Extract from: Shaping the World: The Ideologies of the 20th Century
By: Arthur E. Johnson
On the 19th of May 1919, five thousand miles apart, two yet-to-be-important men made two yet-to-be-important speeches.
On the stairs of the Bodleian Library in East Oxford, a tall, blonde stood high and proud; surrounded by large banners, all in red and purple, looking out over a crowd of some two thousand students, professors, politicians, reporters and passers by. The speaker was handsome, eloquent and smooth. Straightening out his red tie and stepping forward, he leaned into the audience and breathed in deeply. He stood confident at the podium, undeniably relaxed he stood forward, one hand gesturing towards the audience. Charisma oozed from him, as it always did, and the future PM gave one of his most famous addresses.
“Ladies and Gentleman, this great meeting is gathered here this afternoon to discuss and explain the merits of our great movement. If you think the present system of things then there is no need for our new and dynamic ideas to take flower on this green and pleasant land, if you think that the Liberals and the Tories can simply exchange the reigns of government forever more and this will bring you liberty than my speech today should be disregarded as empty, as unnecessary.”
Behind the speaker, a student in black tie and suit shuffled nervously. Ossie had helped write the speech and it had the potential to launch him forward in the party but he couldn't help but worry. The future Chancellor made his first outing here and stroked his neatly trimmed, RAF-style moustache with his thumb.
"However my friends, I dream I a little higher than that, I aim a little higher than that. Our magnificent country, our wonderful Empire; they deserve more than second best. So I come to you today with a new future; a future built by and for us, the people of the British Empire! No more exploitation from on high and no more rabble rousing from below; Now I know some of you think our movement a joke.”
In the crowd, a boy of 14 looked up at the great podium and found himself oddly inspired. Eric had never given much heed to politics before; it bored him to death when father droned on and on about it, but he found himself oddly drawn to the man on the platform. Although he did not yet know it, the future Home Secretary would become the Party’s first youth member later that day.
“To some of you we are traitors,” the speaker continued, “to others fools. What we are, at heart, is patriots. What we are, is fathers, sons, brothers. We care for our country, we care for our people. What I speak of is not a contradiction as some of you think it. We promise a future, for the boy in Manchester and the girl in Bangalore. We speak of justice, for the craftsman in London and the farmer in Queensland. We offer advancement, liberty, progress; for the mother in Toronto and for the grandmother in Glasgow.”
He took a deep breath. “Two words. Imperial Socialism.”
He paused for a moment and, as he would later record in his diary, was confused that instead of the laughter he had become used to, his speech was met with applause. This was the moment that the "Great Three" of British politics were first in the same place. This was the moment that Charles Chaplin and the movement he had led for nearly a decade went from the comic relief of British politics to its driving force.
Meanwhile, in the dusty streets of Salt Lake City, the Reverend Roosevelt roused both the Mormon and the Gentile people of the city to his cause and his slow march up the ladder of American politics began. His flags had red, of course, but none of the Oxonian purple. Instead, red white and blue flew from every window in the street, it billowed out from around Roosevelt, it embraced the scene and dominated the town square. Behind the speaker a great cross stood, ten feet tall and present at all his rallies. The Reverend stood in unbowed by the great hunk of wood behind him, confident and steely faced, he began to dictate.
“My good Christian men and women, of all colours, of all great and godly creeds, I thank you for your warm welcome to your warm town. A spectre is haunting these United States, the spectre of Socialism, (Yes, he really did steal that from the Communist Manifesto) of Heathenry, of discord and disruption.”
The Reverend gripped the podium but stood tall and imposing, his black robes seemed to rise high above the crowd. Authority resonated in every syllable.
“Subversive elements have infiltrated our great nation, stood in the way of the American people. They have stood in the way of our faith, of our purity.”
The ‘R’ sound in purity, as always with the great Franklin R, was rolled beyond any normal manner of speech.
“They have stood not out of a genuine belief in ‘progress’, nor out of any true political convictions but out of corruption! Corruption of the soul, with alcohol. Corruption of the hand, with money. Corruption of the mind, with socialism. Corruption of the heart, with liberalism. I speak now to you, as good christians from whatever your denomination, whoever your pastor; if you are godly men then stand now. Stand for Christ, stand for Colombia, stand for justice!”
As with Chaplin it was from here that, for the good Reverend and his movement, the snowball began to roll.
---
From: aej/mag/oxf/uni/com
To: mcc/war/cam/uni/com
Dear Marie,
Hey honey, I hope Uni is going well, I know its Green Week but try not to get too hammered with the First Years OK?
Its early days and I’m sure you’ve got more than enough work but I’ve attached the first copy of my dissertation’s intro, I can’t think of where to take it with Roosevelt and the CPP but mostly I need talk about the build up to this point, the Short and Long Wars, the Lib-Imp coalition, ect ect ects. I know your work is more Sociology but it’d still help to have some input.
Oh next time you’re in Oxford, remind me there’s a new Shimi place on Magdalen Street, I’ve got to take you!
Extract from: The Red Crowns; A History of Imperial Socialism
By: Steve Pooley, Published Oxford University Press, 1999
Socialism in the British system has taken a great many forms, beginning in both the Utopian Owenite movement and the later Chartist Reformers (which many modern British Historians and Socialists point to as the first true “Socialists”) but only really took on its own distinctive form at the tail end of the 19th century. With Marxian ideas the dominant mode of thought at the time, socialism was largely constrained by anti-establishment, revolutionary and oddly anarchistic tendencies, as a result the movement had floundered in Britain with Marx himself commenting “Britain has all the conditions necessary for revolution, except the want for one”. Imperial Socialism, however, changed that.
Founded in 1890 by members of the intellectual and socialist Fabian Society, unsurprisingly to many modern political observers a group consisting almost entirely of philosophers, poets and middle class political theorists, the Imperial Socialist Federation was an attempt to bring Socialism not only to the British masses but (more importantly) to Parliament. Outlined in the Charter of Imperial Socialism, their ideology was initially a mere thought experiment and an attempt at furthering ties between left-leaning Liberals and Cooperatives with moderate Trade Unionists and Socialist. The initial Charter was penned largely by three men; Frank Podmore, George Shaw and Sydney Oliver, with contributions from many other prominent Fabians including HG Wells and Bertrand Russell. The ideology of the Fabians (as the movement in general has come to be known) was based around 5 “ Loyalties”:
I) Loyalty to the Crown, Country, Queen and Empire - The movement established herein makes it clear that it bears no pretensions to revolution and instead proclaims an undying loyalty to the British Monarchy. This includes a devotion to the British Parliamentary system of governance.
II)Loyalty to the People - The movement and party pledge to place the interests of the citizens of the British Empire at the forefront of its policy and to ensure health, happiness and prosperity for all men and women who live under the union jack.
III) Loyalty to Democracy - The movement devotes itself to the cause of democracy and reform. We swear to work to achieve true, fair and representative democracy across Britain, the Empire and the World.
IV) Loyalty to Liberty - The movement believes in the continued advancement of social causes and personal freedoms and hopes to achieve the equality of all persons under the banner of Great Britain.
V) Loyalty to Socialism - The movement, though reformist and revisionist in nature, is at its core a Socialistic one and thus must unendingly move to the emancipation of the British Worker and the nationalisation of key industries, as well as having a comprehensive social policy which might support Loyalties II and IV.
The Charter would continue for another 20 pages, roughly outlying vague ideas of an equalised and reformed nation and even empire as well as making more specific promises in terms of economic and social policy; outlying plans for Universal Health Care, Pensions, Education provisions and parliamentary reform, as well as the nationalisation of certain heavy industries, namely Coal and Steel. Whilst fascinating to examine and ultimately extremely successful, the movement was at first greatly derided from both left and right. To Socialists it was a bland, watered down and Bourgeoisie corruption of the cause, whilst to Right wingers it was yet more lefite claptrap, however publications from the Fabians and associated thinkers sooner began to circulate in London and before long the Fabians saw their membership increasing rapidly. From a few hundred at its founding in 1884, it skyrocketed to just over 10,000 by the turn of the 1890s. It seemed apparent and in fact, inevitable, that the Fabians would found a mainstream political party.
Initially a poet, Shaw would go on to be one of the most influential thinkers and leaders in the Imperial Socialist movement.
Extract From: Unity and Progress: The Rise of the Fabians By: Sophie Keynes
It came as no surprise then when, in March 1891, in front of a crowd of some 3,000 students, activists and academics outside of the Fabian-run London School of Economics, the General Secretary of the Society, George Shaw, announced the founding of the Imperial Socialist Party, a coalition of Fabians, Cooperatives, Socialists and a few left-leaning Liberals that would contest elections across the nation. With its strong basis in the Fabian Society as well as the support of many trade unions and almost all of Britain’s economic cooperatives, the Party had no shortage of funds or of candidates for elections and as such in the 1892 elections would win 50 seats, an amazing feat for a party founded just a year prior. The majority of these came from an absorption of Lib-Lab and Independent Liberal MPs, as well as excellent showings in University towns; with the party winning both Oxford and Cambridge University constituencies. The resultant Liberal minority government was doomed to failure and collapsed in 1894, leading to a snap election called by the ageing William Gladstone. From the start it was a battle for the mainstream parties to maintain their positions; the moderate and modernising Marquess of Landsdown hoped to vanquish Gladstone's continuous ambitions whilst the grandfather of the Liberals held on to the Premiership and his life with an increasingly feeble hand. The Liberal Unionists initially stole the show; Joseph Chamberlain's performances in Parliament and public popularity began to give him sway however the patriotic-but-radical ideas of the Imperial Socialists soon began to shine through. Aided by George Shaw's powerful oratory and speech writing skills, the Socialists made slow but steady gains and the Tories began to rapidly lose ground to the three left-of-centre parties, whilst the IPP began to dominate the Irish sphere. Britian was in a state of flux between two systems and the result was choatic.
The 1894 election proved the disastrous problems with the British voting system and with what was now effectively a five party system (Liberal, Tory, ImpSoc, Irish and Unionist) the Tories were able to exploit divisions in the Liberal camp which was split between centre (Liberal), right (Unionist) and left (ImpSoc). This led to the Conservatives left as the largest party but winning more than 10% less of the vote than the Liberals. With parliament split (thanks to both the sudden rise of the Fabians as well as the near universal success of the Irish Parliamentary Party) Britain entered one of its first coalitions as the Liberals and IPP came together on a basis of pragmatic opposition to the Tories and Gladstone remained Prime Minister and his Fifth Ministry saw him appoint John Redmond, leader of the recently united Irish Parliamentary Party to both the important position of First Secretary of State and the newly founded position of Deputy Prime Minister. In exchange for the support of the Irish, Gladstone promised Home Rule for Ireland be achieved by the turn of the century, much to the protestation of the Conservatives and Unionists. Following their success in Britain, the Fabians would extend the party to Canada, Cape, Australasia and Westralia over the coming decade and start to contest (and win) elections across the British Empire. The Coalition would see Britain through a series of massive upheavals; in British politics, international diplomacy and across global society, it was a time of sudden and sweeping changes.
Extract from: I Bless the Rains: Modern War in Africa By: Connor Yeng
Many modern historians see the late 19th century conflict between the Entente and the Anglo-Japanese alliance as largely inevitable and despite some minor revisionism away from this, it still maintains its status as the dominant narrative for the start of Great Wars Period. The reasons for this should be apparent; colonial tensions between the British and Russians had been playing out for many years in the form of the Great Game and, following European Colonisation of Africa, an extremely similar confrontation emerged in the Congo Dispute (sometimes clumsily titled the ‘African Great Game’) between Britain and France. The utter failure of the International African Association to receive backing, due in large part to the death of its principal founder, King Leopold II of Belgium, left Africa up for grabbing by the colonial powers. Despite the Stockholm Compromise of 1889, which saw the heartland of the Congolese territory divided between the secondary European powers of Sweden, Belgium and Spain in an attempt to reduce tensions, it was still the three way race between Great Britain, France and Germany that continued to drive the continent towards war. In general, Britain was accepted to hold hegemony to the east and south of the Congo River whilst France controlled the North and West with German holdings scattered throughout. British determination to achieve the “Cape to Cairo” dream as well as French attempts to secure the river for themselves, not to mention the oft forgotten White Nile debate, all painted a picture of conflict that spanned the continent in a diagonal line. When violence did break out it came from the now infamous Fort Leopold Affair.
Extract from:The Making of the Modern German State, Published 1999 By:Ernst Braun
Friedrich IV is an odd figure in German history; inheriting the throne in 1888 from his father, Kaiser Wilhelm I, he was a liberal man and married to Princess Victoria, the eldest of the Queen of Great Britain’s children. Friedrich and his wife were keen admirers of the British monarchy upon their ascension ruled as Consorts, whilst slowly relegating their own role in German politics. Their liberalism and keen links to the British royal family led to some upset in Germany but they were a popular pair and before long Germany began to follow their example. Some believed that the Kaiser, known for his bold oratory, would lead the German people into a new age. However only three months after his taking of the throne, the Kaiser was diagnoses with a severe case of throat cancer, manifesting in his larynx. Scrambling for treatment for a seemingly incurable illness, the Kaiser turned to Ernst von Bergmann, a doctor who suggested a new but untried method; the total removal of the Kaiser’s voicebox. Whilst controversial and argued against by many of Friedrich's doctors, the procedure would indeed save his life however the Emperor was left without a voice box. His popular dubbing in the British and later world press as Mute Fred was more a token of sympathy and a jovial nickname than anything biting.
Modern and popular, the new Kaiser had many ambitions despite his muteness.
Despite his disability, the now healthy Kaiser threw himself into the ruling of the German Empire and its reform. With the Reichstag Bill of 1890, Friedrich and his government reformed Germany into a true constitutional monarchy with universal male suffrage and a fairer electoral system. The Bill was radical and unpopular with many, including Bismark and the resultant falling out between the two men would divide German politics in the coming decades. Leaning on the mainstream opposition National Liberal Party as well as the German Freethinkers Party (known as the Progressives) who had begun to adopt Fabian-style views. Bismark lost his majority in the Reichstag to this new, Kaiser backed coalition and Eugen Richter would become Chancellor of the German Empire...
Extract from: How Empires Grow - Europe and her Colonies, Published 2013 By: Steven Whitehorse
Circa 1880 Great Britain was undeniably the world’s most powerful Empire; during the scramble for Africa Britain travelled northward and westward from her colonies in the Cape and the Indian ocean in a desperate race for the Congo Basin. Cutting the continent of Africa in two, Britain would control roughly a third of the continent and add the African Jewel to her already mighty crown. This came only shortly after the Sandwich Affair in which an abortive American Coup of what was then known as Hawaii led to the Queen of the island nation turning to London and requesting protectorate status in a nigh-unprecedented move. Unsurprisingly, British morale and prestige was immensely high. And with liberal and left-leaning ideas gaining ground at home, began to look at the reform and advancement of her empire.
The experiment that was the Dominion of Canada had gone smashingly and thus the Gladstone governments of the 1880s and 1890s looked to bring this system of government to at the time 2 new regions of the Empire. British plans for an Australasian dominion included the Australian and New Zealand colonies and was achieved after almost a decade of back and forth between Whitehall and the various governments of the colonies, through the pain and the constant secessionist flare-up in Western Australia and New Zealand, the Confederation of Australasia was eventually established in 1891. Its capital in Melbourne and its system incredibly decentralised so as to placate her more rebellious states. Even this was seemingly not enough however and following a foolishly granted referendum in 1893 (what could possibly go wrong?) the state of Western Australia voted to secede from the Confederation and resultantly established its own Dominion of Westralia. This left New Zealand in the rather odd position of being tied to only half of Australia but a general panic in Whitehall and Melbourne over a splintering region. The constitutional and legal headaches the British government suffered over the issue were endless and upon the signing of the constitution of Westralia, Gladstone famously remarked “I once said with regards to Holstein that three men understood the question, with Australian Problem I fear only god knows.”
The bitter rivalry between the comparatively much larger Australasia (left) and Westralia (right) invades all things; sports, drinks, politics. If it exists, they'll find a way to fight about it. Australasia usually win, for obvious reasons,
In comparison, the Cape came into existence smoothly; having been held quite firmly under the hand of its veteran administrator Saul Solomon, the region had flourished since the signing of the Boer Accords in 1885 in which Great Britain acknowledged the independence of a singular, united Boer Republic in exchange for minor border concessions and trade rights for British mining companies. This led to a massive boon in British gold and diamond mining and a huge windfall for the colony. Solomon took great advantage of this and began to build his profile at home and abroad. Following his election for the fourth time as the colony's Prime Minister, he drafted and submitted to the colonial assembly, a Dominion Bill. With willing assent from Whitehall, the colony transitioned to an independent Dominion of the Cape with, surprisingly for the era, a multiracial franchise and healthy two party system. Cape would eventually expand northwards into Uppland and Rhodesia in 1910.
The Cape (left) was the British Empire's first African Dominion and the first to feature racial equality as a part of its constitution. Canada (right, flag shown introduced in 1895) would follow suit ahead of the many other dominions but it would still take more than a decade before the Canadian People's Act passed through Parliament.
Extract from: The Kings and Queens of the Empire, Published 1980 By:Winston Churchill III
...the first real blow for Great Britain came in July 1894 with the sudden death of the Prince of Wales. Over the past two years, the drinking and smoking of the popular, seemingly healthy Prince had accelerated to unseen levels. The cause of this chaos was undoubtedly his son and heir Prince Albert Victor. By all accounts Albert was something of a disinterested sort as a boy; never caring for his potential future role and shirking his responsibilities as princeling. That had all changed, however, at his marriage to the young and beautiful Lady Sybil Mary St Clair Eskine, or simply Princess Sybil. The daugher of a mere earl, both Queen Victoria and Albert’s father had opposed the marriage firmly however the genuine popularity of Lady Sybil and the stubbornness of the Prince led to their marriage in 1893. Just 16, Sybil was in many ways much more of a thinker than her husband. A poet, philosopher and social progressive, Lady Sybil engaged the young prince in the political sphere and by the time of Albert’s ascension, she was well established as the People’s Princess. She converted Albert to her philosophical, more forward thinking ways and his personality underwent a significant shift over her courtship and their marriage. Their first child, a son, was born mere weeks before the death of Albert’s father and was named Arthur William Edward, something of a break from the norm and undoubtedly the choice of Princess Sybil.
The people's princess, an undeniable beauty.
The constant bickering between the young couple and the Prince of Wales was the worst kept secret in Britain and whether it was the stress, the smoking or the alcohol (most likely a combination of all three) it was simply too much for the Prince, who passed away on the 6th July 1894. Albert Edward was a popular and relatively modern man, known for his progressive racial views and his status as the Uncle of Europe his death therefore sent ripples through the state and his mother, Queen Victoria (who had never truly recovered from the death of her husband) died but a few months later, on Christmas Day 1894.Her long reign saw Britain’s Golden Age as an undisputed power and following it the country mourned for weeks. In the wake of this chaos was the new king; Albert Victor. The new British royal couple were incredibly young; just 29 and 22, but rode on a wave of modernity and personal popularity that was sweeping the nation and the empire as a whole. Coronated as King Victor I, in blatant tribute to his late grandmother, the Second Victorian Age seemed to be one of unity and progress.
His Majesty King-Emperor Victor I, By Grace of God, King of Great Britain and Ireland, of Canada, Australasia, the Cape, Westralia and all the Britannic Realms, Emperor of India, Defender of the Faith.
Extract from:Gokajō no Goseimon By:Joseph Makamura, 1999
The Sun never set on the British but, of course, that sun had to rise somewhere. Following the victory of the pro-British Imperial Faction in the Boshin War, Japan had modernised largely on British lines. Their ships were designed (and mostly built) in London and Portsmouth, her Diet was an almost exact replica of Great Britain’s and the forward thinking Emperor Meiji did much to encourage links with the British Royal family. Japan had tied herself firmly to the British pole but what started out as a minor, regional ally had over the course of barely a few decades flourished into a real and major power, though few outside of the Pacific truly appreciated that and even the British treated the Japanese with a patronising attitude at best.
Meiji "The Great" was Japan's first modern Emperor.
The Japanese Government was less democratic than the British but liberalising steadily. Their technological and industrial growth was spurred on by Anglo-American business as well as local government intervention, exports of rice to Britain and her colonies as well as an alarmingly rapid development of train lines led to the fastest economic growth in the world. Government modernisation led to an equally speedy growth of the middle class, with western education pouring in to prop up a new generations of intellectuals. Authors, painters, architects and scientists all flourished and combined western modernity with Japanese tradition. Culture flourished and authors such as Fukuzawa Yukichi or early Japanese suffragist Natsu Higuchi published books popular not only in Japan but also in China, America and the British Empire. The Emperor’s young son, Prince Yoshihito, accompanied him on a visit to Europe in 1885 and would forever be inspired by the sights; later studying at Cambridge University and taking a keen interest in neo-classical and neo-gothic architecture.
What cemented them as a new and rising power was their overwhelming victory in the Sino-Japanese War. In August 1886 a large Chinese fleet, the Beiyang Fleet, was making a tour of Asia; an attempt to demonstrate (falsely of course) that China remained powerful and stable. The great fleet made its way into Nagasaki Harbour and the sailors; drunk and underpaid, rioted through the streets. Tensions were already high between the two nations over the status of Korea and when the rioting resulted in a dangerous and quick spreading fire, the Japanese demanded compensation. The Chinese not only refused but demanded the return of their Fleet, which the Japanese had seized in harbour and detained. By September, shots were being fired at sea and on land. With a quarter of their navy already interned in Nagasaki (as many of the Chinese’s modern ships had been a part of the Beiyang Fleet) the war at sea was short and brutal, the British-designed Japanese fleet cutting through the Chinese in the Battle of Pungdo. Meanwhile following a successful Japanese landing in Korea and a crushing victory at the Battle of Pyongyang (Japanese troops equipped with British Martini-Henry Rifles dominated the comparatively backwards weaponry of their foes) pushed the Chinese from Korea entirely. As the war dragged into early 1888 and repeated Chinese counter offensives met with failure, as well as successful Japanese landings in Taipei and Hainan, the Chinese were brought to the negotiating table.
Japanese troops firing on a Chinese column in Taipei.
The Treaty of Hong Kong was negotiated by the, not at all biased, British and dictated that Korea was to be firmly within Japanese Sphere of influence, that Hainan and Taipei islands would be ceded to the Empire of Japan and that the Japanese would receive a treaty port in the city of Lushun or as the Japanese would dub it, Ryojun. The treaty left Japan beaming and powerful and although the Russians would seize Ryojun, themselves desiring a warm water port on the Pacific, her new acquisitions established Tokyo as the dominant local power.
As of 1894 the Japanese continue their meteoric rise; already a modern nation, they now have designs on Spanish holdings in the pacific as well as the seemingly less accessible French and Russian eastern colonies. Joined at the hip to London, there is much hope in Japan’s future.
Extract from:The Five Party Systems of the USA By:Senator Michael Biden, 1979
The US had had a tumultuous few decades but, much like their European and Japanese counterparts, seemed to be flourishing by the 1880s. Her land was open and free, her people wealthy and secure and the new state of Colorado brought the Union to a round 38. Over the course of the 1880s and early 1890s fivenew states would be added; Idaho, Wyoming, Lakota, Montana and Olympia, the name of which would cause a great deal of headaches; both initial suggestions, Washington and Columbia, could have been easily confused with Washington DC and though Washington was the preferred option for a long time, Olympia was settled on as a compromise. This integration showed the direction of the US during the period; safe, stable and internal growth. The Presidents of the age, Harrison, Cleveland and Garfield are not particularly considered men of note these days, most are scarcely remembered and American politics was rather dull and conventional. Spurred by the issue of the Gold Standard and with rising Progressive ideals within and without both the Democratic and Republican parties, the Progressive era would dawn following the 1892 election.
The old back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans had gone on since the Civil War and now, for the first time, a group of genuine minor candidates emerged. First of all, the People’s Party (known as Populists) were a populist, agrarian and progressive party in favour of economic reform, bimetallism and generally left wing policies. Their leader, Leonidas L Polk, had cobbled together the party out of a pan-national agrarian alliance and had oddly wide reach; its progressive politics struck home in the North East whilst its agrarian policies were exceptionally popular in Texas (where the party had been founded) and particularly in the mid-west. They seemed to have a real shot at the presidency or, at the very least, to push their Meanwhile the Prohibition Party (or simply Prohibitionists)emerged on the right of American politics; in favour of, unsurprisingly, prohibition of alcohol and Protestant values. They nominated Wayne Wheeler, prominent attorney and conservative orator, with the belief that a legal man would receive more attention and credit than the Pastors who made up the majority of the party. Undoubtedly smaller than even the Populists, the Prohibitionists hoped to win the south and persuade the eventual president to support Prohibition.
Polk was popular, intelligent and charming; the perfect outsider candidate. Meanwhile Wheeler was admittedly a little young but had much potential and a strong background in law.
Whilst the two new parties put forward strong candidates, the main parties are generally considered to have made poor choices. The Democrats went with ageing ex-President Grover Cleveland whose popularity was beginning to fade and who modern historians deem too old and played out to truly compete in the modern age. They did, however, show a great deal of sense by nominating party stalwart and populist Horace Boies, who in truth shared more of the views of the People’s Party than the Democrats. Meanwhile the Republican candidate Benjamin Harris was a sensible if dull choice with Whitelaw Reid as his nominated VP. The election was fought bitterly and in the end it was Polk that dominated the discussion, though few expected him to become President. Cleveland’s performance didn't help and only reinforced the conception of him as an old, tired man. Cleveland at the least had experience on his side, the Republicans meanwhile were largely sidelined; with three charismatic, large figures running against them their votes were squeezed from all directions. When the results came in, no one would really be satisfied and a flurry of negotiations would begin.
The election was always going to be close and inevitably, with the Populist capture of Texas, Idaho, Nevada, Lakota, Colorado, Kansas and Wisconsin as well as the Prohibition victory in the Carolinas and Alabama, the two mainstream parties could not generate enough support in the electoral college to declare themselves President. Cleveland was but three electoral votes away from returning to the White House and the Democrats hoped to persuade some of the southern electors from the Prohibition Party to back them or turned to Texan People’s electors but both stayed true to the party. What decided the election was an unexpected boon for a Presidential candidate no one had even voted for, Leonidas Polk approached the Democrats and made them an offer; the People’s Party would give the Democrats all their electors but not to Cleveland, they wanted his Vice President, Boies,to take the top job and to implement Bimetallism. That was their only demand; no large favours, no major policy changes, just Boies and Silver. Meanwhile the Prohibitionists made their own offer; Prohibition across the United States and a Prohibitionist VP in exchange for their own electors. Whilst the Prohibitionists were perhaps closer to the bulk of the Democratic Party, their offer was much more demanding. The third option was to the throw the election to the House which would take time and though likely to end in a Democratic victory, had the potential to slip out of their hands and the chaos of this situation (particularly following the "stolen election" of 1888) led the Democrats down a more cautious route. Thus the Democratic National Congress, whilst hesitant at first, agreed to take the Populists up on their offer, much to the disgust of Cleveland who retained the support of a handful of electors. The Democratic establishment was split on the issue, many preferring the Prohibitionists as allies and many more outraged by the "betrayal" of Cleveland. The Republicans were outraged and saw the act as legally dubious at best. Despite the noise however, the main alternative was throwing the election to the House, which would end up with a Boies Presidency anyway. Even a last minute attempt to ally "Loyalist", pro-Cleveland Democrats to the Prohibition Party fell through. In the end, President Horace Boies would be sworn in as President in early 1893 and selected William Jennings Bryan who, as both in favour of prohibition and of populist ideals, seemed the perfect compromise candidate. The two men shaped the fate of America and the Progressive Age had begun. Eyes turned to the Caribbean and, specifically, to Cuba.
Final Elector Count:
255 -Boies (Democratic/People's)
140 - Harrison (Republican)
31 - Wheeler (Prohibition)
18 - Cleveland ("Loyalist" Democratic)
He hadn't expected to lead the American people so soon but Horace Boies was determined to make the best go of it he could.
The French Republic limped into the 1870s with no hope and no prospects and waltzed out of the 1880s with a massive smile and an even more massive military. The shame that emerged from the brutal and short First Franco-German War led to the fall in shame of Napoleon III and the rebirth of the Republic. It was a time of great uncertainty however and the red revolution of 1871, the Paris Commune, sent fear running though the people of not only France but across Europe. Whilst it was crushed, the commune shook the young republic and most of the 1870s were spent in a period of political discord and anarchy. The big arguments of the age revolved not primarily around right vs left but around republic vs monarchy. Whilst the House of Bonaparte had been, at least for now, driven firmly from France, the Bourbons returned from the woodwork; emboldened by the self imposed exile of their long term foes. Split into the Legitimists and Orleanists, Bourbon monarchists repeatedly clashed with the Republicans and Radicals who occupied the mainstream of French politics. In general the French slid rightward during the 1870s and the first President of the new republic, Adolphe Theirs, was forced to resign for “not being conservative enough”. Theirs was replaced with French Marshall Patrice MacMahon. MacMahon was a military man through and through and his government was composed as such; military appointments dominated, as did conservative republicans. President MacMahon was, correctly, ever fretting over potential coups from left and right. Despite his former status as the Duke of Magenta and his own ambitions, the President took his appointed role seriously; acting as a fair and neutral protector of the republic and its constitution. Appointing the enormously popular and undeniably militarist Georges Boulanger to the position of Prime Minister, MacMahon was able to form a stable coalition and shut out monarchist influence. Boulanger however, presented a new threat; his nickname Général Revanche rang true and the new PM began rearming the French at home and aggressively expanding abroad. MacMahon had been hesitant to appoint Boulanger but hoped that, by appointing him, he could keep him in check and utilise Boulanger’s military prestige and popularity to prop up the unstable republic. His ambition and personality were large and, following his appointment in 1872, would rule France for 17 years. Rather than creating a balanced ticket, a military president appointing a military Prime Minister set the stage for the rise of Boulangism and Revanche Republicanism in general. Politically, the man should have been doomed; opposed on the left by Radicals and Socialists and on the right by Monarchists of many flavours, it was only the man’s intense personal popularity and the division of his opposition that led to his victory in four subsequent elections. Boulanger was also an intelligent man and toned down his most extreme views to placate his allies, instead building a long term political faction within the Radical Republicans, his primary supporters in the French Parliament.
General Revanche, France's response to the Iron Chancellor.
In 1877 France went to war with China; annexing northern Vietnam and trouncing the Chinese Army. Following the failure of King Leopold of Belgium in colonising the Congo, France lept into action advancing her interests in the Congo by annexing coastal territories in 1882 and moving slowly southwards from her northern colonies. Boulanger was one of the key players at the Stockholm Conference of 1885, which organised the colonisation of Africa, and set about the annexation of vast swathes of Northern, Western and Central Africa. By 1890, a year after Boulanger’s resignation, France was the joint-premier power on the continent; sharing the title and the Congo basin with the British, a source of constant tension. At home, Boulanger pushed for military reform; relaxing restrictions on soldiers and pushing military interests to the top of the pile. The introduction of the 1885 Fusil Lebel rifle which, whilst often poorly compared to the British Enfield-Metford and German Gewehr 1888, was a modern and innovative piece at its time of introduction. Even after his removal, the innovation continued. The French Army boomed in size to nearly one and a half million men. Paris doubled down on this advantage, signing the Franco-Russian Alliance, which was perceived as a key part of the strategy against Germany, with Russian Emperor Alexander III in February 1889. Boulanger was an Army man through and through and whilst he put France as a larger military force (in sheer numbers alone) than their German rivals, he neglected to invest in the French Navy. Boulanger totally restored France’s reputation as a military power and his removal only came when it became clear to his parliamentary allies, the Radical Republicans, that he was not pursuing a theoretical, long term revenge with France but had in fact planned to invade France’s eastern neighbour at short notice, he hoped that a victory over the Germans in 1890 would allow France to move past the shame of their past. Rapidly, the Republicans drafted Ernest Constans to replace him and Boulanger lost any and all support in the Senate, resigning on March 9th, 1889. Despite his removal, Boulanger had succeeded in establishing France as a militaristic and revanchist power for years to come.
Proud and powerful, France was back and stronger than ever.
With the French royal family fled to England and France firmly in the grip of Revanchist Republicanism, young Prince Napoleon, pretender-heir to the French throne, took a keen interest in Imperial Socialist thought and, in 1889, became a member of the Fabian Society. Upon his joining, the Prince wrote in his diary “I have never before seen the ideology, truly, of Bonapartism so expertly given form, and from Englishmen no less!”. This was not without precedent, Napoleon’s father, Napoleon III, was famously considered a liberal and a socilaist, once remarking (whilst ironically decrying Bonapartism as an ideology) “The Empress is legitimate, my cousin is a republican and as for me, I am a socialist.” The younger Napoleon’s role in London society actually gave a significant boon to the movement and laid the foundation for its movement from a firmly British ideology to a more cosmopolitan, global one. Whilst unimportant or now, the young Prince would act as an important spokesman for the movement and gave speeches in its favour across Britain, Canada and the United States. He is most well noted for furthering the popularity of the movement in Quebec, where it had been considered a political cancer. The support of a King, nay an Emperor did much to boost the movement and for a short time between 1892 and 1895, Napoleon would sit on the Executive Council of the Fabian Society.
Acuweb E-Post chain from January, 2019
From: aej/mag/oxf/uni/com
To: mcc/war/cam/uni/com
22/01/2019
Dear Marie,
I’ve attached the latest chunk of my dissertation, I’ve had to fit it in around campaigning for the election so this might seem a little rushed. Annoyingly, I need to get through to the 1920s before I hit 5000 words if the essay is going to be under the word count so this is what I’ve got for the success of the party outside of Britain in the 1890s, thoughts? My professor is a hardass and he's pretty old school (I think he's a Liberal, might even be a Tory, if there are any of them left!) so I've got to be tight on the background stuff. You'd probably like him but when I let slip about you I got a right ribbing for dating a tab.
Also if we are going to Hong Kong in August we’d better book the tickets now, both CA and Skyhansa are offering deals.
Oh and please tell your ma to stop bringing me so much food; its nice to have a stand in Mum whilst I’m in Oxford but I don’t need four servings of Szechuan noodles a day.
Love you, talk soon!
Yours,
Artie
---- Attachment:
Extract from: The Red Crowns - The World of Imperial Socialism By:Arthur Ellis Johnson, 2019
The Imperial Socialist party at first constrained its actions to the United Kingdom but, before long, had spread across the Empire. Advocating from the very start the previously Conservative position of Imperial Federation with a new, egalitarian swing, they met with early if modest success in the dominions. In Canada four Imperial Socialist MPs were elected in the 1891 election, two in Western mining regions, one in Quebec (thanks to Bonapartist sympathies) and the most shocking in Vancouver where the National leader of the Fabians defeated both liberal and conservative candidates. Ralph Smith was a Newcastle born Miner turned Union Boss turned Politician and, at the time, the most well known Fabian leader outside of Britain.
Whilst smaller than the British faction, Smith's Canadian Fabians (or as some painful insist on calling them, Canfabians) were initially the most prominent ImpSoc faction overseas.
In Australasia, local Imperial Socialists formed a pact with the Australasian Labor party and won ten seats in the 1892 elections, primarily across South Australia and North Island, New Zealand. The Fabian-Labour faction in the Australasian parliament was a key part of the Protectionist minority governments of 1892-1899, supporting their tax and trade measures in exchange for progressive labour laws and educational reform, pionered by their leader and MP for Boothby, Lee Batchelor. In the Cape elections of 1893 an Imperial Socialist MP was elected in Bechuanaland (which admittedly had a voter count of 1,700), three in Griqualand West and two in Midland district. Importantly, Cape Imperial Socialists caught the eye of Prime Minister Solomon who would eventually be won to their side. In Westralia the movement utterly failed to make traction, their newly won independence too important to surrender to London again or to anyone else. Despite this, by 1894 the Imperial Socialists could claim 21 MPs outside of Britain and before long their calls for “Imperial reorganisation” and integration began to sway public opinion.
Batchellor's Australasian Fabians were forced to coexist with the already extant Labor party but were able to work out a comfortable electoral pact.
Many question why only recently independent nations might at all want to be subsumed into a larger whole but what the Fabians were offering was more than a return to rule from London; they were offering far greater control over Imperial policy. Despite the independence of the dominions, London was still in charge of their foreign affairs and much of their economic policy; it provided for their defence and gave them their opportunities for expansion. Under the current systems of semi-independent dominions, citizens of the dominions had no say in the general direction of Empire and, outside of their own domestic affairs, were utterly subservient to the British voter. As part of an Imperial federation however, there would be flat equality; a vote in Sydney or Toronto had as much sway as one in London and that was something people desired. The dream would be hard to achieve but with support from almost every corner of the Empire, it was at least possible.
Extract from: Nova Roma:The Rise of Italy and their Empire By:Michel Menchelon, Published 1999
Italy, to the surprise of many modern observers I am sure, was not considered much of a major power come the late 19th century. Her unification came primarily from French encouragement and their support of the Kingdom of Sardinia Piedmont, which had fully united the peninsula by 1870. From this point on is know widely as “Liberal Italy” and indeed by 1880 things had largely continued on a line of liberal monarchism; steady economic growth and minor military build up occurred during a period of peace and stability. For this reason the years 1870 to 1900 are often known as I Decenni Felice, the happy decades.
Italy’s late rise meant that they were rather behind the times in terms of imperial possessions, holding only Italian Somalia by 1885. The following year, however, would see a dramatic change in fortunes. Libya had always been a major aim of Italian expansionists and the Ottoman Empire’s grip on ‘Tripolitania’. The 1886 Italo-Ottoman War was a relatively quick affair and went some way to establish the Italians as a genuine military force (though the Long War was really the main cause of this). The Italians had been looking for a reason to seize Ottoman holdings for a while and, following the death of several Italian citizens in the Constantinople Riots of June 1886, the Italians had the flimsy casus belli they needed, declaring war on July 10th.
The Italians moved to action relatively quickly, having no doubt mobilised weeks before the conflict began, and landed a division of men some 10 miles east of Tripolis as well as three other landings in Benghazi, Tobruk and and Derna. These landings largely took local garrisons by surprise and with heavy naval bombardment lasting for multiple weeks, the coast had largely been captured by September. Throughout the Autumn however, Ottoman and Arab forces fought back against the Italians, who were mostly content to have dominion over the cities and coast of Libya and repeatedly saw off Ottoman attempts at recapture.
After several months of deadlock, the Italians landed in Crete and Rhodes in February 1887 and began shifting materials east. Internal divisions had massively limited the power projection of the Ottomans who, by mid-march, had accepted defeat. In the American moderated Treaty of Benghazi, the Ottoman Empire ceded the entirety of the colony of Tripolitania to the Italian Empire.
Umberto I, now King of a mighty Italian Empire
They were still smaller than any of the other major European powers (though they had no doubt overtaken the languishing Spanish) but the Italians were beginning to be noticed and as Austro-German relations suffered under Friedrich IV, a new Rome-Berlin bond began to grow. Italy, Austria and Germany had united into the Triple Alliance in 1882, building on the Austro-German alliance that already existed. Tensions between the Germans and Austrians rapidly rose, however, following the ascension of Kaiser Friedrich Germany began to liberalise and solidify relations with London and, later, with the Americans too. The Austrians had always been cool on the alliance with the Italians, as both had plans for Balkan expansion and their border had always been one disputed by both sides. Now with a liberalising, Western-friendly Berlin, Emperor Franz Joseph was disgusted and left the Alliance in mid 1890.
Following his departure from the Berlin-centred Triple Alliance, the Austrians began to encourage more friendly relations with her eastern neighbour and long time rival, Russia.
The Old Autocrat
Extract from:From Poland to the Pacific: The Height of the Russian Empire By:Ilya Vasov, Published 2010
The Austro-Russian detente seems a strange development for many; they both had designs on large portions of the Balkans and had been borderline aggressive toward one another for decades. By the time of Nicholas and Karl, however, things were boiling down to the ideological.
Karl Franz looked at the countries around him; Republican France, Liberal Germany, Modern Italy and was repulsed. He was an autocrat, through and through, thinking himself the last true godly monarch of Europe. A man that could lead on his own, sparing his people from the horrors of democracy and politicians. Surrounded in many ways by more forward-thinking powers, Karl found an odd friend in the young Emperor Nicholas II of Russia.
The death of his father in 1892 was not much of a surprise to Nicholas but nevertheless he felt too young for rule. By even his own admission, Nicholas had always been more of a family man than a politician. Despite his early fears, however, Nicholas threw himself into his role with even more pomp and circumstance than expected. His coronation on April 2nd 1892 were a matter of huge celebration and was attended by monarchs from across Europe, displaying all the wealth and opulence of the Russian Empire with a grand military parade and national fair. It is notable for being Queen Victoria’s final trip outside of the United Kingdom and one of the final for her son, the Prince of Wales. Beneath the surface however, all was not as golden as Nicholas presented. Russia’s military was no doubt an outdated affair, her economy still lagged behind her western neighbours and the autocratic methods of Alexander II had left much of the peasantry dissatisfied with the state of affairs. Far from a reformer, Nicholas never the less turned to his advisor and tutor Pyotr Stolypin a radical reactionary and conservative thinker.
Pyotr Stolypin, the architect of Young Russia.
From his busy first few months in the second half of 1892, Nicholas immediately fell from the public sphere and began spending almost all of his time with his family and gave Stolypin near total control of the government. As Prime Minister and Interior Minister, Stolypin held a colossal amount of power and immediately began centralising further. He first cut the power of local governments and pushed their power upwards to Governors, who he mostly selected from the ranks of local elites. Stolypin then moved to economic reform; with government owned train lines shooting out from the country’s cities at an increasingly rapid pace. Stolypin slowly but surely reformed each part of the Russian government, modernising and centralising wherever he went. Stolypin hoped to (and in many cases, indeed did) combine modern ideas of meritocracy and more antiquated ideas of paternalistic, aristocratic rule. By heavily investing in Russian Universities, Stolypin hoped to create an elite and well educated class of Russian Aristocrats that started to emerge by 1895. The economy boomed and investment poured in from France and America, factories popping up in Moscow and St Petersburg whilst new cities began to emerge in Southern Russia and the Ukraine. The average life of a peasant genuinely improved with wages and educational opportunities rising however they were increasingly cut off from the political sphere and Stolypin ensured that schools began to spread his “Neoautocrat” ideology. His “Young Russian” campaign hoped to mimic the national renovations of Germany, Italy and Japan and a new, industrialising and efficient Russia was coming out into the world.
Nicholas’ most famous speech came in late 1894, only a few months before the conflict that engulfed him and his country, now they seem rather telling. “I want everyone to know that I will devote all my strength to maintain, for the good of the whole nation, the principle of absolute autocracy, as firmly and as strongly as did my late lamented father."
Extract from:I Bless the Rains: Modern War in Africa By:Connor Yeng
Colonial Africa had always been a messy affair and the region had been attacked in stages, pre-1870 came the spotty coastal land grabs; the Dutch and later British in the Cape, the Portugese with their trading ports on either coast and of course the slaver/trader colonies in west Africa, held by a small menagerie of European powers. Dutch, Danish, Swedish, French, British, Spanish, the list went on. Only the creation of quinine, as well as ramping economic interest in the Dark Continent, allowed more general and widespread colonisation to occur. The second period (1870-1880) is one of bold explorers plunging into the heart of Africa; men such as Dr Livingstone, Serpa Pinto, Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza, Hermenegildo de Brito Capelo and of course, the famous rivals; Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza and Sir Frederick Russell Burnham. Burnham was the favourite of the British crown; knighted by Queen Victoria for his exploration of the Congo and Nkutu rivers, making contact with the local and planting the first Union Jack in the basin, making contact with and willing the respect of the Luba, who would later pledge their allegiance to the British Crown. Meanwhile de Brazza was a hero of the French Republic, exploring the Congo on the North Side and staking French claims to the land of the Mongo people, he reached further into the jungle than Russell ever did but failed to make as much meaningful contact with the locals. As the popularity of the two sowly rose, they became friends and pen pals, writing to each other in the friendly spirit of cooperation and competition. The congolese lands of Brazzaland and Great Burnham would bear their names even till today. Both went on to serve in the Short War but despite this opposition, retained their friendship and only cooperated further. During the 1870s large claims were staked, almost all overlapping and conflicting and poorly enforced. With the failure of King Leopold of Belgium's initiative with the International African Association, it was primarily governments that led the charge. Only by the third stage of African colonisation would true rule begin to be established.
The friendship between de Brazza and Sir Frederick would be immortalised in the 2004 epic, "Hearts of Glory".
The 1880s started with real conflict began; aggressive Anglo-French expansion towards the centre of Africa, Swedish and Spanish grabs in the Congo only complicated matters as the Germans, Italians and Portuguese all staked large enough claims of their own. The British, in the First Treaty of the Cape, had negotiated a successful long term peace with the United Boer Republic of South Africa and used the economic exploitation of the region to fund more northerly expeditions. Britain and France slowly moved north and south respectively, as the Cape and Algeria became their main capitals on the continent. It was in the Congo that they came to clash but on the surface, conflict seemed avoidable. The British were genuinely contented to sit on the south side of the Congo and, likewise, the French on the north. The real conflict lay not as many see it on the river but simply on the axis of Africa itself. The British aimed for a north-south, Cape to Cairo string of colonies whilst the French aimed for an East-West Guinea to Eritrea line. The Congo Basin, it just so happened, was the region best suited for both to centre their empires upon.
They were late to the party however and by the time of the 1889 Stockholm Conference, which regulated the borders of European colonies in Africa, three countries had attempted to seize the region. The Spanish made the second poorest attempt while the Swedes, who held strong sway over the river itself, had done a little better. The greatest failure of the three was the Belgians whose claims revolved entirely around the IAA who, with a lack of funding and effectively being "too early to the Congo party", collapsed entirely due to economic woes. Anglo-French interest in the Congo peaked when the Belgians began to auction off their claims and forts in 1891. The chaos of these sales, which were rushed in an attempt to salvage the flagging Belgian economy, would create many, many issues down the road.
During the Belgian’s initial forays into the region three forts were constructed; Fort Belgium, Fort Christian and Fort Leopold. Whilst the first two would fall into general disrepair after the IAA went bankrupt in 1890, the later was situated at the mouth of the Congo and as such was manned irregularly by traders, mercenaries and the odd adventurous local, all following the smell of cash. The Fort was modern and European in style, large and comfortable, well position and (most importantly) unclaimed. The confusion over the fort came about in 1891 wherein it was purchased, confusingly, by both the British and French governments. The British, in direct contact with the Belgian government and monarchy, purchased the Fort from them for a sum of £10,000 on the 3rd of March, whilst the French, in contact with the remnants of the IAA who also claimed to be the true owners of the Fortress, purchased it two months later for nearly double that fee. Neither really followed up on the claim for four years when, following the organising of the British Central African territory, the Fort was occupied by the then Lieutenant Winston Churchill and a detachment of the 17th Lancer Regiment. Churchill had been serving under his commander, one Colonel Herbert, who had died of Yellow Fever on the trail toward the fort. The French, alarmed and outraged at the staffing objected diplomatically and dispatched a full regiment of Infantry to claim the fort in the name of the republic…
Extract from: The Price of Greatness - My Victories and my Defeats
By:Winston Spencer-Churchill, published 1950 by Cambridge University Press
When we arrived we had been on the path for a few weeks, though the fort was located only a hundred miles or so from the coast, the often non-existent roads impeded our advance continually, disease took 9 men, which out of some 600 I thought to be very acceptable. Of greatest tragedy however that among these 9 numbered my superior officer. The Colonel was a good and patriotic man but of weak temperament and the Congo Fever took him barely a week into the expedition. Though some of my NCOs (and later my superiors) would object to my actions in the coming weeks, I have no doubt that I did that which was best to the Empire. Reaching the Fort not two days after the death of the Colonel, we quickly began to restore the dilapidated place. Barely a decade and a half old but abandoned for 11 years now the restoration was perhaps harder than it should have been but the men were unused to the climate. We received no information that the French were inbound, in fact Whitehall had not even seen fit to inform me that the French held a claim to the fort. Nevertheless a month into our occupation they arrived and, with great insistence, demanded we evacuate immediately and cede the fort to them. Then we had no clue how many French there were although of course once all was said and done we counted about 2000, considerably more than our own.
Negotiations were brief, impolite and scarcely extant. While much of the blame for this has fallen on my shoulders, I refute that the fault of the conflict lay with myself or the Empire. It was the French who unfairly demanded our exit, the French who gave us a brutal and barbaric ultimatum and the French who sent a man to make an attempt on my life….
Lieutenant Winston Churchill, of His Majesty's Horse
Extract from: The Brightest Flame - The Origins of the Short War
By:Robert Clarke, published 1999 by Penguin Publishing
...and the famous account of Churchill personally dispatching a French assassin with his own pistol is almost certainly an exaggeration, sadly as the senior officer on the scene as well as, to the dismay of modern Historians, the first “Historian” to chart the events of the Short War from beginning to end, there simply are no surviving accounts other than Churchill’s. Nevertheless, Churchill no doubt proved himself a skilled if unsubtle officer and following the killing of the French infiltrator (which by all accounts did take place, though his true motives remain unknown) made moves to reinforce the British position with great haste, fearing an attack. An immediate fight did not come in the Congo however, as the British and French government scrambled to double down on their various negotiations. A multitude of solutions were put forward; two dozen new borders, a buffer state in Egypt, non-militarised zones, even an offer of Codominion was at one point tabled. As they dragged on, however, the world continued to turn. Matters were complicated by the private endorsement of the British position by Kaiser Frederich which was reported by the French press.
As negotiations dragged on, Churchill and the Light Horse stewed in Fort Leopold.
The Russians, in apparent response to this, doubled down on their alliance with Paris and promised "unconditional support" whilst the Austro-Hungarians, whilst leaning towards the French position, remained strictly neutral. Meanwhile, a division of smaller European states called for international mediation, led by the Swedish and Italian governments, they hoped to give the region to a third party or set it up as an International territory. Over the course of a month, Churchill's delegation sat and stewed with a superior French force outside their walls. The militaries of Europe began subtle moves to mobilisation and a thousand secret treaties were conducted behind closed doors. Despite all of this, peace still seemed the probable outcome; the French had bigger fish to fry and the Liberals in Britain wanted a clean run to pass their Irish Home Rule Bill. Unfortunately, things got complicated and in what seemed a fairly run of the mill affair, Tsar Nicholas II made a now infamous speech in St Petersburg Square.
Extract from: Echoes in a Crown - The Collected Works of the Poet Tsar
By: Tsar Michael II
A new Red Square,
Christened with blue blood,
A king lost,
A brother slain,
And a golden crown bounces across cobblestone
Extract from: Bloody and Brief - The Short War At Sea By: Alexi Propov - Moscow University Press, 1954
The words of Nicholas II’s speech would mirror and resonate with the manner of his death. Nicholas insisted on the eternal nature of the Russian Empire, the strength of her arms and, in the final few minutes before his dramatic murder, her loyalty to France. Some of his final words (though not, as many have reported, his actual final words were) “The flags of Russia and France are forever tied and I have no doubt that even the President of France would die for Russia and have no fear that the Tsar of Russia would die for France.” Nicholas did not, truly, die for France but at this point that hardly seemed to matter. His ever more powerful confidant and Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypn, leapt into action, ordering an immediate mobilisation of troops, the rounding up of well known dissidents and -most oddly- the firing of most of the cabinet. Stolypin was, by the 30th of May, Prime Minister, Imperial Regent, Lord President of the Imperial Council, Minister for the Economy, Minister for War, Minister for Security and a host of minor, mostly honourary titles as well. The rumours that Nicholas and Stolypin had bickered over the direction of the country in the weeks leading up to the speech are true, the idea that both had contacted senior army officers to confirm their support were - most likely- not.
The death of Nicholas II is one of the most pivotal moments in human history and both historians and writers have turned to it as a launching point for their work. Mike Anderson famously used the survival of Nicholas as the point of departure in his Look to the East work of alternative history. The first and most famous outcome of the attack was the start of the Short War with, to the surprise of many was started not by the British or French but by the Russians. The new Tsar, Michael II, had little to do with this declaration; he had been holidaying in Karelia and would not hear of his brothers death until 6th of June, nearly a week after Stolypin's 'Caretaker Government' had declared war. Michael returned to St Petersburg and was, it is reported, so stunned by the mutilated body of his brother - whom he insisted on seeing - that he turned inwards and, bar his singular speech and later coronation, would see no visitors. Again, accusations of a “house arrest” by the Stolypin government have likely been exaggerated - but perhaps not entirely falsified.
'The Poet Tsar' Michael II, the younger brother and the reluctant ruler. Nearly powerless from day one.
