Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mediation at Nikolsburg

  • Chapter
The Mission of Vincent Benedetti to Berlin 1864–1870

  • 44 Accesses

Abstract

The sudden and spectacular success of the Prussian arms at Sadowa caught Ambassador Benedetti by surprise.1 He had not entered upon speculations as to the length of the Austro-Prussian hostilities but apparently he had not counted with such a rapid victory. While the outcome of the battle gave him reason to rejoice, in view of the promise it held for the Italian cause, he must have felt apprehensive about the prospective danger to the European power equilibrium. He has left no indication of his immediate reaction to Sadowa but one may assume that he had mixed feelings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. For official accounts of the military campaigns, see AUSTRIA. GENERALSTABS-BUREAU FOR KRIEGSGESCHICHTE, Osterreichs Kämpfe im Jahre 1866 (Vienna, 1867 ), I, 254–386

    Google Scholar 

  2. PRUSSIA. KRIEGSGESCHICHTLICHE ABTEILUNG DES GROSSEN GENERALSTABES, Der Feldzug von 1866 in Deutschland (Berlin, 1867 ), pp. 252–345.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, 5 July 1866, BAE CP, Prusse/23, Pt. II, no. 252. Cf. Goltz’s description of Napoleon as “…being shaken, almost broken… [having] lost his compass” (SCHNERB, p. 186 ).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Napoleon III to William I, Paris, 4 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, T. A slightly different version of this telegram was sent to the Italian king. For an account of the scene when Napoleon heard from Metternich the news of the Austrian military disaster at Königgrätz, see A. VANDAM, Undercurrents of the Second Empire (New York, 1896 ), p. 316.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Already on 2 July, Emperor Francis Joseph had informed Napoleon of his intention to cede Venetia, in hopes of obtaining an armistice. Next day, Napoleon told Ambassador Metternich that he would propose mediation to the parties at war upon cession of Venetia. The Austrian decision to give up Venetia was communicated late in the afternoon of 4 July to Paris, when news of the Austrian defeat at Königgrätz was reaching the French capital. (ODG, X, 314, ft. 3; Mensdorff to Metternich, Vienna, 2 July 1866, ONCKEN, I, 297; same to same, ibid., 298; Metternich to Mensdorff, Paris, 2 July 1866, ibid.; same to same, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  6. July, ibid., 298–299; ft. 3, ibid., 299; GEUSS, pp. 172–173).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, 5 July 1866, BAE CP, Prusse/23, Pt. II, no. 252. “The Venetia episode is difficult terrain for diplomacy. One has never seen anything like it, because of Austria’s hate for Prussia! After a victory they cede a territory, hitherto held à toute outrance, to be able to go against Prussia with greater strength” (William I to Bernstorff, Pardubitz, 9 July 1866, K. Ringhoffer [ed.], Im Kampfe für Preussen Ehre: aus dem Nachlasse des Grafen Albrecht von Bernstorff [Berlin, 1906], p. 59o.)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thile to Balan, Berlin, 5 July 1866, J. Sass, “Hermann von Thile and Bismarck,” PJ, CCXVII, Heft 3 (September 1929), p. 266. Thile regarded the cession of Venetia to France as a deus ex machina and foresaw either peace in a short time with very limited gains for Prussia or a war against France.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bismarck commented on the news: “After a few years Louis will probably regret having taken sides against us; it may cost him dearly” (R. VON Keudell, Fürst and Fürstin Bismarck [Berlin, 1902], pp. 294–295). For the effect of the French step in Germany, see A. RAPP, Die Württemberger and die nationale Frage, 1863–1871, “Darstellungen aus der württembergischen Geschichte,” IV (Stuttgart, ‘pro), p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For various accounts of the meetings see B. D’HARCOURT, Diplomatie et diplomates: les quatres ministères de Drouyn de Lhuys (Paris, 1882), pp. 258–259; J. Randon, Mémoires (Paris, 1875–1877), II, 145–146

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Dtrieux, Le ministre Pierre Magne, 1806–1899 (Paris, 1929 ), II, 176–177; OLLIVIER, VIII, 415–421

