WI: no German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine

The French cabinets and rulers may have been resigned to its loss, but AL must have gone a long way towards preparing the population in the most liberal country in Europe for war. In the Place de la Concorde, built way before 1870 (although I don't remember exactly when), there are 8 marble statues, representing 8 great French cities, and one them is to Strassbourg, which was covered in black on state holidays (maybe just Bastille Day?) following its loss.
Most "liberal" country in Europe? From what timeline do you write? Certainly not OTL like the rest of us.

In Jan. 1918, Lloyd George said, referring to AL, “This sore has poisoned the peace of Europe for half a century, and until it is cured healthy conditions cannot be restored.” Maybe that's just political bluster, but it really looks like the transfer of AL damaged relations between France and Germany much more than would have otherwise been the case.
Propaganda to justifie the dumbest war humanity has ever fought is hardly a good argument. The loss of AL was bad for the relationship between Germany and France. Saying that a war which started in the Balkans is somehow the fault of the loss of a province in western europe would be magic.
 

Deleted member 1487

The French cabinets and rulers may have been resigned to its loss, but AL must have gone a long way towards preparing the population in the most liberal country in Europe for war. In the Place de la Concorde, built way before 1870 (although I don't remember exactly when), there are 8 marble statues, representing 8 great French cities, and one them is to Strassbourg, which was covered in black on state holidays (maybe just Bastille Day?) following its loss.
And? They weren't about to fight a war for its recovery and it required the Germans to attack them in 1914 to get the French people behind the war.

In Jan. 1918, Lloyd George said, referring to AL, “This sore has poisoned the peace of Europe for half a century, and until it is cured healthy conditions cannot be restored.” Maybe that's just political bluster, but it really looks like the transfer of AL damaged relations between France and Germany much more than would have otherwise been the case.
In 1918 after 4 years of war the French needed something to show for their losses, so they staked their claim on A-L. Don't place too much value on political speeches for the sake of consumption of the public. The war is what damaged relations more than anything.

And I wrote about the "Yugoslavs" (to refer to all southern slavs), not Yugoslavia.
Then say Southern Slavs for this period; Yugoslavia refers to a specific country and existed after the war and when translated pretty much means 'greater slavia' which is a pretty indistinct term, one to justify Serb annexation of Southern Slavic elements into their empire.
 
Most "liberal" country in Europe? From what timeline do you write? Certainly not OTL like the rest of us.

Propaganda to justifie the dumbest war humanity has ever fought is hardly a good argument. The loss of AL was bad for the relationship between Germany and France. Saying that a war which started in the Balkans is somehow the fault of the loss of a province in western europe would be magic.

By "liberal" I mean dedicated to freedom (press, religion, etc.) and equality. I think France fits the bill on that. What's it up against? The UK was too hung up on inherited privilege. My point was that the more liberal the country, the harder it would be to convince the people to fight a war.

War was going to happen anyway - my contention is that without the loss of AL, France's enmity with Germany isn't so great that it enters into its alliance with Russia, containing the war to Osteuropa.
 

Deleted member 1487

War was going to happen anyway - my contention is that without the loss of AL, France's enmity with Germany isn't so great that it enters into its alliance with Russia, containing the war to Osteuropa.

Then you don't understand French politics at the time; after fighting a war with a united Germany France was terrified of having a much larger and more industrialized nation with more effective military on its border, A-L or no. A-L was a symbol of French decadency and their eclipse by Germany; realizing that Germany was now France's superior in any conceivable way, they needed an ally against that new power that had several hundred years of bones to pick with France, Russia being the only willing option that had the power to offset Germany to a degree.
 
With or without AL, the French would still be pissed because they are not longer the big bully on the continent like the last 600years, that role fills Germany now.

I don't think so. France was beaten in 1815 and didn't try to come back. Why would it without any beef with Germany ? The most probable enemy is Britain due to colonialism. Also, between 1815 and 1870, France really wasn't warlike. Only two major wars (Mexican Intervention and Crimea) were fought.

Sure, as long as your neighbour which you bullied the last centuries unifies over the night and is way more powerful than you, they would have allied with the Devil, with or without AL, as long as there was a unified Germany.

Everyone warred in Germany, almost since the dawn of time, and even when it unified, we didn't see everyone gang up on it. States have other reasons than history for their alliance. Without the annexation of Alsace-Moselle, there wouldn't be any reason to to fight Germany except for colonies (France had abandonned any of being a continental hegemon at that point).

If it wasnt AL it would have been the left Rhine bank, like in the 1840ies.

No one cared about the Rhine left bank except a few nuts (yes Adolphe Tiers was a nut, and no one would have followed him in actually claiming it).

