Elsab but not Lorraine: What If the Germans only take Alsace in 1871?

[Janprimus]

There were a number of reasons for the annexation, military, politically and nationalistic.

The Military felt that it would be a more defensible border and also politcially would be on a federal territory and not one of the member states of the Empire.
Then there's the nationalistic reasons for instance the Alsations and that part of Lorraine did speak German dialects. Moreover since the end of the Middle Ages it had been France, which had expanded at the expense of German speaking territories and the (Holy Roman) Empire (of the German Nation).

The latter is a reason, why French grievances about this loss seem a bit hypocritical; if it's okay to expand at the expense of others, then losing territories is the other side of the same coin.

It's also true, that French and German nationalism isn't completely the same. The former is more civic and the latter more ethnic, though in both cases language plays a large role.

Also according to the treaty of Frankfurt (1871) citizens of Alsace-Lorraine had about a year to choose between staying a French citizen and move or remain in Alsace-Lorraine and become a German citizen.

 

[Brasidas]

I don't know to whom it did not matter.

The fact is that, for 43 years, generations of french children were educated with school programs that taught them that 2 of their sisters or 2 of their children had literally been torn apart from the Nation.

So, to get back to the initial question of this thread, I would say that not taking Mosel would change nothing. For the french, Alsace was as french as Mosel. Historically, Alsace became part of the kingdom of France before Lorraine and Savoie, and some very fampous french persons were alsacians.

It was indeed a tragic mistake to annex territories with population that were part of another nation. It was an anachronic way of setting wars. It took almost a century for modern countries to realize that if one wanted to gain territories at his neighbours' expense, one should organize population transfers in order to avoid forcing people of one country to change national identities.

Please make no mistake. I am not advocating ethnic cleansing. I am just reminding what happened at the end of WW2. When Germany had to be punished and lose territories, german people were forced to move to the newly reduced german territory so there would not be the problem of alien minorities in territories annexed by other countries.

SO just annexing Alsace and not annexing part of Lorraine would probably not have changed much to the french-german enmity. The only point being that Metz was a formidable fortress and that holding Metz was considered a huge advantage.

To turn that around, "make no mistake", the German example you gave was ethnic cleansing. The low estimate was half a million Germans killed postwar as part of those population transfers.

Territorial seizures and minorities are always problematic.

 

[machine3589]

Moreover since the end of the Middle Ages it had been France, which had expanded at the expense of German speaking territories and the (Holy Roman) Empire (of the German Nation).

Alsace was conquered by the French in 1639. and was formally ceded to it only at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Regardless of which of these two dates you count from, Alsace was part of the HRE for at least another 150 years after the Middle Ages ended.

 

[fhaessig]

Alsace was conquered by the French in 1639. and was formally ceded to it only at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Regardless of which of these two dates you count from, Alsace was part of the HRE for at least another 150 years after the Middle Ages ended.

True.

And it had been part of France, or west Frankia, or Gaul for 1500 years before becoming part of the HRE.

But that is not really the point. The point is what did Alsacians feel themselves to be between 1871 and 1918. Hint, it was NOT Germans, for the majority (even including the 400,000 settlers who came in from Germany during that time).

 

[machine3589]

And it had been part of France, or west Frankia, or Gaul for 1500 years before becoming part of the HRE.

The domains of the Celtic Gauls, the Roman Republic and Empire, and the Frankish realm were not, under any recognizable definition of the term, "France".

But that is not really the point. The point is what did Alsacians feel themselves to be between 1871 and 1918. Hint, it was NOT Germans, for the majority (even including the 400,000 settlers who came in from Germany during that time).

Well, neither is any of this the point, since I didn't make that post to prove to whome Alsace "rightfully belonged", but for the sake of accuracy.

 

[Monty Burns]

But that is not really the point. The point is what did Alsacians feel themselves to be between 1871 and 1918. Hint, it was NOT Germans, for the majority (even including the 400,000 settlers who came in from Germany during that time).

True. But if they were part of France they'd feel distinct as well. Their regional identity was stronger and set them appart from France and Germany alike, although much more so from Germany.

If the Germans had made Alsace-Lorraine a full state of the Empire with the generous local autonomy German-style federalism allows and without Prussian "occupation", I think that the years up to WWI would have been enough that the Alsaciennes would not want back to France all that much. As it is, the Germans suppressed the Alsacienne identity and didn't treat them as full Germans, so their identity always set them apart and wanted to break away from such a state - understandably.

Would taking only Alsace change anything with that? Absolutely not.

 

[Gloss]

True.

And it had been part of France, or west Frankia, or Gaul for 1500 years before becoming part of the HRE.

But that is not really the point. The point is what did Alsacians feel themselves to be between 1871 and 1918. Hint, it was NOT Germans, for the majority (even including the 400,000 settlers who came in from Germany during that time).

Wait, how do you know that even the settlers didn´t identify as Germans?

 

[Matteo]

I am not sure so I ask,
but did France not themself contemplate to take German lands in the aftermatch of that war? So they themself felt it was ok to take land as a price in war but were "mortaly injured" because Germany did it?

The problem is that the situations were not symetric. There was no organized nation State in the area then commony called Germany. There was not a general agreement on what was Germany. Germany could not have a clear identity because it was plagued by the curse of having formed the Holy Roman Empire.

There was a real difference between the germanic cultural area and Germany. There were areas speaking germanic dialects that happened not to be considered by its neighbours and even often by its population.

The biggest part of Switzerland speaks german dialect. And however Switzerland is not Germany. No more than its french speaking part is France. History could have turned into a different situation but that was not the case. Never say to a swiss that he's a german of a frenchman.

The Netherlands and Britain and Denmark, Norway and Sweden speak germanic dialects. And however they are not Germany.

See ? That's the problem with migration and acculturation. A migrating people that calls its fatherland any Territory some parent language of its own language is spoken is a threat for all its neighbours and has a highly disruptive behaviour.

To turn that around, "make no mistake", the German example you gave was ethnic cleansing. The low estimate was half a million Germans killed postwar as part of those population transfers.

Territorial seizures and minorities are always problematic.

I knew. But this is very particular. And I would more precisely call it a backlash. It would never have happened if Germany had not itself committed the worst ethnic massacres in History in the name of establishing a lebensraum for the germanic ethny at the expense of non germanic ethnies.

This proved that it was a lesser evil to separate ethnies than to let them mixed in a way that incented to the worst horrors.

 

[Imladrik]

Wait, how do you know that even the settlers didn´t identify as Germans?

I think his phrase meant that the majority of the population of Alsace didn't feel german despite German colonists being a large part of the population. Also, fun fact, after the expulsion of the germans after WWI, most of them were allowed to came back if they wished so (except those classified as german state workers without any link to alsace), a quite a lot came back even with the crappy conditions they got.

And to answer the OP question : nope. No change. At all.

 

[Westphalian]

The Netherlands and Britain and Denmark, Norway and Sweden speak germanic dialects. And however they are not Germany.

Germanic =/= German

Danish, Swedish and Norwegian (and Icelandic and Faroese) are North Germanic languages and have never been consider German by anyone.

High German, Schwyzerdütsch, Letzebuergish, Alsatian, Yiddish, Low German, Dutch, Flemish, Afrikaans, Frisian and English are West Germanic languages.

For a long time, the first five would have been considered as local varaints of a High german continuum. But that does not change anything about the fact that their speakers did and do not consider themselves as German for centuries.

 

[Falecius]

Germanic =/= German

Danish, Swedish and Norwegian (and Icelandic and Faroese) are North Germanic languages and have never been consider German by anyone.

High German, Schwyzerdütsch, Letzebuergish, Alsatian, Yiddish, Low German, Dutch, Flemish, Afrikaans, Frisian and English are West Germanic languages.

For a long time, the first five would have been considered as local varaints of a High german continuum. But that does not change anything about the fact that their speakers did and do not consider themselves as German for centuries.

The old thing about dialects with an army and a navy . They tend to get pretenses with that.

 

[matzeskatze]

The problem is that the situations were not symetric. There was no organized nation State in the area then commony called Germany. There was not a general agreement on what was Germany. Germany could not have a clear identity because it was plagued by the curse of having formed the Holy Roman Empire.

There was a real difference between the germanic cultural area and Germany. There were areas speaking germanic dialects that happened not to be considered by its neighbours and even often by its population.

The biggest part of Switzerland speaks german dialect. And however Switzerland is not Germany. No more than its french speaking part is France. History could have turned into a different situation but that was not the case. Never say to a swiss that he's a german of a frenchman.

The Netherlands and Britain and Denmark, Norway and Sweden speak germanic dialects. And however they are not Germany.

See ? That's the problem with migration and acculturation. A migrating people that calls its fatherland any Territory some parent language of its own language is spoken is a threat for all its neighbours and has a highly disruptive behaviour.

