To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?
- Thread starter Tallil2long
- Start date
Perkeo
Banned
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not a single person in this threat who unconditionally supports the German claim on A-L in 1871, let alone today, but just many people who don't unconditionally oppose it.
And in case no one has told you, the Nazis did A LOT more than just trying to include all German-speaking people into one country and/or keeping all supposed non-Germans out of Germany.
Fortunately for the generations of my parents onwards, both Germany and France have learned lessions that you apperently have yet to learn:
1) When you loose a war of agression, you loose territory (Both France and Germany lost A-L that way, and Germany lost a lot more in WWII).
2) Unreasonable irredentism doesn't undo the previous desaster, it brings you into the next one (Pyrrhic victory for France in WWI and full military and moral desaster for Germany in WWII)
3) Neither France nor Germany have the power to knock the other our of the game, so they better learn living with each other.
4) Behind the facade of the traditional enmity, there is a deep mutual respect that led to a lasting friendship.
Had either of them learned those lessions before 1914, WWI as we know it is gone. Had te bulk of the German population learned before 1933, Hitler doesn't rise to power. Unfortunately, it took Germany one more war to learn than France.
Last edited:
I do correct you. What about the people who wrote that they thought the germans were rightful ?
That the german decision-makers around 1870 and a part of the german opinion thought Germany was rightful in taking back territories that had been part of the HRE and where people speaking a germanic dialect lived is one point.
This is History.
That some people in the 21st century share this statement is problematic on several points which I previously exposed.
The only objectively rightful thing is the laws of war by which every State considered it could take some territories from a defeated neighbour State and have this validated by a treaty.
Germany forced France into World War I? 
That's both wrong and an oversimplification, ultimately policymakers in Vienna, Belgrade, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris, London etc. all share a part of that blame. Too many of them wanted and demanded from others things they simply could not agree with.
Also why can't people say that given the situation of 1870/1871 they can understand, why Germany did what they did. No one here is saying, that they would agree with it, if it would happen today, but we're discussing the 19th century. In the 19th century they knew how the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars had devastated Europe and how France under Napoleon I wanted to be Europe's hegemonial power. They were unaware of what the 20th century would bring.
Nationalism isn't uniquely German, I'd almost say, that it's a succesful French export. Again the fact that Germany and Italy were the battlefields of Europe during the time France, Spain, Britain were all leading powers in Europe, did have an impact and can partly explain various differences.
As such IMHO bringing up the 20th century is not fair in this context. Not to mention the irony, that France is allowed to feel threated, but Germany isn't? I know it's this kind of paranoia of the Great Powers, which lead to Europe's demise as the world leading powers; however they all perceived certain threats.
Not to mention that 1871 isn't bound to lead to OTL 1914, a lot more things happened to every European power, which lead to that.
Anyway agree with Perkeo, that both Germany and France had to learn lessons, and that it took France one war less than Germany.
That's both wrong and an oversimplification, ultimately policymakers in Vienna, Belgrade, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris, London etc. all share a part of that blame. Too many of them wanted and demanded from others things they simply could not agree with. Also why can't people say that given the situation of 1870/1871 they can understand, why Germany did what they did. No one here is saying, that they would agree with it, if it would happen today, but we're discussing the 19th century. In the 19th century they knew how the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars had devastated Europe and how France under Napoleon I wanted to be Europe's hegemonial power. They were unaware of what the 20th century would bring.
Nationalism isn't uniquely German, I'd almost say, that it's a succesful French export. Again the fact that Germany and Italy were the battlefields of Europe during the time France, Spain, Britain were all leading powers in Europe, did have an impact and can partly explain various differences.
As such IMHO bringing up the 20th century is not fair in this context. Not to mention the irony, that France is allowed to feel threated, but Germany isn't? I know it's this kind of paranoia of the Great Powers, which lead to Europe's demise as the world leading powers; however they all perceived certain threats.
Not to mention that 1871 isn't bound to lead to OTL 1914, a lot more things happened to every European power, which lead to that.
Anyway agree with Perkeo, that both Germany and France had to learn lessons, and that it took France one war less than Germany.
Germany forced France into World War I?
Is this a simplification or an over-simplification ? Certainly. I agree and wanted to make it short.
Is it wrong ?
