It is possible, but IMHO quite unlikely: Prussia has a better organization, a much better artillery (and artillery doctrine) and can mobilise much faster. The war would be fought on French territory anyway, and a stalemate would be an effective loss for France (after all, it was Nappy to declare war).
I'd like to imagine where Prussia only annexes Alsace, and a bit of Moselle, to encompase Forbach, but not much more. leaving the majority of Lorraine French.
I'm merely saying that, if instead of taking the whole of Alsace-Lorraine (to the Luxembourg Border), and instead opted to simply take the whole of Alsace, plus the higlighted area in the map below, Germany would have ended up with the best of both situations.The majority of Lorraine stayed French. What Prussia annexed was only a part of Moselle. These are the departements before the annexation. If the stalemate happen in Northern Alsace.
Also, can we please stop the myth that France lost because their artillery pieces were inferior ? They were, but it is not the reason why they were innefficient. If they were innefficient it was because they were badly used. At St-Privat, the French formed a big artillery battery and instead of wasting it in a useless duel with the Prussian artillery (which they would lose) he used them against the infantry (the prussian guard) to a devastating effect. Same thing with the mitrailleuse which was often used in useless duels against the prussian artillery, while everytime it was used against the prussian infantry losses were terrible.
With some officers being a little bit more competent, France would stop the prussian armies in Northern alsace and Moselle where the prussian couldn't exploit their numerical superiority and their superior mobility due to the somewhat difficult terrain.

I'm merely saying that, if instead of taking the whole of Alsace-Lorraine (to the Luxembourg Border), and instead opted to simply take the whole of Alsace, plus the higlighted area in the map below, Germany would have ended up with the best of both situations.
No crushing victory is possible for the French, they can at best get a stalemate. And the doctrine was not offensive but essentially defensive. All the campaigns of France, in Crimea as in Italy, show more improvisation than anything other in offensive actions. During the opening stage of the war, the French didn't more than waiting for a Prussian attack, they didn't even pressed their offensive in Saar. At Metz, it was the obsession of Bazaine, delivering a defensive battle with the support of the fortress' guns which sealed the fate of the Empire. Nonetheless, the French show being good at defensive actions and a war of attrition with armies tied in endless sieges would favor them in the long run; all you then need is to prevent the Army of the Rhine to be trapped in Metz and to have it uniting with the Army of Chalons. The plans established by the Imperial staff were to retreat on Paris and to entrench once this achieved; it's the idea I discussed in this thread with a POD during the battle of Mars-la-Tour.Nappy winning a crushing victory over the Prussians would be easy; break out the barbed wire and entrenching tools and let the Prussians break themselves. They don't have the money to keep an army in the field for a year; they soon fail to feed their soldiers or supply them with bullets, and France casually strolls into Berlin. Of course, this pretty much requires a brain transplant for Napoleon III, as he'd spent 20 years emphasizing offensive doctrines.
it doesn't need to be easily defensible. Alsace itself would be more than enough of a territorial gain to satisfy the goals of Bismarck. So as to avoid a situation where the French could spearhead into Germany, they would also recquesition the highlighted area. It would make the defense of Alsace and Lorraine easier on both the Germans, and the French, as there is less territory on the whole to defend. Not to mention the Albe/Saar River that runs right through that portion of Lorraine.Not really, without Metz, the whole area is not easily defensible.
Without Metz becoming German, The French might be more content with simply letting this become the new status-quo.
If the French do better in the war, Bismarck would likely be more than willing to take his cake home without the frosting or the cherry.No. The point of contention was never Moselle, no one cared about Moselle. French propaganda used women dressed in the traditional alsatian dress with the subtitle "elle attend" (she waits). Metz was the cherry on the cake that was Alsace.
See above.That's still a french loss usually in a stamelate nobody win or lose territories or that's not a Stalemate. And seriously who really believe the french would give up territories and let it go?
Simple question really, can the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870s become a stalemate on the battlefields and in terms of any treaty signed?
Effects of this?
Could Saxony leave the North German Confederation? Could anyone leave without a fight for that matter?Saxony is somewhat between, but I think it will stay independent with leaning to Austria.