The impact of the opening of the Suez Canal was far-reaching, especially for the British, whose strategic sovereignty in the Mediterranean ceased to exist.

Most worrying for the London government is that India is exposed to the noses of France and Austria, and after the opening of the Suez Canal, the distance between the two countries to India has been greatly reduced.

Don't say stupid things without ambitions, there is no idea of attacking India, the real reason is that France and Austria are not strong enough to seize India from the British.

The richest colony in the world is on the table, and who doesn't care? The value of this colony is greater than that of the two colonies combined.

At least in this era, that's the case. The potential of the African continent has not yet been realized, and the importance of resources has not been taken seriously. In terms of purely economic benefits, one India is larger than the entire African continent.

It's not that John Russell has delusions of victimization, it's that reality tells him that he must be vigilant. As long as you take a nap, you can be overturned.

This is how Spain, the hegemon of the year, was overthrown by them. Now it's them who are guarding, and others are coming to challenge.

How to deal with the impact of the opening of the Suez Canal has become the biggest headache for the London government at the moment.

Admiral Edward warned: "France and Austria have control of the Suez Canal, and the gates of the Indian Ocean are open to them.

From now on, Austria will need to fly half the distance to India, and France will have to shorten the distance to India by 40 percent.

In terms of global strategy, we have been seriously challenged. From now on, both the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific will be threatened by France and Austria. ”

This is the immediate threat, the Suez Canal is only open to civilian ships, and 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 France and Austria will naturally not be restricted.

There is no doubt that this is set against the British. The Suez Canal is a joint holding company between the French and Austrian governments, and the rules set are naturally politically precedent.

Kicking the British out means that the two countries are much more competitive in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, and it is more conducive to the expansion of their spheres of influence in these regions.

The detour from the Cape of Good Hope was too far, and the delay on the voyage was already a serious threat to the maritime supremacy of the British.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Agarwal added: "It's not just the military that has been challenged, but we are also facing a commercial impact.

The opening of the Suez Canal means that Austrian goods are more competitive in Asia, and our advantage of low transportation costs has now become a disadvantage. ”

Considering the cost of transportation, in fact, this is also the result of being forced out. Today, the industrial empire that the British are proud of is in decline.

The technical advantage no longer exists, and many factories are already at a disadvantage in international competition because of the increase in production costs due to old equipment and higher labor wages.

These problems were covered up by the colonies, and there was a vast colonial market, and the British capitalists were not aware of the crisis, or discovered it and did not pay attention to it.

In the international market outside the colonies, the market share of British goods was declining year by year, and both France and Austria were seizing the British market.

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

After pondering for a while, Prime Minister John Russell asked, "These problems are real, how are you going to solve them?" ”

It is useless to find a problem, the key is to solve the problem. As the hegemon of the world, the British have to encounter all kinds of problems of one kind and another every day, and what the government has to do is to solve them.

Colonial Chancellor Steve proposed: "We are attacking Ethiopia, and if it goes well, we can take control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and control the gateway to the Red Sea."

However, this is a natural strait, with a width of about 26~32 kilometers, and it is very difficult to block it.

It is also possible to provoke a strong backlash from France and Austria, and if they take direct action, they will not be able to hold it at all unless they press the Royal Navy all up.

The best way to do this is to start with Egypt, or to occupy Egypt outright and take control of the Suez Canal.

Or to snatch Sinai from the Austrians, but it will be difficult. Since the opening of the Suez Canal, the Vienna government has increased its presence there, and now it has about one division. ”

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is similar to the Strait of Gibraltar, and even if the British control it, they do not dare to block the shipping lane, which will cause public outrage.

France and Austria are not soft persimmons, and if they feel threatened, no one dares to guarantee that they will not take risks, and they will come directly recklessly.

After Prussia challenging the Russians, the British did not have this confidence anymore. Impulsiveness is the devil, the Prussians dare to be reckless with the Russians, and France and Austria are not afraid to be reckless against them?

Anyway, both of them are land power empires, and the navy will not be able to die if they run out. As long as they lose both, it will be a strategic victory for France and Austria.

Even if the shipbuilding industry in Britain is stronger, the navy will replenish faster. But this is only for one family, and compared with France and Austria combined, it is a little bit worse.

Just look at the two strong standards, the slogan is earth-shattering, and it is still far away to achieve the goal.

The forcible seizure of the Suez Canal is not a good idea, and it is easy to detonate contradictions. The British Empire was not ready to go to war with the two great empires, and even to go to war with either of them.

If the war is won, the cost of the war cannot be recovered; If the war is lost, the world hegemony will be lost, and the colonial empire will not be able to keep it.

France and Austria are different, even if they lose the war, they still 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 that strength. A naval blockade is completely useless against this kind of continent, and the coastline of the African continent is also tens of thousands of kilometers, so it cannot be blockaded at all.

Foreign Secretary Reslin objected: "The use of force is the worst way to go, not only does it not achieve its goal, but it also has the potential to make things worse."

The Suez Canal has been opened, and France and Austria will definitely not agree to block it back. In that case, why don't we settle for the next best thing and jump 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 cost has made shareholders lose confidence.