Some see the declaration, coming on the 1st, as rash or illogical but one has to consider the situation of the time. The British were in a tense and already bloody standoff with the French, Russia's closest and friendliest ally, when all of a sudden and unknown and as of yet unidentified assailant struck at and killed the most important man in the country. The British were the first to be blamed and, whether this came from a genuine belief or from a purely ideological standpoint, Stolypin put the blame immediately at the feet of London, accusing them of “attempting to divide the indivisible and to vanquish the unvanquishable” by taking out Russia’s leadership from the top down.
The conflict started slowly; the British dominions unanimously declared their support for the motherland on the 7th (though this was of course not their choice but the decision of London), whilst the French too joined the fray on the 7th, issuing a statement that; "In Africa, Asia, Europe and across the globe, the French Republic is in a state of conflict and of war with the British, their minions and their Asiatic underlings". These 'Asiatic underlings 'were the Japanese who, whilst technically still neutral on the 7th, joined London's cause on the 8th as Emperor Meiji pledged; "the full and total support of the Japanese Government, Military and Emperor to the bold and righteous cause of the British. The first actions would be at sea; the Russian and Japanese Navies saw the first action as they clashed in the North Atlantic. The Russians had intercepted the Japanese Fleet on a journey south to meet up with the British China Squadron, led by Admiral Sir Alexander Buller. The Japanese Admiral, Dewa Shigero, was something of a wunderkind of the Imperial Japanese Navy, having travelled to London in the early 1890s for his education. The Japanese fleet was modern but small and truly half built, in the middle of a series of expansions based on British-built vessels that would bolster the Japanese against the Russian foe. For this reason, it was thought that a combined Anglo-Japanese fleet would be more likely to decisively batter the Russians and win the Pacific. The Russians knew of this plan and were terrified; there was next to nothing they could do once the two fleets combined and so they hoped to score a quick and easy win against the Japanese. With the two navies storming rapidly across the Pacific, the IJN was intercepted by the Russian Eastern Fleet in the Chinese Straights and the Battle of Taiwan began on the morning of June 17th.
The famous - if heavily stylized and unrealistic - painting "the Battle of Taiwan".
The Japanese were actually almost at parity with the Russians, despite being a smaller, younger and (at least in thought) weaker Empire. The Russians had seven battleships and 5 cruisers whilst the Japanese had four battleships but ten cruisers with both sides possessing a litany of smaller gunships and, amongst the Japanese, some experimental torpedo boats. The Japanese battleships of the Fuji, the Yashima, the rushed and new Shikishima and the flagship Hatsue immediately broke off from their positions in the Japanese column and turned the fight directly to face the Russians head-on. The Russian Admiral, Oskar Viktorovich Stark, saw this as a mistake and immediately started pounding the Japanese flagship. Initially, Stark seemed to be doing well and the Russians scored three powerful hits; one on the Hatsue and two on the Yashima, which almost immediately began taking water. Before long, however, the battle began to turn. The Russians outnumbered the Japanese in terms of tonnage but their ships were mostly a decade or more old whilst some of the Japanese vessels had barely been under commission for four months. The Japanese ships were all British made and, with modern armaments, were able to begin returning fire with a much higher rate of fire and accuracy. Immediately after the Russian salvo, the Japanese scored hits on five of their seven foes. Fire was traded for but a few minutes as the Japanese pumped out more and more than their Russian foes could manage. Despite the advantages of technology, however, The Yashima, which had been flagging for some time began sinking and the Hatsue lost its steering ability. Just as the Russians seemed to be winning, however, a shot from the Fuji struck the battery of the Russian Flagship Sevastopol, which exploded almost immediately, killing the Admiral Stark. The Russians, leaderless, immediately began to fall apart as soon another Russian Battleship, the Poltava, was also sunk. The Russians, scattered and scared, began to break off almost immediately and, whilst neither side could declare a victory, the Russians had been bloodied and failed in their objective, whilst the Japanese Fleet could hobble southwards into the loving arms of the Royal Navy.
Rear Admiral Dewa Shigero would go into to become a national hero for many years to come.
With British power now entering the sphere, there was nothing the Russians could do to prevent an Anglo-Japanese domination of the Pacific. They turned instead to their offensives in Afghanistan and Korea, hoping that a victory on land might bring both London and Tokyo to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, their allies in France too struggled at sea in the Mediterranean and Atlantic whilst the British rushed to bring their massive naval might to bear. As fighting began in Africa as well, the Short War had burst into a - short lived - struggle.
Extract from: Film and Visio - Issue 342 - November 2014
By: Stan Dinkelidge
Fighting along the Congo River is perhaps the most well-known conflict of the Short War but, surprisingly was one of the least brutal. Whilst the Afghan Front and the brief but bloody Invasion of Dainam actually saw greater casualties on both sides, in all the great depictions of the war it is the Congo that captures the imagination. Bridge over the River Congo, Hearts of Darkness, Where the Wildmen Are, His Majesty’s Jungle Riders, Winston’s Heros, the list of books, films and visioshows based on the conflict are seemingly endless. The majority of these are British accounts which, unsurprisingly, gloss over the litany of early French victories. Whilst the British had naval superiority throughout the conflict, the French actually began the conflict with a larger and better-armed force in the region. Attempting a more realistic depiction of the difficulties both sides faced in the conflict, the director of Once More Into the Breach, Land of Glory and Land of Hope comes a prequel to his riveting Churchill Saga that, in a risky move, changes the perspective to an entirely new character.
Michael Scott’s latest production, “All Along Those Quiet Shores” takes the perspective, interestingly, of a local tribesman, Muteba, who, through a series of confusing events, fights on both sides of the conflict. Muteba starts as a follower on of the British as his tribe, the fictional Olomede, throw their weight behind Churchill’s Army following their victory at the Battle of Fort Leopold. Indeed, the chilling opening scene of the brutal and bloody siege is one of the most immediate eye catchers. The opening looks at the French assault from the eyes of a doomed and unnamed French Sergeant whose futile charge through the British trench carries us, in slow motion, through the horrors of that first battle. As the Sergeant loses more and more troops, the camera goes more erratic, the sound more dulled and the action ever slower until his eventual death on the sword of a dismounted British cavalryman. The beautiful but chilling shot of the Sergeant slouching into the Englishman’s embrace with the setting African sun silhouetting them is one of the most striking in cinematic history. Historically the film sticks to the facts; this first battle unfolds at first in the favour of the French as they breach the British walls but thanks to Churchill’s predisposition for guerrilla fighting and his cunning use of hidden dynamite, the French are shattered and routed. One minor historical inaccuracy is the British use of Lee-Metford rifles which, whilst in use at home and in the later African deployments, had not yet reached the British Congolese Forces.
Once the action moves to Muteba, the film deviates from the traditional British War-Movie tropes to explore the oft forgotten lives of civilians and support troops as Mateba signs up alongside Churchill and eventually rises to be his chief native advisor. The relationship between Churchill and Mateba has been accused of whitewashing the racism of the British commander but indeed whilst Churchill was extremely dismissive and prejudiced against Africans resistant to British rule, by all accounts he treated ‘loyalists’ well. Following Churchill’s move into the jungle as the larger French Army of the Congo approaches and the turning of the British to spottier raids and harassing French supply lines, Muteba begins integrating local tactics into the British doctrine. An early setback at the Battle of Fort Nord sees the British reeling and losing any and all positions on the river east of Fort Leopold. Over the next two weeks Churchill is met with increasing success in harrying the French as they move down the Congo, slowly turning the tide and desperately holding off the French until reinforcements can arrive. Their numbers bleeding, the French begin to torch local villages and eventually capture Muteba. With this victory, French domination of the region seems at least temporarily assured and the film takes a very dark turn. His brief stint as a French ammo carrier, working alongside some of his old captured tribesmen is on the the most chilling depictions of African imperialism ever put on screen as Muteba is beaten, whipped and starved into brutal work, at one point even being forced to pull the French guns like a packhorse. The cinematography here is beautiful as the colour drains the longer Muteba lies in captivity, the final scene of his escape takes place entirely in black and white with only blood highlighted in pure red. As Muteba breaks out of the jungle and reaches the Africa coast, a bright red-white-and-blue flag covers half the screen as he runs into the HMS Outrageous and the arrival of British reinforcements. The film's final note is one of hope as the British, having held off French assault for over a month, now see their numbers increased six-fold as the war begins to swing in their favour.
Ejiofor's Muteba keeps the film human and is a delight to watch during the scenes of victory whilst chilling you to your core during the torturous "Slave" segment.
The film is spectacular and the performance from Arinze Ejiofor as Muteba compliments well the colourful return of Richard Cox into his seminal and career-defining role as young Churchill. Whilst the film does have a few inaccuracies, it does do justice to the first half of the Short War in Africa; initial British victory soon turning into a gruelling guerrilla melee before the arrival of reinforcements that effectively settle the war in Britain’s favour.
With stellar performances, beautiful direction and a nice, wholesome lump of historical accuracy, All Along These Quiet Shores wins an impressive 9.5/10. It’ll be a real contender for both the CAFTAs and the Filmies with nominations for Best Film, Best Direction, Best Cinematography and, of course, Best Overall Performance.
Extract from:Essay #7 TT19, Britain's Short War at Sea By: Arthur E Johnson, Marked by Prof Langely
There is a general consensus on the Short War; Entente preparedness allowed for early victories on every front as the larger armies of the French and Russian Empires plunged themselves into combat and caught the Pacific Alliance (WRONG - term used out of context, now it's just the Anglo-Japanese Alliance or “Allies”, the PA comes later) largely by surprise. The British Royal Navy was the most powerful naval force at the time and in Europe and the Atlantic, this was immediately apparent (good). The French Navy was, of course, reluctant to engage at sea at all; the Royal Navy was the undisputed world power and outnumbered not only the French but the combined navies of the Entente. Indeed, since 1889 Britain had operated on an official “Two-and-a-half power policy” (correct but try and include the real name of the Naval Power Bill)in which they were to be as powerful navally as the next two powered combined whilst holding the ability to engage a third. A series of dramatic and ambitious shipbuilding plans had been undertaken in the 1880s and 1890s and indeed just one year before the start of the Short War, the government had commissioned several new ships for construction but of course, none of these were yet ready for deployment. Nevertheless a general souring of Anglo-European relations in the 1880s and a mounting fear of particularly the French meant that whilst the Army and the Empire as a whole was quite unprepared for the conflict, the Navy was ready.
The Royal Navy's Britannia Squadron in 1901
In the open Atlantic, the French immediately abandoned any hope and in the Pacific their colonies and ports went into lockdown. The French Navy had two priorities; hamper the British in the North Atlantic in order to slow the spread of the Royal Navy and to contain the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean and keep supplies flowing between France and North Africa. On both of these fronts, they failed. The Battle of the Channel Islands was an utter disaster for the French Navy. (Probably true but still be careful with platitudes)Operating on old and dubious intelligence, the French believed the British to be in the middle of a major naval shakeup - true - and therefore disorganised in their movements - untrue. Attacking what they believed was a small portion of the recently designated “Britannia Squadron” they were in fact sailing towards the combined might of both of Britain’s Home Fleets, “Britannia Squadron” - which was based out of Portsmouth and served for the protection of the Home Isles and the North Sea - and “Atlantic Squadron” - based in Plymouth. Vice-Admiral Arthur Wilson led the combined British force which composed more than 100 ships: 19 battleships, 29 large cruisers, 23 small cruisers and 61 screens. The French meanwhile mounted the pitiful(??? They're still a big fleet, remember that they had parity in the Med) number of 8 battleships, 31 cruisers and 40 screens. Both fleets were amalgams of their respective nation’s various Atlantic divisions and both were larger than almost any other battle-fleet ever put to sea.
You neglected to mention the battle of the Mediterannianat allbut overall its pretty solid and very well written in parts, just needs more work and sharpening up. 2.1
Extract from:Heart of Oak: The Autobiography of an Imperial High Admiral By: Arthur Wilson
I do regret what casualties we sustained, of course, however one must take such deaths in one's stride. When Empire and nation is at stake, what are the lives of a few hundred Britons? The Battle of the Channel Islands is oft remembered as a smashing success and indeed it is to be my legacy. The French were doomed from the start, they set upon us with poor knowledge and under false pretences. I like to think that the men and officers performed well, both in setting up the trap and executing it. The tally at the end of it was more even than it might have been but nevertheless a smashing success. They fired on the first ships they could see in range, the Raleigh and the Mars (which had been put to see but months before) and sank the former. The later meanwhile immediately responded and, with a lucky shot sunk the Redoubtable with a blasted magazine. It was the sinking of this ship, a symbol of French engineering and pride, with such ease that set the pace and tone of the battle.
HMS Repulse, flagship of the greatest fleet of the Royal Navy
Aboard the Repulse I saw the battle from its head and was lucky, perhaps, to stay afloat when the Raleigh, Inconstant, Revenge and India all were lost. Alongside them were a great many of our cruisers I am afraid to say; 19 in total if memory serves and then only 11 of our screens. The French, however, were shattered, one battleship escaped alongside two cruisers and a handful of the destroyers. That was a good day for myself and for the country. In truth, however, the battle did not settle the war; it simply reasserted Britain’s dominance of the Atlantic, which had never been in doubt. It was in more southerly waters that the war would be decided.
Extract from:The Imperial Wars: 1650-1919 By: Gregory Mann, Warwick University Press, Published 1999
The Short War in Asia had three fronts; Afghanistan where the Russians and British finished the Great Game, in Manchuria where St Petersburg and Tokyo clashed over Chinese territory and Dainam where Australasian troops saw combat for the first time as an independent country. Each of these fronts was unique and complicated but this essay will attempt a brief outline of all three.
I. Dainam
The French colony of Cochinchina was an attempt to expand the fledgeling Empire eastwards; whilst the British had India and the Dutch Indonesia, France found herself increasingly relegated to Africa alone. In the 1870s and 1880s however, she wrestled Indochina from Chinese influence and planted the tricolour firmly in the Pacific.
Despite the pride brought by the new colony, its position was incredibly vulnerable from the start. The Pacific, Indian and Atlantic ocean were all dominated by the British and their cronies in Australasia and Canada. Supplies and even information from the mainland took a great deal of time to reach the east whilst the British had considered options for some time. The newly founded Australasian Army Corps was free of the commitments that bound British comrades to the African front whilst the Siamese, who had attempted to walk the line between British and French for the last few decades, threw their own strength behind the Empire they thought unbeatable. In truth, French Indochina could never have resisted the overwhelming strength of the Allies. Understaffed and facing local rebellion, the French were beset first from the sea as three Australasian Divisions landed but a few miles south of Saigon in the city of Vung Tau on the 23rd of July 1894. and began their march north, and from land as the Siamese, their army of 100,000 outnumbered the French Garrison 10 to 1.
The Australasians (and a minute amount of their Westralian counterparts) made a name for themselves in the Short War and with their distinctive headgear and laid back mannerisms, developed a reputation as relaxed, stylish figures that raised their global image enormously.
Marching north at a rapid pace, the Australasians encountered a French Army. The majority of the French force had been based on Saigon; some 6000 men outnumbered by the Australians by nearly 3000. The odds were against them but the French nevertheless put up a stiff fight. The dirt roads of Indochina were underdeveloped and whilst the main clash occurred along the road to the Saigon, fighting continued in the jungles where it was brutal and confused. Neither the French nor the Australasians gained a clear victory in this jungle periphery as both were entirely unprepared for the environment. The centre of the battle was decided quickly however as the French were working largely on the nearly two-decade old equipment that Dainam had been occupied with whilst the AAC were armed with the relatively new Lee-Metford. The French were nested within a few hours and fell back, largely scattered. Saigon fell on the 1st of August, but 2 weeks after the Australasians landed. The Siamese occupation of the North would take longer but by the end of the month the French had been entirely vanquished. Perhaps one of the least interesting theatres of the conflict, it has never the less been an essential part of Australiasian history and indentity as for the first time as a united people, they fought and overcame a foe.
II. Korea and Manchuria
Korea and China have developed something of a reputation for having poor historical luck and indeed this manifested itself most openly during the Short War. The Japanese, who had recently established authority over Korea had lost out on influence over both Manchuria and the coastal port of Port Arthur as the Russians leptin to counter rising Japanese influence in the region. The tension this created, barely six years before the Short War began, led the two nations to the brink of war. Now the Russians outnumbered the Japanese in the region but not by a significant amount. The Russian garrison guarded the railway under construction between Port Arthur and Vladivostok and found themselves largely split between the two areas, with roughly 50,000 men at each end. The Japanese meanwhile only had about 40,000 men total deployed in Korea. This might imply an unfair balance of power but a) the Japanese were much closer to Manchuria and so could send and receive information and reinforcements at a much, much greater rate than the Russians. Particularly after the defeat of the Russians at sea in mid June, the Japanese held naval dominance that allowed them to pummel Port Arthur and other coastal enclaves.
By the 1st of August, the Japanese had moved on both land and sea to put Port Arthur to siege. The initial garrison of 40,000 men reinforced by a further 30,000 men of the Japanese Army as well as ~15,000 Marines, both British and Japanese. Port Arthur fell surprisingly quickly and the Battle of Port Arthur barely lasted more than a day. Again, the Russians had only held the city for some 6 years and whilst rudimentary fortifications had been established the main Fortress was still little more than a base foundation. The Japanese took the city on the 3rd and proudly renamed it Ryojun. From here the Japanese swung their main force east as their navy and that of the British headed to Vladivostok to continue their shelling of Russian ports. Meanwhile it seemed that neither the Russians nor the Japanese were comfortable making any large advances; the Russians were more confident when it came to stomping around in Manchuria but were unwilling to make their way southwards over the Japanese line. The Japanese too, having secured their main targetted, did not want to risk an advance northwards for fear of being crushed by a larger Russian force. Border skirmishes occurred daily but the casualty rates rarely broke into the thousands. A front that could have been colossal ended up as quite a static one as the caution of two Empires with more southerly priorities led to a somewhat dull front.
The Japanese Assault on Port Arthur was brutal and short but resulted in the first major bloody nose a European Empire had been handed on land by an East Asian state in a century.
III. Afghanistan
The First Great Game played out over more than a century and forever pivoted around control of Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Short War is, in the opinions of most scholars, the event that settled this decisively...
Extract from:Great Battles of Asia 1890-1990 By: Frederique Dumas, Leon University Press, 2019, Translation published 2021
Russia had, in a rare show of preparedness, been building up her forces in the Central Asian theatre for some time. The British, particularly post-Sepoy Rebellion, leaned on the Indian Army for the defence of their South Asian colonies but under the leadership of Nicholas II (and truly thanks to the influence of Stolypin) had been steadily but silently preparing their forces in the region. It is important to understand that, whilst to the British and French the Short War was an unexpected and standard colonial conflict, to Stolypin’s Russia it was a chance to reset the scale. Russia had been on the backfoot for nearly a century and Russia’s increasingly powerful Prime Minister saw the clash between the British and French as an opportunity, a chance for Russia to redefine her position in the world. Whilst unprepared for the Japanese onslaught (Stolypin and most others in Russia considered them to be an incredibly backward people and not capable of a victory at sea, nevermind at Port Arthur) they were prepared for an assault against the British.
Afghanistan was not, truly, a British protectorate. Moreover they were British aligned by sheer necessity. The strength of British India and the even less appealing idea of Russian domination pushed them into the London camp. The Russians hoped that, with a quick, decisive push into Afghanistan they would meet with little resistance and, by threatening British India achieve a negotiated victory. Stolypin knew that the war was not one that either the British or French needed but gambled (perhaps correctly) that a quick win over the British and their Japanese allies would not only allow for a renegotiation of their nation’s borders but for a propaganda win of epic proportions. Slap down the upstart Japanese, kick back the British and prove that the Russian bear still has claws. Whilst the British began to turn the tide in Africa, Stolypin was finally ready to put his plan into action by early August and, crossing over the border on the 4th, Russian troops entered Afghanistan. Making a bee-line toward the capital of Kabul, Stolypin (and of course the Tsar) hoped to secure the capitulation of the Afghans and the frightening of the British.
Adbur Rahman Khan, Emir of Afghanistan, was pragmatically Anglo-phillic and backed the efforts of the Alliance out of a belief that should they win Afghanistan would remain largely free whilst, with a Russian victory, he would be deposed or made into a powerless puppet. History proved him right in this assesment.
Almost immediately, the Russians were beset with problems. The paths were small, slow and very poorly maintained and the march was long. Russian supply chains were hit by Afghan skirmishers regularly and it seemed, despite their mutual dislike of the British, that the Afghans were sufficiently offended by the Russian incursion to throw their weight fully behind the Alliance. The Russians were harried as they marched south but met with very little resistance. Indeed, the British only learned of the invasion on the 8th of August, by which point most of British High Command believed a negotiated peace to be soon at hand. A scramble was immediately entered to deploy the Indian Army ASAP. 100,000 Russians had entered Afghanistan and the British command of Bombay stood at 12,000 above that number. Movement was immensely slow but by the 20th the Indian Army had also entered Afghanistan, traveling north along the more well maintained (and partially british funded) roads of South Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Russians had been marching slowly South. Both nations knew that this battle could be entirely decisive; should the Russians be knocked out in Afghanistan then not only would the mounting defeats in Africa and Manchuria be followed up with another but the British would a) have free reign to invade Turkestan and b) have the freedom to deploy more soldiers east and aid the Japanese in attacking the Russian Far East. Should the Russians win in Afghanistan and march into India however, the British did not believe they could count on the loyalty of either the Indian people or the Princely States and the defection of even one Indian Prince could send ripples through the Raj that could end in disaster. India lost was the Empire lost and with no Empire, Britain would have lost the war. These fears were probably entirely unfounded but the Liberal government was full of men old enough to remember the Sepoy Revolt and represented a King who, it is now known, favoured peace and stability and made this opinion quite clear to Gladstone.
Brusilov was the pride of the Russian High Command and, despite his comparative inexperience, was the apple of Stolypin's eye for his innovative style and boldness on the field.
The Russians had not reached Kabul but, finding their progress increasing slowed, occupied the city of Nili on the 18th and set it up as a base of forward operations. They had barely began their march south when the Indian Army encountered them at Chora. The Battle of Chora lasted a week and was perhaps the bloodiest in the entire war. The Russian Army was led by the indomitable Aleksei Brusilov, a dynamic and skilled man that, when compared to the British Horatio Kitchener, was practically a genius of modern skill. Brusilov, who’s vigilant forward deployment of scouts warned him of the advancing British two days in advance, allowed him to prepare a complex battle plan revolving around a large, hastily assembled defensive line on the outskirts of Chora whilst a small contingent of around 11,000 marched around the South-East to strike the British and push them northwards, where they might be isolated from their supplies and persuaded to surrender. Kitchener meanwhile opted for a traditional assault; strike the Russians head on whilst the Afghan Army harried them from the sides and what few Afghani skirmishers could be deployed hit them and specifically their artillery from behind to cause chaos. Military historians almost universally rank Brusilovsky plan as better but the Russians were at a severe disadvantage with much longer supply chains, which were being stretched thin through hostile territory, and less local guidance. The Battle was always going to be close but the stakes were higher for the Russians; the British could easily withdraw south to Kabul or even over the border into India, whereas the Russians had a much longer march back to friendly territory and could be harried along the way. It is of little surprise then that, with more than 20,000 deaths on either side...
Extract from: Heart of Oak - A Brief History of the Royal Navy
By: Steve Sterefanovitz
The Battle in the Mediterranean was notably smaller than that of the Atlantic but far more important; in the Atlantic the French effort was only to slow the British, to prevent, as the French Historian Michael Dumas famously put it “the enormous and inevitable rise of the behemoth from its slumber” from coming too quickly. In the Mediterranean however, it was a real battle to the death. The French had lost the Atlantic from the start of the war; they could get no supplies through to West Africa and the Congo from there, what they could do however was get troops to North Africa. They had next to no ability to shift men and supplies from Algeria downwards to the Congo but what they were able to do is threaten Egypt and the ever essential Suez Canal. The war has been explained by many historians in the Russo-American trend as a contest of posture and indeed I myself am coming to see this as an accurate description. If the British could gain the upper hand quick enough then neither the French or Russians would have any meaningful long term prospects of victory whereas if the Entente could get the British on the backfoot on any major front then it was unlikely that the Gladstone government would pursue a long-term war without European support and, with the British Army as small as it was, it was unlikely that Britain could even fight such a protracted land war.
The pyrrhic British victory in the Mediterranean then left everyone terrified. The British had 7 Battleships, the French 5 but more cruisers and screens. The two met not far off the Algerian coast on August 8th and after a few hours of fighting both sides had lost 3 battleships (notably, however, the British flagship Horatio was sunk) before the French retreated and the British returned to port. The Battle had little effect on the overall war but delayed French plans to reinforce the African fronts by sea whilst also putting a spanner in the works for the British, who had hoped to shell French North Africa and if possible launch a series of descents to force the French to the table. With such an indecisive result, however, everything was hinging on the Russians and the Battle of Chora.
Extract from: The Eagle Has Fallen - The Slow Death of the Russian Empire
By: Michelangelo Guiseppi
“It’s strange,” a young General Churchill once said during a speech at the Oxford Union “how a man can do everything right, watch his opponent do everything wrong and still lose heartily.” At the time, Churchill was discussing the Liberal victory in the 1914 General Election but no doubt he would see its applicability to General Brusilov and his unfortunate soldiers. The Battle of Chora has had a litany of books written on it, at least 4 films made in its honour and as of last year was the subject of a song on The Council’s latest album Watchmen. Oddly, even in British accounts of the conflict, the Battle is seen as a heroic effort from the Russian forces. Brusilov is remembered for his participation in the Short War (as well as the following conflicts of the 1910s-1930s) as an honourable and intelligent man whilst his attempted assault on the British is remembered as a defining moment in Russian history. The Battle began at 11.30 on the morning of the 21st of August with the British, marching towards the entrenched Russians, beginning their first artillery volleys. Both forces had what might be described as sub-par batteries but the British can be said to have had an advantage here, not only was their equipment more modern but the British were able to field 276 guns in generally more favourable conditions than the Russians were able to pit their 191. Initial skirmishes seemed to tilt in the favour of the British; their heavy artillery and the stationary position of the majority of the Russian forces meant that casualties mounted up very quickly. The British assaults on the first few trenches initially appeared successful but the Russians had not only anticipated this but planned for it, creating a deliberately weak centre with deceptively strong wings who, on the British capture of the first two trench lines, swung in to overwhelm the rather small garrison force left in the first Trench line and to surround the men in the second.
Russian guns south of Chora.
As night fell, the Russians had captured some ~9,000 British and Indian troops and General Kitchener was both furious and caught off guard. On the second day of the battle, the British made a second push, this time concentrating their forces on the East line of the line to prevent any further encirclements and, if possible, gain the flank on the Russians. This manoeuvre was costly but successful and the British found themselves beginning to surround the Russian position. The British found themselves occupying the east and south of the valley, whilst the Russians held the north-west. Such a stark line left both sides open to encroachment from the enemy and casualties increased daily. Across the fourth and fifth days the British became deliberately slower in their advances, hoping that the more poorly supplied Russians would flag under persistent pressure.
It was cavalry that would decide the battle and, therefore, the War.
Brusilov’s ace in the hole, however, would not come to bear until the fifth day. At 7.45 AM on the 25th of August, 1894 the southern corps of nearly 11,000 men (the vast majority of which were cavalry) struck the British in the rear, capturing one portion of their battery and killing nearly 3,000 men within hours of battle. British supplies were tattered, men were caught off guard and asleep and the rear began to break. Despite warnings from his advisors, Kitchener’s immediate response was to shift the bulk of the British lines north, beyond any safety of the Russian trenches and into an assault on the Russian-held Chora directly. Such as assault is seen by historians (and indeed by many of Kitchener's advisors) as suicide, allowing the British to be surrounded and potentially cutting off their supply lines as they were squeezed from three directions; North, West and South. It was only on the advice of one Colonel Arthur Aitken (later Brigadier-General and Commander-in-Being for Imperial Africa Command) that a cavalry counter-attack was organised with the support of Afghan troops. The Aitken Offensive (sometimes called the Battle of the Southern Plains, erroneously as it was but one part of the larger Battle of Chora) attempted to split the Russian lines in two; sundering their southern cavalry from the main command, forcing their surrender and giving Britain control of the battlefield once more. Aitken led the offensive personally with ~5,000 British cavalrymen and just over 2,000 Afghan riders under his command and, as the Russian assault slowed on the 27th (with Indian soldiers ordered to “Stand, Fight and Die”, later the title of Kitchener’s controversial autobiography) he hit the Russians at twenty past one in the afternoon. The Russians were caught off guard, erroneously under the assumption that the British cavalry was focused in the east (most likely due to faulty intelligence). Immediately the Russians fled southwards, the only direction where they were unlikely to be surrounded by the British. As soon as they had, however, British-Indian troops swarmed into the gap in the line and the Russian army was sundered in two. It was only a few hours before the Russian cavalry surrendered and when General Brusilov heard this a few hours later wrote in his diary “To think, I might have saved an Empire had horses been bold enough to run north.” Brusilov initially attempted to withdraw but Aitken and Kitchener hit the Russian forces hard in the west and, pushing the line of battle past the town of Chora and now sieging the city from all directions bar north, began to surround them. The Russian commander knew that the march back to Russian territory would be long and slow and that the better supplied and now victorious British had the potential not just to harry him but to force him into battle once more. Even a skirmish, when on the retreat through Afghanistan’s brutal northern passes could be disastrous and, on the 29th of August 1894, Alexi Brusilov surrendered the Russian 5th Army in its entirety. Kitchener, jubilant at the news sent a telegram, via a rider and a station in Kabul, back to London.
RUSSIANS SHATTERED STOP
5TH ARMY SURRENDERED ON PLAINS OF CHORA STOP
RUSSIAN FORCES IN REGION FIVE FIGURES MAX STOP
VICTORY ASSURED IN ASIA STOP
WILL ADVANCE NORTH ON OFFENSE WHEN ORDERED STOP
GOD SAVE THE KING STOP
The telegram reached London on September 1st but it would not be until the 7th that St Petersburg received the details of the battle. Stolypin was dismayed and furious, demanding Brusilov’s resignation and accusing him of treason. The Prime Minister (now acting as de-facto Autocrat following Tsar Michael’s self-imposed exile from court) pressured the High Command, pushing for offensives against the Japanese in the East or for a naval offensive in the Atlantic his Generals attempted to resist. Fighting continued on and off for a few more weeks but, as September rolled into October, the French were fully cut off from their African generals in the Congo and the British made a push on the poorly stocked Nigerian front, the Japanese too made another attack on Port Arthur. The Russians held Port Arthur but only barely and the local generals predicted it wouldn’t last another three weeks. Nevertheless, Stolypin would not surrender and, as the slow fighting dragged on into November and pressures mounted over a potential British attack into Turkestan, his Generals grew restless. It was only after the resignation of General Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich of Russia, Tsar Michael’s cousin and Head of Russian High Command that Stolypin realised the depths of his woes. Two days later, having contacted and forewarned their French allies - who had themselves been considering seeking peace for nearly a month now - on the 7th of September 1894 via the Russian Embassy in neutral Sweden, the Russians offered a ceasefire and sought terms with the British Government. On the 8th the same offer was extended to Tokyo, via Beijing, and by the 10th the French too had called for a ceasefire.
The guns, on ships at sea, along the rivers of the Congo and the trenches of Asia, went quiet on the 14th of November and, barely five and half months after it began, the Short War came to a close. Britannia and Nippon stood, hand in hand and beaming wide whilst the French and Russians turned inwards to lick their wounds. This was far from the last major war of the modern age however and it would only be a few years before…
The length of the Short War might seem surprising to us now but the signing of the joint Treaties of Vladivostok and Versailles came as no real surprise to any of the powers at the time. Wars then were short and indeed for the first few years (and even to some historical revisionists today) the Short War was known as the Congo War, the First Entente War, King Victor’s War or the Third World War, this according to Prof. Nightingale of Magdalen College Oxford who described a series of five to seven world wars starting with the Seven Years War, then the Napoleonic Wars, leading through into the Short War and the rest of the Great Wars period. Nonetheless, the war was decisive and the treaties that followed would reflect that. The British and Japanese governments agreed to sign a single treaty, hoping that this would simplify matters, however, the French and the Russians refused. At the time this was interpreted as a sign of growing animosity but in fact letters between French President Constants and Russian Prime Minister Stolypin shows that the two hoped that individual treaties would a) be fairer for both as they would not be trading Russian losses for French gains or vice-versa and b) hopefully allow them to minimise losses and more easily play the British and the Japanese off one another. The Alliance agreed to negotiate two deals but insisted that international mediation would come not from the Entente-favoured candidate of the Americans but from the more politically neutral Swedes. With these agreements in place, the delegations met on the same day: British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey alongside minor Japanese Minister Saionji Kinmochi met with President Constants directly in the Hall of Mirrors to sign what was the Ninth Treaty of Versailles. It stipulated:
Affairs of State
The Republic of France was to cover half of the war costs of the British, Australasian, Japanese and Siamese governments, up to a maximum of ten billion gold Francs at their value as of July 1894 (the war and surrender had caused a major depreciation). The payment was to be completed in no more than 10 years.
The Republic of France was to admit culpability for the War in Africa, partial culpability for the war in general and to acknowledge British and Japanese territorial gains
The Republic of France would not have more than 6,000 troops stationed in her colonies at any one point
Affairs of Territory
The Republic of France will cede her Chinese treaty ports north of 30th Parallel to the Empire of Japan and south of it to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
French business may continue to operate from these ports and districts but under Anglo-Japanese supervision and paying Anglo-Japanese tariffs
In Indochina, Conchincina and Cambodia will be reorganised into a new Kingdom of Great Kampuchea under King Norodom I
Great Kampuchea is to be recognised as a protectorate of The United Kingdom and granted status as a Princely State within the British Raj
The territories of Annam and Tonkin were to be ceded to the Empire of Japan where they will be reorganised into the Province of Dai Vet
A portion of Dai Vet is to be ceded to the Siamese government for their participation in the war. The details are to be negotiated by the Siamese and Japanese governments at a later date.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland will be recognised as the legal owner of all disputed territory between the two powers on the African continent
The territories of Central Africa, Cameroon, French Ethiopia and all French-African territory south of the 10th parallel will be ceded to the United Kingdom
Saint Pierre and Miquelon are to be ceded to the Dominion of Canada
French Pacific territories are to be transferred to the joint protection of the United Kingdom and the Dominion of Australasia.
The above transferals of territory are to be in perpetuity and the territory stipulated herein is to be the legal land of the powers given above
The treaty was shocking, the French Empire outside of Africa and the West Indies had been entirely deconstructed. The British were incredibly demanding and pointed out repeatedly to the French President the weakness of his position, indicating that Britain was ready to continue the war if terms were not met. In the end, Constants folded and gave into the demands. France did not lose any “essential territories” and his main priorities had been protecting the interests of France in Europe. The British had initially wished for more restrictions to be placed on French armament, both in terms of naval construction and military recruitment. Constants flat out refused, however, stressing the need for France to defend themselves from the German Empire and other threats. The British knew that whilst they had the upper hand they could not push too hard and so relented. The final treaty was a total colonial victory and European status-quo ante bellum. Pens scratched along paper on January 19th and the treaty came into immediate effect.
