In London, while there were frequent reports of victories in Egypt, Prime Minister Gladstone was far from happy. The rebels had not advanced toward the Suez Canal as expected, not even coming close to its banks. There was no avoiding the truth. The rebel leadership was not entirely foolish. At least their leader, Mahdi, remained very clear-headed. He knew that rushing toward the canal before expelling the French would be suicidal. Moreover, the French had locked down the region so tightly that they would rather watch one Egyptian city after another fall than allow the safety of the Suez Canal to be compromised. This situation dealt a heavy blow to the British government, which had been keen on intervening in the affairs of the Suez Canal. With the canal no longer under threat, the British lost any excuse to meddle there. Regardless of Britain’s strength, neither France nor Austria would accept their interference. Now that French reinforcements had arrived in Egypt, even if the rebels wanted to attack the canal, they had no chance. With their ultimate goal unfulfilled, any further efforts to weaken the French would have been futile, especially since France was no longer the primary target that the British government had sought to suppress. Gladstone declared, “The Egyptian plan has failed. We have lost our opportunity to intervene in the Suez Canal. To continue would mean a direct confrontation with both France and Austria. Given the current situation, we must now focus on managing the aftermath. Further efforts to weaken France would only end up assisting Austria and would harm the balance of power on the continent.” Although he was reluctant to admit it, the facts were clear. Lieutenant General Jarrett’s reputation was glorified, but in reality, his ability to command the troops rested mainly on the trust Mahdi had placed in him. But this trust wasn’t unconditional. At the very least, the request for the rebel forces to block the Suez Canal was rejected by Mahdi. They were not all fools. Mahdi was fully aware of the consequences of blocking the Suez Canal. That wouldn’t offend just one or two countries, but all nations that benefit from the canal. Even the British didn’t dare get involved directly, so Mahdi was even less likely to. Even as a pawn, he was a thinking pawn. He wasn’t someone who would follow orders blindly in every situation. Foreign Secretary George said, “The Prime Minister is right. With the arrival of French reinforcements, our plan has already failed. If we continue, we’ll only increase our losses and gain little in return. But we can’t let go now either. If we miss this opportunity, it will be even harder for us to meddle in the Suez Canal in the future. Given the current situation, with support from us and Austria, the rebel forces may yet manage to carve out a foothold. Planting a thorn in Egypt is still necessary for our future interests in the Suez Canal. Besides, even if we pull out now, the Austrians won’t stop. With their strength on the African continent, whether we participate or not makes little real difference. As for the French, since we’ve already offended them, we might as well offend them a bit more.” This aligns perfectly with Britain’s diplomatic principles. Everything is measured by interests. As for offending potential allies, that’s hardly a concern. John Bull, who’s even willing to screw over allies, definitely doesn’t care about that. Hearing this response made Prime Minister Gladstone very uncomfortable. It was already quite clear that he wanted to send a message to Lieutenant General Jarrett, yet the Foreign Secretary rejected it outright. Anyone would have felt displeased in his position. However, the Cabinet was not ruled by Gladstone alone. The opinion of the Foreign Secretary was something he had to consider carefully. If they gave up on the rebels and allowed the Austrians to take advantage of the situation, ending up with part of the rebel forces carving out their own territory, then Britain would end up as the loser. At that point, the opposition would surely seize the opportunity to launch an attack. Public backlash alone could force them out of office. To put it bluntly, there was never any so-called friendship between Britain and France. There was only hatred. This had already become common knowledge among both nations’ citizens. Whether the British government was willing to admit it or not, the idea had already taken root in people’s minds. Gladstone frowned and said with clear displeasure, “Sir, do not forget that the balance of power between France and Austria has already started to tilt. If we continue weakening the French, with one rising while the other falls, the Austrian advantage will only become more obvious. Over time, the fragile continental balance will be easily broken.” Foreign Secretary George shook his head. “Prime Minister, that is only a possibility, not something that is bound to happen. In reality, Austria’s advantage is limited to the economic front. Militarily, they do not hold much of an edge over the French. This is evident in the Austrian government’s plans for German unification. If they truly had the strength, they would have taken action long ago rather than waiting until now. Although Russia and Austria are allies, they still face strategic conflicts. If Austria really had the power to crush France and dominate the European continent, the Russo-Austrian alliance could just as easily turn into a Franco-Russian one. Until Austria unifies the German region, it does not have the strength to take on two major powers at once. The Austrian government is surely aware of this, which means the continental balance is, in essence, still stable.” This reasoning left Prime Minister Gladstone speechless. On the surface, Austria did seem to hold the upper hand on the European continent. However, its poor strategic position offset much of that advantage. If it were to become