Xinshun 1730

Chapter 1282 Death and Revenge ([-])

It's as if he chose to counterattack against Dashun's siege fortifications in order to drag the high officials among the Chinese whom he hated into the water before dying.Because even if Dashun chooses to ignore the death attack, it will not affect the commander and strategic decision makers. Whoever storms Gibraltar will have to prepare to die 8000 to [-] people, which is normal.Only when the counterattack succeeds can one be abnormal, be criticized, be attacked in the court, and be buried with someone.

The current situation is irreversible. Whether it is captured, released, committed suicide, or killed in battle, the outcome is the same.

He was a staunch supporter of the orthodox Whig party, not a member of the "Patriot Party", but a staunch supporter of Povar's faction.

Orthodox Whig Party, Tory Party, Court Party, Country Party, Patriot Party, West India Chamber of Commerce, East India Chamber of Commerce, domestic land aristocracy...they sometimes intersect, sometimes connect with each other, but sometimes they are also distinct and severely differentiated.

Is William Pitt's "Global Colonial Strategy" Correct?

From the perspective of future generations, it should be said that it was William Pitt who laid the foundation for the 150-year fortune of the emperor in the United Kingdom, and the real founder of the never-setting sun.

On the whole, if North America is lost, India will be gained. For the United Kingdom, North America is a burden, and it is good to lose; while India can provide cheap raw materials and low-end raw material production labor that the United Kingdom urgently lacks.

The massive debts of the Seven Years War, together with the development of domestic productive forces and the plundering of commercial capital, contributed to the secession of North America.

It should be said that it can be regarded as cleaning up negative assets.

But now...it's hard to say.

From the perspective of future generations, or if there are prophets, you can know the value of India.

But now, where is India's value reflected?
Besides, it was lost.

The Tories opposed William Pitt because of the land and excise taxes that kept the war going.

The Whigs turned against William Pitt because Pitt fought the war too far, and never let it go.

Including the end of the Seven Years War in history, the "Patriot Party" believes that the "Paris Treaty" is a traitorous treaty.

But for those conservative strategists, they think that the "Treaty of Paris" is the perfect ending, and France cannot be pushed too hard, because if France is pushed too hard, it is not an "armistice", but a free war. The French revenge war led by the Duke of Wasser will be a "ten-year truce".

The reality now is that Dashun, which is far away across the ocean, also sent a fleet to intervene in this war, which made William Pitt a huge scapegoat.

When the Bangladesh tariff war broke out, William Pitt was elated as part of a grand global strategy.

At that time, the entire United Kingdom had just experienced the fiasco of Menorca, and the new cabinet was formed, and it was urgent to prove that the new cabinet was a hundred times stronger than the previous cabinet.

India's victory, Lewisburg's victory, and Frederick's two consecutive epic tactical victories proved that the annual 300 million taels of silver for hiring Prussian thugs was not in vain.

In this case, the victory of the Bangladesh tariff war is the credit of the cabinet.

Then, why did Dashun suddenly join the war?

What is the reason?
The real reason is that Dashun's small-scale peasant economy is related to the stability of the feudal dynasty. Otherwise, Dashun would not be able to expand the internal market. The industrial revolution that broke out in Songsu urgently needed a market and a large amount of precious metals.

The conflict between India and Dashun's handicraft products made Dashun's industrial capital urgently need to find a market that does not conflict with Dashun's products; Dashun's commercial capital was jealous of the huge profits of the East India Company under the monopoly trade.

This is the real reason.

But what is the superficial reason?
In other words, what is the reason that sounds the most reasonable and is in line with the "reason" of the theory of capital and the wealth of nations?

Apparently, it was "our aggressive ambitions in India that alarmed the empires in the East, made them very uneasy about their frontier security, and worried that we would use India as a springboard to reproduce the story of Bengal on them" .

"The East India Company dragged the country into a catastrophe for the selfish interests of their shareholders. Created a dreadful dragon in wake for the country."

"The opium incident, the East India Company knew that China opposed any form of opium trade, but they still let a large number of brokers and middlemen buy opium from the company. And knowing that the opium would be shipped to China, This aroused the resentment of the Great Emperor of China..."

As for the reason why "the Dashun Navy appeared in Gibraltar and attacked India", this is the current mainstream opinion.

Those who opposed William Pitt in Britain were, of course, not reflecting, but using this reason to engage in party disputes.

The reason why Dashun sent troops was basically the same.

Believe it or not... this thing, you can explain the "price revolution", "handicraft production efficiency", "maintaining the stability of the small peasant economy", "external economic catalysis", " "Market" and other such things, they have to list data and reason, and they may not really be willing to listen.

On the contrary, the simple and crude "Because you have a criminal record, so I think you must relapse" is easier to spread.

As for the theoretically righteous "free trade" held high by Dashun, well...even Adam Smith, the patriarch of this theory, is a "nationalist" when it comes to China's trade issues At that time, my own logic became disordered, and there are quite a few people who can really talk about the theory of "free trade" at this time, such as "high-end salon topics show force".

Part of it is truth.

Part of it is "Why the hell is the East India Company only allowed to be comprador? Private ships can't pass the Cape of Good Hope?"

But those who are really in power, especially those of the Whig party, who either have shares in the East India Company, or their family participates in the monopoly and exclusive tobacco trade in North America, or control the profits of tea, are naturally impossible to believe.

Debate is to be debated.

