The War to End All Wars #6
Italy, which had betrayed its allies and proclaimed neutrality, was on the verge of becoming a true neutral nation as Mussolini marched on Rome. Meanwhile, the experimental mass migration of Black Americans from the U.S. South to the Dominican Republic came under attack from local Black forces crossing over from Haiti in search of jobs. At that moment, Korea and Britain reached a broad agreement.
1. Forming a new type of southern army group to prevent the Balkans from falling into Russian hands—no matter the method, Korea would take the lead, with Britain providing support as best it could. Britain simply couldn't tolerate any form of Russian southward advance. To this end, Britain promised Korea it would use its existing influence to coax the Ottomans as much as possible.
2. For the war effort, Korea gained access to Britain's pre-approved diplomatic resources and intelligence. Whether Britain helped or not, Korea was the one sticking its neck into the Balkans—if they didn't share any intel, Korea wasn't going in. Britain readily agreed. They were too busy with the French front right now anyway. Britain didn't understand why Korea was demanding totals on resources harvested worldwide, but since it was wartime intel they needed, they shared it. Korea just had to ask, right? The only hitch was when Korea said they'd conscript Indian troops just like they had with the Japanese forces—Britain balked at that. They didn't want to owe India any diplomatic debts. But Korea persuaded them otherwise: it wasn't Britain incurring debts to India; Britain just had to give permission, and Korea would pay to hire them directly. In the end, Britain was convinced by the argument that "Indian troops have to fight somewhere anyway—if so, why not just take over the Indian field armies organized by Korean forces outright, instead of some diplomatic promise?" It was a pretty appealing pitch for Britain too. Conscripting Indians meant promising something—like autonomy. But if Indians served as a career path in the military and Britain bought them out? Perfect.
To pull this off properly, Korea argued they needed the Black militias in Sudan. These were military units that countered Arab camel-riding gunmen in the desert with tactical operations. Korea had been training them in Sudan to sustain the ongoing Arab expulsion. As a clear minority group, they made excellent NCOs—scouting, maneuvering, and rallying superbly. So, use them too. Britain, hearing it out, thought it made sense and greenlit Korea's recruitment—er, enlistment—of Indian troops. As Korea said, the benefits would go to Britain anyway.
But Korea's real demand was something else entirely: 3. Stop the resource strong-arming for good. Whether the war ended in truce or victory, they demanded an agreement at the peace conference ensuring no one could bully the world over water, oil, and coal. Korea didn't demand most-favored-nation status or priority rights from Britain—they didn't trust British promises. Instead, they wanted a global pact where no one could strong-arm each other over water, oil, or coal. That would make it hard for Britain to pull tricks later too. If not, war would break out again—Britain couldn't argue with that. Why were France and Germany at each other's throats right now? If France had been there, they'd have demanded iron controls too, but unfortunately, the world had plenty of iron. Exaggerating a bit, the Earth was made of it. France had iron too—it just wasn't industrially significant.
This framework was unusually detailed on water: upstream dams required downstream approval; discharges followed set times, procedures, and processes. For coal and oil, it was simpler—just make sure if someone wanted to buy, they could. Embargoes were fine, but no 200% or 300% tariffs on "hostile" nations, no oil production cuts to jack prices 400%—stuff like that. Considering Britain's past threat to choke oil supply lines, it was a surprisingly modest ask.
But even between these two, some agreements fell through:
1. Let's skip war reparations. Korea proposed that even if they won, they wouldn't seize land or reparations. Citing their own waiver of Chinese reparations, they argued it poisoned relations and sparked wars. Britain inwardly thought, "You're the one who stripped North China bare—not your place to say," but agreed in principle. Still, they knew it was impossible. They'd win eventually, but would France—one of the key victors—agree? Reparations? They might forgo them. Waive? Possible. But someone always paid—someone would seek payback. France right now? Paris was in striking distance; they'd do anything to end it. Belgium had fortresses and forests, even British troops, but Alsace? Wide open highway. That's why France couldn't pull everything rightward, even as Germany clearly focused there. Once breached, it was a straight shot.
Britain couldn't promise Korea something France would never accept. Sure, if it served British interests—but this would lose France's trust and Korea's. Why bother?
2. Restore Belgium, make it neutral again—and agree to international law protections for neutrals. With Korea's track record invading neutral Romania, Britain hoped they'd stop being outlaws and join the framework of international law. Korea's answer? Outlaw style. But they respected Belgium's will to defend its territory and sovereignty—if Belgians wanted neutrality, Korea supported it. And if Poles, Hungarians, and even Russians went independent? Korea would back that too. Britain got Poland and Hungary, but Russia? What? Korea explained: if foreign kings ruled Russia but citizens sparked a republic revolution for Russians, wasn't that worth supporting? Problem was, guaranteeing neutral independence versus treating revolutionaries as neutrals were different beasts. Belgium's rebellion against the Netherlands was one thing; this was another. Britain wasn't championing Belgian independence for Belgians' sake anyway. So the talk ended as "follow international law next time"—just sharing differing views.
But some exchanges were outright rejected.
3. Ditch the gold standard? "Absolutely not." Britain foamed at the mouth. With Britain hurting, they saw Korea revealing its true colors. Truth was, the gold standard was the system letting sea powers beat land powers. Without it, long-distance trade crumbled—no bartering outdated spot deals, or assets melted away just holding them. Sea powers thrived on importing via ocean for margins; land powers scaled up for economies of size. So sea powers needed gold to win. Land powers grew by breathing if big enough; sea powers didn't. Land powers expanded sideways till they couldn't, then collapsed under their bulk; sea powers splintered over margins. Gold standard? Essential. Without it, sea powers fell like Carthage to Rome. Even America, half-land power, picked gold—not silver, inconsistent and inferior for trade. Britain saw America knew what mattered. They'd let America swipe unlimited credit cards but never ditch gold. Oil as "black gold"? Geopolitically shaky. Money? They could earn more. Britain trusted its moneymaking—pre- and post-Industrial Revolution were different beasts. Ask merchants to quit world trade? Ridiculous. Britain shut ears to Korea ditching gold and Britain abandoning it. Like it never happened—unlike with Japan, Qing, or Russia. If not wartime urgency, they'd have stormed Hanyang—no, Pyongyang. Not army, not fleet, but Britain was willing to air-drop the mobs Korea's head hated most.
Royal patent merchants: Korea didn't recognize state patents but didn't shaft inventors either. Big enough? Form a co-op, secure trade lines, protect from poachers. Small? Buy 'em out with cash. Problem: some saw it as giving provisional patents for free—no cash.
"Please, just let me breathe once!"
"I'll be good!"
Korea's head said "stop huffing"—booted them out. But if Korea broke alliance faith, Britain could unleash those hounds. Faith had to be mutual.