliation for annexing Alsace and part of Lorraine by the
> Third Reich in
> >1940. No pride in that, I guess.
> >
> >> Hence his early popularity.  In
> >> Alsace-Lorraine -
> >> are the people French or German or possibly a mix?
> >
> >As I said above, they have at least twice chosen to be
> French citizens.
> >
> >> The UN
> >> supports a "right
> >> of self-determination".  The concept is good and could have
> >> been applied to
> >> the Rhineland (favoring Germany),
> >
> >No, for at least 2 reasons. 1) Rhineland was NOT, I repeat
> NOT, taken off
> of
> >Germany. and 2) Hitler reoccupied Rhineland in 1935 and the
> UNO was founded
> >only in 1945, so it did not yet exist at the time. League of
> Nations ? Yes,
> >it existed, but it had too few members to be meaningfully
> relevant for the
> >purpose.
> >
> >> Alsace-Lorraine (favoring
> >> France?)
> >
> >This was done.
> >
> >> Kurds
> >> (NOT wanting to be part of Iraq),
> >
> >This one is pretty touchy. If you grant Kurds living in Irak
> a right to
> >self-determination, then you have to do the same for Kurds
> living in Iran,
> >Syria and Turkey. You may not exactly want to witness the
> reactions of the
> >legal, internationally recognized governments of these
> countries. BTW, a
> >"Kurdistan" was mandated in a treaty that parted out the British
> >Protectorate of the Middle East, I think in 1920. But it
> never came into
> >existence.
> >
> >>  East Timorese,
> >
> >This was done 2 years ago.
> >
> >> Tibetans,
> >
> >The Tibetans were nominally independent until 1950. The
> occupation of Tibet
> >by China is technically illegal.
> >
> >> Northern
> >> Irish(stay in the UK)
> >
> >At least, a peace process is in place.
> >
> >>, Southern Irish(Independence),
> >
> >Wasn't that done, in some way, in 1920 when the Republic of
> Ireland gained
> >its independence from Britain ?
> >
> >> etc, etc
> >> and more etc.
> >> throughout the world.
> >
> >Obviously Palestine comes to my mind.
> >
> >> The currently relevant point is of course, the Kurds.  I'd
> >> love to hear the
> >> Bush admin clarify it's position on the Kurds and their future.
> >
> >Oh, oh ... You're wandering into uncharted territory (see my
> comment above)
> >!!! Good luck !
> >
> >> Wayne
> >
> >Christian
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *