Talk:Franco-Prussian War/Archive 1

older comments

Why do we describe the indemnity as 2000 million francs as opposed to 2 billion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwensG35 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 August 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Number names. Gdr 21:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

We find it odd that the photo references the Battle of Mars-La-Tour, but there is no mention of it in the text. Here's a list of the Battles in the Franco Prussian War, do we need authorization to add them or can anyone modify the article?

Wissembourg	1870-08-04	Prussian victory
Worth	1870-08-06	Prussian victory
Spicheren	1870-08-06	Prussia victory
Colombey	1870-08-11	Inconclusive
Mars-La-Tour	1870-08-16	Minor Prussian victory
Gravelotte	1870-08-18	Inconclusive, French army withdraws
Metz	1870-08-18	Prussian victory
Sedan	1870-09-01	Prussian victory
Paris	1870-09-19	French surrender (Prussians do not break into city)
Chevilly	1870-09-30	Inconclusive
Bellevue	1870-10-07	Inconclusive
Le Bourget	1870-10-27	Inconclusive
Coulmiers	1870-11-09	French victory
Amiens	1870-11-27	Minor French victory
Villiers	1870-11-30	Inconclusive
Hallue	1870-12-23	Minor French victory
Bapaume	1871-01-03	Minor French victory
Le Mans	1871-01-10	German victory
Buzenval	1871-01-19	German victory
Saint-Quentin	1871-01-19	German victory

Anyone can modify the article. Wikipedia:Be bold. Gdr 21:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Huge deletion by anon

I came by to read the article and found it ended rather abruptly. Checking the history, I saw that several sections were deleted by an anon a week ago. [1] I think it's OK now, but somebody more familiar with the subject should double-check to make sure that things are back where they should be. JamesMLane 09:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In checking it myself I found that the categories and intrawiki links were also affected. I think the intrawiki links are OK now. The categories are confusing as between "German" and "Prussian". For example, the Austro-Prussian War is in Category:German wars. I've left this article in both Category:German wars and Category:Wars of Prussia so that it won't be overlooked whenever those categories are straightened out. JamesMLane 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Populations of France and Prussia

What were the populations of France and Prussia at the time of this war?

• Not sure, the population of France was probably the same as Britain, maybe around 20 million. Prussia's population was a little lower, but then Prussia could rely on the joint populations of the entire North and South German Confederations, which vastly outnumbered France. One of the main reasons for the war was that Prussia used this population to create huge armies of conscripts, and the French wanted to cripple the Prussian military before France was swamped by millions of German troops. Rusty2005 12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• • In fact, before the war, France was still the most populated country among all western european powers ; the French population was estimated at 36 715 000 in 1856, which is quite huge for the time (only Russia exceeded that number in Europe). For references, see the article in French : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mographie_de_la_France#.C3.89volution_de_la_population_fran.C3.A7aise ; Thus, the impact of a larger german population as a whole was largely under-estimated by the French Headquaters ; France declared war only to Prussia, but ended up with a conflict with a nearly-unified Germany, which makes quite a difference. ;)

Grisold 12:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Following the Austro-Prussian War, Prussia's gains (not including the southern German states) gave it direct control over a population equal to that of France, although the number specified in this source. (Wawro's Franco Prussian War, page 19.)

Beaufort?

I am unable to confirm this with total accuracy, but I believe the name of the place where the last engagement before Sedan occurred was BeauMONT, not BeauFORT. In fact, the battle was outside Beaumont itself, in a place called Varniforêt.

Could someone verify this and modify the article accordingly?

Howard says Beaumont, so I suppose you are right. I've changed the article. //CrackWilding Feb. 2, 2006

Bismarck and the unification of Germany

There are a lot of passages in the text that refer to Bismarck "reluctantly" accepting German wartime unification and (implying?) that he wished for Prussia to remain separate. Thats certainly not the version given in most English-language textbooks and references, if anything Bismarck wanted a united Germany (sans Austria) but with Prussian ideals. Many references speak of the Prussian king's ambivalence towards a united Germany, but Bismarck is always portrayed as "unification-or-bust".

Can anyone shed some light on Bismarck's motivations in light of the Franco-Prussian War, especially the famous "blood and iron" quote? --61.88.82.133 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The section "New balance of power in Europe" (and probably others) needs an assessment from some knowledgeable on the claims made that are unsourced. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering - does anyone know what book Bismarck mentioned "I knew that a Franco-Prussian War must take place before a united Germany was formed" in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.129.243 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

...seem to have absolutely butchered this article. The war at sea section has disappeared, along with the section on post-war developments. This article is in need of some serious revision and/or reverting. --203.52.130.136 01:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

matthead while your quote about inches may be well sourced it is incorrect mistranslated what have you. I am at this very moment in London at the Public Records Office of the Foreign Office looking at the original documents.

Minor edit

Removed the following line from the last paragraph for obvious reasons: "I love Daney Glenn very much but she don't know it."

Reference to mobilization by train

The article indicated that the Prussian mobilization was the "first ever" by train. Any American Civil War buff can dispute that. See [2].

I have added a qualifier to call it "one of the first ever" such mobilizations.

• Not true in either circumstance. The Prussians mobilised their army by train in the 1866 war against Austria, the 1864 war against Denmark, and in 1854 against a possible revolution in Prussia. Removing the reference, as 1870 is not one of the first train-mobilisations in warfare. The first mobilisation by train is generally held to have occured in 1815, when the British moved two regiments along the Manchester-Liverpool railway line. Rusty2005 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The first mobilisation by train is generally held to have occured in 1815, when the British moved two regiments along the Manchester-Liverpool railway line. How on earth did they achieve that then? The Liverpool & Manchester Railway did not open until 15 September 1830! Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Civilian casualties?

I rewrote the article. One remaining issue are the six-digit numbers of civilian casualties, which outnumber the military by a factor of 2. Even though this is supposedly a symptom of modern warfare, they are doubtful, especially for the German side (even if Alsace-Lorraine are counted for Germany). Reliable sources are needed here. --Matthead 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah I really don't see how the German civilian casualties could be that high, considering how france barely set foot in Germany.

I agree. As the civilian casualties here are so high there needs to be an explanation, perhaps a section, explaining how this happened. Also, those figures don't specify killed, wounded, prisoner. Otherwise the figures could just be wrong. --Voloshinov 08:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

this numbers got to be wrong. the war never even hit german territory, so how should german civilians have been killed?? in case of france they sure had some, but these numbers are laughable--Tresckow 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Revert

I propose reverting to the version of 01:46, 23 May 2006 as the article has been simply destroyed in the meantime. Anyone with objections please speak up now. Dduff442 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is a bit POV, but a full-fledged revert might be a bit too much. While slanted, a number of those edits do present new information. I think that what the article needs, more than a revert, is a patient editor who is willing to go through and replace terms with more neutral words. I've noticed edits that are a little biased toward either the French or German sides, so neither camp is perfect here. At any rate, I think we should try that instead. I myself would do it, but my hands are full with the projects I'm working on right now. Maximilli 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthead seems to expect others to correct his spelling and grammar. What's the point of making edits if it destroys the professionalism of the article? This user has sparked a large number of POV debates, incl on the Schleswig-Holstein question and the status of Memel. Now he's moving on to the Franco-Prussian war...Dduff442 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it seems. Matthead certainly doesn't seem to have tried too hard on his spelling and grammar. Still, I think that a bit of hard work can bring out all the good points - the more neutral standpoint of the 23rd May version, and the added information of the subsequent edits. It's going to be some hard work, though, and I'll grant that. I still think that it's the best course of action. By the way, bravo Dduff442 for taking this on. Maximilli 20:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Dduff442, respect the chronological history of this (and my) talk and add your stuff to the bottom, like others do, even if you consider it top priority. And second, you are digging yourself a hole with your ad hominem accusations. And third, a total revert won't happen. Edit the phrases you consider POV, mispelledted or of which it's grammar no good is, and see if your edits will stand. --Matthead 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthead, while I agree in that Dduff442 is making some rather broad criticisms, I wouldn't go so far as to say that any edits he, or I, since I too think it's not pure NPOV, won't last. You too are being a bit broad there: you're automatically saying that any edits which Dduff442 makes are going to be discarded immediately. At least, that's what I'm hearing - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I wrote what I wrote above. As for the total revert, I consider it inacceptible, and will rv. Eight editors improved on it since May 27, no need to bin that too. As Dduff442's yet-to-be-seen edits and their longevity are concerned, did I imply anything, possibly threat to revert? I don't think so, but then my "standard of English is inadequate", so I could have declared war on Mr. Dduff442 with these words, who knows? Every editor gets warned "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." This applies also to those who might consider themselves superior regarding NPOV or language.--Matthead 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, come on, gentlemen (or women). Let's try and discuss things a bit more neutrally. It'd be quite a shame if a discussion intended to improve an article turned out as little more than an under-developed flame war. :) - Maximilli 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Holidays in the sunshine at the beach ...

In the wake of these remarks, I wonder how the recent edits will be received? Apparently, being on holiday in the nice and warm weather of a far away country is a remedy for supply difficulties and low morale, especially compared to the poor fellows that stayed at home [3], or compared to the ugly beaches of the Wadden Sea and the sharp cliffs of the Baltic Sea coast [4] back home that kept the Swedes from taking part in the Thirty Years' War? --Matthead 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• What? Rusty2005 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Original wording

I changed the "one inch" quote as France had been using the Metric system for for about a hundred years by that point. The quote is from foreign minister Jules Favre to Bismark "We are the government of national defence. You know what our program is: not a clod of our earth or a stone of our fortresses." Wawro The Franco-Prussian War page 253. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L0b0t (talk • contribs)

• Yes, the Imperial System had been long abandoned in France by this time, but the accepted English translation (according to Prof. R. Tombs, the leading living authority on the war), the phrase is universally translated into the English language as "Not one inch of our territory nor a stone of our fortresses". By the way, Wawro's work is no longer considered an up-to-date account of the war in academic circles. Best to check "Murailles Politiques Françaises". Rusty2005 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg crisis

As it stands now this section says at the start: 'for details, see also de:Luxemburgkrise (in German) Thus in 1867, France began by negotiating the purchase of Luxembourg from the Dutch government, as Luxembourg was then in personal union with ' I really think the founding of a nation warrants more being said on it then this little section, we need something comparable to what the German wikipedia has. Oh and err- no I'm not the man to do it, my German is virtually non-existant and its not a area of history I know of--Josquius 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Consricpts vs. Irregulars

The article describes the French having an army of Regulars, while the Germans had an army of conscripts, but the German's were required to preform compulsory service, so the German army, while not a full time professional one, was not made of conscripts. The term consripts should therefore be replaced with the term Irregular.

• No, the German's had compulsory service in which they were conscripted into the army, therefore they were an army of conscripts. The French Army on the other hand started the war as an all volunteer, professional, or "regular" force. L0b0t 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Not true. The French relied on a core of full-time regulars who were drawn by a national lottery. If they drew a "bad number", they had to serve between five and seven years in the army. If they drew a "good number", they only had to doa few month's training, then stay on the lists as Reserves. There were very few volunteers in the French army. During wartime, the long-term regulars were backed up by the short-service reserves, who would return to civilian life after the war. The Prussians, on the other hand, relied on a vast force of reserves and a much smaller core of long-term soldiers. In 1870, the French had to send their core of long-term soldiers into Germany before the Prussians could mobilise, while the Prussians had to mobilise enough men to outnumber the French and force them back into France. In the end neither plan worked properly. "Irregular" refers to troops who aren't part of the professional army, like the franc-tireurs. Both the long- and short-service soldiers, whether they are professionals, conscripts, or reserves, are classed as "Regulars". Rusty2005 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Sorry. What I meant was that the Prussians had universal conscription for 20 year old men, 3 years in the army, 4 years in the reserve, and 5 years in the Landwehr. This made the Prussian army more of a training school for the reserves with officers and NCOs being the only career soldiers. Whereas half of the French army in 1870 had served 7 to 21 years of active duty. The French preferring to recruit fewer men but keep them longer, and pay bonuses for reenlistment. Volunteer was a poor choice of words on my part.L0b0t 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

mistrous fucking a dog?

I'd like to bring attention to this:

"The French people and their parliament was destroyed because the mistrous was found fucking a dog reacted with outrage, Napoleon III mobilized and declared war, on Prussia only, but effectively also on the states of southern Germany."

Even given the fact that this sentence just doesn't make sense, I will let it be, and give others the oppertunity to correct what must be corrected. I'm new here and have no knowlegde about the subject matter, so I won't take any chances, how slim they might be.

(Fixed by revert to earlier form of nonvandalized sentence by Bugsi, 9/28/06)

NPOV ?

By reading this document, there is a general impression of lack of NPOV. While this theme is known to be the mother of all European flames (or "developped", as someone mentioned above), it does seem to be written mostly by German or English germanophile editors. It presents roughly the German standpond on the conflict, even with some displaced, anedoctical comments on support of Prussians by the Italians, which is almost irrelevant. It would be better policy to present both sides abolutely equal in eagerness for war, and thatś the case, we rather have the impression of reading a German histoty manual translated in English. 200.164.222.27 23:03, 20 January 2007

Dope!

This article was reviewed by a leading academic in the field

In PCPro on 12th July 2007 Dr Chris Clark Historian, St Catharine's College, Cambridge evaluates this article:-

Dr Clark describes the Wikipedia entry and compares it to Britannica's and Encarta's:-

Clark calls the writing "clearer" and "more elegant" and suggests that, while a few recent studies are missing from the bibliography, the authors are good at linking in the broader European setting without confusing the reader. Military and technical details are also well handled. Lumos3 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is already noted in the template at the top and is covered by Wikipedia:External peer review/PCPRO154. violet/riga (t) 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that in the coming months Dr. Clark finds his way back here and does another review of the article. Numerous up-to-date references and revisions have been done over the course of the past month. I'm always eager to receive constructive criticism, especially by academics in the field of History. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Current revision

I'm about to whip this article up into FA status and enter it into The Core Contest. I have several strong current references at my disposal. Any issues with POV will be settled by the time I'm done with it- and inline references will be the order of the day! Monsieurdl (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a break in between my references and the current ones. As I go along, I can verify the information present, build on it, and properly reference it all. The ones in the first part are the references I have on hand- the Bismarck one by Taylor has a great deal of information on the machinations of Bismarck. Monsieurdl (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided that two weeks was not enough time to improve this article enough, but I'll still be working with it to improve it. The behind-the-scenes manipuation of Napoleon III is now addressed. Monsieurdl (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Additions to the article

Please, if you are going to add material to the article, source everything as I have below- it is very difficult to sift through each paragraph and finding material which sources each statement. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 13:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I made some spelling corrections earlier today and was reverted with the comment "everything is spelled correctly". My problem isn't that the spelling is incorrect (it isn't in the view of a large amount of English speakers), it is that it is inconsistent within the article. The article is written using both Commonwealth and American English spellings. "The Government of National Defence" appears alongside "The Government of National Defense". I'd suggest that a variant be agreed upon and applied throughout. Leithp 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept your changes- sorry about that, but I was ticked off earlier over some nonsense about title changes. It seems like more people lately have come to make innocuous changes rather than help get the information right and properly sourced, which is what is really needed in these historical articles. If I spot any American English spellings, I'll change them and make them all uniform as I go along. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Veterans

Is there any availabe information about the veterans other than who the last survivors were? I confess that I'm doing this for my own family tree project, but I will gladly publish any notable information that I may find (such as famous veterans). Emperor001 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Army Age

What was the oldest that a person could serve in the Prussian Army? According to this, the army was made of mostly drafts, but one of my ancestors was 68 when he served in the army. Any explanation as to why some servicemen were so old? Emperor001 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiretapping?

The invention of the telegraph cable had changed the dynamics of warfare and the Prussians did not neglect this important aspect. They went to work in a severely scientific and business-like way. In Paris they discovered subterranean lines of wires which they cut. They also found some in the cellars of Meudon. Doubtless before they were destroyed they were made to furnish a wealth of intelligence to benefit the besieging army.<:ref> Harper's Weekly (1870) Dec 3, p. 782. </ref>

This is conjecture from a magazine published during the war, in a neutral country on the far side of the Atlantic; it itself admits that the gathering of intelligence is speculation. This is an unreliable primary source; if true, it should be supported by secondary sources who have seen the Prussian military records. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Removed some literature concerning Russia and Alexander II. I don't see any connection at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.204.77.150 (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ems depesh

In the article the issue of the Ems-depesh comes in wrong cronological order - the War was declared on Preussia by "the Sfinx by the Seine", Napoleon III. But not because of this shortened telegram - bus as It is stated just before the (by Bismarck well-edited telegram) was not the reason for the french declaration of war, but the fact that a german-speaking (but non-preussian) prince seemed to became king of Spain. This would perhaps make France surrounded by enemies, (like the german states and free-cities, the UK and now also Spain) and had to be stopped. A thought is also that Napoleon III finally found a chance to stand up for his christian and emperor name - I have no references to this idea, but it is far from unlikly and could be mentioned as "a possibility" in combination with the spanish question. If it only had been for the Ems-depech the war would hardly occoured for this reason only. /Pontus Eriksson (danish in southern sweden, sorry for bad english) Good article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.239 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral powers

What were the sympathies of the neutral powers? I suspect that all the rest of Europe feared German expansion. What about the USA?I've read that German-Americans were strongly for the German cause, but what did the US government think? Dynzmoar (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesse

Did the independent german state of Hesse declare war on france as well? They are the only indpendent german state that was left at the time not mentioned.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

The Bethmann Archive has a beautifully dramatic illustration, in the Google Images collection, of Bismarck presenting terms for the surrender of Paris to Adolphe Thiers. It would make an impressive addition to this well-crafted article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.4 (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Were the reparations demanded in gold

Were the reparations demanded in gold ? Other articles that refer to this war suggest they were, so that Prussia could return to a gold standard. - Rod57 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Location?

