Rise of Empires: Spain.

Chapter 559 Intervention in the Russian Civil War
Because the negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference were progressing slowly, after a period of stalemate, the Allied Powers, led by Spain, France, and Italy, agreed that the formation of the League of Nations should be discussed first.

The other small European countries had no objection to the formation of the League of Nations. In addition, the three Allied powers and Britain had jointly explored the general framework of the League of Nations. Therefore, the formation of the League of Nations was basically completed in a short period of time.

It is worth mentioning that although Russia and the United States were both Allied Powers, they did not join the formation of the League of Nations for various reasons, and therefore could not serve as permanent members of the League of Nations Council.

Russia's reason was its civil war, while the United States' reason was that the Senate did not agree to President Thomas Woodrow Wilson's proposal to join the League of Nations.

Fortunately, the United States and Russia, which was embroiled in civil war, did not have a strong presence in Europe. Even though the two major powers did not participate in the discussions on the formation of the League of Nations, it did not prevent European countries from having a very heated discussion.

On October 2, 1915, the European powers, led by Spain, France, Great Britain, and Italy, along with many other European countries, signed the Covenant of the League of Nations in Paris, France, formally announcing the establishment of the League of Nations and aiming to resolve international disputes through more equitable and just means.

The establishment of the League of Nations received widespread support from European countries, with an astonishing 16 European countries signing the Covenant on the same day.

With the formation of the League of Nations, the post-World War II European order was largely established. This was good news for Carlo, as Spain held a very high position and power within the League of Nations, allowing it to subtly take over British hegemony in Europe while avoiding direct conflict with Britain.

As for France, which has always dreamed of regaining its position as the dominant power in Europe, apart from France itself, Britain and Spain do not have much to fear about France.

On the one hand, the war severely damaged France's industry, agriculture, and economy, and it would have been impossible for France to recover to its pre-World War II level without a period of ten or even several decades.

On the other hand, France lost a large number of people during the World War, and the casualties during the war meant that France was no longer qualified to compete for European dominance.

With a large number of young and middle-aged men dying, it is foreseeable that France's birth rate will remain at an extremely low level for a long time to come.

Population is extremely important for a country; it is the foundation of a nation's strength and development. France's disadvantage in terms of population is tantamount to a disadvantage in almost every other aspect.

This directly determines France's future fate. Let alone vying for European hegemony, it would be quite an achievement if it could just maintain its position as one of the existing superpowers.

For Carlo, there are currently three threats to Spain: first, Britain, which did not suffer heavy losses in the World War; second, the Soviet Russian government, which is currently engaged in a civil war with Tsarist Russia; and finally, the United States, which has little presence in the World War.

The good news is that the United States, which was originally the biggest threat, has lost its threat due to Carlo's advance planning. Britain will certainly not let the United States, which has declared war on it, get away with it, and the upcoming Anglo-American war will be quite interesting, with the United States most likely unable to defeat Britain.

With the US and Britain at each other's throats and Russia embroiled in civil war, these three major threats are actually gradually diminishing.

This period is the best time for Spain to develop. Once Spain catches up in industry and economy, it will no longer need to worry about these three major threats.

More importantly, compared to Britain, the United States, and Russia, Spain has an advantage: its alliances with its allies have not ended.

Spain helped Italy become one of the four permanent members of the League of Nations. In return, Italy and Spain renewed their alliance treaty, marking the first instance of a post-World War II alliance treaty being renewed.

In theory, Europe should have entered a period of peace after the world war. Wartime and peacetime are different, and national interests would undergo significant changes.

In such circumstances, former allies may not necessarily remain suitable as allies. The most obvious example is the Franco-Russian Entente, which formed the Entente Powers. After the end of World War II, France had no intention whatsoever of renewing the Franco-Russian Entente.

The original Franco-Russian Entente was only intended to counter Germany, and with Germany already defeated, the Franco-Russian Entente was naturally no longer necessary.

More importantly, Russia is currently embroiled in a civil war, which is not good news for France. If the Franco-Russian alliance is renewed, France will have to invest a large amount of money and resources in its ally, which is a completely unprofitable deal for France, which has already suffered heavy losses in the World War II.

The news that Spain and Italy renewed their alliance treaty was a unique occurrence in post-World War II Europe.

Fortunately, Italy itself was not very strong, and because the four major powers had formed an international alliance, it did not arouse too much concern from Britain and France.

If Italy possessed the strength of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before World War II, the news of it renewing its alliance treaty with Spain would have been enough to arouse the apprehension of Britain and France.

The formation of the League of Nations was good news in Europe, but not so good news for the United States, especially for President Thomas Woodrow Wilson.

