Heart of the Revolution #2: "When a Colony's Economy Grows, the Colonial Power Loses Its Grip"
From time immemorial, Britain had its reasons for forcing its colonies to buy manufactured goods. They went so far as to make Indians buy Indian salt via Britain, even from the Indians themselves. Korea's strategy had been consistent: ignite economic growth in the colonies. The polar opposite of Britain's position. Anyone human wants economic growth. So, for the Korean Empire, all it took was a spark. Britain was the side that had to defend the status quo; Korea just flicked the lighter. Naturally, Korea had the advantage. Even if Britain controlled 10% market share, dumping 10,000 units from Korea would make the colonists cling to that 1% and eventually bootstrap the remaining 9% themselves.
Of course, Britain knew this. The problem was, unlike Korea, Britain couldn't align its opinions. Colony growth hurt Britain, but British investors in those colonies saw massive gains. It was like being the majority shareholder and watching the stock list on the exchange. So even if Britain was pissed, they couldn't complain outright—not when their own people were divided. That's why Korea had always invested in colonies without losing control. Pouring in more would just aggro Britain and France, and at this point, it wouldn't even recover the investment costs. When those colonies finally broke free, would they really not eye Korea's assets? Korea wanted to argue for a pragmatic cutoff at a compromise point, but decades of exploitation-fueled rage couldn't be soothed by outsiders' logic. Britain, France, Korea—anyone foreign was fair game for slaughter and asset seizure. Haiti did it. Afghanistan did it. And that's the norm.
So, Korea's sole goal was pure colonial liberation. Profits from current investments? Korea wasn't even thinking margins; the plan was to sell everything off to locals. Even I, the Supreme Leader, had dumped all overseas assets to locals before. 'Sending troops to protect it? That's no different from France in Haiti—what a waste of money.' Aligning with Britain and France? Made me want to puke. We couldn't lose sight of the main objective for pocket change. 'Only when colonies grow economically and break free from imperialism can they stop checking Korea's rise.' A house rabbit is worth more than a mountain one. Those powers would be jerked around by stakeholders surrounding the colonies, forced to defend them. Small gains for massive losses. It was practically the structural flaw of slavery. Slavery profited individuals but shrank the tax base overall. Obviously a net loss. Colonialism was just chasing slavery's failure.
So Korea just had to poke those structural weaknesses. They'd eventually vomit it all up—10 years, 20, 30, whatever. But to reiterate, this was Korea's view that self-reliance needed some food on the table first. The world had far more people thinking, 'Kill the bastards and chase them out, then we'll eat,' than those willing to work for it. Korea's half-century grind to independence was agreeable in result but hard to swallow in method. Korea wasn't France bankrolling America's revolt with full national might, nor meddling with orders. So they usually picked one of two paths.
One: keep clinging to America's coattails, like the old native elites pushed out by Britain and France. Squeezed by foreigners, they begged for help. They wanted to oust foreign influence, nationalize industry, and protect their assets. America was their model, so they sought U.S. aid. Britain and France's rivals were America or Germany, but Germany couldn't project beyond Europe. Problem: America condemned Britain and France but offered no real help. 'We're great, you're weak—so handle your sovereignty like we did.' They hosted envoys like Joseon tribute missions to flaunt prestige but did nothing special. America just wanted great-power treatment fitting its strength, not to spend blood and treasure projecting power. When the self-righteous savior preached Monroe Doctrine and turned away, the native elites despaired.
Even Dewey's brief flash—'liberating' Cuba and Philippines—gave hope, but America just wanted hegemony rivalry with Britain and a chance to bash colonial management. Actual liberation? Lowest priority. Britain would resist fiercely. Ignored again. That's how the world had been. No paradise for incompetent native elites. They were just 'debuff totems' useful only when imperialists neutralized colonies—forcing false dichotomies on locals. That was their utility. Britain didn't kill the Mughal sultans; they just interned them.
