To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?

To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?

  • France

    Votes: 185 31.2%
  • Germany

    Votes: 142 23.9%
  • Both (part to each)

    Votes: 192 32.4%
  • Some other nation

    Votes: 11 1.9%
  • It's a distinct enough region to merit its own State

    Votes: 63 10.6%

  • Total voters
    593
I'm trying to get a feel for attitudes towards ownership of Alsace-Lorraine. This will only help me if you post a brief reason for your view, so I'd appreciate it if you'd do so.

I'm posting this in the After 1900 forum because the issue is so intimately connected with WW1; if you think it ought to be moved, please let me know.

Edit: I didn't include an option for "could only rightfully be decided by plebiscite"; if you feel that way, select "Both" and state your view as a reply.
 
Last edited:
It is a bit hopeless one.

It really goes back to Charlemagne I think. Or rather his three sons parting the empire (and two of them killing brother number 3 in the process).

Ivan
 

Deleted member 1487

It is a bit hopeless one.

It really goes back to Charlemagne I think. Or rather his three sons parting the empire (and two of them killing brother number 3 in the process).

Ivan

Really the 30 years war when France violently seized it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine#History
Since the Middle Ages, France sought to attain and preserve its "natural boundaries", which are the Pyrenees to the southwest, the Alps to the southeast, and the Rhine River to the northeast. These strategic aims led to the absorption of territories located west of the Rhine river. What is now known as Alsace was progressively conquered by Louis XIV in the 17th century, while Lorraine was integrated in the 18th century under Louis XV.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French–German_enmity#France_and_Habsburg
The Thirty Years War (1618–1648), was a complex conflict that took place in and around the Holy Roman empire, with religious, structural, and dynastic causes. France intervened in this conflict both indirectly, largely but not exclusively, on the side of various intervening Protestant powers, as well as directly from 1635 on. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia gave France limited control over Alsace and Lorraine. The 1679 Treaties of Nijmegen consolidated this result by bringing the towns under French control. In 1681, France occupied Strasbourg.

So France started it, as a part of their rivalry with the Habsburgs and 'need' to claim their 'natural borders'
 
It is a bit hopeless one.

It really goes back to Charlemagne I think. Or rather his three sons parting the empire (and two of them killing brother number 3 in the process).

Ivan



I rather agree that it's a hopeless case. I had hoped people would reveal their reasoning, just a bit... Though I don't suppose "Both" really requires any explanation.
 
Within the context of nationalist politics, you can never really go too wrong with self-determination.

Either way, the land has always, and will always belong to the working people of Alsace-Lorraine, whoever they may be.;)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Define "rightfully".
France, for example, owned it in 1870.
At various times it had been part of the Holy Roman Empire; so, too, had northern Italy.
It was at one point Burgundian, which is a separate nation-state if you play enough Europa Universalis. Some of it was sold to the French by Austrian Emperors, much of it took part in the French Revolution, and so on.


Mind you, I think asking the populace - the 1870 populace - would have been fun, because German nationalists basically said at the time they knew better what Alsace wanted than Alsatians themselves.


As for Lorraine... that's kind of simpler. Annexed by France by agreement on the death of the previous holder of the title. The Moselle section was the bit France kept after the treaties concluding the Napoleonic Wars, thus indicating it was considered French then to a greater extent than some bits that had been French for over a hundred years.


There's a strong continuity of French ownership, very little German. So I'd say overall that France has much the stronger claim.
 
Define "rightfully".
France, for example, owned it in 1870.
At various times it had been part of the Holy Roman Empire; so, too, had northern Italy.
It was at one point Burgundian, which is a separate nation-state if you play enough Europa Universalis. Some of it was sold to the French by Austrian Emperors, much of it took part in the French Revolution, and so on.


Mind you, I think asking the populace - the 1870 populace - would have been fun, because German nationalists basically said at the time they knew better what Alsace wanted than Alsatians themselves.


As for Lorraine... that's kind of simpler. Annexed by France by agreement on the death of the previous holder of the title. The Moselle section was the bit France kept after the treaties concluding the Napoleonic Wars, thus indicating it was considered French then to a greater extent than some bits that had been French for over a hundred years.


There's a strong continuity of French ownership, very little German. So I'd say overall that France has much the stronger claim.

"Rightfully" simply means "by the standards of the responder". I suspect different people will weight factors like language, cultural affinity, legal aspects, length of possession, 'original' historical claim, etc, differently.
 
There are parts of Lorraine (and tiny parts of Alsace) that speak French, and parts that speak German. Especially in 1870.

