US wanted France to be a US protectirate

[Lico]

The U.S. wanted France to become a protectorate after WW2 and issued French dollars.
This was supported by some Allies..
Does anyone have more on this part of secret history? Does the new US want the EU to become a vassal state? We might see the the British dollar in the future? Last comment on this article suggests that financial elites of the world have no loyalty except to their own

www.sott.net/article/298564-France-narrowly-avoided-becoming-a-US-protectorate-after-WW2

Sorry protectorate. Eye sight betrays my age 😄😄😄

A quick Google gives this:

sott.net is a site that is associated with the Quantum Future Group, the new religious movement created by Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight Jadczyk.

It's not necessarily a scam, but it's a highly unreliable source run by people who believe they talk to aliens.

Mistigri,
May be but My father has some French dollars. Hé was a boy during ´the occupation. My grand mother has all her farm slaughtered in Normandy and was a refugee down south. I have been brought up with people who had been into concentration camps and who remember the after WW2 négociations.

This is the reason why I am asking wherher people know more about this part of history.

Interesting link:
The French dollar/vignette was printed in the US:

fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billet_drapeau

Lico, the headline of your article is very misleading, as this was not a post-war issues.

Link to a more credible source here, nicked from the other thread; however it's worth bearing in mind that even if France (where being a communist isn't so unusual) the communist-party-linked historian who wrote this piece has been criticised for being politically biased and a conspiracy theorist.

mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix

Sorry for typos, on my phone ...

Thanks for the link.
This is why I was asking if anybody else had other info about this?
As to my misleading title: apologies if you find it 'very' misleading.

'Being a communist not so unusual'
Yes, quite aware of this. We had the Front Populaire 1936-1938 (my neighbour was part of it and wrote a book about it). My great uncle ended up in Dachau because of it... And of course many French people (not the younger ones) have been brought up with Don Camillo played by Fernandel 😃

I can't speak for France, but post WW2, Europe was a weird place.

At the end of WW2 the sleepy (?) hills of Sicily were rocked by the emergence of a native folk hero, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Giuliano]]. He captured the hearts of the masses by standing up to the entrenched mafiosi, and became Robin Hood figure.

The reason I mention this, is that his (violent and stage managed demise) came after he started meddling in Sicilian politics - specifically arguing that Sicily should be independent of Italy (hello ! Scotland !) and more intriguingly that Sicily should become a state of the US.

It's interesting that Sicilian independence is bubbling up again ...

it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_per_l'Indipendenza_della_Sicilia

(There is a poster somewhere showing Sicily being chained to America - supporting the idea that Sicily become at least a protectorate).

Of course the real reason Giuliano had to die - and the Mafia operate unfettered - was because the US dared not risk Sicily becoming communist and a sodding big naval base in the Mediterranean - which is pretty much where we are today.

The UK is not the only sovereign nation in Europe where the "U" is not going unquestioned.

Very interesting Lurking.
Although set up prior to WW2. the Front Populaire failed too. I would not be surprised that the U together with large French companies had something to do with it. Communist country facing them across the Atlantic!
In fact, it was suggested that the French High Bourgeoisie elite sold out to the Nazis to punish those who were involved with the Front Populaire. My neighbour also went to Dachau and had his ears chopped. You can imagine how riveting it was for kids like me to listen to all these stories!

Isn't the fact that Europe was such a weird place after WW2, the main reason that the EU was set up?

If we all ultimately have to submit to a democratic Europe wide government, then local disputes over sovereignty are less important. This, of course, underpins the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

Hardcore: I believe it was; to prevent another horrendous war and prevent local disputes from escalating to a war

Isn't the fact that Europe was such a weird place after WW2, the main reason that the EU was set up?

BINGO !

It is impossible to underestimate or understate how much of 1945-today has been influenced by the US rabid terror of communism and socialism including - ultimately - every conflict since 1945. Korea and Vietnam being the obvious ones, but not the only ones.

Here is a wonderful view of how 19th century science ("experts") has driven 20th Century politics at a global level.

It's also worth noting that the poor of Sicily (the vast majority) were very susceptible to communism/socialism. This is because very few people owned the land they worked, all business was controlled by an elite of a very few who were not averse to using legal - and illegal - methods to ensure the compliance of the masses. So when a political party rocked up in town with the notion that "you could own your own land" and "take back control", it was taken seriously. Of course the risk of such radical notions to the status quo (mafia and Catholic Church) was so great there was an unholy alliance and a lot of lupara bianca victims.

