#1406 - Put a

Currently, the economic situation throughout Europe is not optimistic, including Russia. Post-war reconstruction has been slow to progress, hindering economic recovery.

Due to World War I, a significant amount of wealth flowed out of Europe, especially from the governments of the participating countries, which were left with empty coffers and a mountain of debt. Russia took a straightforward approach by simply defaulting on its debts, but this came at the cost of international credibility and reputation, as well as facing sanctions from the rest of the world.

The situations of England, France, Germany, and Austria are similarly dire. If they could, they would also like to emulate Russia's direct default. Therefore, the biggest headache now is for the United States, the world's largest creditor. As the saying goes, 'The one who owes money is the boss,' so the United States will indeed have to put in considerable effort to recover its debts from Europe.

The representatives of the three countries singled out, the United States and East Africa, wore grim expressions.

Although the United States and East Africa were still undecided about joining the League of Nations, they sent representatives to participate in its first conference.

Regarding the debt issue, the U.S. Commissioner Smith retorted bluntly, "Europe, as an important center of world civilization, should have a spirit of contract. After all, the wealth of the American people did not come from thin air."

"England, as the wealthiest country in the world, should not be saying such things. Your contribution to World War I was not necessarily greater than that of the United States, and your homeland was completely unaffected by the war. What talk is there of post-war reconstruction?"

"Moreover, England's social wealth is undoubtedly the highest in the world. England itself is the world's economic center, possessing the most colonies and the largest share of the world market."

"As the world's leading power, England should take the initiative to bear its responsibilities, rather than only enjoying the rights that the international system brings to England. This is unfair to other countries in the world."

The American representatives directly refuted England's intention to default on its debts. Among the major European powers that started the war, England had the strongest economic strength and suffered the least damage.

Although England borrowed a large amount of US dollars from the United States to support the war, objectively speaking, this was England's own problem, and the United States would not be lenient because of England.

East African representative Gels also chimed in, "As Mr. Smith said, European countries should pay more attention to the spirit of contract; otherwise, it would be a great disruption to the existing social order and international rules. Clearly, no country can afford the consequences of such actions."

In reality, the amount of money Europe owes East Africa is not much, almost negligible compared to the United States. East Africa only truly began to profit from the war in its later stages. After all, before the war, East Africa owed Europe a large sum of money.

However, although the proportion of Europe's debt to East Africa is small, it certainly does not mean that East Africa can ignore this debt. After all, no one dislikes having more money, and East Africa has never been a wealthy country in essence. In terms of national income, East Africa can only be ranked in the middle among the great powers.

Therefore, it would be ridiculous to expect East Africa, a country that is not wealthy to begin with, to bear the responsibilities for historically wealthy European countries such as England, France, Germany, and Austria.

The British representative continued, "We British are naturally a country that values credibility, but you should also see the difficulties faced by England and Europe."

"Therefore, the deadline for debt repayment should be postponed, and even more generously, a portion of unnecessary debt should be reduced."

England certainly cannot overturn the current international order, as it is the biggest beneficiary. Therefore, it must do everything possible to maintain the old international order, but this does not conflict with England's desire to default on its debts.

Moreover, without overturning the old international order, the United States and East Africa can do nothing about England, the rule-maker.

Overthrowing the old international order requires strong military strength, and the gap in military strength between East Africa and the United States compared to Europe is still significant. Of course, this is in comparison to the whole of Europe.

If Europe were a single country, there is no doubt that Europe could still firmly hold the position of world hegemon and maintain it for at least another hundred years.

But Europe is not a single country, and it is internally divided and heterogeneous. Even so, the major powers of England, France, Germany, Austria, and Russia should not be underestimated when taken separately.

Take Germany as an example. If Germany's performance in World War I was used as a basis, the likely outcome of fighting the United States and East Africa alone would be Germany's defeat. But what if another major European power suddenly joined in the later stages of the war?

Therefore, both the United States and East Africa are very wary of the entire Europe and would never allow Europe to truly unite.

