Talk:Ems Dispatch

Godawful
Another godawful entry about the FP war with some atrocious POV inserts (i.e. "beyond what was necessary").

Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.73.41 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Who dunnit?
It is often reported that Bismarck orchestrated this war. If so, one should also note that it was rather easy to trigger French aggression. Rather than starting a war, France could have published its version about the incident, too, and gotten over it. After all, the possible threat of a Prussian King in Spain had been voluntarily removed by the Hohenzollern candidate, but the Prussian retreat was answered by a further, now real French attack. --Matthead 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not for the article to make that argument, but there are presumably widely accepted sources who put that PoV on the events, and they should be described. As to the terminology, i'd say
 * ... but the Prussian figurative retreat was answered by a further French demand, a French declaration of war within the week, a French act of war in the form of a naval blockade, and, three weeks after the dispatch, an actual French invasion of Prussian territory.
 * which is a little less hair-triggered than you insinuated. --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate version
I included an alternate translation in the article's history (so you can compare the diffs). — Omegatron 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vagueness in translations
The translated passages are confusing and bound to be sometimes misleading. I'm making comments in separate subsections, in the hope that each topic will start a dialogue or broader discussion. --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Brackets
Vagueness starts with the lack of clarity when brackets are used: i suppose they have to be commentary explaining the translation, but they confusingly take the form more often used to shorten a verbatim transcription or to replace (and thereby explain), within a verbatim transcription, a word or phrase that is so idiosyncratic, technical, or obsolete as to interfere with understanding. The nuances of wording in German, and translation to French are at core in the interest in the topic, so surely this is a case where we should --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * display the 2 German originals and the original translation to French, offer English translations that faithfully reflect the syntax of the originals, and  make all commentary on them and their relationships clearly explicit, by presenting it separately, in full sentences.
 * The translation that Omegatron attributes to "Sloane" seems to suggest that "[for ever and ever]" is someone's translation of the occurance, within the German text, of the French phrase "d tout jamais". (While i am incompetent in French, i suggest -- drawing on the Wikt entry -- reading it, until a verifiable alternative is offered, literally "of all ever".) No doubt Wilhelm's French was excellent, at least by American standards and perhaps much beyond that level. The article needs to say whether the natural inference that he was directly quoting the French note is known to be correct, and if not whether it has been challenged (since, with ironic intent or not, he might have paraphrased in French).  This also makes it inappropriate to translate the French as we translate the two German texts: his choice of the French words is enormously important, no matter whether it is irony or a direct quote from the (presumably French-language) message from the French; the translation of the German portion, preserving the French inclusion, should be immediately followed by a separate translation of just the French phrase, making clear what the meaning was, of what he chose to either quote verbatim or paraphrase ironically. --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

il a exigé
Without a knowledge of French, "a question (il a exigé)" is an insoluble riddle. --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For all I know and for all dictionaries tell me, il a exigé means he demanded. It even sounds slightly sharper to me, but I'm not an expert in 19c French. It definitely sounds sharper than hat die Forderung gestellt. It does not mean he asked or anything else that could be called a question. The French translation by the agency Havas altered the ambassadors[sic] demand to a question (il a exigé) makes no sense. Also, sauce?--88.74.208.163 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It now seems to me this stems from a misunderstanding of the French article. I've also raised the issue on the German talk page.--88.74.208.163 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Adjutant
The language
 * did not translate „Adjutant”

could mean (at least) either "omitted a word in the French version" or "in effect mistranslated the German 'Adjutant' (a high-ranked aide de camp) by merely downcasing it to the French 'adjutant', (a non-commissioned officer)". What follows pretty much rules out the first and makes the second at least plausible, but it comes too late to prevent wasting mental energy, or worse. (But BTW apparently neither is true: at best, "Adjutanten", an inflected form of "Adjutant" was not merely downcased into French style as adjutant but first de-inflected in light of knowledge of German, which is misleading to describe as "not translated".) Even with these better done, the article would be grossly incomplete without telling how much is known about the German-to-French translation. Was this error or deliberate mistranslation done independently by a military attaché or a war ministry clerk/translator, or guided by a cabinet level official? Were there enough individuals involved in translating that everyone had deniability? Do the answers to these questions remain state secrets to this day (-- not intended as a rhetorical question!). --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