    Google Scholar 

  12. V. Duruy, Notes et souvenirs, 1811–1894 (Paris, 1901 ), II, 126–127; H. FARAT, Persigny. Un ministre de Napoléon III 1808–1872 (Paris, 1875), pp. 290–292; J. HANSEN, Les coulisses de la diplomatie: quinze ans à l’étranger, 1864–1879 (Paris, 1880), pp. 97–99

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. DE Grünwald, Le duc de Gramont: gentilhomme et diplomate (Paris, 1950 ), pp. 153–154

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Rothan, Les origines de la guerre de 187o. La politique française en 1866 (Paris, 1879 ), p. 190;

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Rothan, Souvenirs diplomatiques. L’affaire du Luxembourg. La prélude de la guerre de 1870 (Paris, 5872 ), pp. 44–47

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oncken, I, 176, ft. I; Bamberg to Bismarck, Paris, 20 December 1868, I.A.A.b. 84. For the impact of French public opinion on the ultimate decision of the emperor, an impact which may have been decisive, see CASE, pp. 207–211; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 6 July 1866, ONCKEN, I, 309.

    Google Scholar 

  17. He [Drouyn de Lhuys] remained in power with the secret hope of repairing by his ability the failure he had sustained. The violence which he did to his own convictions only irritated his adversaries, increased the irresolution of the sovereign and removed from our policy its last chance for salvation: unity of views and direction“ (Rothan, Souvenirs, I, 36–37)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Drouyn de Lhuys to Benedetti, Paris, 6 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, T.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Berlin, 7 July 1866, ibid., T.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Benedetti to Bismarck, Berlin, 7 July 1866, FAE MD, Allemagne/171; Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, Io July 1866, BAE CP, Prusse/23, Pt. II, no. 258.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Berlin, 8 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, T. The mission of Reuss was essentially designed to calm the apprehension of the emperor and to retard the conclusion of an armistice, in order to obtain further military advantages against the Austrians. The letter of William, dated 7 July, was couched in rather vague terms; however, it did allude to certain Prussian objectives: federal reform, annexation of the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein, and other related matters. Moreover, Reuss did not have authority to discuss an armstice (Goltz to Bernstorff, Paris, 28 August [24 October] 1866, Stolberg-Wernigerode, pp. 449–450; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, II July 1866, Oncken, I, 338–343). For the report of the Napoleon-Reuss interview on 10 July, see Reuss to William I, Paris, 10 July 1866, ibid., 328–331

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf. W. Busch, HZ, CIII, Heft I (1909), p. 72, who writes that Bismarck indicated already on 4 July that he would be satisfied with a unification limited to North Germany. Eugénie to Metternich, n.p., 9 July 1866

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oncken, I, 326. The decision to send Benedetti reversed an earlier intention to send a general staff officer; it may have been made in the belief that peace preliminaries might be discussed simultaneously with the armistice negotiations (Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 14 July 1866, PRO FO 64/597, no. 16).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Drouyn de Lhuys to Benedetti, Paris, 9 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, T.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Berlin, 9 July 1866, ibid., T.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, 10 July 1866, BAE CP, Prusse/23, Pt. II, no. 258.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 14 July 1866, PRO FO 64/597, no. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, to July 1866, BAE CP, Prusse/23, Pt. II, no. 259. “Benedetti left yesterday for the headquarters, presumably without exact instructions, merely to recommend restraint [in the demands] and acceleration [in concluding an armistice]” ( Werther to Usedom, Berlin, so July 1866

