Franco-British Empire - Alternative History

What would have happened if the French and British had combined forces after world war II? It isn't as far fetched as it sounds.

I believe that a combined Franco-British empire with American financial support could have staved off decolonisation and communism whilst maintaining peace and stability in the middle east and, more importantly its colonies would now be independent healthy, wealthy, well-educated countries instead of the poverty, war and corruption ridden wastelands that has been left behind after the departure of empire.

The sun never seats on the Franco-British Empire

A Franco-Anglican union was first proposed during World War II, to try and keep the French fighting the Germans.

Anyway why didn't it happen? Here's the first attempt - WWII:

They first tried to combine when the Germans took Paris in WWII, de Gaul loved the idea. But the French under Pétain decided Vichy France was a better proposition.

Churchill and de Gaul loved the idea

Reynaud supporter Charles de Gaulle had arrived in London earlier that day, however, and Monnet told him about the proposed union.^[1] De Gaulle convinced Churchill that "some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war".^[2] 

The final "Declaration of union" approved by the British War Cabinet stated that^[1]

France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.

However not all French agreed, leading to a German controlled Vichy France winning out:

Other French leaders were less enthusiastic, however. At the 5 p.m. cabinet meeting, many called it a British "last minute plan" to steal its colonies, and said that "be[ing] a Nazi province" was preferable to becoming a British dominion. Philippe Pétain, a leader of the pro-armistice group, called union "fusion with a corpse". While President Albert Lebrun and some others were supportive, the cabinet's opposition stunned Reynaud. He resigned that evening without taking a formal vote on the union or an armistice, and later called the failure of the union the "greatest disappointment of my political career".^[1]

Second attempt - The Suez crisis (1956)

The second attempt was during the Suez crisis, when the British and French combined forces to take back the Suez canal from Egypt, but Eisenhower pulled the plug on it by threatening the withdrawal of American loans to Britain. This lead to the end of the British and French empires.

Before decolonisation commenced everything came to a head at Suez in 1956. The Suez crisis occurred when Egyptian president Nasser nationalised the Suez canal. Without the revenue stream of the canal as well as the subsidised shipping tariffs the British Empire was doomed. So the French and British hatched a plan to take back the canal with Britain's middle eastern proxy force, Israel, contributing most of the man power.

In September 1956, due to a common foe during the Suez Crisis, an Anglo-French Task Force was created. French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French Union with Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship. As an alternative, Mollet proposed that France join the Commonwealth. British Prime Minister Anthony Eden rejected both proposals and France went on to join the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community and strengthened the Franco-German cooperation.^[3][4]

British and French attach Egypt to 'liberate' the Suez canal.
Israel provided most of the manpower

Why didn't it happen? Britain was heavily in debt to the USA. Eisenhower was worried that the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the middle east if he didn't reign the Franco-British-Israeli axis in. Eisenhower threatened to recall American financial aid to the British that was being used to rebuild Britain's economy after WWII devastation if they did not immediately pull out of Egypt. His main concern was that the Arabs would side with the Russians in the cold war if he didn't reign in 'the western imperialists'. 

Richard Nixon wrote in the 1980s, “I talked to Eisenhower about Suez;
he told me it was his major foreign policy mistake.”

Face with Eisenhower's financial aid threat, the English wimped out and the French instead cozied up to the Germans, signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957 which lead to the eventual creation of a German dominated European Union. Britain on the other hand has been in a state of decline ever since.

Wait a minute, Israel was a British pawn??

YES. See the state of Israel owed its existence to the British wanting manpower to defend the Suez canal.. that was the main reason for the Balfor declaration.. but you wont hear about that in History class. Leo Amery:

In 1945, the English Zionist community honored Weizmann on his 70th birthday with a Festschrift; both Amery and Dugdale were asked to write for it. Amery avowed that his support for Weizmann and Zionism was geopolitical from its inception: "I myself had not previously thought of Zionism as much more than a sentimental fantasy. But Sykes soon persuaded me that, from the purely British point of view, a prosperous Jewish population in Palestine, owning its inception and its opportunity of development to British policy, might be an invaluable asset as a defence of the Suez Canal against attack from the north and as a station on the future air routes to the east...."
Amery had entered a similar thought into his diary on July 26, 1928: "Our ultimate end is clearly to make Palestine the centre of a western influence, using the Jews as we have used the Scots, to carry the English ideal through the Middle East and not merely to make an artificial oriental Hebrew enclave in an oriental country."

