Holy Roman Empire

Chapter 623 - 196, Human Nature

In 1877, England, France, and Austria each launched expansionary wars on the African Continent, engulfing Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Somalia Peninsula in warfare.

Compared to the sweeping advances of France and Austria, the British encountered trouble. The famous "Warrior Emperor" became a nightmare for the British Army.

Due to underestimating the enemy and acting rashly, the British Army was ambushed shortly after the outbreak of war and suffered heavy losses.

Looking at the battle report in his hands, British Army commander Ismail trembled with anger. Less than a month into the war, over five thousand troops had been lost. The losses among the colonial troops could be overlooked, but a British Infantry Regiment had also been decimated.

"Idiots, all of you are idiots!"

"You can’t even defeat a bunch of natives; you’ve completely disgraced Britannia. What use is it for the country to keep you?"

...

A young military officer bravely tried to explain, "General, the natives of Ethiopia are extraordinary. They too possess modernized weapons and have undergone formal military training."

"Slap!"

Ismail slammed the table furiously and cursed, "It must be those Austrians and the low-down French doing this, no one else could be so shameless!"

Everyone refrained from broaching the subject, knowing full well that it was the British who first helped train the Ethiopian army; France and Austria had only infiltrated their influence after the previous Ethiopian war had ended.

Ethiopia had a well-trained army, and the British themselves had contributed to this. If this thin veil of deceit was pierced, the government would face significant public pressure.

Blaming France and Austria directly was the best course of action; it wasn’t for lack of effort on their part, but rather because the enemy was too "powerful."

After venting his frustrations, Ismail cooled down.

This war had been prepared for based on experiences from the last conflict. Clearly, that approach was outdated now.

Times had changed; Menelik II had fought his way to unite most regions of Ethiopia. How could an army battle-hardened like that be an easy target?

The Paris Conference had not yielded any results, and in the absence of a treaty to bind them, it was perfectly normal for France and Austria to stab them in the back.

Ismail harbored a strong suspicion that the Ethiopian army was now led by French or Austrian commanders; otherwise, how could the British have lost to natives?

After assessing the forces at his disposal, Ismail reluctantly came to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to achieve victory with the current troop levels; even if they could win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

If they had been fighting against the European powers, a "Pyrrhic victory" might have been acceptable, but their enemies now were African natives. To achieve such a result against them would mean facing a military tribunal.

Without a doubt, in order to achieve victory, Ismail made the decisive choice to request reinforcements from home.

...

Paris, after several years of political struggles and by playing a balancing act, Napoleon IV gradually took control of the nation’s power.

In this respect, the plan of Napoleon III had succeeded. He had used the power struggle to ensure a smooth transition of imperial power.

But with every advantage comes a disadvantage; after years of political struggles, those who remained were the old foxes accustomed to political combat.

Having seized power, Napoleon IV couldn’t simply replace all these people; internal strife became the French government’s most significant problem.

Left with no choice, Napoleon IV continued the balancing act. He was powerless to stop the infighting among bureaucratic groups.

Perhaps internal strife among the bureaucracy was a good thing for the imperial power, but this was conditional on it being limited in scope.

Once the bottom line was breached, it would turn into a disaster. If everyone stabbed each other in the back, how could the state continue to develop normally?

This could be seen from France’s economic development in recent years. Since the death of Napoleon III, France’s economic growth rate had plummeted, with the Paris Government almost completely inactive.

Inactivity was better than reckless action. Overall, France was stable, just that the economic growth was slow.

This was something the proud and ambitious Napoleon IV found difficult to accept. After gaining control, he began to focus on economic construction.

France’s economic slowdown was due to many factors; it wasn’t something the government could improve simply by wanting to.

The biggest problem was an energy crisis, with a severe shortage of coal production within the country, unable to meet the growing economic demand.

The coal shortage wasn’t just domestic; even the French African colonies were lacking coal. That meant they had to import, which, unsurprisingly, drove up industrial production costs.

As costs increased, market competitiveness naturally declined. In international trade, France’s market share was rapidly dwindling.

At its peak, France once accounted for one-fifth of the total volume of global import and export trade; now, it had fallen to just 15.7 percent.

And it wasn’t over; the French market share continued to fall. It might not be long before their position as the third-largest trading nation was in jeopardy.

Napoleon IV asked, "Are you certain that the opening of the Panama Canal will stimulate the export of domestic industrial and commercial products?"

It must be said, French capitalists are indeed powerful, doing their work right up to the Emperor’s ear.

Finance Minister Allen said, "Your Majesty, the situation of the Panama Canal is very similar to that of the Suez Canal. Only with the opening of the Suez Canal did we see the last round of economic prosperity.

