Was it really necessary for the 1955 Austrian State Treaty to forbid submarines?
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
But West Germany did have a Navy, including submarines and torpedos.
Maybe someone had concerns that due to some diplomatic shenanigans the Free Territory of Trieste would somehow become part of Austria, who knows?
Last edited:
As per my earlier comment about the peace treaty with Finland, where the banned weapons are in the exact same order as in the Austrian State Treaty, I believe this definitely is a case of "cut and paste", with only some changes and additions due to developments between 1945 and 1955.
Yeah it amuses me to think the guys in charge of drafting the surrender/ peace documents just wanted to save time so they literally just " copy and pasted" like a high schooler trying to save time by plagiarizing half a paper from wikipedia.
It's important to remember that when our ancestors could be they were at least as lazy as us. Now I'm just waiting for it to emerge that most of the Ango Saxon Chronicle was plagiarized.
In a practical sense assuming it wasn't a case of " copy and pasting" it occurred to me that the provisions might have been at least theoretically intended to prevent NATO from using Austrian industry to produce submarine components for NATO navies.