NOVPUBThe eternal theme of this world is only — interests. With severe conflicts of interest between England and France, and without sufficient external pressure, it’s naturally impossible for them to truly unite.
In the original time-space of the German Second Empire, the French were under such great pressure that the Paris Government would rather go to great lengths to woo the Russians, rather than approaching the British first, which is enough to illustrate the problem.
After the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans and the British both became the greatest enemies of France, and in the following decades, England and France nearly went to war several times.
The reason why the Franco-German conflict surpassed the Anglo-French conflict was still Wilhelm II’s death-wish behavior, repeatedly provoking the national sentiments of the French, and being exploited by the British.
Once they realized that the Germans were a threat to their own interests, the British proactively extended goodwill to the French.
Even so, the Paris Government hesitated for a long time before they swallowed their pride and played the junior partner, otherwise, it would not have been so easy for both sides to compromise.
Now, needless to say, a thriving France that feels no threats has no reason to play second fiddle to the British.
Thinking of this, Franz felt relieved. The interweaving conflicts between England and France, Anglo-Austria, and France and Austria formed the most stable pattern.
In a situation where there are severe conflicts of interest between each other, the fact that England, France, and Austria could sit together is a testament to the delicate nature of diplomacy.
With external issues resolved, it was now the turn for internal problems. In recent years, Austria’s economy seemed to have sprouted wings, flourishing with the tailwinds of the Second Industrial Revolution.
Not just Austria, but the entire European Continent’s economy was burgeoning, taking the railway industry as an example, between 1870 and 1875, the total mileage of Europe’s railways increased by 58%.
The Prusso Federation and the Russian Empire saw the fastest growth, followed closely by Great France and the Nordic Federation, while the Anglo-Austrian countries, which had developed railways earlier, were now seeing a slowing pace of growth.
Of course, this growth percentage is relative to the base, and the fact that Austria’s growth was slower does not mean it built fewer miles of railways than other countries.
The Russians’ growth was the most extraordinary; others talked in terms of growth percentage, but for them, it had to be expressed in multiples.
This wasn’t because the Tsarist Government was exceptional in building railways, but mainly due to Russia’s slow development in railway industries. After the Prusso-Russian War, the total railway mileage in the Russian Empire was less than 3,000 kilometers, so doubling it truly wasn’t difficult.
Meanwhile, by 1870, Austria’s domestic railway mileage already exceeded 60,000 kilometers, with such a base, the growth rate naturally slowed down.
The grand railway plan that Franz proposed initially is no longer just a plan. After over twenty years of effort by the Vienna Government, it is nearing completion.
Perhaps twenty years ago, 100,000 kilometers of railways were just a pipe dream, but as of today, the total mileage of Austria’s operational and under-construction railways has exceeded 100,000 kilometers.
By the end of 1875, Austria’s domestic operational railway mileage reached 76,000 kilometers, and within five years, the domestic railway mileage would surpass 100,000 kilometers.
Of course, the main reason for this explosion of data, besides rapid domestic economic development, was the "African localization strategy."
Up to now, the number of cities and regions that have been approved by the Imperial Parliament to join the motherland has reached 23, with this part of the territory approaching one million square kilometers.
With an increase in the homeland area, the demand for railways naturally also increased. The operational railway mileage in this part of the territory is close to 10,000 kilometers, with another 8,000 kilometers of railways under construction.
All these figures are strictly confidential, and once made public, they would undoubtedly shock the world.
Of course, secrecy is relative to the ordinary people; for politicians, it’s not a secret because railways cannot be hidden. If one wants to find out, it’s quite easy to investigate.
```
Railways did not signify national strength in this era. Austria had the world’s highest railway mileage, followed not by John Bull or Great France but by the United States of America.
If it hadn’t been for the division in America, they would surely hold the record for the longest total railway mileage, considering that the Confederate States of America rank third in total railway mileage.
This was frustrating, as European countries have limited land area, their regional railway density might exceed that of Americans, but they couldn’t compete in total mileage.
Britain now held the title for the highest railway density. Surrounded by sea on all sides, The British Isles had an astonishing 23,000 kilometers of operational railways.
Such density was unattainable for Austria. Not even Franz’s grand railway plan, once fully implemented, could catch up with the Brits.
