UK intervention in Franco-Prussian war of 1870

Saphroneth

Banned
"Tricked" in what way? Thy had made a demand and it had been refused. That's cle enough even in the original, and the amended version only emphasises this.

One version is "We can't commit to that forever because forever is a long time."
The other is "No, shut up."
The two are very different.
 
One version is "We can't commit to that forever because forever is a long time."
The other is "No, shut up."
The two are very different.


In what way? The second is only a clearer exposition of what the first really means when you strip away the polite language.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
In what way? The second is only a clearer exposition of what the first really means when you strip away the polite language.

It really isn't. The first makes clear that the problem is perpetuity not opinion.

The second... doesn't.


And as for polite language - that IS diplomacy.
 
"Tricked" in what way? Thy had made a demand and it had been refused. That's clear enough even in the original, and the amended version only emphasises it.

Basically Saphroneth said : the tone difference isn't gratious. One is about refusing the terms of an agreement that was largely accepted; the other is about refusing any agreement.

Diplomatically, critically on a tensed question, that's a huge difference.
 
It really isn't. The first makes clear that the problem is perpetuity not opinion.

The second... doesn't.
.


Yes it does. It clearly states that the French have come back with a further demand for - - perpetuity. And that this demand had been rejected.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yes it does. It clearly states that the French have come back with a further demand for - - perpetuity. And that this demand had been rejected.

The first one is "They made a demand for this condition in perpetuity - unfortunately I can't say perpetuity".
The second one is "They demanded this condition in perpetuity - NO."

One of them is very clear perpetuity is what matters. The other does not.

...subsidiary question. You know how diplomacy works, right? Not saying the niceties is the equivalent of a screaming rant.
 
That's clear enough even in the original, and the amended version only emphasises it.

"All that was needed, he [Bismarck] assured Roon and Moltke, was a 'red rag to taunt the Gallic bull'... [he] passed the rewritten version to Moltke, who nodded approvingly: 'Now the telegram has a different ring... [not] a parley, but a response to a challenge'. Whereas the original dispatch spoke of Wilhelm putting off the audience with Benedetti because confirmation had been received of Prince Leopold's withdrawal, Bismarck's rewritten version had the king gruffly cancelling the audience without explanation. No-one at the table was in any doubt as to the likely impact of this bombshell... Bismarck promptly cabled this version.... [to] the German newspapers, which splashed the rebuff over their front pages before news of it even reached Paris. This was a further breach of diplomatic protocol intended to humiliate Gramont." (Wawro, Franco-Prussian War p. 37)
 
"All that was needed, he [Bismarck] assured Roon and Moltke, was a 'red rag to taunt the Gallic bull'... [he] passed the rewritten version to Moltke, who nodded approvingly: 'Now the telegram has a different ring... [not] a parley, but a response to a challenge'. Whereas the original dispatch spoke of Wilhelm putting off the audience with Benedetti because confirmation had been received of Prince Leopold's withdrawal, Bismarck's rewritten version had the king gruffly cancelling the audience without explanation. No-one at the table was in any doubt as to the likely impact of this bombshell... Bismarck promptly cabled this version.... [to] the German newspapers, which splashed the rebuff over their front pages before news of it even reached Paris. This was a further breach of diplomatic protocol intended to humiliate Gramont." (Wawro, Franco-Prussian War p. 37)



And what does any of this prove except that they knew the French were set on war and that any excuse would do?

How many wars can you recall being declared just because someone has been rude to an Ambassador? If this one did, it can only have been because the French were spoiling for a fight, and in such a case how was Bismarck under the slightest obligation to talk them out of it?

No doubt he would have been willing enough to "trick them into war" had there been any need to do it, but there was none. As with the Danes in 1864, all he had to do was sit back and allow them to dig their own graves.

And anyway, what has any of this got to do with the question of British or other foreign intervention? Even if it turned out that King Wilhelm had been impolite to the French Ambassador, why should anyone in London (or any other capital) have been the slightest bit interested? If Louis Napoleon was daft enough to go to war without establishing the full facts of the case, that would be no one's responsibility but his own.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If there was no need, he wouldn't have had to do it - his duplicity would have been pointless...

