New Shun 1730

It was like he chose to launch a reactionary counterattack against the siege fortifications of the Shun Dynasty in order to drag down the Chinese officials he hated before he died. Because even if the Shun Dynasty chose to attack regardless of death, it would not affect the commander and strategic decision-makers. Anyone who attacked Gibraltar had to prepare for the death of seven or eight thousand people, which was normal. Only when the counterattack was successful would it be abnormal, criticized, and attacked in the court, and someone would be buried with him.

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

He is a staunch supporter of the Orthodox Whig Party, not a member of the "Patriot Party", but a staunch supporter of the Poverty 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... Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they are connected to each other, but sometimes they are also clearly divided and seriously divided.

Is William Pitt's "global colonial strategy" correct?

From the perspective of later generations, it should be said that it was William Pitt who laid the foundation for Britain's 150-year destiny and was the true founder of the sun never sets.

Overall, North America was lost, but India was gained. For Britain, North America was a burden, and it was good to lose it; while India could provide cheap raw materials and low-end raw material production labor that Britain urgently needed.

The huge debt of the Seven Years' War, the development of domestic productivity and the looting system of commercial capital contributed to the separation of North America.

It should be said that it was also a cleanup of negative assets.

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

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

But now, where is the value of India?

Besides, it was lost.

The Tories opposed William Pitt because of the land tax and consumption tax that maintained the war.

The Whigs opposed William Pitt because Pitt fought too big a war and did not stop when he saw the good.

Including the end of the Seven Years' War in history, the "Patriot Party" believed that the Treaty of Paris was a traitorous treaty, "a defeat without defeat", "a crime against the people of the country by giving France an extremely generous treatment".

But for those conservative strategists, the Treaty of Paris was the perfect ending, and France should not be pushed too hard, because if France was pushed too hard, it would not be a "truce", but a French revenge war led by the Duke of Choiseul, which would be a "ten-year truce".

The current reality is that the Dashun, far across the ocean, also sent a fleet to interfere in this war, which made William Pitt bear a huge black pot.

When the Bengal Tariff War broke out, William Pitt was jubilant and thought it was part of a great global strategy.

At that time, the whole of Britain had just experienced a disastrous defeat in Minorca, and a new cabinet was formed, and it was urgent to prove that the new cabinet was a hundred times stronger than the previous cabinet.

The victory in India, the victory in Louisbourg, and Frederick's two consecutive epic tactical victories proved that the 3 million taels of silver per year hired by Prussian thugs were not wasted.

In this case, the victory in the Bengal Tariff War was the credit of the cabinet.

So why did Dashun suddenly join the war?

What was the reason?

The real reason was that Dashun's small peasant economy was related to the stability of the feudal dynasty. Dashun had the possibility of expanding 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 handicraft commodities between India and Dashun made Dashun's industrial capital urgently need to find a market that did not conflict with Dashun's commodities; 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 most reasonable reason that does not understand capital and the theory of the wealth of nations at all?

Obviously, "our aggressive ambitions in India alarmed the Eastern empires, causing them great anxiety about the security of their borders, and they were worried that we would use India as a springboard to replicate the story of Bengal on them."

"The East India Company dragged the entire country into a disaster for the selfish interests of their shareholders. It created a terrible awakening dragon for the country."

"In the opium incident, the East India Company knew that China opposed any form of opium trade, but they still allowed a large number of brokers and middlemen to buy opium from the company. And knowing that the opium would be shipped to China, this aroused the disgust of the Chinese emperor..."

For the reason why "the Dashun Navy appeared in Gibraltar and attacked India", the mainstream opinion now is this.

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

And the reason why Dashun sent troops was basically the same.

As for whether to believe it or not… If you explain these things to the British people, or those who have a high enough income to be considered human beings, such as “price revolution”, “productivity of handicraft industry”, “maintaining stability of small peasant economy”, “catalysis of export-oriented economy”, “market”, etc., and you have to list data and make sense, they may not be willing to listen.

On the contrary, the simple and crude “because you have a criminal record, I think you will definitely relapse”, such common sense, is easier to spread.

As for the theoretically righteous "free trade" held high by Dashun, well... even Adam Smith, the founder of this theory, was a "nationalist". When it came to the issue of China's trade, his logic was disordered. There were quite a few people who could really talk about the theory of "free trade" which was a "high-end salon topic to show off one's status".

Some of them really believed it.

Some of them said, "Why the hell can only the East India Company be a comprador? Private ships cannot pass the Cape of Good Hope?"

But those who are really in power, especially those in the Whig Party, either have stocks in the East India Company, or their families are involved in the monopoly of tobacco trade in North America, or control the profits of tea, so they naturally cannot believe it.

Debates are necessary.