No Germany did sent an ultimatum that was not that different from the one Austria sent to Serbia. : it basically meant "submit or it's war". That's what I call forcing war on France.
Austria-Hungary wanted war against Serbia at all costs and Germany backed it, being aware of the risk of a general deflagration, because it thought its strategic situation would deteriorate as Russia was growing ever stronger.
In July or 1914, France did not adress any ultimatum to the german government, asking it to hand over the frontier fortifications.
Feeling threatened is very different from being asked to submit and hand over territories and fortifications or face war. I am sure you understand the shade.
Neither France nor Germany wanted to betray their ally. In Germany's case they didn't have much choice, since due their 'brilliant' foreign policy, Austria-Hungary was one of the few friendly nations and allies they had left.
However both were confronted with allies (in France's case Russia and in Gemany's case Austria-Hungary), which left them with unpleasant surprises.
AFAIK Germany demanded French neutrality, which is different from what Austria-Hungary demanded from Serbia. I can understand Austro-Hungarian anger due to assassination of archduke Francis Ferdinand, but they overplayed their hand with some of the demands made to Serbia (some were not unreasonable and Serbia even agreed to some of them). OTOH Russia supported Serbia, like Germany supported Austria-Hungary. Another element is that the coup, which brought another dynasty on Serbia's, had turned Serbia from more Austria-Hungary friendly to definitely more pro Russia.
foreign policy, Austria-Hungary was one of the few friendly nations and allies they had left. However both were confronted with allies (in France's case Russia and in Gemany's case Austria-Hungary), which left them with unpleasant surprises.
AFAIK Germany demanded French neutrality, which is different from what Austria-Hungary demanded from Serbia. I can understand Austro-Hungarian anger due to assassination of archduke Francis Ferdinand, but they overplayed their hand with some of the demands made to Serbia (some were not unreasonable and Serbia even agreed to some of them). OTOH Russia supported Serbia, like Germany supported Austria-Hungary. Another element is that the coup, which brought another dynasty on Serbia's, had turned Serbia from more Austria-Hungary friendly to definitely more pro Russia.
Last edited:
I don't see anything monstrous or particularly scary in the idea that Germany could have been justified or semi-justified in annexing Alsace-Lorraine. In my opinion: it wasn't, since the people clearly preferred France (thus making France the rightful owner), but it's not like having a different interpretation automatically makes someone a German ultranationalist.
Germany demanded that France declare neutrality, but the orders given to the German ambassador in Paris were to also demand the occupation of two French fortresses as a token of "good faith".
As for the partial breakdown in Habsburg-Serbian relations, it happened in 1906, not after/because of the coup itself. In fact, certain Austro-Hungarian high officials knew about the plot in advance; Austria-Hungary accepted the coup and was one of the first countries to recognize the new government. Vienna had connections to several of the coup's conspirators and even later tried to influence internal Serbian politics through them.
When the more-or-less open hostility started in 1906, the chief and direct reason was Vienna's demands that Serbia cancel a previous trade agreement with Bulgaria.
Germany demanded that France declare neutrality, but the orders given to the German ambassador in Paris were to also demand the occupation of two French fortresses as a token of "good faith".
As for the partial breakdown in Habsburg-Serbian relations, it happened in 1906, not after/because of the coup itself. In fact, certain Austro-Hungarian high officials knew about the plot in advance; Austria-Hungary accepted the coup and was one of the first countries to recognize the new government. Vienna had connections to several of the coup's conspirators and even later tried to influence internal Serbian politics through them.
When the more-or-less open hostility started in 1906, the chief and direct reason was Vienna's demands that Serbia cancel a previous trade agreement with Bulgaria.
That is my feeling on the matter. Based on history up until 1871 the Germans were eminently justified in believing that France would continually be a threat and then take precautions based on that belief. Someone who invades 30 times in 200 years is not someone who can be trusted to act as a good neighbor.
20th century events are completely irrelevant and to bring them up is to fail the basic principles of historiography, that historical events need to be understood and studied in their specific context, not by imposing modern perceptions and beliefs upon them.
With the benefit of knowing about those 20th century events, one can easily make the argument that the annexation of A-L backfired in the goal of helping German security by making France more resentful and revanchist. The Germans however had no way of knowing that in 1871.
Well, that isn't quite accurate - Bismarck himself argued against the annexation for that very reason. It would be more precise to say that Germany recognized that the loss of territory could alienate France, but that the apparent security (and economic) benefits that Alsace-Lorraine could bring outweighed that risk.