Following the opening of the Suez Canal, domestic import and export trade grew at a rate of more than 7% for five consecutive years, greatly boosting national economic development.

Now it is the same with the Panama Canal. Once the canal opens, the journey from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific will be shortened by tens of thousands of nautical miles, which will greatly stimulate the growth of domestic export trade."

Telling lies without batting an eye, it must be acknowledged, politicians indeed lack integrity. The opening of the Suez Canal did indeed greatly stimulate economic development in France, but the Panama Canal does not have that much of an impact.

A glance at the map shows that the greatest beneficiary of the Panama Canal is the United States of America; next is Colombia, while other countries can only pick up scraps.

It’s not completely without effect, however. If the Panama Canal had become navigable a decade earlier, it’s likely that the French government wouldn’t have needed to give up on Mexico.

Time can’t flow backwards; now the most the Panama Canal could do is to shorten the distance to the West Coast.

In this era, considering the economic development of the West Coast of America, even if exports were stimulated, this growth would be very limited.

Besides, there’s the competition from other European countries. French industrial and commercial products are losing their international competitiveness, and they really can’t gain much advantage.

Against this backdrop, investing heavily in the development of the Panama Canal is actually a loss-making deal for the French.

Napoleon IV shook his head, "No, my Finance Minister. You have only seen the benefits for us, but have not considered the consequences; in reality, the greatest beneficiary is not us.

A look at the map will tell you, the biggest beneficiary is the United States of America. Suppressing the development of American Countries has been the common imperial policy of England, France, and Austria, with the United States especially targeted for suppression.

It is clearly stipulated in the triple alliance treaty that the three countries must maintain the balance of the American Continent, prohibiting the unilateral strengthening of any one country’s power.

Regardless of whether we support the United States or not, this kind of action that strengthens the power of the United States will be seen as a betrayal by England and Austria. We cannot neglect long-term development for short-term gains."

Clearly, Napoleon IV was not easily cheated; such a flawed argument could not deceive him.

Finance Minister Allen said, "Your Majesty, these are only the overt benefits; the underlying benefits are actually greater.

In the short term, the opening of the Panama Canal will benefit the United States the most. But the canal is under our control; as trade increases, the economic lifeline of the United States will also fall into our hands.

The benefits behind this are our greatest gain. In the future, we can use the Panama Canal to open the gates of American countries, capturing more interests for the Empire.

Developing the Panama Canal doesn’t directly strengthen the power of any one country; this is merely bending the rules, and the Anglo-Austrian two countries aren’t likely to make a fuss over it."

The potential benefits are indeed tempting; the world has almost been carved up already, with the remaining independent countries difficult to disturb.

Seizing benefits through economic means has become an inevitability for the future world. Controlling the economic lifeline of American Countries will undoubtedly give France an advantageous position in the next round of competition.

Napoleon IV asked, "How do we ensure our leading position over the Panama Canal? In the Colombian Region, whether against the British or the Austrians, we can’t win the competition!"

This is the crux of the problem; France lacks sufficient strength in Colombia to ensure control over the canal.

England, France, and Austria are allies, but that is merely a union of interests. When the stakes are high, allies can turn into enemies.

If we let the Anglo-Austrian countries join the canal project, we would instantly lose our leading position. Napoleon IV would rather not undertake a project that amounts to making a wedding dress for someone else.

Finance Minister Allen said, "Your Majesty, the government doesn’t have to step in for this; it would be better for private capitalists to take on the task.

Working alone with either England or Austria, we won’t have the leading position, but if more countries participate, the situation changes.

We may not have the leading position as the initiators, but obtaining the most significant say is not difficult.

The government only needs to..."

...

After a lot of persuasions, Finance Minister Allen finally convinced Napoleon IV. Deep down, he had already decided not to involve himself in such matters anymore; whoever wanted to could go ahead, but he was not planning to continue.

Though the profits promised by the capitalists were great, there were also significant risks involved. If Allen didn’t know that Napoleon IV intended to replace him and that he wanted to secure a nice sum before retiring, he would never have cooperated with the capitalists.

Keep in mind, in public, he was a representative of the grassroots class. Only by restoring power with Napoleon III did he achieve a dramatic reversal of life.

A politician’s public persona cannot be compromised. As a representative of the common people in the government, conspiring with capitalists, if the news leaked, Allen would immediately find himself abandoned by all.

It was indeed because of this status that Allen could suggest this to Napoleon IV. If it were a minister representing capitalist interests instead, persuading him would probably not have been so easy.