Basically, if he said he did something to get a reaction, and it did get a reaction, and the thing he did was altering diplomatic correspondence, then that fits every single criterion for saying that he tricked them into war.

1) Deception was employed.
2) It was done with the intent to get a response.
3) He got that response.
 
Last edited:
Join in what? There would have been no war had those cretins in Paris not declared it.

And what do you mean exactly by "tricked"? After all, the abbreviated version of the Ems Telegram was still perfectly accurate. The French had made certain demands under threat of war, and the King of Prussia had refused them. All Bismarck's editing did was to strip away the diplomatic niceties and make this a bit more obvious.

Perhaps 'goaded' is more accurate than 'tricked'.

As for 'join in'... Bismarck wanted a war. France wanted a war. Tensions were high. The mere fact that Bismarck fiddled with the text of the telegram was a serious diplomatic offence. I think it's entirely possible that the war could be averted, but I think it's more likely, in this scenario, that tensions escalate, and France is seen by the other parts of Germany as much less of an aggressor. In this case, Bavaria and company might not join a fight which Bismarck/Prussia had visibly engineered - even if France was the one who first declared war. Again, especially if Britain and possibly A-H are pushing hard to keep other players out.
 
Perhaps 'goaded' is more accurate than 'tricked'.

As for 'join in'... Bismarck wanted a war. France wanted a war. Tensions were high. The mere fact that Bismarck fiddled with the text of the telegram was a serious diplomatic offence. I think it's entirely possible that the war could be averted, but I think it's more likely, in this scenario, that tensions escalate, and France is seen by the other parts of Germany as much less of an aggressor. In this case, Bavaria and company might not join a fight which Bismarck/Prussia had visibly engineered - even if France was the one who first declared war. Again, especially if Britain and possibly A-H are pushing hard to keep other players out.


Why would Bavaria et al act any differently?

If Prussia has conceded the French demand for withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidature, and France has then come back with a further demand as an excuse to go to war anyway, then France is the aggressor - no "more" or "less" about it, and the South German states are committed by their alliances with Prussia.

Nor, of course, has Britain or any other power the slightest reason to take the French side. The only chance of that would be if Prussia attacked France rather than vice versa - and Bismarck is far too smart for that.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Why would Bavaria et al act any differently?

If Prussia has conceded the French demand for withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidature, and France has then come back with a further demand as an excuse to go to war anyway, then France is the aggressor - no "more" or "less" about it, and the South German states are committed by their alliances with Prussia.

Nor, of course, has Britain or any other power the slightest reason to take the French side. The only chance of that would be if Prussia attacked France rather than vice versa - and Bismarck is far too smart for that.
That's the thing - you say he's too smart for that, but then why did he doctor the telegram?
If there's no gain then it's a massive risk for nothing!
 

RavenMM

Banned
That's the thing - you say he's too smart for that, but then why did he doctor the telegram?
If there's no gain then it's a massive risk for nothing!

of course prussia (with Bismarck at the helm) thought that it could get something. But so did france in declaring war. Bismarck gave them a trigger, not a reason. If france wanted peace, they could just have not declared war.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Perhaps 'goaded' is more accurate than 'tricked'.

I think "seduce" should be the word you are searching for, since there was nothing in the Ems dispatch that forced anything upon France or gave them the slightest reason to fear Prussian aggression. It was just a bait, something that France wanted so badly that they couldn't resist the temptation.

And even for a bait, it wasn't much.

As for 'join in'... Bismarck wanted a war. France wanted a war. Tensions were high. The mere fact that Bismarck fiddled with the text of the telegram was a serious diplomatic offence. I think it's entirely possible that the war could be averted, but I think it's more likely, in this scenario, that tensions escalate, and France is seen by the other parts of Germany as much less of an aggressor. In this case, Bavaria and company might not join a fight which Bismarck/Prussia had visibly engineered - even if France was the one who first declared war. Again, especially if Britain and possibly A-H are pushing hard to keep other players out.

