Holy Roman Empire

The impact of the Suez Canal navigation is profound, especially for the British, their strategic sovereignty in the Mediterranean no longer exists.

What worries the London government most is that India is exposed to the eyes of the two countries. After the Suez Canal was opened, the distance between the two countries and India was greatly reduced.

Do n’t say silly words without ambition, no idea of ​​printing, the real reason is that France and Austria have insufficient power, and they are not sure of seizing India from the British.

The richest colony in the world is placed on the table. Who does n’t care?The value of this colony exceeds the sum of the colonies of France and Austria.

At least in this era, it is.The potential of the African continent has not yet been demonstrated, and the importance of resources has not been taken seriously.Looking purely at the economic benefits it brings, one India surpasses the entire African continent.

It is not that John Russell has a delusion of being killed, but reality tells him that he must be vigilant.As long as you take a nap, you may be overthrown.

That's how the overlord Spain was lifted by them.Now it's their defense, others challenge.

How to solve the impact of the opening of the Suez Canal has become the most troublesome issue for the London government.

Navy Secretary Edward warned: "The two countries control the Suez Canal and the doors of the Indian Ocean are open to them.

From now on, the voyage from Austria to India is only half of us, and the voyage from France to India has also been shortened by 40%.

In the global strategy, we have been seriously challenged.From now on, both the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific will face the threat of France and Austria."

This is a current threat. The Suez Canal is only open to civilian ships, and warships are not within the scope of traffic.

However, this restriction is only valid for other countries, and the two shareholders of Faw 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 French and Austrian governments, 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 is greatly enhanced, and it is more conducive to the expansion of the sphere of influence of the two countries in these regions.

The detour from the Cape of Good Hope is too far, and the delay in the voyage has seriously threatened the British maritime hegemony.

Finance Minister Agarwal added: "Not only is the military challenged, we are also faced with an impact in business.

After the opening of the Suez Canal, it means that the competitiveness of Austrian commodities in the Asian region has increased, and our original advantage of low transportation costs has now become a disadvantage."

Considering transportation costs, this is actually the result of being forced out.Today, the industrial empire that the British are proud of is going downhill.

Technical advantages no longer exist, and many factories are already at a disadvantage in international competition due to old equipment and higher labor wages, leading to increased production costs.

These problems were all covered up by the colonies. With the vast colonial market, the British capitalists did not notice the crisis, or did not pay attention to it.

In the international market outside the colony, the market share of British goods is decreasing year by year, and both France and Austria are seizing the British market.

It's just that this market share is not too large, and it hasn't attracted the attention of the outside world, but the high-level government is still clear.

After a moment of contemplation, Prime Minister John Russell asked: "These problems are real, how are you going to solve them?"

Found that the problem is useless, the key is to solve the problem.As the world's hegemony, the British encounter various problems of one kind or another every day. What the government has to do is solve the problems.

Colonial Secretary Steve suggested: "We are attacking Ethiopia. If it goes well, we can control the Mande Strait and control the Red Sea portal.

However, this is a natural strait, with a width of about 26 to 32 kilometers, and 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 the Royal Navy is fully pressed up.

The best way is to start with Egypt, or directly occupy Egypt and control the Suez Canal in your hands.

Or grab the Sinai from the Austrians, but it is very difficult.Since the Suez Canal was opened to traffic, the Vienna government has increased its garrison in the local area, and now has approximately one division of troops."

The Strait of Mande is similar to the Strait of Gibraltar. Even if the British control it, they dare not block the waterway, which will cause public anger.

France and Austria are not soft persimmons. If they feel threatened, no one can guarantee that they will take the risk and go straight up.

After Prussia challenged the Russians, the British did not have this confidence.The impulse is the devil. The Prussians dared to make waves of the Russians. Didn't France and Austria dare to wave against them?

Anyway, both are land-power empires, and the navy will be dead if they fight it out.As long as they lose both sides, it will be a strategic victory for France and Austria.

Even if the British shipbuilding industry is stronger, the Navy will replenish faster.But this is only for one family, and it is a little worse than the two countries combined.

You can tell by looking at the two strong standards. The slogan shook the earth and earth, and achieving the goal is still far away.

Taking the Suez Canal is not a good idea, it is easy to detonate contradictions.The British Empire was not ready to fight against the two great empires, and even fought against either of them.

If you win, you cannot collect the cost of war; if you lose, world hegemony will be lost, and the colonial empire will not be guaranteed.

France and Austria are different. Even if they lose the war, they have enough strength to protect the African colonies.

The size of the British Army is so small, even if they want to grab it, they do not have that strength.The maritime blockade is completely useless for this continent, and the coastline of the African continent is also tens of thousands of kilometers, which simply cannot be blocked.

Foreign Minister Raistlin objected: "Using force is the worst way to do it. Not only will it fail to achieve its purpose, it may make things worse.

The Suez Canal has already been opened, and if you want to block it back to France and Austria, you will definitely not agree.In this case, why don't we step back and join in?

Although the strategic value of the Suez Canal is high, the Canal Company may not be able to make a profit immediately, and the high construction costs have lost the confidence of shareholders.