    Google Scholar 

  29. T. VON Bernhard, Aus dem Leben Theodor von Bernhardis, Vol. VII, Der Krieg 1866 gegen Osterreich and seine unmittelbaren Folgen: Tagebuchblätter aus den Jahren 1866 and 1867, ed. F. von Bernhardi [Leipzig, 1897], p. 157).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sybel, V, 243–245. During an interview with the emperor, Goltz discovered that the prospect of Prussian hegemony in Germany, the consequence of the military victory and the proposed exclusion of Austria from German affairs, created considerable apprehension in France. Goltz endeavored to alleviate Napoleon’s concern relative to the Prussian federal reform project, and also emphasized the willingness of Prussia to give full consideration to French wishes. In his reports to Bismarck, the ambassador stressed the need for Prussian moderation, in order to gain French support and prevent an Austro-French combination against Prussia (Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, sr July 1866, ONCKEN, I, 336–338; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, II July 1866, ibid., 338–343; Reuss to Bismarck, Paris, 12 July 1866, ibid., 343–345 ).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid.; SYBEL, V, 243–245; RAND ON, II, 146.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bismarck to Goltz, Hohenmauth, 9 July 1866, BGW, VI, 46. Cf. F. Thimme, “Wilhelm I., Bismarck and der Ursprung des Annexionsgedanken i866,” HZ, LXXIX, Heft 3 (1902), PP. 423–424. The author ascribes the decision to abandon the federal reform demand and limit such design to the creation of a North German Confederation not to a consideration of France’s attitude but to the fact that Prussia planned large annexations, making it impossible for her to carry out a federal reform embracing all of Germany and, at the same time, to assimilate the annexed territory.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Drouyn de Lhuys to Benedetti, Paris, s1 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, T.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Benedetti] is not quite greeted with loving eyes, but he shall not harm [our cause] nor detain us“ (Abeken to his wife, Zwittau, 12 July x866, H. Abeken, Ein schlichtes Leben in bewegter Zeit [Berlin, 1898], p. 332). `Bismarck received the unwelcome guest politely, but his discontent over his visit caused him pains in the left foot which lasted for some time” (KEUDELL, p. 296). To a telegram from Werther, announcing that military authorities had been instructed to assist the French ambassador in reaching the king’s headquarters, Bismarck appended the comment “stupid” (BGW, VI, 51). Cf. A. vox WALDERSEE, Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. H. O. Meisner (Stuttgart, 1902), I, 37–38.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Benedetti had to share my room, while [Lefèbvre de Béhaine] shared Keudell’s bed“ (Abeken to his wife, Zwittau, 12 July 1866, ABEKEN, p. 331).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Czernahora, 12 July r866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  37. de Hell to Drouyn de Lhuys, Berlin, 14 July 1866, ibid., T.; Roon to his wife, Czernahora, 13 July 1866, A. vox Roox, Denkwfirdigkeiten (Breslau, 1892), II, 293.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Czernahora, II July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 157. The word “abstention” rather than “armistice” was used because the Prusso-Italian alliance did not permit either party to conclude a separate armistice.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid. The secretary was guided to the Austrian lines by a Prussian officer; he took with him a report of the ambassador to Drouyn de Lhuys, which was sent from Vienna on 14 July and arrived two days later in Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  40. I followed the king to Brünn where His Majesty established his headquarters yesterday. I await the return of Lefèbvre. All the telegraph lines are down. The news and correspondence

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bismarck to Goltz, Hohenmauth, ro July 1866, SYBEL, V, 26o; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 14 July 1866, Oncken, I, 351–356; Goltz to Bernstorff, Paris, 28 August [24 October] 1866, Stolberg-Wernigerode, pp. 449–450; Radowitz, Tagebuchaufzeichnung, 25 August 1866, ibid., pp. 445 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  42. G. Roloff, “Brünn und Nikolsburg,” HZ, CXXXVI, Heft 3 (1927), PP. 472–474. The author attributes the failure of Goltz to discuss the Prussian annexation proposals to the ambassador’s opposition to Bismarck’s unrestrained expansionist ambitions. Cf. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 14 July 1866, ONCKEN, I, 351–356.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Drouyn de Lhuys to Benedetti, Paris, 14 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Gramont to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 17 July 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67, no. 9o.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Benedetti told Roon that he expected to go to Paris from Vienna (Roon to his wife, Brünn, 17 July 1866, RooN, II, 296 ).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Brünn, 15 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 16 July 1866, FAE CP, Autriche/492, T. Benedetti’s remark regarding Bismarck’s insistence on contiguous borders for Prussia contrasts sharply with Goltz’s neglect to mention Prussian annexation demands to the emperor.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Drouyn de Lhuys to Gramont, Paris, 16 July 1866, ibid., T.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gramont (for Benedetti) to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 16 July 1866, ibid., T. In this communication, Benedetti refers to the preliminaries as a rédaction du département and as nos conditions.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See above, fts. 1, 2, p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  51. For text, see above p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gramont (for Benedetti) to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 16 July 1866, FAE CP, Autriche/ 492, T.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 17 July 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67, T.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gramont to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 18 July 1866, FAE CP, Autriche/492, no. 91; “Benedetti himself returned on the 19th with the assurance that [the peace preliminaries] had been accepted by Count Mensdorff” (KEUDELL, p. 296). Cf. the version of Benedetti’s visit given by the Belgian envoy in Vienna: “In general, Benedetti’s attitude during his sojourn here was unique. He made himself absolute master of the French embassy, established himself there without much regard for Gramont; wrote a voluminous correspondence which he sent off to Paris, saw Count Mensdorff only once; thirty-six hours after his arrival he left again for the Prussian camp, taking with him, it is said, the last concession which Austria can make to put an end to the hostilities. Since the arrival and after the departure of Benedetti, Gramont showed himself extremely reserved and seems shattered” (De Jonghe to Rogier, Vienna, 20 July 1866, BAE CP, Autriche-Hongrie/33, no. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Drouyn de Lhuys to Gramont (for Benedetti,) Paris, 17 July 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/ 67, T.