German quotation marks
BTW, the use of non-English quotation marks around Adjutant is at best careless and more likely an attempt of an editor to show off knowledge that they only think they possess: Let's not write nonsense. --Jerzy•t 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The German text has Adjutanten (i think the -en suffix indicates the accusative case of a "strong" masculine singular noun -- cf. "Lobet den Herrn", = English "Praise ye the Lord), so that Adjutant is not a (German or otherwise) word quoted from the German text.
 * 2) In any case, the (German style) quotes do not appear in the quoted material. If they did, it would be technically wrong to convert them to English style, but not necessarily a bad idea, since so many English speakers would find them distractingly confusing.
 * 3) In this case, the quotes have to do with the relationship between that German word and the English sentence that it is part of. The status of Adjutanten as a quoted word is a matter of the structure of the English sentence; it logically (in addition to the pragmatic issue of reducing pointless confusion) is required by the English sentence and should be in English style. If that is insufficient, i urge you to tell me how you would describe, in English, riding a London tram past a store whose window read
 * Deutschland & la France
 * Tell us which you would write about this:
 * I saw a sign reading „Deutschland & la France”
 * I saw a sign reading <>
 * or
 * I saw a sign reading „Deutschland & la France>>”
 * (I'm not sure if it's the French who use that kind of quotation marks, but the point is valid even if the example is not.)

Joining the German and Spanish crowns
I was tempted to write (in the rewrite i'm doing of the lead secn)
 * ... or even the merger of the two crowns in the person of a common heir to them, if one branch should die out.

bcz the history that led me to the article (Carlton J. H. Hayes, Political and Social History of Modern Europe, Revised Edn, 1815-1924, Macmillan, New York, 1924) (BTW, the 1916 edn is online, so perhaps my hard copy is not the last in existence!) says
 * Napoleon, who at once professed to see an attempt to join the German and Spanish crowns and thereby to revive the sixteenth-century empire of Charles V, to the eternal detriment of France...

but i really don't know enough: can crowns be merged simply by the joint will of their two holders? I thot it took marriage between the two lines, so that someone later could inherit both, with out damage to others' rights of succession. --Jerzy•t 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For short: Napoleon III had spread propaganda, or Hayes has written a poor book, or both. (Also, I have to say that you have made a poor edit as France and Prussia surely were not allied in 1866.) "to join the German and Spanish crowns" in the 1870s or later would be almost impossible. Actually, in 1870, there was neither a Spanish nor a German crown. The Spaniards were looking for a catholic noble person. The Austrian Habsburg were Catholics, but the Hohenzollern branch who ruled the Kingdom of Prussia was Protestant, as much as the current Windsors are Anglican. The "Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen" branch had split off centuries ago, they remained catholic and had no claim to the Prussian throne. Of course, once a Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen would have been King of Spain, the German princes could have pronounced him Emperor of Germany, but that would have been very unrealistic. -- Matthead Discuß   10:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not read Hayes' book but would like to explain that a 'merger' of the Prussian and the Spanish crowns was not at hand in 1870, nor was the perspective of such a merger necessary to arouse French anger. For Emperor Napoleon III, it was sufficient to know that he might soon have one Hohenzollern king on one side of France and another one in her back. That outlook seemed alarming enough.

-grobi00- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.233.123 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Defeat for Germany
I dropped "if not for Germany" following "considered a diplomatic defeat for Prussia, ..." -- not as false but as unencyclopedically vague. It presumably refers to those, even in other German states, who envied the dramatically advancing unification of Italy and hoped for (what would in fact emerge from the Franco-Prussian War) a German nation state effected by essentially the incorporation into Prussia of the independent German states, but that should be clarified and sourced. --Jerzy•t 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck's intentions
The article states that Bismarck's final intentions were aiming at uniting Germany when he re-edited the text of the Ems Dispatch.

It is certainly true that Bismarck united Germany, but arguing that a nation was united by re-editing a message appears somewhat vague. The article should better point out Bismarck's immediate motives in aggravating France and provoking her into declaring war.

First, Bismarck confronted France in order to improve his personal situation. He had supported the 'Spanish candidacy' of a Hohenzollern prince, and King Wilhelm had opposed it. This kind of disagreement between the king and his first minister over an important political question like the candidacy could be called a case of non-confidence which would quite generally lead to the minister's dismissal. Bismarck was facing just that conclusion: In spite of eight years of successful work for the king of Prussia, he might soon be out of office.

