Talk:Franco-Prussian War

Common name?
Going through the sources, and doing a quick google search, it seems that the WP:COMMONNAME might actually be "Franco-German War" (this would be in line with the names in German and French, incidentally); before starting a RM I would like to hear some more opinions, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've always known it as the Franco-Prussian War. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Germany in 1871 became united in the form of an "expanded Prussia". So the name "Franco-Prussian War" is correct. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Duncan Hill and the unnamed user above. In English usage it has always been "Franco-Prussian War". I appreciate that historians sometimes change these naming conventions- compare the various nomenclatures of the English and British wars of the 17th century- but "Franco-Prussian War" seems unchallenged in English usage to date- among the most well established and least likely to have alternative names. Insofar as this is the English Wikipedia, it should follow the overwhelmingly dominant English language usage. A parenthetical note as to what it is called in the languages of the combatants would not go amiss. Random noter (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The great merit of 'Franco-Prussian' is it serves to emphasise the fact that Germany as a nation state did not exist until this time. Optymystic (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

aftermath/analysis section
In the 8th paragraph there is a piece of quoted text that calls the war bismarcks miscalculation. The problem is that the quote is presented as fact rather than an opinion. Firestar47 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

War crimes
"These actions, which were not systematically investigated or prosecuted by the Prussian government in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, have been widely documented and condemned by historians and human rights organizations." Number of citations: 0. I'm not saying it didn't happen, because it always happens, but if it is in any way notable surely it must be as widely documented as the article claims? Or is it just propaganda? Which is the appearance the article currently gives without a decent source, and certainly not ideal for anybody involved. Let's also not forget the French were pillaging the German countryside when they started the war and invaded (as stated by the article itself). Pseudoantiquasi (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tripped over the War Crimes section looking for something else, and what stuck out like a sore thumb is that it discusses ONLY war-crimes committed by Prussia. It's just impossible that there weren't also war-crimes committed by France, but where are THEY discussed. The non-encyclopedic bias in this sections just gushes off my monitor and fills the room I'm in. What MOTIVE can a person have for discussing ONLY Prussia's war-crimes and not France's? It can't be a GOOD motive.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Christoper Lawrence Simpson

Editorial commentary
Discussion of unnecessary editorial additions to the text from user POV. Random noter (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted this passage: "The question of legitimacy is rather strange for France after the coup d'état of 1851, since Louis-Napoleon himself only overthrew the Second Republic and rose to the imperial throne by means of a coup d'état." after the para describing who did or did not immediately recognize the Government of National Defense. Though witty, arguably even true, it reads like snarky editorial comment from a user POV. It would not go amiss in a monograph by a historian (who might say something as sarcastic but more substantive than "strange") or a magazine article, but in this format is not encyclopedia writing.

From a less purely contextual/format point of view, I might add that it is not in fact strange at all- governments always make decisions about who they do or do not recognize based on their own interests, their expectations of future events, and the values preferences of those making the decision. They are never rote or mechanical or automatic processes.

Beyond that, some may have noted the distinction between Louis Bonaparte's self coup and the events of 1870. The idea of the self coup is well understood now, but even today often is regarded differently under some conditions. In his case, as the president in place he staged a coup and usurped additional powers. On the other hand, he was the president in place and he used French law as his method to do it, by means well within French precedent. In 1870, as emperor he had not abdicated and his overthrow was not exactly done within the bounds of the existing system. Nor did the GND initially have any other mandate that might stand in the place of their having legitimacy under the existing order- say, an electoral mandate, even a bogus plebiscitary one. As the preceding paragraph of the existing article has correctly noted. It is as if the author of the passage I deleted did not deem it necessary to connect the comment to that previous text.

An exact parallel in 1870 to the events of 1851 would have been more like: the members of the Corps legislatif declare the emperor incapacitated, the regency incompetent, and appoint a Government of National Defense for the Empire to take command of the state; that government then seeks a plebiscitary mandate to proclaim a republic. That would be a mirror in 1870 of the events of 1851, with the same mix of legality and usurpation within a period French context. What they actually did was more clear cut usurpation. It worked, to be sure. But it's another reason why whole reams of governments that had recognized the French Empire might delay switching recognition to await events. So, not at all strange. Random noter (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If it's actually true, then why delete it? It seems to me that such an action of yours is already strange. So much time has passed since these events, 150 years, that you can already see reality as it is. Prussian-Germany was preoccupied with the issue of justifying the continuation of the war after the fall of the regime of Napoleon III. Prussia-Germany wanted the annexation of the French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. France did not agree with this, and therefore the war continues. Therefore, Prussia-Germany had to justify for itself and for world public opinion the continuation of the war. After the new government announced its desire to end the war and compensate the Germans for losses. 95.25.13.8 (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Napoleon?"
I've found a few instances in this article where a man referred to as "Napoleon" must be Napoleon III. This is really confusing. Not to me, maybe, but to children trying to research a term-paper or something. It's not clear.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson