Was Alsace-Lorraine the problem in WW1?

[SolomonW]

Let say that the Germans and French were more sensible and somehow in the
early 1900s they made a deal about Alsace-Lorraine. Let us hand wave the
difficulty here.

Now would it have made much of a difference. France still has a more
powerful potential enemy in the North. The problem with the balance of
power in Europe remains.

It seems to make little difference to the situation.

What do you think?

[jerry kraus]

Post by SolomonW
Let say that the Germans and French were more sensible and somehow in the
early 1900s they made a deal about Alsace-Lorraine. Let us hand wave the
difficulty here.
Now would it have made much of a difference. France still has a more
powerful potential enemy in the North. The problem with the balance of
power in Europe remains.
It seems to make little difference to the situation.
What do you think?

My understanding was that the real problem was competition between Russia and Germany, and German fear of being overwhelmed by the Russian Bear. Now, as it happens, most historians now agree that this fear was misplaced. True, the Russians had a vast territory, huge population and rapid economic growth. But, this growth was not sustainable, since it was based on a highly unstable economic imbalance between the poor workers, and their rich masters. Very much unlike the German socialist model, already in place in Germany. So, really, if the Kaiser had simply played it cool, social instability in Russia would likely have solved his problems for him. So, really, the problem was likely Kaiser Wilhelm II, himself.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Let say that the Germans and French were more sensible and somehow in the
early 1900s they made a deal about Alsace-Lorraine. Let us hand wave the
difficulty here.
Now would it have made much of a difference. France still has a more
powerful potential enemy in the North. The problem with the balance of
power in Europe remains.
It seems to make little difference to the situation.
What do you think?

My understanding was that the real problem was competition between Russia and Germany, and German fear of being overwhelmed by the Russian Bear.

That was true but France was also a problem to German.

Post by jerry kraus
Now, as it happens, most historians now agree that this fear was misplaced.

Mmmmmmm

Some

Post by jerry kraus
True, the Russians had a vast territory, huge population and rapid economic growth. But, this growth was not sustainable, since it was based on a highly unstable economic imbalance between the poor workers, and their rich masters.

Without WW1, it might have been worked out.

Post by jerry kraus
Very much unlike the German socialist model, already in place in Germany.

Mmmmmmm

I doubt it would be accurately called that.

Post by jerry kraus
So, really, if the Kaiser had simply played it cool, social instability in Russia would likely have solved his problems for him.

I agree.

A German dominated Europe is highly likely.

Post by jerry kraus
So, really, the problem was likely Kaiser Wilhelm II, himself.

He was certainly a big part of the problem.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
That was true but France was also a problem to German.

Post by jerry kraus
Now, as it happens, most historians now agree that this fear was misplaced.

No - Bismarck understood clearly that once Alsace and Lorraine were
annexed France would spare no effort to get them back.

As I said in my previous posting, the whole point of Bismarck's
foreign policy was to keep France without allies.

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
True, the Russians had a vast territory, huge population and rapid economic growth. But, this growth was not sustainable, since it was based on a highly unstable economic imbalance between the poor workers, and their rich masters.

Without WW1, it might have been worked out.

Post by jerry kraus
Very much unlike the German socialist model, already in place in Germany.

Most of Russian industrial development between 1871-1914 was financed
by France. This largely destroyed the French economy after 1917 when
the Bolsheviks repudiated their French bonds and was THE major factor
why France was so desperate for German reparations in 1918-19.

Obviously that wasn't knowable in the 1870s and 80s.

Post by SolomonW
A German dominated Europe is highly likely.

Post by jerry kraus
So, really, the problem was likely Kaiser Wilhelm II, himself.

He was certainly a big part of the problem.

That is definitely the consensus by most historians I've read.

In my opinion had the German crown not had the power it had (for
instance if the Kaiser had the same degree of control of state policy
as Victoria and Edward VII had) most of the critical mistakes that led
to war in 1914 would have been far less likely to happen.

Had Wilhelm's father lived even one year longer it is possible
Bismarck might have successfully made that evolution.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
Let say that the Germans and French were more sensible and somehow in the
early 1900s they made a deal about Alsace-Lorraine. Let us hand wave the
difficulty here.
Now would it have made much of a difference. France still has a more
powerful potential enemy in the North. The problem with the balance of
power in Europe remains.
It seems to make little difference to the situation.
What do you think?

Recovery of Alsace-Lorraine was a chief (if not THE chief) French war
aim. That said after the failure of Plan 17 there was little further
attempt to forcibly reacquire them during the war. (1/2 million dead
Frenchmen during the first three months of the war tends to do that!)

The main effect of German possession of A-L is that even ASBs would
have trouble forging a German French alliance in the 40 years after
1871.

Aside from that no concrete impact on how a war between them would be
fought.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat
The main effect of German possession of A-L is that even ASBs would
have trouble forging a German French alliance in the 40 years after
1871.

