Whoa. France definitely fought a lot of wars in Germany, but an invasion every 18 months for 300 years? I'm not sure about that one.
Last edited:
To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?
- Thread starter Tallil2long
- Start date
Whoa. France definitely fought a lot of wars in Germany, but an invasion every 18 months for 300 years? I'm not sure about that one.
It's so astonishing to see this thread being spoiled by caricaturally biased german nationalists.
The level of arguments is as poor and bad faith as if the french considered that, being the heirs of the gallo-romans, they rightfully owned all territories west of the Rhine. That germans have stolen those territories by force in the 5th century, ... etc.
I thought several deadly world wars that brought Germany in the verge of total annihilation would have changed this. But no. After a few decades, there are still people, probably young, that think this way.
Waow !
Please, send a memo to the french or the polish embassy.
The level of arguments is as poor and bad faith as if the french considered that, being the heirs of the gallo-romans, they rightfully owned all territories west of the Rhine. That germans have stolen those territories by force in the 5th century, ... etc.
I thought several deadly world wars that brought Germany in the verge of total annihilation would have changed this. But no. After a few decades, there are still people, probably young, that think this way.
Waow !
Please, send a memo to the french or the polish embassy.
Don't forget the Francs. For many centuries the French, considering themselves the heirs of old Francia, were dreaming of recreating the old Frankish Empire of Charlemagne
I once saw a list of French incursions into German-speaking lands, and there were indeed about 200 separate incursions over three centuries. Although I think each separate military campaign counted as its own incursion, so a given war could have multiple incursions listed, and some wars included many separate incursions. And France was involved in a LOT of wars over that timespan.
Last edited:
Yeah ! And if I precise who established such a list, you are gonna say I reached the Godwin point.
However it will be the truth.
Now what about germanic people going back to their homeland somewhere in Scandinavia, Denmark, and far eastern Europe as far as those damn Goths are concerned ? Uh !
However it will be the truth.
Now what about germanic people going back to their homeland somewhere in Scandinavia, Denmark, and far eastern Europe as far as those damn Goths are concerned ? Uh !
It still seems a little hard to believe. For the 1635-1714 period, perhaps. I agree with the larger point, though, that France was viewed in the 19th century as an aggressive nation looking to expand.
At any rate, in this thread there seem to be two separate arguments: first, whether Alsace-Lorraine "rightfully belonged" to Germany all along, and second, whether it was in Germany's strategic interest to annex it in 1871. For the second argument, there are reasonable points to be made on both sides. I personally think Bismarck was correct to fear that the annexation would cause trouble down the road, but that's admittedly with the benefit of hindsight.
The "rightful belonging" argument OTOH is a lot more problematic - especially when we have a fair amount of evidence that the affected people were not interested in switching countries. The argument that "They didn't know what was good for them" doesn't seem like one we should advance in the 21st century.
Last edited:
@ Matteo: get from your high horse. 
It's not like everyone, who points out, what both sides had done and what happened from the 15th to 19th century, suddenly is a irredentist nationalist...
Besides Italy, Belgium and Germany did deserve the name 'battlefield of Europe' in the 16th to 18th century.
It often is very useful to understand, why they had certain suspicions, beliefs, perceived threats etc. For instance IMHO the treaty of Tilsit (1807) does place the treaty of Frankfurt am Main (1871) in perspective.
Was it wise that the German Empire annexed Alsace-Lorraine, maybe in hindsight not so much; however and I get the impression you don't like, that this is pointed out, France is far from innocent on that account themselves (OTOH that hardly makes them unique).
It's not like everyone, who points out, what both sides had done and what happened from the 15th to 19th century, suddenly is a irredentist nationalist...
Besides Italy, Belgium and Germany did deserve the name 'battlefield of Europe' in the 16th to 18th century.
It often is very useful to understand, why they had certain suspicions, beliefs, perceived threats etc. For instance IMHO the treaty of Tilsit (1807) does place the treaty of Frankfurt am Main (1871) in perspective.
Was it wise that the German Empire annexed Alsace-Lorraine, maybe in hindsight not so much; however and I get the impression you don't like, that this is pointed out, France is far from innocent on that account themselves (OTOH that hardly makes them unique).
Last edited:
Jan, I feel justified in riding my high horse.
This is not about facts. Facts are clear. France made the stupid mistake to jump in the trap Bismarck had set and it list the war. It had to pay the price. End of the story.
The treaty of Tilsitt was very hard for the State of Prussia. But did it take away any german land ? No, it have some prussian lands to other german States. And no need of polls to know the opinion of the poles : they rebelled on their own initiative and literally forced Napoleon to establish a polish entity.
I don't care about frontier changes for realpolitics.
But what I can't stand is f... ideologic lies of ideologic absurdities, especially when such lies were the cause of the worst wars and crimes of history.
When I read such garbage, it makes me think it's a shame and a threat to peace for any country, Germany included. Those people don't realize how they are a disgrace to Germany.
Will it never end. It is crazy that there still be people who think that Prussia and Germany had a rightful claim on any territory and who just regret that it was defeated.
Germany was defeated. We can peacefully discuss alternate TLs in which it would have succeeded.
But please, no garbage about it being rightful ?