Though, one could make a historical argument for the 'German-ness' of the area, especially going back to the middle ages where the German linguistic area stretched through Lorraine itself (when Nancy was Nanzig, for instance).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
There are parts of Lorraine (and tiny parts of Alsace) that speak French, and parts that speak German. Especially in 1870.

Though, one could make a historical argument for the 'German-ness' of the area, especially going back to the middle ages where the German linguistic area stretched through Lorraine itself (when Nancy was Nanzig, for instance).
I should have mentioned the German-ness argument!
The problem is that it's a bit like the Holy Roman Empire argument. You end up with rather more than just that bit of France also being German - like, say, the Netherlands. (Deutsche - Dutch.) Or some of Switzerland. Or Austria, which has to abandon most of their empire.

Meanwhile, Belgium gets annexed by France and Prussia has to give back Northern Schleswig.
 
I should have mentioned the German-ness argument!
The problem is that it's a bit like the Holy Roman Empire argument. You end up with rather more than just that bit of France also being German - like, say, the Netherlands. (Deutsche - Dutch.) Or some of Switzerland. Or Austria, which has to abandon most of their empire.

Meanwhile, Belgium gets annexed by France and Prussia has to give back Northern Schleswig.

Most of Belgium was still part of the West Germanic language area when France ruled over it.

However, from a 19th Century nationalist's perspective, yeah, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria were certainly part of 'Germany'.
 
Even Bismarck thought that annexing Alsace-Lorraine would be a bad idea.

When Otto von Bismarck thinks your land grab is a bad idea, you shut up and listen.
 
There are parts of Lorraine (and tiny parts of Alsace) that speak French, and parts that speak German. Especially in 1870.

Though, one could make a historical argument for the 'German-ness' of the area, especially going back to the middle ages where the German linguistic area stretched through Lorraine itself (when Nancy was Nanzig, for instance).

I think the winning vote - splitting it between F and G - is reasonable in view of the linguistic status of the region:

350px-Alsace-Lorraine_Dialectes-Fr.png


Now, linguistic characterization is not determinative of itself; and certainly there seems to have been no great separatist movement in the area by 1870, even in the most Germanophone parts of Alsace.

Neither was there great sentiment for independence. But in the end, given the conflicting demands and very distinct language and cultures, I still think the best solution would have been one or more independent, neutral states carved from the most Germanophone districts.

Voila - instant buffer zone.
 
Most of Belgium was still part of the West Germanic language area when France ruled over it.

However, from a 19th Century nationalist's perspective, yeah, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria were certainly part of 'Germany'.

If the German nationalist view of the time was linguistically-based, on what was the French nationalist view based?
 
I think the winning vote - splitting it between F and G - is reasonable in view of the linguistic status of the region:

350px-Alsace-Lorraine_Dialectes-Fr.png


Now, linguistic characterization is not determinative of itself; and certainly there seems to have been no great separatist movement in the area by 1870, even in the most Germanophone parts of Alsace.

Neither was there great sentiment for independence. But in the end, given the conflicting demands and very distinct language and cultures, I still think the best solution would have been one or more independent, neutral states carved from the most Germanophone districts.

Voila - instant buffer zone.

Out of curiosity, does that map represent the situation that existed in 1870?

Edit: never mind, should've looked more carefully at the title.
 
Alsace for the Alsatians!

Seriously, the Alsatians were burned by both occupiers. I'd have to find the dissertation I read on the topic, but apparently the Alsatians were discontented with the way the German Empire treated them during their occupation by Germany, but then the French proceeded to test them equally as poorly after Versailles.

I've always wanted to see a timeline where the Alsatian Soviet Republic survives, but I can't for the life of me figure out a plausible way to make it happen. It's probably because there really isn't a plausible way to do it, unfortunately.
 
If the German nationalist view of the time was linguistically-based, on what was the French nationalist view based?

France. There was no German state, so their perception of 'Germanness' developed on their common cultural bonds, which also stretched into other continental West Germanic groups (like the Dutch).

The French built themselves around their actual state. They had an affinity to the Walloons, of course, but they had a state to build their national concepts around.
 
France. There was no German state, so their perception of 'Germanness' developed on their common cultural bonds, which also stretched into other continental West Germanic groups (like the Dutch).

The French built themselves around their actual state. They had an affinity to the Walloons, of course, but they had a state to build their national concepts around.

We may infer, then, that since they regarded A-L as part of the French state, then Right of Conquest was a big part of it: if you conquer it, it's part of France, regardless of language, cultural affinity, desires of the inhabitants, etc. Possession is 10/10ths of the law.

That would mesh well with Tallest Skil's point, and with the ideas underpinning the 17th and 18th century wars for territory.
 
Last edited:
Top