The casualty report released by Austria on the Russo-Prussian War quickly ignited public debate. The staggering figure of “8 million” immediately captured everyone’s attention. Countless people marveled, exclaiming that it was yet another “Thirty Years’ War,” although this time the Russo-Prussian conflict lasted less than two years. Was there any victor? Perhaps uninformed ordinary people would claim that the Russians emerged victorious, but those who truly understand the Russo-Prussian War know that it was a mutually destructive conflict. Both Russia and Prussia ended up as losers, while the real winners were the opportunistic powers—Britain, France, and Austria—whose positions as the three major powers after the war became even more unassailable. As for the Russian Empire, the nominal victor, the media hailed it as “Europe’s fourth great power,” but in reality, it only managed to earn the title. The idea of shifting from a three-power to a four-power political order is merely a talking point. Anyone taking it too seriously would be mistaken. At present, the Russian Empire only possesses the potential to become the fourth great power, not the actual strength. If future developments proceed smoothly and its national power catches up, then there is a chance it could reestablish the political order of four great empires in Europe. Before the outbreak of the First Russo-Prussian War, the Russian Empire was already one of Europe’s four great empires and the top seed in the contest with the British for global hegemony. After all the turmoil, having endured two Russo-Prussian Wars, Russia lost millions of soldiers, spent tens of billions of rubles on military expenses, exhausted the wealth accumulated by generations of Tsars, and ended up saddled with enormous debt. In the end, its only “gains” were tumbling from the position of continental hegemon to Europe’s fourth rank, along with a smidgen of territorial expansion that the Russian Empire really didn’t need. “Reflection.” Perhaps this is the greatest virtue of the European people. Looking at the lists of losses for both Russia and Prussia in the newspapers, everyone instinctively reached the conclusion: war is fucking terrifying! Not only were ordinary citizens frightened, but politicians were also alarmed by the barrage of figures. In no time at all, warhawks in various countries were greatly diminished, and an anti-war sentiment began to spread all over the world. In the Palace of Versailles, the stark casualty figures from the Russo-Prussian War dealt a crushing blow to the ambitious Napoleon IV. Napoleon IV had immense confidence in the combat prowess of the French Army, and the French public shared his faith. Everyone believed that the French Army was the best in the world and that continental hegemony would sooner or later belong to France. As for the Austrian Empire blocking France’s path to hegemony, had international circumstances permitted, they would have launched an attack long ago. Well, that’s just talk. War is no trivial matter. France has been preoccupied with consolidating the Italian territories in recent years. Now that the Italian territories have stabilized, the French government can finally focus on expansion. However, they are still not prepared to go to war with Austria. While continental hegemony is important, it requires sufficient strength to secure the fruits of victory. After annexing Italy, France entered a prolonged period of internal development and consolidation. Originally, they planned to expand into Central Europe after Prussia and Russia weakened each other, seizing the coal reserves France desperately needed. Napoleon IV believed that after Prussia and Russia had weakened each other, Austria would lack the strength to stop them from taking action. Otherwise, France would never have had the chance to annex Italy in the first place. The plan was to use the Rhine as a boundary, with France absorbing Belgium, Luxembourg, the Rhineland, and other regions, while using the remaining territories of the German Federal Empire to placate Austria. This was not out of fear of Austria, but tactics. In military terms, it was about cutting off the enemy’s wings. Without Belgium and the German Federal Empire, Austria would lose two allies in any future Franco-Austrian war, increasing France’s chances of victory. After assimilating those regions, France’s weaknesses would be remedied, and then defeating Austria to seize continental hegemony should become a flawless strategy. On the military front, Napoleon IV enjoyed a psychological edge. After all, his ancestor Napoleon was formidable, having beaten every nation on the European continent (and almost achieving total victory). It made no sense that the mantle should falter on his own turn. The current situation was much better than back then. The Italian territories had already been occupied, Spain was an ally, and both Russia and Prussia had been severely weakened by their war. There were hardly any independent states left capable of challenging France. Aside from Austria, no other nation posed a real threat. In a one-on-one confrontation, victory was almost assured. However, plans never keep pace with changing circumstances. Upon seeing the casualty figures from the Russo-Prussian War, Napoleon IV’s dream of absolute hegemony wavered for the first time. There was nothing that could be done. As an old adversary, the French government had a deep understanding of Austria, and that massive reserve force could not be hidden from them. Originally, Napoleon IV had dismissed the reserves as inconsequential. No matter how numerous, a ragtag mob would crumble at the hands of the French army. But the Russo-Prussian War had changed his perspective. The French