But when everyone lacks some consensus in the debate and has different foundations - for example, you think this is black, I think this is white, and such debates with different foundations are meaningless - on the contrary, the reason of "national personification" is more easily accepted by people.

Since William Pitt was excited about the victory in Bengal and regarded it as "an important victory in his global strategy".

Then, now, your global strategy has awakened the dragon in the East. In order to prevent yourself from suffering the same fate as the Bengal Tariff War, you think that instead of waiting for you to fight me, it is better for me to unite with France to take over London first. Who will take the blame?

Moreover, Dashun has been laying the groundwork for this reason for a long time.

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

In these events, Dashun has always emphasized one thing, that is, the old grudges of the previous dynasty.

Have Britain and Ming Dynasty had conflicts?

Did the British and Dutch forces try to attack Macau together?

Did the British and Dutch forces capture Chinese merchant ships in the "Pingshan Changchen Incident"?

This matter cannot be blamed on Dashun for digging up old accounts.

Because the reasons given by Dashun also made it impossible for Britain to refute.

That is: Does the current British king still have a claim to the Kingdom of France? In the letter you sent to Dashun, on that long list of titles, you all have the title of "King of France".

Let alone changing your surname, you have already established a republic, right?

Since you can wear this broken hat from hundreds of years ago, isn't it natural for Dashun to inherit all the history of the Ming Dynasty?

When Cromwell asked the Dutch to pay for the Ambon Island incident, there was no Protector of the Kingdom in Britain at the time.

Besides, each country has its own customs policy. Under the "Navigation Act", can Dashun's merchant ships directly dock in London for trade? If not, how can you justify the Sino-British conflict that year and think that it was for free trade?

These old accounts of verbal cannons are turned over and over, and everyone actually agrees to turn over old accounts.

For example, even Russia, their North American company, has done something that can prove that "everyone likes to turn over old accounts" - taking stone tablets and burying them everywhere in North America from Alaska to San Francisco. And the people who buried these stone tablets were all secret operations, which were secret operations authorized by the Privy Council and the Tsar. If Europe doesn't like to dig up old scores and talk about ancient times, then why are the people of the Russian North American Company so bored that they go to bury stone tablets everywhere?

And Dashun's digging up old scores has a whole set of rationalities.

It is known that Britain and Ming Dynasty fought a war, which was also a trade and tariff issue in a broad sense.

It is also known that Britain fought with Bangladesh not long ago, and it was also a trade and tariff issue in a broad sense.

So, after occupying India, will Britain go to war with Dashun because of trade and tariff issues in a broad sense?

Obviously, Dashun's suspicion is very reasonable.

It is reasonable to be more cautious about people with criminal records.

However, even with so many previous situations, John Mordaunt's accusations against the cabinet and his desire to completely pull William Pitt down and purge the small patriot group were not based on the perspective of "reflection".

In other words, he did not stand from the perspective 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 disgust of the Celestial Empire."

He did not think that this should be reflected on.

Instead, he cunningly chose a very "black humor of Anglo-Dutch political characteristics" angle.

He did not blame the Patriots for starting the war, nor did he blame William Pitt for the Bengal Tariff War that he was proud of.

Instead, he blamed "Why was the Chinese fleet not annihilated in advance, which led to the capture of Gibraltar?"

It sounds ridiculous, isn't it bullshit?

But in fact, the crime for which John Bean was shot was neither cowardice nor incompetence, but [not doing his best to capture, sink or burn enemy warships].

How to prove his guilt?

Because the French fleet won.

Or:

Because he did not do his best to capture, sink or burn enemy warships; therefore, the French warships were not captured, sunk or burned.

Because the French warships were not captured, sunk or burned; therefore, it can be proved that he did not do his best to capture, sink or burn enemy warships.

This kind of political black humor is unique to Britain and the Netherlands. In fact, countries such as France, Russia, Austria, and China cannot understand this logic.

Or it can be said that if you want to accuse someone of a crime, you can always find a pretext; or it can be said that it is clear in plain sight and there is no need for it; but it is really impossible to come up with such a thing.

This thing is really different from the legal logic of false accusations.

As for why it is not unique to the UK, but also in the Netherlands, because after the Hongxi Massacre in history, the Dutch tried Kapitan Lian Fuguang with the same logic: after a long trial, there was indeed no evidence, and Lian Fuguang did report Lian Huaiguan and others as the Wushan Party in advance, but the final verdict was still:

Lian Fuguang was guilty, his crime was not that he did something that was really rebellious, but that he did not do anything - 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 a British aristocrat, John Mordaunt knew this very well.

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

Instead, it was in accordance with the characteristics of the UK, using a logic that actually China, France and other countries could not understand, and felt that it was pure bullshit to accuse.