Why "France and Prussia" under "Location"? When in fact the war was fought out solely on French territory and no French soldier set foot on Prussian soil? Of course, parts of Prussia were affected by the war in terms of mobilization, transport etc., but so were the territories of the Prussian allies in other parts of Germany. So, if "location" is meant to encompass that rather more indirect territorial involvement in the war, other German territories would have to be added.141.91.129.5 (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

At least one battle occured on Prussian soil, see : Battle of Spicheren. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Names of the War

If it is noted that in France this war is often referred to by a name that is completely different from "Franco-Prussian War" and the like, shouldn't that French name be quoted in French? And why not add that in German history books and encyclopaedias the war is always called "Deutsch-Französischer Krieg" (=German-French War), never "Preußisch-Französischer Krieg" or anything else. I do not know the British and American literature on German history well enough to judge whether the war is more often called "Franco-Prussian" than "Franco-German". I have an inkling that "Franco-Prussian War" has something to do with the fact that in the English-speaking world one likes (or has liked) to equate Prussia with Germany, especially in the anti-German propaganda around WW I and afterwards. It wouldn't surprise me if contemporary younger historians preferred "Franco-German" war, which is much closer to what the war is called in Germany. The mere fact that at the outset the war was declared "by France" (i. e. Napoleon III) against Prussia alone should not, in my opinion, lead to ignoring the most remarkable feature of this war: that is that, for the first time since ages, in 1870 practically all German states (except Austria) united in a war against a non-German country (just four years earlier a number of German states, the ones under the leadership of Prussia, the others under that of Austria, had been fighting against each other). It was almost logical that the war led to the unification of the Germany in the shape of the German Empire. This, apart from defining the roles of Germany and France in Europe for a couple of decades obviously accounts for the outstanding importance of this war in German and European history. It seems to me that "Franco-Prussian War" more or less ignores this aspect. Arguing with the fact that "originally" there was only a state of war between France and Prussia seems to me almost as absurd as calling WW II "German-Polish War" just because it started with the invasion of Poland by the German armies.141.91.129.4 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War is the English term for this war 78.42.252.102 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

German Casualties - Correct Infobox?

The article's infobox states that the Germans lost 248,000 casualties (120,000 dead), which seems absolutely ridiculous when compared to the overall numbers involved in the war. Not to mention the fact that in the Nineteenth Century 1:1 death and injury was incredibly rare. Michael Howard's book (listed in the bibliography of the article) states on page 453 that the Germans lost 88,488 wounded and 28,208 dead, for a total of 116,696 casualties. Perhaps later scholarship had yielded different numbers but even so, that is a huge discrepancy. Which is correct? 24.155.31.201 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per policy... Tiggerjay (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

– Per MOS:ENDASH. bender235 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why would we need an en dash there? It isn't two nouns. 216.8.128.124 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Nom should really have read all of MOS:ENDASH, specifically the bit where it says:

  Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry

  Favonian (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I thought of this per thousands of precedents: Spanish–American War, Eritrean–Ethiopian War, Philippine–American War, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Arab–Israeli conflict, Soviet–Japanese War, ...
  Why exactly is Franco–Prussian War any different? --bender235 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per the examples in WP:ENDASH. 'Franco' is a combining form, so it takes a hyphen. 'Spanish' is not a combining form, so Spanish–American is expected to use an endash. See Merriam-Webster's definition of combining form. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paris Commune

Shouldn't the Paris Commune be included in the infobox as a belligerent on the French side? It should just have a plain red flag.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Communards only really fought the French regulars, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on the German side?

In all seriousness, while the Commune took place during the last few months of the war, and the rise of the Commune was a direct result of the war, they don't really belong in the infobox. For a variety of reasons, including that it would be highly misleading to list them as an ally or co-belligerent of the Second Empire, since readers might very well assume this means that Communards fought alongside regulars against the Germans. Also, from the perspective of the war, the Commune was little more than a side show. Sure, if this was an article about France in the 1870s, then the Commune would be a big deal. But it had little to no impact on the outcome of the war, and as such, should not be included in the infobox, which should be limited to the main points of the subject. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon III did not want war?

Has this view been advanced by actual French historians? Séguin was a politician, not a historian, and as his obituary in the Telegraph notes, was a "great admirer" of Napoleon III. If Séguin is the only proponent of this argument, it's probably a fringe view and shouldn't be included. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Anybody have any input on this? I'd like to get the article to GA in the relatively short-term (with the eventual aim of FA) and I'd like to be able to cover the issue of the start of the war comprehensively. If this is indeed a significant viewpoint it should be included, but if it's just one argument advanced by somebody with no historical training who happened to think Napoleon III was a swell guy, then it needs to go. In the case of the first, we also need some page numbers for the citation. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Every French, American, English & German historian I have read says yes Napoleon wanted the war--he was positive he could win. Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was the impression I had as well. Do you happen to have any of them handy? It'd be nice to have some more citations besides Wawro and I'm away from my library at the moment.

Barring any objections in the short term, I'll probably just remove Seguin's argument, since as far as I can tell it's a fringe opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

some cites: 1) "NAPOLEON III was overly confident of the strength of the French army. He wrongly believed that the war would break up the recently formed NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION." (The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History 2011); 2) "Not satisfied with Leopold's retraction, the vainglorious Napoleon III was determined to humiliate Prussia at all costs, even at the cost of war." (David Michael Lindsey - 2000); 3) "Napoleon III was deeply troubled by the outcome of the Austro-Prussian War and the emergence of the powerful North German Confederation on the eastern borders of France. ...Napoleon believed that he had no choice but to declare war or lose face with the French people." (Addington Patterns of War 1994 p 98). 4) Napoleon himself said, "This is the most national war that in my time France has undertaken, and I have no choice but to advance at the head of a public opinion which I can neither stem nor check."; 5) "Napoleon III himself was not averse to war, partly because he had grown increasingly alarmed over the rise of Prussia" (Pipes 1970) etc Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wawro "Therefore the Franco-Prussian War arose from Napoleon III's need to teach the Prussians a lesson and Bismarck's overlapping need to foment a war with the French...." The Franco-Prussian War (2003) p. 22

"The wrath that drove Napoleon III to declare war on the Prussians in 1870 over a diplomatic trifle derived from the crushing disappointment he felt in 1866...." War and Society in Europe 1792-1914 (2000) p. 101

"The search for the "responsibility" for the war of 1870 is one which historians have long since abandoned. There can be no doubt that France was the immediate aggressor, and none that the immediate provocation to her aggression was contrived by Bismarck...." The Franco-Prussian War, Howard (1961) p. 40

"Even when Bismarck had manoeuvred Napoleon III into declaring war on 19 July...." The Siege of Paris Baldick, (1964, NEL 1974) p. 17Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Emile Ollivier [5]

Moltke [6] p. 2

Guedalla [7] p. 409 et seq.Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sections on the battles

Since they're linked to separate pages, shouldn't they be reduced to a paragraph or so to summarize the link?Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of the battle summary should be cut down - I'd say two paragraphs per battle should be the maximum. The sections on Wörth and Mars-la-Tours seem a good length to me, while Gravelotte is clearly excessive - we don't need to be in the weeds at brigade level in a main article like this one. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there's more detail about some of them here than on the main pages....Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've copied and pasted the material on the battles and put it on the main pages, so edits here won't lose material.Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Howard

Wasn't sure if the 1991 edition was a reprint or a revised version, so added the 1961 edition details as this is the one I have.Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like just a reprint. I think I have the 2008 edition which appears to be a revised edition (though I'll have to check when I'm home). They all appear to be the same page length so whatever edition we use the numbers should match up fine. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's stood the test of time hasn't it?Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - Howard's book is pretty widely regarded as the standard by military historians, at least in the US (and presumably UK) - don't know what the French and Germans think of it, but I'd doubt it was much different. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

CE

Coup d'etat not French? Zut alors! Is the article taken from a French original? I can have a look at my library tomorrow and see what books I can use for citations if that's any help? Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't header 8 be better under Aftermath as an analysis subsection?Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't French, just that it's a common loanword in English ;) I'd appreciate any help you can provide on citations. And yes, your suggestion on headers makes sense to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah wurz mahkeeng le joking, which just goes to show that a joke from me is no laughing matter. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What can you expect from a Yank, I guess? Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I altered the headers and managed to lose a load of edits through an edit conflict memory hole but recovered the bibliographical details. I thought that it was odd to see the pictures and maps not thumbnailed so changed them accordingly. I prefer such things on the right margin but can live with them being moved back to the left hand side if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if we were going to be stumbling over each other, but I figured since I was editing just the first couple of sections it wouldn't conflict. It's difficult to predict what will cause an edit conflict sometimes. I think the MOS says images should generally alternate left to right (apart from images that face a certain direction) but I'm not too fussed about it, personally. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I found this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#How_to_place_an_image

In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing a parameter in the image coding in the form |left. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar. If multiple related images are being placed on the right, then the template may be useful. It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).

which is moderately encouraging.Keith-264 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, all I know is I've had people hassle me for having all of the images on the right at FAC before, but then FAC reviewers are a fickle breed, and who knows what the current taste will be when this article is eventually beat into shape ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For me it's an aesthetic matter, I think text on the left everything else on the right looks better. I've only taken one article through a higher review than B and didn't enjoy people putting pleonasm back into sentences I'd purged of it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've always operated on the principle that when 2 words will do the job of 3, shorter is better ;) But I'm toward the top of this list so I've got a fair bit of experience at the higher level reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Does the phrase "guerre à outrance" have a specific meaning in German different from French? In Franco-Prussian_War#Government_of_National_Defence, the {{lang}} template is "de". ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I claim the honour of that bungle, lang de was the first version of the template I used and I sometimes forget to change it to fr.Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagined as much, but I thought it was possible it is used only in the context of that war in German, or somesuch. Loan words and phrases often acquire a different nuance than in the original language, and sometimes even shift to mean the complete opposite, so I just wanted to make sure.
As for image justifying, I'd say there are no hard and fast rules except A) it should look good B) images should be mostly on the right, but placed on the left whenever reasonable. See Napoleon for a good example of an image-heavy article where pictures are justified left to break the monotony of single uninterrupted column of them on the right. Which are the pictures concerned in this article? ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

For me it's an aesthetic preference, for once pleasingly congruent with the policy. I'd rather delete images than have them on the left but if people have their heart set on it, I grit my teeth and try to compromise.Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Effects of the war on military thought

Should we have a bit on this in the Aftermath section? It seems to me that there were multiple, significant effects the war had on military thought, not least of which was the widespread adoption of the General Staff system used by the Prussians. But there are certainly others - for instance, everybody held up von Bredow's death charge as proof that cavalry still had a place on the modern battlefield (of course ignoring the 9 of 10 times where the cavalry was butchered - those guys just didn't have enough elan!). And according to Field Artillery and Firepower (which I added a citation to yesterday) Prussian artillery tactics were widely adopted in the 1870s and 80s (which of course greatly influenced French Army doctrine with their fabled 75). And there's also the issue of whether the shortness of the war made military leaders believe the next war would be over quickly - I believe Citino has made that point in Quest for Decisive Victory (though he's by no means the only person to make the argument), though I also think that Ferguson has argued that assumption is incorrect in The Pity of War (or at least that there were plenty of leaders who were under no false impressions on the eve of WWI). Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Moltke's post-war conclusion that the era of Volkskrieg with the mass mobilisation of populations and utopian appeals against deadly dangers had returned and would make realpolitik go underground was true.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's Howard who discussed the implications of von Bredow - I'll have to dig up the specific reference for that and for Citino/Ferguson later - but I can put together a basic section and we can go from there. I can at least write up a short bit on artillery tactics from work while it's slow today ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and of course there's the argument that the sophisticated railroad mobilization schemes made necessary by Moltke's victories helped to push Europe into war in 1914 - Taylor is the chap there. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary of military events

Don't the lead, the article and the conclusion make this section redundant?Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say so - let's chop it, barring any objections in the next day or two. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

i think it's useful--let's keep it. people who are not interested can just skip it. Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No it's a mistake to put things in to be ignored. It's neither fish nor fowl.Keith-264 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Paris Commune

The section on the Paris Commune is outdated and has very inaccurate statistics. Please see the article on the Paris Commune for the more recent data. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the infobox has the figure 20,000 killed, and according to that article, Milza confirms that figure in his book. And there's a difference between Communards who were killed and Communards whose graves have been identified. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reaction in Poland section

The whole section fails to cite a single source for its claims and is written with non-neutral langauge. I have tagged the section and invite any author to help improve it.Eric the fever (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm not actually sure why Poland merits an independent mention at all. Perhaps a "international reaction/effects" section would be preferable? The conflict also launched a period of soul-searching in Belgium about re-armament and had lasting diplomatic legacies with Italy and Britain too. I don't see why Poland should be signed out like this - the events don't seem too major...—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

the decisive victory

the war was a decisive victory that transformed German history. It was likewise a decisive defeat for France and it transformed French history as well. How decisive can anyone want?? Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This indicates a lack of vocabulary, as something "decisive" is something that produces a definitive result, yet the Franco-Prussian war is only a Franco-German war among others. Also, it is a term that applies to battles, not wars. Most wars have transformed the history of the countries involved, this is not an argument.:

It is an overuse and misuse term that have been suppressed in most Wikipedia articles. Please use this term rationally. Blaue Max (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wars are inherently decisive, in that they always decide something (and as Blaue Max points out, it's correctly applied only to battles, because "decisive battles" decide the outcome of a war). It seems many use the term "decisive" to mean "they really, really won" - that's not what the word means. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can't write decisive here, cause its war, then remove decisive victory from WW2, nonsense right? This war had very big turning point, for both countries, Germany emerged as superpower in Europe and France lost its influence and Empire, became republic, suffered and deserved casualties it had --AdolfBonaparte (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that the infobox does not call it a decisive victory... Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Casualties

I give you some battle's casualties :

Final war death for Prussia is 28,000. If we take 1/3 dead by battle (wikipédia pages), we found :

Battle of Wissembourg : 3,550 dead (Prussia) Battle of Mars-la-Tour : 15,000 dead and wounded () Battle of Gravelotte : 5,230 dead Siege of Metz : 47,000 dead and wounded Battle of Bazeilles : 5,000 dead and wounded Battle of Sedan : 2,300 dead Battle of Le Mans ; 9,500 dead and wounded Siege of Paris : 12,000 dead and wounded Siege of Belfort : 8,000 killed

= 40,000 dead

Battle of Spicheren : 4,871 dead and wounded Battle of Wörth : 9,270 () Battle of Borny–Colombey : 1,200 dead Siege of Strasbourg : 8,000 dead and wounded Battle of Beaumont : 3,500 () Battle of Noisseville : 2,800 () Battle of Bellevue : 1,700 () Battle of Coulmiers : 2,000 () Battle of Amiens : 1,000 dead Battle of Villepion : 4000 dead, wounded Battle of Loigny–Poupry : 4,000 dead and wounded Battle of Hallue : 1000 dead and wounded Battle of the Lisaine : 2,000 dead and wounded

Total = 55-60,000 dead in fight.

So, 28,000 dead, it is very... just.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.50.49.159 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what "dead and wounded" means? Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course i know, that's why I only take one third. Example : 15,000 dead and wounded.../3 = 5,000 dead. Plus, you add to french casualties (Which were very often less than the Prussian losses) the deaths from sickness (tens of thousands). I think that any losses must be reassessed and detailed.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.50.49.159 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not how we determine casualties... Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, That is why I ask that other sources are included. For example, on internet, we found for the french casualties 60,000 dead (KIA+DOW)+ 80,000 dead of disease, and for the prussian 30,000 (kia +dow) + 13,000 disease (Gaston Bodart).(to check).

Thank you

Have you bothered reading the article? The casualty figures are sourced to Howard. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My old message : "That is why I ask that other sources are included..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.50.49.159 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Howard is authoritative. If you knew anything about the Franco-Prussian War, you'd know that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Many sources is best than only one. I don't know who Howard is. I'm french, i can't found any book of him here.

