Poll: Bismarck's preferences of territorial annexation from France

What did Bismarck want from France?


  • Total voters
    107
Personnally, I had always understood that Alsace-Lorraine had been annexed because the Germans thought they needed to annex it for their own defense. That's more or less what Wilhelm I wrote in a letter to Empress Eugenie (Napoleon III's wife) in 1870, letter which was used by Clemenceau at Versailles to justify the restitution of Alsace-Lorraine. So I guess I just put Bismarck on the same boat as his Emperor.
Yet during the Third Republic, a critic of the colonial policy said "I lost two sister and you're offering me twenty servants". The two sister referred to Alsace and Lorraine, the servants to the colonies France was conquering and it was basically a way of saying "Who care about colonies: we need to recover our lost brothers in Alsace and Lorraine".

Very nicely put. The problem was with the racists among the Anti-Drefusards who were more interested in the territory of those two provinces, rather than their people. But then they were a bunch of anti-semitic types some of whom were trying for a royal restoration as a means of doing away with much of the Rights of Man (damn all that tolerance!) and restore the power of the Roman Catholic Church in French law and society (France into Ireland, basically).

The loss of Alsace-Lorraine was seen as a deep mutilation of the territory after 1870 and that is what fueled most of French Revanchism during the 1870-1914 period. Besides, let's not forget that Alsace had been French since the reign of Louis XIV: before 1870, it had been French for two centuries and was thus considered a French territory by most people.
Not just today, but also in the past. What's generally annoying is that people only remember how quickly France was defeated in 1870 and 1940: never mind the fact France was the dominating power in Europe for a long time and still considered one of the major power even after its defeats. Never mind also that there are quite a few episodes of French bravery that were spoken even in the two big defeats or the fact that even then the French managed to score a few victories (didn't change the course of these wars but still...)

I remember. I remember the flower of a whole generation of Frenchmen going to their deaths in the trenches of WWI to save the Third Republic. Revanche was purely secondary by 1914.

BTW? If any American Exceptionalist asshat or Sun Never Sets Briton gives you crap (I'm assuming you are French:cool:), give 'em this:

For the Brits:
"At Dunkirk we held the line to save YOUR army!"

For the Americans:
At Yorktown the British could not retreat
Bottled up by Washington
and the FRENCH FLEET!
 
You should not, however, reject everything he says on a Pavlovian reflex, because on this, he is right. Alsacians do not think of themselves as Germans, they did not in 1914, they did not in 1870 and they did not in 1789. They were thinking of themselves as part of the HRE and not France in the second half of the 17th century, after Alsace was annexed by France, but things had changed since.

I am from Alsace and the above is mostly based on discussions with older familly members - since past away - and what they remember of what their parents or grand parents were telling them, at least for the situation between the 1870s and now. For earlier (ie 1789 and 1650s), it is an opinion, based on the recorded reaction of the inhabitants.

Concerning the language, the situation is complicated. Alsacian is definitely part of the Germanic language group. So are Switzer Deutsch and Dutch (I'm currently living in the netherlands and some word roots or grammar artefacts are common between Alsatian and Dutch but not with ' official' (read Prussian) German - obviously, the south west german dialects are much nearer to Alsatian ), and the speakers are recognised as not Germans. The usual answer to this is that that these areas have devellopped their own cultural identity over history and so are no longer considered as German. I contend it is the same with Alsace.

And that is all I will say on the topic on this subject on this thread. I'm giving you facts as seen from Alsace, do with them as you want. I've learned not to debate this in this forum, as the ' Deutschland uber Alles' crowd has imposed its own PC standards on the topic and it does not seem possible to debate the point politely.

Don't try to reason with him, in the thread he mentions, i was arguing with a wall and left (he didn't realize it was easy to understand for german speakers due to the far simpler grammar for example, which is basically non-existant in Alsatian [three cases, among wich one is almost never used, officialy three tenses, but in fact one tense and 2 words to indicate past and future], make it easy for a german speaker to read alsatian, while the reverse is harder without education, he have no knowledge of linguistics and assymetric comprehension between language). Additionnaly he is a francophobic who think that France foreign policy since the beggining to the end of time is to keep Germany down and he is a german ethnic nationalist with a hard on for (gross-)Prussia.

Even I know that ethnic minorities exist in cross-border populations, as Alsace-Lorraine has passed between France, the Holy Roman Empire, and "the Germanies", for centuries. Particularly along the Rhine River. And we are not talking post-World War One Alsace here.

Ethnicity is different from nationality. Since 1789, Alsatians considered themselves French in regard to their nationality. French Nationalism (at least the "left" french nationalism) is not based on ethnicity, it is (somewhat like American Nationalism) on a sentiment of exceptionalism and on ideology.

snip about dreyfus' affair for clarity

The problem is that (due to the annexion of Alsace-Moselle among other), the far right had a lot of power during the mid third republic (early being the era where the monarchist had power, late being after WWI), and their definition of France was one of ethnic and religious purity, thus the stigmatisation by that part of the political spectrum of Alsatian and Jews as "germans".

3) Huh!? France has not been strong enough as a nation (population difference) to take out a united Germany for a very long time, and who suggests otherwise?:confused:

MrHawkwood is convinced that the sole goal of France since time immemorial was to keep Germany down.

I thought the modern racist anti-French meme was about "cheese eating surrender monkeys?":confused: Which yes I know is totally bullshit if you know anything about the fighting qualities of today's French soldier.:cool:

MrHawkwood is an old school Francophobic (it is like between the 1871 war and 1914, where the German foreign policy was to isolate France, when France had half to population and far less steel and coal). But given that he is also Prussophile and seems to be an ethnic nationalist, it isn't odd at all (even if the Germans don't realize that it was Napoléon that founded modern Germany)

Uh, Imperial France's history with nations like Mexico don't give them a lot of bragging rights regarding the sanctity of their own national sovereignty in Alsace.:p Though I fully agree with you that with no annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, there will be no Revanche movement. Do you think France could get into entangling alliances anyway, setting up a WWI with a level of lessened national unity, say like as in WWII?

Given that France had at least some support among the population in Mexico (mostly among the upper class), while Prussia had almost none in Alsace (the Alsatian deputies in the 1871 national assembly were Republicans who wanted to continue the fight and left in protest when the assembly agreed to the German annexion), and was on a spread of annexing territories since the war against Danemark (and even before), i say that even Imperial France have the moral high ground.

And to respond to the accusation of Germanophobia of MrHawkwood, i am of the opinion that France and Germany could have been great allies after 1871 if GrossPreussen didn't act like a dick. They helped achieve the mending of the gap between France and the UK/England, when both countries have almost never been allied since the crusade. Without Alsace-Moselle as a problem, France and Germany would have a had converging interests (or basically no point of friction), and both countries would have been opposed to the UK. What i am is Prussophobic, as i hate everything Prussia stands for : militarism, aristocracy and the reaction.
 
You should not, however, reject everything he says on a Pavlovian reflex, because on this, he is right. Alsacians do not think of themselves as Germans, they did not in 1914, they did not in 1870 and they did not in 1789. They were thinking of themselves as part of the HRE and not France in the second half of the 17th century, after Alsace was annexed by France, but things had changed since.

I am from Alsace and the above is mostly based on discussions with older familly members - since past away - and what they remember of what their parents or grand parents were telling them, at least for the situation between the 1870s and now. For earlier (ie 1789 and 1650s), it is an opinion, based on the recorded reaction of the inhabitants.

Concerning the language, the situation is complicated. Alsacian is definitely part of the Germanic language group. So are Switzer Deutsch and Dutch (I'm currently living in the netherlands and some word roots or grammar artefacts are common between Alsatian and Dutch but not with ' official' (read Prussian) German - obviously, the south west german dialects are much nearer to Alsatian ), and the speakers are recognised as not Germans. The usual answer to this is that that these areas have devellopped their own cultural identity over history and so are no longer considered as German. I contend it is the same with Alsace.

And that is all I will say on the topic on this subject on this thread. I'm giving you facts as seen from Alsace, do with them as you want. I've learned not to debate this in this forum, as the ' Deutschland uber Alles' crowd has imposed its own PC standards on the topic and it does not seem possible to debate the point politely.

All what you said is right, and I know that. Its only that Imladrik has called me a "nationalist" numerous times. And I only talk with him about this topic or Versailles and everytime we clash. It just looks like he is on a crusade, while I dont care that much talking with him, since he really has not much to say than "Germany evil.....annexing totaly French territory!.....AL totaly French! You are a Nationalist when saying otherwise! You are a Nationalist when saying Versailles was a shitty "treaty"!! Sorry, I just dont care enough about his opinion to try to change it.