Surely Bismarck made a deliberate provocation - so what? That trick could not possibly have worked unless France was not just hungry but starving for war. Both belligerents wanted war, but only one was willing to start it, and that one was France.

I honestly don't know why people keep pretending that France was a innocent victim. Prussia had given France everything they wanted and still France continued to demand more of submission and ended up declaring war upon the false rumour that the Prussian king told them to shut up.

One version is "We can't commit to that forever because forever is a long time."
The other is "No, shut up."
The two are very different.

But neither version justifies the DOW. It was high time that someone told Napoleon and Benedetti to shut up.

In a world where such a flimsy excuse is a legitimate casus belli - let alone when it's not even true - the state of peace does not exist.

That's the thing - you say he's too smart for that, but then why did he doctor the telegram?
If there's no gain then it's a massive risk for nothing!

The problem is: If France is backed up by Britain, then France will doctor something - or perhaps not even bother to justify their aggression at all.
 
Hi guys,

I have read AH.com on and off this past year and have decided to finally make a profile, so I could participate.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with the Franco Prussian war of 1870?

To anyone who is I want to ask the following:
From what (limited) research I have done, France's resounding defeat was quite a surprise for the other European powers at the time, as most of them viewed France as the strongest power in continental Europe (as it had historically been so for centuries) and the victory of Prussia (and later unified Germany) led the other powers primarily the UK to view them as the new biggest threat on the continent (replacing France) leading to things like the France-Russia alliance and the Entente Cordiale between France and the UK. What I am wondering is what if the leaders of the UK, with the Franco-Prussian war on the horizon, managed to correctly predict the Prussian victory and moved to militarily support France? Would the Prussian army and its maneuver warfare crush the British as well as the French or would the Anglo-French alliance be victorious? Or would the Prussians back down from war in the first place once it becomes clear the UK would intervene? In any case how do you think this would shape the rest of the 19th and early 20th centuries?
The UK didn't have an army capable of facing France or Prussia and it would take a few years to acquire one. By the time they did the war would be over. It was primarily a naval power.
 
Last edited:
A naval blockade of the respective opponent would have been helpful to either side.

In the long run? Sure. The war didn't last that long though.

I was reading a letter from Ernest I to the Duke of Wellington dated 1849. In it he warned Wellington about the growing menace of Prussia. Now admittedly Ernest has now got a pro-Hanoverian bias, but he'd also spent many years living in Berlin and had a deep fondness towards Prussia, not to mention being the brother-in-law of King Frederick William III.

Defeating Denmark and Austria would have alerted everyone to the growing Prussian power. Regarding France, I suspect its historical power as much as some technical advantages conned themselves and Britain into thinking France were stronger than they actually were.

Even if Britain saw Prussia as being more powerful than France, I am not sure they would have intervened. Maintaining good relations with Prussia / Germany to counter the perceived greater threat from Russia would have been more important.
I wouldn't say that. France had recently beaten Russia and Austria in the field. There's a very good reason that everyone would consider it the strongest military power in the world. Germany wasn't any bigger than France either. The stats I've read have them roughly equal in population and industrial output.
 
Last edited:
That's the thing - you say he's too smart for that, but then why did he doctor the telegram?
If there's no gain then it's a massive risk for nothing!

He underestimated the stupidity of the other side.

Surely understandable. If an AH had them behaving as they did, it would be dismissed as ASB.
 
I wouldn't say that. France had recently beaten Russia and Austria in the field. There's a very good reason that everyone would consider it the strongest military power in Europe. Germany wasn't any bigger than France either. The stats I've read have them roughly equal in population and industrial output.


And note British reaction to the war of 1859.

Even though he wasn't threatening Britain in any way, it set alarm bells ringing that Bonaparte Minor might be about to follow in his uncle's footsteps. This war scare is immortalised in the poem Riflemen Form, which called on Brits to prepare for a French invasion!

If this is any guide, I think we may safely assume that a French victory in 1870 would have caused at least as big a "panic stations" as the German one did - and probably a much bigger one. There's certainly no way that Britain would have done anything to produce such a result.
 
After their overall poor performance in the Crimean war, Britain went through some military reforms. Does anyone know how far along they were?
 
Top