Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871

>oldest non archived post: under 15 hours

threads last half a day

Yes easily, no one would have even cared about the altered words other than the French government. All Bismarck did was twist some words to assume the Prussian prince was already King in Spain rather than soon to be king, and the French chimped out.

Prussia won a war against Austria, and thus became stronger than France (in terms of pure manpower, farmland and factories).
Prussia then proposed to the Spanish that one of their princes should be put on the throne there, normal thing for divine right to rule blue blood Europe at the time. The French feared being encircled by Germans.
The Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck then released a telegram to the public, in which the Prussian king treated French diplomats poorly. Later it was discovered to be fake.
The French got together and voted that yes, we need to declare war now, because the Germans are being nasty and growing stronger.
War was declared, but even though it was the French who declared it, the Germans managed to mobilize forces faster and took the field, and ultimately won. This began the crazy to mobilize early during WWI, which is the primary cause for that war happening in the first place; everyone was trigger happy with mobilization because nobody wanted to be left out, and thus diplomatic solution was impossible.

If I tell you that your feet smell, and you punch me in the face, you are the aggressor. I am not initiating violence, only insults.
I think you simply don't know what pacifist or aggressor means. Maybe the corresponding words in your language have different meaning.

What the fuck are you talking about dude. Obviously the French are the technical aggressors and i just said that ,but the Prussians baited them into it. IF you want me to punch you, then you might insult me, I'll punch you, i'll look like a dick, and you'll gain my sandwich.

What if I pinch you repeatedly and you slap me? It's not as clear cut.

All Bismarck did was misquote his king to make it sound like he was treating diplomats with a little less respect than was expected.
Then the French further misquoted it by exaggerating the insult.

And even then, with these two alterations, it feels barely at all insulting. Clearly Bismarck wanted the French to feel mad about it, but the French themselves also wanted to feel mad, and were looking for reasons to go to war.

See the image There was no pinching. It was more like forgetting to say "please" when talking to someone, and then that someone turning around and shouting "DID YOU JUST CALL ME A BITCH!?".

wtf I hate napoleon now

It was very insulting to the French of the time. Bismarck knew exactly how they would act.

The insult comes from the French translation, not from the Bismarck summary.
The French didn't even see Bismarck trying to insult them, so they made up an insult as if he were.

They wanted war and were looking for a reason.

Oh, and further, when the war was declared everyone already knew that the released telegram is a bit misleading, and that the translation isn't factual. The ambassador himself said so.

So war was declared knowing that there was no such insult.

This is against the consensus that Bismarck altered the telegram to insult the French. What proof do you have

How about the actual telegram? I posted it here He did "alter" it, as in he didn't directly give the media the telegram, rather summarized what was said in it and the following events.
The actual altercation came during the french translation, which the ambassador himself later said was bad and invented an insult where there wasn't one.

>How about the actual telegram? I posted it here

Yes, I'm pretty sure the academic consensus has never read the actual telegram. Jesus fuck!

Also, clearly Bismarck altered the latter considerably, and it's not trivial to estimate what the magnitude of the insult was.

So either you are familiar with 19th century diplomatic writing, or you can fuck off.

I posted the actual text. Instead of looking at it and analyzing it, you are getting mad and insult me.
I accept your surrender and just wish you could do it in a more civil manner.

If theres one thing I hate more then Germans its the french. so nap

>Instead of looking at it and analyzing it

Dude. I read it long ago. Everybody arguing here did. It's not some "special sort of information" you have, it's a fucking wiki page.

The text is two sentences, there is nothing to analyze.

In which case you should be able to argue from the source, rather than argue from another person's argument of another person's argument that you read after another person edited it for publishing.

>In which case you should be able to argue from the source

You don't understand the purpose of discussion.

The purpose of discussion is to discuss its object.
Its object is the Franco-Prussian War and its causes, not that one book you read a decade ago and your limited understanding of it.

Bismarck provoked France into declaring war. What else is there to say

Bismark wanted this war and we were stupid enough to declare it.

Oops, Bismarck*

>The purpose of discussion is to discuss its object.

You do realize that's a circular definition? You can't use the word discuss to define discussion.

You have autism my friend, and not the good kind. Go find another board to post mate, Veeky Forums is not for people like you.

Talk shit
Get hit.

Yes, the purpose of the thread is to discuss the Franco-Prussian War. Thats the object of the threads.
You aren't making any argument right now, only insults and evading the original discussion.

1. The OP says "from a pacifist viewpoint". This isn't a pacifist viewpoint.
2. Prussia wont he war, so they didn't "get hit".
3. Don't apply highschool bully etiquette to international politics.

So was Napoleon III the next best thing to the real deal or was he an embarrassment to his uncle's memory?

They did get hit. But whoever starts the scrap doesn't always win.

>3. Don't apply highschool bully etiquette to international politics.
But that's exactly how pre-20th century international politics work.

>But that's exactly how pre-20th century international politics work.

These are the people you discuss history with.
Paradox video game veterans pretending to be historians.

Yes, that's me.

France was the side making demands and ultimately declaring war over a petty insult. The ball was entirely in Napoleon's playing field and he decided to give in to the demands of the jingoistic French masses even if Bismarck might be faulted for fanning the fire.

He was the reallest of all deals where interior policy was concerned, and arguably the last great administrator the country ever had (which showed in the polls, even by the end of his reign).

However he tended to fuck up his foreign affair policies even when the initial plan wasn't bad (Thinking he could keep the papal states out of Italy after he helped the country unify for one). He wasn't actually a bad diplomat by any stretch of the imagination though.

But by the end of his reign he was very, very sick and had to delegate most of the Franco-Prussian diplomacy to his minister of Foreign affairs (who was a bit of a cunt) and wasn't able neither to properly evaluate the situation nor to fight against the pro war popular opinion his ministers had reeled up in the country.

Some historians agree that had the Emperor had been operated for his condition and recovered his strength somewhat, the whole situation could have been averted. However, had he died before the declaration of war, it would have happened regardless.

Keep in mind that the matter of Spanish succession was already settled with France being the victor before the Franco-Prussian war started.

Napoleon the third wanted a war of conquest, the government thought the prussian military was rubbish ( they were warned by several commissions not to engage in war at this time because the french army wasn't ready ). Bismarck turned that agression into a conquest of his own.
Plus the government surrendered too quickly, not even one tenth of France military might was engaged in the conflict, for me it means it was a war decided by bourgeoisie, and the moment the prussian army threatened their interests, they gave up.

Why are there so few photographs of the Franco-Prussian War compared to the US Civil War or Crimean War?

Veeky Forums is a cosy board :3

There aren't, it's just a forgotten war. The first ever picture of Combat is from the FPW