Holy Roman Empire - Chapter 431
Chapter 431: Chapter 4, Subsequent Impact
The opening of the Suez Canal had profound implications, especially for the British, whose strategic sovereignty in the Mediterranean ceased to exist.
What most troubled the London Government was that India was now under the watchful eyes of France and Austria, and with the opening of the Suez Canal, the distance to India had been significantly reduced for both countries.
Let’s not speak foolishly of having no ambitions; the only reason France and Austria did not entertain the idea of seizing India is that the two countries lacked the strength to snatch it from the British.
The wealthiest colony in the world was laid out on the table—who wouldn’t be tempted? The value of this single colony exceeded the total of all the colonies of France and Austria.
At least in this era, it was so. Africa’s potential had not yet been revealed, and the importance of its resources had not been recognized. Looking purely at economic benefits, one India outweighed the entire African Continent.
John Russell wasn’t paranoid; reality told him he had to stay vigilant. Just one slip could mean being toppled.
The former hegemon, Spain, had been ousted in just this manner. Now it was their turn to defend the ring against challengers.
How to address the impact brought by the inauguration of the Suez Canal had become the thorniest issue for the London Government.
Navy Minister Edward cautioned, “France and Austria now control the Suez Canal, and the gates of the Indian Ocean have been flung open to them.
From now on, Austria’s journey to India is merely half of ours, and France’s journey to India has been shortened by forty percent.
On a global strategic level, we have faced a severe challenge. Henceforth, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific will be under the threat from France and Austria.”
This was the immediate threat, as the Suez Canal was at the moment only open for civilian ships, not including warships.
However, this restriction was only effective against other nations; the two shareholder nations, France and Austria, naturally were not bound by it.
Without doubt, this was a measure targeted at the British. The Suez Canal was a joint venture owned by the governments of France and Austria, with politically motivated regulations.
Kicking out the British would mean that France and Austria greatly increased their competitiveness in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, more favorably positioning themselves to expand their influence in these regions.
The detour via the Cape of Good Hope was far too long, and the time lost during the journey now seriously threatened the British maritime hegemony.
Finance Minister Agawar added, “Not only have we faced a challenge militarily, but also commercially.
The opening of the Suez Canal means that Austrian goods now have greater competitiveness in the Asian region, turning our original advantage of low transportation costs into a disadvantage.”
Taking transportation costs into account, this was indeed a compelled outcome. To this day, the industrial empire that the British had been proud of was on the decline.
The former technological advantage was gone, and many factories faced increased production costs due to outdated equipment and higher labor wages, placing them at a disadvantage in international competition.
These issues were masked by the colonies; British capitalists, with their vast colonial markets, either failed to notice this crisis or neglected its significance.
In international markets outside of the colonies, the market share of British goods was declining year by year, with France and Austria both encroaching on the British market.
The share of this market wasn’t very large, which had not caught the public’s attention, but the upper echelons of the government were well aware of it.
After pondering for a moment, Prime Minister John Russell asked, “These are real problems. What are your solutions?”
It’s one thing to recognize a problem; the key is to solve it. As the world’s leading power, the British encountered various issues every day; the government’s role was to address them.
Colonial Minister Steve suggested, “We are currently attacking Ethiopia. If successful, we could take advantage of the situation to control the Mandeb Strait and command the gateway to the Red Sea.
However, it is a natural strait with a width of approximately 26 to 32 kilometers, making it very difficult to blockade.
It might also provoke a strong backlash from France and Austria, who, if they take direct action, couldn’t be warded off unless the entire Royal Navy was deployed.
The best method is still to start with Egypt, either by directly occupying it to take control of the Suez Canal or by snatching the Sinai Peninsula from the Austrians—though that is quite difficult. Since the opening of the Suez Canal, the Vienna Government has increased its military presence there, now roughly one division in strength.”
The Mandeb Strait and the Strait of Gibraltar are similar; even if the British controlled them, they wouldn’t dare block the passage, as it would provoke a general outrage.
France and Austria are no pushovers; perceived threats might lead them to act rashly and pounce without a second thought.
After witnessing the Prussians challenge the Russians, the British no longer had that confidence. Impulsiveness is the devil; if the Prussians dared to rush at the Russians, what’s to say that France and Austria wouldn’t dare to lunge at them?
After all, both are land powers; even if they exhaust their navy, it won’t threaten their existence. Engaging in a conflict damaging to both sides would constitute a strategic victory for France and Austria.
Even with a stronger shipbuilding industry and a faster replenishment rate for the navy, the British still fell slightly short when compared to the combined forces of France and Austria.
See, the two powers talked a big game, but achieving their goals seemed ever distant.
Seizing the Suez Canal by force was not a sound idea and could easily detonate hostilities. The Great Britain Empire was not prepared for a war with two great empires, let alone any single one of them—such a war could be fatal.
Even if victorious, they wouldn’t recoup the war costs; if defeated, they might lose global hegemony, not to mention their colonial empire.
It’s different for France and Austria; even if they lost the war, they had enough strength to retain their African Colonies.
The British Army was only so large and even if desiring to seize territory, they lacked real power. Naval blockades were useless against such large continents; the African Continent had thousands of kilometers of coastline, impossible to blockade fully.
Foreign Minister Reslin opposed, “Using military force is the worst method; it wouldn’t achieve the goal and might make the situation even worse.
The Suez Canal is already open, and France and Austria definitely won’t agree to block it again. If so, why shouldn’t we back down and join them instead?
Although the strategic value of the Suez Canal is high, the Canal Company might not be immediately profitable, and the huge construction costs have already diminished the confidence of shareholders.”
