3G0 



DISCOVERY 



zuUcrns shoukrreiicw tlu-ir candidature. His Majesty 

 the King thereupon decided not to receive the French 

 Ambassador again, and sent to tell him through the 

 aide-de-camp on duly that His Majesty had nothing 

 further to communicate to tlic Ambassador." 



The new version was read out to the soldier and the 

 statesman, and was received by tliein with joyous 

 acclamation. Moltkc declared that the first version 

 had been a " parley " ; this was a challenge. Roon 

 said, " Our God of old lives still and will not let us 

 perish in disgrace." Both regarded it as a step towards 

 almost certain war. In the amended form it was 

 telegraphed at once to all German Ambassadors and 

 was communicated to the Press. It was published in 

 Berlin in a separate slip, which was given away with 

 the evening papers and fastened on the walls and shop 

 windows. It was, of course, telegraphed at once to 

 Paris, fell like a bomb on Ollivier, who was beginning 

 to feel sure of peace, and produced such an effect on 

 the Press and the public of Paris that the declaration 

 of war, which immediately followed, could hardly have 

 been avoided. We must not follow the stor^', but will 

 consider these questions : (i) WTiat was the nature of 

 Bismarck's rchandling of the King's telegram ? Does 

 it deserve to be called forgery or falsification ? 

 (2) WTiat was its real influence on the outbreak of 

 the war ? 



(i) Was Bismarck's action forgery or falsification ? 

 It was at one time usual to speak of the " forgery " 

 of the Ems telegram. Of late it has been often denied 

 that it was even a " falsification." It is surely possible 

 to come on this point to a quite definite decision. 

 We have printed the original telegram and Bismarck's 

 version of it which was communicated to the Press 

 and the public. The first despatch may be analysed 

 as follows : (i) Benedetti made demands which I 

 refused ; (2) I subsequently received official news of 

 Leopold's renunciation of the Spanish crown ; (3) so 

 I told Benedetti that I could not see him again ; (4) I 

 leave it to you whether that should be made public 

 or not. It is clear that this was a private telegram, 

 and could not be published in the form in which it 

 was received. Bismarck says that he made " no 

 alteration in or addition to the telegram." But that 

 judgment cannot be maintained if the two versions 

 are closely compared. The second version says in 

 effect : (i) Benedetti presented certain demands to 

 the King of Prussia ; (2) thereupon the King refused 

 to hold further communications with him. If there is 

 any doubt as to the wide difference between the re- 

 ceived and the published version, it will be well to lay 

 stress on the word thereupon. It is not too much to 

 say that the published version gives a false account 

 of an all-important incident. The King had refused 

 to continue negotiations with Benedetti. That was 



certainly trui'. But why ? The King's telegram said, 

 because official news of Leopold's renunciation had 

 been received. Bismarck's version said because Bene- 

 dctti's demands were outrageous. The first declines 

 to continue the negotiations because the incident has 

 been closed by what has happened elsewhere ; the 

 second, because the negotiator has presented out- 

 rageous demands. This rehandling of the King's 

 telegram may not deserve to be called " forgery," but 

 assuredly it is a " falsification." Perhaps Moltkc ex- 

 aggerated when he called the first a parley and the 

 second a challenge : but Bismarck and his guests were 

 the best of judges, and they knew that the first meant 

 peace at least for a time, and the second meant imme- 

 diate war. 



(2) The second question is a much more difficult one, 

 and the answer cannot be given with certainty. What 

 is the relation of Bismarck's action to the great war 

 which was so soon to come ? Did the falsification of 

 the telegram cause the war or precipitate it ? The 

 word " cause " is used very loosely by historians, and 

 a thorough examination of its meaning is seriously 

 wanted. But no one will be foiuid to maintain that 

 Bismarck's telegram was in any strict sense the cause 

 of the war. It was an incident in a long rivalry ; a 

 symptom of the anarchy of Europe ; its roots stretch 

 far back into history and into human nature. But if 

 we see in history the operation of great causes, we 

 must see also the occasional vast importance of small 

 incidents ; and it is a part of the task of history to 

 establish the relation between the two. 



There can be no doubt that the publication of the 

 telegram was for the moment of decisive importance. 

 Perhaps Bismarck's Memoirs, written in his disap- 

 pointed and egotistic old age, claim for his slightest 

 actions more importance than properly belongs to 

 them. We have, however, in OUivicr's autobiography, 

 which he calls L'Evtpire Liberal, evidence that cannot 

 be set aside. Emile Ollivier was not a great man, 

 but he was an excellent writer. His book has suffered 

 through its immense length, for it e.xtends to seventeen 

 volumes. The fourteenth, which deals with the coming 

 of the Franco-German War, can be quite well read by 

 itself, and is one of the most fascinating pieces of 

 political autobiography. It is supported by documents 

 (which Bismarck's book is not) and checked by refer- 

 ence to other writers. His opinion is clear. He had 

 always desired peace, and peace, which had threatened 

 to escape him, seemed safe at last. The situation was 

 not without difficulties — a strong current of opinion 

 in Paris and in France would have been bitterly dis- 

 appointed ; but the result could not be altered. Peace 

 was in his hands, and he hoped to go fonvard to 

 establish it firmly. On the morning of the fourteenth 

 of July Ollivier wa.^ actually engaged on a declaration 



