To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?

[Deleted member 1487]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine#Annexation_to_the_French_Republic
The French were just as bad about taking it back, though a government was establishing itself in Strasbourg and wanted independence from both France and Germany; the French came in and deported Germans and quashed all independent mindedness in the public and forced the issue. Germany wasn't particularly right to take it in 1871 any more than the French were when they took it around 1678, nor were they in settling French speakers in the region to cement their 'natural' border. Ultimately might made right when it comes to land in Europe and WW2 settled the borders once and for all except for minor issues on the fringes.

 

[Saphroneth]

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

In all honesty, I don't know I have much trouble with that.
i.e. fine, sure, why not. I'd certainly agree it was rightfully Austrian in 1917! (That's the parallel - remember, the question states 1870!)

 

[avernite]

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.

1) is obvious bull. Without A-L, France survived a surprise attack. With it, it lost severely (twice!). Clearly, giving A-L to Germany is good for French military safety.

@Faeelin: The Netherlands treated parts of Brabant/Limburg as conquered provinces between roughly 1600 and 1800. Despite, in 1550, being clearly the same country.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

In all honesty, I don't know I have much trouble with that.
i.e. fine, sure, why not. I'd certainly agree it was rightfully Austrian in 1917! (That's the parallel - remember, the question states 1870!)

By the logic of plebicites though Austria should have been allowed to be part of Germany in 1919 when they wanted, same with the Sudetenland.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Duchy of Lorraine was the survivor of Lotharingia, the middle kingdom, so to me it belongs to them.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Faeelin]

@Faeelin: The Netherlands treated parts of Brabant/Limburg as conquered provinces between roughly 1600 and 1800. Despite, in 1550, being clearly the same country.

This is a sign that Brabant should secede and join the United States of Belgium.

 

[Perkeo]

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.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - very dangeous when it replaces actual elections.

That brings us to the only hard evidnce available: The election result in the Reichtag elections, which indicate that A-L was reluctant in 1871 AND had gotten used to being German by 1914.

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.

1) You didn't hesitate to pick a convenient date for France (see below)
2) Austria (not Hungary) WAS officially German until 1866, and was then expelled AGAINST its wil. The concept of Germanophone Austria being an independent state is the result of the two world wars and an anachronism in 1918.

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.)

Owning A-L didn't help France much in 1870 and 1940, and the invasion of 1914 was not through A-L.

2) Cultural similarity. (A-L took part in the French Revolution.)

A lot of Sauerkraut is eaten west of the Rhine, a lot of snails are eaten east of it. There is no cultural discontinuity. Which BTW is pretty normal for boundary reagions that didn't see heavy ethnic cleansing.

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.

A-L was part of the HRE from 870 (then East-Francian Kingdom) to the late 17th(alsace) or 18th(Lorraine) century,

4) Might Makes Right expired either before 1871 or after 1918.

An Might Makes Right is the reason why A-L is French today -and the only reason why it would be German in another timeline.

If there is a better legitimation, it is the voting results of the Reichstag. OTOH, A-L has a special culture - essentially a mixture of French and German - and even some special laws.

So the claim that A-L is naturally French remains as unfounded as the claim that it is naturally German.

 

[Saphroneth]

By the logic of plebicites though Austria should have been allowed to be part of Germany in 1919 when they wanted, same with the Sudetenland.

We're not talking 1919, are we? I rather thought we were talking before the war.

Interestingly, if we're going with popular will, the funny result is that Germany becomes a nation earlier! 1848, specifically.
I think it's kind of a pity Freidrich Wilhelm was such a reactionary.

 

[Athelstane]

By the logic of plebicites though Austria should have been allowed to be part of Germany in 1919 when they wanted, same with the Sudetenland.

I'll repeat what I said above: The real rule of thumb of Versailles seems to be: ethnic self-determination wherever it served Western Allied interests by consensus, and largely ignored where it did not.

 

[matzeskatze]

And that is one point that makes the Entente after WWI so hypocritical. That and the whole blockade thingy.

On the other hand, in E-L the Germans never played with self determination in 1871. So they at least followed the then rule of thumb. And did not do the "Do as I say, not as I do" game.

As to the original question? I tend to swing between Germany or partition along some kind of linguistic/cultural line.

 

[Graveyard]

France? I know no France

Independence to Elsaß-Lotharingen!!!
Independence to Northern Catalunia!!!
Independence to Northern Euskara!!!
Independence to Occitania!!!
Independence to Britanny!!!
Independence to Westernmost Flemishland!!!
Independence to Arpitain people!!!
Independence to all opressed people!!!

No Empire shall stand after the revolutions!!!

 

[funnyhat]

@Faeelin: The Netherlands treated parts of Brabant/Limburg as conquered provinces between roughly 1600 and 1800. Despite, in 1550, being clearly the same country.

Actually, in 1550 the Low Countries were, properly speaking, 17 different countries in personal union under Charles V.

As for the original question, you can make a case for either France or Germany. I give France the edge mainly because it represented the status quo. Annexing it to Germany disrupted the status quo and caused the territory to become a focal point of French revanchism for decades to come. I don't think it was worth it to Germany to do that.