“`
“We can certainly acquire a portion of the shares and make our voices heard within the Canal Company; neither France nor Austria will be able to stop legitimate commercial trade.”
Reslin’s proposal hit right in the sweet spot for Prime Minister John Russell, not because they are bullies towards the weak and cowards towards the strong, but because it is dictated by realistic interests.
To the weak, they talk of fists; to the strong, they talk of rules—this is the code of conduct for 19th-century imperialism. All are great powers, and naturally, the rules must be followed.
When has the Great Britain Empire ever acted rashly? In the original timeline, the British did act impulsively once, and as a result, they not only ended up battered and indebted but also lost world hegemony.
Before John Russell could speak, Navy Minister Edward objected, “It’s not that simple; France and Austria are not fools. Would they be willing to let us enter the field?
If we face opposition from both governments, even offering two or three times the price won’t get us the shares.
It is said that the publicly traded shares come with no decision-making power; all rights are in the hands of the governments of France and Austria, and the shareholders only have the right to oversee the financial affairs of the Canal Company.”
He wasn’t seeking to provoke a war, but the navy needed to flex its muscles to demonstrate its importance and thus vie for next year’s budget.
Regrettably, this is the most important job for the Minister of the Navy. Specific naval construction, training, and command—that’s the business of the military. As a government official who came from a civilian background, he’s a layman when it comes to naval affairs.
To gain the support of the navy is quite simple—just secure enough budget from the government. The less he’s involved in other matters, the happier everyone will be.
The course of action most in line with naval interests is to deploy the Royal Navy to intimidate France and Austria, and then reach an agreement.
No matter the effect, the navy will have its share of the credit, giving it an advantage in the next budget battle.
In essence, there’s no difference between first acquiring shares and then negotiating with France and Austria—just that the method of expression differs. The former is led by the Foreign Office, the latter gives prominence to the Navy.
…
The London Government is arguing, and the Paris Government is also discussing. Both revolve around the Suez Canal, just with different approaches.
Napoleon III is hesitating whether to send troops to occupy Egypt immediately to ensure control over the canal.
After years of infiltration, France has become Egypt’s primary power, nurturing a large faction of pro-French sympathizers.
A few more years, and he may be able to control Egypt without shedding blood. However, if he were to send troops now, a war would be inevitable.
Minister of the Army Edmond-Lebov suggested, “Your Majesty, we only need a hundred thousand troops, and we can occupy Egypt within one year.
If it’s just about controlling the Suez Canal, then fifty thousand troops would suffice.
Egypt’s strategic location is extremely important; it’s the most crucial part of our Africa strategy. If we delay and let the Anglo-Austrian two countries make the first move, it will be problematic.”
Egypt might as well be at France’s doorstep. Winning or occupying Egypt is not the question—the only consideration is whether it’s worth it.
This also involves France’s strategic choice, whether to prioritize the Mediterranean strategy or the Central Europe strategy.
Once action is taken against Egypt, the French government’s next strategic target will be the Italian Area. All Italian States are in France’s sights, with Sicily being a prime target.
However, giving up on Egypt means focusing on Prussia, Belgium, and the German Federal Government. The territory west of the Rhine River is within France’s Central Europe strategy.
This time, the French military is harmonious, choosing to prioritize the Mediterranean strategy. Picking on the soft targets is the prudent choice; the enemies faced in both the Central Europe and Mediterranean strategies are like low-hanging fruit.
This is not enough to make up Napoleon III’s mind. Should France act against Egypt, it would undoubtedly strain Anglo-French relations, which makes the “Fear of England” sufferer very uneasy.
Foreign Minister Abraham added, “Your Majesty, we do not have a choice now. We can choose not to occupy Egypt but we cannot prevent England and Austria from doing so.
Even with allies in place, it will restrain Austria at most for ten years, and the British are entirely beyond our control.
Once Egypt falls into their hands, our Mediterranean strategy will be ruined. The path for France’s future would become thorny, to say the least.”
This is the reality—the world is almost completely carved up. Now is the last call for dividing the world; if we do not seize the opportunity to claim the last pieces of the cake now, struggling days lie ahead.
The British have not occupied Egypt, and it’s not just because the London Government does not want to. Mainly, there are two factors: on one hand, they fear provoking a backlash from France and Austria; on the other hand, they are not confident in subduing the Egyptians.
The Egyptian Government has a strong new army. For the relatively small British army, this also poses a significant challenge.
Moreover, they are already in conflict with Ethiopia and lack sufficient forces to commit to the Egyptian theater. Losing there would be a humiliation.
Since the 19th century, the performance of the British army has been lackluster. Despite special reasons for their repeated losses, these incidents have brought the British army’s reputation to rock bottom.
The Anti-French Wars need no mention, losing to Napoleon was the norm, no need for explanations.
In 1814, when attacking the Kingdom of Nepal, thirty thousand British soldiers were pushed back by over ten thousand Gurkhas, only narrowly winning the war through attrition and national strength.
In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan, struggled for three years with tens of thousands of troops, and ultimately ended in failure.
Following this, the Near East War resulted in yet another British defeat; later, they invaded Persia, only to end in failure again, being forced to settle for a compromise.
Now, they are still embattled in Ethiopia, with the final outcome yet unclear.
A series of defeats and yet the politicians in London haven’t crumbled—which is admirable—but how can they still have high hopes for their army?
Excuses? I am sorry, no one needs them. A loss is a loss, and no amount of explanation will change that. The politicians in London have grown accustomed to their lack of confidence in the army.
On the other hand, the French are different. Once the Russians fell from their pedestal, they were ready to assume the title of the premier army in the world, naturally overflowing with confidence.
“`
