@Matteo: You're right that it's economic and demographic growth, which lead to the German Empire overtaking France. It's a bit complicated though. France is the only continental power in Western Europe, which realistically could also have threatened the German Empire. The German Empire tried to balance minimizing potential threat and keeping France content with colonial endeavours. Then there's history, on the German side they would have remembered French aggression and expansionism in to German (which by extension means the whole Holy Roman Empire), while forgetting the duplicitous actions by many German princes; whereas France would have very different memories about the 'glory days' of Napoleon and Louis XIV, when they dominated the continent. It would not have played a large role with those in charge politically and military, but it did for nationalists on both sides, which liked to throw oil into the flames. The nationalist ideologies of those groups did clash, Alsace-Lorraine was French for French state nationalism and German for German ethnic nationalism.
I'm not so sure France, with or without Alsace-Lorraine, would have accepted the new balance of power in continental western Europe. However without territorial loss to European France, domestic and foreign support for revenge against the German Empire would have been much harder to get. At the same time Bismarck would have to face unhappy Prussian generals, concerned member states Baden and Bavaria and his least concern German nationalists. Since by not demanding a territorial exchange of France, something France had done for centuries to German lands (Alsatian is a Germanic dialect for a reason, even though France gained the region in the 17th century, before Lorraine) would have been a rather magnanimous peace treaty by the standards of the day.
Let's say France cedes French Senegal and French Cochinchina, IMHO I don't see the German Empire wanting or getting more, would France, TTL without* the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, still be determined to get these back, or would losing their dominant role in Western Europe be enough reason for a new conflict (with or without colonial loss)?
(*= edit)
I'm not so sure France, with or without Alsace-Lorraine, would have accepted the new balance of power in continental western Europe. However without territorial loss to European France, domestic and foreign support for revenge against the German Empire would have been much harder to get. At the same time Bismarck would have to face unhappy Prussian generals, concerned member states Baden and Bavaria and his least concern German nationalists. Since by not demanding a territorial exchange of France, something France had done for centuries to German lands (Alsatian is a Germanic dialect for a reason, even though France gained the region in the 17th century, before Lorraine) would have been a rather magnanimous peace treaty by the standards of the day.
Let's say France cedes French Senegal and French Cochinchina, IMHO I don't see the German Empire wanting or getting more, would France, TTL without* the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, still be determined to get these back, or would losing their dominant role in Western Europe be enough reason for a new conflict (with or without colonial loss)?
(*= edit)
Last edited: