Chapter 1539 Middle East
Judging the strength of the Soviet Union at this stage is not an easy task in itself. It needs to be considered from multiple dimensions. If we follow East Africa’s own standards, East Africa is a primary industrial power. The urbanization level has not exceeded 50%, and the proportion of agricultural population is still relatively high.
At this stage, the urbanization rate of the Soviet Union is less than 30%, and it can be regarded as an agricultural country, but no one can treat the Soviet Union as an agricultural country.
For example, Japan's urbanization rate is similar to that of the Soviet Union, or even slightly higher, but no one would think that Japan's national strength is stronger than that of the Soviet Union.
This is similar to the previous life. When the urbanization rate of the Far Eastern Empire reached about 60%, it was difficult to define its national strength and that of the United States. The US economy was stronger, but it was inflated. The Far Eastern Empire had a strong industry, but its economic data was low.
If we look at the early 20th century, which is the time period in East Africa, it would not be so troublesome. Steel production can basically be used as the most intuitive criterion for judging a country's national strength. Therefore, the Soviet Union can rank fourth. This is also an important indicator for reference for most countries.
Today's East Africa is an exception. In the 19th century, steel production was also a goal pursued by East Africa. However, after entering the 20th century, as East Africa's steel production rapidly increased and became the world's number one, the impact of steel production in East Africa's judgment of its own economic quality has declined a lot.
Instead, the urbanization rate and the per capita level of various industries are shown. According to this logic, East Africa is portrayed as a "backward, poor and weak" country in East African propaganda.
For example, before the economic crisis broke out, East Africa's steel production had long ranked first, but when per capita steel production was calculated, countries such as the United States, Germany, Belgium, Britain, France and others ranked above East Africa.
In terms of urbanization rate, the average urbanization rate of industrial countries is about 50%, and East Africa is only close to that, about 46% to 48%, lower than the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, France, the Netherlands, Belgium...
Of course, East Africa's urbanization rate is very high in the world. In 1932, the world's average urbanization rate was about 20%, and East Africa's was nearly 18 percentage points higher.
…
Late 1932, Persia.
Persia is one of East Africa's important strategic operating areas in the Middle East in recent years. According to the agreement between East Africa and Britain, East Africa took over its western and northern regions, which were the former sphere of influence of Tsarist Russia.
However, this also put East Africa into a relatively passive situation. The Persian part under the sphere of influence of East Africa was sandwiched between the Soviet Union (Azerbaijan) and Britain.
Britain was fine. Britain itself wanted to win over East Africa to fight against the Soviet Union, and then shrink its own power to better maintain the security of its South Asian colonies. Since the end of World War I, Britain's global strategy has changed, basically focusing on contraction.
The relationship between East Africa and the Soviet Union in the Middle East was quite tense.
The conflict between the two countries in the region has nothing to do with ideology, but is entirely a conflict of national interests. After all, this region was originally the sphere of influence of Tsarist Russia, and the Soviet Union also hoped to strengthen its influence in the area from strategic and economic perspectives.
Strategically, the Soviet Union also hoped to open up access to the Persian Gulf and gain access to the sea, thereby driving the development of its southern regions, including the Caucasus and Central Asia, while consolidating its national security.
Economically, this was the traditional industrial market of Tsarist Russia, especially the trade along the northern Caspian Sea coast, which was also inherited by the Soviet Union.
However, it is obviously impossible for East Africa to make concessions to the Soviet Union because of this, especially in the context of the world economic crisis, when East Africa urgently needs to open up overseas markets.
To put it more simply, the competition between the Soviet Union and East Africa, two industrial countries, for a commodity market was one of the main contradictions between the two countries, and the signs of this had actually already appeared in the Tsarist era.
As a major country on the coast of the Indian Ocean, East Africa has always coveted the markets of the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. However, East Africa rose too late. Before that, these regions had already been divided up by various countries, especially Britain and Russia.
For the sake of ease of understanding, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia are collectively referred to as the "Greater Middle East" region. In the past, the United States had a "Greater Middle East Democracy Plan."
In the 19th century, East Africa was unable to expand into the Greater Middle East market due to its national strength problems. Therefore, at that time, East Africa chose a compromise solution, which was to support Omanis (Zanzibaris) as middlemen and sell East African products to various parts of the Greater Middle East through their channels.
This includes the spheres of influence of Britain and Russia, and even Central Asia.
However, the scale of trade conducted in this way is ultimately limited. After all, countries such as Britain and Tsarist Russia regard this as their "meal on the plate" and will not easily "share" it with others.
It was not until the beginning of this century, when East African military forces entered the Persian Gulf region, that East Africa's trade with the local area developed further.
It was precisely because of the military expansion that Britain was willing to hand over the northwestern region of Persia to East Africa after World War I.
Tehran, East African Embassy.
Today, Ambassador Wiltz of East Africa to Persia received a letter from his homeland. The letter was sent by the East African Central Government and was eventually mailed to Ambassador Wiltz.
After reading the letter, Wirtz called a meeting with East African diplomats in Tehran.
Wirtz said: "Ladies and gentlemen, some of the suggestions we mentioned earlier have been approved domestically and responses have been given."
"The Empire believes that the current situation in Persia is complicated and times have changed, so we should change our diplomatic strategy in Persia. That is, we should copy the Empire's experience in South America and maintain the Empire's interests in the region through economic cooperation as much as possible."
"Avoid getting involved in the conflicts among various political forces, parties, ethnic groups, and religions in Persia. Without violating the core interests of the empire, we can moderately relax restrictions on the development of Persia."
There is no doubt that the East African government's new statement is sincere towards Persia, and of course, it is mainly to reduce trouble.
As early as the beginning of this year, Ambassador Wiltz reported to the country that the development situation of East Africa in Persia in recent years was not only hated by everyone, but also basically condemned by everyone.
In the past, East Africa's semi-colonization of Persia was very simple and crude. It often interfered in its internal affairs in an attempt to support the Persian royal government and suppress other factions.
As a result, East Africa offended the local ethnic forces and the grassroots people in Persia.
The reason is very simple. Although the Persian government is more in line with East Africa's appetite in selling out national interests, they themselves are indeed in a hopeless situation. If East Africa continues to maintain its past diplomatic policy, it will be tantamount to draining the pond to catch fish, and then it will be destroyed together with the Persian Kingdom.
Ambassador Wirtz said: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket, especially in Persia, which is a very complicated region. Over the past few years, our projects and trade in Persia have encountered many problems. The northern railway has not been successfully opened to traffic so far, which is inevitably due to the obstruction of ethnic forces in Persia."
East Africa once planned a railway in Persia, attempting to extend it from the Persian Gulf to the coast of the Caspian Sea, but progress was very slow. On the one hand, Persia's terrain was complex, and on the other hand, East Africa was within Persia's sphere of influence, with a mixture of ethnic groups and local forces.
For example, the Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Lur people, Gilak people, Mazandaran people, and finally the Persians. The complex ethnic forces and the complicated terrain have formed many tribes, families, and government forces.
Some treaties between the governments of East Africa and the Kingdom of Persia involved these ethnic groups or regions, such as the Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway planned by East Africa, which is the Northern Railway of Persia.
It passes through many ethnic groups, but East Africa accounts for the majority of the benefits of this railway, while the Persian royal government accounts for a smaller share. Not only do other forces not get a share of the profits, their interests are even harmed. For example, some mineral resources along the Persian Gulf-Caspian Sea Railway were "plundered" by East Africa.
As for the "fair trade" between East Africa and the Persian government, other forces naturally do not recognize it. It is not difficult to solve this problem, that is, to let them join in and share the spoils, but the Persian government is obviously unwilling to do so.
The construction of this railway was originally funded by the Persian government, and they did not want to share the rights and interests with other forces.
Generally speaking, there are too many monks and too little meat. The Persian government needs to obtain financial resources, but their superiors, East Africa, have already taken most of the interest. The remaining part can barely fill their own appetite, so there is no more soup to share with others.
Wiltz said: "The imperial government is not interested in Persia's internal affairs. As long as we can maintain the interests of the empire and trade, we don't mind cooperating with anyone. For example, in the development of mineral resources, we no longer seek to monopolize mineral resources. As long as the Persians can develop them, we will be responsible for acquiring these resources back to the country."
In East Africa's trade with Persia, the plunder of raw materials was one of the important contents. In the past, East Africa was more domineering, for example, it monopolized the operating rights of mines. Now East Africa can moderately relax restrictions and allow various forces in Persia to join in, and East Africa will shift from self-operation to purchasing.