This is not what I stated.
By the laws of war, a winner is justified in taking territories away from the loser.
What I said is that claiming that the anachronic and bad faith nationalist propaganda made these annexions rightful is as wrong as very dangerous.
And the argument about the so called 30 invasions in 200 years is as anachronic and bad faith as if the french said they were justified in taking lands away from Germany because roman Gaul had been raided by germanic barbarians for centuries or because the Ottonian dynasty took away territories that belonged to the carolingians reigning in Francia occidentalis in the 10th century.
So you at least admit that all this is just forged and liar anachronic propaganda ?
Going back to the OP...
...The Elsess people should have had their own state. They tried for it at the Versailles Conference, a bit like my Halunders/Heligolanders. Refused because of French aspirations. A very raw deal. Apologies if this was discussed before...
...The Elsess people should have had their own state. They tried for it at the Versailles Conference, a bit like my Halunders/Heligolanders. Refused because of French aspirations. A very raw deal. Apologies if this was discussed before...
Perkeo
Banned
The world is not devided in inherently good and inherently evil nations, and the statement of Germany beeing right, let alone Germany not beeing absolutely wrong, in 1871 is in no way connected to Germany beeing right 1914-1918, let alone 1933-1945.
The concept of a black ad white world were some nations are always good and other nation are always bad is not a solution but the problem. Even the notion that once all the blame lies on one side is applicable only in very rare exceptions, such as WWII.
Even less I understand your raised tempers on the 19th century concept of Germany beeing the summary of all majority German-speaking territories. The horrors of the 20th century originated from the German attempts to annex non-German-seaking areas and the refusal to give up teritories that never were German-speaking. Switzerland was always an undenied exception to that rule, so all that's left is the dispute about wether A-L should have been recognized as a second exception. A mere footnote compared to the magnitude of the OTL crimes. IMHO Germany was not too much but too little into the language=nationality principle!
So long as they don't deny that Alsace-Lorraine is rightfully French now, and ensure they're not misunderstood that way, I don't see any problem there. Why should France insist on anything more than Germany recognizing the current boundary now?
Just relax, the war is over, even the cold war. The peace is not endangered by the notion that Germany wasn't always evil, even less by the notion that when it was evil it was not always totally evil.
Last edited:
Winner or not, a country is not morally justified in taking territory if the people of that territory are against it (assuming this consensus has not been created by recent violence or demographic warfare). As far as I'm concerned this also applies to Germany and Alsace-Lorraine; can't see what the whole question has to do with Nazis and all that, though.
I never wrote about anachronistic propaganda or the number of past invasions, so I don't think there's anything to admit. You might have confused me with someone? Or the question was directed elsewhere.
The notion that the people of the territory itself should decide was kind of new notion in the 19th century, heck even later it was at times ignored or should I say only partially applied, when it suited the victorious side (just look at the treaties after world war I, Versailles, Saint Germain and Trianon). So that itself may be a bit anachronistic, it's how we see those matters today, not necessarily how they were seen in the 19th century.
Furthermore IMHO there's nothing wrong with listing, what all parties involved had done to each other before 1870. Not so much to justify things, but to better understand why they perhaps thought certain things and acted upon them. Especially since the last conflict only ended in that same century (1815); that's neither anachronistic, nor propaganda or bad faith.
Anyway were they right by today's standards , no; were they right by the standards of their own time, yes, but not completely.
Just make an effort and you may too reach the conclusion that what was said by some members of this forum and against which I reacted was that they considered that Prussia/Germany was then (not now) rightful when Prussia/Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine.
This is not and never was about changing frontiers in the early 21st century or recognizing the current boundaries now.
This was not either about whether the prussians/germans really considered by 1870 they had a rightful claim on Alsace-Lorraine because those territories had been part of the HRE and that a majority of alsacians spoke a germanic dialect. This point is History, whatever we think about it and however some clever people like Bismarck perfectly understood that it was very dangerous going on that field.
This is about 21st century people saying that they consider Prussia/Germany were rightful in annexing these territories because Alsace-Lorraine had been part of the HRE and that a majority of alsacians spoke a germanic dialect.