government had also dispatched a military observation team, and the brutal reality had shown them that the reserves were indeed capable of fighting. As long as qualified officers are provided, the reserves can be reorganized quickly, and their combat effectiveness would only be slightly inferior to that of the regular army. The deficiencies in quality can be fully compensated by quantity. Given the size of France’s standing army, Napoleon IV felt it might not be sufficient. If a war with Austria really broke out, their prized army could very well be overwhelmed by the enemy’s sheer numbers. Expanding the army would mean that the French would lose their edge in combat effectiveness. Once a war cannot be won quickly, that troublemaker across the channel will step in. Even if France were to eventually win the war with great difficulty, they wouldn’t possess the power to dominate Europe. No doubt about it. When France and Austria were formulating their strategic plans, both sides considered the British to be on the enemy’s side, since the risks of allying with them were equally high. With the original plan falling apart, Napoleon IV was now hesitating on whether to continue with the strategy to clip the enemy’s wings or to change it. As for agreeing to British support in establishing the North German Empire, that was a joke. How could one lull them into complacency without showing any goodwill? It should be noted that most of the armies of the German Federal Empire were deployed to guard against France, with hardly any defenses set up elsewhere, as if they were assuming that aside from France, no one would ever invade them. It turns out that this assessment was indeed correct. Prussia and Austria would not invade the German Federal Empire, and the same was with Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Anyway, they were no match for them, and the true threat lay solely with France. Before Napoleon IV could even make up his mind, the French public made the choice for him. The anti-war sentiment erupted once more. This time starting in Paris and spreading around the world. This was all due to youthful inexperience. Otherwise, Napoleon IV should have foreseen it long ago. Various European ideologies, new thoughts, new doctrines… weren’t they all born in Paris? Its reputation as a “holy land” is well deserved. Napoleon IV should be thankful he didn’t act prematurely. Otherwise, once the anti-war tide had spread, the French people would have taught him a lesson. In a way, Austria also missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Continental hegemony had never been so close to them. Had the French plan been known, Franz would certainly have found a way to delay the exposure of the casualty figures from the Russo-Prussian War, postponing them until the French took military action. Everyone knows that an army’s combat effectiveness is closely tied to the mindset of its soldiers, and there is no doubt that the combat effectiveness of the French army was at its lowest amidst the anti-war sentiment. When the French army invades German territories, the only force affected by the anti-war movement would be the French army itself. After all, the soldiers of the German Federal Empire, defending their homeland, would not be clamoring for an anti-war stance. The Austrian army would also remain unaffected. Defending the territorial integrity of the German territories was a matter of national duty. No matter how strong the anti-war sentiment was, no one would sit idly by while an enemy invaded. Anyone familiar with French history knows that ideological movements often coincide with periods of rapid revolutionary thought. Against the backdrop of nationwide anti-war sentiment, if the French army were to suffer a major defeat at the front, another revolution might break out. Whether the revolution succeeded or not was irrelevant, the real danger was that revolutionary ideas would spread. As long as an internal revolution erupted, the mighty French Empire would be finished. The Italians were just as eager for independence. If a revolution broke out in France, combined with a war against Austria, it would be almost impossible for Italian independence movements not to rise up. With so many forces pulling France apart, even if Napoleon himself were leading the charge, there would be no turning the tide. If Austria won the war against France, German unification would be inevitable. At that point, nothing short of divine intervention could stop it. Once Germany was unified, continental hegemony would be secured. Even if France and Russia managed to recover, it would still take at least ten to twenty years. That would be more than enough time for many things to happen such as securing Italian independence, bringing Spain into the fold, or forming an alliance to bind Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the Nordic Federation together. But reality has no “what-ifs.” As Napoleon IV brooded over his frustration, he remained unaware that the very anti-war movement that vexed him had, in fact, saved his dynasty. … Foreign Minister Charles de Freycinet reported, “Your Majesty, the Austrian government has sent us a diplomatic note, proposing that we jointly take the lead in drafting a European Land Forces Armament Convention to prevent another continental war from breaking out.” It had to be said that this was indeed the perfect time to impose restrictions on land forces. The Russo-Prussian War had just ended, and everyone was still overwhelmed by the staggering casualty figure of eight million. The anti-war movement continued to spread, and both the public and politicians alike were gripped by an unprecedented fear of war. Hearing this news, Napoleon IV’s frustration eased slightly. Feigning disdain, he scoffed, “The Austrians are already scared? Looks like they don’t have much nerve after all!” But seasoned politicians could see right through his pretense. Napoleon IV didn’t truly mean what he said. Everyone was human, after all, and having witnessed the horrors of the Russo-Prussian War, who wouldn’t be afraid? The most telling example was the military observation team. Many of its originally pro-war members, after personally experiencing the brutal realities of war, had become staunch advocates of peace. It wasn’t that they had grown cowardly. On the other hand, they had matured, become more rational, and learned to weigh the costs and benefits. Feeling a bit more at ease, Napoleon IV continued to ask, “What else? Austria isn’t short on money right now. They can’t just be restricting armaments for the sake of world peace, can they?” When he mentioned the words “isn’t short on money”, there was a fleeting hint of awkwardness in his tone. He couldn’t help it. He was jealous. At present, the two wealthiest nations in the world were Britain and Austria. Though France was one of the three great powers, it had already fallen behind in terms of financial strength. While on paper, France’s financial revenue was no less than that of Britain or Austria, this was largely due to differences in accounting methods. Take Austria, for example. The central government’s budget and the budgets of its constituent states were separate. Only a few types of taxes were included in the central government’s revenue, while the majority remained in the hands of the individual states. Britain followed a similar system. The British government’s tax revenues were also divided. Otherwise, with an annual income of only seventy to eighty million pounds—half of which went to the navy—there wouldn’t even be enough left to pay civil servants. Not to mention the British Empire’s enormous colonial expenditures. Just maintaining British India alone cost over ten million pounds a year, and the total cost of sustaining its global empire was astronomical. On the surface, France had the highest revenue, nearly equal to the combined revenues of Britain and Austria. But in reality, it was the poorest of the three. Its high revenue figures were merely the result of a centralized accounting system. Every expense required funding from the central government, making it appear as if France had a great deal of money when in truth, it was merely passing funds from one hand to another. Foreign Minister Charles replied, “Our embassy in Vienna has reported that the Austrian Navy recently submitted an expansion plan to the government, which has now entered the discussion phase. Perhaps influenced by the Russo-Prussian War, the Austrians seem to have abandoned their ambitions for continental dominance. Their proposal to limit land forces at this time might be a sign that their strategic focus is shifting toward the seas.” Napoleon IV wasn’t surprised by Austria’s strategic shift. In fact, within the French government, some had also suggested abandoning the pursuit of continental supremacy and instead redirecting France’s strategic focus toward maritime power. “What do you think? Should we follow suit?” he asked. There was no doubt that following Austria’s lead would mean agreeing to their proposal of limiting land forces and redirecting the saved funds into naval expansion. Before anyone else could speak, Minister of the Navy Georges Charles Cloué seized the opportunity to respond, “Your Majesty, the European continent is simply too small. In this tiny corner of the world, more than a dozen nations are crammed together, including the most powerful countries on the planet. Trying to dominate Europe is incredibly difficult. The same resources, if invested overseas, could yield returns ten or even a hundred times greater. The facts have already proven that the future of the world lies in the oceans. Whoever controls the seas will control the world.” “If by returns, Your Excellency is referring to territorial expansion, then I have nothing more to say. The cost of expanding on the European continent could easily secure us ten times as much colonial land overseas. But not all land is the same. Can colonial territory really compare to land in Europe?” Minister of War Patrice de MacMahon countered. This was a common perspective. Nearly all Europeans believed that European land was inherently more valuable. Minister of the Navy Georges Charles Cloué shook his head and replied, “Overseas land is not inferior to Europe’s, it just hasn’t been developed yet. Everything we need can be obtained from overseas, whereas on the European continent, that’s simply impossible. Even if some colonial territories remain undeveloped, lowering their immediate value, the sheer scale makes up for it. The same investment in overseas expansion will yield far greater returns than any territorial gains in Europe.” This was an undeniable fact. On the European continent, investments didn’t always guarantee returns, whereas colonial expansion almost always did. In Europe, France had to tread carefully. One wrong move could result in a coalition war, forcing the French government to take every step with extreme caution. But overseas, things were different. French power abroad was overwhelming, and serious opposition was rare. Its only real competitors were the other colonial empires. Unlike the hesitation and restraint required in Europe, colonial conflicts could be settled with force at the slightest provocation. After all, territorial disputes in the colonies were common, and as long as things didn’t escalate too far, they wouldn’t trigger a major war.
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]
Comments
Post a Comment