    Google Scholar 

  56. I leave in a few minutes for headquarters; but unless the king and Bismarck have completely dissembled their true intentions or have reasons, of which I am ignorant, to subscribe to our preliminaries, I cannot help but believe that all my efforts are useless. I received your dispatch and I will conform to it“ (Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 18 July 1866, ODG, X, 99, T.).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Roon to his wife, Nikolsburg, 19 July 1866, Roos, II, 297. Roon was under the misapprehension that Benedetti, who left only on the 15th, had made a round trip to Paris via Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cf. Bismarck to Goltz, Nikolsburg, 17 July 1866, SYBEL, V, 285, in which the minister-president requested that the intended annexations be included in the peace preliminaries; cf. Thimme, HZ, LXXXIX, Heft 3 (1902), p. 438. This substantiates Benedetti’s remarks concerning the text (Gramont [for Benedetti] to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 16 July 1866, FAE CP, Autriche/492, T.).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Benedetti arrived in Nikolsburg during the very early hours of the 19th, and Reuss arrived a few hours later (Boyen to his wife, Nikolsburg, 19 July 1866, W. VON TÜMPLING, Erinnerungen aus dem Leben des Generaladjutanten Kaiser Wilhelms I. Hermann von Boyen [Berlin, 1898], p. 179). Prince Reuss carried also a personal reply of the emperor to King William Napoleon urged a speedy conclusion of an armistice and peace treaty, lest public opinion in France, uncertain of Prussian objectives, trouble the relations between France and Prussia. In his letter, the emperor also alluded to the uneasiness in France created by the change in the balance of power and the prospect of Prussian military leadership of a united Germany (Napoleon III to William I, Paris, 15 July 1866, ONCKEN, I, 357–358; ft. 2, 2, ibid., 357 ).

    Google Scholar 

  60. See draft of report to Crown Prince Frederick, Berlin, 3 February 1867, I.A.A.b. 84; Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 19 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 159

    Google Scholar 

  61. cf. L. Crummenerl, Zur Geschichte der Entstehung des Friedens von Nikolsburg 1866 (Emsdetten, 1936 ), 91 pp

    Google Scholar 

  62. H. Warnholtz, Bismarcks Kampf um den Vorfrieden von Nikolsburg 1866 (Hamburg, 1939), 8o pp.; GEUSS, pp. 184–187.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Thimme, HZ, LXXXIX, Heft 3 (1902), pp. 441–442. Cf. F. K. VON Hohenzollern, Mémoires du Prince Frédéric-Charles de Prusse, ed. W. Foerster, trans. and summarized by Corteys (Paris, n.d.), I, 371, who writes that Benedetti’s remarks after returning from Vienna had given the king hope for a quick peace.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 19 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gramont to Drouyn de Lhuys, Vienna, 20 July 1866, FAE CP, Autriche/492, T.

    Google Scholar 

  66. A Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 29 July 1866, ibid., Prusse/358, no. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  67. I told [Benedetti] I did not have time [to talk to him] and continued to work, but of course he kept talking, very friendly and often very interesting stories, but nonetheless disturbing me“ (Abeken to his wife, Nikolsburg, 20 July 1866, ABEKEN, p. 337).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Roloff, HZ, CXXXVI, Heft 3 (1927), P. 490; FRIEDRICH III., p. 468.