Without annexion, there is no Alsatian dispora to change the hereditary ennemy from the english to the prussian. ITTL, you could easily have an alliance of France and Germany, esp if both want to get more colonies; there could well be an informal agreement which sees more of western africa to Germany and France pushing more in indochina, against either South China or Siam. This is a nightmare situation for UK, who may try to ally with either Austria or Russia.

With this i agree. The UK would be the the major rival of both France and Germany in a TL without the annexation of AL, as their wouldn't be a lot of revanchism in France, and German insecurities about France would be lifted by the victory.

You are overplaying the effect of A-L on French general thought by 1914. France was pretty resigned to the loss, but politicians were still mentioning it for electoral purposes; no one really expected it to be returned until the war happened then it was the only thing they could conceivably get for their sacrifice.

No, France wasn't resigned to the loss of AL. Almost all the French diplomacy after the Franco-Prussian war was finding allies to fight Germany and to get AL back. There was a lot of nationalist propaganda about AL between 1871 and 1914

Then you don't understand French politics at the time; after fighting a war with a united Germany France was terrified of having a much larger and more industrialized nation with more effective military on its border, A-L or no. A-L was a symbol of French decadency and their eclipse by Germany; realizing that Germany was now France's superior in any conceivable way, they needed an ally against that new power that had several hundred years of bones to pick with France, Russia being the only willing option that had the power to offset Germany to a degree.

France was beaten by the UK in 1815, the UK had a bigger industry and still France didn't try to fight the UK after 1815. Nations don't fight other nations because they are bigger. If Germany and France don't try to steal each others colonies, then they would be natural partners against the UK.
 
I'll concede that point. But there's still a 0% chance of France allying with Germany following its defeat in 1870-71, AL or not.

you shouldn't speak with such finality without sources to back you up. According to this source, after the war, France tried to reconcile with Germany and vice-versa. Alsace-Lorraine was a stumbling block. Without A-L, a European Union in 1895 was a real possiblility

http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/french_german_revised.pdf
 
I don't think so. France was beaten in 1815 and didn't try to come back. Why would it without any beef with Germany ? The most probable enemy is Britain due to colonialism. Also, between 1815 and 1870, France really wasn't warlike. Only two major wars (Mexican Intervention and Crimea) were fought.
That didnt prohibit another Napoleon to become Emperor again. You really believe that the "Grande Nation" would be satisfied with playing second fiddle on the continent, or even third? Doubtful. As for not warlike, the enmity between Germany and France didnt came out of thin air.

Everyone warred in Germany, almost since the dawn of time,
Mostly France as it saw the HRE as his main opponent on the continent and later as a weak victim to expand easily. Before Germany unified and the German question was solved, the german question for the last centuries was to deny possible adversaries the resources which central europe could provide (most of times this meant Germany/HRE as a battling ground and peripheral powers as the invaders).

and even when it unified, we didn't see everyone gang up on it.
Bismarck tried its best to prevent exactly that. And later exactly that happened. I admit that is more to blame at little Willy, but nevertheless it did happen for a reason. France felt reduced to a second tier power, Germanys power potential was to big for being satisfied with what it had achieved. So my argument still stands, with or without AL, the outcome and the politcal, social and strategic situation is not changed at all.

States have other reasons than history for their alliance. Without the annexation of Alsace-Moselle, there wouldn't be any reason to to fight Germany except for colonies (France had abandonned any of being a continental hegemon at that point).
Sure, there are other reasons for war. AL was just a really good reason to fight for France. If not that, it would have been another one.

No one cared about the Rhine left bank except a few nuts (yes Adolphe Tiers was a nut, and no one would have followed him in actually claiming it).
Enough people cared to nearly spark a war between the German Confederation and France.

With this i agree. The UK would be the the major rival of both France and Germany in a TL without the annexation of AL, as their wouldn't be a lot of revanchism in France, and German insecurities about France would be lifted by the victory.
Could be, must not be. Germany still overshadows the "Grande Nation" and the victory in the Franco-Prussian war was so overwhelming and so surprising that it would still left some revanchism in France.

No, France wasn't resigned to the loss of AL. Almost all the French diplomacy after the Franco-Prussian war was finding allies to fight Germany and to get AL back. There was a lot of nationalist propaganda about AL between 1871 and 1914
Sometimes this feeling reminds me of the loss of the eastern provinces in Germany after ww1. Loosing land which you consider essential to a foe which you regard lower than you is hard to swallow.

France was beaten by the UK in 1815, the UK had a bigger industry and still France didn't try to fight the UK after 1815. Nations don't fight other nations because they are bigger. If Germany and France don't try to steal each others colonies, then they would be natural partners against the UK.
The UK is not the evil barbarian from the wrong side of the Rhine. The perception of each other is determining, too.


Greetz, Haaki
 
Top