London was overjoyed at the news and Britain entered into a period of national celebration. King Victor declared the day a national holiday and January 19th “Victory Day”. The tradition would not last but the ecstatic British seemed not to mind. Just a few days later on the 27th, Prime Minister Gladstone announced his long-awaited and final retirement, resigning as both Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Party. The candidates for leadership of the Liberals were many and the assumed successor Henry Campbell-Bannerman found surprisingly strong opposition from the up and coming Sir Edward Grey, now a national hero for his role in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles. Bannerman, feeling his support slip away at an increasingly alarming rate struck a deal to resign and be appointed Chancellor under Grey and so Sir Edward Grey, at the tender age of 32 - Britain’s youngest Prime Minister since Pitt the Younger - was swept into office. On February 9th he declared his intention to hold a general election both to capitalise on the success of the war and to secure a mandate of his own.
Extract from:C-Encyclopaedia Britannica - British General Election 1895
The British Election of 1895 was a surprisingly civil affair. All the major parties had supported the Liberals during the Short War though there had been some minor criticisms of just how it was handled from both Fabian and Tory opposition MPs. The budding but minute Independent Labour Party with its 3 MPs was staunchly opposed to the conflict and their leader James Connolly railed against it in Parliament, thrown out by the Speaker nearly a dozen times over the course of the 5 month conflict. The election by all means should have been a crushing Liberal victory, they had spearheaded a successful war, they had an incredibly popular and charismatic new leader and the economy was entering into a boom. The problem however was in Britain’s new multiparty landscape. Sir Grey was a “New Liberal”, favouring more interventionist and proactive economic policy than many of his predecessors. This opened him up to an attack from the right as the Liberal Unionists under their stalwart and ever-impressive leader, Joseph Chamberlain, gave speech after speech that eroded at Grey’s colossal lead. Meanwhile the Fabians, emboldened by their success in dominion elections, attacked Grey from the left, decrying him as a “false friend of the British people” and “just another crooked Liberal trying to wear orange instead of yellow”. The Conservatives under the ex-Liberal and moderate Lord Lansdowne held their ground surprisingly well but it was clear that they more than anyone else we're going to be the losers of this election. The Irish Parliamentary Party puttered along, grumbling somewhat about the lack of Home Rule (which had been delayed by the War) and making it very clear that they would support any government in favour of it. In the end it was a three way battle of minds between the Liberals, Fabians and Unionists. Three famous orators, three visions for Britain. They did, however agree on something. All parties looked towards one form or another of Imperial Reorganisation. The Unionist plan was the most dull; a special session of the Imperial Council to discuss the powers of the dominions and grant them further autonomy whilst creating a new currency area and enforcing the use of the Pound Sterling across the Empire. The Liberals wanted the creation of an Imperial High Command to integrate the Dominion Armies and navies under London’s Command, as well as the establishment of a permanent Imperial Council to advise the British Government on Foreign Affairs. The Fabians, as ever, wanted the start of full Imperial integration. Everything proposed by the Liberals and Unionists but to an even greater degree with total political integration occuring within a decade and a new, Imperial Parliament being established. The Tories tried to skirt the “patriot” vote and advocated a status quo. When the election swung around, pretty much everyone was disappointed.
The Fabians and Unionists both made solid gains but Grey’s Liberals were disappointed at their inability to gain a majority, hamstrung again by the divided left-of-centre vote, even if that vote did make up nearly 75% of all cast. Of course for the Tories, FPTP was the only thing stopping them from going into complete freefall. The Liberal/IPP coalition continued, bolstered slightly by the solid but dull result. Their Queen’s speech laid out plans for an Irish Home Rule Bill passed in 1895, an Imperial Reorganisation bill put forward by the end of the year and as the Tories began to fall to full on civil war…
Extract from: Oxford University European Political History Preliminary Examination, 2017
By:Undg. Arthur E Johnson, Magdalen College 3) Explain the survival of Revanchist Republicanism in France post-1894
...France’s troubles did not end with the Short War however and the immediate aftermath was nothing but chaos. The Government, having ceded away massive portions of the Empire in a War the French people did not truly seem to have lost was baffling. The Battles in the Atlantic and Mediterranean were portrayed in the loyalist French media as glorious, heroic struggles of the plucky French fleet against a much larger British fleet that resulted in stalemate. Indeed(punctuation, missed a comma! Come on this is schoolboy stuff -1) to believe the official government story, the war in Africa had been smashing French success after success whilst the fighting in Indochina was not mentioned publicly at all. An emergency Presidential election, called upon Constant’s shame filled resignation was scheduled for June 1895. (July! -1) The economy, tanking after the first reparations began to be payed out, saw the government of Revanchist Republicans, the hawkish, socially conservative and economically centrist party and ideology that had dominated France since the early 1880s, hammered hard. The old forces of opposition; the Centre Leftists, Communards and even Monarchists came out of the woodwork. (correct but do try and be specific with your parties, "Communards" wasn't the official name of the FSCP. No marks deduced) The position of President was mostly ceremonial but almost every candidate talked of sweeping reforms to the republic. Whatever happened, it would change the future of France. (a little too dramatic for my tastes but that is personal.)
At first, it appeared that it might be an easy victory for some moderate centre-left or centre-right candidate before two grand figures came out of the woodwork. First was France’s greatest pretender, Napoleon IV. Infatuated by and educated in the mantras of Imperial Socialism, Napoleon returned to Paris in mid March holding rallies and speeches across the city. He spoke of greater wealth for the people, a new French Empire built around the values of “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” for all citizens of France. (It's good to quote the speech at greater length here) He reached out to moderate monarchists and centre-left republicans, created a coalition across the political spectrum and reached out to once bitter enemies. Napoleon was on the move, ramping up a campaign by, for and of the people. His new Party Vive La France had support across the country but particularly in Paris. For the first few months of the race it seemed that Napoleon would waltz into government as his father did before him and his great-grandfather before that. That was before the second figure emerged. (You really are one of my most dramatic students!) Stabbed in the back, driven from government and left out in the cold, George Boulanger had created a powerful French Republic only to see it rendered apart under the watch of the very traitors that had removed him. With the full support of the military, the backing of parties across the right, General Revanche declared his intention to run for the Presidency on April 23rd and before long...(excellent detail and I like the movement both chronological, political and personal +2)
Total Marks: 61/100 Marker's Comments: Scraped a 2.1, do try and keep it impartial but your knowledge is good and bar a few silly mistakes one of the better essays I've seen from you.
Extract from: Oxford University Imperial Military History Preliminary Examination, 2017
By:Undg. Arthur E Johnson, Magdalen College 19) What Were the Churchill Reforms?
Following British Army performance in the Short War, the British government identified a series of shortcomings with their equipment and doctrine and drafted in one Major Winston Churchill, the Hero of the Congo Battles, to reform and modernise the British military. Whilst Churchill’s attempts to reform the upper command structure would flounder (due primarily to the Imperial Reorganisation Bill of 1897), he made a series of massive changes to the equipment, training and doctrine of British infantrymen, setting the basis for British strategy throughout the 20th century.
First and foremost, Churchill believed that the Congo Campaign proved the need for reliable, accurate and rapid firing equipment. Churchill liked the relatively new Enfield-Metford rifle, it’s straight pull action but the long range accuracy of the rifle was poor and Churchill hoped that modern innovation would allow for an increased fire rate and greater accuracy at range. He found his solution in the 1902 Enfield-Hill. Designed Primarily by Arthur Hill, the 1902 rifle was a unique design and one of the first popular Semi-Automatic rifles ever developed. Its original form was unreliable and overly complex but, after Churchill had taken a personal preference to the gun, it was retooled over 1903-1907, eventually resulting in the Model 2 DME (Excellent remembering its the Model 2, most forget) or “Drum Magazine Enfield”. Modifications were made to the sights, magazine and front grip, resulting in a rifle that was quick to load, easy to use and, more importantly, both accurate and rapid firing. The DME had two major drawbacks, firstly it was relatively expensive to make and difficult to repair however the Churchill model for the British Army was relatively small; 250,000 men spread across the Empire, with 150,000 (Numbers are accurate +1) of them positioned in Britain and ready for quick deployment at any time. This meant expensive equipment was tolerated, so long as it was reliable and effective. The DME was a favourite among soldiers as well; the two spring design vastly cut down on recoil, whilst the sights were based on a combination of German and British ideas and in the end proved immensely effective. The final gun had a 20 bullet, conical drum magazine, of which each soldier carried 4. It could be reloaded easily with one hand and was up to four times faster firing than its predecessors. Ultimately, the DME took a lot of effort to implement but at the time of implementation was arguably the best main armament around and would remain in service for decades.
British soldiers also had their tactics changed; the British Army, it was assumed, would always be a smaller force than any main European opponent and her soldiers would have to negate this disadvantage however possible. Her advantage was at sea and so the British military on land would be expanded in two major ways; first of all the Marines would be more than doubled in size and drilled with new, specialist training. (Good and its not needed but specificity here would help me bump you up a few marks) The RM would provide the initial invasion force in any British war and new techniques and technologies were employed to improve the flexibility of amphibious invasions. Meanwhile the army would also be increased and act as the second wave of British forces on the ground. The Marines were to be a fast, small and offensive group that opened up fronts and wars to the Army who were larger, slower and more powerful. This is the first implementation of Churchill’s “Spear and Hammer” (Good contextual knowledge!) strategy which would slowly be developed over the coming years, eventually forming the backbone of 20th century British warfare...
Total Marks: 79/100 Marker's Comments: Excellent work! Your detail and passion are clear. Genuinely surprised you did this well. We might make a historian out of you yet.
Extract from: The People of the Pacific, Vol. XI By: Winson Spencer-Churchill IV, Published Penguin Publishing 2021
The history of Japan as a modern Empire is usually dated to the Meiji Restoration in the 1860s but their emergence as a global power was undoubtedly achieved following the Treaty of Vladivostok. Their gains from the Treaty of Versailles, particularly that of Dai Vet, gained them a great deal of prestige and expanded the Japanese Empire from a regional one to one that spanned a continent. From the Russians however, they found themselves better suited than ever. The British demands at Vladivostok were simple; the Russians take the blame for the War in Asia, pay concessions and demilitarise a portion of their Central Asian territory. As far as the British were concerned, particularly the British public, not only were the French the main enemy in the conflict but their holdings and areas of influence were the real prizes to be won. The Great Game, whilst still an important part of British foreign policy, had faded from the forefront of their minds compared to the much closer and more historically despised French. It was the Japanese then that truly won out of the Russian defeat. The Treaty of Vladivostok was arranged in a fundamentally different manner to the Treaty of Versailles and outlined the following stipulations:
Containment
The Port of Vladivostok is to be demilitarised for a period no shorter than 10 years
Russia is not to excerpt influence or control whether it be political, monetary or military over the regions of:
Manchuria
Korea
Afghanistan
Tibet
Mongolia
The Chishima Islands
Karafuto
Russia is to accept culpability for the War in Asia and their belligerence as aggressors
The Russian government shall compensate the Japanese Government a sum total to the rate of 3,000 million pound sterling at the current exchange rate (this was a point of great contention and a cunning move from the Japanese as the bolstered Pound and weak ruble ensured that the Russians were paying double what it appeared on paper)
The British government is also to be compensated a sum of 1,000 million pounds at the current exchange rate. The Indian Government is also to be compensated a further 500 million pound sterling.
The Russian Empire is to keep no more than 15,000 troops beyond the line of 100th meridian east
The Russian Empire is also to deploy no more than 5,000 troops in her central Asian Territories
Russia is not to construct or acquire any new ports or territory otherwise on the Pacific coast for a period of 25 years.
Territory
The city of Ryojun is ceded to the Japanese government in perpetuity and the seizure of the Port by the Russian Government is to be acknowledged as an illegal act for which the Russian Government will issue an apology
Korea is to be recognised by the Russian government an integral part of the Empire of Japan
Manchuria is to be recognised as an area of “Special Imperial Interest” and Russian corporations and state agents are not to act within it
The Governments of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Afghanistan are to renegotiate their border, with concessions given to the later for the unilateral and unprovoked invasion of their sovereign territory.
The United Kingdom is to supply supervisory advice to these negotiations
The Islands formerly known as the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin (now to be officially referred to in exclusivity as the Chishima Islands and Karafuto) are to be recognised as the property and territory of the Japanese Empire
The Russians dragged their feet far harder than the French, mostly due to the difference in government. The Radical-Republicans in France were a doomed force; Monarchists, Revanchists and Socialists were all booming at their expense and they would be removed from office no matter the deal. This was a fact accepted by the government, top to bottom. In Russia, however, Prime Minister Stolypin clung to his position for dear life. Unwilling to relinquish power to the military and aristocratic cabal that surrounded him and the King, still absent (either under effective house arrest, suffering from severe depression or a combination of the two) made no moves to break the deadlock. Stolypin feared that signing the treaty before he was able to stabilise his position would lead to his removal from office and possibly even his death. Moving quickly, he ensured the loyalty of one General Lavr Kornilov and the tacit (albeit extremely reluctant) support of the now controversial Brusilov. Kornilov, in command of the 1st Army, arranged for the arrest of the entirety of the rest of the High Command as well as their summary execution on the charge of treason. Kornilov and Stolypin produced reams of evidence and clearly not-falsified letters, outlining the “Kuropatkin Plot”, named after its founder and leading Stolypin sceptic Aleksey Kuropatkin, which involved the removal of Stolypin, execution of the Tsar and establishment of a military-led republic. With the “guilty” parties dealt with, Stolypin had a new and silent scapegoat for his failings. The dead generals had undermined the war effort, the dead generals had threatened to remove the Tsar and the dead generals had hurt Mother Russia so badly that Stolypin had no option but to sign the treaty. As soon as he had, however, Russia secured a loan from the Austro-Hungarian Government (itself not in the finest waters but looking to reinforce and expand their growing friendship with Moscow) and began a scheme of heavy industrial and military expansion once more. Stolypin knew that the flames of Russian anger would consume him unless he could stoke them and stoke them and stoke them and throw them a new tribute. The next war was coming and it would be his last chance. As Russia was reshaped into a nation fit only for conflict, Stolypin waited for the next conflict, planned his political suppression and knew that if he could reach the next conflict he could truly create a new Russia.
Once a national hero and until death a patriot, General Kuropatkin was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and died for Stolypin's machinations.
The Japanese meanwhile were jubilant. Their victory over the Russians was very much theirs with British help, rather than vice-versa. All of a sudden they had gone from a near-protectorate in the British eye to a valued ally and friend. The cultural stir of the war in the country cannot be overstated, entering into a golden age of victory and opulence, Prime Minister Okuma Shigenobu (who led the Liberal-Imperialist but ultimately moderate and reformists Kenseito party) invested the Russian concessions in industry and, along with a swathe of new workers rights, education. This, combined with large-scale British cultural exchange (building on the new “sisterhood” between the two island peoples) allowed for new cultural expression, particularly in western style theatre, music and literature. Nationalism was stirred no doubt but the government of the day, liberal and forward-thinking tempted to funnel this victory fever into productive and political ideas of unity and confidence. Indeed there was surprisingly little taste in Japan for more war, the people had won their first international one against their only major foe - bar the ancient enemy of China. Japan was content to look outwards, invest and grow.
In Britain, this new Japanese literature exploded onto the scene as a major fad in 1895. Japanese philosophers and theologians were often invited to give talks in London and Edinburgh and again, it became fashionable to be well versed in not only Kant and Socrates but Norinaga and Kukai. Japanese food began to be served on London streets (in inevitably bastardised forms), her students began to attend Oxford and Cambridge in growing numbers and her young women were hired as maids and secretaries- having developed a reputation for hard work and precision, as well as being seen as "naturally submissive" and so well suited to such work. Even Her Majesty, Queen Sybil, played a part; in 1896 hiring a handmaid from Osaka (who’s story was made into the 2011 Drama “Niko and the Queen”) and posing for a series of portraits in her new silk kimonos. The racism persisted and indeed very few saw the Japanese as anything close to equal but nevertheless, this new somewhat Anglicised version of Japanese culture was just palatable and pseudo-Western enough to be appreciated in Britain and even developed similar but considerably smaller followings in Germany in Scandinavia. The bubble had largely burst by 1905, new ideas and fashions pouring in to replace the now tired Japanese “schtick” but nevertheless, Japan had carved herself out a unique place in the minds of the British people.
Tea, ever a shared interest, was also changed by the war and its aftershocks. Once opium dens often reformed into "Nippon Tea Houses" and the most fashionable of British society attended in their very own, genuine silk kimonos.
Trade and cultural links grew with not only Britain proper but also her colonies of India, Australasia and Westralia. The British and Indian populations took well to this whilst the Australasian response was mixed (Japanese dining, fashion and even music began to develop a major following in both New Zealand and the capital whilst on the rest of the mainland it was treated with a great deal of contempt and fear) whilst Westralia only panicked. The “yellow menace” seemed to be infiltrating their society, converting their easterly brothers. The resultant “Jap Bill of 1899” was one of the most restrictive and hateful in the Empire, institutionalising White Westralians as a racially dominant class and banning all immigration from Japan and their Empire. Via Hawaii (which served as an eastern edge for Japanese trade and influence and a western edge of American interests) American-Japanese links began to grow as well though the popular and political response was much closer to Westralia than anywhere else. Confident at home and newly popular abroad, Japan began to distinguish herself as a unique culture. As put by the great (then Governor) Theodore Roosevelt in 1899: “The Japanese are a people Eastern in their thought, Western in their action and comfortable in their abundance”.