Try here for starters. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

POV

The article is heavily slanted in favor of the French narrative. Although France was the country which started this war, already the first paragraph tries to shift the blame to the Germans, and then the second paragraph laments that the Germans were so much better at war than the poor Frenchmen who started it in the first place. Ridiculous, really. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how you get that from the article. It's Bismarck's narrative that he manipulated the French into declaring war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of images

This article has a large number of paintings and drawings of historical events where the artist is not credited, nor is it made clear that it is an artist's impression of events often prepared much later by someone who did not witness the events. The article needs proper captions for these images. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franco-Prussian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516114356/http://www.omaha-beach.org/Travel/1870/1870-71.html to http://www.omaha-beach.org/Travel/1870/1870-71.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Section 7. Lessons/Russo-Japanese War

I have added a sentence to this section, however I think the wording needs altering. The issue with field artillery during the Russo-Japanese war was that either the pieces themselves or the men manning them lacked the ability to engage in indirect fire. Indirect fire is a crucial asset when dealing with trenches and the like, something the Russo-Japanese War came to be known by in many circles.

The primary weakness of the field artillery was its inability to engage entrenched positions effectively, infantry taking pot shots at gun crews from extended ranges was secondary and part and parcel to the first point.

I would like to modify this section further, but I thought it was best to see what peoples views were. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC))

Was prussia considered evil?

Was prussia considered evil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.138.108 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed archiving time

As this talk page appears to be low traffic at the moment, I've taken the liberty of increasing the time a thread will stay on the page before being archived. There's a chance that someone may see and reply! Singing choc ice (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I support this decision. Thank you for making the change!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 20:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Reference formats

There appears to be a mix of reference styles used in this article. Any great objections to me converting the <ref> ... </ref> form to {{snf}}?

In the process I'll be able to put helpful links into the references, which may well aid verifiability.

Singing choc ice (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

At one point, I standardized everything to {{sfn}}, but things have crept in, apparently. Go ahead and fix them! Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ever played "Whack-a-mole"? I'll try and catch as many as possible in one hit. Singing choc ice (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Reworking this article is on my long-term to-do list considering I have about a dozen books on the topic. I noticed the issue as well and would applaud anyone who wants to standardize the formats!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 21:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It does look in need of some significant reworking: a combination of retirement, stumbling across this article in its current state, and more that 20 relevant books on my shelves finally prodded me into signing up as an editor. Am I about to embark on a learning curve or a steep cliff? Singing choc ice (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• If you're about to begin a long-term project to improve this article, you can count me in. I've got several books on the topic just sitting on my shelf, including one that was published in 1871! The Franco-Prussian War is a topic I'm personally quite interested in, but I've never had the time to do more than just take care of the article. I'd like to see it actually improved however, rewritten, expanded, and properly sourced. Perhaps we can get that done together?--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That, as the saying goes, sounds like a plan! Singing choc ice (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

12 {{cite ...}} templates inserted, and 14 {{sfn}}. It makes the source so much easier to read and gives me a good lesson in markup! Singing choc ice (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There were a couple of others things that needed fixing, including the cite to Milza that somehow got partially deleted, and there was a reference listed that wasn't being cited (one of the benefits of using the sfn templates!) - I've taken care of those.

I've been tinkering with the article on and off for some time now, and I'll be happy to help where I can. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References > Books

I've just gone through the listed books:

• regularised the order of the {{cite book}} parameters (Principal author surname is now the first parameter: It's much easier to read the source code to find a reference!)
• where possible, converted ISBN-10 to ISBN-13, and adding ISBN-13 where they had been missed
• correcting publication dates to match those indicated by the ISBN
• added OCLC numbers where found
• where possible, linked to online scans of the books (mostly the older 19th century ones. Later 19th century and beyond are often not available because of possible copyright problems)
• correcting author identities (in one case a translator had been misidentified as the author)
• wikilinking authors, editors, translators, and anyone else I could find.

I'll try to repeat the process withe the books in the Further Reading section. Singing choc ice (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't include OCLC numbers for references that already have an ISBN or other identifier. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

And watch linking the same authors more than once - we don't need duplicate links for all three instances of Geoffrey Wawro's books, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I was, at first, a little puzzled by your saying that you wouldn't include OCLC numbers where ISBNs exist, as it seems to be a quick and simple way of seeing if the book is available at a nearby library. However, having played with the ISBN link, I can quite see where you're coming from. What "other identifier" do you have in mind that would render OCLC redundant?

Multiple linking of authors was an, erm, unintended feature (!) of the spreadsheet I'm using to construct the references. I'm using a spreadsheet to be able to easily and rapidly produce references for any of the books in my library; there's no telling what may catch my eye over the next few years! Now all I've got to do is remember to check that bit manually before publishing. Singing choc ice (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically about the ISSN for journals (since that takes you to worldcat as well).

Happens to the best of us ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Quick question, what do you all think about swapping the Prussian flags for North German Confederation/German Empire flags? I can see arguments both for and against doing so.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the North German Confederation and German Empire flag? I can see a much better case for using the NGC flag, as opposed to the Prussian, as that was the entity that went to war; Prussia was simply (!) a component part, and the Empire didn't come into existence until France was defeated, but not beaten. I'm sure international law lawyers could have a field day with this one! Singing choc ice (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusing References section

The References section is confusing not to say confused. If an author that you look for is not under 'Books', then you have to look under 'Further reading' just in case it's there, then under 'French and German Studies'. If you want to include a French-language book, you're not sure you should put it under 'French and German studies' because you also find French 'studies' (??) in the other sections.

Wouldn't it be simpler and more user friendly to fuse Books, Journals, Further reading, and French and German studies into one single alphabetical list? Then, when you look for an author, it's either there or it isn't.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The reference section is only for sources that are actually cited in the text. Further reading is for sources that might be of interest to readers, but are not cited in the article.

The French and German studies section should probably be merged into the Further reading one unless someone can give justification for keeping it split off. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why sources that are actually cited in the text should be segregated into their own section. They could be fused with the rest, and it would sure make searching for an author easier.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That's standard practice - if a book isn't used as a reference, it shouldn't be included with the references. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You find many pages where it is bundled together (Austro-Prussian War for instance). Anyways, that's a relatively minor irritant.--Lubiesque (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Are any of them Featured Articles? Plenty of articles are done poorly - it is not evidence of anything except that fact. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with finding an author reference. If you click on the inline citation number, that takes you to the relevant footnote (which may have additional information added). If you then click on the author name in that footnote, then that takes you to the relevant entry in the References section. If either of these stages fails, that indicates that either the citation or the reference entry is malformed, and needs to be fixed.

With sources used as references split out into a separate section, it becomes immediately obvious that entries in the Further reading section have not been used, so if there is an new citation which refers to one of those sources then it needs to be transferred to the appropriate Reference section. Singing choc ice (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just put the French and German studies section books into {{cite book}} templates, then merged them into the Further reading section before deleting the French and German studies section. It looks a little neater, while retaining the separation between used sources and additional material.

I've also inserted a Books sub-head at the start of that section. Possibly gilding the lily to some extent, but if other material, such as Journals, is added then there is a logical structure to hang them on. Singing choc ice (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are several Howard|1961 's that don't point to 1991 or 1979... Anyone capable of standardizing them?

Is anyone in a position to compare the pagination of the 1961, 1979 and 1991 printings? From the publication data in my 1991 paperback it looks as if there is only one edition, but if there has been a change in typesetting between formats then the page references in 1961 may not match. Singing choc ice (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Tweaking Archiving behaviour

I'm taking liberties again: I've changed the behaviour of the archiving bot so that a minimum of four threads will always be visible on this page; archiving will only happen to an old thread if there are more than that on the page. Given the level of activity on this talk page I don't see that as a problem, and may even elicit a few more responses. Singing choc ice (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I too have tweaked the archives ... to change the monthly archives in to numbered ones, which is more logicial here. I have combined all the monthly archives into archive 1. Graham87 07:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Casualty Numbers

The French casualty numbers seem highly inflated, and I don't see the justification in the source provided. Nolte (vol 1) says:

"La France avait alors 11,860 officier et 371,981 homme retenus captifs en Allemagne, et 2,192 officiers et 88,381 hommes internes en Suisse. Elle avait, en outre, perdu 138,871 hommes tues ou blesses."

Translated:

"France thus had 11,860 officers et 371,981 men held captive in Germany and 2,192 officers and 88,381 men held in Switzerland. France had also lost 138,871 men killed or injured."

Thus, the number in the article and the moment is not the number killed, but the number killed and injured. It also looks like the total number captive is 460,362, much lower than the 723,000 litsed in the article.

