In my reading of The Russian Origins of the First World War, by Sean McMeekin, I’ve gotten to Chapter 5 (“The Russians and Gallipoli”), which starts with the following epigraph:
All solutions [to the Straits question] must remain precarious and incomplete, unless Constantinople, the western bank of the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles, along with the Thracian plain as far as the Enos-Median lines, are not permanently incorporated into the Russian Empire.
—Ambassador Maurice Paléologue, March 1915, passing on the views of [Russian Foreign Minister] Sazonov and Tsar Nicholas II.
Now, that makes no sense, and the obvious solution is to remove the word “not.” Sure enough, the original French says:
Toute solution serait insuffisante et précaire si la ville de Constantinople, la rive occidentale du Bosphore, de la mer de Marmara et des Dardanelles ainsi que la Thrace méridionale jusqu’à la ligne Enos-Midia n’étaient désormais incorporées à l’Empire de Russie.
French si … ne “unless” (like Russian если не) incorporates a negative that must be discarded in English unless you want to render it “if … not.” Here, the translator has fallen between two stools and reversed the sense. (There are other problems with this version as well: in the French, unlike the translation, it is clear that “the western bank” applies to the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles as well as to the Bosphorus, and “the Enos-Median lines” should be “the Enos-Midia line,” Midia [Turkish Midye] being the older name of modern Kıyıköy on the Black Sea. Quite a sloppy job.)
Update: I just found this similar example later in the chapter: “Sazonov told the generals it would be ‘undesirable that the historic task of banishing the Turks from Tsargrad not occur without our participation.'” The footnote references this to a document in a Russian archive, so I think we have to assume the superfluous and confusing “not” was retained in translation here (and presumptively in the epigraph as well) by McMeekin himself. Bad dog!