Among Persian minerals, the only thing that is attractive to East Africa is Persia's oil resources. However, Persia's oil is mainly distributed along the coast of the Persian Gulf and does not need to pass through the Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway.
Other minerals are distributed in the mountains and valleys of Persia. They are difficult to develop and inconvenient to transport. Now East Africa does not want to go to the trouble of developing these inland resources of Persia, but instead turns to Persia for development itself.
Of course, East Africa would not suffer any loss. After all, Persia obviously still needs East Africa for the technology, equipment, etc. needed to develop resources and minerals.
"Of course, the biggest benefit of doing this is that it can reduce our involvement in regional, ethnic and religious conflicts."
The development of a resource, if it is truly profitable, will also attract other people, such as the British and the Soviets, who can support local government armed forces to damage East African investment industries and even threaten the lives and safety of relevant personnel in East Africa.
This is not uncommon internationally. East Africa supported Paraguay and beat up Bolivia, thereby extending its sphere of influence to the hinterland of South America and controlling a large number of interests.
If East Africa can do this, other countries can naturally do it as well. It mainly depends on whether it is worth it. Persia is obviously not worth such a large investment from East Africa.
To use the argument of the colonial era, the investment is greater than the return. Although Persia has oil, East Africa is not short of oil producing areas, not to mention that Persia's oil is on the coast of the Persian Gulf, which is where the Arabs live. So as long as East Africa has good relations with the Arabs, it can also make a profit.
The Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway is different. It has a too large span, complex forces along the line, high risks, and high investment and maintenance costs. Therefore, East Africa needs to change its thinking.
Wirtz said: "In short, in Persia, according to the final decision of the empire, our work will be completely transformed into economic colonization."
"Rather than treating Persia as a colony, which would require additional military and administrative costs, and might also lead to resistance from the local people, which is not cost-effective."
"Therefore, in the future we will gradually reduce our interference in Persia's internal affairs, unless it threatens the core interests of the empire."
"Of course, suppressing the Soviet Union and the Labor Party in Persia is still our most basic political task, and it will not be shaken by this."
Even if it turns to economic colonization, East Africa will not relax its vigilance against the Soviet Union and its supporting forces. This is politically correct.
East Africa's transformation of its colonial strategy in Persia into a more covert economic colonization was itself an attempt to respond to the Soviet threat.
Ambassador Wirtz said: "The Persian government cannot expect the Empire to directly confront the Soviet Union for them. After all, Persia is not our country's territory, but their own homeland."
"Therefore, in resisting the Soviet Union, the Persian government should make efforts, especially while strengthening its military strength, paying attention to people's livelihood issues."
"To prevent local forces and the Labor Party from becoming stronger, the Empire will correspondingly reduce its military strength in Persia, especially in the north, and focus on the western coastal areas."
East Africa's troops stationed in Persia are mainly concentrated in northern Persia. In the past, they were mainly used to guard against the Soviet Union. But now the East African government believes that this is not cost-effective. East Africa's interests in Persia are not worth it for East Africa to do so, or to put so much effort into doing so.
Even if the Soviet Union went to war directly with Persia, the problem could not be solved by the small number of troops stationed in East Africa, and it might even be affected. Therefore, the focus of East Africa shifted to supporting Persia's own armed forces.
There may be disputes and conflicts between the Persian royal government and other local ethnic forces, but they all have a consistent attitude towards the Soviet Union. After all, if the Soviet Union really spreads its influence, it will pose the greatest threat to them.
At worst, East Africa could just walk away and retreat back to the Persian Gulf, as long as it could ensure that the Soviet Union could not gain access to the Persian Gulf.
Wirtz said: "Although Persia is an important part of the Empire's Greater Middle East trade, it is not indispensable. Our job is to maintain the Empire's current influence and trade share in Persia, rather than to come into direct conflict with Britain and the Soviet Union."
Of course, if East Africa really has a conflict of interest with the two countries, East Africa has enough time to respond to this risk. After all, East Africa is invincible in the Indian Ocean region.
It is also because of this that the Soviet Union and Britain would generally not act rashly and provoke East Africa.
(End of this chapter)
Continue read on readnovelmtl.com