Although somewhat dissatisfied with the betrayal by Allied powers such as Spain and France, US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson had high expectations for the establishment of the League of Nations, even regarding it as an important step for the United States to move away from isolationism and extend its influence to Europe and the world.

Surprisingly, the U.S. Senate did not approve President Thomas Woodrow Wilson's bill to join the League of Nations until the League was formally established.

Incidentally, US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was one of the advocates for the establishment of the League of Nations.

If the US Senate passes the vote, the United States may have a chance to become a permanent member of the League of Nations based on its comprehensive strength.

But all of this is just speculation now. Since the United States did not join the League of Nations, it is naturally not qualified to serve as a permanent member of the League of Nations Security Council.

Now that the League of Nations had been established, this international organization, which was seen as having the potential to prevent a world war in the future and bring lasting peace to Europe, naturally had to take its own actions.

On October 5, 1915, amidst great anticipation, the League of Nations officially convened its first regular meeting in Paris to discuss the composition of the League of Nations' various organizations and the responsibilities of League of Nations member states other than the four major powers in these organizations.

Although the League of Nations was certainly led by the four major powers, they couldn't handle everything. Aside from mediating conflicts between the powers, most other affairs required the participation of ordinary nations.

In addition to the above matters, Spain also raised another proposal at the meeting: that the League of Nations should send troops to Russia to help Tsarist Russia control the situation of the civil war.

Although the Russian Civil War is different from that in history, the Soviet Russia still holds the advantage in the current situation.

After the merger of the Russian Provisional Government and the Tsarist Government, the new government was an improvement over the corrupt Tsarist government, but it also faced a major drawback: it could not be completely overthrown and started anew.

On the contrary, after the Soviet Russian government was driven to Moscow, it was determined to overthrow the existing political system and establish a completely different and more dynamic Russian government.

In comparison, the Soviet Russian government was clearly more efficient. Although Tsarist Russia received substantial support from the Entente Powers, it was still unable to completely eliminate Soviet Russia.

Soviet Russia even grew stronger while resisting, and it was already showing signs of sharing the world with Tsarist Russia.

Even when Tsarist Russia was suppressing Soviet Russia, it couldn't completely destroy it. Now, with the world on the verge of being divided, Tsarist Russia is even less of a match for Soviet Russia.

Spain proposed that the League of Nations send troops to Russia for two reasons: firstly, to demonstrate the League's capabilities and power in diplomatic disputes; and secondly, to guard against the expansion of Soviet Russia and ensure that Russia would never threaten Spain's position.

Although the proposal was made suddenly, sending troops to Russia actually had certain benefits for many member states of the League of Nations.

Firstly, if Soviet Russia were to win the civil war, it would be bad news not only for Tsarist Russia but also for other European countries.

The ideology of Soviet Russia would attract the attention of a large number of workers, and once such an ideology spread throughout Europe, it would be a devastating blow to the existing political systems of European countries.

This alone was enough to unite many European countries in resisting Soviet Russia and the expansion of its ideology. Another advantage of sending troops to Russia was that it spared European countries the rush to address the issue of disbanding their armies.

Spain plans to cut more than 200 million troops, and France will cut even more. Even small countries like Serbia and Romania are cutting hundreds of thousands of troops.

The disbanding of the army is bound to be painful, but if a certain number of troops can be deployed to Russia, the pain caused by the disbanding can be mitigated.

Although continuing the war would increase military spending, the fact that countries were able to send troops to fight in Russia was certainly not a free sacrifice.

Spain has already discussed this with Russia. If it can secure the League of Nations' intervention in Russia, Russia will use a portion of its war reparations from Germany to purchase weapons, equipment, food, and other supplies for the armies of the various countries fighting in Russia.

At the same time, Russia will also voluntarily relinquish a portion of the reparations as a reward to the countries that have sent troops to Russia.

Russia's domestic mineral resources can also be used as collateral. These mineral resources are relatively expensive and attract the attention of many countries.

For Tsarist Russia, if it could not win the civil war, these mineral resources and lands would not have much to do with Tsarist Russia itself.

If these resources could be used to gain the support of the League of Nations and thus win the civil war, it would be a very worthwhile deal.

The proposal put forward by Spain was hotly debated at a regular meeting of the League of Nations. Although European countries did not want the war to continue, they were not opposed to the possibility of obtaining huge returns with relatively small investments.

More importantly, regardless of the outcome of the Russian Civil War, it would not affect Russia's own territory.

Such a war would be significantly less risky, and if the situation in the Russian civil war could not be salvaged, all countries could extricate themselves in time.

In any case, it was the League of Nations, an international organization, that intervened in the Russian Civil War, not a single country.

