Chain Reaction (6)

The leatherworker Philippe Treville had a berth in the third-class cabin of this ship. In this era, the third-class cabin was only slightly better than the completely open fourth-class cabin. Each person had at least a bed of their own, as well as a narrow, small compartment separated by canvas, which offered no soundproofing or security. This small compartment was very similar in size to the cage homes of a certain pearl city in later times.

Similar to the "cage houses" in that, besides being cramped, the third-class cabins were located near the waterline, so the entire cabin had no windows, making it stuffy and hot. Of course, the fourth-class cabins, which were completely underwater, were even worse.

Passenger ships do not restrict third- and fourth-class passengers from going up to the deck. To be honest, the deck is much more comfortable than the cabins. However, not many people actually go up to the deck. The reason is quite simple.

First, most of these third-class passengers are used to hardship and are quite accustomed to this environment. Second, they all carry luggage, and the third-class compartments are not theft-proof at all. Unless you carry all your luggage, you can go up to the deck for a while to relax, and when you come back, you'll find that your luggage has been divided up by some Irish Second Division.

However, Philippe Treville was different. He had very little luggage, just a small bag, so he could easily carry it up to the deck and relax.

However, Philippe didn't want to appear too different from the others. He carried a special mission, so he tried to avoid drawing attention as much as possible. As for the discomfort in the cabin, well, after experiencing exile and struggle during the French Revolution, Philippe was completely indifferent to such discomfort.

As in history, when steam-powered ships were first adopted for civilian use, they were widely used on passenger ships. The reason for this was, of course, that passengers generally had higher requirements for travel time, while cargo did not have such high requirements. Moreover, while clipper ships could be used for ocean freight at the same speed, their comfort level was completely unsuitable for passenger transport.

The ship Philippe was on was now a steam-powered passenger ship, much faster than the old sail-powered ships, but it still took quite a while to reach Cape Town.

During this time, the France had to continue to find ways to keep the Britain busy, in order to cover their planned operations in Cape Town.

This wasn't actually difficult. First, in Gibraltar, the battle between mine-laying and minesweeping continued. It must be said that mine-laying was a much simpler and more efficient activity than minesweeping. In about a month, the United States Navy reported a series of victories, sinking seventeen Britain ships, including two minesweepers, using mines.

Of course, accidents did happen. For example, one night, the "United States" who went out to re-mine an area that had been cleared by the Britain during the day ran into a mine. The warship that was laying the mines sank, and many people were killed. The "United States" who were lucky enough to survive swam back to their side and angrily berated the Spain for the Britain for being irresponsible and for not clearing the mines properly.

Two other "United States" were unfortunately captured by the Britain. When the Britain interrogated them, they discovered they couldn't even speak English. They then honestly confessed to the Britain: "We are France, employed by the United States government."

The Britain were furious. They first held a press conference, accusing the France of violating the principle of neutrality. They also threatened to hang these "mercenaries" as pirates.

The France, of course, wouldn't remain silent about this matter. However, it wasn't the France government that held the first press conference, but rather the United States French Embassy.

At a press conference, the United States acknowledged. "Some righteous France warriors, willing to fight for democracy and freedom, have voluntarily joined our army. While they are not United States citizens, they are indeed members of the United States. military. Furthermore, we have consulted with relevant legal professionals. France law does not prohibit France citizens from joining the armies of friendly nations, just as France law does not prohibit citizens of friendly nations from joining the France army—provided they are truly acting voluntarily."

After acknowledging that France personnel were assisting the US military in combat, the United States began to extoll the unbreakable friendship forged in blood France and the United States. They argued that the United States and France shared similar republican systems and ideologies, making them truly reliable allies. Finally, they publicly appealed to the France to join the US military in order to protect the democracy and freedom that both France and the United States cherish.

The France, however, weren't particularly impressed by the United States' much-touted friendship between the two countries. Many proud France viewed the United States as a barbarian state. However, the United States' call for France citizens to join the United States military did attract considerable interest, given the high salaries offered. Of course, the United States 'United States requirements were also high; they needed individuals with prior military experience.

Following the United States press conference, the French Foreign Ministry also held a press conference. At the conference, Foreign Minister Talleyrand stated that France citizens joining the US military does not currently violate existing France law and is entirely a matter of personal freedom. Since they have joined the US military, if they die in battle, the France government can only express condolences. However, although they have joined the US military, they remain France citizens. Their human rights as prisoners of war should be guaranteed, and the France government will not stand idly by if the Britain indiscriminately kill France prisoners of war.

Immediately afterwards, the France Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested the Britain to send diplomatic officials to visit the captured France citizens and ensure that their basic human rights would not be violated.

This demand was, of course, angrily rejected by the Britain. Then, France newspapers went on a rampage, accusing the Britain of disrespecting basic human rights. The France Ministry of Truth then added fuel to the fire by publishing a document entitled "White Paper on the Human Rights Situation in the United Kingdom Britain and Ireland."

In this white paper, the France listed one by one the various human rights violations committed by the Britain, such as artificially creating famines in the colonies, suppressing the workers' movement at home, and massacring peaceful residents during the war. In short, through such propaganda, the image of the Britain had been completely transformed from civilized people to barbarians, albeit scientifically minded ones.

