French Antilles.[]
Plausibility of the French Antilles[]
It seems unlikely to me, in my humble opinion, that the French Antilles would have refused to join the ECF for 16 years, only to join the RFTA in 1999. The ECF has over six times the population of the French Antilles, dominates the islands economically, and surrounds them geographically.
The FA are in a poor position to support themselves, following the collapse of mainland France. As overseas departments, the stability of their economies depended on large subsidies and favourable importation from the mainland. As Caribbean islands, they would suffer the same tertiary sector collapse that the rest of the Caribbean suffered, only worse because of their economic dependence on a country that no longer exists. Beyond that, Martinique and Guadelope have an outsized population compared to the resources available on their respective islands, as compared to similar nearby nations.
In order to survive even the first five years, let alone sixteen years, the FA would have to become severely dependent on aid from nearby nations, nearly a protectorate. The ECF would be the first choice, literally encapsulating the FA within their territory.
The only thing joining the RFTA has going for it is the common culture. I respect the powerful force that the desire for cultural unification can be, but idealism has to give way to realpolitik in times of crisis. This is the same reason the USAR didn't join the provisional United States : culture doesn't feed your citizens.
I propose that the French Antilles become either their own nation or a part of the ECF, rather than this. Thoughts and objections? Regentage (talk) 17:45, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
Quite honestly, you've got the wrong impression of those islands, Reg.
Believe it or not, but these islands would weather things better than the English-speaking ones.
While both island groups had, and still have, their economy dominated by the tourist trade, it is the secondary aspects of their economies that are key here. The French islands have a fair amount of industry, which is their secondary source of employment. For the English islands, it is the financial and banking industry that has that role.
Basically, while they will take a hit, it won't be quite as severe.
These islands also have more agriculture, and even livestock, on them than the others. Fishing capacity probably about the same.
Yes, they do depend on subsidies, but the situation is actually better than you'd think. Most of what the subsidies go towards would vanish post-DD anyways, so the impact is relatively minor in most ways.
This area would also have trade, at least to some degree, restored within a year. Plus, it's not the tourist season, so the population numbers wouldn't be very inflated.
Nor do the islands actually have outsized populations. Barbados, for instance, has about two thirds the population of Guadeloupe, on about a quarter of the land. The population figures are pretty good, imo.
That isn't the reason why that thing in the USAR isn't a US state - far more that you're talking an inland state taking over islands somewhere. Them being on the other side of the continent, while an issue, was not the primary one.
These islands would have allied themselves to each other post-DD, and joined the RFTA shortly after its formation. Considering themselves part of France all the while.
Overall, these islands would not be dependent on their neighbors, at all. Quite honestly, there isn't any grounds for that, even.
Lordganon (talk) 03:54, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll freely admit to not having known enough about this one. =P Regentage (talk) 22:38, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
Adoption[]
I'd like to adopt this article and the other RTFA articles. Mscoree (talk) 13:11, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
Considering your refusals to cooperate with the other articles, I have to say that I oppose that concept. Lordganon (talk) 06:51, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
As of tomorrow I have now adopted this page. Mscoree (talk) 13:52, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
Not even remotely true. You have not at all followed the adopting rules, and cannot "adopt" when there is objections to it. Don't touch the article again. Lordganon (talk) 00:33, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
Your objection is without merit, and since I have the approval of several admins, I'd like to continue. I also disprove of how you just deleted more than 55% of this pages content over a grudge. Mscoree (talk) 01:37, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
Bull, on all counts.
That you consider it "without merit" - not that that is remotely true - is irrelevant. You have done absolutely nothing to deal with it. Thus, barring you from adopting it by the wiki and timeline rules.
You also do not "have the approval of several admins." Simply no truth to that, whatsoever.
No "grudge" except on your part.
And, that ignored the other three rules you violated in the process. Not that I am remotely surprised at that, given your past blatant disregard for both the admins and the wiki rules.