East Africa and the United States still have some common ground in dealing with European issues, but wanting the two countries to cooperate closely, like the European countries, is obviously impossible. After all, in terms of national strength, it is difficult to determine who is dominant.

In his previous life, outside of Europe, there was no country more powerful than the United States, so the United States ultimately becoming the world hegemon was not a major problem. Now, with the addition of East Africa, the future direction of the international landscape has become even more uncertain.

"I think the British representative's words are very reasonable. Now Europe, especially France, has suffered enormous losses in the war. Before restoring our national economy, even if we wanted to repay our debts, we would be completely powerless," said the French representative.

Compared to England, France is truly "poor." France itself was one of the biggest victims of World War I, second only to Russia. The country's population and industry were severely damaged by the war.

Moreover, France suffered a large amount of debt defaulted on by the Russian Labour Party due to poor investment. The evaporation of this wealth had an impact on France no less than the impact of World War I.

Therefore, France is now even more resigned to its fate when facing the debt issue, or rather, it has simply abandoned all pretense. It has no money to give, and it doesn't want to give its life either.

France's "poverty" is more reflected in the government's finances. In fact, France has a solid foundation, with considerable overseas colonies and social wealth. However, if it were to hand these over, France would really only be able to "eat chaff and swallow vegetables."

In fact, France's debt repayment capacity was already demonstrated during the Franco-Prussian War in the last century. Therefore, if France had the "will" to repay its debts, it would be entirely possible to work like a dog for the United States and East Africa, but this is absolutely impossible unless the American and East African defense forces stationed themselves in Paris with swords to France's throat.

Germany naturally also supported the approach of Britain and France: "Europe really needs time to recuperate, and we have to face the pressure from Russia and the European Labour Party."

"If the debt problem leads to the collapse of the European economy, I think the only beneficiary will be the Labour Party. At that time, compared to the Labour Party, helping Europe overcome its current economic difficulties is undoubtedly the best choice."

"If you force things too hard and cause a color revolution in the whole of Europe, I think that apart from debts, your own security will also be threatened by the Labour Party."

The Labour Party's approach is very simple: directly abolish all debts. In this way, the economy can be restarted directly like a game. Of course, this also means that so-called 'wealth' will evaporate directly, just like gold coins, skills, and experience in a game.

The German representative was not exaggerating. The situation in Europe is indeed like this. With such difficult economic conditions, the activities of the European Labour Party are becoming more frequent, especially among the lower classes, who are even beginning to actively accept the Labour Party's ideology.

This is also the fundamental reason why the European Labour Party has not disappeared despite the suppression of various governments, but has instead grown stronger. The lower classes in Europe, if pushed any further, will really vote for the Labour Party. After all, compared to not being able to survive, joining the Labour Party is a very good option.

It seemed that the 'difficulties' of European countries finally persuaded the East African representative. Gels said: "The Labour Party is indeed an international problem. If the Labour Party is allowed to spread in Europe, it will be a disaster for the whole world."

Letting the Labour Party integrate Europe would mean the rise of a superpower spanning Eurasia. Moreover, this superpower is naturally opposed to imperialist countries such as East Africa and the United States. Even if isolated overseas, this superpower would not let go of the two countries.

The possibility of Europe changing color is not just empty talk, but there is a real possibility of this happening. Take Britain as an example. In recent years, the support rate for the British Labour Party has been soaring. Although the 'Labour Party' in Britain is not pure enough and is not recognized by the Russian Labour Party, it is still very telling.

In fact, this type of 'Labour Party' also has a market in East Africa, because East Africa itself is a special country that has implemented a planned economy. Some people in the international community have even long said that Emperor Ernst of the Rhine is suspected of being a 'Labour' sympathizer.

The latest novels are first published on 69shu.com!

Of course, East Africa is obviously not a so-called 'Labour Party' country, but merely draws on some special economic and national governance practices of this type of political party.