On topic, I know that Alsacians dont see themselves as Germans, but since they spoke a German dialect it was pretty easy for the new founded German Empire to annex the territory on irredentist claims. That the Alsacians saw themselves more connected to the French is no wonder, they where the previous owner. But an area which changed ownership so often, it is no surprise that the population has straits from both nations. Saying otherwise would be stupid. Would AL ended in Germany through the 20.century and nobody would have cared than some few French revanchists.

It would make a difference. I can't imagine somebody like Clemenceau getting a large and eager audience for...annexation of the Rhineland!?:eek:
Clemenceau would have broken up Germany and installed a puppet state at the Rhine, if not for the Americans and British. Hardly a good choice. We can discuss however if this would have been the case without the lost of AL. I still say yes, because ( lets say history stays the same through the rest of the 19.century) the battlefields would still be in Northern France, something which certainly pushed Clemenceau hard stance.

In intresting disuccion however would be, how French revanchism would have looked without the loss of AL.
If not AL, perhaps than it was Sedan.:rolleyes:
 
MrHaakwood said:
In intresting disuccion however would be, how French revanchism would have looked without the loss of AL.
The Revanchism would probably be far less strong: when you look at the Third Republic post 1870, the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was seen as a mutilation of territory and a shameful act. If Germany left Alsace-Lorraine to France, this wouldn't happen.
MrHaakwood said:
If not AL, perhaps than it was Sedan.:rolleyes:
I doubt it, considering that the Third Republic saw Sedan as Napoleon III's failure... In the image of French Republicans, Sedan would have gotten them rid of the "tyrannical" Emperor that they saw Napoleon III as. And it would have been failry easy for the Republicans to pin the blame on him for the defeat.
 
MrHawkwood is convinced that the sole goal of France since time immemorial was to keep Germany down.

Ridiculous. Absurd, even. Everyone KNOWS that the sole goal of France has always been all about protecting their inefficient farms from commercial competition!:p

MrHawkwood is an old school Francophobic (it is like between the 1871 war and 1914, where the German foreign policy was to isolate France, when France had half to population and far less steel and coal). But given that he is also Prussophile and seems to be an ethnic nationalist, it isn't odd at all (even if the Germans don't realize that it was Napoléon that founded modern Germany)

Was it only Napoleon's personal hatred of Prussia that kept him from consolidating Prussia with his "Confederation of the Rhine", and thereby truly founding a modern Germany?:cool:


Given that France had at least some support among the population in Mexico (mostly among the upper class), while Prussia had almost none in Alsace (the Alsatian deputies in the 1871 national assembly were Republicans who wanted to continue the fight and left in protest when the assembly agreed to the German annexion), and was on a spread of annexing territories since the war against Danemark (and even before), i say that even Imperial France have the moral high ground.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Getting a few wealthy Mexican collaborators and outright traitors (The Mexican Conservative Party) to back an invasion is hardly giving the Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] to imperialist French designs. Benito Juarez was no "Indian Bandit" as the Imperial French liked to pretend he was. He was the best democratic ruler Mexico ever had; literally a Mexican Abraham Lincoln.:cool:

The level of national resistance given to Imperial French rule over their country, even with a puppet Austrian emperor, is something the Mexican People can be very proud of. Political gestures like what happened with the AL senators taking a walk was also a proud moment for the French People. But comparing Napoleon III's Imperial France as a moral high ground over Bismarck's unification of Germany, no.

Bismarck was simply trying to accomplish what had already been accomplished by Richeliu's & Mazarin's France, William & Mary's Great Britain, Henry VII's England, Peter the Great's Russia, and Isabella of Castile's Spain centuries before. Or if you like, Garibaldi's Italy right at that moment.:cool:

The Germanies had been the doormat of Europe (along with Poland) for centuries, including even Denmark wiping its collective feet on the hapless German People. Bismarck was guilty of putting a stop to it. Maybe if it had been done a few hundred years earlier, maybe if the Holy Roman Empire hadn't lasted so long, a united Germany might not have emerged in 1870 so pissed off at the rest of Europe.:(:(

And Napoleon III wanted a war with Prussia. Perhaps even more than Bismarck wanted one with France. Nap3 and France didn't deserve a Do Over simply because they got their asses kicked.