Lordganon (talk) 08:12, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have now adopted this page. Mscoree (talk) 14:32, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
Compromise[]
Please don't undo all this just yet. I believe that we are both civilized people, and can work this out without talking aggressively or creating an edit war. According to the wiki's rules one of the main points of objecting an adoption is to reach a compromise between the two parties. I am willing to listen to any suggestions that you have to improve this page, and hopefully reach an agreement. So far I believe the editing I have done has been beneficial to the page (and others), and I see no sense in blatantly undoing it. Let's try to work this out to make the most out of these articles. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 22:08, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
Bull. Not only have you not fulfilled the obligations of the adopting rules - again, blatant disregard of them - but you also completely and utterly failed to "get" that you cannot change what is already there unless there is a very good reason. You have none.
Want the objection to drop? Simply put, learn to listen and follow the rules. Fail at the rules again, and it'll be a month.
And, to make something clear: The other articles you tried to take over at the same time as this? You haven't even come close to following the adoption rules on them.
Lordganon (talk) 05:56, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
I'll move into damage control now folks. Lets just calm down the situation, and see what has gone wrong. Seeing the major fault in the diplomatic process, I have already messaged Ms the solution. So let's see if we can work this out and stop the escalation of problems - which we seem to be having too many of. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:24, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
Okay I'm ready to work this out. What exactly is wrong with the content I added? (Please refrain from saying "everything" or "it should be obvious" or something similar.) I think the more specific we are the easier this will be. For the history section I pretty much summarized sections from the timeline and other pages, so it's not really changed, just expanded. I apologize for saying your objection was without merit. I just thought "refusing to cooperate" didn't seem like a serious reason, considering that all my 1983 projects thus far have been me opening seeking cooperation. At this point I believe I have actually followed the adoption rules correctly, minus your objections, so I think we can resolve this. Please let me know what you meant with your objection so we can reach a compromise. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 00:35, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
I would have went by the 1983 guidelines for adopting articles, but you said that was wrong, and that I should look at the wiki wide ones. The wiki wide rules state "Leave a message on the portal page", which is why I only left a message on this page. A would later state my intents on the others, mostly as a courtesy. Mscoree (talk) 10:34, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
Not a solution, Imp. I've said what needs to be done, and still he refuses to acknowledge that.
Both the history and military parts that you added are departures from the previous content. Wasn't an accurate picture of the government, either.
You have not "sought cooperation" at all. And when others have tried you've gone out of your way to ignore them.
I meant quite literally what I said, with my objection: you blatantly ignore most everyone around here, don't acknowledge canon, and ignore the rules. Quite frankly, Owen would be a better candidate to adopt something at this point.
All you need to do is listen and follow the rules. Then it goes away.
No. What I told you was that you need to follow both the wiki rules and the timeline rules for adopting.
Lordganon (talk) 13:06, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
Coat of Arms[]
Hey I've whipped together a coat or arms based on the current one. Would love some feedback.
Trainor90 (talk) 08:24, November 26, 2017 (UTC)
French_Antarctic_Territories?[]
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/French_Antarctic_Territories_(1983%3A_Doomsday)
Would the République des Terres Française Australes try to reclaim the French Antarctique as the New Britian has created some settlement of the former disputed British Antarctic and the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are inhabited and the ANZC has the largest claim on Antarctica and the Antartic treaty has been thrown out, would the Kerguelens, Crozets and maybe Terre Adélie be claimed or resettled by the RTFA or another French sucessor State? Or, being in-between the Australian and New Zealand claims that unify in this timeline, would Adélie be ANZC territory (though claimed like St. Pierre-et-Miquelon), an active part of the RTFA (they would only have to go some way south) or unclaimed once more with Kerguelen and Crozet being part of the RTFA or claimed by it and Adélie unclaimed/ANZC territory?
I'd love to see the Antarctic be more prevalent in this timeline, knowing how a lot of the World is destroyed and with the changing climate, Antarctica might be more appealing and accessible in this timeline?
Response Appreciated :)
B.leve91 (talk) 05:10, November 27, 2017 (UTC)B.leve91
Dumont d'Urville Station (Terre Adélie)
Port-aux-Français (Archipel des Kerguelen)