But when everyone lacks some debate consensus and the basis is different—for example, you think this is black, I think this is white, such a debate with different foundations is meaningless—on the contrary, it is the kind of "national anthropomorphism" "The reasons for the transformation are easier to be accepted by people.

Now that William Pitt had rejoiced in Bengal's victory and regarded it as "an important victory for his global strategy".

So, now, your global strategy has woken up the evil dragon in the east. In order to prevent yourself from encountering the fate of the Bangladesh tariff war, you feel that instead of waiting for you to attack me, it is better for me to unite with France to raise London first. This cauldron Who will carry it?

Moreover, for this reason itself, Dashun has laid the groundwork for a long time.

From the Jenkins Ear War, George Anson was humiliated by Liu Yu when he supplied supplies in Lingdingyang; to the later opium case, which forced the East India Company to go to India...

These few things, Dashun has been emphasizing one thing, and that is the old grievances from the previous dynasty.

There was a conflict between Britain and Ming Dynasty, right?
Did the Anglo-Dutch forces try to attack Macau?
Did the Anglo-Dutch coalition capture Chinese merchant ships in the "Pingshan Changchen Incident"?
In this matter, we can't blame Dashun for overturning the old score.

Because of the reasons given by Dashun, Britain was unable to refute.

Namely: Does the King of England still have a claim to the Kingdom of France?On the letters of credence you gave to Dashun, the title of "King of France" is on top of the list of titles.

Not to mention changing the surname, have they all been republican?

Since you can wear this broken hat hundreds of years ago, and Dashun inherits all the history of Ming Dynasty, isn't that a matter of course?
When Cromwell made the Dutch lose money because of the Ambon incident, when the Ambon incident happened, Britain did not yet have the Lord Protector.

Besides, each country has its own customs policy. Under the "Navigation Regulations", can Dashun's merchant ships berth directly in London for trade?If not, how could the Sino-British conflict back then be justified as being for free trade?

These gossip old accounts have been turned over and over again, and everyone actually agrees with turning over old accounts.

For example, even Russia, their North American company, has done something that can prove that "everyone likes to turn over old scores"-carrying stone tablets and burying them everywhere in North America from Alaska to San Francisco.Moreover, the people who buried these steles were all secret operations, authorized by the Privy Council and the Tsar.If Europe doesn't like to turn over old accounts and talk about ancient times, then the people of the Russian North American company will hang around and bury stone monuments everywhere?
There is a whole set of rationale for Dashun to turn over old accounts.

Known: The United Kingdom and Ming Dynasty fought wars, and it was also a trade and tariff issue in a broad sense.

Also known: the UK only fought with Bangladesh not long ago, and it was also a trade and tariff issue in a broad sense.

Then, after Britain occupied India, would it go to war with Dashun because of trade and tariff issues in a broad sense?
Obviously, Dashun's suspicion was very reasonable.

Be wary of those with criminal records, it's human nature to be reasonable.

It's just that, even with so many previous stories, John Mordaunt's accusations against the cabinet, as well as the perspective of completely pulling William Pitt down and purging the small patriot group, are not from the perspective of "reflection" of.

In other words, he did not take the standpoint of "Britain deserves to be beaten by Dashun, who asked you to provoke Dashun? The cabinet should reflect on what it did in India, which aroused the vigilance and resentment of the Celestial Dynasty."

He doesn't think it should be reflected on.

Instead, he craftily chose a very "black humor with British and Dutch political characteristics" angle.

He did not blame the Patriots for starting the war, nor did he blame the Bengali tariff war that William Pitt was so proud of.

On the contrary, the direction of his accusation is "Why didn't the Chinese fleet be annihilated in advance, which led to the capture of Gibraltar?"

It sounds ridiculous, isn't this bullshit?
But in fact, John Bing was shot for crimes neither cowardice nor incompetence, but "failing to do everything possible to capture, sink or burn enemy warships".

How to prove his guilt?

Because the French fleet won.

Or:

Because he made no effort to capture, sink, or burn the enemy ships; so the French ships were not captured, sunk, or burned.

Since the French warships were not captured, sunk or burned; therefore, it can be proved that he did not make every effort to capture, sink or burn the enemy's warships.

This kind of political black humor belongs exclusively to Britain and the Netherlands. In fact, France, Russia, Austria, and middle-level countries cannot understand this logic.

In other words, if you want to commit a crime, there is no excuse;

This thing is really different from the legal logic of unwarranted and so on.

As for why this is not unique to the United Kingdom, but also in the Netherlands, because after the Hongxi tragedy in history, the Dutch trial of Kapitan Lian Fuguang also had the same logic: after a long trial, there was really no evidence, and even Fu Guang did report that Lian Huaiguan and others were Wushan Party in advance, but the final verdict was still:
Lian Fuguang's guilt is not because of what he did to rebel, but because of what he didn't do - if he did something, why did the Chinese revolt?Because the Chinese revolted, it can be proved that he did nothing, which led to the outbreak of the uprising, so he was convicted, his property was confiscated, and he was exiled.

Of course, as an English nobleman, John Mordaunt knew this all too well.

Therefore, the direction of his impeachment is not the overturning of old accounts that Dashun has been promoting and the radical policies in India that aroused Dashun's vigilance.

Instead, according to the characteristics of the United Kingdom, it is accused of using a logic that is actually incomprehensible to countries such as China and France, and which feels pure nonsense.

(End of this chapter)