And to respond to the accusation of Germanophobia of MrHawkwood, i am of the opinion that France and Germany could have been great allies after 1871 if GrossPreussen didn't act like a dick. They helped achieve the mending of the gap between France and the UK/England, when both countries have almost never been allied since the crusade. Without Alsace-Moselle as a problem, France and Germany would have a had converging interests (or basically no point of friction), and both countries would have been opposed to the UK. What i am is Prussophobic, as i hate everything Prussia stands for : militarism, aristocracy and the reaction.

Yeah, the problem was that for Prussian militarism enough was never enough. Just look at their demands even as late as 1918 prior to the Armistice. As long as the generals were in charge, demands for French territory extended all the way to the Seine River, with only a small "city-state" enclave to fit in the city of Paris!:eek: Not that Clemenceau's demands for the Rhineland weren't silly, but what the German General Staff was demanding would have been the equivalent of Clemenceau throwing in Hessia, Ostfreisland, Hamburg, and Bavaria to boot!:eek:
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous. Absurd, even. Everyone KNOWS that the sole goal of France has always been all about protecting their inefficient farms from commercial competition!:p

Long live the French Cheese ! We will protect our subvention ! (but kidding aside, i've become recently a supporter of the PAC as it's reforms actually [or will give] give money to farmers who actually need support, not the Prince of Monaco or the British Queen, but the hippies that sell goat cheese on my market for example)

Was it only Napoleon's personal hatred of Prussia that kept him from consolidating Prussia with his "Confederation of the Rhine", and thereby truly founding a modern Germany?:cool:

No i was more saying it in jest (although Napoléon thought is greatest mistake was to not dismember Prussia), but Napoléon action (the creation of the confederacy of the Rhine) gave an example of a more united Germany to many Germans, and the reaction to his domination of Germany almost created overnight the German Nationalist sentiment.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Getting a few wealthy Mexican collaborators and outright traitors (The Mexican Conservative Party) to back an invasion is hardly giving the Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] to imperialist French designs. Benito Juarez was no "Indian Bandit" as the Imperial French liked to pretend he was. He was the best democratic ruler Mexico ever had; literally a Mexican Abraham Lincoln.:cool:

The level of national resistance given to Imperial French rule over their country, even with a puppet Austrian emperor, is something the Mexican People can be very proud of. Political gestures like what happened with the AL senators taking a walk was also a proud moment for the French People. But comparing Napoleon III's Imperial France as a moral high ground over Bismarck's unification of Germany, no.

Bismarck was simply trying to accomplish what had already been accomplished by Richeliu's & Mazarin's France, William & Mary's Great Britain, Henry VII's England, Peter the Great's Russia, and Isabella of Castile's Spain centuries before. Or if you like, Garibaldi's Italy right at that moment.:cool:

Even the support of bandits and outlaw (and i agree with you on this about Imperial Mexico, i'm not a fan of Napoléon le petit [or even the first one, who made France lost wallonia :mad: no beer for us :(]) is more than the support the German had in Alsace-Moselle after the Annexion.

The Germanies had been the doormat of Europe (along with Poland) for centuries, including even Denmark wiping its collective feet on the hapless German People. Bismarck was guilty of putting a stop to it. Maybe if it had been done a few hundred years earlier, maybe if the Holy Roman Empire hadn't lasted so long, a united Germany might not have emerged in 1870 so pissed off at the rest of Europe.:(:(

Germany was the doormat of Europe, because the German Princes allowed it. It wasn't the French, the Austrian, the Russian or the English who started the 7 years war by invading Saxony if you know what i mean. German Princes were as happy as the other powers to wage war on Germany to consolidate their own petty power at the expense of other German Princes. Oh and Poland was the doormat of three countries only since somewhere in the 17th century, before they were seriously kicking asses.

And Napoleon III wanted a war with Prussia. Perhaps even more than Bismarck wanted one with France. Nap3 and France didn't deserve a Do Over simply because they got their asses kicked.

I think Garibaldi's reaction was the one everybody should have had : "Yesterday I said to you: war to the death to Bonaparte. Today I say to you: rescue the French Republic by every means."