Third and final attempt, before the treaty of Rome: 'Plan G' Inviting Europe to join the British Commonwealth

At a time when Germany and France, together with Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, were planning for what later became the European Union, and newly independent African countries were joining the Commonwealth, new ideas were floated to prevent Britain from becoming isolated in economic affairs. British trade with the Commonwealth was four times larger than trade with Europe. The British government under Prime Minister Anthony Eden considered in 1956-57 a "plan G" to create a European free trade zone while also protecting the favoured status of the Commonwealth.^[19][20][21] Britain also considered inviting Scandinavian and other European countries to join the Commonwealth so it would become a major economic common market. At one point in October 1956 Eden and French Prime Minister Guy Mollet discussed having France join the Commonwealth. Nothing came of any of the proposals.^[22]

What could a Franco-British Empire have achieved?

• Prevention of decolonisation of British & French Empires. A combined British and French war machine controlling the Suez canal and financially supported by the Americans could have held nationalist movements and communists in check, preventing the need to decolonise. 
• Former British colonies would have been better off: The British always planned to give colonies dominion status once they reached a level of political and economic development. If you look at what happened to British colonies once they left the empire, war and poverty overcame most.
• Prevention of French military defeat to in its former colonies. The British had already defeated an insurgency in Indo-China during the Malayan emergency. Their help in south east asia probably would have helped turn the tied against the communists in the Vietnam war. The same goes for Algeria.
• Prevention of German political and financial takeover of Europe.  After Suez, French plans for Union with Britain were dashed as was plan G, which was to bring western Europe into the commonwealth. This lead to France signing the treaty of Rome, leading to the EEC which was followed by the EU and ultimately to German domination of Europe.
• A more stable world order, especially in the middle-east. The Americans have done a rather terrible job at maintaining world order since the fall of the Soviet Union. They just don't get it. Do I think the Sykes–Picot Agreement would have done a better job of maintaining peace in the middle east than the current Israeli-Saudi Arabia-USA axis? YES.

Cloud data as an extension of the self

What if we represent our online profile / data as an extension of ourself? Able to carry out actions as well as be mined for marketing insights?

Amazon is building machine learning algorithms which suggest items a customer would like to purchase, google is building AI / algorithms to suggest search answers before a customer even searches for them. I think from a smartphone perspective we need to talk in terms of 'assisted decision making' and 'augmented reality'. The smart phone & individuals online presence (the sum of their customer data) form a symbiotic relationship with the individual, both suggesting activities and connections as well as advising on the best way to execute on a task being carried out


More to come.

Religions explained

Here is a map showing the dominant branch of religions across Europe and the middle east. In the Good old days of the Roman Empire these were all one religion. So how did these splits come about? 

Blue - Roman Catholic
Purple - Protestant
Red - Eastern Orthodox
Light Green - Sunni Islam
Dark Green - Shi'i Islam

Like most things it had much more to do with politics than religious ideals. 

If I was to blame one person it would be Constantine the Great  as he organised the following

1. The Council of Nicea - I would argue that by vilifying arianism in favour of trinitarianism, would become became a fundementally seperate religion as it did not believe Jesus is God.
2. Founding Constantinople and which lead to a Greek vs Latin political divide which eventually led to the East-West Schism

Constantine made some bad calls

Christianity - Islam Split

The reason for the Council was that Roman Emperor Constantine wanted to enforce one religious doctrine across the Empire, in order to ideologically unify the Empire's citizens. The main ideological issue is the nature of Jesus with Christians arguing Jesus is God (as part of Trinity) whereas Muslims (and Christian Arians) argue Jesus was just a Prophet. 

Islam views itself as a more pure form of the same monotheist faith. Islams main issue with Christianity is due to Christianity's insistence on the divine nature of Jesus. Now arguably Muhammad's teachings and military might may have made Islam still irreconcialable with Christianity (like Joesph Smith & Mormonism), but it's hard to know for sure. It's also hard to know where Muhammad picked up his ideas as well, see here: For example, John of Damascus (d.749), a Christian writer, states that Muhammad "having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy."

