No Alsace-Loraine Claim?

Is it realistic to imagine Bismarck not claiming Alsace-Loraine after the Franco-Prussian War? I mean, he had been fairly tolerent towards the Austro-Hungarians when it came to the terms of the peace that ended the Austro-Prussian War. Could he have done the same with France?

Yes, Austrians were Germans etc., and France was Germany's traditional enemy, but could Bismarck have been smart about the whole issue?

After that, there's the second sort of issue to consider. What would the effects of Bismarck not claiming Alsace-Loraine, and to some extent just having a nice set of peace terms for the end of the Franco-Prussian War been? Could it have come out with France friendly to Germany? Or at least neutral and not obsessed with revenge?

I wrote a paper on the topic of how good terms for the French at the end of the Franco-Prussian War would have changed history as part of my application to the University of Michigan Honors College, in response to their question of what time period would you go back to if you could travel back in time, and what would you do. I argued that World Wars One and Two might have been avoided if Bismarck had given nicer terms and not pissed off France, and they bought it and let me in, so I guess it has some merit. But the question remains, both how likely was it that Bismarck might give good terms to the French, and that that decision might lead to sufficiently better relations between France and Germany that the World Wars could be averted.

Well, what are your thoughts?
 

Susano

Banned
Is it realistic to imagine Bismarck not claiming Alsace-Loraine after the Franco-Prussian War? I mean, he had been fairly tolerent towards the Austro-Hungarians when it came to the terms of the peace that ended the Austro-Prussian War. Could he have done the same with France?

Yes, Austrians were Germans etc., and France was Germany's traditional enemy, but could Bismarck have been smart about the whole issue?
That was not the issue. Consider how many states Bismarck annexed outright. That the Austrians were Germans wasnot the point - the point was that Napoleon III. sat on the sidelines and wouldve intervene dany minute if peace was not made quickly, and of course Bismarck wanted to avoid that. As it was, Prussia got greatly expanded by the unlucky other states completly annexed anyways.

In case of the German-French War (really, not only Prussia fought in it...) there was no such bytsnder.

Also, I really find the implicitation here that taking ethnically German Alsace was somehow something "ev0l" annoying.
 
That was not the issue. Consider how many states Bismarck annexed outright. That the Austrians were Germans wasnot the point - the point was that Napoleon III. sat on the sidelines and wouldve intervene dany minute if peace was not made quickly, and of course Bismarck wanted to avoid that. As it was, Prussia got greatly expanded by the unlucky other states completly annexed anyways.

In case of the German-French War (really, not only Prussia fought in it...) there was no such bytsnder.

Also, I really find the implicitation here that taking ethnically German Alsace was somehow something "ev0l" annoying.

Okay, first off, I don't know where you got the idea that I thought that taking Alsace (or even Alsace-Loraine) was "evil" in any way, shape or form. I just thought that it would be wiser, not more moral or anything, if Bismarck had not made territorial claims against France, as those claims resulted in France's undying enimity towards Imperial Germany. I think Bismarck was a great guy, I was just trying to figure out if WWI could be averted through a peace that was less hostile to France.

And I do know the history of that period. I've written papers on it before. I only called it the Franco-Prussian War because, well, that's what it's officially known as in the actual history books. If the "German-French War" was the official term for that war, or even if it was a term used as often as the term Franco-Prussian War is used, then I would have used that term instead.

I appologize for any offence I might have caused, as it was entierly unintentional. All I was asking was do you think that Bismarck not making territorial claims on France at the end of the Franco-Prussian War (or German-French War if that's the term you prefer) would have averted WWI and all the troubles that came after, and if you think that it would have, then how likely do you think Bismarck deciding on such a treaty would be.

No unrelated political points were meant! Now, even if this is AH.com, can we please get back on topic before this becomes a discussion of whether or not the Napoleonic Wars could really be termed World War One or if the WWI we all know deserves the name. :)
 
Just to restart the actual discussion, I think Bismark realized what he was doing, but chose to annex and demand indemnities anyways. he wanted france humiliated and broken in the short term, while bringing together Germany. He realized that some form of revaunchism was bound to come about, which is one reason he kept germany out of the colonial race for a while (if france is distracted by the colonies, they may forget about A&L).
 
The main problem with Bismarck's policies was that they were essentially reactionary and conservative - he was a Junker after all. Bismarck, while really good at manipulating alliances and agreements to keep Germany out of any wars, did not plan for the long term after he was done as a chancellor, and that moron Kaiser Bill was no Bismarck, diplomatically. Alsace-Lorraine was taken as a (1700's-war style) prize when it should have been treated like it was - an unnecessary diplomatic sore.
In short, though I doubt Germany and France would have had even lukewarm relations as a result (we are talking about France and Germany, here), a major cause for World War I would have been avoided.
 
Interesting. However, Bismarck actually hated the idea of annexing Alsace-Lorraine. He wanted his empire to be one of Germans, and more importantly (to this anyway), he realized that taking these provinces would seriously anger France and obstruct any attempts at true peace between the two nations. I forget exactly how his wishes were ignored in this case (I believe it was because so many others in high positions wished for it), yet if he was simply listened to in this scenario, then there you go.
 

Susano

Banned
On the atcual topic, I agree with Kulkasha, and disagree with RB.

Bismarck was foremost a reactionary Prussian, and not foremost a German. Germany was only a way for Prussian Domination to him. This kinda backfired when Germany absorbed Prussia, kind off, isntead of the other way round, but oh well. At first Bismarck didnt even intent to create a German Empire, he just slipped into that. A-L was actually part of the reason for that, as he wanted to have a structure in which Prussia can have its new territorial gains, and Bismarck then had the cunning to declare the German union he had planned for that to be the new German Empire.

So, no, Bismarck did not want an Empire of Germany, and did not even greatl care for Germany. What he wanted was a strong Prussia, and Germany was a tool in this - and taking A-L was part of expanding Prussia. Bismarck was not above taking from defeated enemies - Austria in 1866 was just a special case. So what would be needed would be external circumstances that force Bismarck to seek a status aquo ante peace.
 
If the war had lasted longer perhaps the Austrians could have had their revenge...?

What shape were they in at the time of the war?
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Aesthetically:

German Empire wouldn't of had looked as good on a map. Germany + Alsace + Luxembourg = makes the map look so pretty.

But I doubt that simply not-taking the Alsace would improve Germany's position with France. They still humiliated them in a war. If anything, in WW1(assuming it isn't butterflied away), Germany might lose more land to France. The Saar might be annexed completely, instead of Germany simply giving back the Alsace.
 
Interesting. However, Bismarck actually hated the idea of annexing Alsace-Lorraine. He wanted his empire to be one of Germans, and more importantly (to this anyway), he realized that taking these provinces would seriously anger France and obstruct any attempts at true peace between the two nations. I forget exactly how his wishes were ignored in this case (I believe it was because so many others in high positions wished for it), yet if he was simply listened to in this scenario, then there you go.

Yes. This is the bottom line I think. Bismarck did not want to annex Elass-Lothringen. The army pushed for it and King Wilhelm agreed. I agree with the original post that had Bismarck had more foresight and prevented this annexation, perhaps WW1 and 2 could have been avoided and the Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs might still be on their thrones!
 
Top