    Google Scholar 

  69. I was interrupted here early this morning by Benedetti who however did not remain long, but long enough to keep me working late now“ (Abeken to his wife, Nikolsburg, 21 July 1866, ABEKEN, p. 338).

    Google Scholar 

  70. L. Von Blumenthal, Tagebiicher aus den Jahren x866 and 1870171, ed. A. von Blumenthal (Stuttgart, 1902 ), p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Drouyn de Lhuys to Benedetti, Paris, 19 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 159.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 23 July 1866, ibid., no. 162. In accordance with his instructions, Benedetti did not attend any of the meetings but spent most of his time at the king’s headquarters in readiness to confer with any of the delegates who might seek his help. “The French ambassador and his secretary had dinner with us, in the minister’s reception room; at the entrance of the king and the crown prince the minister went with them to my room to confer; we finished our meal, drank our coffee, then one by one the others all slipped away, Keudell, Bismarck-Bohlen, the French secretary, only I had no room to go to and was left alone with the ambassador, who sat on the table with his legs dangling down and told me Egyptian stories. The minister came in and out, advising us to be patient; finally it occurred, happily enough, to Bene-Maledetti that he might write a letter to his wife, and speak later to the minister [and] with that he ran off” (Abeken to his wife, Nikolsburg, 23 July r866, ABEKEN, p. 339)•

    Google Scholar 

  73. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 23 July x866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 162 Cf. ERNST II. (duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), Aus meinem Leben and aus meiner Zeit (Berlin, 1892), p. 673, for his talks with Benedetti and Degenfeld in efforts to bring about a speedy armistice; see also D’HARCOURT, pp. 285–286.

    Google Scholar 

  74. The noble Emperor Francis Joseph made it a question of honor not to abandon the only German confederate who stood by his side in the hour of danger. For this reason, and only for this reason, did the Austrian plenipotentiaries in Nikolsburg designate the maintenance of the [territorial] integrity of Saxony as a conditio sine qua non“ (VITZTHUM, p. 287). Cf. R. VON Friesen, Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben (Dresden, 189o), II, 229, whom Benedetti had told that ”the demand for the mere ‘existence’ [of Saxony] seemed too small, and therefore he, at his own risk and responsibility, demanded instead the maintenance of the territorial integrity of Saxony and obtained the inclusion of the sentence in the treaty.“

    Google Scholar 

  75. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 23 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 162. Benedetti had said, “It is necessary to give Austria time to recover ” (GovoNE, p. 305 ).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 23 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 162. Cf. Rothfritz, p. 96, who believes that Goltz’s handling of the Prussian demands in Paris during the pre-armistice period earned him nothing but criticism and spoiled his hope of becoming foreign minister

    Google Scholar 

  77. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 23 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Same to same, Nikolsburg, 24 July 1866, ibid., no. 166. The Austro-Bavarian treaty prohibited armistice or peace agreements by either power without the consent of the other. 2 Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 24 July 1866, ibid., T.; same to same, Nikolsburg, 25 July 1866, ibid., no. 167; cf. BERNHARDI, pp. 263–264.

    Google Scholar 

  80. For a detailed study of the king’s attitude see W. Buscx, “Der Kampf um den Frieden in dem preussischen Hauptquartier zu Nikolsburg im Juli 1866,” HZ, XCII, Heft 1 (1904), PP. 418–455; Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 24 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/ 358, no. 166

    Google Scholar 

  81. FRIEDRICH III., p. 471; Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, II August 1866, PRO FO 64/599, no. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Cf. H. Poschinger, Bismarck and die Diplomaten, 1852–1890 (Hamburg, 1900), p. 216, ft. 1. This note pertains to an article by A. Sckell, which appeared in the Sammler, a belles-lettres section of the Augsburger Abendzeitung, on 27 October 1868: “Pfordten’s confinement lasted three days. Through some channel he managed that finally the French Ambassador Benedetti… presented his cause to the king, that Bavaria be included in the armistice negotiations. And thus Pfordten was called to Bismarck after three terrible days.” Cf. F. vox Beusr, Erinnerungen zu Erinnerungen (Leipzig, 1881), p. 49, who in anticipation of such treatment had decided not to go to Nikolsburg.