Arabs Conquer half of the Roman empire

At the time of the Arab conquests, Christianity remained united, with the Patriach of Constantinople being the dominant leader, not the pope in Rome.


Sunni and Shi'i Split in 656 AD Sunni split from Shiite
Originated from Arab infighting over who was the rightful successor to Muhammad. The Sunni's beat the Shiites at the battle of The Camel which is why most of the Muslim world is Sunni.

Arabs get into a fight over who's boss of the new Empire. Sunni's win. Persians
hijack the Shiite cause to retain their territorial and political independence.

The Persian Empire began force converting it's land to Shia Islam, starting with Ismail I who began the Safavid dynasty and wanted an additional instrument for preventing the Ottoman Empire from easily conquering and assimilating it's territory. So this ideological split was introduced to unite peoples within the persian empire against the rest of the muslim world.


Christianisty split into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox

Constantine split the running of the empire between the Greek run portions of the empire became managed seperartely to the Latin run portions. This had happened before, but he also set up a second centre of power to rival Rome, Constantinople. Rivaly between the Pope in Rome and the Patriach in Constantinople lead to the east west schism. The Eastern empire became eastern orthodox (and spread this to the slavs in Kievian Rus), while the successor states of the Western Roman Empire (notably the Carolingian Empire and it's successors France and the Holy Roman Empire) became Catholic.

Constantine splits Roman Empire into East and West. This went on to become the
Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox split. He also enforced the doctrine of the Trinity and outlawed
Arianism. 

East - West Schism leads to Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox divide. Basically
boils down to The Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of  Constantinople getting in a
pissing contest.

Roman Catholic - Protestant Split

After the Romans lost the battle of Teutoburg Forest against German tribes, Rome never again tried to conquer and assimilate the German people. Protestantism spread almost exclusively among Germanic successor states (where Germanic languages are spoken).

Language Map - There is a complete mapping of Protestants with Germanic speaking peoples. The only Germanic speaking people that Remained Catholic are those who were part of the Hapsburg Empire.

As these regions never spoke a Romance language they felt especially disconnected from a church who's religious ceremonies were carried out in Latin. Once the bible was translated well by Martin Luther into German and disseminated by the printing press, people began to question the 'corruptions' in Roman Catholic contemporary teaching and challenge papal authority.

This could have lead to a reform of the Catholic church without a split from the Church, so why did Germans, Scandanavians and English split from the Catholic Church? Because the Rulers of these regions wanted more power over the Church, and the pope's main enforcer, the Holy Roman Emperor no longer had the power to enforce unity.

This lack of power was ironically due to the Pope's own policies against the Holy Roman Emperor in previous centuries. The pope supported the Northern Italians and German Barons against the Emperor leading to defeat in Northern Italy and appeasement in Germany. In time this lead to further decentralisation of the empire which culminated the a religious 'civil war', the thirty years war that destroyed Germany and German religious unity. The Holy Roman Emperor could not enforce Catholicism on his subjects, it's princes chose there own flavors of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, etc.)

30 years war between protestants and Catholics in 17th century.

Summary

Islam (Green) splits from Christianity (Blue, Red, Purple) with Mohammads teachings & Muslim Conquests

Sunni (Green) splits from Shia (dark green) with Ismail I of Persia

Roman Catholic splits from Eastern Orthodox with Pope Leo IX

Protestants (Purple) split with Catholics (Blue) after Martin Luther

So why blame Constantine?

Putting it simply, Constantine shouldn't have just deferred the decision making at the council of nicea to bishops and shouldn't have accepted such a divisive outcome to the council. He was the ultimate decision maker and had been using Christianity for political gain. It happens all the time with politicians who don't necessarily care too much about what the ideology they're using for their own succes is actually about... For example Trump said the bible is his favourite book, but when asked about what his favourite verse is - just says "I like all of it". Now the irony that Constantine didn't care or believe in the religion he contributed to the institutionalisation of isn't lost on me, but it's just life.

On the assumption that the critique that St. John of Damascus made of Islam is true, and further on the assumption that had the resolution to the arian controversy been more moderate, then either islam would never have arisen (arguably it would anyway, given say Joesph Smith) OR it would have arisen as a more reconcilable "heresy" (Islam was originally classified as a heresy not a seperate religion).

