Chapter 409: Chapter 96, Win-win Cooperation
 

The “66 Treaty” was clearly not something to be exposed. If the news of France and Austria joining hands to partition the European Continent was leaked, wouldn’t the London Government go mad?

Maintaining balance on the European Continent is not such a balancing act. If Great France and the Great Shinra Empire were to emerge, the European Continent would truly become a triumvirate. At that time, it might be impossible to find a fourth country.

Like Pandora’s box, once ambition is unleashed, it becomes difficult to put back.

Napoleon left the French with more than just glorious military achievements; he left them with a dream of a great nation. Stirred by their sentimentality, the fervor for expansion among the French populace would not be satisfied with just a good part of Italy and Belgium.

Adding Spain and Portugal wouldn’t be excessive, would it? After all, Napoleon once occupied the Spanish region, and they must continue this fine tradition!

The French uniting Western Europe, Austria uniting the Germany Region—in such a scenario, what choice would Switzerland, Netherlands, stuck between two behemoths, have?

They could either join one side voluntarily or be forcibly annexed; such is the fate of small nations.

The Nordic three countries, remaining detached, should not expect to escape unscathed either. For strategic reasons, the Russians would not let them go.

With the three great powers all expanding outwards, the British can only watch helplessly. They can’t intervene; maybe before everyone turns hostile, they’ll have been cleared out.

Even the three countries have a basis for alliance. After completing their expansion, they will certainly need time to assimilate, meaning that in the short term, no war will break out on the European Continent.

Then the British, who hold the most colonies in the world, are in danger. It’s not like they can go and ally with the United States anyway, and besides, an alliance would be useless!

Of course, the chances of this happening are very slim. After annexing Italy and Belgium, France would have to deal with its internal contradictions and would lack the capacity to continue expanding.

Not to mention Austria, for Franz, unifying the Germany Region is just a slogan. Partitioning the European Continent—that must be a dream!

Now that nationalism has awakened, unifying the Germany Region is more or less the limit of Austria’s expansion on the European Continent.

However, due to the limitations of the era, many people still believe that after unifying the Germany Region, Austria will continue to expand.

The reasoning is simple: Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands were all part of the Holy Roman Empire and belong to the same cultural circle, so the radical Greater Germany advocates include them all in their plans.

To avoid causing a panic and to ensure the plan can be carried out smoothly, France and Austria both chose high confidentiality, not a few knew of the existence of the treaty, but the number of people who knew the treaty’s content could be counted on one hand.

Only three in Austria are easily aware of the treaty: the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and Franz himself. The situation is similar in France.

In recent years, France’s economy has been performing well, and Napoleon III’s throne has stabilized. The voices among the public to establish Great France are growing louder by the day.

This is absolutely the voice of the French public, Franz just steered it somewhat. There’s evidence for this: in the original timeline, Emperor Napoleon III did quite well, and it was only because of his defeat and inability to fulfill the public’s dream of a great nation that he was deposed.

Compared to the original host who lost twice yet still held onto the throne, one can see just how strong the French people’s desire for a great nation is.

It was not Napoleon III who truly facilitated this Franco-Austrian alliance, but the vast French public. Their inadvertently expressed cries indirectly pressured the Emperor. Since he was an elected Emperor, Napoleon III naturally had to respect the public’s choice.

On June 8, 1866, the foreign ministries of France and Austria signed another treaty regarding sovereignty exchanges for colonies in Italy, the Balkan, Africa.

This was a cover for the “66 Treaty”, with only articles three and four dealing with territorial sovereignty exchanges. Anyway, it couldn’t stay hidden; once the handover between the two countries started, it would all be exposed.

If territories in Europe can be traded, let alone suzerainty and colonies. Mutual transactions, at worst, would irk the British and generate some newspaper sales.

Conrad-Holman was the editor of the Austrian Daily, and occasionally moonlighted as a current affairs commentator, expressing certain official opinions.

Of course, as a commercial newspaper, such opinions are usually very subtle, often delivered from a side angle.

As soon as news of the France and Austria territorial trade deal arrived, Conrad-Holman’s work began. Without a doubt, such news was meant to be met with praise!

Twirling his pen, Conrad-Holman fell into thought. The news must be eye-catching; for the highly commercialized Vienna Daily, direct official pieces were not appealing.

With so many writing the same thing, how could one ensure the newspaper sales? The Vienna Daily, a large newspaper with a daily circulation of 100,000, couldn’t afford to lose readers with such tactics.

Looking at the globe on his desk that the wind was moving, Conrad had an epiphany and began writing on the paper.

Title: Reflections on the Colonial and Suzerainty Transactions between France and Austria— Cooperating for Mutual Benefit

It was no longer news, but rather a discursive essay. For a commercial newspaper, as long as it adhered to Austrian law and guaranteed the reliability of the news, there were not many requirements regarding the content.

Conrad began with international competition, citing several historical cases, and compared them with the approach taken by France and Austria.

In conclusion: Cooperation leads to mutual benefit. He also praised the efforts made by the governments of France and Austria for world peace.

From the standpoint of France and Austria, the trade was indeed a win-win.

The French gave up some colonies in exchange for absolute influence in Central and Southern Italy, laying the groundwork for swallowing Italy.

Strategically in the Mediterranean, the French took the initiative. Controlling Sicily and Tunisia, the French could, if necessary, divide the Mediterranean in two.

The British strategic layout in Malta had been abandoned, and the strategic value of this heart of the Mediterranean had greatly diminished. Only when the age of airplanes arrives could it again play the role the British expected.