We could have bought a portion of the shares and made our voices heard within the Canal Company, and neither France nor Austria could have stopped legitimate commercial trade. ”

Reslin's proposal hit Prime Minister John Russell's heart, not because they were bullying the weak and afraid of the hard, but because of the needs of practical interests.

Talking about fists with the weak and rules with the strong was the code of conduct of imperialism in the 19th century. Everyone is a great power, so naturally they have to follow the rules.

Throughout history, when has the British Empire ever been impulsive? The British in the original time and space were impulsive for that time, and as a result, they not only made themselves exhausted, but also lost a lot of debts, not to mention the world hegemony.

Before John Russell could speak, Admiral 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 both countries, we will not be able to buy the stock even if we offer two or three times the price.

It is said that the private circulating shares have no decision-making power, all rights are in the hands of the Franco-Austrian governments, and the shareholders only have the right to supervise the finances of the Canal Company. ”

It's not that he wants to provoke a war, but that the Navy needs to flex its muscles and prove its importance in order to compete for the budget for the coming year.

No way, that's the most important job of the Admiralty. The specific construction, training, and command of the navy are the affairs of the military, and he is a civilian minister of the navy who is a layman at all.

It is very simple to gain the support of the navy, as long as you get enough budget from the government. The less he cares about other things, the happier everyone is.

The best thing to do is to send the Royal Navy out to deter France and Austria, and then everyone can come to an agreement.

No matter how much it does, it has a part of the Navy's credit and has an advantage in the next budget competition.

The essence is no different from collecting the shares first and then 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 Admiralty is in an important position.

……

The London government is arguing, and the Paris government is also discussing. It's all around the Suez Canal, but it's treated differently.

Napoleon III was hesitant to immediately send troops to occupy Egypt in order to secure control of the canal.

After so many years of infiltration, France has become the largest power in Egypt and has cultivated a large number of pro-French factions to lead the way.

In a few years, he might be able to control Egypt without bloodshed. Now, if an army were to occupy Egypt, a war would still be indispensable.

War Secretary Edmund Leboeuf proposed: "Your Majesty, with only 100,000 troops, we will be able to occupy Egypt within a year."

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

Egypt's strategic location is very important and is one of the most important elements of our African strategy. If it drags on, it will be troublesome for Britain and Austria to make the first move. ”

Egypt can be regarded as on the doorstep of France, and it is not a problem to win or occupy Egypt, the only thing to think about is whether it is worth it.

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

Once Egypt is attacked, the next step of the French government's strategy is the Italian region, and all the Italian states are in the target of the French, and Sicily is the first to bear the brunt.

And to abandon the attack on Egypt was to strike the attention of Prussia, Belgium, the German Federal Government, and the territories west of the Rhineland were in the Central European strategy of the French.

This time the French military was in harmony and both chose to prioritize the Mediterranean strategy. Persimmon looking for soft pinching, the Central European strategy, the Mediterranean strategy to face the enemy are soft persimmons.

This was not enough to convince Napoleon III that if France attacked Egypt, it would inevitably strain relations between Britain and France, which made the "Anglophobic" very uneasy.

Foreign Secretary Abraham added: "Your Majesty, we don't have a choice right now. We can not occupy Egypt, but we cannot prevent Britain and Austria from occupying Egypt.

Even if there were allies, Austria would be restrained for a maximum of ten years, while the British could not be restrained at all.

Once Egypt falls into their hands, our Mediterranean strategy will be in vain. The future of France may be difficult. ”

It's a fact, and the whole world is about to be divided. Now it is the last train to carve up the world, and if you don't work hard to grab the last cake, you will have a hard life in the future.

The British did not seize Egypt, but it was not just the London government that did not want to. There were two main factors: on the one hand, they were worried about triggering a backlash from France and Austria, and on the other hand, they were not sure that they would take the Egyptians down.

The Egyptian government has a new army, and it is not weak. This is also a big challenge for the British pocket version of the overland route.

Moreover, they are still fighting Ethiopia, and they do not have enough troops to enter the Egyptian battlefield. If you lose again, it's a shame.

In the 19th century, the British Army did not perform very well. Losing several wars in a row, albeit for special reasons, also discredited the British Army's statement.

The war against France will not be mentioned, losing to Napoleon is a normal operation and does not need to be explained.

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

In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan, and tens of thousands of British troops fought hard for three years before finally failing.

In the next war in the Near East, the British lost; The subsequent invasion of Persia ended in failure and forced to reach a compromise.

Now the attack on Ethiopia is still in the midst of a bitter battle, and the final outcome is still unknown.

After one defeat after another, the politicians in London did not collapse, even if the spiritual world is strong, how dare they place high hopes on the army?

Reason? I'm sorry, but you don't need this. Losing is losing, and no matter how much you explain, it's all in vain. The lack of confidence in the Army among politicians in London has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people.

In contrast, the French are different. After the Russians fell from the altar, they were going to boast of being the world's number one army power, and naturally they did not lack confidence.