This is could end in ? Was Germany rightful when it searched a final way de along with the jews it no longer wanted to have in their own country named Germany ?
And I hope nobody wanted to go in that field.
That's what the absurd notion of rightfulness unavoidably leads.
This is not about facts. Facts are clear. France made the stupid mistake to jump in the trap Bismarck had set and it list the war. It had to pay the price. End of the story.
The treaty of Tilsitt was very hard for the State of Prussia. But did it take away any german land ? No, it have some prussian lands to other german States. And no need of polls to know the opinion of the poles : they rebelled on their own initiative and literally forced Napoleon to establish a polish entity.
I don't care about frontier changes for realpolitics.
But what I can't stand is f... ideologic lies of ideologic absurdities, especially when such lies were the cause of the worst wars and crimes of history.
When I read such garbage, it makes me think it's a shame and a threat to peace for any country, Germany included. Those people don't realize how they are a disgrace to Germany.
Will it never end. It is crazy that there still be people who think that Prussia and Germany had a rightful claim on any territory and who just regret that it was defeated.
Germany was defeated. We can peacefully discuss alternate TLs in which it would have succeeded.
But please, no garbage about it being rightful ?
This is could end in ? Was Germany rightful when it searched a final way de along with the jews it no longer wanted to have in their own country named Germany ?
And I hope nobody wanted to go in that field.
That's what the absurd notion of rightfulness unavoidably leads.
Last edited:
This, essentially. Alsace-Lorraine was a concoction which could not have 'rightfully belonged' to a newly invented state in 1871.
I know I've seen that statistic somewhere else but I can't remember where.
Bismarck did say in 1870 that France had attacked Germany 30 times in the last 200 years (Michael Howard, The Franco-Prussian War, pg. 221). Conduct like that definitely makes a buffer zone sound appealing.
Saphroneth
Banned
30 times in the last 200 years does sound a bit more likely than the other number, which would be one hundred and thirty!
I guess what you'd need to do would be to plot when these incursions happened. I kind of guess they'd peter off around 1812-15 and stop there.
But then, "France attacked Germany a lot until about two generations ago" is not so compelling an argument for a buffer state, so Bismarck would hardly make it...
In view that the French did the same thing to the German lands? Yes very understandeble and AFAIK legal in the setteling of disputes / wars at the time.
I wouldn't call Germany or Italy invented, they were re-united and to some extend managed to become more than a geographic term and a nation state again, before that they were nations with many states.
I agree that rightfully belong is a tricky term, especially when applied to territories, which have changed hands. Europe's full of those regions, however nationalism only really entered the equation from the 19th century onwards. It doesn't exclude, that someone's rightful gain (military victory) is seen as a not so rightful loss (military defeat) by the other.
In fact the word 'rightful' is a bit toxic in this context; both sides had a 'claim' (one maybe better than the other, but that's what we can debate about
). Still even in this highly debated example, nationalism only played a secondary role, other considerations like military, internal politics, more classic motives for territorial gains (or reconquest, take your pick) used by every European state including Prussia and France etc.
Finally territories used to change hands without the populace being asked, what they wanted. That Dutch North Brabant ended up being separate from southern Brabant in Belgium, was not by the choice of the populace in the 16/17th century.
I wouldn't call Germany or Italy invented, they were re-united and to some extend managed to become more than a geographic term and a nation state again, before that they were nations with many states.
I agree that rightfully belong is a tricky term, especially when applied to territories, which have changed hands. Europe's full of those regions, however nationalism only really entered the equation from the 19th century onwards. It doesn't exclude, that someone's rightful gain (military victory) is seen as a not so rightful loss (military defeat) by the other.
In fact the word 'rightful' is a bit toxic in this context; both sides had a 'claim' (one maybe better than the other, but that's what we can debate about
Still even in this highly debated example, nationalism only played a secondary role, other considerations like military, internal politics, more classic motives for territorial gains (or reconquest, take your pick) used by every European state including Prussia and France etc.
Finally territories used to change hands without the populace being asked, what they wanted. That Dutch North Brabant ended up being separate from southern Brabant in Belgium, was not by the choice of the populace in the 16/17th century.
These are all very valid points. I was not trying to delegitimize the idea of a German national identity. However, the idea of Germany as a cohesive state rather than as a series of polities under a nominal emperor was still a controversial idea at the time. A region which has by then been ruled by France for more than a century, and which has actively shaped or influenced the history of that country, is one to which the only way Germany could have a legitimate claim is through conquest, and that was not the question asked. Obviously, whoever holds a territory as a result of an armistice is its legal ruler, but beyond legality, it's not reasonable to contend, as many have in this thread, that an Alsatian-speaking population is a natural and proper part of a united German state, given that such a notion was controversial in more properly German areas like Bavaria at this time historically.
Saphroneth
Banned
I know my answer would have been different if the question had said "1872". I'd probably have qualified it a bit more, but the territory was German then due to a peace treaty.
If your neighbor really has attacked you 30 times in the last 200 years, a buffer zone is entirely legitimate.
That was the French counter-argument, that the character of France had become unaggressive and un-warlike. Bismarck's counter-counter argument was that the excitement in France over the declaration of war suggested that little had changed in the French character. And while the French horribly bungled the Franco-Prussian War, overall the French were spoiling for a fight.