The Prussian-Russian negotiations had concluded. And now, the Vienna Conference has entered its most critical phase—disarmament and the establishment of a new international order. The disarmament process was progressing relatively smoothly, as everyone agreed that it was necessary. The main point of contention centered on the exact number of troops each nation would be allowed to retain. For smaller countries, this was not a major issue. Their armies were already limited in size and posed no real threat to anyone, so disarmament had little impact on them. The core conflict lay among Russia, Austria, and France. Austria proposed a 10:10:7 ratio, meaning Russia and Austria would each maintain a total land force of 500,000 troops, while France would be limited to 350,000. French representative David Proval strongly objected, saying, “As a great power, this is an insult to France! We cannot accept this ratio. France must have an army that matches its true strength. I propose that France, Russia, and Austria maintain equal military forces!” Austrian Foreign Minister Wessenberg shook his head and smiled, replying, “Your Excellency, the essence of disarmament is to reduce military expenses, maintain the balance of power in Europe, and prevent future wars. Your country’s army is the most powerful in the world. If all three nations maintain equal troop numbers, who could stand against you? How would that balance be preserved?” This flattering explanation eased the anger in David Proval’s heart, but he still insisted, “No! France has numerous colonies to defend. We cannot consider military strength alone. We must take multiple factors into account for a more comprehensive decision.” In this era of the strong preying on the weak, power determined status. What was being allocated was not just troop numbers but also Europe’s political influence. If France secured the same troop levels as Russia and Austria, then with its superior combat capability, it might not officially be the hegemon of Europe, but it would certainly be the uncrowned king. “Combat superiority”—well, when it came to this, the French were extremely confident, always considering their army the best in the world. Perhaps at one time, France’s land forces truly were number one, but with the Italians now in the mix, no one could say for sure where they ranked anymore. Since this debate did not involve Austria’s immediate interests, they chose not to argue with the French on this point. After hearing it repeated enough times, everyone simply accepted it as fact. Wessenberg nodded and said, “Your Excellency does have a point. We do need to consider multiple factors. However, there are too many aspects involved such as population, economy, colonial holdings, territorial size, and national defense pressure. Which of these should we use as the reference standard? Or should we take all of them into account and calculate a comprehensive value?” This was a frustrating question. No matter which factor was used for comparison, France would be at a disadvantage. David Proval carefully calculated the situation and awkwardly realized that mentioning colonies had been a mistake. The world’s largest colonial empire was Britain, followed by Austria, with France only ranking third and the gap between second and third was enormous, not even half of Austria’s holdings. If colonial size were used as the standard, wouldn’t that mean Britain would be allowed to maintain the world’s largest land army? The European powers might not object, but John Bul would never accept it as doing so would turn them from a naval power into a land power. In terms of population, economy, and territorial size, France had no advantage. If troop allocations were determined based on these factors, they might not even qualify for 70% of Austria’s proposed military share. As for national defense pressure, that was even less of an argument. France had always been the one pressuring others, so David Proval felt too embarrassed to bring it up. After hesitating for a moment, Proval forced himself to respond, “Of course, a comprehensive calculation should be made, but special emphasis should be placed on regional military balance.” British representative Edward interjected, “I propose that we first ensure military needs are met before considering regional balance. Take France, for example. Keeping only 350,000 troops is simply not enough.” This was classic British troublemaking. “Meeting military needs” sounded reasonable, but the real question was, who decides what those needs are? If every nation’s demands were met first and military balance was considered afterward, the 500,000 troop limit would never hold. In the worst case, disarmament could even turn into rearmament. Of course, the British scheme would not succeed so easily. Some countries might afford a few extra battalions, but the Russian Empire certainly could not. Russian representative Nikita Titov immediately countered, “Sir, this is a disarmament conference, not an expansion conference. If we are to meet every country’s military needs, are you sure disarmament would still be possible?” Disarmament—why even disarm then? From the British perspective, it was best if Europe remained as it was with each nation pouring massive sums into their armies, leaving