Harsher peace for Franco-Prussian war.

Yes, but French rule started in 1648; by 1870, Alsatian identity was strongly tied to France, and many Alsatians called themselves French.
Only very few did that, actually. The Elsässer only became alienated by the Germans after 1871, because they were often seen as second-class citizens, "stupid provincials" and the like. They always had a very strong local identity, but nevertheless deemed themselves German until the end of the 19th century.

Consider the fact that while France managed to "disappear" it's minority languages, Germany for 150 years could not do the same in Posen and West Prussia, despite following largely identical policies.
That's not quite true. For most of the time of German rule over these territories, the Germanisation policy was rather lax. Poles were allowed to learn Polish at school, Polish publication weren't banned and official documents have been given out in Polish too. It was only under Bismarck in the Kulturkampf era, that the Polish language and culture was oppressed and marginalised - which, paradoxically, led to a revival of the Polish national identity.

It is far easier to create or reinforce a national identity than it is to replace one, and that is why Germany could not Germanize Posen, but France could Francize Alsace.
As I said, the Elsässer indeed deemed themselves German - but if you treat people in a way like the Elsässer had been treated after 1871, they will naturally start to dislike you. A very good modern example for this process would be today's Catalonia, where ~70% would approve of independence from Spain currently.
 
Only very few did that, actually. The Elsässer only became alienated by the Germans after 1871, because they were often seen as second-class citizens, "stupid provincials" and the like. They always had a very strong local identity, but nevertheless deemed themselves German until the end of the 19th century.


That's not quite true. For most of the time of German rule over these territories, the Germanisation policy was rather lax. Poles were allowed to learn Polish at school, Polish publication weren't banned and official documents have been given out in Polish too. It was only under Bismarck in the Kulturkampf era, that the Polish language and culture was oppressed and marginalised - which, paradoxically, led to a revival of the Polish national identity.


As I said, the Elsässer indeed deemed themselves German - but if you treat people in a way like the Elsässer had been treated after 1871, they will naturally start to dislike you. A very good modern example for this process would be today's Catalonia, where ~70% would approve of independence from Spain currently.

Then, in your opinion, why is it that Germanization failed but Francization succeeded? And in this case, why would it succeed in Lorraine?
 
Then, in your opinion, why is it that Germanization failed but Francization succeeded? And in this case, why would it succeed in Lorraine?
I already explained why: While the Prussians/Germans had been rather lax in their efforts of assimilation of the Poles, the French had been very strict in their efforts of assimilating the Elsässer. Had the French used the same policies that the Prussians used, the Elsass would even today still be majority Germanophone - and had the Prussians from the very beginning done the same that the French did after WW1, there wouldn't have been any Polish-speaking population anymore by ~1850.

There is, however, one example in Germany of how successful such forced assimilation can work over time: The so-called "Ruhrpolen". They were forced to germanise their names, prohibited from speaking Polish in public, forced to learn German at school and a lot of other things - by ~1920-1930, the Polish identity and language in the Ruhr area had pretty much completely vanished.
 
I already explained why: While the Prussians/Germans had been rather lax in their efforts of assimilation of the Poles, the French had been very strict in their efforts of assimilating the Elsässer. Had the French used the same policies that the Prussians used, the Elsass would even today still be majority Germanophone - and had the Prussians from the very beginning done the same that the French did after WW1, there wouldn't have been any Polish-speaking population anymore by ~1850.

There is, however, one example in Germany of how successful such forced assimilation can work over time: The so-called "Ruhrpolen". They were forced to germanise their names, prohibited from speaking Polish in public, forced to learn German at school and a lot of other things - by ~1920-1930, the Polish identity and language in the Ruhr area had pretty much completely vanished.

Except, after the 1880s, as you mentioned, Germanization intensified very strongly, but this only triggered a Polish backlash. Similar results in Northern Schleswig were gotten when Germanizing the Danes. Clearly, it seems to me that methodology had little and less to do with success.
 

katchen

Banned
The Greeks have been quite effective in this manner in assimilating Slav Macedonians who live in what is now Greece around Thessaloniki too. As well as Bulgarians farther east. And Russians in the Baltic States are now being subjected to forced Latvianization, Lithuanianization and Estonianization, which will probably be effective at least for the younger generation unless Russia gets the Baltics back.
Unless there is a religious rallying point like Catholicism was for Poles in Russia or Islam is for Islamic immigrants to Europe--or Judiaism---, assimilation can be quite effective.
 
Except, after the 1880s, as you mentioned, Germanization intensified very strongly, but this only triggered a Polish backlash.

Firstly, 30-40 years is a little too short amount of time - such policies usually take at least two generations to work properly, which would be 50-60 years. Secondly, even this "intensified Germanisation" of the late 19th century was by far not as strict as the Francisation of the Elsässer after WW1. Had the Prussians started as early as the 18th century, they would have been successful.
 