And what has that to do with France contemplating taking non-French land from Germany in the aftermatch of that war and then acting hurt when the "shoe is on the other foot"? If you bend Germany over the barrel and tann its hide for the fact that it did it, you also should acknowlage that France was no bit better in that it would have (probably) taken land in the settlement of the war.

 

[Matteo]

France did not exist before It was created politically. France was and is what It was built like.

And you know what ? It is the same thing for Germany. Germany is just a mix of scandinavian migrating from Scandinavia with celts and slavs. The point is that they kept tribal structures much longer and that It lead Germany to its conception of language bases nationality.

All these are political and cultural conventions that once became consciously admitted. The point is that It occured earlier for France and England.

PS : germanic is different from german.

Angles and saxons were germanic. But then developed their own specificity on the british soil that made them different from germans.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

The problem is that the situations were not symetric. There was no organized nation State in the area then commony called Germany. There was not a general agreement on what was Germany. Germany could not have a clear identity because it was plagued by the curse of having formed the Holy Roman Empire.

There was a real difference between the germanic cultural area and Germany. There were areas speaking germanic dialects that happened not to be considered by its neighbours and even often by its population.

The biggest part of Switzerland speaks german dialect. And however Switzerland is not Germany. No more than its french speaking part is France. History could have turned into a different situation but that was not the case. Never say to a swiss that he's a german of a frenchman.

The Netherlands and Britain and Denmark, Norway and Sweden speak germanic dialects. And however they are not Germany.

See ? That's the problem with migration and acculturation. A migrating people that calls its fatherland any Territory some parent language of its own language is spoken is a threat for all its neighbours and has a highly disruptive behaviour.



I knew. But this is very particular. And I would more precisely call it a backlash. It would never have happened if Germany had not itself committed the worst ethnic massacres in History in the name of establishing a lebensraum for the germanic ethny at the expense of non germanic ethnies.

This proved that it was a lesser evil to separate ethnies than to let them mixed in a way that incented to the worst horrors.

We Austrians speak Germany but NEVER NEVER NEVER tell an Austrian he is a "German" (twas different a hundred years ago ...)

 

[fhaessig]

Wait, how do you know that even the settlers didn´t identify as Germans?

Sorry, I was been unclear. I wanted to say that even counting the 400,000 German settlers - who I presume consider themselves German - (a bit under one fourth of the population) as Alsatians, the majority of the Alsatians did not identify themselves Germans.

Though the question you raise is interesting. After 1918, only 120,000 settlers - or their descendents- chose to go back to Germany rather than become French (vs 600,000 Alsatians who left Germany between 1871 and 1914). This begs the question of why the other settlers did not chose so (I assume they did not all dies in WWI).

 

[fhaessig]

The domains of the Celtic Gauls, the Roman Republic and Empire, and the Frankish realm were not, under any recognizable definition of the term, "France".
.

Except for the Roman Empire and Republic (unless you only consider the Gallia part of it), they have as much of a link to France as the HRE (which at one point included Lyon and Provence, as well as northern Italy) has to the German state.

 

[machine3589]

Except for the Roman Empire and Republic (unless you only consider the Gallia part of it), they have as much of a link to France as the HRE (which at one point included Lyon and Provence, as well as northern Italy) has to the German state.

Your point being?

 

[fhaessig]

Your point being?

Originally? That justifying the annexion of Alsace to Germany by Alsace being part of HRE for a time and all one-time HRE possessions being by right possessions of Germany is a non-sensical argument.

Basically, I believe the will of the current inhabitants trumps historical rights to a land.

 

[machine3589]

Originally? That justifying the annexion of Alsace to Germany by Alsace being part of HRE for a time and all one-time HRE possessions being by right possessions of Germany is a non-sensical argument.

Since no one actually made that argument I don't see the purpose of your post.

Basically, I believe the will of the current inhabitants trumps historical rights to a land.

Who has troops on the ground pretty much trumps all other considerations.

 

[Janprimus]

Originally? That justifying the annexion of Alsace to Germany by Alsace being part of HRE for a time and all one-time HRE possessions being by right possessions of Germany is a non-sensical argument.

Basically, I believe the will of the current inhabitants trumps historical rights to a land.

I did write that France had expanded at the expense of the HREGN since the end of the middle ages. Alsace, which German dialects are closely related to those in Swabia (Baden) across the Rhine (the German dialects in Lorraine belong to Franconian).
The latter with military and political considerations were used to justify the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine; the former (the history) was known by nationalists, but they weren't the ones making the calls.