What Was The Purpose Of The Franco-Prussian War

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by noetsi

I think there was two reasons. First, to create the basis for reunification of Germany particularly in the south where Prussian influence was least.

And, specifically, the South German States were bound to Prussia by treaties of alliance, which compelled them to support her were she attacked. But of course these treaties would not apply if Prussia were the aggressor, so it was necessary for France to do the attacking rather than vice versa.

Bismarck paid out the rope and the French, with incredible stupidity, hanged themselves upon it.

[Thyra]

One of the most memorable scenes took place at the Battle of Sedan. The French cavalry charged the Germans on horseback, only to be nearly wiped out. General de Gallifet was asked if he could mount another charge..His reply.."As often as you like,mon general,so long as there's one of us left."
They did charge again, and it ended in devastation for the French. Kind William was so stirred by their courage that he uttered the famous words."Ah! Les braves gens!" There is a monument at the spot with those words written on it.
Like many wars, it did not have to take place. But it did unite Germany and also set the stage for Britain to enter the First War on the pretext of a Treaty to come to the aid of Belgium in case of attack.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Trudy Rose

Like many wars, it did not have to take place. But it did unite Germany and also set the stage for Britain to enter the First War on the pretext of a Treaty to come to the aid of Belgium in case of attack.

Not really. What set the stage for that was dear old Wilhelm II setting out to rival the British Navy. Had Prussia/Germany stayed purely a land power, we could have lived with it occupying Belgium (as we tolerated Austrian rule there through most of the 18th Century), but we could not let Antwerp become the naval base of a potentially hostile power.

[noetsi]

I think the true blunder was Wilhelm throwing away the Russian alliance. Russia in many respect was closer to Germany in its government than France or England. And its political designs conflicted with the English not the Germans. Bismark kept them close to Prussia, Wilhelm failed to.

The government of Napoleon had lost favor with the French public. Had Bismark granted them a fair peace he would have avoided the emnity with France that made WWI all but inevtiable. Instead, in a rare blunder, he insisted on a draconian peace. It was probably the worse diplomatic mistake he ever made, and very different than the treaty with Austria after the 1866 war.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by noetsi

The government of Napoleon had lost favor with the French public. Had Bismark granted them a fair peace he would have avoided the emnity with France that made WWI all but inevtiable. Instead, in a rare blunder, he insisted on a draconian peace. It was probably the worse diplomatic mistake he ever made, and very different than the treaty with Austria after the 1866 war.

The 1866 war probably was the reason

In 1866 Bismarck had the devil of a job getting King Wilhelm and the generals to accept a peace without annexing any Austrian or Saxon territory. The king swallowed it in the end, but with very bad grace. There was never the slightest chance that Bismarck, even had he wished it, could have made a second 'status quo' peace in 1871.

If you want to change the 1871 peace I would say you probably have to change the 1866 one first. Had Prussia made a sizeable annexation then [1] - say the Kingdom of Saxony and the areas later called the 'Sudetenland' - Wilhelm might (just possibly) have settled for less in 1871. But even then it is doubtful. His first miltary service had been against Napoleon I, and he was far more anti-French than anti-Austrian.

[1] From her main enemies, that is. She did of course annex several North German states, but for Wilhelm these were very much a consolation prize. It was Austrian territory (and Saxony) that he had really wanted.

[Thyra]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

Not really. What set the stage for that was dear old Wilhelm II setting out to rival the British Navy. Had Prussia/Germany stayed purely a land power, we could have lived with it occupying Belgium (as we tolerated Austrian rule there through most of the 18th Century), but we could not let Antwerp become the naval base of a potentially hostile power.

That of course..but here is the Treaty of London that I mentioned that Britain used as one reason to enter WW1:Belgium's Neutrality was More than a "Scrap of Paper"

[noetsi]

An interesting point mikestone, it could be true. Of course had bismark taken much land from austria, it would have been much more difficult to fight france, because of the need to defend against Austria.

[Mikestone8]

Iirc, the Germans left 75,000 troops on the Austrian border, in case Franz Josef got any ideas. They were withdrawn after the initial victories against France, when the danger of Austrian intervention was considered over. FJ, however resentful, was not going to intervene on a clearly losing side.

If given a harsher peace in 1866, he would have been even more resentful, and those troops might have had to stay longer. While I can't see France winning the war (given the state of her Army, that would probably need a miracle) she might have done significantly better (perhaps raising the siege of Paris) and been in a stronger bargaining position at the peace table. So there's be just a chance, though no more, of keeping Alsace-Lorraine.

[noetsi]

The french actually had better rifles than the Germans but they continually mismanaged their units in battle. Other than poor leadership ad wretched staff work their primary weakness was artillery. This was recognised long before the war, but Napoleon the III was unwilling to anger the public by raising enough funds to pay for improvements.