France needs to have allies to balance Germany. How would such an alliance
serve France?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
The main effect of German possession of A-L is that even ASBs would
have trouble forging a German French alliance in the 40 years after
1871.

France needs to have allies to balance Germany. How would such an alliance
serve France?

I completely agree BUT the whole point of Bismarck's diplomacy after
1871 was to do whatever he could to avoid France getting a firm ally.

This is why Wilhelm II's biggest blunder was failing to renew the
Reinsurance treaty - which had the effect of driving the French and
the Russians (and eventually Britain) together. It is difficult to
imagine a course of action Germany could do to promote such an
alliance.

Bismarck understood France without allies was no threat to Germany.
Had Kaiser William understood that the alliance system that was so
firm in 1914 would never have existed.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
The main effect of German possession of A-L is that even ASBs would
have trouble forging a German French alliance in the 40 years after
1871.

France needs to have allies to balance Germany. How would such an alliance
serve France?

I completely agree BUT the whole point of Bismarck's diplomacy after
1871 was to do whatever he could to avoid France getting a firm ally.
This is why Wilhelm II's biggest blunder was failing to renew the
Reinsurance treaty - which had the effect of driving the French and
the Russians (and eventually Britain) together.

Ia gree

Post by The Horny Goat
It is difficult to
imagine a course of action Germany could do to promote such an
alliance.

Not sure what you mean here.

Post by The Horny Goat
Bismarck understood France without allies was no threat to Germany.
Had Kaiser William understood that the alliance system that was so
firm in 1914 would never have existed.

Absolutely.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
It is difficult to
imagine a course of action Germany could do to promote such an
alliance.

Not sure what you mean here.

Post by The Horny Goat
Bismarck understood France without allies was no threat to Germany.
Had Kaiser William understood that the alliance system that was so
firm in 1914 would never have existed.

Absolutely.

What I mangled was that I was trying to say that it was difficult to
imagine an action Germany could take that was so likely to promote an
anti-German alliance involving France as failing to renew the
Reinsurance Treaty.

[Insane Ranter]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
The main effect of German possession of A-L is that even ASBs would
have trouble forging a German French alliance in the 40 years after
1871.

France needs to have allies to balance Germany. How would such an alliance
serve France?

Not that it would happen at this time and is ASB..... If France and Germany were in an Alliance then Germany isn't crowning an emperor in Paris in the Hall of Mirrors again..

Problem is France wanted to get back at Germany at some point after the Franco-Prussian War.

A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Insane Ranter
A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up
to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that
caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still
happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

Not IMO. It took a 'perfect storm' of multiple factors
to start the war in 1914, and (IMO) all of them were
necessary to reach that level of international hostility.
There had been previous episodes of tension, but none
which reached that level.

If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.

For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany, and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia. If France is not allied with Russia nor seeking
revanche, Germany will not plan to invade and crush France,
which means no German invasion of Belgium, which means no
British involvement. And Russia is not going to war against
Germany without allies. Austria-Hungary is busy trying not
to fall apart; Turkey _is_ falling apart; Italy is too weak
to start anything serious.

[SolomonW]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Insane Ranter
A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up
to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that
caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still
happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

Not IMO. It took a 'perfect storm' of multiple factors
to start the war in 1914, and (IMO) all of them were
necessary to reach that level of international hostility.
There had been previous episodes of tension, but none
which reached that level.
If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.

Germany under the Kaiser still wants to dominate Europe.

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany,

Did France want war in 1914? I doubt it?

Post by Rich Rostrom
and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia.

Without Russia, France is a sitting duck for Germany; she needs that
alliance to balance Germany. This was after all the the main emphasis of
Brimark's policies to keep them apart.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany,

Did France want war in 1914? I doubt it?

I've seen little evidence they did but Germany gave them an ultimatum
which they knew would be rejected. No German seriously thought France
would hand over the keys to the two key points of French border
defences.

Post by SolomonW

Post by Rich Rostrom
and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia.

Without Russia, France is a sitting duck for Germany; she needs that
alliance to balance Germany. This was after all the the main emphasis of
Brimark's policies to keep them apart.

Germany's problem with Russia in 1914 had nothing to do with France -
if they didn't mobilize their ally Austria-Hungary would be squashed
by the Russians.

Fact is, in 1914 Germany had no war plan for a one front war without
France so gave France an ultimatum pretty much forcing France to
fight. This is why I say Article 231 was entirely justified.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany,

Did France want war in 1914? I doubt it?

I've seen little evidence they did but Germany gave them an ultimatum
which they knew would be rejected. No German seriously thought France
would hand over the keys to the two key points of French border
defences.

Post by SolomonW

Post by Rich Rostrom
and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia.

Without Russia, France is a sitting duck for Germany; she needs that
alliance to balance Germany. This was after all the the main emphasis of
Brimark's policies to keep them apart.

Germany's problem with Russia in 1914 had nothing to do with France -
if they didn't mobilize their ally Austria-Hungary would be squashed
by the Russians.

If the Germans did not give a guarantee, the Austrian Hungarians would have
done something very differently.

Post by The Horny Goat
Fact is, in 1914 Germany had no war plan for a one front war without
France so gave France an ultimatum pretty much forcing France to
fight. This is why I say Article 231 was entirely justified.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
Germany's problem with Russia in 1914 had nothing to do with France -
if they didn't mobilize their ally Austria-Hungary would be squashed
by the Russians.

If the Germans did not give a guarantee, the Austrian Hungarians would have
done something very differently.

I agree and that something would not be a war that would involve all
or most of the Great Powers of Europe.

It may or may not lead to the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire
depending on how the crisis ended.

[Rob]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Insane Ranter
A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up
to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that
caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still
happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

Not IMO. It took a 'perfect storm' of multiple factors
to start the war in 1914, and (IMO) all of them were
necessary to reach that level of international hostility.
There had been previous episodes of tension, but none
which reached that level.
If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany, and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia. If France is not allied with Russia nor seeking
revanche, Germany will not plan to invade and crush France,
which means no German invasion of Belgium, which means no
British involvement. And Russia is not going to war against
Germany without allies. Austria-Hungary is busy trying not
to fall apart; Turkey _is_ falling apart; Italy is too weak
to start anything serious.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

So- we have West-Central Europe that is war-free from 1871 to 2018?

That is quite unusual in European history. Neighbors not fighting each other for over a century is quite a long time. In most geographic regions around the globe, it is a rarity.

It is not entirely unprecedented though - China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam remained at peace with each other for a few periods at least as long as that.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Rob

Post by Rob

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Insane Ranter
A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up
to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that
caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still
happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

Not IMO. It took a 'perfect storm' of multiple factors
to start the war in 1914, and (IMO) all of them were
necessary to reach that level of international hostility.
There had been previous episodes of tension, but none
which reached that level.
If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against

That is quite unusual in European history. Neighbors not fighting each other for over a century is quite a long time. In most geographic regions around the globe, it is a rarity.
It is not entirely unprecedented though - China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam remained at peace with each other for a few periods at least as long as that.

It's 80+ years in South America and had been 100 years before that.

(One presumes we're excluding out of control soccer fans!)

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Rob

Post by Rob

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Insane Ranter
A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up
to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that
caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still
happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

Not IMO. It took a 'perfect storm' of multiple factors
to start the war in 1914, and (IMO) all of them were
necessary to reach that level of international hostility.
There had been previous episodes of tension, but none
which reached that level.
If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against

That is quite unusual in European history. Neighbors not fighting each other for over a century is quite a long time. In most geographic regions around the globe, it is a rarity.
It is not entirely unprecedented though - China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam remained at peace with each other for a few periods at least as long as that.

It's 80+ years in South America and had been 100 years before that.
(One presumes we're excluding out of control soccer fans!)

Maybe you should say North America.


There have been several wars in South America in this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_South_America

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Rob

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against

That is quite unusual in European history. Neighbors not fighting each other for over a century is quite a long time. In most geographic regions around the globe, it is a rarity.
It is not entirely unprecedented though - China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam remained at peace with each other for a few periods at least as long as that.

It's 80+ years in South America and had been 100 years before that.
(One presumes we're excluding out of control soccer fans!)

Maybe you should say North America.

Well the United States has dominated all of North America at least
since 1848. Even the Mexican war was fairly one sided.

I would argue that the formation of Canada in 1867 (for which the
founding conferences were held 1862-64) was driven as much by fear of
what "Manifest Destiny" America might do as soon as the shooting
between North and South stopped.

In 1848 the main reason America didn't annex all of Mexico was that
they didn't want Mexicans as US citizens and they knew they would have
to be citizens eventually in any territories they annexed.

With Canada there would have been far less cultural difference but the
vital thing for America would be to acquire Canada without going to
war with Britain. Undoubtedly the fully mobilized Union army of
1864-65 could have run over Canada but ending such a war with Great
Britain on satisfactory terms might be awkward.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that the formation of Canada in 1867 (for which the
founding conferences were held 1862-64) was driven as much by fear of
what "Manifest Destiny" America might do as soon as the shooting
between North and South stopped.

Was there any significant movement for regions not to join this union
either go it alone as an independant state, join the UK directly or to join
the US?

[jerry kraus]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that the formation of Canada in 1867 (for which the
founding conferences were held 1862-64) was driven as much by fear of
what "Manifest Destiny" America might do as soon as the shooting
between North and South stopped.

Was there any significant movement for regions not to join this union
either go it alone as an independant state, join the UK directly or to join
the US?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada was formed primarily to defend against American militarism and expansionism following the U.S. Civil War, and, it was formed largely at British instigation. Effectively, since all of Canada was part of the British Empire, it was already joined to the UK. I don't believe in the nineteenth century it would have been considered at all practical to formerly make a territory 3,000 miles away a territory of the United Kingdom in the same way that Ireland or Scotland was. Some people in the U.S. wonder a great deal about Alaska and Hawaii really being states, and they didn't become so until air travel was well advanced, in the late 1950's.

Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867. Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada" included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that the formation of Canada in 1867 (for which the
founding conferences were held 1862-64) was driven as much by fear of
what "Manifest Destiny" America might do as soon as the shooting
between North and South stopped.

Was there any significant movement for regions not to join this union
either go it alone as an independant state, join the UK directly or to join
the US?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada was formed primarily to defend against American militarism and expansionism following the U.S. Civil War,

From what I understand, it was seen as a threat by the Canadian but there
is not much to support that the American militarism and expansionism were
an actual threat.

Post by jerry kraus
and, it was formed largely at British instigation.

If so it was a similar situation as Australia. The Australian states only
came together because of British pressure and made a state.

Post by jerry kraus
Effectively, since all of Canada was part of the British Empire, it was already joined to the UK.

I doubt that this is the situation. It would even then be seen as distinct.
A Canadan would not be voting in the UK election.

Post by jerry kraus
I don't believe in the nineteenth century it would have been considered at all practical to formerly make a territory 3,000 miles away a territory of the United Kingdom in the same way that Ireland or Scotland was.

I agree it would be harder but not impossible.

Post by jerry kraus
Some people in the U.S. wonder a great deal about Alaska and Hawaii really being states, and they didn't become so until air travel was well advanced, in the late 1950's

Well tough for them.

Post by jerry kraus
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867. Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada" included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

This was what I was asking.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
Effectively, since all of Canada was part of the British Empire, it was already joined to the UK.

I doubt that this is the situation. It would even then be seen as distinct.
A Canadan would not be voting in the UK election.

When was present UK voting legislation adopted?

The reason I ask is my daughter (Canadian) has been living and working
in the UK since 2014 and has voted in two UK general elections, the
Brexit referendum in June 2016 and the by-election in her riding to
replace Mr Khan who resigned his seat in south London to run for Mayor
of London after Boris Johnson went to Westminster. So 4 elections (she
also voted for mayor of London) in 4 years.

She is not a UK citizen.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
Effectively, since all of Canada was part of the British Empire, it
was already joined to the UK.

I doubt that this is the situation. It would even then be seen as distinct.
A Canadan would not be voting in the UK election.

When was present UK voting legislation adopted?
The reason I ask is my daughter (Canadian) has been living and working
in the UK since 2014 and has voted in two UK general elections, the
Brexit referendum in June 2016 and the by-election in her riding to
replace Mr Khan who resigned his seat in south London to run for Mayor
of London after Boris Johnson went to Westminster. So 4 elections (she
also voted for mayor of London) in 4 years.
She is not a UK citizen.

When it was the British Empire, all subjects of the UK monarch could vote
in British elections which they would be entitled (by residence, age,
etc.) to vote in if they were British. That's inevitable, if you think
about it.

For as long as I can remember (having filled in voter registration forms
since the early 70s), the registration form has stated that Commonwealth
and RoI citizens can register to vote in the same way as UK citizens. So
it's certainly been in place since then.

That leaves about 20 years between the mutation of the Empire into the
Commonwealth and the start of my memory, during which the existing rules
could have been adopted; but my guess is that they've always been in
place, and were formalised at the same time that the Empire became the
Commonwealth, and possibly ever since 'Dominion Status' was defined.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867. Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada" included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

This was what I was asking.

Actually PEI did not join Canada until 1873. By then Manitoba (1870)
and British Columbia (1871) had joined Canada and the rest of Canada
west of Ontario were federal territories. (In other words pretty much
Canada's present boundaries except PEI and Newfoundland)

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:02:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by jerry kraus
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867.

Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada"
included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Your statement is partly incorrect and rather misleading.

PEI did not join until 1873. It was the last of a group joining
not long after 1867, namely Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
(1870), British Columbia (1871), and PEI (1873).

Then, there was the Yukon Territory (1898) and Saskatchewan and
Alberta (1905). Newfoundland (1949) was the last piece.

38 years and 3 months after Confederation, Canada had its modern
landmass with the exception of Newfoundland. Not really "well after"
as country formation goes.

(I grant that modern definitions of the provinces and territories
might differ from Back Then some, but the above is at least
substantially correct.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[SolomonW]

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:02:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
[snip]

Post by jerry kraus
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867.

Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada"
included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Your statement is partly incorrect and rather misleading.
PEI did not join until 1873. It was the last of a group joining
not long after 1867, namely Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
(1870), British Columbia (1871), and PEI (1873).
Then, there was the Yukon Territory (1898) and Saskatchewan and
Alberta (1905). Newfoundland (1949) was the last piece.
38 years and 3 months after Confederation, Canada had its modern
landmass with the exception of Newfoundland. Not really "well after"
as country formation goes.
(I grant that modern definitions of the provinces and territories
might differ from Back Then some, but the above is at least
substantially correct.)
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko

Did any of these serious consider joining the USA?