When the Britain refused the France request for visitation, they certainly anticipated a new round of public opinion attacks from the France. They felt that if they agreed to the France demands, the France would definitely create a lot of trouble afterward, and the Britain would still be seen as barbarians. On the other hand, some people at home would also feel that the government was too weak and unable to protect national interests.

Having resolved to wage a propaganda war, the Britain naturally retaliated with scathing retorts, denouncing the France as warmongers and Napoleon as a warlord—a treacherous and liar one at that. When signing peace treaties with other countries, Napoleon declared that France only wished to live its own life freely and had no intention of exporting revolution to other nations. He told the world that France was willing to respect the sovereignty of all countries and would not interfere in the internal affairs of any nation. But today, if he wasn't interfering in Britain's internal affairs, what was he doing?

In response to this accusation, Napoleon Bonaparte, the First Consul of France, personally stated that he certainly respected Britain sovereignty, and that the one who truly disrespected Britain sovereignty was not the France government, nor himself, Napoleon, but the Britain government itself.

Sovereignty deserves respect because it is the sovereignty of each nation, which, in essence, is the concentrated embodiment of the human rights of its people. As Jean- Jacques Rousseau stated in his * the Social Contract , national sovereignty is the exercise of the general will of the people. Our * Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen also clearly states that "the very essence of sovereignty resides in the people." Therefore, anyone who respects the people of other nations will inevitably respect their sovereignty.

However, if a country's government does not represent the general will, but instead constantly violates it, wantonly trampling on its people, firing on peaceful protesters, and imprisoning those who truly represent the general will, how can such a government be said to represent the sovereignty of a country? Remember, human rights are above sovereignty, because human rights are the mother of sovereignty..."

Napoleon elaborated on his point from social, legal, historical, and many other perspectives. As for his speech, a later comment is quite apt:

"Napoleon's views and arguments were quite successful in terms of their premise, logic, and evidence; if not perfect, they were close. However, a huge problem arose in their actual implementation: who had the right to judge whether a country's government could represent its sovereignty? Napoleon set a very dangerous precedent by arbitrarily determining, as a foreign government, whether a country's government could represent its sovereignty, bypassing the country itself. This turned the issue of 'sovereignty' into Napoleon using his military superiority to declare whichever government possessed sovereignty, and thus, the principle of 'respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs' was carelessly trampled into a quagmire by Napoleon..."

In fact, even when Napoleon delivered this speech, some people saw through the cannons hidden behind Napoleon eloquent words. The Britain, in particular, almost immediately recognized the sinister intentions behind Napoleon's rhetoric and promptly refuted them.

However, they immediately discovered that they were in a huge predicament in the battle for public opinion: their voice was too small, at least in continental Europe. So small that the only channel through which their voice could be heard in continental Europe was through the France Science Truth Daily. And in Science Truth Daily France, people naturally couldn't read their entire articles; they could only see fragmented remarks from the Britain in Science Truth Daily's articles refuting the Britain.

As the saying goes, "It takes only a mouth to spread rumors, but it takes a lot of running around to refute them." Often, this phenomenon isn't necessarily due to people's inherent stupidity or their tendency to believe baseless rumors. A more decisive factor is probably the difference in volume between the person spreading the rumor and the person refuting it. Their voices are worlds apart. One person's shout can be heard by everyone in the city; another's shout is only heard by people within a ten-step radius. How can you refute a rumor without running yourself ragged?

Therefore, at that time, the whole of Europe was cheering for Napoleon's theory of "human rights above sovereignty," especially the academic community in Europe. Even in many Britain universities, some scholars sincerely stood on the side of France, believing that Napoleon's views were more reasonable.

The France weren't just making empty threats. After the Britain refused France request for access, another convoy, escorted by the France fleet, sailed into Carroll Port. According to information obtained by the Britain through intelligence agents, the France had sent the Ireland a large quantity of new weapons and a large number of military advisors.

Just two days after this "freedom of navigation" operation, a British Army patrol ship struck a mine and sank off Galway. The United States again quickly stepped forward, claiming responsibility. Then, United States envoy Speer appeared in Ireland and, together with Russell, president of the Society of United Irishmen, issued a joint statement. In this statement, they announced an alliance to fight against Britain colonists.

In retaliation, the British Army began offensive mine-laying outside Carroll Port. However, they soon discovered that offensive mine-laying of Carroll Port was extremely difficult, as the Ireland themselves had already preemptively laid numerous mines around the Carroll Port.

Yes, the Ireland had laid mines all around Carroll Port themselves. The Ireland certainly wouldn't block themselves off, so they left a safe passage through their minefield. But the Britain didn't know what this safe passage looked like. So, the Britain minelayers ran headlong into the Ireland minefield, and before they could even lay their mines in the Ireland harbor, they were sunk by mines.

However, the Ireland idea also gave the Britain a lot of inspiration. The Britain were worried about how to deal with the endless American mines that came out of Britain ports at night. So they immediately copied the Ireland idea and began to lay mines near some of their ports that might be attacked.

This approach can indeed hinder the operations of the United States Navy, but it comes at a cost. One of the costs is that the artificially created, winding channels significantly reduce the efficiency of these ports.