Even if Soviet Russia had won the civil war, it would have been impossible to eliminate the entire League of Nations. This is not to belittle Russia, but the power represented by the League of Nations was unmatched by the original Central Powers and Entente Powers.

With a unified stance within the League of Nations, it would be possible not only to intervene in the Russian Civil War, but also to eliminate Soviet Russia altogether.

Of course, while some countries wanted to intervene in the Russian civil war, others wanted to stay away from it.

The good news is that even if the League of Nations decides to intervene in the Russian civil war, it will not force all member states of the League of Nations to send troops.

Interested countries could naturally send a portion of their troops, forming an intervention coalition with the League of Nations, to intervene in the Russian civil war.

The benefits gained from intervening in the Russian Civil War would be divided among the countries that sent troops, while countries unwilling to send troops would suffer no harm except for not receiving these benefits.

It is precisely for this reason that the framework of the League of Nations has received strong support from European countries.

In fact, European countries had similar concerns when the League of Nations was formed. If a majority of member states voted to intervene in a war, what would happen to those member states that did not wish to intervene?

Now the answer to this question has finally been found: for permanently neutral countries like Switzerland, they are willing to join the League of Nations, an international organization, but are not willing to get too involved in military-related matters.

The current regulations are the best answer, satisfying the requirements of most countries while ensuring that a small number of countries do not follow the crowd and can still have their own space within the overall framework.

After addressing the concerns of numerous countries, large and small, the vote on intervention in the Russian civil war has finally reached a conclusion.

Most countries are still very interested in intervening in the Russian Civil War; the prospect of receiving a larger share of reparations alone is enough to attract many countries to send troops.

After all, European countries currently possess a large number of troops, and if they do not utilize these troops, they will have no choice but to reduce or eliminate them.

The sudden increase of hundreds of thousands or even millions of unemployed people in a country is a huge blow to the employment environment in various countries.

In addition, considering the impact of war on industry, agriculture, and the economy, such a small-scale intervention war is necessary to prevent an economic crisis. It can give European countries more time to reduce their troops and transform their military industries.

Although it has been decided to send troops to intervene in the Russian Civil War, the size of the joint forces sent to Russia will not be too large, at most no more than 50, considering the impact of the World War on Europe.

After internal discussions among the four major powers, each claimed a share of 100,000 men. Although the four major powers did not share a unified attitude towards this intervention war, they did have a relatively unified view on guarding against Soviet Russia.

In any case, they could only send an army of 100,000 men at most, which would not be a difficult task for Spain, France, Britain and Italy.

After the four major powers each pledged to provide an army of 100,000 men, the other member states of the League of Nations only needed to contribute 100,000 men.

After excluding the four major powers, the League of Nations had only a dozen or so member states remaining. After removing those countries unwilling to participate in the war, only a handful of nations were ultimately left to divide the 100,000 troop quota.

Fortunately, an army of 100,000 is not a large number. Several countries share these quotas, and each country only needs to deploy 10,000 to 20,000 troops.

Among the many small and medium-sized countries in Europe, Romania has sent the largest number of troops, planning to send 2.5 people to participate in this intervention war.

Unlike most other European countries that do not border Russia, Romania shares a direct border with Russia, and the situation in Russia during the civil war seriously affects Romania's future security.

Romania preferred Tsarist Russia to Soviet Russia, which posed a greater threat.

This is also why Romania was willing to participate in this intervention war and sent the largest number of troops among the many small and medium-sized countries in Europe.

Austria-Hungary also sent an army of 1.7 men, partly to increase its presence by participating in the affairs of the League of Nations as much as possible, and partly to curry favor with the four major powers of the League of Nations, led by Spain, in order to avoid being isolated.

Although the League of Nations was formed by a number of European countries, most of them were Allied Powers during the World Wars.

Like Great Britain, Austria-Hungary was an enemy of the Allied powers during the World Wars. Although the Allied powers ceased to exist after the war, the deep-seated hatred and animosity inflicted during that period cannot be easily erased.

Britain was in a better position, as its army was mainly concentrated on the Western Front, and its opponents were primarily French, Spanish, and Italian troops.

Even if there is great hatred between the great powers, they will not easily dictate their own foreign policy; everything is still based on interests.

On the contrary, the Austro-Hungarian Empire's enemies during the World Wars were the Balkan states and Russia. The Slavs are a renowned fighting nation, and their tempers are not exactly mild.

If relations between Austria-Hungary and the Balkan states could not be eased, Austria-Hungary's situation would worsen in the future, which is why Austria-Hungary chose to send troops to help Russia.

(End of this chapter)