Austria swapped its nominal sovereignty over the Italian Sub-States for French Balkan and some West African colonies, not only removing a thorn but also consolidating its colonial hegemony in the West Africa region.

They also gained another bargaining chip for trading with the Russians. The Dardanelles Strait still held great allure for the Tsarist Government, at least until they gave up on the Mediterranean.

Having written the piece and proofread it several times, correcting a few textual errors along the way, Conrad-Holman submitted it to the editor for review.

Big news like this usually isn’t covered by just one article. Typically, three to five people write pieces, and the editor chooses the most suitable one to publish.

Occasionally there might be a meeting for discussion, but because news is time-sensitive, such discussions rarely happen.

Without surprise, Conrad’s piece passed scrutiny. “Mutual benefit through cooperation” conceptually surpassed the others. News can never be detached from politics, and the slogan of “mutual benefit” was highly consistent with Austria’s current foreign policy.

Although the government had not officially used this slogan, it had essentially been implementing it. Since the beginning of the Russian-Austrian alliance, the prelude to “mutual benefit through cooperation” had been set in motion.

Take, for instance, the Near East War: the Russians secured Bulgaria and the long-coveted Constantinople, while Austria unified the South German Region and additionally annexed parts of the Balkan Peninsula.

This was the embodiment of mutual benefit, but of course, such an example should not be mentioned publicly, for it would attract too much animosity.

Not only would England and France be outraged, but the Tsarist Government would probably have its complaints too. Insiders knew that they were only winners in name, suffering heavy losses with the gain being merely political victory.

This outcome was fine for fooling the general public, but the higher-ups in the Tsarist Government were well aware that they had faced strategic failure, losing their best opportunity to enter the Mediterranean.

Talking about the more recent France-Austria deal, there were no issues. After all, France and Austria each got what they needed, and any excuse would be sufficient to satisfy the domestic public.

The slogan “mutual benefit through cooperation” was vocalized by Conrad, but its impact was beyond his prediction.

Following the publication of the news, it quickly caused a sensation in Vienna, and as time went by, the slogan turned into the official propaganda slogan of France and Austria.

With the treaty signed, the diplomatic relations of France and Austria also entered a honeymoon phase. Many optimists believed that the conflicts between France and Austria had ceased to exist.

Regardless of what others thought, Franz was very clear that the tensions between France and Austria were merely suppressed under mutual interest.

That wasn’t the point; the key was that Austria could withdraw from Italy now. The benefit of military drills had been achieved, having sparred with the French, which was sufficiently illustrative of the army’s combat effectiveness.

The remaining Italian Guerrillas could be left for the French to deal with! Sovereignty was not just about the benefits; it also implied responsibility.

To some extent, this unfriendly forceful scrimmaging also accelerated the pace of alliance formation between the two countries. On the battlefield, France and Austria’s troops did not experience one-sided combat, and the fighting power of both sides was nearly equal.

Of course, this was because the conflict zone was too small, and the opposing forces too few. Both sides were mainly locked in a power struggle, leaving little room for the officers to demonstrate their capabilities.

This situation made both the higher-ups of France and Austria wary. The Vienna Government was wary of the French reputation, while the French dreaded Austria’s numerical superiority.

This was decided by demographic advantages. Even if it incorporated the Kingdom of Sardinia, the population gap between France and Austria was still vast. Should it turn into a war of attrition, the French would undoubtedly be the first to succumb.

Franz knew very well that French power was not weak. One shouldn’t assume the French Army’s combat effectiveness was lacking just because Napoleon III had disastrously managed affairs in the original timeline.

Consider the Prussia and France war, where the forces ratio was 47:22. Due to Napoleon III’s blind command, the Prussian Army fought the French with ten times more soldiers in the first major battle at Wissembourg; and two days later, at the Battle of Wörth, the ratio of the opposing forces was 130,000 vs. 40,000, with an inevitable result.

The subsequent battles were similar, almost every time Prussia held over three times the soldiers when engaging with the French Army.

Don’t ask why it was so; only Napoleon III could answer that question. History just is as it is; who knows why he led his troops into such predicaments.

In Paris, the public already began celebrating. Thanks to newspapers educating them on strategic knowledge, many Parisians believed this marked the establishment of France’s Mediterranean hegemony.

Although not yet recognized by England and Austria, that didn’t stop the French people’s revelry. Annexing the Italian Area had become a consensus among French radical groups.

While the public celebrated, the reaction from the Paris Government was entirely different. Many feared that concluding this deal would attract the enmity of the British.

Members of the Pro-British Faction in the administration believed that this was Austria’s ploy to provoke England-France relations. This guess was close to the truth, but it was no conspiracy, rather an overt plot.

The reaction of the Parisians had already told them, trying to stop this transaction – no chance.

“England-France friendship,” has such a thing ever existed?

Anyone who opens a French history book can confirm that there is enough enmity between England and France; friendship is far too luxurious.

The centuries-old rivalry between England and France couldn’t be dissolved overnight. In fact, the Paris Government has never made any effort in that regard.

Whoever wanted to try, be prepared to embrace the honorable title of “traitor to the nation.” Even though the government had many from the Pro-British Faction, there were even more anti-British people among the general populace.

Recently, Napoleon III was very troubled. He suddenly realized that having too many from the Pro-British Faction in the government wasn’t a good thing, even though he personally leaned pro-British.

But before the interests, personal stance must yield! Whether to conduct a major purge in the officialdom, that’s a question worth pondering.