|WikiProject France||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire / Prussia||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Germany||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Bismarck's involvement in annexation
The article as written has Otto von Bismarck, then the Prussian Ministerpräsident (prime minister)and also foreign minister, opposing the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871. I've reviewed a number of sources on Bismarck and Prussian foreign relations of this period and can find no reference to such opposition. If he did oppose it and was overridden it would be an extremely rare example of such a reverse. Thus this assertion should be sourced or suppressed. If it is retained it should not only be sourced but should make clear how he was overridden and by whom. Will O'Neil (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This sentence does not seem NPOV: "After the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, the Treaty of Frankfurt confirmed the return of these areas to the newly-founded German Empire." If the German empire was newly founded, how could Alsace-Lorraine have been RETURNED to this empire? Sounds like a German nationalist wrote this sentence.
Rescued this from HTML comments in the article, someone thought it was POV:
- External link
--kudz75 05:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Alsace region was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation before Louis XIV annexed it. The context of the sentence is that the region was being returned to an ethnic German empire. MustaphaMond (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This is of cause not understandabel because somehow in the englishspeeking books they forget allways to mention that the area besides Metz was mainly german speaking, nobody wants to bother englishspeakers with this, because to get France the area back was one point of justification or England and the US to join the I WW. The Germanspeakers always sah the occupation of this terretory since Ludwig XIV as unjust and sah it in 1870 as the area was comming back.The same with the term supression witch was more a cultural genoside. The Schoolchildren where beaten by the frensh teachers when they spoke german in school after the I WW and till now France does not respect the minority rules. The whole story is one of the many european dark spots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
paragraph states: "France is one of only two EU member countries (Andorra being the other) that refuses to sign the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which includes guarantees of the democratic right to freedom of language."
Andorra is not an EU member. Further, the following is from Andorra page "...French also are spoken, although Andorra is one of only four nations (together with France, Monaco, and Turkey) that never signed the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities." Believe paragraph needs amending to drop EU reference and add Monaco. Tiddy 06:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the section now. J-C V 10:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Why was the entry in the history section deleted?
"After the war the french government pursued a strong "anti-german" policy. The German language as well as the german-dialect "Elsässisch" were strictly banned from public life (Street and City names, official Administrations, educational systems etc.)
In recent time however, official and private initatives have been trying to reverse this process, thus accepting the bi-lingual and bi-cultural heritage of the regions."
I don't see the vandalism to be honest......!?
Merged Republic of Alsace-Lorraine
Separated article of Republic of Alsace-Lorraine was merged. --Matthead 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? It's distinuguishing the region from the former Nation. Baka42 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- The independent Republic deserves to be described here as it is an integral part of the history. As a separate article, it might be overlooked, and most of the content is redundant anyway.--Matthead 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Under the later periods of German rule (between 1871-1918 and between 1940-1945), a policy of Germanization was pursued and the use of the French language was restricted. Ethnic Germans were encouraged to settle in the region...
Ok let me explain something to you: this is non-sense. In our language we use for the inhabitants of germany the word "Prejsse" (Prussians) to talk about them because we can´t use easily dejtsch (Deutsch) which we also are... got the point ?
How does germanizing people who are ethnical german like we are make sense ??? this looks like a blind copy-paste from an old french nationalist history book and is not so clever.
Is it then like americanizing americans ??? scandinavization of norwegians or something like this ??? Instead of using "Ethnic germans" you should use simple "germans" or people from other german provinces were encouraged to settle.
"Neither German neither French nor neutral"
How much sense makes this? Joining Switzerland? --Matthead 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Presumably a modification of Trotsky's "neither war nor peace" Septentrionalis 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
However, the assertion that Wilson or Congress supported the Soviet Republic of Alsace-Lorraine seems out of character. It requites documentation. Septentrionalis 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
French hypocripsy. Think, emigration to American Midwest started because of this.
Why is the pre-1870 history section of this article so extensive? There is more information here than at the supposed main article, Duchy of Lorraine. This article should focus on the actual territorial entity "Alsace-Lorraine" created in 1871 until Versailles (or possibly 1945). While there should be a brief summary of the pre-1870 history, most of the current text should be split between Alsace, Duchy of Lorraine, and/or Lorraine (province). Olessi 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you are free to add information from this article to the Lorraine (province) article, but removing information from wikipedia isn't usually a good idea.
- I didn't say it should be removed, I said it should be moved elsewhere. ;-) Olessi 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
well, before you remove it from this page as I said, you should add it to the others. Wikipedia has a guideline of be bold. add the information to the other articles, then we can discuss on here what should be removed from this article.
--Jadger 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Former Countries Project Assessment
Great article. Needs more references and/or footnotes/citations in order to reach B-class, though. LordAmeth 10:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
German point of view
This article is untrue. It's full of lies of omissions and statements. There is nothing about french feelings of the people both germanic or roman speaking. Nothing about the refugees in Nancy, Paris, Dordogne, Algeria, French Overseas,... Nothing about les députés protestataires d'Alsace-Lorraine (Protest of Alsace-Lorraine deputies). Nothing about the Souvenir Français (french memory) or others french feelings' demonstrations. Nothing about prussian settlers. Nothing about bad feelings against Germany by the inhabitants,...
Worse there is no mention of the difference between the french concept of nation and the german concept.
I come from Lorraine and have germanic-speaking origins. My grand-father was born german in 1900. His mother Tongue was platt from west moselle (germanic dialect). He spoke 4 languages : platt from west moselle, german (learning at german school), french, and platt from sarre. I know what I said. It's my family history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello !
- Some answers are now given in the section "During WWI" and just above.
- The section "After WWI" should be maked up again.
- Papatt (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cet article est très orienté. Tout est fait pour laisser penser que les Alsaciens-Lorrains étaient au pire partagés, au mieux pro-allemands. A certain moment, il laisse sousentendre qu'ils ont été "acculturés" par l'oppression linguistique des Français (sic).
- L'encyclopédie universalis introduit autrement le sujet par cette annecdote : L'annexion Le 8 octobre 1870, Bismarck fait placarder dans la capitale alsacienne conquise : « Strasbourg, à partir d'aujourd'hui, sera et restera une ville allemande ! »« Jamais ! » protestent les Alsaciens en lettres énormes, apposées sur ces mêmes affiches. La question d'Alsace-Lorraine était née.220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see any lies in this article. What I do see is a lack of details. There are indeed references to the 100,000 individuals who left for France following the Franco-Prussian War, however the statements seem to assume that they were wholly French. With regard to German settlers, yes, there is nothing about the Germans who moved to Alsace-Lorraine, and I am curious to see how many there actually were, and of them, how many moved there of their own free will and how many were settled by government programs, the latter being colonists much like those settled by the Settlement Commission in West Prussia and Posen. Also, the Reichstag election results 1874-1912 show the 'local' mindset of the population, albeit a rapidly diminishing one (from over 95% to around 45%), especially by the turn of the century.
- However to be fair, there is no reference to the French settlement of the region following WWI or the German flight and expulsion of some 200,000 individuals. Taking the post-war flight into account, Alsace-Lorraine had a population of roughly 1,600,000 in 1866 whom 300,000 (18.75%) or so were French and 1,300,000 (81.25%) or so were German. French flight reduced the French population of the region by a third, while German settlement filled the void, reducing the French to 11% between in the process by 1900. However French policies following 1918 have both caused a stunt in the growth of the German element due to two waves of flight, and caused the French element to soar. As of 1999, Alsace-Lorraine had a population of some 2,760,000 of whom 1,500,000 or roughly 54% was German and 1,260,000 or 46% French. Between 1921 and 1999, the French element increased by nearly 475%, while the German element decreased from its peak of 1,630,000 in 1910. Even if one assumed that all of the 110,000* individuals who fled following the Franco-Prussian War returned, that would mean you had a total French population of 330,000 which still means that an increase of 280% took place between 1921-1999. And an artificial increase at that, given that the population of France as a whole increased from 39,209,500 in 1921 to 58,512,900 in 1999 or by a mere 49.23%. Using that rate, one would expect the French population to be no more than 500,000 in 1999 with the German population being some 1,900,000.
- As for the 'French' and 'German' concepts of nations, they are not so different. The French are doing, and have been doing since the French Revolution to the Dutch, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Bretons and Basques what the Germans did to the Poles from 1831-1918, and to a lesser extend the Danes from 1864-1918 and French from 1871-1918, that is fully assimilating them in order to justify national boundaries. The only real difference between what the French have been doing in Alsace-Lorraine, Brittany, Nice, Corsica, West Flandres, Roussillon and the northern Basque regions and what the Germans did in West Prussia and Posen from 1831-1918 is that the Francization continues and has been helped by a more modern world, while the Germanization stopped nearly a century ago.
Prussia1231 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There is not an accurate reprentation of the German view
This article looks over and dismisses the centuries of German/French fighting over this area. Both countries had wanted this area desperately as it was rich in natural resources and as such could be very valuable to both countries. There were centuries of enmity from each country to the other, and during world war II both countries fought over alsace-lorraine as a matter of national ego and pride. Acaeton (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is indeed quite biased. "French troops arrived in Strasbourg". The submeaning of the whole paragraph is clearly "French troops occupied Strasbourg and annexed Alsace-Lorainne without the consent of reluctent inhabitants". It's ignoring the joy of the population in Strasbourg after Germany's defeat, the collective greeting for french armies arriving in Strasbourg, the enthusiasm about planned reincorporation in the French republic. It's ignoring the waves of alsace-lorraine emigrants to central France in both world wars, and that many resistants in WWII were of Alsatian-Lorrainian origin. Most of alsacians and lorrainians have always felt full-part french both in WWI and WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guigui169 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that this read has quite the strong pro German nationalist slant to it. As far as I know the population had been sympathetic to the French Republic and some of its strongest supporters even before WWI. The question of the Germanic culture is a separate issue and the fact they remain committed to this unique culture or dual culture should have nothing to do with national loyalty which has always been majority French. The question of ethnic pride and the right speak and teach German dialect of course shows the French govt. chauvinism towards any national minority as it nearly wiped out the German dialects and only now has allowed them to breath freely when its really to late. I'd assume that the dialect would have chance of survival if it was only taught in schools which will not happen because its not standardized. Strasbourg does however have bilingual signs finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Have Elsassisch ancestors, they were clearly German and spoke German. I find this article to be bias and slanting the French side. Most of my ancestors were from Elsass, Baden and Wuerttemburg and they all agreed that they were German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Usage of incorrect map
The map "Sprachenkarte Deutschland1880.png" is currently used in this article. This 19th century map, made during arguably the height of (ethno-)nationalism in Europe; especially in newly founded Germany, is inaccurate. It shows Dutch as part of the German language; or rather, it shows German being spoken in the Netherlands and Flanders. Modern linguists, just like many contemporary French, Dutch and English linguists, have - in the past 130 years - completely changed this image.
Let it be clear that I'm not trying to prove Dutch isn't German, which would be ridiculous as discussions involving "French is Italian" or "German is Dutch" would make about as much sense. I would like to see this map removed because it;
- Represents a biased (i.e 19th century German) point of view.
- Makes linguistic distintions which are completly obsolete and proven to be wrong.
- Offensive towards speakers of the Dutch language.
If someone would like to adapt this map to modern linguistics (which I think is possible as it seems to be in the public domain) then that's okay; but there is no reason, whatsoever, to keep this obsolete, inaccurate and offensive map in this article. I am removing it, until supporters of the map add their arguments in this section. Westbrabander (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- The status of Dutch is completely irrelevant in this article. The map is being used here to show the linguistic boundary between High German and French in Alsace-Lorraine in the late 19th century. Whether or not the rest of the map is accurate plays no role. +Angr 20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- And as explained to you already, it's a period piece and understood to be thus. Now several editors have reverted you. You are now violating 3RR, I don't want to report you but I will if you continue.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
KEEP ... I consider the deletion-request as "nationalist" and not respecting time in history when the map was created (please keep in mind that german language is a dialect continuum and at that time when the map was created, dutch was considered to be part of the lower german dialect varieties and thus also part of the german language. BE AWARE THAT THIS MAP IS ALSO USED IN GERMAN AND OTHER WIKIPEDIA-LANGUAGES!!! Please consider also other maps of german dialect continuum (including dutch!!!) - please look at the map in the german article!! Please consider also that in the german article about the german language, this (entire!!!) text comes along with the map: Abb. 2: Der historische deutsche Sprachraum (ohne deutsch-baltisches Gebiet, wolgadeutsches Sprachgebiet und Sprachgebiete in Übersee (1880). Auf dieser historischen Karte werden – in Übereinstimmung mit dem damals im Deutsche Reich herrschenden nationalistischen Zeitgeist – nicht nur generell Sprachen und Völker gleichgesetzt und deshalb auch Völker statt Sprachen abgebildet, sondern die Einwohner der Niederlande und Nordbelgiens aufgrund ihrer mit derjenigen der Einwohner Norddeutschlands gleichgesetzten Sprache zu „Niederdeutschen“ erklärt und verallgemeinert. In der ersten Ausgabe von Karl Bernhardis Sprachkarte von Deutschland von 1844, deren Inhalt vergleichbar ist, wurde die deutsche Sprache hingegen in Übereinstimmung mit dem Sprachgebrauch Jacob Grimms als Bezeichnung für die Germanischen Sprachen insgesamt verwendet und in den hochdeutschen Sprachstamm, den niederdeutschen Sprachstamm und den nordischen Sprachstamm unterschieden. In Heinrich Kieperts Völker[-] und Sprachen-Karte von Deutschland und den Nachbarländern von 1872 wurden Völker statt Sprachen abgebildet und die Deutschen in oberdeutsche, mitteldeutsche und niederdeutsche Stämme unterteilt, parallel dazu wurde jedoch das Gebiet mit nur hochdeutscher Schriftsprache von dem des zu den niederdeutschen Stämmen gezählten flämisch-holländischen [Stamm] mit Dialect-Schriftsprache auch farblich abgesetzt. In der hier abgebildeten Karte von 1880 sind nur noch die Staatennamen Niederlande und Belgien und ein kleinerer Schriftzug Vlämingen im Norden Belgiens vorhanden, jeder Hinweis auf eine sprachliche Eigenständigkeit dieser Gebiete wurde getilgt. It is clearly declared that it is a historic state and it is explicitely explained how and why dutch is considered as part of "lower german" - as it was done in those times and that is not recognized anymore today!!! Sorry, but that deletion-request is vandalism for me! --ProloSozz (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the point: From a linguistic point, there are now four standardized languages of the westgermanic dialect continuum, which historically is called German, (a term, which is IMHO not correct and misleading). The borders of the dialects weren't so sharp one hundered years ago as they are today. But while the Dutch language evolved from the lower German dialect of Amsterdam, the modern German is a kind of esperanto between the other German dialects and never was spoken in any region. Modern standard German is in its origin an artificial language. The English term "German" for "Deutsch" is historically not correct. It's a little bit like "Romania": Historically Romania means the Roman Empire, later the Greek Eastern Roman Empire. Today, it means the country in south east Europe but also sometimes all countries with a romanic language. It's obvious, that modern Dutch and modern German are very similar languages. I am able to understand the sense of most Dutch texts without learning the language, which would be impossible for me with English, French or Hungarian texts, so there is a dialect continuum. --W-j-s (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
As I came here to that discussion via the article about the german language in the german WP, I did not take into consideration that this here is the article about the german "Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen" during 1871-1918. Respecting that fact, the map itself has another (additional) "right of existance" and is absolutely apprptriate to be shown here - as it represents the "peoples" distribution as they were seen in those times. Another thing is that the map is not depicted as "language map", but as a map of the living peoples (Oberdeutsche (including swissgermans, austrians (including southtyrolians), liechtensteiner, etc.), Niederdeutsche (including flemish, dutch, frisian, etc.), Skandinavier (including danish, swedish, etc.), so the map is absolutely appropriate to those times and to that WP-article (but clearly would not be appropriate when created in todays days). So there is absolutely no reason not to show AND comment that map! --ProloSozz (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be corrected: "These territories had become part of Eastern Francia in 921 during the reign of King Louis the German, and later were included in the Holy Roman Empire." Louis the German died back in 876, in 921 it was Henry I in East Francia who negotiated the treaty with Charles the Simple, king of West Francia that saw Lotharingia (much more than Alsace or the Reichsland Alsace Lorraine) becoming part of the east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see a map of this region overlaid on a modern map of Europe. Specifically I came to this article wondering how close this region was to Switzerland -- that is not easy to see on the maps currently included. Kevink707 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is so close that the airport of Basel is located on the territory of Saint-Louis, Haut-Rhin.--Insert coins (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- At this time and also currently, you can see the north-western swiss border when Alsace's southern border leaves the Rhine river, which is Alsace's eastern border.
- When you follow the swiss border westwards, it runs after some distance northwards and then westwards again.
- At this point, the swiss border leaves Alsace's current one. Before 1871, you'd have to follow it until it runs south-westward to meet Franche-Comté's one.
- Maybe it'll be clearer if you look for another map within commons:Category:Maps of Alsace-Lorraine or commons:Category:Maps of Alsace.
- HTH, Papatt (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)