If Bismarck had done everything the same, except not annexed Alsace-Lorraine, could the hatred between France and Germany been avoided, and France at least kept neutral while Germany attempted to conquer Eastern Europe in a "WWI but try to convince France to sit it out" scenario?
Alsace-Lorraine was never French issues until 1904
>>18523374No. France would never let Germany cement itself as European hegemon, even if they let them keep Alsace-Lorraine.
No, because Elsaß-Lothringen was an invented issue by French warmongers, which also wanted to annex everything west of the Rhine btw. France has expanded further and further east for centuries and stole German territory. Germany even negotiated with France and allowed them to keep Belfort, even though it was part of the region.If anything Germany should have punished France much more harshly and dismantled them. Only German good will and the desire to be seen as an equal power, instead of a superior one, prevented them from pushing for a more rational peace deal.
>>18523464Germany never was a European hegemony you fucking retard.I dont think hegemony means what you think it means.WW1 happened because there was a desire for hegemony on both sides.
>>18523374Short answer: NoLong answer: France's foreign policy from 1648 to 1990 was obsessed with preventing a unified German state from existing, since that was the only way to ensure France remained relevant in Europe. No amount of German leniency on them would change this stance, if anything it would only empower them.
>>18523800This isnt true.In fact a united Germany was birthed by the French when Napoleon abolished the Holy Roman Empire and created the worlds first unified German state to act as a barrier for France.The problem was nationalism. A German confederacy was fine as long as it was opposed the Prussian/Austrian empire. Nationalism however bound these together, and that was a major problem.The germans were playing the exact same game with Poland. They didnt mind a Polish state (hence why they created one in 1917), as long as this Polish state only existed to serve German national interest by not unifying ALL Poles, and to act as a barrier against the east.
>>18523812"A German confederation that opposes Prussia and Austria" is by definition not a unified Germany. You're playing word games
>>18523374France got involved in the Thirty Years War specifically to dismantle the HRE's unification, and that was the impetus which brought about France's great ascendancy in Europe.France was never going to be Germany's ally no matter what, because their own national importance relies on a unified Germany not existing. This became even moreso the case from the industrial revolution onward, as Germany's coal reserves were far greater than France's, effectively dooming France as a great power so long as a unified Germany existed. Only by dividing up Germany into client states could the French hope to remain relevant in a post-industrialized world.
>>18523818Well you never specified what you meant by preventing a united German state. in 1648 Prussia was a very minor power in Europe. Hannover was more powerful.The point is that if France would be opposed a German unification of the HRE states then they wouldnt have abolished the HRE and unified all 100 German states within it into a single state.Prussia and Austria were seen as completely seperate entities. They werent seen as parts of a German state.All of this changed in mid-19th century when nationalism became a powerful movement, especially after the 1848 revolution. This was something France had never anticipated going back to freaking 1648 or any of the 18th century either.
>>18523833>France got involved in the Thirty Years War specifically to dismantle the HRE's unificationNo France got involved to prevent Habsburg hegemony.And Spain got involved to protect Habsburg hegemony when France got involved.If Austria had won the 30 year war (and the 80 year war which was happening concurrently) then France would have been completely surrounded from all sides since Habsburg already ruled northern Italy, the lowlands (aside from the rebellious parts), Spain and the German states
>>18523848>Prussia and Austria were seen as completely seperate entitiesNo they weren't. Austria was always seen as German prior to 1866. France wanted to turn smaller German states against Austria, which is the opposite of pan-German nationalism. Pan-German nationalism wanted to unite the smaller German states with Austria.
>>18523833>This became even moreso the case from the industrial revolution onward, as Germany's coal reserves were far greater than France's, effectively dooming France as a great powerExcept if France keeps Alscase Lorraine then France has a much greater (in fact they have Europes greatest) source of iron, which puts her ahead of Germany in steel production, which absolutely does not "doom her as a great power", since she was already a great power in the IRL timeline.
>>18523850>No France got involved to prevent Habsburg hegemony.This is just more word games. France wanted to prevent the HRE being the great power of Europe, yes. That entails destroying the unity of the HRE through weakening its royal family, the Habsburgs.
>>18523852>Austria was always seen as German prior to 1866.Kek no. Austria was always seen as a seperate entity. The idea of a Germany did not emerge until mid-19th century, which already defeats your thesis that France had a foreign policy tailored towards preventing a united Germany going back several centuries.You applying way too much modern lens in your argumentation which doesnt align with history. Austria and Prussia were arch enemies specifically because they never regarded each others as an equal identity. Same goes for Sweden and Denmark who spent the overwhelming majority of all their wars fighting each others, and only began considering unification in the mid-19th century (which never materialized but still).German unification was extremely complex because many former HRE states in the south viewed themselves closer to Austria than to Prussia. Viewing themselves as "German" was a major obstacle to overcome during the unification process in the 19th century.
Is there any way france post-napoleon could have kept up with the potential of a unified germany? a unified germany was always destined to be the single greatest power in europe, but could france have done anything to keep up short of annexing the netherlands?
