Middletown transcript., 1870-11-12
THE ARMIsTICE DISPUTE.

Partisans of the Prussian cause accent the
former Interpretation, and cry out against
the =" folly of France" parlsans Of the
French cause accept the Paris version
and denounce the " duplicity of Prussia" "
But it seems to us that the opposite ac-
counts, while differing on slight and i'm
material particulars, agree at bottom so
thoroughly that candid criticism can ar
rive at tolerably just view of exactly
how and why the armistice failed
We have, this morning, to begin with,
the explanation of Bismark. In plain
language, this explanation declares that
the German offer was only of an armisticc
ION the basis of the status quo'-which.
accordingly, must be held to mean that
the Germans only proposed to stop hos
tilities for time, leaving everything pre-
cisely as at the beginning of the truce
This proposition M. Theirs, according to
Bismark, rejected. In this cautious an
nouncement, however, we have nothing
whatever said about the revictuallng Of
Paris, or free egress and ingress through
the German lines. For information on
these points we must 60 to the French ac-
counts, which declares that Eat the final
interview between Count Won Bismark and
Jules Favre, the former for the first time
declared that he would not consent to the
admission of food into Paris during the
truce. The provisional government of
France refused to consent to an armistce
without this condition, which Bislnark
had intimated would be granted" As
we have already said, nothing in Bismarks
account oontradicts the French statement,
which may therefore be taken as true. In
addition, we have an unofficial German
dispatch from Versailles, declaring that
Theirs declined to conclude an arnistice
'on the basis that the present status con-
tinue four weeks-he had no equivalent
to offer for the provisioning of Paris,
which consequently couid not be conced-
ed" But did Prussia suggest any "e-
quivalent?" According to one authority
she did suggest the possession of certain
forts around Paris"--upon which cool,
not to say insolent, demand, negotiations
suddenly stopped.
Here, then, we have a clear story made
up from the partial accounts of both bel
ligerents. 1t appears that Prussia said,
ON the application of NJ. Thors, that she
would grant an armistice of four weeks,
on condition that everything should re-
main in its present condition. Theirs
must then have replied that everything
could not remain in its present condition,
because the reduction of Paris would
probably be effected, if at all, by starva-
ton, and the lapse of four weeks brought
the city so much nearer to that point, un-
less four weeks provisions were allowed
to enter. Bismark replied, doubtless,
that revictuallng the city was military,
not political concession, and must be
met by one of the same kind. 1t would,
perhaps, have been possible for Thiers to
offer the unimpeded approach of the army
of Frederick Charles and the cessation of
piles. But, whether this was offered or
mot, it certainly was not accepted as fair
equivalent; and, to say the truth, SO ut
terly safe, thus far, have been the Ger
man communications, whether from Bour-
,baki, Garibalda or any of the numerous
people who were going to essay bold raids
upon them, that we can hardly wonder
that this proposal should be rejected-if
ever offered-as g military equivalent u
Hence we may conclude that the first
story of German offer to allow day 5
rations to pass into Paris on each day of
the armstice was noe truo. No such stip-
nlation was agreed to. 1t is not surpris-
ing, therefore, that Paris shold have re-
.jectcd the Prussian proposal, if she still
contemplated carrying on the war. -Four
weeke more would see he provisions nearly
exhausted, and nothing would be gained
but political election.
Thus, independent of the questions a.
bout the elections in Alsace and Lorraine
(regarding which the two accounts differ
much), the dispute connected with the
provisioning of Paris was, obviously,
enough to break off negotiations. There
never, indeed, seems to have been gen
'uine, hearty desire for an armistice on
either side. The French government, as
the Vienna Correspondence well say, act
ed as if it were unconscious of its defeat !;
=" its tone and manner are the same as
they would have been if the French army
had been victorious, and now before the
city of Berlin" We do not count for
much the brag and froth of the Paris
reds, but the Tours government looked
coldly on the armistice from the first ;
Favre laid down as condition that no
truce should contemplate the cession OF
territory and Gambetta received or pre-
tended to receive, objections to the ar
mistice from all parts of France.
But, on the Prussian part, there wa,
much greater apathy regarding the armis-
tice-indeed all Bismark's conduct looks
like shamming. The North German chan
cellor, whose diplomacy has been the least
double-faced and the most frankly auia.
cious in history, must be cautiously ac-
cused of anything like duplicity; but il
does seem as if, for once, he had at least
piayed upon the credulity of the French
negotiators, and allowed them to hope fol
terms which he never designed to grant
1T is true that Bismark has never yet