Opposing forces

I've started tweaking this section, beginning with a new paragraph on the composition of the German forces. Am I the only one dissatisfied with this section as it stood? Singing choc ice (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The historical assessment of the Franco-Prussian war

I think that the historical significance of the Franco-Prussian war, its influence on the course of further history, is not sufficiently disclosed. The article lacks a historical assessment of this war. Meanwhile, in history, the topic of the consequences of this war was addressed very often. For example, in the conditions of peace in 1918, which ended world war 1, the President of USA directly assessed it. President Wilson directly evaluated it and argued that the actions were unfair on the part of Germany, which annexed Alsace-Lorraine. I think you need to add the following snippet to the article:

The historical assessment of the Franco-Prussian war can be seen  in the Fourteen Points of President Wilson in 1918. Paragraph 8 stated: "All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all".

Why do you think a political document represents the "historical assessment"? Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you are wrong:

“History is past politics and politics present history.” 

― Edward Augustus Freeman, Lectures to American Audiences 93.81.211.195 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my question. That quote is not relevant to it. First, let's have you define the phrase "historical assessment". Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you believe that politicians ' judgments do not contain historical assessments. But this is not how it seems to me. Because politics and history are interlinked. Historical assessment - if you want to know my opinion-is a judgment of justice and rightness. For example, was Germany right in its demands to France over Alsace-Lorraine? 93.81.211.195 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, "historical assessment" means the consensus of historians on a given topic (assuming there is one). You seem to be under the misapprehension that historians try to determine rightness or wrongness; they do not. History is not a continuation of politics by other means (despite the multitude of politicians who try to spin history for their purposes).

For example: a broad "historical assessment" of Japan's efforts during WWII might be that they never really had a chance to defeat the United States. One might also make an assessment about why Japan went to war with the United States. But historians would not try to assign rightness or wrongness to Japan's decision to go to war in 1941. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think your problem is that you understand "historical assessment" only in a limited sense, so to speak, in the direction of achieving the goal. "It led to the achievement of the goal or did not lead to it" - this is how you understand historical rightness. For you, the concept of morality does not seem to exist. In this case, we are talking primarily about the moral side. Were the Germans are right from a moral point of view, when they demanded Alsace-Lorraine? That's what we're talking about. Without moral evaluations, you will get a flawed story. 93.81.208.195 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Japan has never had a goal to defeat the United States, as you understand it-to raise its flag over Washington or at least occupy the West coast of the United States. Japan acted, as it seemed, rationally. And the Japanese thought that they would repeat their success in a war with a large and strong enemy, as in the war with Russia in 1904-1905. That is, to inflict a series of defeats, capture territories and repel the enemy's counterattack, so that the latter understands the futility of the war and goes to an unprofitable peace treaty. This was the main calculation of the Japanese. That the enemy will accept defeat. Here again, the moral side. The Americans in 1941 considered their position morally correct and were determined to fight to victory. The Russians, too, did not accept the defeat of 1905; they considered themselves morally right. They were just waiting for the moment to return what the Japanese had taken from them. And returned it in 1945. 93.81.208.195 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop beating around the bush. You are an amateur with an amateur's understanding of history (which is to say, what the discipline is and what it seeks to do), and it seems you lack the competence to grasp the points I've made. I'll be clear: Wilson was not a historian. Even if he was, a single individual does not represent the "historical assessment". Your addition is flatly wrong, conflates a politician making a political point with historians who seek to understand and explain events, and will not be added to the article. I'm done wasting my time with this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, your right to your opinion. I also have an opinion. And if you have expressed an opinion about me, then I will Express an opinion about you. Fair enough? You are passionate about the technical and material side of things. As you can see, this is evident even in your special love for armadillos, etc. After reading this article about the Franco-Prussian war, you can easily conclude that it is mainly devoted to the topic of the calendar sequence of events, issues of weapons, military tactics, etc. All this is necessary, but it is only the outer shell of the history, but not the history itself. 93.81.210.219 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I have actual training as a historian; you appear to have watched some documentaries or read some pop history books and consider yourself an expert. Your opinion has about much weight as that of climate change deniers. You clearly do not understand what history is as a discipline, or what historians do. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You repeat yourself. I think it is enough to Express your opinion about the interlocutor once. I haven't changed my opinion of you. History is undoubtedly a science. People who don't have a degree in history are entitled to an opinion in it. Not because history is easy to learn, but because Historia est magistra vita. 93.81.208.171 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I can speak in more detail. After reading the article, it seems that "French revanchism" was the main problem in international politics that eventually led to the war of 1914. But this is a completely false impression. Historical scholarship is dominated by the historical assessment of Germany's greater guilt. Of course, the severity of the charges may differ, but the general opinion does not change.

"There was 'a far-reaching consensus about the special responsibility of the German Reich' in the writings of leading historians, though they differed in how they weighted Germany's role. .  

It was Germany, with its annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, that opened the way for history to 1914. And in this we can fully agree with President Wilson's assessment. 93.81.211.195 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I have seen on French history, the very bitter French resentment of the 1870s-1880s had largely faded away by 1910 and was not a major cause of the war in 1914. Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you could add your opinion to the article. This would eliminate the erroneous impression of "French revanchism" as the main negative consequence of the Franco-Prussian war. 93.81.208.195 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ok I added material. Wilson was indeed a historian but his 1918 14 points statement is not about the CAUSES of the war in 1914 but instead specified his peace terms in 1918. French revanchism about ALsace-Lorraine was not a major cause of war in 1914 because it faded after 1880. J.F.V. Keiger says, "By the 1880s Franco-German relations were relatively good." [see J.F.V. Keiger, France and the World since 1870 (2001) pp 112–120, quoting p 113] Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. The causes of the war of 1914 are very complex. But I still agree with the opinion that "the normalization of Franco-German relations was unattainable without resolving the question of belonging of Alsace-Lorraine". The solution could have been reached in various ways, not necessarily by moving from Germany to France. Other options were also possible, for example, the organization of a neutral state like Luxembourg and Belgium. Or something else. But without this, reconciliation between the French and the Germans was unattainable. "The fear of war was stronger for the French than the desire to regain what was lost." But this fear did not make the French pacifists". . The French consensus was that war was inevitable. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.208.243 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We should all read Annika Mombauer's Guilt or Responsibility? The Hundred-Year Debate on the Origins of World War I available online. She presents an update, as of 2015, of the debate among historians on the origins of WWI. If you take the trouble to read the article, you will not fail to notice that France seldom comes up in the debate, let alone Alsace-Lorraine and French revanchism, which are not mentioned once. For modern historians, the causes of WWI are to be found elsewhere.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The reference to Annika Mombauer's work was not on the subject of the Alsace-Lorraine problem, but on the topic of the consensus about the special responsibility of the Germany (in the beginning of the war 1914). Therefore, I do not accept your reproach. To deny the existence of the Alsace-Lorraine problem for the normalization of Franco-German relations is simply wrong. 93.81.208.147 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Regarding "guilt" for WW1--

• Germany talked big -- but actually de-fused several earlier crises that could easily have erupted into war
• Germany had major advantages at the time of the two Morocco crises, or after Russia lost to Japan, or when the UK and France almost went to war over Sudan, or the "pig war" between Austria and Serbia, or the coup d'etat that changed the Serbian govt., or the two Balkan wars. But in every case -- Germany talked big and then acted to de-escalate.
• France had the motivation -- to retrieve Alsace Lorraine.
• Russia had the motivation -- to be in the right place to undo the Crimean war restrictions on the straits -- to grab Turkish territory when the Ottomans collapsed (as they believed they soon would).
• Russia mobilized first -- lied about it / hid it for days -- in 1914. Germany mobilized last.

I agree 100 percent that the overwhelming number of western historians in the first 60-70 years after the war assessed the "cause" or "guilt" of starting WW1 to the Central Powers...and specifically Germany. However, the modern assessments -- with the opening of Russian/Soviet archives and a look at the long view of history -- are more forgiving. The Great Powers generally did not talk to each other daily. No hotlines. Aloof leaders. UK especially seemed oblivious to its (slowly increasing) military obligations to France. UK gave mixed signals to the Central Powers. The UK/France/Russia did not allow Austria the space to deal with terrorist attacks from the post-1903 Serbian govt. All of this -- means the modern view is far more balanced. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO it is important to add that FRANCE declared war FIRST. Yes, Bismarck wanted the war -- to complete the unification of Germany/Prussia -- but FRANCE declared war first and mobilized. So we should take talk about how Prussia/Germany did France a "wrong" with a grain of salt. France lost. Napoleon III was removed. Many losing counties cede small bits of territory. France LOST but never accepted the loss. It seethed and raged and plotted for decades to return to Great Power status. It allied itself with Russia -- because as the late 19th century unfolded and the 20th century began, France had decided that war with Germany was the only way to get the territory back.

All of this matters because Wilson's words ring hollow -- France started the war that Bismarck wanted. What was missing -- was the US/Britain rebuff of later French attempts to rehabilitate its status as Great Power/dominant power on the Continent. France was allowed -- encouraged -- to talk big.

As in the article itself: According to some historians, Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck deliberately provoked the French into declaring war on Prussia in order to induce four independent southern German states—Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt—to join the North German Confederation; other historians contend that Bismarck exploited the circumstances as they unfolded. All agree that Bismarck recognized the potential for new German alliances, given the situation as a whole.[13]

France mobilised its army on 15 July 1870, leading the North German Confederation to respond with its own mobilisation later that day. On 16 July 1870, the French parliament voted to declare war on Prussia; France invaded German territory on 2 August. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The regime of the Turkish Straits was defined in the London Convention of 1841 and Russia was generally satisfied with it, Russia without war and voluntarily took part in this convention. By the way, this speaks in favor of the statement that Russia did not have any aggressive expansionist plans in the direction of the Mediterranean. According to the results of the Crimean War, the so-called "neutralization of the Black Sea" was determined. Such a regime was abolished by the action of Russia in 1870 and enshrined in the London Convention of 1871 . 178.155.64.26 (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The historical assessment of the Franco-Prussian war-2

As it was pointed out here, President Wilson is a historian by training. But nevertheless, his views on the historical assessment of the Franco-Prussian 1870-71 war are considered unworthy of mention by local interlocutors. A strange, very strange opinion, as I think. However, there are opinions of other historians who in fact largely coincide with the opinion of Wilson. We can cite this opinion, so that a historical assessment of the Franco-Prussian war can still be given. I think that after pointing out that" French revanchism " was not the main negative consequence of the Franco-Prussian war, it is necessary to say about the impact of this war on the history of Germany, because the main negative consequence was the conservative and militaristic reaction in Germany.This is written by the historian Wawro.

Were the seeds of World War I planted with Bismarck’s decision to take Alsace-Lorraine? Had the Germans, as Tsar Alexander II declared in 1870, “created an inexpugnable hatred between the peoples?” (...) 

By forging a German nation and realizing the idealistic hopes of 1848 – when German liberals had tried and failed to create a German nation-state – the Prussian king and Junkers had grafted themselves tightly on to the German state. The war thus empowered a whole class of militarists who linked Germany’s health to war and expansion. Clear-headed Germans recognized this even in 1870 when one commentator deplored Wilhelm I’s creation of a “warrior state . . . based on the permanent use of war” to achieve political objectives. (...) 

The most cherished prerogative of the Prussian monarchs was their ability to command and organize armed forces and wage war without parliamentary oversight. This prerogative was the one most strongly reinforced by the Franco-Prussian War, which slid the keystone into a national mythology of struggle and conquest, whose first plastic manifestation was the victory column or Siegessaule erected after the war in Berlin. (...) One of the crowning panels, which depicts the king bravely enduring a French fusillade, encapsulated the German belief that strong armed forces wielded by a despotic monarch were a forgivable sin. The German liberals, who had unanimously deplored the illegal financing of the Prussian army by Bismarck, Roon, and Moltke in the 1860s, quickly forgave the “militarists” after Sedan (,,,) Against faint opposition like this, Kaiser Wilhelm II had far less difficulty than might otherwise have been expected driving Germany toward a catastrophic war in the years 1890–1914.(...) 
Who won the Franco-Prussian War? The answer to that question was never as obvious as it seemed. Just hours after Sedan – the greatest victory of the modern age – Vienna’s Neue Freie Presse reminded Bismarck that “nations tend to slip on the blood that they have shed. Victory is a poor advisor”.

93.81.210.171 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a hint: a hundred-plus political document is not representative of the historical consensus on this particular issue. Given your clear lack of understanding about any of the issues at play here, I suggest you find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that you show a clear bias towards the interlocutor, already for the 3rd time allowing yourself to express your opinion about him. Why do you repeat yourself? For my part, I encourage you to consider the topic more broadly. And not just limited to military-technical issues. 93.81.210.51 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a "bias" against you because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I don't know how to weld. I also don't go into the local metal shop and tell them what they should be doing. As to the matter at hand, let me break it down for you:

1. A political document is not even necessarily representative of what Wilson himself thought as a historian, only what Wilson the politician thought most expedient at the time. If you are aware of Wilson and his relationship to the war, you will be familiar with why he brought the United States into the war, and what he was trying to accomplish in the peace negotiations. That should give you pause over using the Fourteen Points in the way that you suggest.
2. Even further, a historian from more than a century ago != a historian of today. Just as you would not trust a doctor trained in the 1880s to treat a cancer patient today, we do not accept the assessments of long-dead historians as equal to modern historians. There are many reasons for this. Chief among them is that history is always being revised, as more evidence is unveiled. Think of the histories of World War II written in the 1950s and 1960s that did not include Allied codebreaking efforts, because the historians were not aware. Further, and certainly applicable in this case, the way we do history is different; Wilson long predates the advent of interdisciplinary methods like social or cultural history. Go find an undergraduate historiography class to take, and it'll barely scratch the surface of all of this.
3. Even if we assume that the Fourteen Points is an accurate representation of what Wilson personally thought about the legacy of the war, and we set aside #2 for the sake of argument, he is but one person. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of historians who have written histories of World War I, its origins, and so forth. Picking one out of that pile and claiming it represents the "historical assessment" is patently absurd.
4. What you're trying to "prove" is inherently subjective. Whether Prussia was wrong in 1871 to take Alsace-Lorraine depends necessarily on whether you sympathize with France or with Prussia. You might as well ask whether it was wrong for France to take Alsace-Lorraine from the Holy Roman Empire. We're not going to grind any axes here, I'm afraid. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the detailed presentation of your position. As for your appeal to welding specialists, I can quote a Russian proverb, maybe it will be interesting. "The guy is gray (in the sense of not educated), but the Gray wolf did not eat his mind". In my opinion, history and politics are such things that you need to have your own opinion on, and not trust this topic to "experts". Like, "they know better". Here again, it is appropriate to repeat the saying "history is the teacher of life". I don't know if I've convinced you. To make this even clearer, I will quote a statement from the historian. "Military history was too serious a matter to be left to the military historians" . Perhaps this is so, that one opinion is not enough for a full presentation of the historical assessment. But if one opinion is deep enough and true, then this is already quite a lot. Although, of course, you can give more. But you, in the article we are talking about, have nothing at all. Nothing but military-technical details. Which, of course, are important, I repeat, but this is not enough. My main idea, which I consider important, is the main and negative consequence of this war-first of all for Germany. Because it led to the triumph of reaction, conservatism, and militarism. And since Germany began to play a huge role in world politics, it affected the entire world, the entire world history. I have already quoted the opinion of the Wawro historian. Here is another opinion - Howard.

For a generation that saw a weak country (Germany) ravaged by endless civil strife become a powerful power solely because of its military power, it was easy to determine priorities and realize that it was military power that should become the dominant factor in the nation's self – preservation, and the military caste, later, should dominate society. It was it is too easy to ignore the mistakes and problems that accompanied the German victories, the goddess of fortune who made them happen, and the political sobriety that made it possible to benefit from them. And it would be too easy to believe that the new German Empire, a country with magnificent and carefully preserved cultural traditions, a country that has something to show the world in the field of science, Commerce and industry, will switch to the language of guns in communication just by preserving and building up its military power with your neighbors and enemies. For this generation, the war of 1870-1871 was a heroic era, the deeds of those days are worthy of memory, admiration and, if necessary, it is not a sin to repeat them. It was this rhetoric that determined the way popular historians presented events, despite the truly academic and self-critical monographs that came out of the pen of the military themselves a decade after the end of the war, which preserved and multiplied the best traditions of education and erudition, towering over the prevailing in historical science empty chatter, distortion of facts, etc. a romantic dreaminess with a decidedly militaristic bent to it. German historians were later to realize the full significance of that war: how it brought to light the very "sinister problem of modern national war, which in turn gave rise to the most terrible of the catastrophes of our era, and into the abyss of which we are already twice in the XX century were overthrown». This is what turns the Franco-Prussian war into an event that goes far beyond the scope of purely military-historical research, and indeed historical research of events in Europe of the XIX century. Germany's magnificent and well-deserved victory was, in a profound and unpredictable sense, a disaster both for itself and for the rest of the world . 93.81.208.51 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That you would quote Howard's statement on military history, clearly not knowing at all what he's talking about, is representative of your whole problem. It has literally nothing to do with what you're trying to use it to support (in fact, the implications of the statement are quite the opposite). If you had even the slightest inkling of the development of the field of military history as a discipline, you would know what point he's making.

On not trusting experts; tell me why you don't go into hospitals and tell surgeons how to do an open-heart surgery.

As for your assertions about the effects of the war on Germany, even those are controversial. The Sonderweg is not without its critics. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

When you said "you would quote Howard's statement on military history, clearly not knowing at all what he's talking about", it is only your opinion. You postulate it, and then give some analogies on the topic of appeal of technical specialists. Like, "they know better". I will quote Howard in more detail.

Like most neophyte military historians, at least of those days, I expected to be able to explain the war`s through events on the battlefields themselves; the skills of the commanders, the nature of the armaments, the efficiency of the supply systems, the discipline and courage of the troops. But it rapidly became clear that these explanations were not in themselves enough. Certainly the German - or more specifically, the Prussian - armies were better commanded, better disciplined, and better supplied; but why? What had happened within Germany itself during past fifty years to make this possible? Conversely, what had happened, or failed to happen, to France since the days of Napoleon to produce an army that turned so quickly into such a rabble? Gradually I came to realise, as I expressed it on the first page of the book, that the outcome of the war was 'the result not simply of faulty command but of faulty military system; and the military system of a nation is not an independent section of the social system but an aspect of it in its totality'. So a study of the war, indeed of any war, had to be rooted in a study, not simply of the armies, but of the societies that fought it. Military history was too serious a matter to be left to the military historians.

I wrote to you about this from the very beginning, that we should not limit ourselves to the consideration of military-technical issues only. And of course, a historical assessment of the war is necessary. 93.81.209.171 (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You still don't get it, because you lack the contextual knowledge. Look at when Howard wrote the book: 1961. The 1960s was the beginning of a revolution in how military history was practiced. Before that, almost all military historians wrote was is now referred to as "drum and trumpet" military histories, that is, those that focused exclusively on weapons, tactics, and the course of a given battle. Most popular military history is still this way. Since the 1960s, academic military historians have incorporated many of the frameworks from social history to try to explain events. That is what Howard is talking about. And this is exactly why you don't just "have your own opinion" on something you read, because as this demonstrates, you don't what Howard is actually talking about, and you don't even know that you don't know.

And all of this also makes clear that you haven't actually read this article, and are merely here to insert a paragraph about how evil Prussia was for stealing Alsace-Lorraine, you haven't noticed that this article incorporates exactly the kind of material Howard talks about (in large part because it's quarried from Howard's book). There are sections that deal with assessments of various aspects of the war. Just not the specific one you demand. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't impose my opinion on anyone. But I also believe that the definition "drum and trumpet" military histories" applies to the article "Franco-Prussian war" in its current form. Some of the military technical details, a list of battles. Well, in the end, mention "the Crown Prince's marriage with the daughter of Queen Victoria". I think this is completely weak. 93.81.211.75 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As you clearly have not bothered to read the article, I'll treat your continued argumentation with the contempt it deserves: go troll somewhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I assure you that I have carefully read the article "Franco-Prussian war". This topic is interesting to me, so I decided to get acquainted with the view of it abroad. And this completely disappointed me. 93.81.209.195 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't. The Opposing forces section touches on some of the things Howard talks about, which the Aftermath section discusses in greater detail. What you are looking for, I'll reiterate, is text that blames Germany for taking Alsace-Lorraine and effectively causing World War I, but that is ahistorical nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, detailed quotes from 2 authoritative sources did not serve as an argument for you. You continue to think narrowly. To this end, for example, you suggested that the question of the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to France from the Holy Roman Empire should be considered at all. Ridiculously. In this case, we are not talking about technical details (the mitrailleuse, Chassepot rifle and so on) or even about Alsace-Lorraine, but about the negative impact of the Franco-Prussian war. Specifically, the situation in Germany and world politics. 93.81.208.51 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Go read the Dunning-Kruger effect article I linked earlier and then look in the mirror. The quotes from Howard do not say what you think they say; I've already explained what he meant.

Why do you think I am referring to the paragraph in that section that discusses weaponry? Why are you cherry-picking the one paragraph that supports your point and ignoring the ones that directly contradict it? Is it because you're a tendentious troll? 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You continue to express your opinion of the other person in the form of me with a tenacity that is worthy of a better application. Really, I don't see any reason for such provocative statements and I suggest that we speak only in essence. Specifically, about the negative impact of the Franco-Prussian war on the situation in Germany and, consequently, on the entire world politics, since Germany after the victory in that war became the leading world power, or at least in Europe. I think that you will not dispute the statement that this (negative impact on the situation in Germany) in the article does not say anything at all. I think this should be reflected. 2 authoritative sources (that I have quoted) say exactly this. I would be satisfied by quoting a small fragment from an electronic resource.

The Germans’ crushing victory over France in the war consolidated their faith in Prussian militarism, which would remain a dominant force in German society until 1945. 

If you don't mind, it would be possible to add this snippet in the article. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who suggests that Prussian militarism wasn’t cemented before 1870 is not a person who should be taken seriously. What a patently nonsensical statement. Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Any person who, among the consequences of the Franco-Prussian war, did not indicate a negative consequence in the form of increased reaction in Germany, increased militarism and conservatism, cannot be taken seriously as a historian. What do you mean, my dear fellow, that we should not talk about the strengthening of conservatism, reaction and militarism in Germany after 1870? This is not serious. I have a strong impression that you don't want to say this. Probably, you like German battleships better than the truth (my joke). 178.155.64.30 (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, tell me what characterized Prussia under Fredrick Wilhelm I, if not conservatism, reaction, and above all else, militarism. Again, if you think this particular war had any transformative effect on Prussia, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My dear friend, this war 1870-71 has had an impact not even on Prussia, but on the whole of Germany. I can't make you think like me. You can continue to think that this war had no meaning for Germany. But this is ridiculous. Like your proposal to consider the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to France from the Holy Roman Empire. 178.155.64.30 (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You’re basically trying to argue that a drop of yellow paint might somehow have fundamentally altered the color of a banana. If Germany had been United under different circumstances (i.e., not a Prussia-dominated Kleindeutschland) then yes, European history would have been different. But the very fact that Germany was effectively absorbed into Prussia, under Prussian leadership, necessarily meant that Germany would be a reactionary, militarist state. How could it possibly not? Seriously, answer me this question: in what world would a Prussia-dominated Germany not be a militarist state?

As for the history of Alsace and Lorraine, nonsense. If you want to discuss the legitimacy or morality of conquest, one cannot in good faith limit it to the one that you believe supports your position. If the German conquest of Alsace and Lorraine in 1870 “disturbed the peace”, how then did not the French seizure from the Holy Roman Empire? A major driving force behind German annexation was the nationalist desire to unite all German speaking people, after all. A direct parallel to the French desire to reclaim what they saw as their French brethren. That you pretend not to understand this is evidence of your bad faith argumentation here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My expectations were met 100%. Obviously, you absolutely do not want to take into account references to authoritative sources (historians Wawro and Howard) that directly pointed to the negative consequences of the war of 1870-71 for Germany. Well, it's your choice. So you think you're right. But others don't have to share your point of view. In my opinion, that your point of view can be called "germanophilia". When the negative aspects of German history are hushed up in every possible way. You can even give an example here. As the negative consequences of the war of 1870-71, "French revanchism" is indicated, but for Germany there were no negative consequences. The question remains, where did the war of 1914 come from and why are historians unanimous on the question of Germany's primary responsibility? I also gave a quote on this topic. But I guess you don't have an answer to that question. I dare repeat my joke that you love German battleships more than the truth. 178.155.64.30 (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you think you can make a determination about my beliefs based on a picture on my user page, without knowing at all why it's there, is a perfect encapsulation of your problem here. As an aside, French revanchism isn't a negative consequence for France. It is a negative consequence for Germany. But we are surprised you lack the ability to comprehend that? Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

French revanchism was a misfortune not only for Germany, but for France itself, and for the whole world. Fortunately, as indicated here, it was overcome and by 1914 did not play an important role in the aggravation of world politics, which resulted in the war of 1914. Victory of prussian militarism was a misfortune primarily for Germany itself. Both for Germany's neighbors and for the rest of the world. Here I agree with the historian Howard.

Germany's magnificent and well-deserved victory was, in a profound and unpredictable sense, a disaster both for itself and for the rest of the world.

I do not draw conclusions about you based on the image of your page. This is just a joke. But a joke always contains a grain of truth. I am very skeptical of you as a historian. Well, if only in fact, limited to the issues of armadillos and guns. 178.155.64.30 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

References