To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?

[Ameise]

Facts give the answer to the question, much more than liar theories.

Prussia and the new 2nd Reich perfectly knew that Alsacians were french.
That's why they refused self-determination when they decided to take the territory for price of France's defeat.
Alsace was governed like an occupies territory.
All the deputies elected by alsacians were called "protesters" which was for them the only legal way to say that they kept on feeling french.

The claim of new Germany on Alsace was as serious as the claim of France on Rhineland in the name of roman Gaul having the Rhine as its frontier or as would have been a claim of Germany on the Netherlands or Belgium.

It was an old anachronic way of thinking territorial politics in an age that had become the age of nations and national identities.

You should try to refrain from insulting everyone by calling them "liars".

You say you present 'facts', and yet then just post a bunch of unsourced statements.

"Prussia and the new 2nd Reich perfectly knew that Alsacians were french." -- Where is the proof of this being a fact?

"That's why they refused self-determination when they decided to take the territory for price of France's defeat." -- Plebiscites for self-determination weren't exactly common at that point. So, why did France refuse a plebiscite for self-determination for Alsace in 1919?

"Alsace was governed like an occupies territory." - Granted. Much of the reason, though, was that as a Reichsland, fortifications and such could be built at will without the Federal government negotiating with the state.

"All the deputies elected by alsacians were called "protesters" which was for them the only legal way to say that they kept on feeling french." - As was pointed out earlier, many of these 'protesters' were in coalition against Prussian domination, and happen to be in coalition with pro-French parties. By 1914, they were no longer the majority.

"The claim of new Germany on Alsace was as serious as the claim of France on Rhineland in the name of roman Gaul having the Rhine as its frontier or as would have been a claim of Germany on the Netherlands or Belgium." - So, you're saying that Adolphe Thiers' comments should be have been a valid cassus bellum?

 

[Perkeo]

The option I'd vote for is missing: We don't have a clue?

Who has ever bothered to ask the Alsacians and Lorrains which side they'd prefer? Can anyone here produce hard facts, not speculations and/or abusive language on how they would have decided?

My own conclusion are:

1) Both France's and Germany's claims were always based on property "rights" and ego rather than genuine safeguard for the Alsacians' and Lorrains' interests.

2) France and Germany weren't enemies because of the claims over A-L, they were rivals anyway and A-L happend to be between them.

 

[Matteo]

You should try to refrain from insulting everyone by calling them "liars".

You say you present 'facts', and yet then just post a bunch of unsourced statements.

"Prussia and the new 2nd Reich perfectly knew that Alsacians were french." -- Where is the proof of this being a fact?

"That's why they refused self-determination when they decided to take the territory for price of France's defeat." -- Plebiscites for self-determination weren't exactly common at that point. So, why did France refuse a plebiscite for self-determination for Alsace in 1919?

"Alsace was governed like an occupies territory." - Granted. Much of the reason, though, was that as a Reichsland, fortifications and such could be built at will without the Federal government negotiating with the state.

"All the deputies elected by alsacians were called "protesters" which was for them the only legal way to say that they kept on feeling french." - As was pointed out earlier, many of these 'protesters' were in coalition against Prussian domination, and happen to be in coalition with pro-French parties. By 1914, they were no longer the majority.

"The claim of new Germany on Alsace was as serious as the claim of France on Rhineland in the name of roman Gaul having the Rhine as its frontier or as would have been a claim of Germany on the Netherlands or Belgium." - So, you're saying that Adolphe Thiers' comments should be have been a valid cassus bellum?

I don't understand your over-reacting and feeling insulted.

These arguments and theories were not created by people on this forum. They were put forward 145 years ago.

You think they were right ? Well you have the right to think so but that does not make it more solid.

The confederacy of North Germany or the second Reich were not the holy roman empire. No more than France was roman Gaul having the Rhine as its border.

That's a fact.

Bismarck did not want to annex Alsace-Mosel because he knew 2 things : first that it would make France irreconcilable, second that Alsace was part of the french nation.

There is force and choices on one side. And there are arguments and lies to justify the choices that force and victory enables a State to make. This is relapolitics.

The fact that Alsace-Mosel was made a Reichsland and occupied and its population watched-over is by itself the absolute proof that Germany's rulers perfectly knew that alsacians were not germans, not more than dutch. The idea was precisely that time would fix it.


This realpolitics and this is old like the world.

Rome wanted the third punic war to destroy the carthaginian power and would have had it under any pretext.
It is not Spain who sunk the USS Maine in 1898 and the US would have forced the same solution in any other way and circumstance.

If you are refering to the ambitions of France towards Rhineland in the times of Louis-Philip or Napoleon III, they were, to my opinion, as groundless as Prussia and Germany's ambitions towards Alsace. They were as groundless and unacceptable as the break-up of the polish nations by 3 imperialist States.

But I am not even sure this answer will give you satisfaction since you seem to just want to justify the german point of view for which behind crude force, there is nothing but bad faith arguments.

 

[Falecius]

Wow, this principle does get problematic.

That's why everyone's is upset about what Putin did in Crimea, for instance. In a sense, it's a remarkably similar situation to AL; to be fair, however, Putin DID bother to ask the locals what they wanted, which Germany did not in AL.

 

[Janprimus]

That's why everyone's is upset about what Putin did in Crimea, for instance. In a sense, it's a remarkably similar situation to AL; to be fair, however, Putin DID bother to ask the locals what they wanted, which Germany did not in AL.

France didn't do that either. Don't write, that a plebiscite wasn't needed, because it used to French for a few centuries before 1871. Since in other regions they were held.

Not to mention that self determination, after Versailles, Trianon, St. Germain etc. any applied, when it suited the victors and/or more important victors. It actually resulted in quite a number of nationalities living in new nations, they didn't want to be a part off. There were at least two reasons, either they wanted their own new nation state or be a part of that one, or they didn't want to leave their nation to begin with. I'd place Germanophone South Tirol (so not Trentino) in that category, but also Hungarians, who lived within the traditional borders of the kingdom of Hungary, but suddenly had a new non Hungarian nationality.

Then again, they were on the side, which lost, just like how France lost in 1871. So IMHO don't be hypocritical, in the same century France lost Alsace-Lorraine, they too had annexed territories, when they were on the victorious side or were able to do so. For instance in 1810 France had annexed the Netherlands, but they also gained Savoy and Nice in exchange for their help to unify Italy.
It may not have been pretty by our standards, but IMHO France blaming Germany, was a bit like the kettle calling the pot black.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

The Kingdom of Lotharingia obviously.

 

['Ezana]

The option I'd vote for is missing: We don't have a clue?

Who has ever bothered to ask the Alsacians and Lorrains which side they'd prefer? Can anyone here produce hard facts, not speculations and/or abusive language on how they would have decided?

For starters, after Germany collapsed in WWI, the "Republic of Alsace" or something like that was created in November 1918 with the goal of being an independent state. Apparently it enjoyed popular support, not necessarily for its communist policies but more for the fact that it was (temporarily) independent of both Germany and France. This was only in Alsace, however; I have no evidence with which to presume that the Lorrainers would have preferred independence. In addition, part of my family is from Alsace and has lived there for generations, so I also know that at the time, apparently the Alsatians did not want to be in Germany or France; but when forced to choose, preferred France due to historical/cultural proximity.

 

[Janprimus]

Cultural proximity? I'd imagine, the Alsatians had and have a lot in common with the people from Baden and the Black Forest, though maybe less with Germany as a whole (and more with France as a whole).

 

[Mikestone8]

Well, the last peace settlement of Europe (1815) had left it to France, despite her being hopelessly defeated. So that should probably stand unless it can be shown that the inhabitants felt really strongly that they should belong to someone else - which afaik was not the case.

This was also the basis on which the province of Posen belonged to Prussia - despite most of its inhabitants being non-German - and the Prussians seemed happy enough with that.

 

[Mongo]

Indeed, looking over other examples of territorial changes, the real rule of thumb seems to be: ethnic self-determination wherever it served Western Allied interests by consensus, and largely ignored where it did not. And this invariably meant whatever would reduce the territory of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, even if particular Allies did not always get every scrap of territory yanked away that they might have wanted (the Italian failure to gain more Austrian territory around the Adriatic or Turkish territory in Southern Anatolia, the French failure to force the cession of the entirety of Upper Silesia to Poland, etc.). It also meant happy Allied acquiescence to the massive carveouts of old Russian imperial lands by the new Eastern European states, as a way of creating a healthy cordon sanitaire against Soviet communism.

This. The result of WWI was the winners getting the spoils. The principle of "ethnic self-determination" was nothing but an excuse to justify taking land from the losers (as can be seen in the fact that when land that was ethnically part of the losers was seized, the principle suddenly did not apply).

 

[Saphroneth]

The results of WW1 or even the Franco-Prussian War don't really have any bearing on the actual question, which specifically states 1870.

 

[Perkeo]

That's why everyone's is upset about what Putin did in Crimea, for instance. In a sense, it's a remarkably similar situation to AL; to be fair, however, Putin DID bother to ask the locals what they wanted, which Germany did not in AL.

Neither did Clemenceau, let alone Luis XIV.

I'm starting to get amused how one side not asking the locals suddenly justifies the other side not asking either - and how so many people fail to see the counterdiction in acting in the name of the people who are denied the right to say their will in an election.

 

[Guildencrantz]

It belongs to Ohio since it's part of the Toledo Strip
Actually, it should've been partitioned between France and Germany

 

[Saphroneth]

Neither did Clemenceau, let alone Luis XIV.

I'm starting to get amused how one side not asking the locals suddenly justifies the other side not asking either - and how so many people fail to see the counterdiction in acting in the name of the people who are denied the right to say their will in an election.

I have no problem with saying that France should have issued a plebiscite to the people of Alsasce-Lorraine, and thinking that the result would likely have trended towards France, while also thinking that were a plebiscite held in 1871 the result would have been quite strongly towards France.

I happen to think that the arguments the German nationalists made about annexing Alsasce-Lorraine were knowingly rebuffing the wishes of the actual Alsatians and Lorranians (this based on things some of them actually said) while the French annexation was at most unknowingly rebuffing their wishes. I would change my mind if informed of statements to the contrary by the French leadership.

I further think that the only ways by which Germany could justify their continuing claim on A-L post 1918 are:
1) Might Makes Right expired between 1871 and 1918;
2) Cultural and linguistic similarity.
The problem with (2) is that if rigorously applied the Austrian Empire no longer exists, among other things.
The problem with (1) is that it's a conveniently picked date for Germany; of course, this is the problem with any such picked date, someone's going to come out on top.

France has rather more possible arguments.
1) Military security. (Clearly the French holding Alsasce is not sufficient for them to destroy Germany, France attacking in 1870 lasted a very short amount of time; conversely, lacking Alsasce-Lorraine they were nearly destroyed in 1914 by a surprise attack.)
2) Cultural similarity. (A-L took part in the French Revolution.)
3) Boundary of the Roman Empire. (Not Holy, but Roman, and an Empire.) If you're looking for the oldest boundary, this is probably it.
4) Might Makes Right expired either before 1871 or after 1918.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

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.

LOL - so Trieste must go to Austria because it was basically from the 1300s to 1918 (with a short interlude as french posession) in Auistrian hands

 

[Rawhide_Kobayashi]

I'd like to say they're more German than French due to the fact they were originally Holy Roman States, but to be quite honest I'd group them more with the Netherlands and Belgium where they're more of a hybrid of French and German cultures (as well as some other ones), and are rightfully whoever the populace wishes to be owned by, whether or not it's a distinct state or apart of a greater power like Germany or France.

 

[Stuyvesant]

Belgium of course!

 

[Athelstane]

LOL - so Trieste must go to Austria because it was basically from the 1300s to 1918 (with a short interlude as french posession) in Auistrian hands

Ouch.

Good point.

 

[Neoteros]

When in doubt, declare it an independent and sovereign state.

France's policy of imposing Standard French on everyone and everything is downright criminal, to be honest; what they did to Breton, Corsican, the Occitan dialects and Alsatian is to languages what ISIS' destruction of historical artifacts, buildings and monuments is to history. Alsace would still speak a Germanic language, if not for France's obsession with Standard French. And I find it saddening how France's historical language policy has been directly or indirectly emulated by much of western Europe. It's no different from settling a region that has been historically inhabited by group A with members of group B, in order to claim said region and kill off an entire culture without shedding a single drop of blood.

 

[Faeelin]

Here's a way to tell what the inhabitants thought. Did the Germans treat them like any other state in Germany, or was it subject to special conditions and restrictions, more akin to a conquered province?