One of the reasons that makes me react is that such a position is biased from the start. What also makes me react is that such a claim was based on the pangermanist ideology that was flourishing in the middle of the 19th century and that was based on totally pseudo-scientific theories deliberately forged on political purposes and used in an anachronic way.
The horrors of the 20th century did not originate from nowhere. They directly and quickly originated from the theories and opinions developed in the 19th century and widely popular in Germany. Hitler was an incult who invented nothing. When he was a child, basically all the material which he used to devise his own political program had already been developed.
All this came from the idea of a german nation being the true and pure indo-europeans, the naturally superior culture and race that should prevail over the others. When one wants to justify a political ambition of creating a german nation-State, one develops the idea that all germanic people once spoke a common original language and that they have to be re-united, then one makes in kind to teach a common language in order to recreate this mythical lost unity that actually never existed. Since one can't find the original language, one quickly reaches the conclusion that being german can only be founded by blood ties.
You basically had it all developed in the second half of the 19th century. And very especially in Germany where it knew a real success, even if the german pseudo-scholars that developed this ideology and made it popular imported theories of a few foreign racists like the french Gobineau.
So to end with this thread, I don't like when I read people in the 21st century saying that they consider that claims that had been founded on such ideology in the 19th century were rightful claims.
All this is like asking : "do you think the arab, english, spanish, portuguese, french slavers that bought slaves in Africa and exploited them (often to death), were rightful ?
How do you think some people would react to such a question ?
The question should be : did those slavers consider themselves rightful ?
Last edited:
The fact that France invaded and raided into the lands that later unified to become Germany, many times in that previous 200 years, is not "liar anachronic propaganda" nor "bad faith" argument. These incidents happened in the Thirty Years War, the Nine Years War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Polish Succession, the War of the Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, repeatedly in the Revolutionary Wars, repeatedly in the Napoleonic Wars, and even as late as the feeble and brief French invasion of 1870. Not "anachronic liar bad faith nationalist propaganda", just historic fact.
Asserting that Germans, given the long, long list of French attacks, had good historic reasons to fear French attacks, and thus to feel the need to annex A-L as a buffer, is not "nationalist revengism", but simply common sense. Further, in my own case, I specifically said that I was not arguing that Germany was justified in the annexation, simply that Germans were not being irrational and hyper aggressive in feeling the need for a buffer.
Neither I nor anyone else advocates that Germany invade France or Poland, so your statement about alerting the French and Polish embassies is the height of silliness. Indeed, your seeing revanchist German ultranationalists lurking everywhere, is truly disturbing.
Finally, it seems that you do not recognize any distinction between thinking that Germany had some justification in believing it had a legitimate claim to some or all of A-L, and uncritically supporting Germany in all things up to and including WW2. This is not what people are suggesting, and I think you should recognize it.
I would be willing to continue discussing these things with you, but only if you cease demonizing everyone who disagrees with you. I neither started this thread to "justify Germany" nor to become a soapbox for denouncing people as 'nationalist revengist anachronic liars'. How about we just get back to civil and rational discussion?
Fine. Dislike it. Go ahead and consider anyone who doesn't agree with you either an 18th century German nationalist or else a proto-Nazi. You are the ONLY person here who is making this into an ideological pissing match.
Please go ahead and end with this thread so that we can get on with discussing the issue rationally.
Perkeo
Banned
And what exactly is your problem with that? I haven't heard anything on this issue that makes sense let alone convinces me.
BTW: Alsatian is a German dialect, not just a Germanic one.
Quite the opposite: If being German is defined by speaking German, it cannot be founded by blood ties. The definition by language leaves open the freedom of choice to enter or leave the nation, and it doesn't imply any superiority over other nation, in contrast to your notion that that France being better organized gave them the right to take away any HRE territory they could conquer.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, there were proto-facist thinkers EVERYWERE in the western world. Germany wasn't even the first nor the last country that turned facist. It wasn't set in stone that Germany would be the worst of them any time before January 1933.
You are free to do so. But with all due respect, I don't think that you have convinced anyone here.
I don't see the connection of this question to your own reasoning in this thread, let alone mine.
Or did the slaves have the same traditional language and/or other cultural ties to their arab, english, spanish, portuguese or french exploiters? Did the slavers try to make their slaves equal to themselves?
The topic of African slavery is an English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, US, Brazilian, etc. pp. topic, but not a German one. Thank god there still are sins that Germany left out.