[jerry kraus]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:02:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
[snip]

Post by jerry kraus
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867.

Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada"
included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Your statement is partly incorrect and rather misleading.
PEI did not join until 1873. It was the last of a group joining
not long after 1867, namely Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
(1870), British Columbia (1871), and PEI (1873).
Then, there was the Yukon Territory (1898) and Saskatchewan and
Alberta (1905). Newfoundland (1949) was the last piece.
38 years and 3 months after Confederation, Canada had its modern
landmass with the exception of Newfoundland. Not really "well after"
as country formation goes.
(I grant that modern definitions of the provinces and territories
might differ from Back Then some, but the above is at least
substantially correct.)
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by SolomonW
Did any of these serious consider joining the USA?

I very much doubt the British would have permitted that. The British were still very powerful during the late nineteenth century, when most of Canada was assimilating itself. For example Louis Riel led independence revolts in Western Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel

in 1869-70 and 1885. His supporters were cut to pieces with Gatling Guns in the field, and he was hung as a traitor. Canadians aren't nearly as "nice" as they'd have you believe, when their institutions are directly challenged. They adhere to the British tradition of extreme force when directly opposed.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:02:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
[snip]

Post by jerry kraus
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867.

Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada"
included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Your statement is partly incorrect and rather misleading.
PEI did not join until 1873. It was the last of a group joining
not long after 1867, namely Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
(1870), British Columbia (1871), and PEI (1873).
Then, there was the Yukon Territory (1898) and Saskatchewan and
Alberta (1905). Newfoundland (1949) was the last piece.
38 years and 3 months after Confederation, Canada had its modern
landmass with the exception of Newfoundland. Not really "well after"
as country formation goes.
(I grant that modern definitions of the provinces and territories
might differ from Back Then some, but the above is at least
substantially correct.)
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by SolomonW
Did any of these serious consider joining the USA?

I very much doubt the British would have permitted that. The British were still very powerful during the late nineteenth century, when most of Canada was assimilating itself. For example Louis Riel led independence revolts in Western Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
in 1869-70 and 1885. His supporters were cut to pieces with Gatling Guns in the field, and he was hung as a traitor. Canadians aren't nearly as "nice" as they'd have you believe, when their institutions are directly challenged. They adhere to the British tradition of extreme force when directly opposed.

Thanks

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Did any of these serious consider joining the USA?

I very much doubt the British would have permitted that. The British were still very powerful during the late nineteenth century, when most of Canada was assimilating itself. For example Louis Riel led independence revolts in Western Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
in 1869-70 and 1885. His supporters were cut to pieces with Gatling Guns in the field, and he was hung as a traitor. Canadians aren't nearly as "nice" as they'd have you believe, when their institutions are directly challenged. They adhere to the British tradition of extreme force when directly opposed.

Thanks

It is not popular in revisionist 2018 to say so but based on the
standards of the times I am firmly convinced Riel got exactly what he
deserved and would have gotten it in 1870 had he not fled to the
United States and extradition refused.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:16:30 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Did any of these serious consider joining the USA?

I very much doubt the British would have permitted that. The British were still very powerful during the late nineteenth century, when most of Canada was assimilating itself. For example Louis Riel led independence revolts in Western Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
in 1869-70 and 1885. His supporters were cut to pieces with Gatling Guns in the field, and he was hung as a traitor. Canadians aren't nearly as "nice" as they'd have you believe, when their institutions are directly challenged. They adhere to the British tradition of extreme force when directly opposed.

There was some agitation in what is now British Columbia during the
Barkerville gold rush of the 1850s and fears of a Texas style
filibuster.

I have argued several times in soc.history.what-if that Judge Matthew
Begbie (first chief justice of British Columbia) was a pivotal figure
in Canadian history since had social order broken down a filibuster
could well have happened as during the gold rush US nationals
outnumbered British subjects for most of the 1855-1865 era before
British Columbia became a Crown Colony (1864 and 1866 in its present
boundaries)

Begbie was a circuit judge whose steady hand maintained law and order
in this critical period. In the last decade there have been aboriginal
objections to him (desires to remove statues etc) but on the whole his
record is overwhelmingly positive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Baillie_Begbie

Obviously a Canada not bordering the Pacific would be a very different
place. (presumably the alternate boundary would have been the
continental divide in the Rockies)