However, for those European and American free-market economists who suspect East Africa of being a 'Labour' sympathizer, this is completely conclusive evidence. After all, Roosevelt in his previous life only learned 30% of the likeness and was labeled as a 'Labour Party' by some Americans. Before this, East Africa's similarity to the Labour Party was almost 70%. If the Soviet Union were to appear in the future, the similarity would probably be more than 90%.

Of course, just because two people look alike does not mean they are the same person. East Africa and Labour Party countries are such an example, and are even completely opposite in nature.

As for East Africa's national system, it is actually disliked by both sides. Labour Party countries despise it, and capitalist countries also despise it.

Moreover, East Africa has never exported its ideology to the outside world, especially to Europe and the United States. In addition, with the shift in East Africa's economy in recent years and the improvement of East Africa's national strength, most people will not dwell on these small problems.

Gels continued: "For the sake of world security, and more importantly, to curb the spread of the Labour Party, we in East Africa can make some compromises on the issue of debt to Europe."

"However, this compromise is more of a responsibility that we in East Africa must bear as a major world power. Therefore, the debt cannot be eliminated, but the repayment period and scale can be relaxed."

East Africa's 'betrayal' instantly caused the Americans to explode. Smith almost pointed his finger at Gels and said: "You East Africans are actually traitors!"

After all, the European countries are now a group of 'deadbeats' to the United States and East Africa. As creditors, the two countries should unite. Now, East Africa is acting on its own and compromising with this group of European deadbeats, which obviously puts the United States in an awkward situation.

That's right, East Africa deliberately set up the United States. After all, although East Africa is also a creditor country, Europe's debt to East Africa is almost negligible.

The logic of East Africa's debt to Europe can actually be described as borrowing after repayment. Before World War I, East Africa borrowed heavily from Europe. At that time, it didn't even pay attention to economic laws. How much it could borrow completely depended on its ability. After the outbreak of the war, East Africa repaid its debts to European countries through commodities and industrial products, and East Africa took the opportunity to complete a leap-forward development of industrialization.

The United States is not like this. Although they also owed a lot of money to Europe before the war, a large part of it was reflected in the form of European countries' investment in the United States.

During the war, because of the United States' developed and mature financial system, European countries were able to borrow from the United States very smoothly. To a certain extent, East Africa even became a代工厂for the United States. European countries borrowed from the United States, and the United States then paid deposits to East Africa to purchase goods, which were directly transported to Europe.

This is also an important reason why the United States was able to become the world's largest creditor country after the war. To put it more simply, under the free market in the United States, it can continue to install regardless of risks, while East Africa, because of its immature financial industry and the government's strong regulatory efforts, can step on the brakes.

In fact, East Africa's foreign lending business in the later period was basically concentrated in South America and other regions, rather than Europe, which had the highest profits at the time.

During the war, European countries naturally borrowed heavily from foreign countries in order to achieve final victory. After all, compared to borrowing money, if they die, it would be completely meaningless.

And the total amount of their borrowing will undoubtedly exceed their own repayment ability, which means that after the war, many countries in Europe will be deadbeats.

East Africa and the United States obviously cannot 'pursue debts with arms' in Europe, so in the later stages of the war, East Africa knew that the debt problem in Europe was a huge trouble, while the financial institutions in the United States did not have such concerns at all.

After all, business and finance have always been about the bold getting rich and the timid starving. For the sake of wealth, these businessmen and financial institutions under the free market will follow one after another.

This approach cannot be said to be wrong. After all, every successful large enterprise is built on the bones of countless failures. Behind their success are the failures of countless entrepreneurs.

From this point of view, East African businessmen are far less pure than American businessmen, but this is also normal. After all, East Africa's complete opening of the free market was only a little over a decade ago, and it lacks a long-term and stable business atmosphere.

In short, the Americans should be the most troubled by the current European debt problem. In his previous life, there was a German named Adolf who, like the Russian Labour Party, did not want to repay his debts, so he chose to kill the creditor, but the final outcome was not good.

But if the whole of Europe followed Adolf's approach, given the overall strength of Europe at present, no country would be able to do anything about it.