>>18523854>since she was already a great power in the IRL timeline.In the 20th century?? That seems a bit over-generous.
>>18523863Nope, Austria was always seen as German. In fact 'Austria' is a fake word, the word 'Osterreich' literally just means Eastern [German] realm. You're extremely misinformed on this issue.There is a case to be made, perhaps, that Prussia was not seen as fully German due to it existing on the periphery outside the HRE and having a significant Slavic population.
>>18523859Its not a word game. You're tunnel-visioning way too hard on the HRE, when the real problem was the Habsburg dynasty, which was stretching across the continent, from Iberia to Italy to Netherlands to Austria.HRE wasnt a state and only autistic anons like to pretend that it was. Name me a single war where HRE fought as a united entity against an outsider.Pic rel should give you an idea of the political situation for France leading up the 30-year war and the 80-year war.Habsburg were the dominant force in Europe, and even tho it had split under Charles V, they still remained geopolitically aligned with each others through family dynasty. France wanted to break their hegemony and that's why they got involved in the 30-year war (and likewise Spanish Habsburg joined to protect Austrian Habsburg).Pic rel is only their European possession btw. They also ruled 90% of the overseas known world.
>>18523863>The idea of a Germany did not emerge until mid-19th centuryWhat do you think the official name of the HRE was, dumbass?
>>18523877You are playing word games because you're acting as though France's desire to divide up the HRE and weaken Habsburg power are two different things. They are not.The Treaty of Westphalia is specifically about weakening Habsburg controlling over the HRE, in other words, weakening the unity of the HRE. It's a distinction without a difference.
>>18523870> In fact 'Austria' is a fake word, the word 'Osterreich' literally just means Eastern [German] realm.Kek an Normandie was named after Norsemen but it doesnt mean Normandie is suddenly Norwegian you fucking retard. Is this your winning argument?>You're extremely misinformed on this issue.At least I can argue my position. Your main argument is "trust me bro".>There is a case to be made, Ah so you're starting to see reason now.>that Prussia was not seen as fully German due to it existing on the periphery outside the HRE and having a significant Slavic population.Kek as opposed to Austria which had a slavic majoriry?Even tho the term slavic was extremly foreign because back then people were simply serfs and not part of a nation, and the main identity was language and religion. Again, you're full of shit and you're applying way too much modern lens
>>18523892If they're truly the same thing, why did French diplomats negotiate territorial provisions for German princes separately from the sovereignty clauses, unless they themselves distinguished between the two goals operationally?
>>18523899The German regions of Austria did not have a Slavic majority, no where close. You're conflating German Austria with Austria's imperial holding, which were (legally) two different regions. German Austria and Bohemia were part of the German Confederation while Austria's imperial holdings were not.
>>18523901>unless they themselves distinguished between the two goals operationally?So you acknowledge they held both goals? Dividing up the HRE and weakening the Habsburgs? Why did you initially try to argue that dividing up the HRE was not a French goal?
>>18523892>You are playing word games because you're acting as though France's desire to divide up the HRE and weaken Habsburg power are two different things. NO YOU RETARD LOLThats exactly what I am arguing!YOU are the one who tries to say they arent mutual, that France was only concerned with HRE in order to prevent a united Germany, when in reality it was part of a greater ambitition to undermine the Habsburg empire whos power seat was mainly in Spain.Now you're trying to present MY ARGUMENT as if it's your own.What is this fucking debate tactics you're applying? You're not moving the goalpost, you're fucking putting it on the opposite teams field. Next level autism.>The Treaty of Westphalia is specifically about weakening Habsburg controlling over the HRE,CORRECT. >in other words, weakening the unity of the HRE.correction: weakining HABSBURG DOMINANCE in the HRE.
>>18523915Nope, my claim from the start was that France's desire to weaken the Habsburgs and its desire to weaken the HRE's unity are one and the same. I have no idea what your claim is at this point, and frankly it doesn't particularly interest me since you've resorted to low effort insults
>>18523905Uhm No.Already in the Austria at the time of the 30-year war, which is what you were arguing, there is a significant amount of slavic speakers. All of modern Slovenia falls under the Austrian crownlands.That's way more than the Polish speaking areas Prussia had by the time of the 30-year war.Dumbfuck.
>>18523924Not IN Austria, in Austria's imperial holdings. You're quibbling over inane details. German Austria was always German, the fact it controlled non-German territories is irrelevant. It's like claiming England isn't English because it controls non-English territories.
>>18523921>Nope, my claim from the start was that France's desire to weaken the HabsburgsKek no it wasnt. You didnt even mention Habsburg in >>18523800 or in >>18523818 or in >>18523852 or in>>18523870Your literally took my argument and made it your own. Fucking next level autism.
>>18523933This was the first post I made to your inane argument regarding the Habsburgs >>18523859Where in this post do I deny France wanted to weaken the Habsburgs? I say the exact opposite, that there is no difference between France's anti-HRE ambitions and France's anti-Habsburg ambitions.
>>18523932Do you even know the demographic map of Europe? I'm guessing you're some transatlantic mutt retard with a lot of opinions on Europe without knowing any of it. YOU were the one saying Prussia had more slavs in it than Austria.
>>18523933You can't find a single example of me denying France held an anti-Habsburg stance, because I never said that. Of course France held an anti-Habsburg stance, but that was bound up in the anti-HRE stance of France. You're the one who wants to quibble that there's a difference between the two.
>>18523942>YOU were the one saying Prussia had more slavs in it than Austria.Yes and I am still saying that. You're the one claiming the opposite, because you're too unintelligent to know the difference between a nation and its imperial holdings.
>>18523940>there is no difference between France's anti-HRE ambitions and France's anti-Habsburg ambitions.No because both of them are literally connected.After Habsburg demise in the 17th century, France shifted its geopolitical focus against Great Britain, and spent the entire 18th century fighting Britain. 1701-1815 was nothing but a massive war with Britain.(Spanish succession war, Austrian succession war, Seven years war, Revolutionary wars, Napoleonic wars).This also means that France completely shelved any ambitions against the HRE when Habsburg influence across the continent vained.
>>18523942>I'm guessing you're some transatlantic mutt retardI'm not actually, I'm German. What country are you from? You have a very strong opinion on German history.
>>18523949At what point then did Prussia have more slavs than Austria. Give me a rough timeline and maybe define the rules a little bit of what is and what isnt Prussian/Austrian land
>>18523950>No because both of them are literally connected.So why are you even debating me? What is the point of this debate?Can we just agree that France sought to diminish the HRE's unity in the Thirty Years War? Or is that not something you are willing to concede?
>>18523951I'm from Sweden, and I seriously doubt you're German. You're probably one of those "proud to be 13% German" transatlantic retards who went through a very flawed education system on European history, even less so on European culture and identity.
>>18523957Well thank you for informing me about myself. I'm not sure if I believe you're a Swede either but I'll have the decency to avoid low effort insults.
>>18523956>So why are you even debating me? What is the point of this debate?That your original point, according to your "long answer" in your first post how France was "obssessed" with preventing a unified German state despite basic common knowledge on history completely disproves this. Retard.France was only concerned with HRE (not Germany, also including Lowlands and Northern Italy) when it was the seat of Habsburg geopolitical power, and as soon as they vained they shifted their focus towards British geopolitical power, and France were quick to unify HRE states in early 19th century because it served their purpose.Literally everything you said was wrong and now you'e trying to memoryhole your entire point and weaponize your autistic narration that my argument was your argument all along. I truly never seen anything like it.
>>18523971So your argument is just that they were anti-HRE in the 17th century and switched to an anti-British policy in the 18th? I don't see how that contradicts mine. Obviously the French defeat of the HRE is what opened the door for them to compete with England in the colonial sphere. If anything that only further proves the point that France's ascendancy necessitates a weakened German bloc.
>>18523971>and France were quick to unify HRE states in early 19th century because it served their purpose.We've been over this already. Turning Bavaria against Austria is not 'unifying HRE states.' Why do you keep harping on this as though it's profound?
>>18523973>So your argument is just that they were anti-HRE in the 17th century and switched to an anti-British policy in the 18th?It's not an argument it's a fact.Every single great war in the 18th century was fought against Britain with maybe one rare exemption, and every geopolitical decision was made with the intention to undermine British influence.>I don't see how that contradicts mine.Because they're not focusing on HRE anymore. Not a single fuck was given.> Obviously the French defeat of the HREHRE doesnt freaking exist like that you absolute donkey. It's not a state. It's not a united entity. Name me a single war where HRE has fought united against a common enemy. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You dont know what HRE was so stop pretending. Everything you say reveals this. They were fighting to oppose Habsburg influence, which came from its seat in Spain. Stupid fucking amerimutt. Stick to civil war history.>is what opened the door for them to compete with England in the colonial sphere.And why should they bother with a English rivalry if according to you their foreign policy was obssessing about German states? Shouldnt they be focusing on Austria then?Do you even realise that Austria was the main ally of France during this time period? How does that serve your argument?
>>18523985>It's not a state. It's not a united entityYou're half-right in the sense it wasn't a modern nation state, but neither was France at the time. Modern nation states are a product of the French Revolution and prior to that states were simply a collection of lords and vassalages.>Do you even realise that Austria was the main ally of France during this time periodTheir ally against Prussia, because balancing the Prussian/Austrian rivalry is what became important to France after the 30 years war.Again, I will ignore the low effort insults out of consideration for you but if you keep this up I fear that any attempt at understanding between us will be completely fruitless.
I see you've finally stopped replying. Very well. I won't be insolent enough to declare victory, to be honest I'm just happy I don't have to engage with this nonsense any longer. That was perhaps the most worthless conversation I've ever had, but I suppose your ability to draw it out was admirable. Good day.
>>18523800And now Germany is reunited and a total dud, what a waste of a century.
>>18524207Well to be fair, France is also a dud. Everyone lost to America