If that assumption holds true, then the church ends up being more flexible around doctrine, Muhammad's heresy could fit in the envelope (and the east west schism would have been less likely, which is likely to have impacted the crusades, especially the 4th). Therefore, even if the saracens (how arab desert dwellers were identified originally, not by their religion but by where they came from) had conquered large swathes or all of the eastern empire, they would likely learn greek and be assimilated much like the mongols were in china into the christian 'greek' religion (let's face it, the new testiment was written in greek) would be far more compromising and therefore more unifying.

Now, specifially to asia minor this does assume that inland anatolians would not be assimilated if a christian religion was more tolerant of heresy, while a counterpoint could be made that inland anatolians were assimilated by the turks because they had more in common with nomadic turks then costal dwelling greeks.

Why is this Constantines fault - well while he had the 'divinely inspired' dream about Christianity, used it as a rallying call and won a civil war, he didn't even necessarily believe in it, and if he did maybe he was an arianist. So why the big push for trinitarianism? The reason is he didn't care - he just wanted a unifying ideology, and he deferred complete authority over the proceeding to bishops who excommunicated and exiled arius, but his 'heresy' lived on for centuries, arguably 'inspiring' (if not divinely inspiring) islam. If he had taken a more active role in the proceedings, he would have no doubt elected for a more pragmatic outcome. He didn't see what the big deal was, he jusrt wanted a unifying force for the empire that wasn't emperor worship (which had been the way things worked previously).

St John's view: "From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy." - This is a statement I believe because I don't believe in God or divine inspiration: I don't think angels visited Muhammad, or that a gospel written in greek in ~70 ad about an aramaic guy who died in ~30 ad is factually correct. I do however understand how a religion can act as a catalyst for cultural assimilation. Look at latin america, or wesern europe, or the arabic word if you need examples.

Social engineering and brain-computer interfaces

One of the discussions that I feel is important for us to have is how we will overcome the 'social inertia' around a set organism hierarchy in this brave new world we are entering.

My own personal pet causes, are David Pearce's abolition of suffering and ending factory farming, but I differ on how I would implement it. David argues we should all become vegetarians and therefore end the need for slaughterhouses. But this also ends the need for a large percentage of our farm animals. Pigs if given a choice may prefer the butchers knife to non-existence.

What I feel is important is developing brain computer interfaces (BCI) for not only ourselves, but also for our domestic animals. There is a large untapped reservoir of thought capacity within our cows, pigs and sheep which we should utilise. Not only that but it would make our domestic animals too valuable as knowledge workers for us to slaughter them!

The next step (unless you are a die hard Kurzweilai) is genetic engineering in conjunction with BCI with weak AI supporting subsystems. Things get rather hazy after this point, the binding problem comes into play etc... I would rather focus on the near term as we can use our shared morals / ethics (which we as members of western society share 99% of, lets face it) to evaluate an incremental change.

One proposed change which has received a heated response is around the gender ratio that is best for society. We have been manipulating the gender ratio's of our domesticated animals for millennia (for instance, most bulls are killed as they don't produce any milk) so I think it is fair to evaluate what is best for human society.

There are many science fiction stories which do a good job of presenting an all female, or female dominated society. One of my favourites is 'Houston, Houston, Do You Read?' By James Tiptree, Jr, which is the pen name of Alice Hastings Bradley. She didn't want the publicity of being a female SCI FI writer and so chose a male pseudonym to write about an all female future society (no the irony isn't lost on me).

Any way.... getting to the point... Yes I have been waffling on for quite some time.. this is going somewhere people! In the book the astronauts learn that all men have died out and there rescue party is from an all woman society who have no intention of reintroducing men, which could challenge to current ruling elite. The men are to be studied and eliminated.

I would argue that it isn't so much about what society is right or wrong - but rather - how can you change society without facing severe 'blowback' from the incumbent elite who will stand to lose from the change you wish to implement? Regardless of whether you want to increase human potential through genetic engineering (eugenics), increase the participation of biomass in society (BCI for animals) or even the removal of men from society (I would argue that once artificial wombs come online the all female argument is diluted substantially). How can we make the big changes without the mass violence that normally comes hand in hand (think the social revolution occurred in tandem with industrialisation).