Extract from: Twin Titans - Death of the Third French Republic By: Pete Hughes, Published 1999, Oxford University Press
The argument that the last French election of the Third Republic was truly a two horse race is, at the same time, perfectly accurate and a little misleading. Bonaparte and Boulanger were immensely polarising figures and this, combined with the the fact that both men wanted the end of the Third Republic led to a scramble of centrist politicians to put together their own platform. In the end, the centre-left took front stage as the right coalesced more easily around Boulanger. As Prime Minister, Boulanger had been a Republican and a member of the mainstream right, his isolation and subsequent wrath proved to divide them less than pragmatism united them and so, with many of their leaders relegated to background roles or bowing out quietly, the vast majority of the Republicans singed on to the Revanchiste Republicanticket. Bonaparte encountered no such luck from the left. Most of France's socialists and social democrats were out and out republicans, Imperial Socialism had started to build a popular following but this was not reflected in the political classes.
The new, centrist coalition - known as the Popular Republican Front - organised around Emile Combes, a respected orator and popular speaker with a penchant for compromise. Combes was a tried and tested man, a true believer in the Third French republic and (even to today) a major hero of French and European Republicanism. He was excluded from the famous Parisian Radio debate but went on a whistle stop tour of the city, attacking both of his opponents as ideologues, self obsessed radicals who cared little for the people of France. Combes talked of peace - which Bonaparte echoed - but was able to increasingly win the support of the middle classes. As the poor fled to the big promises of left and right and the upper classes were split between Bonaparte loyalists and authoritarian breakaways, it was not just the middle of the political system but of the class system also. His tour was a success, providing a model that politicians varying from American Republicans and British Liberals would embrace in an attempt to generate more of a "man of the people" vibe. Combes shunned the big name endorsements or the massive rallies that his opposition revelled in and instead spoke in town halls, in front of barns and schools. Boulanger wanted a top-down republic and Bonaparte would bring back the Empire, surely this new man could save the French people? In the end, Combes was fighting a futile war. France was swinging away from moderate politics, radical solutions were needed.
The moderate, far too oft forgotten.
Boulanger's campaign was slow and steady. As his endorsements from military figures built he began to outline a policy program and the specifics of his new constitution. Compulsory, 5 year service in the military. Political and social education would instil "French values" in the youth and boys groups would be set up to teach young Frenchmen to shoot and hunt. Initially tight lipped, Boulanger published a series of weekly articles outlining further ideas. Military positions in the Senate and the abolition of the office of Prime Minister. The vote would be restricted to only those who had served their time in the army and the idea of "Service Citizenship" was key to his plans to reforge France as a militarist state. Oddly enough, Boulanger echoed much of the first Napoleon's ideas, even proposing to rename the President to First Consul. The General called not only for strong defence but for an active policy of war and expansion. Looking eastwards he wanted to humiliate the Germans, Boulanger hated the British no doubt but his plans for France were as European hegemony, champion of enlightened thought and military might in the face of "decadent peace" and "archaic kings". Boulanger made quite the point of his non-monarchical ambitions. In a speech in Lyon a week before the polls opened he stated "All serving citizens of France have the chance to be great, I will not stare down at you from a throne but command you, as any general would his men". The speech was controversial but not quite so controversial as the many stumbling points of Bonaparte.
Respected and well liked, Bonaparte ran a modern and energetic campaign.
Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte was the third man of his family to aim for the highest position in a French Republic and hoped to be the fourth to claim the French throne. Whilst Boulanger's campaign trudged ever onwards, bit-by-bit revealing plans for a new France, Bonaparte's campaign was erratic. he bounced from point to point, place to place, visiting the most dramatic sights and sounds and letting fourth a torrent of - occasionally contradictory - Bonaparte was to give women the vote and he met with suffragist leaders across the nation. His rallies were huge and colourful, full of music and celebration. His endorsements came from old friends of his father, from socialites and celebrities and from many of France's peace advocates. The policies of nationalisation of heavy industry, new taxes on the wealthy, wealth redistribution and a reform of the French electoral system were all made into lavish presentations with in depth explanations, aided with visuals and far more pomp than was necessary. Despite being a prospective Emperor, Bonaparte was far from an Imperialist. "France," he said at his final Parisian rally before the votes were cast "is a large and mighty country already. She has wealth and lands the envy of the world. The dear General wants to 'restore' France but I tell you she is already grand! The issue comes in sharing that grandness and that magnificent wealth out. As you Emperor I will swear an oath to emancipate all the people of France from their economic shackles!" The speech, and many others, echoed the thoughts and words of Britain's Fabians and Bonaparte did little to hide his ties to them. This was fine, for a long while until the full depth of his personal links to British politicians became clear. In the final lead up to the election Boulanger hit him again and again with the same talking points; for years Bonaparte had lived in London, his friends and pen-pals were either linked to or a part of the British government, that same government that France had just been at war with. How could this man be trusted, when his friends and allies had but weeks ago slain French men? Over time, the papers began to pickup on this line of attack adn the general tone turned further and further against this "foreign infiltrator". Try as he might, Bonaparte could not shake off the criticisms and, by the election, it was only his name and personal charisma that kept the campaign from falling apart.
When Boulanger won, he won big and set to work immediately recasting France. His new constitution was drafted over the coming weeks and, by March, was put forward to the senate who, having retained a Republican majority who obediently signed on to the Revanchiste cause, passed it with little opposition. The other parties railed against the undemocratic nature of this, predicting violence and rioting (which indeed did occur) and even civil war. The move was, undoubtedly to modern historians, an unconstitutional one but it is important to note that "General Revanche" had the unwavering support of the military who, after January 7th, could be seen in increasing numbers on patrol and parade. Paris became a hotspot for violence as protests to the new constitution and to Boulanger's rule escalated. A lightning fast and extremely effective military crackdown followed with 11 protesters shot on March 14th. On the first of April the new constitution was finally ratified and France began anew. With the firm hand of the military on his side, Boulanger was nearly all-powerful. The "Fourth French Republic", came to be one rainy day and Europe was changed forever.
Chapter Eighteen New Beginnings and Overdue Endings
Extract from: Between the Wars: 1895-1909 By: Mike Cavendish, 2011, Penguin Publishing
The so called “first interwar period” of 1895-1909 was, despite the name, a time of massive upheavals. With the Spanish and Chinese Empires suffering near collapse, France restoring her reputation, reform in Germany, the signing of not one but three major global alliances and the start of the Pan-Nationalist movement. It is the later of which we will be focusing on today as the phenomenon is quite boring to some and quite complicated to most. Pan-Nationalism is effectively a followup to the civic nationalism of the mid 19th century. As Italy, Japan and Germany united around a new national identity and evolved from divided independant states into united countries, so too did places like South America and Scandinavia rally around “pan-national” ideas. The idea was born in Sweden and Denmark where Nordic unification had been a nascent concept since the Danes were abandoned to fight (and lose) the Schleswig War against Prussia and Austria in 1864. As the 20th century appeared on the horizon however, the perceived Swedish “abandonment” seemed to be less and less important. On Sweden's eastern border, the Russian Empire was becoming more and more militarised, in France and Austria too, the people of Scandinavia saw looming, expansionist foes looking for easy prey. It is largely as a response to this external pressure but also, no doubt, due to the cultural renaissance in theatre and music that spanned the great northern wastes in the 1880s and 90s. More and more collaboration between Swedish writers, Norwegian actors and Danish musicians (or any variation on that theme) helped build on the familial and fraternal bonds that had always existed across borders. Unity was coming, though no one at the time truly saw it coming.
“Scandinavianism” as the ideas of unification were known, was not a newfound idea. The “Kalmar Union”, founded in the Swedish city of Kalmar, was a personal union of the three Kingdoms under a single monarch that existed throughout the 15th century. Norway, once a possession of the Danish King, was now in union with Sweden and thus deferred to Stockholm on most matters. Hans Christian Anderson had been a major proponent during the 1840s and 50s. In 1879 an alliance of Danish, Swedish and Norwegian settlers founded the town of Dannevirke in New Zealand whilst Swedish King Oscar I had been a major proponent of the ideology since his ascension. As of 1895, there was broad ideological unity as the governments of all three Scandinavian countries came from liberal, centrist parties. It was Danish Council President (Prime Minister) Johan Deutzer that first proposed the formation of the Nordic Union in its modern form. The Swedes had always been receptive to the idea, their size and wealth meant that they would likely hold the most influence in any Scandinavian state and their economic interests were well served by new markets. The Norwegians meanwhile were often little more than Swedish vassals by 1895 and lept at the chance of a union, hoping that they might earn greater autonomy and influence within it or at very least dilute the influence that the Swedes held over them. For the Danes, meanwhile, it took more persuading. Their rivalry with Sweden was a millennia old and they would likely see their role reduced by unification with their larger, eastern neighbour. There was still sense to the move however, the loss of Holstein and Schleswig to Germany some decades ago proved how vulnerable the small country was, whilst their waning economy would also benefit from the injection of workers, goods and potential consumers that Sweden would provide. Deutzer had been won over to the idea by seeing the success and liberalisation occurring in Italy, Germany and Japan and hoped to recreate that national reinvention in Scandinavia. Inviting ministers and diplomats from what was then the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway to Copenhagen in May 1895, he outlined a series of proposals for open borders, a monetary union, a military alliance and, in time, political integration. The initial reception was extremely positive and Swedish Foreign Minister Ludwig Douglas, who had met personally with Deutzer, wrote to his King that: “The Danes are confident but willing to make concessions, they seem to view the union as not just a boon for all our Kingdoms but as a near-necessity so that they might counter the influence and threat emerging across Europe. This can only be good for Sweden”. Both the Swedish King and Prime Minister were pleased at the proposal and agreed, as did the First Minister of Norway.
This poster, depicting soldiers from each of the three countries holding hands, was circulated continually by pro-Union campaigners and politicians.
Talks began just weeks later and of course there were a litany of disagreements, at what rate would the new currency be pegged? Would Norway be represented as an independent Kingdom or as a part of Sweden? Would trade be allowed to move across borders? And if so would regulations be normalised? For six months, difficult talks were held which, at several points, showed signs of breaking down but bit by bit compromises were reached. The new currency would be independant from either the Swedish or Danish Krona/Krone but pegged at the Swedish rate, which was higher. Norway would meet as a separate Kingdom to Sweden but defer to the Swedish government on any international or military matters as well as having less representation than the other, larger kingdoms. Trade would move across borders and there would be a consultation on new laws that would have to be passed separately through all three separate parliaments. Finally, on December 2nd 1895, the Prime Minister of Sweden, Prime Ministers of Sweden and Norway met with the Council President of Denmark in Kalmar and made a joint announcement that the Nordic Union would come into force on the 1st of January the following year. The borders of the three nations were to be opened, a new currency known simply as the Krona (or Crown) was to be phased in before fully replacing national currencies in 1901 and the three countries would be bound to help one another in any war, defensive or offensive. The council also provided a meeting place where the ministers and monarchs could discuss issues of state, as they would do at yearly conventions from 1896 onwards. The old flag of the Kalmar union, a red cross on yellow, was flown as the symbol of this new union and it soon became fashionable to fly them alongside national flags. It even entered into fashion as pins, ribbons and most garishly bedsheets and curtains. Before long, the cultural exchange that had started to grow between the nations grew and grew and it was common to find Norwegian liquor and Swedish beer in any Danish pub whilst libraries were stocked in books of three languages and children at school near the borders went on exchange trips to “sister schools”. The Nordic Union was an artificial one to be sure but one that was accompanied by a genuine and popular growth, the people of Scandinavia had always been close in spirit and their old rivalries and conflicts seemed less and less memorable by the day. In his speech announcing the union, Swedish King Oscar II made specific reference to the movement as Pan-National, stating that “We will always be Swedes, we will always be Danes, we will always be Norwegians. Throughout it all however, we will be Nords as well. Three nations but one pan-nation, a union greater than any of its parts. Oscar’s personal motto “Brödrafolkens väl”, literally meaning “Welfare of the Brother peoples” would become the motto of the new union and encapsulated the feeling of the time. Whilst Russia was the motherland and Germany the fatherland, Scandinavia would be the brothercountry, a union of fraternal equals. The Union of 1896 was far, far from a united country however. There was yet no united parliament or permanent council, no united economic or foreign policy. The union was mostly comparable to the Deutscher Bund that preceded the German Empire. It is laughable that, even today, there have been more wars between Denmark and Sweden than any two other countries, bar of course Britain and France…
Extract from: End of Empires: How the Mighty Fell By:Betsy Tejo, Liberty Universiy Press, 1990
The first conflict to emerge in the post-Short War World was a niche one and often forgotten today outside of the nations that took part. The Spanish War or, in Spanish “Guerra de los Dos Océanos”, was a conflict that took place from June 1897 to August of that same year and saw the wholesale destruction of the Spanish Empire outside of Africa. Spain had been in serious decline since the Napoleonic Wars. With the loss of her Spanish colonies she went from the original empire “upon which the sun never set” to a ragged, second class power, wracked by civil war and economic woes. Her most prized imperial holdings were the Phillipines and Cuba, distant but lucrative colonies dangerously close to other, ascendant great powers. Whilst many look to the Cuban Revolution of 1895 (which saw local landlords rise up against the Spanish) as the spark that lit the war, in truth it seems inevitable. The convergence of American and Japanese interests centered around their shared relationship with Great Britain. The Americans had always been strongly tied both culturally and economically to the British, whilst the Japanese were their newest and closest allies. From the end of the Short War the three were left as the only major powers in the pacific. The British, from their bases in the Sandwich Islands (known to the natives as Hawaii), Australasia, Borneo, Hong Kong and Singapore, were top dog. The Royal Navy was undisputed master of the seas and had ports across the Pacific. The Americans and Japanese were content with this; the USA was hegemon of the Americas and the Western Atlantic and here the British were happy to allow them dominance whilst the Japanese looked to China and East Asia in general as their stomping grounds. The alignment of the “Pacific Three” into a united, if unofficial, alliance took place in the immediate aftermath of the Short War. American President Horace Boies was something of an Anglophile and progressive enough to tolerate and even appreciate the Japanese. His domestic policies had focused on increase the rights of American workers and farmers, working with his Vice President Boies was a populist and his pro-union, progressive policies were well in line with both the “New Liberal” British Government of Sir Edward Grey (which encouraged government welfare and occasional interventionism) and the reformist Japanese Premiership of Okuma Shigenobu. Washington, Tokyo and London were all led by liberal reformists, all had aligned influences in the pacific and had much to gain from trade and cooperation. The Pacific Three, therefore, emerged naturally.
Not formalised in a treaty until 1900, the alliance mainly took the form of meetings between British Foreign Secretary David Lloyd-George, American Secretary of State Richard Olney and Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu. The first priority was Spain and, of course, Cuba. The Cuban Revolution had led to an outpouring of sympathy in the US and worked directly in the interests of many American Imperialists such as Republican Governor of New York Teddy Roosevelt Jr, who called for an immediate intervention on humanitarian grounds. Boies was not much one for foreign intervention but nevertheless truly believed in the humanitarian case and thought it was in the interests of not just Cuba or the US but of the Americas in general to reduce Spanish and generally European influence. Boies had Olney approach his counterparts and suggest a joint intervention, offering the Philippines to the Japanese and Spain’s Atlantic holdings to the British. The Japanese immediately lept at the idea whilst the British were more concerned. In truth, the Spanish had little of value in the Atlantic and the British people were still celebrating from the last war, they didn’t need another. Nevertheless, Lloyd-George (with Grey’s blessing) agreed that the British would give full diplomatic support to the Americans and the Japanese and apply pressure to the Spanish so that the war might be brought to a rapid end.
Striking quickly, Boies declared war on June 19th 1896, declaring that the “languishing horror that is to be Cuban must be brought to a close and democracy must be brought to all the peoples of North America”. The Japanese entered the war on the 21st and immediately dispatched a squadron to Cuba. The Spanish, who had been struggling to put down just the Cubans alone, were immediately dismayed. It is hard to exaggerate the shambles that the Spanish government were in. Their King, Alfonso XII had died just a few months earlier and his infant son, Alfonso XIII was King. His regent and mother, Maria Christina, had barely had only been in power for a matter of weeks and still had not organised a united government. The ever-present threat of Carlist pretenders who insisted that Alfonso was a false King made the pressure at home even higher. She argued regularly with her ministers and the army and navy both operated largely as they pleased. The American and Japanese entry into the conflict only destroyed her authority even further.
The Queen Regent, though intelligent and popular, was doomed from the start.
At sea the Spanish were smashed in the Battle of Guantanamo and when the American Expeditionary Force landed in Cuba on the 8th of July they met astoundingly little resistance, many Spanish commanders surrendered outright whilst those who fought did so half heartedly at best. For months now they had been fighting a difficult war in tropical conditions against a guerrilla force that drained their supplies and stretched them thin. Thousands of Spaniards fell to disease and starvation as the ill prepared army suffered for months. Supplies were dwindling even before an American blockade and shelling of the coasts (where Spanish control was strongest) pushed Spanish commanders in land where not only did Cuban partisans make their lives hell but disease became even more rampant. Their fates were grim and within a matter of weeks the Spanish had any meaningful control of the island. Teddy Roosevelt Jr’s volunteer division, the Rough Riders, won a series of skirmishes with the Spanish and the Governor gained massive prominence from his role as a war hero, shutting up many of his critics who had dubbed him a “chickenhawk”. Roosevelt, a Republican, became increasingly close to the President over the next few years and though he clashed often with the VP, who he personally disliked, he became popular to both Democrats and Republicans. Before long, the Americans began to suffer from the same yellow fever that had so crippled the Spanish and hoped that a quick end to the war would reduce the casualties caused by sickness. In the Philippines, the Japanese fought a similar but smaller scale war. There was no local rebellion to exploit but, by the same token, barely any Spanish presence. The Spanish Pacific navy was, in all brutal honesty, a joke and was shattered by the IJN in a single battle in late June. The garrisons on the islands provided a somewhat firmer fight but just barely. Landing on the 25th of July, the Japanese had captured Manilla, Quezon and Caloocan had been captured by the IJA within a fortnight as their landings were aided by sea-bombardments. Not wishing to fight a bitter, long war, the Japanese simply shored up their positions in these three major cities and waited, content with the knowledge that a settlement would be reached.
