Various reasons stacked together, ultimately leading to the grand expedition plan never being realized in reality.
However, it must be said, even though the idea of the Franco-Russian coalition never materialized, just the plan itself was enough to give White Hall and Westminster Palace a fright.
During the Napoleonic Wars, to prevent possible invasions, Britain had long deployed approximately 50,000 troops on the northwest border of India.
Perhaps for land-power nations like Russia and France, fifty thousand might not be a particularly large number.
But to know, for a sea-power nation like Britain, even during the most intense period of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain’s standing army did not exceed 200,000, aning Britain dispatched as much as 20% of its army to the South Asia Subcontinent.
And this was precisely what Arthur noticed; he understood that no matter which country, for whatever reason they set eyes on India, it would cause divine tension in White Hall.
While the marching plan he drafted looked highly questionable and could not withstand thorough scrutiny, Arthur was very certain of one thing: no one would carefully scrutinize this report.
Just so casual speculations about Russians coveting India were enough to incite an uproar throughout British society.
At the mont when the French July Monarchy Governnt was being troubled by dostic opposition, the worsening relationship between Britain and the potential first land-power of Europe, Russia, was only a matter of ti. Not to ntion, due to geographical reasons, Russia’s threat to India was far more direct than France’s.
By then, having served as the cultural counsellor in Russia and keenly foresaw this point, Sir Arthur Hastings was bound to gain the Cabinet’s attention.
After all, in the political realm, Britain has always been about utilizing resources effectively, so how could they ignore this Russian expert?
More importantly, although far away in St. Petersburg, Arthur had astutely observed the brewing anti-Russian sentint in British society through the regularly mailed London newspapers.
This was no longer the ti just after the Napoleonic Wars ended; London newspapers no longer contained praises for Holy King Alexander I, but instead were filled with various criticisms of the new Tsar’s disregard for the Polish constitution and cruel suppression of the Polish rebels.
At Arthur’s direction, The Economist in its latest issue published a comntary by Mr. Hestingov, purported to be a Polish exiled officer, addressing this issue.
Hestingov strongly criticized Tsar Nicholas I in the article, pointing out that since the signing of the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, Poland beca a semi-autonomous Russian-Polish Kingdom, with the Russian Tsar also serving as Poland’s constitutional king.
In the "1815 Polish Constitution," forr Tsar Alexander I had promised the Poles freedom of speech, publication, religious beliefs, and protection from personal harm.
However, not long thereafter, Russia abolished press freedom in Poland, introduced preventive censorship, openly suspended assembly freedom, interfered in governnt affairs, banned the Freemasons and later National Patriotic Association, forced reforrs to resign, and humiliated and punished Polish officers.
After Nicholas I ascended the throne, the new Tsar even abolished the public procedures of the Polish Parliant and in 1826 and 1830, using the Decembrist Revolt and Belgian Revolution as excuses, repeatedly demonstrated intentions to revoke Poland’s autonomy.
Nicholas I’s narrative to the international community that Polish rebels were national traitors was not only incorrect but a classic case of the culprit accusing the victim first.
If this were not the case, when Warsaw fell, the first thing Russian commander Paskevich did would not have been to secretly enter Parliant and destroy the original and copies of the Polish Constitution.
The Tsar was eager to do so only to shalessly announce to the international community that he had never granted the Kingdom of Poland the freedoms it deserved.
With Hestingov leading the charge, The Economist’s latest issue was fully aid, its coverage density far beyond that of the Liverpool hotel shooting incident in earlier tis.
"The Siberian Civilizing Mission: The output of shackles from the exile land has surpassed the diplomas of Moscow University."
"Russian grain feeds Birmingham workers, who are forging the chains that bind Russia."
"Caucasian Trade Ledger: The cost of conquering Chechen mountains has exceeded ten tis the colonial revenue of India."
"Poland’s Blood and Vodka Economics: On the Tsar’s Cossack sword-imposed tariffs in the Vistula River customs region."
As a new magazine, perhaps The Economist’s influence and circulation are far behind that of the old-fashioned Blackwood’s or the Edinburgh Review and its ancestor, the British, but The Economist’s audience is very intriguing.
Whether it’s because of the good choice of na, or the presence of new economic figures such as John Stuart Mill, Jacob Ricardo, or contributors following Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian economics, in any case, The Economist is rapidly becoming a part of the London Financial City stock brokers to maintain their professional image.
Therefore, even if the magazine’s spread is not large, its influence cannot be underestimated.
And the best evidence proving this point is the fact that the rchants enraged by Viscount Palrston’s policy towards Russia were greatly pleased with the new issue’s content, proactively approached The Economist’s editorial departnt, and issued checks equivalent to several months’ profits of the magazine all at once, suggesting that as long as similar articles continue, they are willing to maintain substantial sponsorship amounts.
User Comments
0 comments from readers