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:02:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Canada was formed primarily to defend against American militarism and expansionism following the U.S. Civil War, and, it was formed largely at British instigation. Effectively, since all of Canada was part of the British Empire, it was already joined to the UK. I don't believe in the nineteenth century it would have been considered at all practical to formerly make a territory 3,000 miles away a territory of the United Kingdom in the same way that Ireland or Scotland was. Some people in the U.S. wonder a great deal about Alaska and Hawaii really being states, and they didn't become so until air travel was well advanced, in the late 1950's.
Much of modern Canada didn't join Canada until well after 1867. Newfoundland remained independent until 1949. The original "Canada" included only Ontario, Quebec and the east coast provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Actually except for Newfoundland, Canada had its present boundaries by
1873. The Arctic archipelago had been claimed by then but the northern
portion of it was not clearly defined until the late 1980s. To say
'much of modern Canada didn't join Canada' is equivalent to saying
Arizona and New Mexico didn't join the US until 1912. (In fact Alberta
and Saskatchewan were formed in 1905 while Manitoba Ontario and Quebec
had joined Canada with smaller boundaries than they now have)

The US never seriously tried to claim any territory east of the
eastern boundary of Alaska which at that time was just a line on the
map. There was not any US attempt as far as I know to claim Yukon at
any point - which is significant due to a gold find in 1897-98 though
US miners certainly played a role.

(In fact the most famous Yukon gold miner was the fictional hero of
the 'Cremation of Sam McGee' who was from "Plumtree down in Tennessee"
- this is from a Robert Service poem many Canadian school kids have to
memorize!)

The main role the Canadian government played in the gold rush was by
positioning North West Mounted Police officers at the pass to turn
back would-be miners who didn't have sufficient supplies to last out a
winter without being a public charge.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that the formation of Canada in 1867 (for which the
founding conferences were held 1862-64) was driven as much by fear of
what "Manifest Destiny" America might do as soon as the shooting
between North and South stopped.

Was there any significant movement for regions not to join this union
either go it alone as an independant state, join the UK directly or to join
the US?

The only movement of any sort like this was in the Newfoundland
referendum in 1948 (Google 'Newfoundland referendum 1948') where there
were 3 options presented to the voters: union with Canada, to seek US
statehood or continue UK Dominion status.

While there was some controversy it seems clear that the US union
option was the least popular of the 3. (roughly 15% of the votes cast)

(Before the referendum Canada had forgiven Britain their share of war
debts the quid pro quo being British endorsement of the Canada option)

There was a second referendum on the other two options with the
majority for Canada.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
It's 80+ years in South America and had been 100
years before that.

I guess you're taking the Gran Chaco War as the
last international war in South America. Which
it was.

However, before that, the War of the Pacific (Chile
vs Peru and Bolivia) was in 1879-1884 (IIRC), and
War of the Triple Alliance was in 1866-1870. There
were also several other wars involving Brazil,
Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:47:27 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
It's 80+ years in South America and had been 100
years before that.

I guess you're taking the Gran Chaco War as the
last international war in South America. Which
it was.
However, before that, the War of the Pacific (Chile
vs Peru and Bolivia) was in 1879-1884 (IIRC), and
War of the Triple Alliance was in 1866-1870. There
were also several other wars involving Brazil,
Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

Yup and yes I know about the other ones you mention.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:52:34 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.

Comparatively peaceful is an exaggeration but it's NOT an exaggeration
to say that German ownership of Alsace & Lorraine gave France a focus
it would not otherwise have had.

Germany could have accomplished much the same goals by forcing a long
term contract on advantageous terms for French coal in 1871 (something
like right of first refusal on 35% of all French coal guaranteed for
40 years would do it) without needing political sovereignity over the
mines. Phrase it in terms of reparations if you like.

France would grumble but not nearly to the extent they did when they
saw the statues representing Alsace and Lorraine with burlap covers
over them for decades afterwards.

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany, and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia. If France is not allied with Russia nor seeking
revanche, Germany will not plan to invade and crush France,
which means no German invasion of Belgium, which means no
British involvement. And Russia is not going to war against
Germany without allies. Austria-Hungary is busy trying not
to fall apart; Turkey _is_ falling apart; Italy is too weak
to start anything serious.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:52:34 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
If one removes the Alsace-Lorraine issue, French-German
relations will be comparatively peaceful. There would be
other factors that could provoke tension, but without
the A-L issue, the aggregate will never get to war level.

Comparatively peaceful is an exaggeration but it's NOT an exaggeration
to say that German ownership of Alsace & Lorraine gave France a focus
it would not otherwise have had.

Agreed

Post by The Horny Goat
Germany could have accomplished much the same goals by forcing a long
term contract on advantageous terms for French coal in 1871 (something
like right of first refusal on 35% of all French coal guaranteed for
40 years would do it) without needing political sovereignity over the
mines. Phrase it in terms of reparations if you like.

France did offer to buy back Alsace-Lorriane.

Post by The Horny Goat
France would grumble but not nearly to the extent they did when they
saw the statues representing Alsace and Lorraine with burlap covers
over them for decades afterwards.

Part of the problem here is that it was considered German territory even by
the locals, in both world wars they overwhelmingly fought for Germany.

