Chapter 431: Subsequent Impacts |
The impact of the Suez Canal’s opening is profound, especially for the British, as their strategic dominance in the Mediterranean is no longer assured.
What worries the British government most is that India is now exposed right under the noses of the French and Austrians. With the Suez Canal open, the distance between these two countries and India has been significantly reduced.
Don’t be naive and say they have no ambitions towards India. The real reason is that France and Austria lacked the strength to confidently wrest India from the British.
Who wouldn’t be tempted by the world’s richest colony placed right on the table? The value of this single colony exceeds the combined worth of the French and Austrian colonies.
At least for this era, that’s the case. The potential of the African continent has yet to be realized, and the importance of its resources is not yet recognized. Purely from the perspective of economic benefits, one India surpasses the entire African continent.
It’s not that John Russell has a persecution complex; reality dictates that he must remain vigilant. A moment’s negligence could lead to them being toppled.
The former hegemon, Spain, was overthrown this way. Now it is the British turn to defend their position, while others come to challenge them.
How to address the impact brought about by the opening of the Suez Canal has become the most pressing issue for the British government.
The First Lord of the Admiralty, Edward, warned, “With France and Austria controlling the Suez Canal, the gateway to the Indian Ocean is open to them.
Strategically, we are facing a severe challenge. From now on, both the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific will be threatened by France and Austria.”
This is the immediate threat. Currently, the Suez Canal is only open to civilian ships, with warships not allowed to pass through.
However, this restriction only applies to other countries. Naturally, the two shareholders, France and Austria, are not subject to this limitation.
Undoubtedly, this is targeted at the British. The Suez Canal is a joint venture controlled by the French and Austrian governments, so the rules they set prioritize political interests.
Kicking the British out means that both countries will significantly enhance their competitiveness in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, making it easier for them to expand their influence in these regions.
Detouring around the Cape of Good Hope is too far. The time lost during this voyage has already seriously threatened British maritime supremacy.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Agarwal added, “It’s not just our military that is being challenged; commercially, we are also being impacted.
The opening of the Suez Canal means that Austrian goods will become more competitive in Asian markets, turning our former advantage of low transportation costs into a disadvantage.”
Considering transportation costs, this outcome was in fact inevitable. By this day and age, the industrial empire the British had once prided themselves on was on the decline.
Their technological advantage no longer exists. Many factories have outdated equipment and higher labor costs, leading to increased production costs. As a result, they are at a disadvantage in international competition.
These issues have been masked by the colonies. With vast colonial markets, British capitalists have not realized this crisis, or if they have, they haven’t taken it seriously.
In international markets outside the colonies, the market share of British goods is declining year by year, with France and Austria both encroaching on British markets.
Although the market share taken isn’t very large and hasn’t attracted much attention from the public, the upper echelons of the government are well aware of it.
After pondering for a while, Prime Minister John Russell asked, “These problems do exist. How do you plan to solve them?”
Identifying problems is not enough; the key is to solve them. As the world’s dominant power, the British face various problems daily, and the government’s role is to solve them.
The Colonial Secretary, Steve, suggested, “We are currently attacking Ethiopia. If successful, we could take control of the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and thus control the entrance to the Red Sea.
However, it is a natural strait, about 26-32 kilometers wide, making it very difficult to blockade.
It could also trigger a strong backlash from France and Austria. If they take direct action, we wouldn’t be able to hold it without deploying the entire Royal Navy.
The best approach is to target Egypt, either by directly occupying Egypt and taking control of the Suez Canal or by seizing the Sinai Peninsula from the Austrians. But this is very challenging. Since the Suez Canal opened, the Austrian government has increased their garrison there, currently around one division strong.”
The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait is similar to the Strait of Gibraltar. Even if the British controlled it, they wouldn’t dare to block the shipping channels, as this would provoke widespread anger.
France and Austria are not pushovers. If they feel threatened, no one can guarantee they won’t take risky actions and directly challenge the British.
After seeing Prussia challenge Russia, the British lost that confidence. Recklessness can be disastrous. If the Prussians dared to confront the Russians, who’s to say the French and Austrians wouldn’t dare to confront them?
Both are land power empires. Losing their navies wouldn’t be fatal for them. If they engaged the British in a mutually destructive conflict, it would be a strategic victory for France and Austria.
Even though Britain has a stronger shipbuilding industry and can replenish its navy faster, that’s only an advantage against one country. Combined, France and Austria would still be only slightly worse than them.
Looking at the two-power standard, it’s clear that while their words are grand, achieving this goal remains a distant dream.
Forcibly seizing the Suez Canal is not a good idea, as it could easily ignite conflict. The British Empire was not prepared to go to war with two large empires, and even a war with just one of them would be disastrous.
If they win, they won’t be able to recover the war costs; if they lose, they risk losing world supremacy and the colonial empire.
France and Austria are different. Even if they lose the war, they have enough strength to retain their African colonies.
The British Army was relatively small, and even if they wanted to seize the canal, they lacked the capability. A naval blockade is ineffective against a land power, and the African continent’s coastline is thousands of kilometers long, making it impossible to blockade completely.
Foreign Secretary Raistlin opposed, saying, “Using military action is the worst option. Not only would it fail to achieve our goals, but it could also make things worse.
The Suez Canal is already open, and trying to close it again is something France and Austria would never agree to. Since that’s the case, why don’t we aim for a more realistic goal and join in?
While the Suez Canal has high strategic value, the canal company may not immediately turn a profit. The high construction costs have already caused the shareholders to lose confidence.