Yeah, the problem was that for Prussian militarism enough was never enough. Just look at their demands even as late as 1918 prior to the Armistice. As long as the generals were in charge, demands for French territory extended all the way to the Seine River, with only a small "city-state" enclave to fit in the city of Paris!:eek: Not that Clemenceau's demands for the Rhineland weren't silly, but what the German General Staff was demanding would have been the equivalent of Clemenceau throwing in Hessia, Ostfreisland, Hamburg, and Bavaria to boot!:eek:

Yeah, Clémenceau claims were ridiculous (and i think more a political ploy to get what he actually wanted, knowing the English and the Americans would lessen it). And a Rhineland annexion would have been the equivalent of a AL annexion in 1871 (officialy done for protection, unofficially for ressources).
 
Don't try to reason with him, in the thread he mentions, i was arguing with a wall and left (he didn't realize it was easy to understand for german speakers due to the far simpler grammar for example, which is basically non-existant in Alsatian [three cases, among wich one is almost never used, officialy three tenses, but in fact one tense and 2 words to indicate past and future], make it easy for a german speaker to read alsatian, while the reverse is harder without education, he have no knowledge of linguistics and assymetric comprehension between language). Additionnaly he is a francophobic who think that France foreign policy since the beggining to the end of time is to keep Germany down and he is a german ethnic nationalist with a hard on for (gross-)Prussia.



Ethnicity is different from nationality. Since 1789, Alsatians considered themselves French in regard to their nationality. French Nationalism (at least the "left" french nationalism) is not based on ethnicity, it is (somewhat like American Nationalism) on a sentiment of exceptionalism and on ideology.



The problem is that (due to the annexion of Alsace-Moselle among other), the far right had a lot of power during the mid third republic (early being the era where the monarchist had power, late being after WWI), and their definition of France was one of ethnic and religious purity, thus the stigmatisation by that part of the political spectrum of Alsatian and Jews as "germans".



MrHawkwood is convinced that the sole goal of France since time immemorial was to keep Germany down.


Given that France had at least some support among the population in Mexico (mostly among the upper class), while Prussia had almost none in Alsace (the Alsatian deputies in the 1871 national assembly were Republicans who wanted to continue the fight and left in protest when the assembly agreed to the German annexion), and was on a spread of annexing territories since the war against Danemark (and even before), i say that even Imperial France have the moral high ground.

Don't misunderstand me, I am all for selfdetermination of the Alsatians and so on. But there are some mis understandings here.

First of all it is quite normal for a german speaker, that dialects have an altered grammar. Most dialects have some of those and if high german wasn' taught in school it would have lost some aspects of its grammar to by now. Especially all southern german dialects have, so far as I know, lost some cases, and have other quirky aspects of its grammar, so for a german this won't mean anything, if you tell them of the alsatian grammar.

And in many circles it is pretty much accepted, that one reason, why Germany wasn't united earlier, is, that a united Germany was convenient for the outside great powers, expecially France. I don't really think so, but many still think so, because it was taught in schools for a long time, basically since 1871'and conservative history teachers will still teach it that way.

And for a long time, although it is slowly changing, ethnicity was considered to be nationality in Germany. Well untill 1871 there wasn't another to call your self German except your ethnicity. And with small exceptions mostly for Jiddisch speakers your ethnicity was determined by your language. So if Alsatians spoke a Germany dialect, they of course had to be Germans, who were simply brainwashed by the devious French to forget their ancestry.

And, not that I know much about it, but weren't the Alsatian political parties after WW I in parts suppressed in France, not unlike they were before 1914 in Germany? I had the impression, that the identity of Alsatians was only finally determined after WW II, when for instance crimes by Alsatian collaborators and SS members weren't really followed up by police, government, etc to restore a sense of unity to all of France.


And regarding th OP, I would like to see a TL where Alsace-Lorraines would get some kind prince and would join the German empire as a member state. Maybe you could start the TL with Schleswig (don't know how to write it in English) also joining as a member state and not becoming a part of Prussia. This was considered at the time and could be the precedent, to do the same with A-L.
 
And, not that I know much about it, but weren't the Alsatian political parties after WW I in parts suppressed in France, not unlike they were before 1914 in Germany? I had the impression, that the identity of Alsatians was only finally determined after WW II, when for instance crimes by Alsatian collaborators and SS members weren't really followed up by police, government, etc to restore a sense of unity to all of France.

TBH, I think a lot of that had to do with the political fecklessness of the weak Fourth Republic. IMO I think that a lot of the Das Reich Alsatians were lucky they had their cases adjudicated before the coming of the Fifth Republic.:mad:
 
Top