A Plethora of Princes (11b) - A Shock to the System (continued)

[fhaessig]

I'm not sure it would be logical for Britain to be much less industrialised, but less to some degree, yes. The Radicals are certainly interested in improving the lot of the working man. This would have both positive and negative benefits (if that can be said, lol) - for example hygeine, housing, conditions etc would be a higher priority and inventions and investment that further this would be more favoured. The negative benefit would be less exploitation of the worker, thus a slower capitalism as it first has to meet the required standards, then expand, but I think it would be able to do this. The Reformists, and the Whigs are the mercantile parties and would back enterprise and industry whilst in power.

Certainly, but the civil war, from what I understand, had to have destroyed a lot of pre-existing infrastructure. The first available Capital is going to have to go toward replacing those. This also takes time, which is why I though England industrialisation would be quite below OTL.

OTOH, the need for Capital in England may just mean that there is less for investing abroad, esp in the USA. This may provide more capital, but also means less income for reinvestments, and doesn't do anything about time.

Overall, I doubt England will have the lead it did OTL.

Definitely with Germany, though the evolution of the German Confederation makes a single market likely, probably its only lasting legacy.

Yes, but it isn't integrated to the level of OTL. No single government policy and taxation, no single incentive scheme, a competition between the states to have each type of 'national' and 'security' industries... etc

I doubt the Konzerns will grow as big as OTL.

I'm no economist (despite my 'A' grade 'A' level, lol) but my thoughts were on this basis :-

- Belgium with all of Limburg and all of Luxembourg has more resources and industry even than OTL
- I drew a comparison to Iceland of today - booming companies with a small country, thus always looking to expand and use up their capital in investment

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes, I understand this.

OTOH, France avoided the destructions of 70 and the Commune ( which destroyed the skilled labour pool ( not only in Paris but also in Lyon and other major cities ) ), has a lot more political continuity than OTL, keeps more than one year of GDP for further investment and growth and keeps Alsace and Moselle which were populous and indutrialised regions at the time ( definitely moreso than Nice and Savoy ).

So I feel that, compared to OTL, France industrialisation will have beneficed from this TL more than Belgian one ( even if both have ). Given that OTL, France had overcome belgium in the early 1880s....

BTW, I also thought France would be more in the colonial game, as it is not so fixated on revange against Germany. It doesn't seem so. Why is it so?

 

[Grey Wolf]

BTW, I also thought France would be more in the colonial game, as it is not so fixated on revange against Germany. It doesn't seem so. Why is it so?

Overall, the main reason for this is how French foreign policy developed, starting with support for Mohammed Ali in c1840. This victory set the tone of the next couple of decades, support for Egypt, investment in Egypt, the Suez Canal and a focus on the Near East.

This was not to the exclusion of involvement elsewhere - Britain and France fought Argentina and established a protectorate over Uruguay. Similarly, there is French investment in Mexico. Then, Britain and France become guarantors of Texan independence, and are involved there.

After the opening up of Japan, France supports the Shogunate. France fights the General European War, and sees the rebirth of Poland.

I see French foreign policy as being to secure power and influence by indirect means. If you looked at French markets, French allies around the world, where French companies, advisors and theory is dominant you see a different kind of empire.

This policy suffered a bit of a setback after the Radical uprising of 1875 (where they feared that French policy was veering towards alliance with Russia and war with the USA and Britain). After the assassination of King Louis Philippe II, and the establishment of the Regency, French foreign policy has been to try to retain their influence and not get too involved. This saw what many would view as half-hearted intervention in the River Plate and Araucania & Patagonia.

I see the end of the Regency (OK, I'll look that up) as being seen as the end of this period of back-footing, and a new dawn for French prestige. That this comes with backing up Belgium over events in the Netherlands probably catches everyone by surprise !

Grey Wolf

 

[fhaessig]

OK, I understand. I imagine there are some quite vociferous disputes in Paris on whether to colonise or not. So far, it looks like the most reasonable parties have won, as France gets the markets and ressources without the burden of administration. I wonder how long this will stay the case.

It seems the scrambling for colonies has not started in this TL. It may be avoided altogether, but I imagine if someone begins it, everyone will go full speed. Which means said colonial empires are likely to be less strong than OTL.

 

[Grey Wolf]

OK, I understand. I imagine there are some quite vociferous disputes in Paris on whether to colonise or not. So far, it looks like the most reasonable parties have won, as France gets the markets and ressources without the burden of administration. I wonder how long this will stay the case.

It seems the scrambling for colonies has not started in this TL. It may be avoided altogether, but I imagine if someone begins it, everyone will go full speed. Which means said colonial empires are likely to be less strong than OTL.

Well, as I have to say to various people I do not generally look far in advance in this timeline, not more than a couple of years. Thus, I don't know what will happen. I can't say in advance what the rest of the 1890s will bring, what the various pressures and counter-pressures will be.

One thing to note is that there will be more modern-armed and unified nations around than in OTL. Think Menelik II's Abyssinia, the capacity for an Adowa, etc. This would be the case in places like Madagascar, maybe even Zanzibar, Hawaii

OTL the states which lost independence did so only after very costly and long wars - Morocco, Abyssinia

I would think that whilst a lot of potential remains in some areas, others would have moved in elsewhere who would be one hell of a cost to displace, this including the Arabs in East Africa, as far inland as Eastern Congo of OTL

This area was described by a European passing through as being almost like Europe, with cultivation and clean towns stuck in the middle of the jungle of old. OTL Belgium wiped it out. Here, this kind of thing is more likely.

A note would be that a lot of this was led or contributed to by European adventurers, but in the service of the older regimes. Thus Emin Pasha in Equatoria was an Austrian in Ottoman service. Thus for the Arabs in the Eastern Congo, a trail was blazed for them by the British explorer Stanley.

One could certainly see a repetition of this, without the OTL follow-up of the European empires moving in on these advances to take them for themselves.

Grey Wolf