them with no resources to challenge Britain’s naval supremacy. But if Austria’s proposal went through, reducing French and Austrian land forces to 350,000 and 500,000, respectively, their governments would save tens of millions of pounds in military expenses each year. That money wouldn’t just sit in banks collecting interest. Most of it would flow into naval expansion, which would pose a serious threat to Britain’s maritime dominance. Yet Edward remained unfazed, feigning ignorance as he replied, “Of course, this is a disarmament conference, our very presence here proves that. The size of a nation’s army is a matter of sovereignty and should not be dictated by external forces. Disarmament must be voluntary, not imposed by outside pressure.” The British meddling significantly increased the pressure on David Proval. While other nations could claim to be “voluntarily” disarming, France had no such luxury. This was a historical burden as more than half of the countries present had once been part of the anti-French coalition. Even now, there was a lingering wariness toward France. If no single power took the lead, the French government wouldn’t feel threatened. But things are different now. On the continent, Austria remained a formidable force, and across the Channel, Britain loomed large. If France outright rejected disarmament, it could easily be misinterpreted internationally, risking a new wave of diplomatic tensions. French representative David Proval countered, “The sovereignty of independent nations must be respected, but as a responsible country, we must also consider world peace. Excessive freedom is, in reality, the root of chaos and conflict. For the prosperity and stability of Europe, disarmament is essential.” Proval’s argument was well-received. France did not oppose disarmament itself, only the troop ratio proposed for France, Russia, and Austria. The trap set by the British was perfectly sidestepped, shifting the debate back to its core issue. With logic and evidence at the forefront, a new round of heated debate began. This time, however, the focus was no longer on troop proportions but on the method of calculation. A comprehensive approach sounded reasonable, but in practice, it was a nightmare. The more factors involved, the more complications arose, leading to endless disputes and delays. … While the delegates were locked in endless disputes, a crisis was brewing in the capitalist world. The trigger was the defeat of the Prussian-Polish Federation, which sent shockwaves through the London financial markets. However, thanks to the British government’s swift intervention, major debtors were protected, and part of the debt was successfully transferred, reducing financial risks and restoring market confidence. With that, the immediate crisis was averted. But even if they managed to survive Easter, Halloween was still waiting. Though the Prussian government remained intact and continued servicing its debts, the end of the war meant that factory orders had dried up. Worse still, many businesses never got the chance to deliver their final orders before the Prussian government defaulted. While contract defaults were a commercial matter, typically settled through penalty payments or forfeiting deposits, the real consequence was massive stockpiles of unused goods. For ordinary products, businesses could still pivot to the civilian market, selling them at a discount to recoup some losses. But for strategic materials, the situation was far worse. Investors were eager to sell, but there were no buyers. The problem wasn’t just limited to Britain as most of Europe was dealing with surplus stockpiles of strategic materials. And with the mass disarmament movement in full swing, market demand had plummeted. Manufacturers with weak financial foundations were on the brink of bankruptcy due to the massive stockpile of unsold goods. The impact was not limited to those producing strategic materials. Almost every industry felt the strain. With postwar export orders dwindling, companies that had thrived on international trade were now forced to shift their focus back to the domestic market, leading to fierce competition. Overproduction has become a common problem across the capitalist world. To survive, businesses were resorting to every possible tactic, and discount promotions became widespread. Taking Austria as an example, post-war domestic prices for various goods experienced significant declines: daily necessities dropped by 24%, clothing prices fell by 31.6%, hardware goods decreased by 18.5%, machinery and equipment prices declined by 9.8%, and food prices saw a 6.4% reduction… While lower prices might seem like a good thing, they came at the cost of brutal market competition. Looking at the latest economic data, Franz knew that an economic crisis was imminent. Most companies were holding on with gritted teeth, but if the market failed to recover, the weaker small and medium-sized enterprises would be the first to collapse. Once a wave of bankruptcies began, the economic situation would rapidly deteriorate. Setting aside the reports in his hands, Franz sighed and said, “Summon the Cabinet and the heads of the economic departments for a meeting.”
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]
Comments
Post a Comment