Chapter 434: Subsequent impact

The impact of the Suez Canal navigation was profound, especially for the British, their strategic sovereignty in the Mediterranean ceased to exist.
What worries the London government most is that India has been exposed to the eyes of France and Austria. After the Suez Canal was sailed, the distance between India and India has been greatly reduced.
Don't say stupid words without ambition, no idea of ​​printing, the real reason is that France and Austria have insufficient strength and are not sure to take India from the British.
The richest colony in the world is on the table. Who cares? The value of this colony is more than the sum of the colonies of France and Austria.
This is true, at least in this era. The potential of the African continent has not yet been realized, and the importance of resources has not been taken seriously. From the perspective of economic benefits, one India surpasses the entire African continent.
It's not John Russell's delusion of victimization, but reality tells him that he must be vigilant. As long as you take a nap, you may be overthrown.
That's how they overthrew Spain, then the overlord. Now it becomes their guard, others come to challenge.
How to deal with the impact of the opening of the Suez Canal has become the biggest headache for the London government right now.
Navy Secretary Edward warned: "France and Austria control the Suez Canal and the door of the Indian Ocean is open to them.
From now on, Austria ’s voyage to India is only half of what we need, and France ’s voyage to India has been shortened by 40%.
In global strategy, we have been severely challenged. From now on, both the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific will face threats from France and Austria. "
This is the immediate threat. The Suez Canal is only open to civilian ships for navigation. Warships and the like are not within the scope of traffic.
However, this restriction is only valid for other countries, and the two shareholders of Fao will naturally not be restricted.
There is no doubt that this is set for the British. The Suez Canal is a joint holding company of the governments of France and Austria, and the rules formulated are naturally political priorities.
Kicking out the British means that the competitiveness of the two countries in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific has been greatly enhanced, which is more conducive to the expansion of their sphere of influence in these regions.
The detour from Cape of Good Hope is too far away, and the delays in the voyage have seriously threatened the British's maritime hegemony.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Agarwal added: "It is not just the military that is being challenged, we are also facing a shock in business.
The opening of the Suez Canal means that the competitiveness of Austrian goods in the Asian region has increased, and our original low transportation cost advantage has now become a disadvantage. "
Considering transportation costs, this is actually the result of being forced out. Today, the proud British industrial empire is going downhill.
Technical advantages no longer exist, and many factories are already at a disadvantage in international competition because of the outdated equipment and higher manual wages, leading to increased production costs.
These problems were covered up by the colonies. With the vast colonial market, the British capitalists were not aware of the crisis or found it and did not pay attention to it.
In the international markets outside the colonies, the market share of British goods is declining year by year, and both France and Austria are seizing the British market.
It's just that this market share is not too big and hasn't attracted the attention of the outside world.
After pondering for a while, Prime Minister John Russell asked: "These problems are real. How are you going to solve them?"
Finding the problem is useless, the key is to solve the problem. As a world hegemon, the British face all kinds of problems every day. What the government has to do is to solve the problems.
Colonial Minister Steve proposed: "We are attacking Ethiopia. If it goes well, we can control the Strait of Mande and the Red Sea Gateway.
However, this is a natural strait with a width of about 26 to 32 kilometers. It is very difficult to block it.
It may also trigger a strong backlash between France and Austria. If they take direct action, they will not be able to hold it unless they press the Royal Navy all over.
The best way is to start from Egypt, or directly occupy Egypt and control the Suez Canal in your hands.
Or grab the Sinai from the Austrians, but this is difficult. Since the opening of the Suez Canal, the Vienna government has increased its presence there and now has approximately one division. "
The Strait of Mander is similar to the Strait of Gibraltar. Even if the British control it, they dare not block the channel, which will cause anger.
France and Austria are not soft persimmons. If they feel threatened, no one can dare to guarantee that they will take the risk and go straight.
After Prussia challenged the Russians, the British did not have that confidence. The impulse is the devil, and the Prussians dare to wave the Russians, but France and Austria have not dared to wave against them?
Anyway, both are land power empires, and the navy will die if it is exhausted. As long as they are defeated, they will be a strategic victory for France and Austria.
Even if Britain's shipbuilding industry is stronger, the Navy's replenishment will be faster. But this is only for one family. Compared with France and Austria, it is a little worse.
Just look at the two strong standards, and the slogan is astounding. The goal is still far away.
Forcing the Suez Canal is not a good idea, and it is easy to set off contradictions. The British Empire was not ready to go to war with either of the two empires, or even killed one of them.
If you win, you will not be able to recover the cost of war; if you lose, the world hegemony will be lost, and the colonial empire will not be able to protect it.
France and Austria are different. Even if they lose the war, they have enough strength to keep the African colonies.
The size of the British Army is so small. Even if they want to grab it, they don't have the strength. The maritime blockade is useless for such a continent. The coastline of the African continent is also tens of thousands of kilometers, and it cannot be blocked at all.
Foreign Minister Raslin objected: "Using force is the worst way. Not only will it fail to achieve its purpose, it may even make things worse.
The Suez Canal has been opened, and the two countries that want to block back to France and Austria will certainly not agree. That being the case, why don't we settle for the next and join in?
Although the strategic value of the Suez Canal is high, the Canal Company may not be able to profit immediately, and the high construction costs have deprived shareholders of confidence.
