German-French dispute on Alsace and Lorraine [split from: Germany united? What if?]

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

Mind yourself my interpretation of a united Germany is modern Germany, Austria, German parts of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and those other stereotypical German lands.

I hope that you are not claiming Alsace and Lorraine.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

I hope that you are not claiming Alsace and Lorraine.

What would be wrong if he did so?

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

What would be wrong if he did so?

No way France is going to be amputated again.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

No way France is going to be amputated again.

Amputated again? What's with letting the people decide themselves?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

No way France is going to be amputated again.

By that, you imply that it is France and not Germany, with no consideration of other options.

I must disagree with the approach.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Amputated again? What's with letting the people decide themselves?

Deciding themselves? This is unacceptable. The integrity of France's national territory must remain, and Alsacian/Lorrain people must accept it, wether they like it or not.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

By that, you imply that it is France and not Germany, with no consideration of other options.

I don't imply anything. Last time I checked a map, Alsace and Lorraine were part of France.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Deciding themselves? This is unacceptable. The integrity of France's national territory must remain, and Alsacian/Lorrain people must accept it, wether they like it or not.

Not neccessarily, no.

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

I don't imply anything. Last time I checked a map, Alsace and Lorraine were part of France.

It's petty to argue over state/geography to decide a social question of ethnic identity.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Deciding themselves? This is unacceptable. The integrity of France's national territory must remain, and Alsacian/Lorrain people must accept it, wether they like it or not.

French must accept France to be a Maghrebian colony, whether they like it or not.

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

I don't imply anything. Last time I checked a map, Alsace and Lorraine were part of France.

After having conquered it and without asking the indigenous people for permission

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

It's petty to argue over state/geography to decide a social question of ethnic identity.

What is petty is to use a so-called question of ethnic identity to cut a Nation-State to pieces.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

French must accept France to be a Maghrebian colony, whether they like it or not.

Off-topic. We were talking of Nation-States territories. If you are using this kind of argument, then I will return it saying that Alsace isn't a Germanic region anyway, but Maghrebo-Turkic one, asking to be "reunited" to the greater European Turkish colony and its capital, Istanbul am Spree.

After having conquered it and without asking the indigenous people for permission

That's what German history books say. Our French books say that we took it back from the German conquest of 1870.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

What is petty is to use a so-called question of ethnic identity to cut a Nation-State to pieces.

So you are in favour of multi-ethnic states?

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Off-topic. We were talking of Nation-States territories. If you are using this kind of argument, then I will return it saying that Alsace isn't a Germanic region anyway, but Maghrebo-Turkic one, asking to be "reunited" to the greater European Turkish colony and its capital, Istanbul am Spree.

I used your words saying people should have no say in that matter, and it's you supporting this Jacobin "nation" which is hostile towards and native ethnicity here.

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

That's what German history books say. Our French books say that we took it back from the German conquest of 1870.

FRG history books support the Jacobinst view of course.
Fact is France conquered Alsace and German-Lorraine from Germany before it was re-captured in 1870. And I surely do not agree with the Prussian way of taking it back.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

What is petty is to use a so-called question of ethnic identity to cut a Nation-State to pieces.

A region and its peoples origins, history, mother tongue - ethnicity is the basis for what nation-state it belongs to. So where you see a case of cutting a nation-state up in pieces, other would see it as a case of natural irredentism and cutting a piece off from an imperial state it didnt belong to.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

So you are in favour of multi-ethnic states?

You are oversimplifying.

France is more varied than Germany for sure, regarding its ethnic roots. Anyway, and even before Jacobinism, it was unified in what is now a genuine Nation. There is no way back.

Anyway, I don't see how so-called multiethnic states couldn't exist. Switzerland is a valid example of this.

I used your words saying people should have no say in that matter, and it's you supporting this Jacobin "nation" which is hostile towards and native ethnicity here.

Without centralism, there is no such thing as France. It was its founding principle, its integrative motor. You just can't do without it. And this was before Jacobinism. Jacobinism is just the caricatural end of a long integrative political process that was consistant throughout the history of France.

FRG history books support the Jacobinst view of course.
Fact is France conquered Alsace and German-Lorraine from Germany before it was re-captured in 1870.

Alsace is Alemanic, not German-speaking. Unless you advocate Pan-Germanism, I don't see why it should be merged with Germany.

And I surely do not agree with the Prussian way of taking it back.

I know you don't. But I only care about the result, never about the way of achieving it.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

A region and its peoples origins, history, mother tongue - ethnicity is the basis for what nation-state it belongs to. So where you see a case of cutting a nation-state up in pieces, other would see it as a case of natural irredentism and cutting a piece off from an imperial state it didnt belong to.

There isn't more basis for Germany claiming Alsace than for the same Germany claiming Alemanic Switzerland, or Austria. I wouldn't call this irredentism, but Pan-Germanism.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Alsace is Alemanic, not German-speaking. Unless you advocate Pan-Germanism, I don't see why it should be merged with Germany.

Alemannic is German. Perhaps you dont know much about the linguistics of Germany. But Germany is divided into linguistic (and cultural) continuums. Alemannic is part of the linguistic continuum of the Upper German dialects in Southern Germany and beyond into Austria, France, Switzerland, Italy.

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

There isn't more basis for Germany claiming Alsace than for the same Germany claiming Alemanic Switzerland, or Austria. I wouldn't call this irredentism, but Pan-Germanism.

Germany, is it self, the union of autonomous or individual regions, with the main thing in common of the German tongue. Why would the current union be more valid than a union including Austria, Alsace-Lorraine or Alemannic Switzerland? The answer is, that it is not. They qualify for the main characteristics of the regions already in the republic, and fit in there. The qualifying characteristics are those of culture, language and ethnicity - the ideal for nation-states.

The question of the basis for Austria [and similar divided states] is already dealt with here, but the notion that there is one is mostly associated with self-hatred and anti-German sentiment, propagated by Austrian Jews and others, who in reality simply have their own interests at heart.