We can buy a part of the stock and make our voice heard inside the Canal Company, and neither France nor Austria can stop legal commercial trade."

Raistlin's proposal was in the heart of Prime Minister John Russell. It was not that they were bullied and hardened, but that it was a need for real interests.

Speaking fists with the weak and rules with the strong, this is the code of conduct for imperialism in the 19th century.Everyone is a power. Naturally, we must follow the rules.

Throughout history, when did the British Empire become impulsive?The original British in space and time was so impulsive, and as a result, not only did he get toiled and wounded, he owed a butt debt, he also lost world hegemony.

Not waiting for John Russell to speak, Navy Secretary Edward objected: "It's not that simple, France and Austria are not fools, are they willing to let us in?

If we are opposed by the governments of the two countries, we will not be able to buy stocks even if we offer two or three times the price.

It is said that there is no decision-making power in privately-held stocks, and all rights are in the hands of the French and Austrian governments. The shareholders only have the right to supervise the finance of the Canal Company."

It is not that he wants to provoke war, but that the Navy needs to lighten up 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.Specific naval construction, training, and command is a matter for the military. A navy minister whose civil background is a layman.

It is also very simple to gain the support of the navy, as long as you get enough budget from the government.In other things, the less he manages, the happier everyone will be.

The best way to serve the navy is to send the Royal Navy out to deter the two countries, and then reach an agreement.

Regardless of its role, the Navy has a small contribution to it and has the advantage in the next budget battle.

There is no difference between the essence and the first negotiation of the stock and then the negotiation between France and Austria, but the expression is different.The former is dominated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while the latter is dominated by the Navy Department.

...

The London government is arguing, and the Paris government is also discussing.All around the Suez Canal, but the treatment is different.

Napoleon III was hesitant to send troops to occupy Egypt immediately to ensure control of the canal.

After so many years of infiltration, France has become Egypt's largest strength and has trained 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 troops are sent to occupy Egypt, a war is indispensable.

The Secretary of the Army, Edmund Lubbov, proposed: "Your Majesty, only one hundred thousand troops are needed, and within a year we can occupy Egypt.

If only the Suez Canal is controlled, then 50,000 troops can also achieve their goals.

Egypt ’s strategic position is very important and it is the most important part of our African strategy.If it drags on, it will be troublesome for Britain and Austria to start first."

Egypt can be considered at the door of a French country. Winning or occupying Egypt is not a problem. The only thing to think about is that the value is not worth it.

This also involves France's strategic choice, whether it is to prioritize the Mediterranean strategy or the Central European strategy.

Once working on Egypt, the next step of the French government's strategy is the Italian region. The Italian states are among the French targets, and Sicily bears the brunt.

To give up on Egypt is to strike the attention of the federal governments of Prussia, Belgium, and Germany. The territory west of the Rhineland is in the French European Central European strategy.

This time, the French military was very harmonious and chose the strategy of giving priority to the Mediterranean.The persimmons are looking for soft squeezes. For the China-Europe strategy and the Mediterranean strategy, the enemy to be faced with is the soft persimmons.

This is not enough for Napoleon III to make up his mind. Once France takes action against Egypt, it will inevitably make the relationship between Britain and France tense, which makes the patients with "phobia" very upset.

Foreign Minister Abraham added: "Your Majesty, we have no choice now. We can not occupy Egypt, but we cannot prevent Britain and Austria from occupying Egypt.

Even if there is an ally, it will restrain Austria for at most ten years, and the British can't limit it at all.

Once Egypt fell into their hands, our Mediterranean strategy was overwhelmed.I'm afraid France will have a hard time going forward."

This is a fact, the whole world is about to divide up.It is now the last train to divide the world. If we do not try hard to seize the last cake, we will have a hard time in the future.

The British did not seize Egypt, not just the London government did not want to.There are mainly two factors: on the one hand, they are worried about triggering a rebound between France and Austria, on the other hand, they are not sure to get the Egyptians down.

The Egyptian government has a new army, and its strength is not weak.This is also a big challenge for the British pocket version of land.

Moreover, they are still PK with Ethiopia, not enough troops to invest in the Egyptian battlefield.If you lose again, you will be embarrassed.

After entering the 19th century, the performance of the British Army was not very good.Losing several wars in a row, although there are special reasons, but this also caused the British Army to declare sweeping.

Not mentioning the anti-French war, losing to Napoleon is normal operation and needs no explanation.

In 1814, attacking the Kingdom of Nepal, 30,000 British troops were pushed back by more than 10,000 Gurkhas. Finally, they used the national strength to fight the war of attrition and barely won the war.

In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of British soldiers fought hard for three years and ended in failure.

In the following Near East War, the British lost; afterwards they invaded Persia and ended up in failure, forced to reach a compromise.

Now attacking Ethiopia is still in a hard fight, and the final result is still unknown.

After successive failures, politicians in London have not collapsed. Even if the spiritual world is strong, how dare you have high hopes for the army?

reason?Sorry, everyone doesn't need this thing.If you lose, you lose. Explain more than nothing.London's politicians have lacked confidence in the army and have formed a habit.

In contrast, the French are different.After the Russians fell to the altar, they would boast of being the world's first army powerhouse, and naturally no lack of confidence.