    Google Scholar 

  83. I Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 25 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 167

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ibid.; “The king and Bismarck evidently had a dispute, and the excitement has not diminished. Yesterday Bismarck cried in my presence over the harsh things which His Majesty had said to him” (FRIEDRICH III., p. 473). Cf. Wilhelm I., Der alte Kaiser, ed. K. Pagel (Leipzig, 1924), P. 287, for the following marginal comment by the king to a note from Bismarck in Nikolsburg: “After my minister-president deserts me in the face of the enemy… and because [my son] shares [his] opinion, I find myself, to my sorrow, forced to bite into this sour apple and accept this disgraceful peace after such brilliant victories of the army.” As early as 17 July Bismarck had expressed the view that no Austrian territory should be demanded, a further indication that he desired a lenient peace for Austria (A. vox STOSCH, Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. U. von Stosch [zd ed.; Stuttgart, 1904 ], P. 102 ).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 25 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/358, no. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Same to same, Nikolsburg, 26 July 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67. “Hardly arrived [in Nikolsburg on 26 July] and before I got to the king, Benedetti urgently solicited an audience with me… he told me Napoleon… hoped that an armistice would be signed” (FRIEDRICH III., p. 474). For the effect of foreign intervention, real and imagined, upon Prussian disposition to conclude an armistice cf. Keudell to Duncker, Nikolsburg, 26 July 1866

    Google Scholar 

  87. M. Duncker, Politischer Brie fwechsel aus seinem Nachlass, ed. J. Schultze, “Deutsche Geschichtsquellen des 19. Jahrhunderts,” XII (Leipzig, 1923), p. 427; Talleyrand to Drouyn de Lhuys, St. Petersburg, 24 July 1866, FAE CP, Russie/237, no. 63; Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 29 July 1866, ibid., Prusse/ 358, T.; Drouyn de Lhuys to André (for Benedetti), Vichy, 4 August 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67, T.

    Google Scholar 

  88. K. Rheindorf, Die Schwarze-Meer(Pontus-) Frage vom Pariser Frieden von 1856 bis zum Abschluss der Londoner Konferenz von 1871 (Berlin, 1925 ), P. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  89. I Abeken to his wife, Nikolsburg, 26 July 1866, ABEKEN, p. 342. Benedetti, in sending the translation to Drouyn de Lhuys, termed it “a translation which has been prepared in the office of the minister-president” (Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 26 July 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67, no. 9 ).

    Google Scholar 

  90. According to the terms of the peace preliminaries, Prussia expected to annex outright Hanover, Electoral Hesse, that part of Grand Ducal Hesse north of the Main, Nassau and Frankfort (Lefèbvre de Béhaine to Drouyn de Lhuys, Berlin, 28 July 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/ 358, T.).

    Google Scholar 

  91. It was only through the benevolent intervention of Your Majesty’s ambassador at the court of Berlin that my minister was able to obtain, after several days, an armistice… for three weeks, beginning 2 August“ (Louis II to Napoleon III, Munich, 3 August 1866, ibid., Bavière/241).

    Google Scholar 

  92. A Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 28 July 1866, ibid., Prusse/358, T. Cf. same to same, Nikolsburg, 28 July 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67. Benedetti wrote that since Prussia had obtained all she wanted from Austria, Bismarck no longer encouraged Italian opposition to an armistice. Cf. Bernhardi, pp. 263–264.

    Google Scholar 

  93. On 29 July Benedetti declared officially, and in writing, to Bismarck that the acquisition of Venetia by Italy had been secured (PRUSSIA. KRIEGSGESCHICHTLICHE ABTEILUNG DES GROSSEN GENERALSTABES, p. 717); Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Nikolsburg, 30 July 1866, ODG, XI, 298 ).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Same to same, Berlin, 3 August 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67, T.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See BEYENS, II, 154; A. Ducrot, La vie militaire du général Ducrot (Paris, 1895 ), II, 279.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Drouyn de Lhuys to Benedetti, Vichy, 2 August 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/359, n 6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ville, Luxembourg

    Willard Allen Fletcher

Authors
  1. Willard Allen Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1965 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fletcher, W.A. (1965). Mediation at Nikolsburg. In: The Mission of Vincent Benedetti to Berlin 1864–1870. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7547-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7547-8_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-0018-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7547-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation