KEO.PLUS

After the successful attack, the Portuguese seized the Australasian fisherm\'s harvest and left arrogantly with insulting words.

Evtually, the injured fisherm were discovered by an Australasian patrol fleet and barely survived.

Of course, the official explanation for the incidt came from Australasia and was published in the Victoria Newspaper and the Australasia Daily.

However, the actual details of the incidt and the extt to which they were true remained unknown, perhaps only known by those who had truly expericed the conflict.

Regardless, the conflict, which appeared to have only victimized the Australasians, indeed sparked public outrage in Australasia.

Moreover, Arthur mobilized a lot of public opinion, and European Affairs Supervisor David prepared public stimt in Europe. Thus, most European citizs supported Australasia in this conflict.

Although the Portuguese governmt provided explanations, and the Portuguese media published the official conflict statemt, they ultimately could not withstand the photographs published by the Australasian side.

After the Australasian Governmt prested the on-site photos of the incidt, all of the Portuguese\'s explanations were se as quibbles by others.

In fact, the outcome of the conflict was not much differt from the Australasian statemt, but the process was quite differt.

In this conflict, the so-called "fisherm" were actually intelligce personnel from the Royal Security Intelligce Agcy.

After being repeatedly provoked by the intelligce personnel, the Portuguese fisherm became furious.

However, Arthur achieved the desired result. European citizs saw the explanation of the incidt and the real photos, so who cared about the actual process?

Or rather, because of the guine photos and the victim status of Australasia, the public was gerally more willing to believe the Australasian statemt.

Regardless of the time, ordinary people are easily guided. Public opinion has become the best weapon for attacking individuals and forces. As long as you gain public support, th what should be right is wrong, and what should be wrong is right.

On July 9, 907, after successfully saving the injured "fisherm" and learning the "true" course of the conflict from them, Arthur was "raged" and publicly stated that the Portuguese must give an account to the injured fisherm and all the people.

On July 30, 907, the Australasian Governmt formally issued a notice to Portuguese Timor and the Kingdom of Portugal, demanding the perpetrators who attacked Australasian fisherm be handed over and compsation be paid to all Australasian fisherm affected by the conflict.

At the same time, three neighboring countries in the Timor Sea should jointly demarcate specific spheres of influce to avoid more conflicts.

Indeed, Australasia\'s demands were not high, at least in the eyes of Europeans who considered themselves "neutral."

Since the Portuguese were wrong, they should pay compsation.

Demarcating detailed spheres of influce among the three countries is ev more reasonable, as it can prevt more conflicts.

But the problem is that the Portuguese heavily claimed in their domestic propaganda that the fisherm were innoct, and domestic factions also launched public opinion, stating that the country should support the fisherm of Portuguese Timor.

It\'s be just a few days since the incidt. Asking the Portuguese to hand over the fisherm directly is equivalt to slapping the Portuguese governmt in the face, right?

Of course, losing face is not an important issue at the national level.

The difficulty lies in the currt unstable situation in Portugal, where domestic revolutions have already started to emerge.

Previous propaganda made most Portuguese people support their own country\'s fisherm. If the governmt hastily hands over the fisherm, how will the Portuguese people perceive it?

Were the fisherm really wrong? Or is it the governmt\'s incompetce, forcing them to frame innoct people?

Portugal\'s currt situation is very unstable, and it all depds on King Carlos I\'s high-pressure policy.

Carlos I was a rather autocratic monarch, but the Kingdom of Portugal had long established a Dual Monarch Constitutional System after its civil war decades ago.

Carlos I\'s high-pressure policy in Portugal and his harsh suppression of revolutionary activities greatly dissatisfied many Republican Democrats in Portugal.

To what extt were they dissatisfied? In the original historical timeline, Carlos I was assassinated by radical Republicans a year later, and his son Manuel II was overthrown by a revolution after just two years on the throne, resulting in the Portuguese people dethroning him.

This also signifies the d of the Portuguese Braganza Dynasty\'s rule in just three years. The internal turbulce within the kingdom can be imagined.

It was due to the unstable domestic political vironmt that Carlos I had a difficult time making a decision.

Backing down to the Australasians seemed like a good and quick way to resolve the conflict. Although it would hurt the nation\'s dignity, the actual price to pay would not be much.

However, angry Portuguese citizs might join the revolutionary party and decide to overthrow the governmt\'s rule out of discontt.

For Carlos I, this was unacceptable. To maintain the monarchy of the Kingdom of Portugal, and to protect his own position, Carlos I discarded the notion of backing down.

The national governmt became more resolute in its actions to protect the interests of its citizs while also winning the hearts of the common people and increasing support for the monarchy in Portugal. This was the plan that Carlos I had made a long decision on.

For this reason, Carlos I consulted many confidants and finally unanimously decided to express Portugal\'s determination to protect the interests of its citizs without backing down to Australasia.

In reality, Carlos I also st people to discreetly inquire about the British position.

After obtaining the British hint that they would join France in mediating under certain circumstances, Carlos I firmly adopted a tough stance toward Australasia.

In Carlos I\'s view, Australasia was just a rectly indepdt country from the colonies, and the developmt of the nation relied heavily on resources and support from Europe.

Ev if Portugal could not withstand Australasia in Southeast Asia, once Britain and France interved, Australasia would have to back down.

As long as they could withstand the first wave of public opinion and let themselves and the governmt gain the reputation of strong protection of their citizs, there would be more available diplomatic means in the future.