Holy Roman Empire

Chapter 409: Mutually Beneficial Cooperation

Chapter 409: Mutually Beneficial Cooperation

The “Treaty of June 6th” was clearly something that could not see the light of day. If news of France and Austria joining hands to partition the European continent got out, wouldn’t the British government go mad?

The European continent needs to maintain a balance, but this is not how such a balance is achieved. If a Greater French Empire and a Greater Holy Roman Empire were to truly emerge, then the European continent would become a three-legged stand. Because by then, it may be difficult to find a fourth country on the European continent.

Like Pandora’s Box, once ambition has been unleashed, it becomes difficult to take it back in.

Napoleon left the French not only with glorious achievements in battle but also with a dream of being a great nation. With the emotional nature of the French people, once their expansionist fervor is stirred up, half of Italy and Belgium may not satisfy their desires.

And adding Spain and Portugal wouldn’t be excessive, right? After all, Napoleon once occupied regions of Spain, so inheriting this fine tradition was a must!

With France uniting Western Europe and Austria uniting Germany, in this context, do small countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands sandwiched between these two behemoths really have a choice?

Either they voluntarily join one side, or they are forcibly annexed — this is the fate of small countries.

The Nordic three countries in the outer regions should not think they can remain aloof either. For strategic reasons, the Russians would not let them off easily.

With the three major powers all expanding outward, the British could only look on dumbfounded. Even if they wanted to intervene, they could not. Before everyone turns against each other, they might be cleared out first.

The three countries even have a basis for an alliance. After completing their expansions, they will certainly need time to digest them, meaning no wars can break out on the European continent in the short term.

In that case, the British, who control the most colonies worldwide, would be in danger. They can’t go and ally with the Americans, and even if they did, it would be useless!

Of course, the probability of such a situation occurring is extremely low. After annexing Italy and Belgium, France’s internal contradictions will have to be resolved, leaving no ability for further expansion.

As for Austria, Franz only raises the slogan of unifying Germany, and with regards to partitioning the entire European continent — has he not woken up yet?

Now that nationalism has awakened, the unification of Germany is more or less the endpoint of Austria’s expansion on the European continent.

However, limited by the times, many still believe that after unifying Germany, Austria will continue to expand.

The reason is very simple: Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands all split from the Holy Roman Empire, sharing the same cultural circle, so radical Greater German nationalists count them in too.

To avoid causing panic and ensure the smooth implementation of the plan, France and Austria chose to maintain a high degree of confidentiality. Many know of the treaty’s existence, but very few know its contents.

In Austria, the only three who know about the treaty in full are the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and Franz himself. It is more or less the same in France.

In recent years, France’s economy has developed well, Napoleon III’s throne has stabilized, and the people’s calls for a Greater French Empire have gradually grown louder.

This was definitely the voice of the French people; at most, Franz only guided it a little. There was evidence of this: in the original timeline, Napoleon III did quite well as emperor. It was only because of his defeat that he was unable to satisfy the people’s dream of becoming a great nation and was driven from the throne.

Compared to the original timeline’s Franz who suffered two consecutive defeats but still retained the throne, the French people’s desire to become a hegemon was evident.

The real driving force behind the Franco-Austrian alliance this time was not Napoleon III, but the vast majority of the French people. Their inadvertent shouts exerted pressure on the Emperor in an intangible way. Since the people elected the Emperor, Napoleon III naturally had to respect the people’s choice.

On June 8, 1866, the foreign ministries of France and Austria once again signed a treaty entitled “Agreement between France and Austria on the Transfer of Suzerainty over Portions of Colonies in Italy, the Balkans, and Africa.”

This is a disguise for the “Treaty of June 6th,” involving only territorial suzerainty exchanges in Articles Three and Four. Anyway, this cannot be hidden. Once the handover between the two countries begins, it will all be exposed.

In Europe, anything can be used for trading, let alone suzerainty and colonies. A trade-off by mutual consent, at most, will just irk the British, boosting newspaper sales.

Konrad Hollmann, editor of an Austrian daily newspaper, occasionally doubles as a commentator to express official views on current affairs.

Of course, as a commercial paper, such opinions are usually very subtle, often attacking indirectly.

As news of the territorial exchange between France and Austria just came in, Konrad Hollmann’s task was set. Undoubtedly, such news must be sung praises of!

Moving his pen, Konrad Hollmann fell into contemplation. The news had to catch people’s attention; for the highly commercialized Vienna Daily, straightforward official articles were not popular.

If too many people write in the same vein, how can newspaper sales be guaranteed? The Vienna Daily is a major newspaper with a daily circulation of one hundred thousand; playing with it like this would risk losing readers.

Watching the globe on his desk spinning after being blown by the wind, Konrad had a sudden inspiration and began to write on paper with his pen.

Title: Reflections on the Franco-Austrian Colonial and Suzerainty Exchange - A Win-Win Cooperation

This was no longer news but rather an opinion piece. For a commercial newspaper, as long as it complies with Austrian laws and ensures the news is true and reliable, there are no strict requirements on how to publish content.

Starting directly from international competition, Konrad mentioned several historical cases and then compared them with the solutions of France and Austria.

The conclusion reached was that cooperation leads to mutual benefit. Additionally, praise was given to the efforts made by the governments of France and Austria for world peace.

From the perspective of both France and Austria, this exchange was indeed mutually beneficial.

France relinquished a portion of its colonies in exchange for absolute dominance in the central and southern regions of Italy, laying the groundwork for its annexation of Italy.

Strategically, France took the initiative in the Mediterranean. By controlling Sicily and Tunisia, the French could potentially split the Mediterranean into two when necessary.

The strategic deployment of the British in Malta was rendered ineffective, significantly reducing the strategic value of this Mediterranean stronghold. Unless the age of aircraft arrives, it can no longer play the role the British hoped for.

Austria traded the suzerainty of the Italian principalities, which were considered dispensable, for some of France’s Balkan and West African colonies, not only removing a thorn but also consolidating its colonial dominance in West Africa.

In addition, they acquired another bargaining chip for a deal with the Russians. The Dardanelles remained attractive to the Russian government, at least until they abandoned their ambitions in the Mediterranean.

After finishing the draft, proofreading it several times, and making corrections to a few writing errors, Konrad Hollmann handed the manuscript to the editor-in-chief for review.

Such major news usually does not result in just one news article. Typically, three to five people simultaneously write drafts, and the editor-in-chief then selects the most suitable one for publication.

Occasionally, there might be meetings to discuss it, but due to the timing of the news, such discussions are rare.

As expected, Konrad’s news article passed. The concept of “Win-Win Cooperation” surpassed the others. News has always been inseparable from politics, and “Win-Win Cooperation” aligns very well with Austria’s current diplomatic stance.

Although the government hasn’t openly declared this slogan, they’ve been practicing it for a while. The alliance between Russia and Austria already set the stage for win-win cooperation.

For example, in the Near East War, Russia secured Bulgaria and the coveted Constantinople, while Austria unified Southern Germany and incidentally annexed parts of the Balkan Peninsula.

This exemplifies win-win cooperation, but this example cannot be cited as it could provoke animosity.

Not only would England and France go berserk, but even the Russian government would probably express their objections. Each party knows its own affairs; they are only the nominal winner, having paid a horrific price with only a political victory as the gain.

While this achievement can deceive the general public, the upper echelons of the Russian government are well aware that, strategically, they failed and lost the best opportunity to enter the Mediterranean.

Using this Franco-Austrian exchange as an example would be fine. After all, France and Austria each got what they wanted, and any excuse would satisfy their domestic populations.

Konrad shouted out the “Win-Win Cooperation” slogan, but its impact was not something he could have foreseen.

With the publication of the news, it quickly caused a sensation in Vienna. Over time, this slogan evolved into the official propaganda slogan of France and Austria.

As the treaty was signed, diplomatic relations between France and Austria also entered a period of secrecy. Many optimistically believed that the contradictions between France and Austria no longer existed.

No matter what others think, Franz was very clear that the Franco-Austrian contradictions were simply suppressed artificially under their common interests.

That’s not the main point though. The key is that Austria can now withdraw troops from Italy. The effect of military training has already been achieved. They’ve even had some exchanges with the French, which almost proves the combat effectiveness of the army.

As for the remaining Italian guerrillas, let the French handle them themselves! Suzerainty not only represents interests but also implies responsibilities.

In a sense, this unfriendly military exchange has also accelerated the pace of alliance between the two countries. On the battlefield, the armies of France and Austria did not exhibit a one-sided thrashing; both sides were almost evenly matched.

Of course, this was due to the small geographical area of conflict and limited deployment of forces, with both sides mainly relying on sheer force. The officers did not have much room to maneuver.

This situation caused trepidation in the upper echelons of both France and Austria. The Austrian government was wary of France’s reputation, while the French were wary of Austria’s numerical superiority.

This is determined by the population advantage. Even after annexing the Kingdom of Sardinia, there remains a significant population gap between France and Austria. If it devolves into a war of attrition, the French would undoubtedly be the first to be unable to hold on.

Franz is keenly aware that the French possess considerable strength. Just because Napoleon III messed up in the original timeline doesn’t mean one can assume the French military is weak.

One must know that during the Franco-Prussian War, the ratio of forces between the two sides was 47:22. Due to Napoleon III blindly commanding, in the first major battle — the Battle of Wissembourg, the French fought the Prussian army with the latter ten times their numbers. Subsequently, in the Battle of Wörth two days later, the troop ratio between the Prussians and the French was 130,000 versus 40,000, with the outcome being self-evident.

This pattern continued in subsequent battles, with Prussia almost always having more than three times the troops compared to the French in every engagement.

Don’t ask why this was the case; only Napoleon III could answer that question. Anyway, history was just like this. Who knows why he insisted on sending troops to their demise?

In Paris, the French people have already begun celebrating. Thanks to newspapers helping to popularize strategic knowledge, many French citizens believe that this marks the establishment of French Mediterranean hegemony.

Although this has not yet been recognized by England and Austria, it does not hinder the jubilation of the French people. The annexation of Italy has become the consensus of radical groups in France.

While there is a celebration among the citizens, the response from the French government is markedly different. Many are concerned that this agreement will provoke hostility from the British.

Pro-British officials believe this is Austria’s attempt to sow discord between Britain and France, a speculation that is close to the truth, albeit not a conspiracy but a strategy.

The reaction of the French populace has already indicated to them that there is no way to stop this transaction.

“Anglo-French friendship,” has that ever existed?

Just opening any French history book is enough to prove the enmity between Britain and France — friendship is far too extravagant.

The centuries-old hatred between England and France cannot be eliminated overnight. In fact, the French government has never made efforts in this direction.

Anyone who dares to try should always be prepared to accept the honorable title of “traitor.” Although there are many pro-British people in the government, there are even more anti-British people among the public.

Napoleon III has been quite annoyed lately. He suddenly realized that having too many pro-British officials in the government is not a good thing, even though he himself is pro-British.

But in the face of interests, personal stance must take a backseat. Whether to conduct a major purge in the government was a question worth considering.