Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#51

Post by cbnotfromthere »

rsynnott wrote: post #29
ngcc_hk wrote: post #10

[flagged]

> The refugee policy is just too extreme at that time. Eh? What, precisely, about the E.U. refugee policy is just “too extreme”? Which aspect of it? By the way, outside the hard right there’s little evidence that it was a big deal for Brexit voters, who tended to be more concerned with inter-EU migration and/or tabloid fluff (ie the EU’s sinister plot to ban kettles and jam).

What, precisely, about the E.U. refugee policy is just “too extreme”? Which aspect of it?

1) suspension of the Dublin II regulation 2) mass acceptance of millions of illegal immigrants

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#52

Post by seisvelas »

Merrill wrote: post #14
tus88 wrote: post #2

I thought they meant when the King of England was an actual frenchman and French was the upper-class language of the UK.

1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US.

Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's impossible to know what would have been, but it makes me wonder.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#53

Post by ShinTakuya »

ekianjo wrote: post #25
Merrill wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.

There would have been other allies most probably if it were not for France.

Citation needed. France was both powerful and generous, name a potential ally that could have provided anywhere near the level of support.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#54

Post by Merrill »

seisvelas wrote: post #52
Merrill wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's…

The US would not have developed as fast if it had continued to be a British colony. A major cause of the War of Independence was that when Britain took control of the Ohio after the French and Indian War, the crown claimed the right to all negotiations with the Indian tribes and prevented the colonists from buying and/or seizing Indian land in the Ohio River Valley. Recall that Washington had been to the headwaters of the Ohio. He and others were well aware of the rich lands west of the Appalachian chain. Also, many of the financiers of the war were also land speculators before and after the war. The officers of the war formed the Society of the Cincinnati, and many of them were granted land west of the Appalachians.

The net result was the rapid expansion westward from 1790 through the 1800s. This expansion and development of the lands, forests and mines was aided by rapid immigration from many countries in Europe, not just the British Isles. As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower.

Possibly slavery would have ended more quickly, but Britain also supported the South, rather than the North. The South's cotton fed the British textile factories. After the Civil War, Britain went on to develop cotton plantations in Egypt as a replacement source.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#56

Post by mr_toad »

dijit wrote: post #43
sergekamga wrote: post #26

They would have been stronger to fight evil empires

At least the UK is seen by many to have been an evil empire.

“ The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he came from. And if he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there in peace. War will make corpses of us all.”

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#57

Post by war1025 »

ShinTakuya wrote: post #53
ekianjo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would have been other allies most probably if it were not for France.

Citation needed. France was both powerful and generous, name a potential ally that could have provided anywhere near the level of support.

Talking about an alternate history where Britain and France got along opens up any number of possibilities, to the point that it's not really worth speculating on.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#58

Post by nl »

Rather than look for union with a devastated continent, Britain’s destiny lay West, in a special relationship with the United States.

This seems obvious to us now, but at the time it was anything but.

It's worth noting the historical context here. After WW1, the US and Britian were seen as rivals, and there was a naval arms between the two. It's unfortunate that there isn't a lot of history written about this, but you can see the shadows of it in things that don't make sense otherwise.

For example, the Wikipedia page for 1922 Washington Naval Treaty[1] says: The risk of war with the United States was increasingly regarded as merely theoretical, as there were very few policy differences between the two Anglophone powers, and as late as 1929 Foreign Affairs was still writing articles like The Threat of Anglo-American Naval Rivalry.

But of course nothing came of this rivalry. In the 1920s and '30s Britian and the US were the two great economic and military powers, but there was nothing for them to fight over (except perhaps the Anglo-Japanese alliance[3], but the British gave that up pretty easily)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#Capita...

[2] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1929-0...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#59

Post by joaksl »

lordleft wrote: post #16
tus88 wrote: post #2

I thought they meant when the King of England was an actual frenchman and French was the upper-class language of the UK.

It's so interesting to consider the deep, Norman French character of the British Monarchy. From the immense impact of French on English vocabulary, to the French mottos of the British Crown ("Dieu et Mon Droit") and the Order of the Garter...to the fact that British monarchs claimed themselves kings of Frances FOR CENTURIES: https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/English_claims_to_the_French...

It's even more recent than the norman french from a 1000 years ago. The standard english accent ( King's English ) was intentionally "effeminized" to mimic the french language in the 1800s ( when french was viewed as lingua franca and "cultured"). It's one of the reasons why Standard American accent and Standard British accent diverged. The standard american accent was the way the brits used to speak.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#60

Post by learc83 »

joaksl wrote: post #59
lordleft wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so interesting to consider the deep, Norman French character of the British Monarchy. From the immense impact of French on English vocabulary, to the French mottos of the British Crown ("Dieu et Mon Droit") and the Order of the Garter...to the fact that British monarchs claimed themselves kings of Frances FOR CENTURIES: https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/English_claims_to_the_French...

It's even more recent than the norman french from a 1000 years ago. The standard english accent ( King's English ) was intentionally "effeminized" to mimic the french language in the 1800s ( when french was viewed as lingua franca and "cultured"). It's one of the reasons why Standard American accent and Standard British accent diverged. The standard american accent was the way the brits used to speak.

The "Standard American accent" is just vaguely midwestern, and it's not how the British used to speak. There is some support for it being closer than some modern British accents, e.g., they are both rhotic.
Post reply on HN