African Entrepreneurship Record

If a war breaks out between Britain and East Africa, it will naturally be reflected in two aspects: naval warfare and land warfare. The British Army is the weakest among the major powers in the world, so the war between the two countries must be dominated by naval warfare.

Although on the surface, the British Royal Navy is far stronger than East Africa. The strength of the Royal Navy is five times that of East Africa, and the total tonnage of its ships has reached an astonishing two million tons, while the total tonnage of East African Navy ships has just exceeded 400,000 tons.

At present, the East African Navy ranks sixth in the world in terms of total tonnage of naval ships, and the order is Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Japan, and East Africa.

After Japan ate the warship bonus sent by Russia, its total naval tonnage reached more than 400,000 tons, currently ranking above East Africa, while the United States, Germany, and France are all above 800,000 tons, and there is no gap between the three countries yet.

In this way, the position of the East African Navy among the world's naval powers is not prominent, but considering the quality of the East African Navy's warships, the East African Navy should be ranked fifth in the world.

Although the Japanese Navy is larger than that of East Africa, many of its warships are used as captured Russian warships, and East Africa also has advantages in dreadnoughts and submarines.

Even so, the gap between the East African Navy and the four countries of Britain, the United States, Germany, and France is still quite large, which also reflects the urgent need for East Africa to restart the naval arms race.

If it lags behind other countries too much, although it will not become a meal on the plate of other powers, it will not be easy for East Africa to get a share of the international changes in the future.

On this basis, the United States, Germany, and France have been chasing Britain relentlessly, and Britain is forced to use the two-power standard to ensure the advantage of its navy. The more countries participate, the more powerless Britain will be. This is also the main reason why Britain urgently hopes that East Africa will stop the arms race at the naval level.

As for forcing the East African Navy to end the arms race through war, Britain cannot afford this risk. The Japanese and Russian navies have only been gone for a few years. The Japanese Navy can defeat the strong with the weak, and the East African Navy may not be unable to achieve this effect, although the probability is very small.

If Britain suffered a Russian-style defeat and faced naval competition from Germany and France in Europe, the consequences would be disastrous.

Of course, Britain did not want to go to war with East Africa, and East Africa did not want to make wedding clothes for others. In addition, Russell had just surrendered, so Ernst would naturally not give up this opportunity to extort money from the British government.

Ernst deliberately said: "Becoming a world naval power has always been an important goal for East Africa. Although it is not as strong as your Royal Navy, it cannot be much worse than the United States, Germany and France. Therefore, it is unrealistic for your country to ask us to take the initiative to stop the naval competition. The changes in the world's naval structure now require us in East Africa to have a strong maritime force to ensure East Africa's status and interests."

Ernst's words did not surprise Russell. It is understandable that East Africa, as a world power, develops its maritime power. After all, Japan can temporarily rank above East Africa. If you think about it from another perspective, I am afraid Russell will not accept it.

However, Ernst's words just now obviously have a subtext. He did not say it firmly. It is unrealistic to stop the naval competition, but there is room for flexibility in the extent of participation in the naval competition.

Assuming that, as Ernst said, the East African Navy aims at the United States, Germany, and France, it is obviously extremely disadvantageous to the United Kingdom, because the total tonnage of the navies of the three countries is close to one million tons, which is far from the limit of the three countries.

The United States, Germany, and France are still actively expanding their navies, which means that the goal of East Africa is also floating. What if the navies of the United States, Germany, and France exceed two million tons in the future? Does East Africa have to follow up to two million tons, or even exceed this level?

After all, Japan has broken through the total tonnage of its navy to more than 400,000 tons, and East Africa is obviously much stronger than Japan. If the East African government also adopts the Japanese-style naval development model, it is not impossible to establish a navy that has always been inconsistent with its national strength.

Apart from anything else, the British government's positioning of East Africa is a world power at the same level as France, so the lower limit of the East African Navy should be based on France, and the upper limit is difficult to judge.

But no matter which model the East African Navy chooses in the future, it is not good news for Britain. It means that a powerful naval force that is not weaker than the United States, Germany, and France will rise in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic, and it is not easy to be interfered with by Britain.

If East Africa uses this navy to dominate the Indian Ocean, it will not be difficult. After all, it is impossible for the British naval power to be concentrated, just like the Royal Navy in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean cannot be easily changed.

Assuming that it really comes to this point, India and other British colonies along the Indian Ocean coast, as well as colonies in the Far East, will be at great risk, which is absolutely unacceptable to Britain.

After thinking this through, Russell became more determined to limit the size of the East African Navy. If the East African Navy rises, it may cause the collapse of the entire British hegemony.

Russell, who was frightened with a cold sweat, hurriedly said to Ernst: "Britain has absolutely no intention of threatening and restricting the development of East Africa. Our essence is to maintain regional stability. In order to show the sincerity of the empire, we can make huge concessions to East Africa on the issues of the Persian Gulf and South America, and the premise is that East Africa must control the size of its own navy within a low-risk range."

Russell's guarantee can be said to represent the bottom line of the United Kingdom. If East Africa refuses to give in, then the United Kingdom can only nip the danger in the bud. Although the bud of danger in East Africa is somewhat strong, it is related to the issue of British hegemony, and the United Kingdom is absolutely determined to do so.

So far, Ernst's goal has been achieved. In Ernst's view, East Africa does not have the ability to challenge Britain at this stage, nor is there any need to do so, so it is the best choice to stop while it is good.

So Ernst said: "Our requirements in East Africa are actually very simple. One is to ensure that our country has a fairer competitive environment in the international market, which is not limited to South America. The other is that our East Africa should obtain corresponding interests in the Indian Ocean region, especially a stable overseas fulcrum, as the basic support for East Africa to guarantee its own interests."

Ernst's words can be simply summarized in five words: market and land.

The market is easy to understand. Since the completion of the Second Five-Year Plan, East Africa's industrial development has reached a bottleneck, especially the demand for overseas markets has become more urgent. Although Ernst mentioned before that East Africa represents 100 million people, there are still 2 billion broad markets in the world.

The world market is mainly in the hands of the British. Under the international order dominated by British colonies, Britain is equivalent to the actual controller of the world market, and the external expansion of East African industry cannot bypass Britain.

Therefore, if Britain can take the initiative to give up part of the market, even if it allows East Africa to have a fair competition environment, it will be of great benefit to the current industrial development of East Africa.

As for the key places, Ernst's description is more obscure. Along the Indian Ocean coast, in addition to its own territory, East Africa almost lacks strategic fulcrums that can be used, specifically the Red Sea coast, the Arabian Sea coast, the Persian Gulf coast and the eastern Indian Ocean region.

Therefore, East Africa urgently needs to build its own sphere of influence in the above-mentioned areas, so that East Africa's influence on the Indian Ocean coast can be further expanded, and this cannot bypass the British.

As Russell thought, if East Africa cannot obtain it through other means, then East Africa can only take it from Britain through war, but the premise is to wait until the East African navy is strong.

Ernst added: "Of course, there are differences, but as long as the two countries are willing to negotiate, there will be no problem that cannot be solved. As for the discussion on the details, it will be analyzed bit by bit by the East African government and your country."