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany, and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia. If France is not allied with Russia nor seeking
revanche, Germany will not plan to invade and crush France,
which means no German invasion of Belgium, which means no
British involvement. And Russia is not going to war against
Germany without allies. Austria-Hungary is busy trying not
to fall apart; Turkey _is_ falling apart; Italy is too weak
to start anything serious.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by SolomonW
Part of the problem here is that it was considered German territory even
by the locals, in both world wars they overwhelmingly fought for
Germany.

In 1914, they were German subjects, and could be conscripted; and from
1940 onwards they could also be conscripted in to the German army. Do I'm
not sure that who they fought for is relevant!

Britannica has this:
<start>
Under German rule, Alsace-Lorraine was classified as a Reichsland
(imperial state) and was denied effective self-government until 1902.
Moreover, its population was initially enthusiastic over the new French
republic, and German rule remained unpopular for some years among the
inhabitants, who continued to protest the German annexation. Thousands of
residents who considered themselves French emigrated during this period.
By 1905, however, many of Alsace-Lorraine’s Roman Catholics had been
alienated by the French republic’s anticlerical policies, and so they
shifted their aspirations toward an autonomous Alsace-Lorraine within the
German Empire. Thereafter, especially with the grant of a constitution in
1911, some progress was made toward Germanization in the region.

Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France in 1919 after World War I. The
French government’s attempts to rapidly assimilate Alsace-Lorraine met
with problems, however, especially in France’s plans to substitute state-
run schools for the region’s traditional church schools and in its
attempts to suppress German newspapers (German being the written language
of 75 percent of the inhabitants). As a consequence, Alsace-Lorraine
developed a strong “home rule” movement in the 1920s and unsuccessfully
sought autonomy within the French Republic.
<end>

I'd particularly note that statement about thousands who considered
themselves French leaving. They went to France, presumably, and might in
exile have made a pressure group more effective than their numbers would
suggest - that's happened in similar cases in our own lifetimes.

Wikipedia has more detail, but too much to quote here. Neither of them
make it sound as if the population was enthusiastically German.

[SolomonW]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by SolomonW
Part of the problem here is that it was considered German territory even
by the locals, in both world wars they overwhelmingly fought for
Germany.

In 1914, they were German subjects, and could be conscripted; and from
1940 onwards they could also be conscripted in to the German army. Do I'm
not sure that who they fought for is relevant!
<start>
Under German rule, Alsace-Lorraine was classified as a Reichsland
(imperial state) and was denied effective self-government until 1902.
Moreover, its population was initially enthusiastic over the new French
republic, and German rule remained unpopular for some years among the
inhabitants, who continued to protest the German annexation. Thousands of
residents who considered themselves French emigrated during this period.
By 1905, however, many of Alsace-Lorraine’s Roman Catholics had been
alienated by the French republic’s anticlerical policies, and so they
shifted their aspirations toward an autonomous Alsace-Lorraine within the
German Empire. Thereafter, especially with the grant of a constitution in
1911, some progress was made toward Germanization in the region.

I never heard any problem with people in Alsace-Lorraine going to the
German army in ww1.

Post by Pete Barrett
Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France in 1919 after World War I. The
French government’s attempts to rapidly assimilate Alsace-Lorraine met
with problems, however, especially in France’s plans to substitute state-
run schools for the region’s traditional church schools and in its
attempts to suppress German newspapers (German being the written language
of 75 percent of the inhabitants). As a consequence, Alsace-Lorraine
developed a strong “home rule” movement in the 1920s and unsuccessfully
sought autonomy within the French Republic.
<end>

During ww2, unless the person was Jewish, I have never heard of any problem
with people from Alsace-Lorraine going to the German SS in ww2.

Post by Pete Barrett
I'd particularly note that statement about thousands who considered
themselves French leaving. They went to France, presumably, and might in
exile have made a pressure group more effective than their numbers would
suggest - that's happened in similar cases in our own lifetimes.

This pressure group, I am not aware of. I presume too a similar process
occured with those that considered themselves Germans

Post by Pete Barrett
Wikipedia has more detail, but too much to quote here. Neither of them
make it sound as if the population was enthusiastically German.

Enthusiastic, I never said.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
I never heard any problem with people in Alsace-Lorraine going to the
German army in ww1.

Definitely not.

Post by SolomonW
During ww2, unless the person was Jewish, I have never heard of any problem
with people from Alsace-Lorraine going to the German SS in ww2.

Most from A-L went to the German army not the SS but in 1945 were
mostly treated as collaborators at best (along with members of the
Charlemagne SS division) or war criminals.

So during 1939-45 no problem. Afterwards hoo boy!

Post by SolomonW

Post by Pete Barrett
I'd particularly note that statement about thousands who considered
themselves French leaving. They went to France, presumably, and might in
exile have made a pressure group more effective than their numbers would
suggest - that's happened in similar cases in our own lifetimes.

This pressure group, I am not aware of. I presume too a similar process
occured with those that considered themselves Germans

Most of those fled to Germany in 1945. There weren't very many which
should be no surprise given conditions in German after May 1945.

