Holy Roman Empire

As the world’s largest import and export trading nation, Britain can be considered the biggest victim of this economic crisis.

Domestic strikes had not yet subsided when the contraction of international markets caused export volumes to plummet. This led to a sharp rise in unemployment and intensified social tensions.

To ease domestic conflicts and divert public attention, the British Parliament decided to hold an early election.

Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party, led by Gladstone, was defeated in the election, making way for the Conservative Party under the leadership of Benjamin Disraeli.

This seems to follow the pattern of British politics. Except for the first Prime Minister, Robert Walpole, who served for twenty years, most other terms have not exceeded eight years.

(Author’s Note: The term for British Prime Ministers and Parliament is five years.)

Returning once again to 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli found joy only on the first day after the election victory. The rest of his time has been consumed by the headaches brought on by the domestic economic crisis, which has turned more of his hair white.

Colonial Secretary Robert said, “The domestic economy is already in a very precarious state. To survive this crisis, we must find larger markets for our goods. I propose the resumption of the Persian War. Having just experienced a refugee crisis, Persia is now at its weakest. This is highly advantageous for our military operations.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer Arthur Balfour said, “The government’s finances remain robust, providing us with ample funding for war efforts. I propose that, while launching the Persian War, we should also resume the Ethiopian War.

In the previous conflict, we only achieved a nominal victory. Most of Ethiopia remains outside our control. In recent years, the Austrians have been steadily infiltrating Ethiopia. If we don’t act swiftly, one day we might wake up to find Austrian flags flying over Ethiopia.

It’s not just Ethiopia, the entire East Africa is in jeopardy. If we don’t act promptly, France and Austria certainly won’t hesitate to capitalize on this.”

First Lord of the Admiralty John Vassall added, “It’s not just East Africa, Asia is also at stake. The French are expanding into the Indochinese Peninsula, and they are on the verge of reaching India’s borders.

We must take preemptive action to seize control of the Konbaung Dynasty. This region is the gateway to India, and if it falls into French hands, the consequences would be dire.”

(Author’s Note: Burma was under the Konbaung Dynasty during this period, referred to as the Third Burmese Empire by Westerners.)

…

Prime Minister Benjamin is hailed as a staunch defender of colonialism, so having a cabinet full of pro-war members comes as no surprise. The vast British colonial empire was built through war and conquest, and historically, pro-war and pro-colonial factions have always been inseparable.

For Britain, relying on domestic demand to weather the economic crisis is out of the question.

The population of the British Isles limits the size of the domestic market, meaning that overcoming the economic crisis requires external markets.

With its vast colonies, Britain could emerge from the crisis with relative ease but that takes time.

To recover quickly from the economic crisis, the only option is to wage war and shift the burden elsewhere.

Foreign Secretary Edward said, “Hold on. I agree that everyone has valid points, and the issues raised are indeed pressing for Britain, but the reality doesn’t allow for such actions.

Let’s not even discuss whether our national resources can support multiple simultaneous wars, the diplomatic troubles alone would exhaust us.

If we don’t want to see every European power tripping us up, we must prioritize and act in sequence. Engaging in multi-front wars brings nothing but heightened risks and pressure with no added benefit.”

The driving force behind Britain’s wars has always been profit. Everyone understands that the British government cannot launch multiple wars simultaneously, yet such proposals continue to emerge.

This reflects the ongoing struggles between different factions, including the military, political officials, and capitalists.

The campaign chosen to commence first not only determines who “benefits” first but also reflects the strategic importance of that region in the eyes of the British government.

Colonial Secretary Robert said, “I believe we should prioritize the Persian War. The situation in Persia is the most complex, involving both Russia and Austria.

The Russian Empire is currently bogged down by the Prussian-Polish Federation and cannot intervene in Persia in the short term. But Austria is a different story as they’ve already extended their influence into the Persian Gulf.

Although their immediate focus is on the Ottomans, that doesn’t mean they lack ambition for Persia.

The Persian government is doing everything it can to court the major powers. If we don’t stay vigilant, Austria might one day expand its influence into the Persian region.

Looking at the map, it’s clear that if the Ottoman Empire collapses, the entire eastern Mediterranean coast will likely fall into Austria’s hands. At that point, Persia would border Austria directly.

If we don’t secure Persia as a buffer in advance, India will face immense pressure.”

First Lord of the Admiralty John Vassall objected, “Sir Robert, you’re exaggerating. We already hold an absolute advantage in Persia. Unless the Ottoman Empire collapses tomorrow, Austria has no way to compete with us there.

From the current situation, the Ottoman Empire can survive for at least another twenty years. If they complete internal reforms, they might even endure indefinitely.

The greater threat lies in Indochina. The Konbaung Dynasty has completely weakened and can no longer resist French advances.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer Arthur Balfour intervened, “Gentlemen, let’s not overstate the urgency. It’s not as if we’ll be at war with France and Austria tomorrow.

Right now, the three of us remain allies. Without sufficient incentive, they wouldn’t risk provoking us unnecessarily.

The immediate priority is overcoming the economic crisis. We should all consider the situation more from an economic perspective.

Since the Suez Canal opened, trade between East and West has grown rapidly. Nearly 40% of European maritime trade now passes through the Suez Canal.

This golden waterway has become vital to Britain’s economic lifeline. Unfortunately, we failed to pay enough attention, allowing control of the Suez Canal to fall entirely into French and Austrian hands.

Of course, this was the responsibility of our predecessors, but we are the ones who must bear the consequences.

For France and Austria, the Suez Canal is their lifeblood, and it’s impossible for us to intervene directly. The only option now is to adopt an indirect strategy and expand our influence over the Red Sea Strait.

In recent years, the French have been expanding into Sudan, and the Austrians into Ethiopia. The two have reached an understanding and are jointly squeezing our sphere of influence.

If we allow this situation to continue, we will eventually lose our foothold in East Africa. Even with our naval superiority, we would only be able to hold on to areas immediately surrounding key ports.

Take the Cape of Good Hope, for instance. Although it appears under our control, if relations with Austria were to deteriorate, it could fall at any moment.”

“Sir Arthur, this joke is not funny at all. The idea that France and Austria could truly unite is the biggest joke of the century.

Unless one of them abandons the pursuit of continental dominance, the two nations will never genuinely align. Right now, they see each other as their greatest rival!” Colonial Secretary Robert retorted.

Abandoning continental dominance sounds simple enough, but why would anyone believe it?

Unless one of them loses the power to compete for dominance, verbal promises are entirely unconvincing. And unless one of the two powers declines, the struggle for continental dominance will persist.

Currently, their ability to coexist peacefully is only because they appear evenly matched, and the presence of third, fourth, or even fifth parties makes neither side willing to start a war and risk benefiting others.

Foreign Secretary Edward responded, “Sir Robert, the possibility of France and Austria forming an alliance is very real. When the stakes are high enough, anything can happen.”

“Sir Edward, I’m not saying that France and Austria cannot form an alliance, but that under the current international circumstances, such an alliance is impossible.

What appears to be friendly Franco-Austrian relations is actually riddled with underlying tensions. If we wanted to, provoking conflict between France and Austria wouldn’t be difficult,” Colonial Secretary Robert explained.

“No, Sir Robert, what we need is precisely the current situation: France and Austria appearing friendly on the surface but secretly hostile toward each other.

Provoking a Franco-Austrian conflict that leads to a continental war and disrupts the balance of power in Europe is not in our interest. So that option is off the table.

We recognize the importance of the Suez Canal, and so do France and Austria—likely even earlier than we did.

Over the past decade, we have repeatedly attempted to acquire shares in the canal company, only to be rejected. This alone speaks volumes.

If we fail to act, France and Austria might very well join forces over control of the Suez Canal and push us out of East Africa.

This wouldn’t be unprecedented. They’ve worked together before, and we were nearly ousted from the Mediterranean,” Foreign Secretary Edward warned.

This is the most troublesome aspect. On one hand, Britain needs France and Austria to remain in conflict to prevent them from aligning; on the other hand, they must avoid exacerbating their tensions to the point of triggering a continental war, which would upset the European balance.

From Britain’s perspective, whether France or Austria emerges victorious in a war, it would spell disaster. The current three-way balance is the most suitable for Britain’s continental strategy.

Benjamin interrupted the argument, “Gentlemen, no one seems able to persuade the other, so let’s put it to a vote. Continuing this debate endlessly won’t solve anything, and time is of the essence.”

While this appeared to be a neutral approach, it subtly revealed his stance. Support for the resumption of the Ethiopian War was evidently stronger, driven by the demands of overseas trade.

Expanding in East Africa would increase Britain’s influence in the Red Sea and enhance its leverage in matters related to the Suez Canal.

If relations with France and Austria ever deteriorated, Britain would still have the ability to flip the table rather than be entirely at their mercy.

This may have been one of the most efficient decisions ever made by the British government. From identifying the issue to reaching a resolution, the Cabinet took only a single day.

Under normal circumstances, the process of initiating a war would involve months of debate, sometimes stretching to three or five years without any conclusion.

This time, however, was an exception. The economic crisis was pressing, and the Cabinet quickly reached a consensus, immediately submitting the proposal to Parliament.

As expected, the proposal passed with record speed. The government didn’t even need to lobby the members of parliament as capitalists were already restless.

The sooner the war began, the sooner the economic crisis could be resolved.

The downfall of the previous administration was largely due to Gladstone’s insistence on resolving colonial disputes through the Paris Conference before launching any colonial wars.

While this approach reduced international pressure, the Paris Conference was not something that could be wrapped up overnight. With the economic crisis already underway, the capitalists simply couldn’t afford to wait.

In a sense, they were also caught in Franz’s trap. If the Austrian government hadn’t deliberately triggered the crisis, the economic downturn wouldn’t have erupted so quickly.

Politicians must have integrity, especially once they are in power. Political positions should not change arbitrarily. Constantly shifting policies not only undermines the government’s prestige but also leads to public disdain.

The Gladstone administration made a misjudgment by proposing colonial expansion after the Paris Conference before the economic crisis had even erupted.

You can support the translation at /dragonlegion

There was nothing inherently wrong with this proposal, and it gained widespread domestic support. Unfortunately, the timing was bad. Shortly after it was put forward, the economic crisis broke out.

To quickly overcome the crisis, Britain needed to launch a war abroad, which meant a change of government was necessary.

The Benjamin Cabinet was filled with war hawks, not because they were naturally pro-war, but because the situation demanded it.

On November 28, 1876, the British Parliament passed the “Resumption of the Ethiopian War” proposal.

International public opinion was in an uproar, condemning the British. Britain’s actions were also a heavy blow to the ongoing Paris Conference.

The world was once again thrown into turmoil. If the British could use the excuse of not having signed a treaty to launch colonial wars during the Paris Conference, other European countries could do the same and expand their colonial territories during the talks.

Originally, there had been hopes of negotiating and demarcating spheres of influence to divide up the remaining unclaimed territories. Now, it had returned to an era where power determined who seized what.