Fighting, whilst brief, would echo the combat of the early stages of the Long War as Americans and Spanish deployed powerful modern weaponry against one another.
In Madrid, there was chaos. Their colonies had been seized with barely any resistance, their navy shattered on both sides of the globe and their men captured en masse. A last ditched effort was formed; almost all remaining ships and men were combined into a makeshift armada and put under the near absolute control of General Antero Rubin. They were to sail on the 10th of August, recapture Santiago de Cuba, the largest city in Eastern Cuba, and move West, dislodging the Americans as far as possible. The hope was not an outright victory (indeed it seemed the Philippines was abandoned almost entirely, with a hope that the Spanish might either be allowed to sell it to the Japanese, split it between the two powers or retain it in exchange for some other concession) but a moderated and more equal peace. In the end, this would not come to pass as the British condemnation of “Spanish barbarity” on August 3rd and a promise that “was a peace not reached, the navies and offices of the British Empire would engage in a total blockade of the Kingdom of Spain and all its overseas colonies”. The British ultimatum was a bluff, Grey did not want to waste his time or money when his struggles in parliament (at that time mainly attempts to expand the franchise to poorer men and improve the rights of British women) seemed so important. The Spanish brought it none the less and truthfully knew that they had little hope against two more youthful, powerful empires, nevermind three. The Treaty of Havana made Cuba an American protectorate whilst the Philippines (which the Japanese renamed Kapatiran, literally meaning “Brotherhood” in Tagalog, as part of negotiations with native leaders) became a semi-autonomous colony of the Japanese. The Spanish were dismayed and fell into a period of civil disobedience and political chaos, known as the Lost Decade. The Queen Regent was almost immediately deposed and replaced with a series of political and military regents and Prime Ministers who found themselves in increasing conflict with revolutionaries, hoping to restore the short lived Republic of the 1870s. In Japan and America however, the mood was bright. Japan’s meteoric rise seemed continuous and unstoppable, though there was a notable feeling of war-exhaustion on the rise and Tokyo was nervous that it was beginning to overexpand at a rate that was causing problems; minor rebellions in the Southern Philippines and the Jungles of Vietnam never became major crises but did shake governmental confidence. Most were happy however and the cultural boom continued, now spreading to America more freely as the Japanese were increasingly seen as friends and, in the words of one Democratic senator, “honorary whites”. Boies, whose policies had been controversial and divisive, though increasingly popular in the north and midwest, was hit with a massive spike of popularity and the democrats won big in the 1898 midterms. The newfound friendship between the Pacific Three chugged along, being formalised by the 1900 declaration of a new “League of Armed Neutrality” in response to the emergence of the European alliances of the Pact of...
Extract from: Strike Back – A History of the Second Entente
By: Jim Delaney, Published 2001 by Northouse Books
First Consul Boulanger’s transformation of France did not take place overnight. Whilst he was able to rapidly pass a series of constitutional amendments through the National Assembly it would take time for the Fourth French Republic to really take shape. When it did it was as a much more streamlined and efficient nation. Regional governments were abolished or streamlined, with France divided into 25 new “Provinces” each ruled over by a “Governor” appointed directly by the Consul. The National Assembly was replaced with a new Senate of 400 members, 150 of which were officers and representatives of the Military; 100 from the Army, 50 from the Navy. The rest were elected from France’s various provinces, 10 from each elected on a register that was limited exclusively to White, “True French” men. In order to be truly French one had to be born in the country or her colonies and have at least one parent and two grandparents also born in France. The franchise was, of course, limited to whites and Jews, Germans, Slavs and Britons were deliberately excluded. The Upper House of the French government was replaced with a 20 man council, half military and half civilian who were appointed by the Consul. In truth, the country had only the barest scraps of democracy left. Revanchist Republicans dominated in the first legislative election of the new Republic with a bare handful of Senators coming from the newly reformed Liberal Democrats and Imperial Socialists. A military reorganisation also began, France’s armies were retitled as “Legions” and it is not hard to see how very Roman in style the ideology was, even before it began to evolve. Boulanger was itching for a war but couldn’t find one France was ready to fight. Was he needed was a nice, quick, colonial affair but in Africa, France had only just been whipped by the British, in Asia she had no bases at all to expand from and the Americas were entirely under the watchful eye of Washington DC. So he sat and stewed and issues loud declarations of the might of France. Taxes went up as the army expanded, conscription brought in for all men between the ages of 18-30 for a period of no less than 5 years. The Government invested heavily in military industries and started construction on a series of new ships; battleships and screens mostly. His thought here was not to challenge the British but Germany; as France’s navy had been decimated at sea, their ability to challenge the Germans had been severely reduced. In recent years however the Germans had slowed on their naval construction, allowing the French an opportunity to catch up, one the Consul intended to seize. He would not be able to defeat France’s eastern foe alone however and in the last war Moscow had proven themselves not the fully competent ally France had hoped; they needed new blood.
France was again a military state but even she could not stand alone.
It was only under very specific circumstances that you could call the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its Emperor, Franz Josef “new blood”. The man was a stern traditionalist and despised the slow sweep of democracy and liberalism across Europe. Franz-Josef had, just a few years ago, joined the League of Three Emperors with the Russians and Germans and more recently forged a bond with the budding Italian Empire. By 1898 however, both the German and Italian Empires were becoming liberal, constitutional monarchies which disgusted Franz-Josef, what were they fighting for if not the defence of the old order? To make matters worse the Germans and Italians were both becoming increasingly disinterested in the Balkans and paid little heed to Austrian desires to carve up the remaining Ottoman territories. Despite this slow disentanglement, it came as a great surprise to the entire continent when the Austrians in May 1898, declared their alliance with the Germans and Italians void, instead signing onto the French-Russian Entente, signing two separate treaties. The first, the Treaty of the East was a deal between Vienna and St Petersberg, in public, the two simply pledged to help one another in the case of European war, however, a series of secret clauses were included. These extra clauses included plans and maps devised by a joint team of Austro-Hungarian and Russian generals, divvying up areas of influence in eastern Europe and assigning portions of the Balkans to each power as well as preliminary plans for a war with the Ottomans, should such an opportunity emerge. The second deal, the Treaty of the West, bound Austria and France together, it included a deal wherein the Austrians would purchase various pieces of French equipment and of course defend one another in the case of war – though with a deliberate “colonial exclusion clause” so that the Austrians would not see themselves up against Britain in any potential rerun of the Short war – and again signed a series of secret deals, this time outlining the two countries’ demands from Germany (Elass-Loraine to the French, Silesia to the Austrians with Bavaria as an independent Hapsburg Kingdom) and Italy (Venice to Austria, Sardinia to France).
The Germans and Italians were sent into a wild panic by this new alliance. Up until now the “Central Powers” just about outdid the strength of the Entente and whilst the Austrians were far from Europe’s premier fighting force they would be enough to tip the scales. Reaching out first to the British, the Germans received a series of vague and ultimately meaningless assurances of friendship. By now the Germans were certainly preferable to either the French or the Russians and no doubt Britain would intervene if either the sovereignty of Europe’s neutrals was compromised or if the continental balance of power was in danger of full collapse. Despite this, Britain already had a prosperous alliance with the Pacific Three and European entanglements threatened to once again shatter her splendid isolation, there would be no formal deal. The Dutch were the next stop; with Belgium increasingly falling into the French camp, the Dutch feared that French expansionism might see a return to the disasters of the Napoleonic wars and before long the Netherlands had tied themselves to the German mast.
Swedish style uniforms, with Caps for Officers and Tricorns for Regulars, became the Nordic standard.
The Scandinavians, only just having united into a single bloc some three years prior held a special Nordic Council in 1899 and agreed that, due to the threat of a once again expansionist Russia, they would collectively sign on to the German-Italian-Dutch Alliance. The Nordics also accelerated their plans for military integration, creating a unified high command, with integration completed in 1902. The Scandinavians also ordered a series of rifle trials to be held in the early months of 1900 with pitches from local companies as well as foreign ones such as Mauser, Enfield and Remington. The Enfield commission put forward their beloved Drum Magazine Rifle, the only semi-automatic candidate in a sea of bolt-actions. With its massive magazine size, solid accuracy, ease of use and incredible rate of fire, the DMR was held back by being more expensive to produce and more complex to repair. When it came to the trails, the DMRs outperformed all but the Mausers in both accuracy and reliability and, with their incredibly rapid rate of fire and ease of use, were adopted. The Scandinavians ordered a large shipment of 80,000 with more to come and sought out a licence so they could produce their own with some minor modifications that might better suit the winter environment. They received it the following year and by 1902 the armies of both Sweden-Norway and Denmark were being issued DMRs on mass.
A brief but rapid arms race began as the Germans attempted to match French naval build up and focused on the development of new artillery corps, hoping that their superior industry and technology might outdo the sheer numbers that the French, Austrian and Russian Empires could all bring to the table. The Scandinavians had done the same with their DMRs and the Italians began to expand both their border forts and the various defences they had scattered through the Alpine passes on the country’s eastern and western flanks. On either side of Europe, the Second Entente was hungry for blood and in the centre, what would come to be known as the “Central Bloc” or simply “the Bloc” stood firm, awaiting the inevitable. It was not until 1909 however…
Extract from: The Great Parliamentary Speeches 1800-1900
Sir Edward Grey, 16th May 1898
On: Irish Home Rule Bill (1898)
“This United Kingdom, extant now for some 97 years, was created at a time of discord, of conflict and chaos. The act of Union was a pragmatic deal and not, I am afraid to say, a truly stately one. When Albion and Eire were tied together it was perhaps not meant to be a permanent measure. The great Mister Pitt did not seek out a union for any reasons other than to prevent rebellion and ensure the integrity of the realm. His intentions were pure, his actions were just and indeed by becoming a United Kingdom we have grown as peoples but the future for Ireland lies not in the status quo. Must brothers be confined always to the same abode? No Mr Speaker, they must not! Why then do we not look forward, why do we not move forward not as paternalistic overlords of the Irish but as rationalistic allies? Home Rule is not the start of a slope or decline but a bold and permanent settlement. Unlike in the creation of this great United Kingdom, Mr Speaker we do not take this action for the benefits of today but for the fortunes of tomorrow, it is a patriotic and intelligent movement. It is only after many years of intense negotiation in this house and the other that I bring to you our most laudable proposal.
Sir Edward Grey, PM.
Mr Speaker I have led a government devoted to modernity and reform. When I call myself a New Liberal it is not simply so that I might escape the frankly towering shadow of my dear, late forebear, it is because I believe that as we approach the 20th century Britain must grow and change. We must have reform at home and in the empire and we must always be on guard that our democracy, which has always been both an ancient and modern institution, retains its traditions and its ability to look to the future.
The people of Ireland will have their own assembly organised in Dublin and the great provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connacht will have their own. I know many of the right honourable gentlemen opposite were fearful for the rights of the godly Protestant but fear not Mr Speaker, no matter their faith, the people of Ireland will be represented. They will remain an integral part of this Kingdom of course and 40 of their current MPs will remain in this house. All will be satisfied, all will be represented and we shall have a representative and fair government for all the people of our blessed isles. Mr Speaker, I urge the House to vote in favour of the act, for the good of Ireland and the good of this United Kingdom.”
The Act passed the Commons on May 16th and the votes were as follows:
AYE: 483
Liberal Party: 270 Imperial Socialist Party: 97 Irish Parliamentary Party: 82 Conservative Party: 9 Independent Labour Party: 4 Others/Independents: 1
NAY: 252
Conservative Party: 170 Liberal Unionist Party: 81 Liberal Party: 1
The Act passed the House of Lords on May 29th and Ireland became an autonomous part of the United Kingdom on January 1st 1900.
Extract From:Freedom, Federation, Fraternity: A History of the UIC By: Louis Penn
The Grey Government’s “Imperial Reform Bill 1899” built on a series of reforms they had made over the past years. With the franchise extended to all men above the age of 21, dominion status granted to Newfoundland and home rule finally achieved in Ireland, Grey had accomplished many of his sweeping legislative goals but three years into his tenure. When a private members Bill from Fabian MP Bertie Russell was introduced proposing “…the reform of the Dominions into Principalities with Governor Generals ceding their authority to permanent ‘Princes’, members of the Royal Family appointed by his Majesty the King to act as head of state and thus begin the process of Imperial Federation…” it received 200 votes in the Commons, with more than 40 defections each from the Liberal and Conservative parties. The event caused a minor stir in London and showed that many Fabian policies were not just popular across the Empire but within Parliament. Hoping to circumvent any further chances for the Imperial Socialists to steal the limelight and to perhaps win over a contingent of the Lib/ImpSoc swing vote, Sir Grey arranged a special meeting with His Majesty the King (and, as always, the Queen) and whilst Victor was somewhat confused by the idea, Queen Sybil was said to have adored it. The sovereign had never been much for politics and the weekly meetings between King and Prime Minister were often little more than a vague outline of the affairs of the week, a discussion on Imperial matters and an exchange of pleasantries. In 1894, Queen Sybil had started attending alongside her husband and either directly from her or via her encouragement of Victor, discussion and debate became more common. Therefore, with the approval of the Royal couple, the Prime Minister got to work.
The Queen was becoming increasingly present in the workings of British politics as her apolitical husband grew bored of his new duties.
Grey invited the Prime Ministers of Canada, Newfoundland, Cape, Westralia and Australasia to a special meeting of the bi-yearly Imperial Council in September 1898. From Newfoundland, the social democratic and Fabian-leaning People’s Party had won the Dominion’s first election in 1897 and thus were probably the most in favour, sending their PM Sir Edward Morris. Canada’s Liberal PM, David Mills, was adverse to surrendering any authority back to London and the only man at the conference explicitly opposed to Federation. His party, however, was increasingly in favour and the Canadian Imperial Socialists had been surging recently, worrying Mills enough that he would agree to moderate reform. The Conservative Prime Ministers of Australasia and Westralia, William Massey and John Leake were cynical, disliking the borderline social-democratic policies of Grey and, whilst they were not utterly opposed to Imperial Federation, they both feared Imperial Socialism’s influence. Meanwhile, Saul Solomon, Progressive Prime Minister of the Cape, had been drifting in a Fabian direction for many years and, his term in office lasting nearly 20 years, welcomed this new reform and planned to retire as soon as it was passed, seeing it as a good bookend to his time as premier. The group of men was a little hodge-podge but they were all, to less or greater extent, pro-Imperial Federation it seemed that Grey just might get the job done.
The negotiations were rushed as Grey wanted the appointment of Princes to be achieved on January 1st of 1900, not only an excellent symbolic moment for a renewal of the British Empire at the turn of a new century but coordinating that with the opening of the Irish Assembly would allow for a series of celebrations and a massive political win for the election he planned to hold a few months later. It is important to note that Ireland, whilst having its own Assembly, was simply a devolved part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and thus would not receive its own king.
The bill passed surprisingly easily and despite not one but five Fabian speeches complaining that it had been their idea in the first place, there was near unanimity across the major parties in support of the idea. In the Dominions themselves, there was more debate; whilst the Canadians and Australasians passed their versions of the Bills rapidly, it took until September of 1899 for the Cape to finally get theirs past a large dissident group of the Cape Conservative Party. The Westralians dragged their feet until December but still got it through some three weeks before the planned coronation. With the various bills passed, the Dominions (whilst retaining their names and all other aspects of their relative constitutions) received their Princes.
The Prince of Canada was Duke Arthur of Connacht, King Victor’s Uncle who had been long tabbed as a candidate for Governor General and thus was a perfect choice. To Westralia the King’s younger Uncle, Duke Alfred of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha became King. As an outdoorsman and conservative, he was quite well received and soon took a liking to his desert home. The King’s brother, Prince George, became Prince of Australasia, reportedly he had desired Canada but nevertheless took well to his new posting, of all the Princes he brought with him the most pomp, building The Summer Palace just outside of Melbourne. A large piece of marble and gold, it was – at the time – arguably more grandiose and imposing than Buckingham Palace and Prince George went on to build up a true court with advisors, patrons and guests filling the hall of his lavish home. In Newfoundland, the most oft-forgotten of the Dominions which had gained its independence just three years prior, Princess Victoria, known to her friends and eventually her subjects as “Torri”, was appointed. Pretty, young and charismatic, the Newfies bonded almost immediately to their new sovereign and she fast became a national treasure. Finally, to the Cape went Princess Beatrice, Aunt of the King and reportedly Queen Victoria’s favourite daughter. Beatrice was quieter and subtler than her brothers and whilst there was some discontent in the Cape at receiving a Princess and not a Prince, she brought with her her on-again, off-again courter, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte and Beatrice had hoped to wed in the 1870s but nothing ever came of it, with the end of his Presidential ambitions in 1895 he returned to London and the romance was restarted. Beatrice had never wed and the couple, both growing older and still unmarried, eventually wed in 1903. Napoleon would remain in the Cape for ten years before his return to the forefront of politics.
On the 1st of January the three Princes, two Princesses, the new First Minister of Ireland John Redmond and all the ministers, lords and celebrities of the Empire were invited to London for a grand imperial celebration. Held over a week from New Year's Eve to the 6th, an “Imperial Fair” was put up in Hyde Park with each dominion and each of the home countries putting up stalls demonstrating their art, music, soldiers and food. Dignitaries came from across the globe as Kaiser Fredrich, President Boies and a host of Maharajas and Indian Princes flooded the streets of London. A series of parties, planned down to the dinner seating by the Queen, allowed for incredible nights of splendour and plenty. The turn of the century marked the apex of British confidence and pride, the Empire was happy, healthy and exceedingly wealthy.
This change is often lost in the sea of Imperial Reform that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but the appointment of the Princes effectively turned each of the Dominions into their own, self-contained monarchy, setting the stage for wholesale Federation.
