To whom did Alsace-Lorraine rightfully belong in 1870?

[Richter von Manthofen]

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!)

Thats why I voted France on this

But I also think that after 1871 it rightfully belonged to the German Empire

In pure demographits "only" 200k of the around 1.4-1.6 (?) million people who changed hands were frnech speakers (primary) only around 160k accepted the "option" for French citizenship. of those only 50k actually left.

OTOH many people - even those who only spoke German and no French felt more French than German.

So in a moral sense the "Reichsland" was still more French than German even after 1871/72 (when the option expired).

Looking back one has to say that the Germans had not won over their new subjects.

A minor nitpick: in 1919 200.000 persons of "German ancestry" were expelled by France (the German did not expell anyone in 1871) - of those 100.000 could return later...

 

[What if]

France because how the second Reich turned out.

 

['Ezana]

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).

That's true, and most anthropologists would agree that Alsatians have more in common with Baden. It's just that the Alsatians had lived with the French for so long that they felt closer to the French, even if they also still felt culturally independent of both France and Germany (cultural identification in border regions is weird). In fact, their semi-identification with France probably helps explain why they weren't too eager to join Germany either.

 

[Janprimus]

France because how the second Reich turned out.

In all fairness the German Empire didn't do everything wrong. For instance they had a better organized social security than France. Nor would I put all the blame for WW I on them, though their own foreign policy had put them in a corner, where they felt threatened (virtually surrounded).

 

[Matteo]

That's true, and most anthropologists would agree that Alsatians have more in common with Baden. It's just that the Alsatians had lived with the French for so long that they felt closer to the French, even if they also still felt culturally independent of both France and Germany (cultural identification in border regions is weird). In fact, their semi-identification with France probably helps explain why they weren't too eager to join Germany either.

This question shows the problem of the different conception of what is a nation.

For many people in Germany, in these times (but it largely remains true, although the law on nationality has recently changed), you have no choice. If your mother tongue is germanic, you were german even if you didn't know it, even if you didn't even feel so. This is a matter of language.

This is what led to pangermanism : to unite all germanic people in one Reich.

For France and other countries, anyone born in France and wanting to share a common destiny in what is the country is french.

 

[Janprimus]

@ Matteo: not uniquely German though, since that wasn't much different for Italy and their irredentist aspirations.

 

[historynutty]

In Reality the best claim to any piece of real estate is the ability to defend with boots on the ground against all comers. That aside Western Civilisation would have been best served with Alsace-Lorraine as an independent buffer state (like Belgium) between France and Germany.

 

[Matteo]

Well there are realities that even military supremacy can't overcome and that finally prevail.

And I am not sure that the situation of buffer State helped Belgium in any way during WWI and WWII. When a territory is on the way of an invader, the invader goes trhough it and that's all.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

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.

Right, nonpartisan run plebicites should have been held in all disputed territories, including the option for independence as a nation state; in the case of A-L after WW1 there was a movement to be an independent buffer state, which should have been granted, but the French quashed that in 1918-19 and exiled the post-1870 German transplants to make the 'more French'.

 

[Matteo]

Which was quite logical. France had fought a war forced on it by Germany. It had in fact lost much more than Germany since most of the fights occured on its territory where material damages were terrible.

It just was not going to take any risk of having any process taking back the territories and population Germany had snatched away without a plebiscite.

It would have been unlogical.

 

[riggerrob]

In all fairness the German Empire didn't do everything wrong. For instance they had a better organized social security than France. Nor would I put all the blame for WW I on them, though their own foreign policy had put them in a corner, where they felt threatened (virtually surrounded).

.....................................................................................

One German motivation for launching WW1 was a fear that the French Army would re-take Alsace and Lorraine. From a German perspective, WW1 was a pre-emotive strike.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

.....................................................................................

One German motivation for launching WW1 was a fear that the French Army would re-take Alsace and Lorraine. From a German perspective, WW1 was a pre-emotive strike.

Right, we are talking about rightful action, which would have been A-L for the inhabitants, not which country got to own them against their wishes.

 

[Tallil2long]

This question shows the problem of the different conception of what is a nation.

For many people in Germany, in these times (but it largely remains true, although the law on nationality has recently changed), you have no choice. If your mother tongue is germanic, you were german even if you didn't know it, even if you didn't even feel so. This is a matter of language.

This is what led to pangermanism : to unite all germanic people in one Reich.

For France and other countries, anyone born in France and wanting to share a common destiny in what is the country is french.

Ah, that last sentence sounds nice.
Too bad it isn't true.

From the mid-1699's down to at least 1945, France considered "France" to be anything the French-speaking center could conquer, buy or bully into joining.

Throughtout the later 1600's and 1700's, France repeatedly tried to conquer territory along the Rhine. Among the territories she forcibly annexed was most of Alsace and Lorraine. I've never heard that the inhabitants wanted to "share a common destiny" with France.

I hope i dont have to explain France's behavior during the Napoleonic Wars. I've never heard that the inhabitants of the many areas she conquered wanted to "share a common destiny" with France.

In 1866, Napoleon III was demanding Prussian acquiescence to "the borders of 1814", which would give France Karlsruhe, Koblenz, and Mannheim. Nobody asked whether the inhabitants wanted to "share a common destiny" with France.

In 1867, France was trying to buy Luxembourg from William III, whether the inhabitants wanted it or not. And it wasn't just Napoleon III -- even liberal opposition leaders were demanding that France declare war on Germany and take Cologne, Dusseldorff, and Essen. I doubt the inhabitants wanted to "share a common destiny" with France.

After WW1, France still was trying to absorb land from Germany (Saar and Rhineland), though she wasn't permitted to. I've never heard of the people expressing an overwhelmingly popular urge to be French.

In fact, after WW2 France briefly wanted to annex the Saar, though as recently as 1935, 90% of the inhabitants voted to go with Germany, only 0.4% to go to France.

So I think your characterization is off: actually, France considered "France" to be any land she could conquer and subject to Francization.

Until after 1914, Germany at least tended to limit its annexationist agenda to areas of predominantly shared language (even more limited than that: she annexed nothing from Austria, only took from Denmark the areas that had already demonstrated a desire to join German, and made no attempt to grab Luxembourg in 1870). France didn't even impose that type of limit on herself.

Edit: and then we have to consider what happened to those Alsace-Lorrainers who found themselves back inside France, but weren't sufficiently vocal about their supposed joy: committees de triage, epuration, being fired from jobs, discrimination, expulsion, flight.

 

[Tallil2long]

@ Matteo: not uniquely German though, since that wasn't much different for Italy and their irredentist aspirations.

Also, notoriously, Serbian irredentist aspirations up through July of 1914.

 

[Tallil2long]

Which was quite logical. France had fought a war forced on it by Germany. It had in fact lost much more than Germany since most of the fights occured on its territory where material damages were terrible.

It just was not going to take any risk of having any process taking back the territories and population Germany had snatched away without a plebiscite.

It would have been unlogical.

If France only wanted territories whose inhabitants desired to share France's destiny, and if (as some claim) the majority in A-L preferred France, why not hold a plebiscite? Not only would there be no risk, but it would send a powerful message about the legitimacy of the French annexation to everybody.

So why didn't they hold a plebiscite?

 

[Matteo]

Simple because no one who considers having been stolen by force considers legitimate treating the defeated robber on an equal foot.

 

[Tallil2long]

Simple because no one who considers having been stolen by force considers legitimate treating the defeated robber on an equal foot.

Good point. Probably why Germany didn't hold a plebiscite there in 1871 after getting the region back from France, then.

 

[Bad@logic]

If France only wanted territories whose inhabitants desired to share France's destiny, and if (as some claim) the majority in A-L preferred France, why not hold a plebiscite? Not only would there be no risk, but it would send a powerful message about the legitimacy of the French annexation to everybody.

So why didn't they hold a plebiscite?

Legitimacy with who? Only democracies care about popular opinion to such an extent, and only two democracies existed that were relevant to France and might have cared about the issue - Britain and the US. Belgium was a democracy too and important, but given that they themselves annexed (Eupen Malmedy was probably not going to go the opposite way as intended) some territory from Germany they had no reason to complain. Both the US and the UK had the same opinion as France on the matter, and certainly France annexing Alsace-Lorraine wasn't something that impacted inter-war relations with the two of them. Not annexing Alsace-Lorraine wouldn't have meant American troops in 1940, or the British choosing to be more proactive during the 1930s. The only nation who it would have made a meaningful impact on was Germany - the people who were just defeated, and if they want to get it back have to fight a war in the future for it - and I rather doubt that a referendum or lack of referendum would really impact a future German government from annexing the region if they succeeded in said war, if they wished to annex it. Not annexing Lower Schleswig is different from not annexing the territory of a hated rival when you've finally defeated them.

If it is a choice of having a referendum on an issue and possibly losing it in a diplomatic disaster that is almost impossible to recover from, or simply annexing it as everybody else either agrees with or doesn't mind, save for a defeated enemy who can only object effectively in case of future victory, then annexation is the only logical course. It can be argued over principles, morality, ect. ect.(which I'm not discussing, only the strategic effects of annexation vs. referendum), but strategically annexation was the most wise policy decision.

Of course it does increase legitimacy with the people who write books half a century after the fact with their vision of affairs, and later on the internet, but I rather doubt that those two existed as important people to enhance legitimacy with in the minds of the French statesmen of the time.

 

[Saphroneth]

Good point. Probably why Germany didn't hold a plebiscite there in 1871 after getting the region back from France, then.

...uh, question.
How far back do things go in this system? If France stole the territory from Germany (where quite a sizeable fraction of it was actually taken from Spain, to lock down the Spanish Road) then the reason it wasn't French in the first place was someone stole it in turn from Gaul.
Perhaps, under that system, that it was once part of the Holy Roman Empire means that Alsasce-Lorraine should belong to Germany. But by that same metric, large chunks of Prussia should be given back to pagan tribes who lived there before the Teutonic Order rode in and slaughtered the lot!

No one set of borders can please everyone, and there's always going to be overlapping claims and overlapping justifications. But to go back to the Holy Roman Empire as a basis for claiming Alsace-Lorraine is to say that any territorial claims must be considered valid... so long as they benefit Germany.

So, a question.
Do you consider the peace treaty of 1815, which concluded the Napoleonic Wars, to be broadly valid? Was it an appropriate one, or one that was inappropriate? If your answer is part-and-part, which territorial transfers do you think were in the wrong?

 

[Xgentis]

If France only wanted territories whose inhabitants desired to share France's destiny, and if (as some claim) the majority in A-L preferred France, why not hold a plebiscite? Not only would there be no risk, but it would send a powerful message about the legitimacy of the French annexation to everybody.

So why didn't they hold a plebiscite?

And how would the french government go home and explain to the peoples that they could not get back the full Alsace-Lorraine? That would mean so much sacrifice and death for nothing. There is no way any french politicians would have accepted any negotiation on Alsace-Lorraine. That would have been political suicide.