African Entrepreneurship Record-Chapter 815 - 119: Debate

3:00 PM.

East Africa, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, and nine other countries participated in this Venice Conference negotiation. Of course, apart from the involved countries, the others mainly played a minor role. It is worth mentioning that the Boer Republic also sent representatives, but the Boers could only sit in the audience.

Count Allen Tal presided over the meeting: "Gentlemen, it is an honor to have you all gather in Venice to participate in this meeting on the resolution of the South African War. I hope both sides can sit down and calmly resolve the South African issue and make due contributions to regional peace. Now, let’s first hear from the British representatives."

As one of the main characters of this meeting, the United Kingdom naturally was the most attention-grabbing country and also the strongest power in the war, so the British spoke first, and East Africa had no objections.

British Minister of Foreign Affairs Salisbury took the lead and said: "The South African War is a conflict that occurred in the southern African region. It has been ongoing for a full year since last year and has not yet ended. The main culprit of this war is the brutal expansion of the East African Kingdom in southern Africa, which has caused severe humanitarian disasters in Africa. Areas like Angola and Mozambique have seen masses of people displaced or devoured by the artillery of the East Africans, with tens of thousands losing their lives. Moreover, the East African Kingdom disregards the principle of the inviolability of private property and has massively encroached on the legitimate properties of the local people in southern Africa. Thus, on behalf of the British government, I strongly condemn the war crimes of the Kingdom of Heixinggen, and East Africa should pay the price for this..."

Salisbury laid all the blame on East Africa, posing as though they had committed war crimes.

Herman knocked on the table, interrupting Salisbury’s speech, "Lord Salisbury, I understand the dissatisfaction brought by the setbacks in the war, and this psychological imbalance is understandable. However, I cannot overlook any nation’s slander against our Kingdom of Heixinggen."

Count Herman and Salisbury’s references to East Africa show significant differences. The official name is the Kingdom of Heixinggen, but other countries still conventionally or conveniently refer to it as the East African Kingdom.

Of course, some countries may deliberately do so, given that Africa, beyond its geographical meaning, symbolizes savagery and unrefinement worldwide.

Salisbury, unfazed by Herman’s interruption, said, "I am merely objectively describing the actions of the East African Army in southern Africa. Angola, Mozambique, Orange, and even Cape Town have fallen into your East African hands. You are most aware of what you’ve done there."

Though Salisbury’s words were somewhat biased, they were not wrong. The humanitarian disaster, if Black people had "human rights," indeed fits the description. But this is not solely East Africa’s problem, as the British themselves started with the black slave trade, making all colonial governments in Africa complicit, having never regarded the African natives as human.

As for violating "private property," it is laughable. The British and Portuguese can plunder Africa, but East Africa cannot seize opportunities? It’s akin to only allowing officials to start fires but not the common people to light lamps.

Essentially, the British, Portuguese, and even the Boers are all latecomers, gaining wealth through the plunder of Black people, often against the San people. East Africa merely robbed the robbers, no different from these southern African colonizers.

Of course, knowing this is one thing; the East African government would never admit it. Herman, employing Salisbury’s shameless method, said, "Lord Salisbury, the East African Army’s discipline is stringent, unlike some armies in southern Africa that resemble bandits, not even sparing the crops in farmers’ fields."

The East African military discipline is indeed stronger than that of Britain and similar countries at the time. Moreover, the British and Portuguese holdings in South Africa were insufficient to exceed East Africa’s military expenses, and whatever valuable land existed was nationalized, not pocketed by individuals.

Although East African soldiers might privately collect small items, Angola and Mozambique’s wealth is limited, merely continuously exploited by Portugal, giving little to share among soldiers.

In contrast, the English and Portuguese forces were the true bandit armies. However, Ernst had anticipated this, deploying few industries in southern Africa, so losses outside New Hamburg Port City were negligible, though the city’s losses were significant.

Even the losses in New Hamburg Port mainly resulted from destruction. The only convenience the Allies found was in the fields East Africa had no time to destroy, providing food source convenience for the Allies. But some crops in New Hamburg Port were imports from the east, and local agriculture was not very developed.

"Haha, Count Herman, your so-called strict military discipline is just hot air. Our British Empire has a long history, and our army’s excellent traditions cannot be rivaled by a mere few-decade-old country like yours. Everyone here surely shares my perspective. In comparison, the British Empire’s army prioritizes chivalry, while your East African Defense Army is skilled at opportunistic tactics," Salisbury said.

However, those present aligned more with Salisbury’s view. Though East Africa’s military strength is not weak, it is instinctively compared to Prussia, given the Hohenzollern family’s involvement, implying a similar style.

This is also a stereotype of European armies toward Prussia. After undergoing multiple reforms, the Prussian army has long since evolved.

The East African Defense Army does indeed "lack martial virtue" in warfare, a point East Africa cannot deny, as Ernst himself disregards such practices.

To Ernst, the European military’s notion of "chivalry" is pointless lamentation. As long as the army wins, the tactics employed are irrelevant in Ernst’s view.

Moreover, East African military commanders are mostly of civilian origin, unable to match the ceremonious nature of European military aristocrats.

"Haha, let’s not debate this point for now. In terms of the war, the Allies initiated the conflict, an unchanging fact. Thus, from the start, this war was unjust. As wartime initiators, the British and Portuguese governments are the main culprits. For us in East Africa, this war is entirely a defensive counter-attack for home defense, the primary reason for your failure in the South African War," Count Herman asserted fiercely.

The initiators of the war actually included East Africa, but the Allies acted slightly sooner, aligning with East Africa’s national strategy.

The Allies, unfortunately, initiated the conflict; had they delayed even by two months, East Africa would have been deemed the main instigator of the war.

Of course, East Africa’s war efforts were primarily against Portugal and the Boers, as challenging Britain directly was unrealistic. Britain’s involvement was purely a case of wanting more than they could handle.