Perkeo
Banned
I would have thought it appropriate that you'd share your findings so we could discuss them.1) If you would do some research you'd see its a fairly common occurrence. By my count alone there were 14 wars fought in the prior to the 1840s alone 'about such little cause' (i.e. not part of an over-arching socio-economic conflict or grand campaign).
Myself, I only found one single war between 1800 and 1870 that was justified on diplomatic protocol alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria - and even there:
- the insult that the war was justified on at least had actually happened
- the insulting party was given the opportunity to apologize (which inherently included the opportunity to settle any misunderstandings)
- the insulting party had not given in in the original matter of dispute (debth repayment)
and last but not least, the author seems just as unconvinced that the Fan Affair was more than a mere pretext as I am about the Ems Dispatch.
Even in the 19th century, governments justified their wars with something more substantial, like alleged violations of territorial claims, existing treaties, international (especially naval) law, crimes against individuals that the other party was responsible for, etc. Mere violation of diplomatic protocol - let alone the false report of a violation - were, even by 19th century standards, a very thin pretext for war.
2) Mistranslations occur. Do you want me to explain to you why different people speak different languages?
I want you to explain why translators who supposedly are not interested in triggering a war don't take more care to get the translation right.
3) Again, as I and multiple others have stated, after Bismarck released the edited Ems Dispatch there was no other course available for either party except war. That was the entire point of Bismarck's gamble in the matter; he knew it would lead to war, and he was reasonably certain the French would declare war first allowing Prussia to rally enough allies to defeat the French. If things had gone any other way Bismarck would have been ousted as Chancellor.
4) You want me to explain to you the finer points of mid- and late-19th century diplomacy when you're still struggling with the Ems Dispatch, a rather cut-and-dry example of a nationalistic war?
5) Yes you are.
Again, for the sake of the conversation, do more research into the subject and if you remain convinced then that is your opinion; however as it is now it appears that you are in the position of argumentum ad ignorantiam with a dash of contemporary bias in regards to warfare.
YOU are in the position of argumentum ad ignorantiam, not giving ANY arguments other than the endless repetition of the claim that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
Don't get me wrong, I am far from considerung myself an expert, but neither do I blindly believe anyone who says he or she is more competent than I am.
By the way, a short inquiry shows that the professional historians are far from unanimously on your side:http://history-world.org/franco_prussian_war.htm: "The government of Napoleon III, still not content, was determined to humiliate Prussia, even at the cost of war." English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Franco-Prussian_War even mentiones a telegramm where Louis Napoleon sensed the public regret that there would be no war. 'The country will be disappointed,' he cabled to Ollivier on 12 July; 'but what can we do?' The Ems Dispatch may have pushed France and Napoleon over the cliff, but could not have done so if they hadn't already been standing on the edge ready to jump.
Yes an Napoleon III would have lost a lot of support. The war could be avoided but with the Ems Dispatch it is too late Napoleon III could not back down if he did he would have lost his crown and wathever form of government would have declared war.
Look at the trent incident:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_incident An open breach of the existing naval laws, boarding of a ship, interference with the diplomatic affairs, no formal apology, and still this incident did NOT lead to war. The reason is simple: The parties were genuinely interested in avoiding escalation, while Napoleon III's France obviously wasn't - just like Prussia.