too dominant, Austria would not just face a Franco-Austrian alliance. It could also be up against a tripartite alliance of Britain, France, and Russia, and possibly even joined by North Germany. Seeing the situation grow awkward, Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Childers reminded them, “Gentlemen, perhaps we can set this issue aside and revisit it later. For now, we must seriously consider the food self-sufficiency plan. Lately, domestic calls for food self-sufficiency have been growing louder. If this continues, there is a 95% chance that Parliament will pass the proposal. By then, it will be much harder for us to oppose it.” Without a doubt, the Treasury was the strongest opponent of the food self-sufficiency plan within the British government. Britain was indeed a wealthy and powerful nation, but high income came with high expenses. The Royal Navy was the biggest money burner, consuming funds each year that rivaled the total military budget of Austria’s army and navy combined. Now, pushing forward with a food self-sufficiency plan would mean launching another massive loss-making project. And this wouldn’t be a short-term loss but one that would persist for many years. For a venture destined to bleed money with no clear return, the Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally had no interest in throwing good money after bad. Colonial Secretary Primrose countered, “Sir, you’re being too pessimistic. Every issue has two sides. While the food self-sufficiency plan may not be profitable in the short term, its side benefits are not insignificant. This plan involves much more than just agriculture. It also includes a great deal of infrastructure development, such as waterworks and transportation. Once these supporting facilities are in place, the colonies will become far more attractive to immigrants. The influx of labor will in turn drive the development of the colonial economy, and the finances of colonial governments will greatly improve. Many colonies that are currently operating at a loss may turn profitable as a result. Taken as a whole, our investment will not be in vain.” It all sounds promising, but in reality, it only holds up in theory. While a thriving colonial economy may increase government revenue, it will also attract all sorts of troublesome ideologies. There is no doubt that nationalist independence movements would spread like wildfire in no time. Even though everyone agreed not to spread revolutionary ideas, such agreements are often just for show. Perhaps to avoid backlash, they might hold back a bit on the European continent, but the colonies are certainly not part of that restraint. Once nationalism begins to spread, the colonial governments’ grip on power will face much greater challenges. Higher income will be matched by even higher expenses. Whether it ends in profit or loss is difficult to say for sure. However, the spread of nationalist ideas takes time. In the short term, there are still benefits. This means the problems will fall on future leaders, while the achievements can be claimed in the present. Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Childers reminded them, “The Russians have already made their stance clear. If we implement the food self-sufficiency plan, they will withdraw from the free trade system. We have to consider the potential chain reaction triggered by Russia’s withdrawal. If all the major grain-exporting countries follow suit and pull out of the free trade system, the consequences will be serious.” In fact, it would not even require all grain exporters to withdraw. If Russia and Austria exit together, the system would no longer function. In this era of survival of the fittest, the free trade system depends not only on political and diplomatic means but even more on military backing. Many smaller nations joined the system simply to avoid isolation and to escape suppression by the great powers. This was also why no one could do anything about France’s withdrawal. France was a major power with considerable strength of its own. Suppressing it would come at a high cost. When the gains are not proportional to the price, naturally no one is willing to take the lead. If Russia and Austria were to withdraw as well, the free trade system would lose its main land-based military backers entirely. No matter how powerful the Royal Navy may be, it cannot operate on land, and its deterrent power alone would not be enough. Foreign Secretary George said, “There is no such thing as a perfect solution in this world. With every gain, there is always a loss. If we compromise just because the Russians threaten to leave the free trade system, where does that leave Britain’s dignity? What happens if something like this happens again in the future? Do we keep compromising, or do we draw a firm line?” Britain also cares about saving face. Even if concessions must be made, they cannot come at the expense of national pride. Unfortunately, the Russians failed to recognize this. What should have been handled behind closed doors was instead dragged into the open, making it so that even if the British government wanted to compromise, it had to think very carefully. If this touched a nerve among the public and the opposition seized on it, the consequences could be serious. In a way, the Russian government’s forceful stance only strengthened the British government’s resolve. Prime Minister Gladstone let out a quiet sigh and said helplessly, “Our trade with the Russians is limited. It would be best to preserve that market, but if we can’t, then there’s no need to be overly courteous. Austria, after all, is also a beneficiary of the free trade system. The Austrian government will not walk away from it.” *** https://postimg.cc/gallery/PwXsBkC (Maps of the current territories of the countries in this novel made by ScH)
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]
Comments
Post a Comment