We can buy a part of the stock and make our voice within the Canal Company. France and Austria cannot prevent legitimate commercial trade. "
Raistlin's proposal is right in the arms of Prime Minister John Russell. It is not that they are bullying and scary, but that they are needed for real interests.
Talking fists to the weak and rules to the strong are the norms of 19th-century imperialism. Everyone is a great power, so naturally we have to follow the rules.
Throughout history, when was the British Empire impulsive? Originally, the British were impulsive for such a time. As a result, they not only suffered five injuries and seven injuries, but also owed a lot of debt, but also lost world hegemony.
After waiting for John Russell to speak, Secretary of the Navy Edward said: "It's not that simple. France and Austria are not fools. Will they let us in?
If we are opposed by the governments of the two countries, we will not be able to buy stocks even at two or three times the price.
It is said that private stocks have no decision-making power, all rights are in the hands of the governments of France and Austria, and shareholders only have the right to monitor the finances of the Canal Company. "
It is not that he wants to provoke war, but that the navy needs to lighten its muscles and prove its importance in order to compete for the budget of the coming year.
No way, this is the most important job of the Secretary of the Navy. The specific construction, training, and command of the navy is a matter for the military. His naval minister, who is a civil servant, is simply a layman.
It is very simple to get the support of the navy, as long as you get enough budget from the government. Other things, the less he manages, the happier everyone will be.
It is in the navy's best interest to send the Royal Navy out to deter France and Austria, and then everyone can reach an agreement.
No matter how much it has, there is a navy's credit for it, and it has an advantage in the next budget battle.
There is no difference between receiving the stock first and negotiating with France and Austria, but the way of expression is different. The former is dominated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the latter by the Navy.
...
The London government is arguing and the Paris government is discussing it. They all revolve around the Suez Canal, but they are handled differently.
Napoleon III was hesitant to immediately send troops to occupy Egypt to ensure control of the canal.
After so many years of infiltration, France has become Egypt's largest strength, and has cultivated a large number of pro-French leading parties.
If in a few more years, he might be able to control Egypt without any blood. Now if a troop is sent to occupy Egypt, a war is still indispensable.
Secretary of the Army Edmund Lebeuf suggested: "Your Majesty, with only 100,000 troops, we can occupy Egypt within one year.
If only the Suez Canal is controlled, then 50,000 troops can achieve their goals.
Egypt's strategic position is very important and is the most important part of our African strategy. If you drag on, it will be troublesome for Britain and Austria to get started. "
Egypt can be considered to be at the door of the French country. It is not a problem to win or occupy Egypt. The only thing to think about is that it is worth it.
This also involves France's strategic choice, whether to prioritize the Mediterranean strategy or China-EU strategy.
Once you start with Egypt, the next strategy for the French government is the Italian region. The Italian states are among the French's goals, and Sicily is the first.
To give up on Egypt is to pay attention to the Prussian, Belgian, and German Federal Governments. The territories west of the Rhineland are in the French Central European strategy.
This time the French military is very harmonious and has chosen to prioritize the Mediterranean strategy. Persimmons are looking for a soft grip. For the China-Europe strategy, the enemy facing the Mediterranean strategy is soft persimmons.
This is not enough to make Napoleon III resolve. Once France strikes Egypt, it will inevitably make the relationship between Britain and France tense, which will make patients with "phobia" very disturbed.
Foreign Minister Abraham added: "His Majesty, we have no choice now. We can not occupy Egypt, but we cannot stop Britain and Austria from occupying Egypt.
Even with the existence of allies, Austria is bound for a maximum of ten years, and the British can't limit it at all.
Once Egypt fell into their hands, our Mediterranean strategy was ruined. I am afraid that the road ahead for France will be difficult. "
This is a fact, and the world is almost divided. Now is the last train to divide the world. If we do not strive to seize the last cake, we will have a hard time in the future.
The British did not preempt Egypt, but it was not just the London government that did not want to. There are two main factors: on the one hand, they are worried about triggering a rebound in France and Austria, and on the other, they are not sure to take the Egyptians down.
The Egyptian government has a new army and is not weak. This is also a big challenge for the British pocket version of land.
Moreover, they are still in PK with Ethiopia and do not have enough troops to enter the Egyptian battlefield. If you lose again, it will be a shame.
In the 19th century, the British Army did not perform well. Lost several times in a row, although for special reasons, this also made the British Army statement sweep the ground.
The anti-French war is not mentioned. Losing to Napoleon is normal operation and no explanation is needed.
In 1814, when they attacked the Kingdom of Nepal, 30,000 British troops were pushed back by more than 10,000 Gurkhas. Finally, they relied on national strength to fight the war of attrition and barely won the war.
In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan, tens of thousands of British troops fought for three years, and ended in failure.
In the following Near East War, the British lost; later invasion of Persia, ended in failure and was forced to reach a compromise.
The attack on Ethiopia is still in the bitter battle, and the final result is unknown.
After successive failures, London's politicians have not collapsed. Even if the spiritual world is strong, how dare to place high hopes on the army?
reason? Sorry, everyone doesn't need this thing. If you lose, you lose, no matter how much the explanation is no good. Politicians in London have a lack of confidence in the Army and have formed a habit.
In contrast, the French are different. After the Russians fell to the altar, they were about to claim to be the world's first army power, and naturally they lacked confidence.
If you like the Holy Roman Empire, please collect it: (EbookFREE.me) The Holy Roman Empire has the fastest literature update.