Recognition aside, Franz had no intention of emulating them. The high railway density in Britain was primarily due to severe redundancy in construction.
It must be understood that the distribution of British railways was extremely uneven, as capitalists only invested in economically developed areas, neglecting the less prosperous regions.
With The British Isles surrounded by water, just the economically developed regions alone, why would they need so many railways? If planned and allocated rationally, Britain’s transport could take another step forward.
Clearly, this was improbable. Capitalists sought profit; lucrative business attracted competitors, while loss-making deals drew no interest.
If it weren’t for Franz using monopoly as bait from the start to cheat capitalists into his scheme, bundling together railways in both developed and undeveloped areas, current domestic railway construction would likely have followed in the footsteps of Britain.
The Austrian railway bundling plan encountered an economic crisis on the eve of dawn. Capitalists, who thought they would make a killing, turned to severe losses due to a break in funding.
Such trickery worked only once. Before then, Austria had not completed industrialization and did not even qualify to profit from the economic crisis, so everyone’s guard wasn’t up.
Capitalists overlooked the risks of long-term investment and were duped by the word "monopoly."
Not only inexperienced domestic capitalists, but even international capital from countries like England and France were no exception. They were cheated by the word "monopoly," with billions in Divine Shield investments trapped in railway construction.
Those with substantial financial power hung on, while those lacking strength were forced to sell off, allowing the Vienna Government to pick up the pieces and continue the unfinished railway plans.
Today, railway investment remains highly popular, but it’s no longer related to the frenzy it once was. The main reason is policy—the Vienna Government has already intervened in the pricing of railway freight.
There is a maximum price limit for each region, and the government has also decreed that railways are a public infrastructure with a certain charitable nature, stipulating that railway company profits must not exceed thirty percent.
Frankly, this figure is still quite tempting. Apart from the financial industry, there are hardly any sectors that can generate a thirty percent profit.
However, this is entirely different from the exorbitant profits that capitalists chase. After all, railways involve large investments, and profits are calculated based on turnover, not total investment.
If the total investment were taken into account, no Austrian railway would have an annual return rate exceeding thirty percent—nor would any railway in the world. It is an unfeasible feat.
The single advantage, perhaps, is the stability of returns. The turnover of Austrian Railways has been steadily increasing, with annual growth rates generally no less than three percent.
Some sections have even experienced explosive annual revenue increases of tens of percent due to economic development.
Beyond freight charges, railway companies also have other profitable models, such as real estate projects around the stations, which are either owned by the railway companies or have their investments.
Stations are not grand establishments; they can be built in many places. Railway companies are not foolish; why would they construct a station there if there were no benefits?
```
Shifting a station a few kilometers forward or backward did not affect the normal operation of railways. In those years, without competition from airplanes, automobiles, or railways, people had no other choice, even if a station was a few kilometers away.
After briefly reviewing the reports, Franz revealed a satisfied smile. The Austrian economy’s growth rate had surpassed 8% again in 1875. The dividends from the Second Industrial Revolution had begun to ferment.
The electricity industry had the most prominent performance, with an astonishing annual growth rate of 23.6%, clearly leaving others far behind.
In contrast, traditional industries’ growth rates paled in comparison. For example, the textile industry, which emerged at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, now had a mere industry growth rate of 1.8%.
However, behind this figure, Austrian textile industry capacity had grown by 5.6%. The implication was all too clear: the capacity growth outpaced the industry’s value growth, indicating that industry profits were on the decline.
Of course, technological advancements had also led to reduced production costs. For certain enterprises, profits might actually increase.
But the slowdown in industry growth was an indisputable fact. Increased competition in traditional industries and falling profits were inevitable trends.
This was beyond human power to change. As science and technology advanced, products with higher added value emerged, and low-tech primary industries could only expect diminishing profits, eventually competing only on cost.
There were exceptions, such as the steel industry. By historical standards, it has a history of thousands of years, a solidly traditional industry, yet its growth rate remained robust.
In 1875, Austrian steel production broke through 8 million tons, leaving the British behind and ranking first in the world.
