Returned to who? There was no Germany before 1870. And if you call the HRE Germany how come they did not annex the Italian lands that were part of it or even the low countries? Peoples speaking a germanic dialect doesn't make them german.I already said that German politicians, who were in charge were pragmatists, but the German nationalist movement did consider Alsace-Lorraine to have been 'returned'.
IMHO you might be from an ATL: the German Confederation was abolished after the 1866 war and the North German states (= Prussia + others) formed a North German Confederation with its own constitution and under the presidency of the king of Prussia. The southern German states were not included in this NGC. In 1867 Bismarck revived the Zollverein, to which the southern German states were also admitted. This new Zollverein had a parliament too and elections were held in 1868 (the south German states voted mostly for anti-Prussian parties). The Zollverein is completely separated from the NCG: if Bismarck had wanted to co-opt Bavaria and cie. into the NCG he would have done it; he did not want that though, so an unnatural animal (Zollverein cum Parliament) was created. The Reich came later on in December 1870 when Bismarck found himself stuck between a French Provisional government who did not want to accept defeat and a couple of political crisis in Germany (a fiscal one in Prussia and nationalist agitators in the Palatinate - but not so much in Bavaria): his way out was to negotiate with Bavaria, Wurttemberg and so on their entry in the newly concocted German Reich. The settlement was not cheap, in particular toward Bavaria (but then the Bavarians were the first to offer the imperial crown to the king of Prussia on that fateful and weel-staged meeting in the Hall of Mirrors of Versailles.Your missing the point about internal German politics. The German Confederation had been reformed, on favourable terms for the Southern German states. Later this confederacy would be transformed into a federation with the king of Prussia as German Emperor in the role of hereditary head of the federation.
However a direct border with France would have meant a large presence of troops form other German states. With Alsace-Lorraine they would remain free of those and they could deliver their share in Alsace-Lorraine.
So I can understand the southern German states and I do not find it amusing at all.
Why do you think so? The war was initiated by the French (with some help from Bismarck but still..), completely mismanaged and at the end they came out of the storm with a peace treaty which is really not very harsh.Even without the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, France would have been aching for revenge. Certainly with Germany in the ascendancy (but late at the 'European party') and their relative decline.
Once again I apologize for pissing on your parade: Nappy was not "coveting" lands in Wurttemberg or in Bavaria, why should he? He wanted compensations to Prussian aggrandizement in the Prussian Palatinate, one of the bishoprics would have been fine thank you. Certainly he was not going to try and move the border beyond the Rhine. Matter of fact, the only time the French passed the border in this unfortunate war they attacked Saarbrucken in the Prussian Palatinate. As far as the "love" of southern Germans for their Prussian brethren least said is best. Bavarians and Northern Germans never mixed well. In a way a border with the French would have given them better cards to play when negotiating their rights in the German federation or empire.Not to mention that Napoleon III coveted lands belonging to those southern German lands, which what drove them in the arms of their northern brethren (there were still religious differences though).
Nappy tried to coopt them from the beginning and Austria wanted to go for another round with the Prussians (another case where there is not a lot of brotherly love) but were stopped by the opposition of the Hungarian chancellor (so soon after Ausgleich it would not have been too smart to go so drastically against Hungarian wishes). Anyway the major Austrian requirement was that Italy would guarantee its neutrality (and Italy did not want to do it) After the string of Prussian victories any idea of Austrian mobilization would have been out of the world.Austria wasn't in any shape to intervene; and judging by Napoleon III Italian policies, they weren't sympathetic towards France and the German Austrians probably supported their brethren too.
I do not disagree with you. A German unification is in the cards, but hopefully ITTL it will be not the Reich proclaimed in occupied lands during the siege of Paris. One might also be hopeful that a later German unification might be achieved on more liberal basis.
I'm not exactly a believer of etnic maps and census: not nowadays, much less in the 19th century. Same thing for plebiscites, which were in most cases staged and anyway involved only a minority of populations. It's quite obvious that border regions are naturally a mixture of languages, religions and cultures and that it is quite difficult (and certainly thankless) to try and adjudicate which is which and who is who.
Same thing - but with much more emphasis - for the old chestnut that [insert your fav nationality or ethic group] were taken by force by [insert your least fav nationality or ethnic group] one hundred, two hundred or a thousand years ago and since then have been bleeding and praying to be reunited with the motherland. If one starts on this slippery path, where is the cutting point located? Every country and every ruler (with no exception whatsoever) have always been driven by greed and land grabs have been always the norm.