But now the Soviet Union had appeared. A new choice. Later, the Soviets shattered that false binary with action everyone understood: 'Loyalty to the homeland in your heart, not birth. Rise up—you too.' Execute elites just for being elites, native or foreign. Not Korea's long, painful solo path, nor America's 'Why can't you do it?' dismissal—but 'Shoulder to shoulder.' That resonated. Naturally, all imperial powers rang alarms at the Soviets' mere existence. Like a madman swinging an axe into a chess game. The upside: right now, Soviets were just doing it internally, no overseas projection. Seemed dangerous, but no one felt the full impact yet. In other words, perfect timing. Cut the sprout now. And Britain usually moved then—for big fruits with little effort. I knew it. So I blocked it.
Rome, Italy
"To reiterate, reopening the Eastern Front is impossible. Russia is reorganizing its army."
"I've heard they're preparing for armistice."
Well, if so, armistice it is.
"That's not for me to say. I'm speaking solely as an Eastern Front stakeholder."
"So we can intervene in Russia?"
"Again, no. The front would collapse immediately. Millions of lives at stake. Or do you want that?"
Korea stonewalled Britain and France's war demands. Obvious: they wanted baby Soviets as scapegoats. If Soviets resisted? Good—Germans die. If surrender? Also good—ties down Germans. But for Korea, knowing this would trigger Soviet Civil War, no way. We'd just hashed out a loose federation with broad ethnic autonomy with Lenin. Baltic states and Finland as self-governing with constitutional independence rights. Triple capitals—Petrograd, Moscow, Perm—to minimize centralism. Even the party: general elections, medium districts, secret ballots—not one-party rule. Radical stuff in those red-hunting days, enabling compromise. How much did Korea yield? For the first time, blank checks. Baby Soviets got all Korea's intel assets, tech, military advisors. Korea's back was breaking purging civil war triggers. And now, at this critical juncture, splash shit and reopen the East? What would Soviets learn? World is all enemies, trust no one. Exactly.
Korea wanted Soviets on the first line, not dropping to second. Praying for no wartime communism. Awakened Soviets as neighbor? They'd invade to make one more comrade. "Again, open the Southern Front instead."
"Aren't you opposing the Southern Front too?"
"Not opposing—just against ceding all former Venetian lands to Italy. Dalmatia suffices."
"That creates an exclave."
"Lord Arthur Balfour, Foreign Secretary, your wording's off. Adriatic access isn't an exclave. Is Dublin an exclave of Britain?"
"We're not here for wordplay. Southern or Eastern Front—one must open. As allies."
Well, Korea rejoining was fine, but dragging Soviets in? No. Problem: if Korea joined, Germans would void the armistice 100%. Knowing two-fronts suck but figuring now advantageous, they'd reopen both. "As an ally, I insist: cede Albania and Dalmatia to Italy, but hands off Croatia—the Hungarian crown lands."
"Hungary?"
"Essential to sway Hungary. Hungarians resent Croats from the last independence war, chafe at nominal Hungarian rule but Austrian management. Fixing that sways Hungary."
"More than Italy?"
"If not for those damned Carpathians, war would've ended. Tanks can't cross mountains."
"Balkans too."
La la la, can't hear you.
"Sway Hungary, war ends. I'm here to ask you to do it."
"Without Eastern restart, swaying Hungary requires Italian entry first, no?"
Can't argue. Balkans offensive otherwise. Bloody, nutrient-poor. Soviets distant from Slavic nationalism anyway. Balkans? Meh. Bosporus maybe. Balkans push? Just pleases Brits.
"We agree to escalate Italy-Austria border disputes into war. But Korea joins later. Not tying to Eastern armistice—Russian army's a mess."
"Understood. We'll pursue Hungary aggressively. But Italy's entry? Uncertain."
If you're chickening out, get Italy in yourself?
"We need full-scale war now. Enough to pull Germans from the West."
Berlin, Germany
"Your Majesty! Give the order! Eastern push opportunity now!"
"No."
The Kaiser and military—Wilhelm and Hindenburg—in full staring contest.