Steel production of major countries during the same period:
Austria 8.23 million tons, steel output 960,000 tons;
United Kingdom 7.42 million tons, steel output 760,000 tons;
France 2.74 million tons, steel output 235,000 tons;
German Federation Empire 1.556 million tons, steel output 315,000 tons; (including the Rhineland region)
United States of America 1.54 million tons, steel output 146,000 tons;
Russian Empire 1.042 million tons, steel output 24,000 tons
Prusso-Polish Federation 968,000 tons, steel output 126,000 tons;
United States of America 346,000 tons, steel output 38,000 tons;
...
The rest of the countries can be disregarded. The big data indicates that the French have fallen behind, and this gap continues to widen.
This is not because the Paris Government does not know how to develop the economy, but reality has forced their hand. French coal mines are deep, with thin coal seams, and they come with coal gas.
The cost of extraction is already high, and to make matters worse, the quality is poor. It’s suitable for ironmaking, but steelmaking is out of the question. Importing is the only way out.
Against this backdrop, the French have also resorted to a high-tech solution—charcoal ironmaking. According to what Franz knew, French steel enterprises were researching charcoal steelmaking.
This was no joke; a considerable portion of French steel output was produced using charcoal. Many French metallurgical experts guaranteed on newspapers that iron made with charcoal was of the highest quality.
Don’t be surprised; charcoal ironmaking is a traditional process with a history of thousands of years.
The French are still researching charcoal steelmaking techniques and have achieved some stage results. In the laboratory, the French have already produced qualified steel using charcoal.
Unfortunately, it could not be mass-produced. In industrial trial production, the quality of steel produced with this technique was unreliable, and the cost was exorbitantly high.
These practical issues did not dampen the enthusiasm of French capitalists; they continued to work hard on this hopeless path.
The capitalists had reasons to persist—the lack of coal production and poor coal quality in France, but abundant forest resources. Once the charcoal steelmaking technology broke through, they could instantly get out of the predicament.
If they followed in the footsteps of England and Austria, relying on imported coke, this cost alone would already undermine the competitiveness of the French steel industry in the market.
In France, a country with advanced financial services, most steel enterprises were publicly traded companies. Whether they could succeed or not, they had to present a vision that investors would believe in. Therefore, charcoal steelmaking was not strange.
Under the trend of interests, capitalists also had to believe this was the right path; how else could they drive up stock prices?
Compared to the same historical period, the development of the steel industry in Great France was quite satisfactory. The Southern United States, however, took the hardest blow after being divided.
The United States of America inherited most of the industry from America, but its development was very challenging. Without the Southern markets and having to compensate for the wounds of the war, the economy of the Union could not prosper.
The United States, inheriting two-thirds of America’s strength, was less than half as powerful as in the corresponding historical period. Market contraction plus a shortage of labor were the main factors constraining the development of the Union’s economy. 𝖓𝔬𝔳𝔭𝖚𝖇.𝔠𝔬𝖒
Due to the butterfly effect, the number of immigrants from Europe to America over the past twenty years has been less than a third of the same period in history.
Without people and markets, industry inevitably shrank, and it was not something human efforts could reverse.
Additionally, considering political factors, the prestige of the federal government had diminished due to the defeat in war, resulting in many states disregarding the Central Government.
Each state had its own leadership team, and policies were made centered around the state’s own interests. The so-called concept of the greater good, sorry, that simply didn’t exist.
It was common to see some states erecting trade barriers to protect local industries, while others would open their doors wide, allowing products from around the world to enter.
These policies served their own interests: governments established trade barriers to protect locally producible industrial products.
For industrial products that had to be purchased from outside due to lack of local production, naturally it came down to whoever provided cheaper and more reliable goods.
Affected by these factors, in the post-war effort to rehabilitate its economy, the United States of America, which lacked labor, had to massively introduce people of color.
Especially the indentured laborers, who were highly favored by capitalists. Apart from having nominal freedom, the laborers provided by these manpower companies were essentially no different from slaves.
The current scale of the steel industry in the United States of America owes much to these cheap external labor forces.
However, the aftermath was quite serious. Such predatory exploitation exacerbated racial tensions within the Union.
Solving these issues couldn’t be accomplished overnight. At a minimum, there first needed to be a strong government to integrate the various states together.