We can buy some shares and make our voice heard within the canal company. France and Austria can’t prevent legitimate commercial trade.”
Raistlin’s proposal was exactly what Prime Minister John Russell wanted. It’s not about being weak or cowardly, but about the need to pursue realistic interests.
Speak with fists to the weak and with rules to the strong—this is the code of conduct for 19th-century imperialism. Among the great powers, naturally, everything should be done according to the rules.
Looking through history, when has the British Empire ever acted impulsively? In the original timeline, the British only acted impulsively once, resulting in severe self-inflicted damage, a mountain of debt, and the loss of world dominance.
Before John Russell could speak, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Edward, objected, “It’s not that simple. France and Austria aren’t fools; will they really let us join in?
If the two governments oppose it, we won’t be able to buy any shares even if we offer two to three times the price.
It’s said that publicly traded shares have no decision-making power; the French and Austrian governments hold all the rights. Shareholders only have the right to oversee the canal company’s finances.”
He wasn’t trying to provoke a war, but the navy needed to show its strength to prove its importance and secure next year’s budget.
There’s no other choice; this is the most important job for the First Lord of the Admiralty. The specifics of naval construction, training, and command are military matters. As a civilian appointee, he’s an outsider in these areas.
Gaining the navy’s support is straightforward: secure enough budget from the government. The less he meddles in other matters, the happier everyone is.
The approach that best serves the navy’s interests is to send the Royal Navy to intimidate France and Austria, and then negotiate an agreement.
No matter the outcome, the Navy will have contributed, which will provide an advantage in the next battle for budgets.
Essentially, this is no different from buying stocks first and then negotiating with France and Austria; only the method of expression differs. In the former, the Foreign Office takes the lead, while in the latter, the Navy plays a significant role.
...
While the British government was debating, the French government was also discussing the Suez Canal, albeit with a different approach.
Napoleon III was hesitating—should he immediately send troops to occupy Egypt to ensure control over the canal?
After years of infiltration, France had become the most influential power in Egypt, cultivating a significant number of pro-French supporters.
If given a few more years, he might be able to control Egypt without bloodshed. However, sending troops to occupy Egypt now would inevitably lead to war.
Minister of War Edmond Le Bœuf suggested, “Your Majesty, with just a hundred thousand troops, we could occupy Egypt within a year.
If our goal is merely to control the Suez Canal, then fifty thousand troops would suffice.
Egypt’s strategic location is crucial. It is the most important part of our African strategy. If we delay and let Britain and Austria act first, it will cause us endless trouble.”
Egypt can be considered right at France’s doorstep. Winning or occupying Egypt is not the issue; the only question is whether it is worth it.
This also involves a strategic decision for France: should the Mediterranean strategy take priority, or should it be the Central European strategy?
Once Egypt is targeted, the next step in the French government’s strategy would be Italy. The various Italian states are all targets for the French, with Sicily being the primary focus.
Abandoning plans to target Egypt would mean focusing on Prussia, Belgium, and the German Federal Empire, with all territories west of the Rhine River included in France’s Central European strategy.
This time, the French military was in harmony, all favoring the Mediterranean strategy. Picking the softer target, they would face weaker opponents in the Mediterranean strategy compared to the Central European strategy.
However, this wasn’t enough to make Napoleon III decide. Attacking Egypt would inevitably strain Franco-British relations, causing great unease among those with “anglophobia.”
Foreign Minister Abraham added, “Your Majesty, we have no choice now. We can refrain from occupying Egypt, but we cannot prevent Britain and Austria from doing so.
Even with allies, their ability to restrain Austria would last no more than a decade, whereas we have no means to impose any limits on the British.
Once Egypt falls into their hands, our Mediterranean strategy is doomed. The future of France will likely be difficult.”
This is a fact; the world is almost fully divided. They are on the last train of world partitioning. If they don’t strive to seize the remaining opportunities, the future will be bleak.
The British haven’t occupied Egypt but not because the British government doesn’t want to. There are two main factors: concern about provoking a backlash from France and Austria, and uncertainty about defeating the Egyptians.
The Egyptian government has a new army, which is not weak. This poses a significant challenge to Britain’s small land force.
Moreover, they are already engaged in a conflict with Ethiopia and lack sufficient troops to commit to the Egyptian front. If they lose again, it would be embarrassing.
After entering the 19th century, the performance of the British Army was quite poor. They lost several wars in succession, and although there were specific reasons for each defeat, it nonetheless tarnished the reputation of the British Army.
Let’s not even mention the Napoleonic Wars; losing to Napoleon was par for the course and needs no explanation.
In 1814, when they attacked the Kingdom of Nepal, thirty thousand British troops were pushed back by over ten thousand Gurkhas. They barely managed to win the war through a war of attrition, leveraging their national strength.
In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of British troops fought bitterly for three years, only to end in failure.
Subsequently, in the Near East War, the British lost. Then they invaded Persia, which again ended in failure, forcing them to reach a compromise.
Now they are engaged in a tough battle with Ethiopia, and the final outcome remains uncertain.
Despite a series of failures, the politicians in Britain haven’t collapsed; their mental resilience must be commendable. Now, how can they dare to place high hopes on the army?
Reasons? Sorry, nobody needs those. A loss is a loss; no amount of explanation can change that. The politicians in Britain have grown accustomed to having little confidence in the army.
In contrast, the French are different. After the Russians fell from their pedestal, the French began to claim themselves as the world’s leading land military power, naturally brimming with confidence.