The point you look like are missing is that Bismarck was looking for a long-term solution, not just a stop-gap one. He behaved in the same way in the aftermath of the 1866 war with Austria: even then he had to resist to the requests of the king and of the generals who were asking for a punitive peace treaty and land annexations but since the war was quick and there was no delay with the peace negotiations he was able to get his way. Why should he be looking for a different approach in the case of France? Because they are not "bruder"?
As far as neutralization and demilitarized lands, you are quite wrong: they were quite common in the 19th century. Out of the top of my mind there were the demilitarization and neutralization of Savoy (Congress of Vienna), the neutralization and the guarantees to Belgium (1832 and 1839), the neutralization and guarantees of Luxembourg (1868, which included also the demolition of Luxembourg fortress). Obviously the neutralization of Switzerland (Congress of Vienna). I'm quite sure there may have been other instances, but these should be enough.
Starting with 1866, there was a war scare every year between France and Prussia: the reasons were different (Luxembourg, Spanish succession, military exercises near the border and so on), but every summer was the same. Funnily enough 1870 looked to be the exception because the Spanish crisis looked to have been defused earlier, and all the major players had gone on summer holiday. Then Bismarck came back, there was the telegram of Ems and so on. The point is that on the French side everyone was eager for a war (which is not the same thing as saying they were prepared for a war...). The regime was starting to show significant problems, even among the country farmers who had always been the Bonapartist mainstay: so the emperor (and even more the empress) were eager for a "short, victorious war" to prop up the regime and to secure the succession (Nappy's health was not good at all and he was looking to abdicate when his son reached majority; Eugenie was also eager to secure her son inheritance but was also incensed by Bismarck's meddling into Spanish affairs). The conservative Bonapartists also wanted a war, to reduce the growing influence of legitimist monarchists and to switch the focus from the promises of liberalization that the regime had been obliged to make. The army was restive and some external war was considered necessary. Even the republicans were all in favor of a war to wash the stain of Prussian arrogance (and since they were usually charges as traitors to France they were even more vocal than all the others). It will not be too easy for Nappy and his advisers to find out some suitable scapegoat but I agree he has to do that and do it soon.
The Prince Imperial is just 14 years old in 1870, and will get to major age in 4 more years. Since the health of the emperor is quite poor a regency council is not unlikely: the problem is that it will be a very conservative one, dominated by empress Eugenie (the only liberal Bonaparte is Plon-Plon but he's not well received at court these days).
I aggree that such maps are to be used with caution. As everybody knows, never depeand on any material that you did not falsie yourself. But language should be rather accurate. "Shrugs"
So what is the French problem then. When every ruler "does it" and they themself did it, why the sudden massive resentment when the shoe was on the other foot?
Language (which is a german as Dutch in the case of Alsatian) does not equate nationality. Especially not in France, a nation built from people speaking different languages (Breton, Oïl, Occitan, Alsatian, Basque, Catalan, Corsican). And also the map isn't accurate. It only show the substrate of the population. In 1870, at least 75% of the population also spoke French, and exclusive French speakers were the plurality in Strasbourg.
Maybe because France even under Napoléon III was a hundred time more democratic than Prussia and the UberPrussia that came after the war ? France was angry because it was a democratic nation that actually cared for the will of it's citizens and it's citizens actually wanted to stay in France (all the Alsatian deputies walked out of the assembly when the monarchist assembly agreed to the term of the treaty, and even in the undemocratic Prussian elections, the worst result the pro french parties got was 55%.
IMHO you might be from an ATL: the German Confederation was abolished after the 1866 war and the North German states (= Prussia + others) formed a North German Confederation with its own constitution and under the presidency of the king of Prussia. The southern German states were not included in this NGC. In 1867 Bismarck revived the Zollverein, to which the southern German states were also admitted. This new Zollverein had a parliament too and elections were held in 1868 (the south German states voted mostly for anti-Prussian parties). The Zollverein is completely separated from the NCG: if Bismarck had wanted to co-opt Bavaria and cie. into the NCG he would have done it; he did not want that though, so an unnatural animal (Zollverein cum Parliament) was created. The Reich came later on in December 1870 when Bismarck found himself stuck between a French Provisional government who did not want to accept defeat and a couple of political crisis in Germany (a fiscal one in Prussia and nationalist agitators in the Palatinate - but not so much in Bavaria): his way out was to negotiate with Bavaria, Wurttemberg and so on their entry in the newly concocted German Reich. The settlement was not cheap, in particular toward Bavaria (but then the Bavarians were the first to offer the imperial crown to the king of Prussia on that fateful and weel-staged meeting in the Hall of Mirrors of Versailles.