King Wilhelm was a careful man. He disliked hurried decisions and had given priority - to his vacation. While the king was away from court, all political and administrational work at Berlin had to rest, and that included Bismarck's personnel problem. There was no doubt that the king would resume it as soon as he returned from Ems. For the time being, there seemed to be nothing Bismarck could do. He considered himself a 'lame duck'.

Then came Count Benedetti's unbelievable diplomatic blunder. When Abeken's text of the Ems Dispatch was submitted to Bismarck for his review, the Ministerpräsident realized immediately that the incident at Ems provided the opportunity to create a new situation where Bismarck's controversy with the king would be of minor importance. Bismarck's version of the dispatch established that situation since the dispatch provoked Emperor Napoleon III to declare war, just as Bismarck had hoped. The declaration of war seemed to prove that Bismarck had been right in proposing an unyielding policy against France. Bismarck's plan succeeded for the king did not dismiss him.

Second, it was not safe to say that Bismarck wanted to unite Germany for the prime goal of his policies was to boost the powers of Prussia and her king. In 1870, Bismarck pursued the goal to establish Prussia's influence over southern Germany, and this required ending France's influence over the same area.

For the past 200 years, France had viewed - and used - the south German States as dependent countries which could be played against each other or against third States at France's will. Control over southern Germany played an important role in France's foreign policies. Breaking that influence could only be accomplished by war.

When Bismarck provoked France to declare war, uniting Germany was only one of his options. After a successful war against France, he might leave the situation in Germany as it was in 1870, i.e. the North German League (headed by Prussia) in the position of a friendly neighbor to the southern States whose independence would have been advanced by the anticipated defeat of France. In July 1870, the perspective of Germany continuing as a confederation appeared more likely than a united Germany for the German princes were opposed to unification. Their opinion swung later, halfway through the war.

To Bismarck, these options were to be decided later. At the moment, it mattered to provoke France into a war which Prussia would win and improve her international standing as a major power in Europe. And that was Bismarck's prime motive.

- grobi00 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.219.2 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

'Bismarck's account of the impact of the telegram... is entirely fictitious
The quote is from William L. Langer, whose work I haven't read, but I have read David Wetzel's 'A Duel of Giants' which gives the quote on page 154 and which argues the same. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the subject could expand on doubts about the truth of the Ems story? 41.241.122.196 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The incident
"The edited telegram was to be presented henceforth as the cause of the war." By whom? The French declared war. The Prussians via Bismark may have hoped to provoke it. The line infers that the Prussians used the telegram as a cause for war. They did not declare it and there doesn't appear to be evidence of what they would have done if the French had not taken the bait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cause of the war?
I have always doubted that the Ems dispatch alone was the cause of the Franco-Prussian War, and the older I grow, the more dubious I become. Consider the following objections:


 * King Wilhelm went to Ems to relax. Before leaving Berlin, he did not instruct his army to prepare for an imminent war.  He had had an informal discussion with Count Benedetti, and suddenly, within a matter of days, France had declared war on Prussia.  Bismarck may have been calculating, but Wilhelm wasn't.  Wilhelm would have been surprised and presumably would have summoned Benedetti, the German ambassador to France, and officials from his Foreign Office in order to discover how the war had been precipitated.  He would have asked his Foreign Office why they sent such an upsetting telegram to the French.  Bismarck may have wanted war, but Wilhelm didn't.  No one ever explains how Wilhelm was persuaded to fight a war that he hadn't intended to start.


 * Presumably, the French government would have reacted in a similar way. They would have contacted Benedetti and the German ambassador to France in order to confirm the sentiments insinuated in the telegram.  Many of those involved would have had to have lied or distorted the truth.


 * The general staffs of France and Prussia weren't prepared for an imminent war. France had drafted no detailed plans for it.  War is a huge exercise in logistics:  vast numbers of men and vast quantities of provisions, weapons, and ammunition must be transported.  Presumably the generals would have complained to their governments about their armies being obliged to wage war with little notice.

Cwkmail (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your remarks. Actually, the general staffs have been prepared. The day before Bismarck even asked the general staff if the army was ready, and it said that an immediate outbreak of a war is better than waiting. On the other hand, Napoleon had already the intention to go to war - even if his army was less prepared than he had hoped. Ziko (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)