Finally, the book below by the woman Sci Fi writer pretending to be a man about a future society where men have been eradicated is a great read!!

Malaysia Airlines MH17 - Shot down by Donetsk Republic separatists

Here's the culprit. Operators already offed as part of coverup

Rebels showing off their hardware before attack

Separatists are trying to cover their tracks by getting the hardware out of Ukraine

Buk being transported back to Russia with two missiles missing

Why did the tragedy occur? system too easy to use

The missiles are straightforward to operate and work as stand-alone weapons — they can function outside of a sophisticated networked air defence system.

The system cannot tell the difference between civilian and military-type aircraft based on their transponder signatures alone. In order to tell the difference between targets, it would need to be interfaced with other weapons systems that can work off of additional information.

"When Proxy Wars go Wrong"

Lot's of blame to go round, depending on your point of view:

• Ukraine escalating conflict against separatists including airstrikes and armour attacks with tacit American support.
• Separatists operating advanced hardware without the right training (not trained to visually confirm whether plane is civilian or military)
• Russia tacitly supporting, providing expertise for operation of Buk, but not the requisite level of training.

What happens now? 

The Russian Separatists are attempting to cover it up, and have probably killed the Buk operators to hide their tracks. It may also give the Ukraine government an opportunity to intensify air attacks against separatists due to reduced air defences.

More info:
BREAKING: Russian Terrorists' Cover-Up Operations to Destroy all Links to MH17 Air Atrocity

Russo-German Alliance?

Russia and Germany are getting cosy, America will not be happy! This means it might try stoke up the flames in the Ukraine......

Vladimir Putin at a German-Russian official function: 
“We value the accumulated potential of Russian-German relations and the high level of trade and economic cooperation. Germany, one of the European Union leaders, is our most important partner in enhancing peace, global and regional security.”

Are they speaking Russian or German? German I think

Putin speaks German nearly as good as Russian.. he worked in East Germany. His kids go to school in Germany.. Merkel speaks fluent Russian... and where did Angela grow up? Soviet controlled East Germany. Victoria Nuland ain't screwing this one up with no NGO’s.



From Gavekal Dragonomics:
I would contend that we are seeing a decisive shift in the political character of Eurasia. History tells us that long wars have tended to be fought between maritime empires and continental empires. Think of Athens vs. Sparta, Carthage vs. Rome or Britain vs. Napoleonic France. The last big fight was between the US and the Soviet Union ended in favor of the maritime empire. As a result, since 1989 we have lived in an order ultimately run by the US military. But after some unpleasantness playing the role of global policeman, that maritime empire is in retreat.


"The question will not only be how did “we” come to lose Asia and the Middle East, but also “our” most reliable and pliable ally—Europe."

When you have senior State Department types caught dead-on saying "F*@k the EU." which essentially means "F*@k Germany" as it runs the place well...   Forgive me for the invoking image of Vicky Nuland wearing a wife-beater, but at some point the battered partner needs to find new shelter. 

German media rift with USA over Ukraine, Russia

What's with the mainstream German press presenting a different opinion on the Ukraine to the US? Are they worried about getting their gas taps turned off, or is it more that they realise Russo-German trade and technology transfers will do more for Germany in the long term than it's military alliance with the US?

German Official Says It Was Wrong to Make Ukraine Pick Between EU and Russia

400 Blackwater Mercs Deployed In Ukraine Against Separatists, German Press Reports

Sure, there are all sorts of 'questionable' things going on that the US may or may not be linked to, such as having US blackwater mercenaries being transported to fight Russian 'separatists' in UN helicopters:

Oh, and the fact that Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter has just joined the board of directors of Ukraine's largest gas company

But this is just standard power elite practices that have always existed... what I'm interested in is German's rationale. Grown a conscience? Unlikely.

Russian gas in exchange for German manufactured goods along with German foreign investment and technology transfers to Russia is far too valuable to both countries to allow them to sign up to the US lead sanctions programme. The press releases above will be aimed at keeping the German public anti-sanctions by pointing out the mirky American influence:

German exporters are pushing back against economic sanctions on Russia

Ukraine crisis: Russia sanctions would hurt Germany's growth