[Rob]

Post by SolomonW
France did offer to buy back Alsace-Lorriane.

How many times and what were the terms they were proposing each time.

[SolomonW]

Post by Rob

Post by SolomonW
France did offer to buy back Alsace-Lorriane.

How many times and what were the terms they were proposing each time.

I remember reading that the French offered a lot of money before WW1

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
France would grumble but not nearly to the extent they did when they
saw the statues representing Alsace and Lorraine with burlap covers
over them for decades afterwards.

Part of the problem here is that it was considered German territory even by
the locals, in both world wars they overwhelmingly fought for Germany.

All I can offer is anecdotal evidence about my great-grandmother who
always considered herself French despite being an Alsatian with a
Germanic sounding surname - and her father fought for France in 1870.
She was never a French citizen as she was born in the mid 1870s until
her emigration to America in the late 1880s.

My point is don't assume a Germanic surname means loyalty to Germany
rather than France.

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany, and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia. If France is not allied with Russia nor seeking
revanche, Germany will not plan to invade and crush France,
which means no German invasion of Belgium, which means no
British involvement. And Russia is not going to war against
Germany without allies. Austria-Hungary is busy trying not
to fall apart; Turkey _is_ falling apart; Italy is too weak
to start anything serious.

Germany's main interest in attacking France first in 1914 is that
France was expected to mobilize faster than Russia and the Germans
believed France could be defeated and occupied before Russia was fully
mobilized. It was believed a campaign focussing primarily against
Russia would see the Russians adopting an "1812 strategy" of falling
back to Minsk or further and not attacking until fully mobilized. It
was expected that by this time France would be attacking in the west
and if Germany had significantly less troops in the west it was
thought France could not be stopped west of the Rhine.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
France would grumble but not nearly to the extent they did when they
saw the statues representing Alsace and Lorraine with burlap covers
over them for decades afterwards.

Part of the problem here is that it was considered German territory even by
the locals, in both world wars they overwhelmingly fought for Germany.

All I can offer is anecdotal evidence about my great-grandmother who
always considered herself French despite being an Alsatian with a
Germanic sounding surname - and her father fought for France in 1870.
She was never a French citizen as she was born in the mid 1870s until
her emigration to America in the late 1880s.
My point is don't assume a Germanic surname means loyalty to Germany
rather than France.

My wife's grandfather was from that region. He was in the German SS in WW2.
They had a German name too.

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Rich Rostrom
For one thing, France will not be interested in war against
Germany, and is unlikely to make a binding alliance with
Russia. If France is not allied with Russia nor seeking
revanche, Germany will not plan to invade and crush France,
which means no German invasion of Belgium, which means no
British involvement. And Russia is not going to war against
Germany without allies. Austria-Hungary is busy trying not
to fall apart; Turkey _is_ falling apart; Italy is too weak
to start anything serious.

Germany's main interest in attacking France first in 1914 is that
France was expected to mobilize faster than Russia and the Germans
believed France could be defeated and occupied before Russia was fully
mobilized. It was believed a campaign focussing primarily against
Russia would see the Russians adopting an "1812 strategy" of falling
back to Minsk or further and not attacking until fully mobilized. It
was expected that by this time France would be attacking in the west
and if Germany had significantly less troops in the west it was
thought France could not be stopped west of the Rhine.

Hence the reason for the Russian offensive.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
My point is don't assume a Germanic surname means loyalty to Germany
rather than France.

My wife's grandfather was from that region. He was in the German SS in WW2.
They had a German name too.

No argument there. Point is the nationality of the name doesn't prove
anything - as Macmahon and Sarcozy prove.

The irony is that my great-grandmother despite always considering
herself French never was a French citizen - she was born in Alsace
after 1871 and emigrated to America in the late 1880s. The family
story is that she wept tears of joy for her birthplace on 11/11/1918.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 04:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter

Post by Insane Ranter

Post by SolomonW
France needs to have allies to balance Germany. How would such an alliance
serve France?

Not that it would happen at this time and is ASB..... If France and Germany were in an Alliance then Germany isn't crowning an emperor in Paris in the Hall of Mirrors again..
Problem is France wanted to get back at Germany at some point after the Franco-Prussian War.
A-L was part of a whole series of ideas that led up to the cause of WW1. A-L was not the sole thing that caused it and if A-L was not in play WW1 still happens with everything else pushing Europe into war.

You misread what I said - I said even ASB's would have trouble
engineering a French-German alliance with Germany holding Alsace &
Lorraine.

Taking the two provinces pretty much ensured they'd be a major part of
French policy going forward but the balance between Germany and France
was so lopsided that France alone couldn't seriously threaten
Germany. Bismarck was not being particularly subtle when he said that
since France was no threat alone, let's do our best to keep France
isolated.

France only became a threat to Germany once she again had
allies....and allowing her to get them was an unforced error by
Germany.