The Greeks have been quite effective in this manner in assimilating Slav Macedonians who live in what is now Greece around Thessaloniki too. As well as Bulgarians farther east. And Russians in the Baltic States are now being subjected to forced Latvianization, Lithuanianization and Estonianization, which will probably be effective at least for the younger generation unless Russia gets the Baltics back.
Unless there is a religious rallying point like Catholicism was for Poles in Russia or Islam is for Islamic immigrants to Europe--or Judiaism---, assimilation can be quite effective.

That actually is precisely my point; where you have a strong national identity, forced assimilation is virtually impossible. Such is the case in Lorraine in 1871, and such also was the case in Posen and West Prussia. With Poles, Catholicism was a major national "rally point" as was the generally well-developed Polish national conscious. The French national conscious, by the 1870s, was also similarly developed. As happened in the Kulturkampf, forced assimilation, the outlawing of the native language, the single-language education and administration, all played a role in creating not assimilation, but backlash.

On the other hand, with the Bretons in France, assimilation happened in large part because the Breton national conscious was largely subsumed by the French national consciousness. The critical factor was that most Bretons considered themselves Frenchmen who spoke Breton, not Bretons living in France. As a result, when Francization kicked in, the Breton response was not to fight for separation from France (unlikely as that would be under any circumstances), but to fight for defence of their native language within the context of France. Even then, however, many Bretons decided to teach their children French instead of Breton, because they felt more French than Breton.

This is similar to what happened to the Welsh. Welsh consider themselves both Welsh and Briton, but when Anglicization was forcibly implemented, many Welsh resisted, but Welsh independence to this day is at best a fringe movement. The Welsh language, until preservation efforts started in earnest in the 20th century, was on the verge of disappearing. For the same reasons that Breton almost totally disappeared, Welsh also nearly disappeared.

The Alsatians, likewise, after 250 years of French rule, also considered themselves Frenchmen, but with a distinctly German bent (and as some Alsatians will tell you, not necessarily with the distinctly German bent), who happened to speak a Germanic language. For this reason, Alsatians taught their children to speak French, but reacted poorly to harsh German rule.

There are exceptions to this rule. In Ireland, there was a very strong national consciousness, with no loyalty to a British national consciousness, but the Irish language has almost completely disappeared. However, this is less due to forced assimilation, and more due to the results of the Great Famine and mass emigration from Ireland as a result. The Great Famine near totally depopulated large parts of Ireland, which was a major factor in the Anglicization of Ireland. However, the emotional backlash of the Great Famine on top of several hundred years of already occurring oppression ensured Ireland would no longer be reconciled to indefinite British rule.

And that's why Germany can't Germanize Lorraine.
 
I will make it both short and easy to understand:

- If you implement lax assimilation policies, it won't cause much trouble, but will take extremely long for the target population to assimilate.
- If you implement "half-baked" assimilation policies, it can cause both big trouble and take three or more generations for the target population to assimilate.
- If you implement extreme assimilation policies, it could cause revolts, foreign outcry (and under some circumstances even intervention), but the target population might be assimilated after two generations, perhaps even before that point.

And that's why Germany indeed can germanise all of Lothringen.
 
I will make it both short and easy to understand:

- If you implement lax assimilation policies, it won't cause much trouble, but will take extremely long for the target population to assimilate.
- If you implement "half-baked" assimilation policies, it can cause both big trouble and take three or more generations for the target population to assimilate.
- If you implement extreme assimilation policies, it could cause revolts, foreign outcry (and under some circumstances even intervention), but the target population might be assimilated after two generations, perhaps even before that point.

And that's why Germany indeed can germanise all of Lothringen.

Then how were France's assimilation policies extreme, and Germany's half-baked? It seems unlikely to me, to say the least, that by 1940, with no changes, Posen or West Prussia would be German-dominant, given that the first two generations saw literally no demographic change whatsoever.

More importantly, you have not addressed any of my points.
 
Then how were France's assimilation policies extreme, and Germany's half-baked?
- France prohibited any use of the German language within Elsass-Lothringen after WW1. Germany never did this with Polish, not even during the more strict times at the end of the 19th century.
- France dispelled every German-speaking inhabitant of Elsass-Lothringen who settled there after 1871. Germany never did this with the Polish population (not until WW2, at least).

It seems unlikely to me, to say the least, that by 1940, with no changes, Posen or West Prussia would be German-dominant, given that the first two generations saw literally no demographic change whatsoever.
Had the Prussians started in the 18th century, and with the extreme policies of the French, they could have easily achieved this by ~1850. Luckily for the Poles, Friedrich der Große was a liberal, not a nationalist.

More importantly, you have not addressed any of my points.
I actually addressed the whole topic in my previous posts, you simply choosed to ignore them. With the Ruhrpolen, I even gave you an actual historical example - which you ignored as well.
 
- France prohibited any use of the German language within Elsass-Lothringen after WW1. Germany never did this with Polish, not even during the more strict times at the end of the 19th century.
- France dispelled every German-speaking inhabitant of Elsass-Lothringen who settled there after 1871. Germany never did this with the Polish population (not until WW2, at least).

Had the Prussians started in the 18th century, and with the extreme policies of the French, they could have easily achieved this by ~1850. Luckily for the Poles, Friedrich der Große was a liberal, not a nationalist.

Actually, due to the increased tensions during WWII minority languages were banned (including French in Alsace-Lorraine). The Polish language was in fact banned during the Kulturkampf, but the law was not only virtually unenforceable, but also totally ineffective. The law was simply not particularly effective outside schools, courts, and offices, where the government held direct purview. Furthermore, Prussia did conduct expulsions of Poles periodically (though this typically ended when the government realized that they were depriving local Junkers of seasonal workers; French expulsions of Germans in Alsace-Lorraine, for example, did not comprise the bulk of the population, and therefore is not particularly relevant.

And finally, precisely how would such measures increase Germanization anyhow? With a developed and hostile national consciousness, forced assimilation almost always backfires.

I actually addressed the whole topic in my previous posts, you simply choosed to ignore them. With the Ruhrpolen, I even gave you an actual historical example - which you ignored as well.

No, you did not, except with the same canard about intensity.

The Ruhrpolen example does not address the question of national consciousness, which is unsurprising, given that the Ruhr Polish, being disconnected from their homeland, and inside a foreign environment, assimilated quickly.
 
You are focusing on the means (a supposedly lax assimilation policy in Germany and a supposedly harsh assimilation policy in France) instead of trying to understand the goals.

The germans did not want to assimilate minorities. They had an ethnic cultural conception of the nation. He who was german was german. He who was not could not become. They did not want to assimilate the poles or the czech.

The french wanted to assimilate because they had a political conception of the nation. He who wants to become french can become french. But he has to speak french, and to deal with an administration and a law system which is entirely in french language. This is a matter of centralization.
 
It may not be an issue of Germany did or did not do. It may be a question of the local cultural/religious issues at hand. Ireland and Quebec were two strongly Catholic regions brought under British rule. In Ireland, the Church itself promoted the use of English by the mid-19th century. Conversely, in Quebec the church remained strongly francophone. Ireland become English-speaking while Quebec did not.

I'm not sure what the attitude of the clergy was in the Polish areas of Prussia, but given that Prussia was a Lutheran kingdom discriminating against Catholics, it wouldn't surprise me if the church discouraged assimilation. Also, Poles had a distinct national identity based on Poland's long existence as a kingdom before its partition in the 1790s.
 
It may not be an issue of Germany did or did not do. It may be a question of the local cultural/religious issues at hand. Ireland and Quebec were two strongly Catholic regions brought under British rule. In Ireland, the Church itself promoted the use of English by the mid-19th century. Conversely, in Quebec the church remained strongly francophone. Ireland become English-speaking while Quebec did not.

I'm not sure what the attitude of the clergy was in the Polish areas of Prussia, but given that Prussia was a Lutheran kingdom discriminating against Catholics, it wouldn't surprise me if the church discouraged assimilation. Also, Poles had a distinct national identity based on Poland's long existence as a kingdom before its partition in the 1790s.

There was a very strong religious element towards the Kulturkampf. Bismarck himself was not especially fond of Catholics; which led to their discrimination in the Kulturkampf. This also affected German Catholics, mostly living in the Rhineland. I do not think the Kulturkampf occurred to any great extent outside of Prussia however.
 

Anderman

Donor
There was a very strong religious element towards the Kulturkampf. Bismarck himself was not especially fond of Catholics; which led to their discrimination in the Kulturkampf. This also affected German Catholics, mostly living in the Rhineland. I do not think the Kulturkampf occurred to any great extent outside of Prussia however.

You are right it was the prussian Kultrukampf the federal/imperial government had no jurisdiction in this area but the Kingdom of Württemberg had it own version of it earlier.
 
Comparing Alsace-Lorraine too Posen isn't realistic. Because Posen was a poor agrarian province, while Alsace-Lorraine was a rich province. The Poles in Posen where active surpressed, while the French in Alsace-Lorraine where not active surpressed. There where French schools in Alsace-Lorraine, while Polish schools where closed, etc.

While Indochina would be a prize colony, most colonies cost more than worth. However prestige from the colonies more or less compensate for the cost. However Indochina was a profitable colony, but the German Empire at the time didn't have the blue navy fleet to protect it. So it would be more of a burden.

Adding Longwy and Belfort would be the most realistic option. It would be add additional iron reserves and fortifications, while at the same time weakens the French industries.

In 1900, 11.6% of the population of Alsace-Lorraine spoke French as mother language (11.0% in 1905, 10.9% in 1910). A few tens of thousands extra will not really change the demographic of Alsace-Lorraine. If they consider themselves German or French is another question.
 
Top