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

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

This Comment would be 100% Buckeye Approved if I wasn't a Francophile.

 

[Mr.J]

It had been French since the Thirty Years' War, that's over 200 years before 1870. And AFAIK, the people of Alsace-Lorraine weren't rising up en masse to demand to become German. If the border ain't broke, don't fix it.

Plus the border looks better with it French, 'cause it makes France more of a hexagon

 

[Matteo]

The Duchy of Lorraine was the survivor of Lotharingia, the middle kingdom, so to me it belongs to them.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes and before the carolingians and franks, all lands of west of the Rhine belonged to gallo-romans. And if you go back somme 500 years BC, there were no germans in what is now called Germany, except maybe in loser Saxony.

Which shows well that this kind of argument is just worth nothing. It's a pretext for one to argue about so-called past rights.

 

[Sir Prizing]

Not a conspiracy theory, just politics.

Mind if I sig this? It strikes me as being sig-worthy.

Now. I feel obligated to add something to this topic that is actually... on topic.

*thinks*
Hmm.
*insert witty phrase here*
*add fascinating statistic*
* give supporting historical anecdote*
*make profound insight*

Seriously now, how do I feel about A-L? Well, I am by no means knowledgeable on the subject, I did just happen to do some reading on the subject on the Great and Mighty Wikipedia; from what I read, it would seem that both sides had claims to the region that could be supported by facts on the ground and history. As for what the people of A-L felt, it seems that they were somewhat divided, some being of French heritage and some being of German heritage.

In conclusion, I, being a generally will-of-the-people type guy, feel that for it to be completely legit, the people should have been consulted; in the end, however, might makes right in the political world. Whoever can conquer and hold a piece of land gets it. As France held it in 1870, it was theirs. As Germany held it a few years later, it was then theirs.

I voted both because I think that both France and Germany had historical and cultural ties to the region that they could back up their claims with. These competing claims ended up turning A-L into a big chunk of flint that a bunch of steel rattling on the part of France and Germany ended up igniting a fire with, but none-the-less, both, I feel, had claims to the region.

There. Three good sized paragraphs. I feel I have contributed.

 

[Tallil2long]

Mind if I sig this? It strikes me as being sig-worthy.

Now. I feel obligated to add something to this topic that is actually... on topic.

*thinks*
Hmm.
*insert witty phrase here*
*add fascinating statistic*
* give supporting historical anecdote*
*make profound insight*

Seriously now, how do I feel about A-L? Well, I am by no means knowledgeable on the subject, I did just happen to do some reading on the subject on the Great and Mighty Wikipedia; from what I read, it would seem that both sides had claims to the region that could be supported by facts on the ground and history. As for what the people of A-L felt, it seems that they were somewhat divided, some being of French heritage and some being of German heritage.

In conclusion, I, being a generally will-of-the-people type guy, feel that for it to be completely legit, the people should have been consulted; in the end, however, might makes right in the political world. Whoever can conquer and hold a piece of land gets it. As France held it in 1870, it was theirs. As Germany held it a few years later, it was then theirs.

I voted both because I think that both France and Germany had historical and cultural ties to the region that they could back up their claims with. These competing claims ended up turning A-L into a big chunk of flint that a bunch of steel rattling on the part of France and Germany ended up igniting a fire with, but none-the-less, both, I feel, had claims to the region.

There. Three good sized paragraphs. I feel I have contributed.

I certainly don't mind if you sig the quote; indeed, I'd feel honored.

 

[Sir Prizing]

I certainly don't mind if you sig the quote; indeed, I'd feel honored.

Thank you. It's my pleasure.

 

[Mikestone8]

By the logic of plebicites though Austria should have been allowed to be part of Germany in 1919 when they wanted, same with the Sudetenland.

True, but not simply because they spoke German - because they considered themselves German and appear to have wished to be German, which does not appear to have been true for the Alsatians.

Conversely, there were Polish speakers in East Prussia who were Protestant in religion and regarded themselves as Germans. The plebiscite results in Upper Silesia suggest that some Polish-speaking Catholics may have felt the same way.

Language can be a guide to national sentiment, but is not an infallible one. After all, most people in the Irish Republic speak English as their first language, but they don't seem to hanker after British rule.

 

[Perkeo]

True, but not simply because they spoke German - because they considered themselves German and appear to have wished to be German, which does not appear to have been true for the Alsatians.

Conversely, there were Polish speakers in East Prussia who were Protestant in religion and regarded themselves as Germans. The plebiscite results in Upper Silesia suggest that some Polish-speaking Catholics may have felt the same way.

Language can be a guide to national sentiment, but is not an infallible one. After all, most people in the Irish Republic speak English as their first language, but they don't seem to hanker after British rule.

I agree.

However, that means that Germany's claim is unproven, but not disproved either. Even less it proves that France has a claim.

We have to accept that this issue has been decided by might makes right and that we'll never know for sure what would have been the decision if it had been made in a more civilized/democratic way.