This said, I still cannot understand while the southern German states would be concerned by a direct border with France considering that the border would be stripped of fortresses on the French side and it would be demilitarized.
Why do you think so? The war was initiated by the French (with some help from Bismarck but still..), completely mismanaged and at the end they came out of the storm with a peace treaty which is really not very harsh.
Once again I apologize for pissing on your parade: Nappy was not "coveting" lands in Wurttemberg or in Bavaria, why should he? He wanted compensations to Prussian aggrandizement in the Prussian Palatinate, one of the bishoprics would have been fine thank you. Certainly he was not going to try and move the border beyond the Rhine. Matter of fact, the only time the French passed the border in this unfortunate war they attacked Saarbrucken in the Prussian Palatinate. As far as the "love" of southern Germans for their Prussian brethren least said is best. Bavarians and Northern Germans never mixed well. In a way a border with the French would have given them better cards to play when negotiating their rights in the German federation or empire.
Nappy tried to coopt them from the beginning and Austria wanted to go for another round with the Prussians (another case where there is not a lot of brotherly love) but were stopped by the opposition of the Hungarian chancellor (so soon after Ausgleich it would not have been too smart to go so drastically against Hungarian wishes). Anyway the major Austrian requirement was that Italy would guarantee its neutrality (and Italy did not want to do it) After the string of Prussian victories any idea of Austrian mobilization would have been out of the world.
In any case Bismarck was covered by his secret agreement with Russia: an Austrian mobilization would have been matched by a Russian one.
However Bismarck was worried by the excessive duration of the war, and was afraid that there would have been a British initiative (possibly with Italian backing) to convene a conference of Powers.
A Germany will most likely emerge of that. If at the time of OTL or somewhat later is open, yes. But the sheer inertia that the War will have losend will see to it.
I can see yout point. But you are Imo ignoring the historical and military implications in not anexing Elsaß-Lothringen. Because at that time there were significant numbers of predominantly German settled regions in it. Taken by the French some time before. So the "overblown" French reaction after OTL 1871 is what Imo is out of whack. Maybe because they were more often than not the aggressor?
And also the indemnity the French are to pay OTL are based on the ones Napoleon got after he trounced Prussia. So there too is a French fueled start.
Your idea of an demilitarized zone is ok for todays thinking. But look at all the Peace treatys before Versails. Imo there seldem is any clause to military limitations. Vasalisation yes, massive indemnitys also but outright demilitarisation not.
And I can aggree that the French situation is probably going to be fluid. But if Napoleon III can somehow leverage the pre war war advocates as the source of the misshap, he could Imo stabelize the Nation for some time. How long is then open to what he does with his time. And how the succession is handeld. Maybe a rigning council to start of his heir?
It should be repeated that Language=/=Nationality (does speaking France mean Haitians are French, for instance, or Americans British?)Any map showing such things in any scale will be inacurate. The matter is that there were large swaths of land that spoke in Germanic Dialects.
If Bismarck had it his way A/L does not get annexed, period. Bismarck realized that it was a terrible idea on the long run but got overruled by Motlke.
Inquisitor Tolkien said:It should be repeated that Language=/=Nationality (does speaking France mean Haitians are French, for instance, or Americans British?)
National Self-Identification=Nationality
While there was a significant subset of Germanic speakers in the region, French was among the dominant languages. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the people of the region by in large viewed themselves as French; Strasbourg for instance was one of the hotbeds of the Revolution, and was the home city of numerous important figures of the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars (Kellerman, one of the generals at Valmy, for instance).
In addressing the OP question, leaving France Alsace-Lorraine leaves them without any major territorial ambitions or claims against Prussia or Germany, and the main sticking point in Franco-German relations throughout the Belle Epoque. This drastically changes the direction of continental politics for decades, as it leaves France without the burning desire to develop an anti-German alliance with Russia and subsequently Britain.
This also has interesting butterflies in Algeria, as quite a number of the pied-noir were emigres from Alsace-Lorraine in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war.
An Anglo-French rivalry is more likely to re-emerge in such an instance, as the need to have Britain as an ally against Germany to retake Alsace-Lorraine largely evaporates. Fashoda for instance is more likely to ignite into open war, than the utterly remote possibility in OTL (the politicians of both nations were aware of the dangers).
I can't really begin to imagine the alliance system that emerges afterwards. In fact, you may very well have butterflied away World War One if you do, in any recognizable form.
Bismark of course recognized this, but was overruled, and as a result had to set forward a containment policy for France (which crumbled due to Wilhelm II).