I submit that one narrative for 42CE to the present day has been the British Isles continually fighting a view abroad that we are a backwards backwater of no cultural significance in the scale of things, and a bunch of rabble rousers who are generally antipathetic to civilised mores at best, and just downright barbarians at worst. It's certainly the view Romans had (which informed the debate 500-1500 CE). Which is why it's fascinating that archaeology is countering that view - and that Roman Britain was home to some incredibly cutting edge tech (the unique water system in London for example).

I suspect I have digressed ...

An interesting digression non the less. Britain was a backwater between the departure of the Romans and the establishment of the Empire.

Wasn't there also discussion about the status of Greece after WW2?

Britain was a backwater between the departure of the Romans and the establishment of the Empire.

Unfortunately, the emerging archaeology is beginning to make that look like the propaganda it is. Very useful propaganda for the nascent Catholic church to justify missionaries and the need to "convert the heathens". For some reason the missionaries surprise at finding Christianity already extant in the British Isles has been lost to posterity. Mind you, so too has the indigenous Christianity - although it was much less patriarchal and more inclusive than the Roman brand, so it's probably a good thing. I mean women ? Preaching ? Well Samuel Johnson had that one nailed .

The reality is Britain reverted to what it had been pre-Roman. Why would it not ? Romanisation only really benefited an elite few anyway - it made very little difference to the vast majority.

But, irritatingly for people who want to bang on about Britain as if it's somehow a pure, untouched island (have you heard our language for Christs sake ?) the one thing which has been inescapable - in fact essential to life has been the constant trade with the rest of the world. Cornwall was not only a treasure-trove, but a massive port, importing wine, precious metals, exotic foods, and people since before recorded time.

(Must be time for a Stewart Lee clip )

I didn't know all of that lurking, although I did know that the Dark Ages weren't quite as Dark as painted. After all, the Universities of Oxford and then Cambridge were founded and that wouldn't have happened if they were in a total backwater.

Well, it's one view.

One reason I love archaeology (well, watching archaeology) is that it provides a baseline of fact upon which to build deductions.

So the recent discovery of The Staffordshire Hoard has not only knocked the dung-dwelling picture of Dark Ages Britain for six. The analysis - revealing precious stones that can only have come from the East (Turkey, India) - implies there must have been regular, reliable trade routes into Britain in those days. If we accept that, then it's also fair to speculate that - whatever we believe now - back then it can't have been quite as bad as all that. Traders must have felt safe enough (and there was reward enough) to travel to and from Britain. That in turn implies some sort of social cohesion which could keep the country - or enough of it - safe enough for trade to happen.

And so on.

It's proof - in bone and stone - of Sherlock Holmes "from a drop of water" theory.

And if you want to speak of bones then remember that Hadrians wall was guarded by Roman soldiers born in Iraq at one point in its existence. Bloody immigrants. Coming over here and taking over the job of oppressing the masses.

Or how about the human remains found near Stonehenge of a person born in Germany ? Quite aside from the how, you have to ask why on earth they made such a journey ?

Britain is only an island physically. Culturally, we have been enmeshed in Europe since forever. I would also suggest that any of our historical national heroes are probably more European-looking than insular.

Lurking:
Yes, I did my MA at UCL. Institute of Archaeology so really agree with you.
I mentioned this earlier but Bath museum displays the bones of a Syrian Briton dating from the Roman times.
The Middle Ages had Freedom of Movement too . We only have to read books relating to the construction of cathedrals to understand that stone masons, architects etc..used to cross the Channel unhindered to get on with the work , for example Canterbury.
Another example, the Tower if London built with stones from Caen in Normandy.

Culturally, we have been enmeshed in Europe since forever.
Physically we only separated about 10,000 years ago, after the last ice - age and the Rhine and Thames were tributaries of another river.

We became less focussed on mainland Europe when we developed the Empire, and probably during the 20th Century when a number of people became enthralled by US culture.

But to go back to OP - yes, financial elites are loyal only to themselves I believe.

Peregrina,
Yes you are right. The Dark Ages were not so dark at all.. If both yourself and Lurking are interested, I can go and check out on some reference books I have at home. On a iPhone , difficult to get hold of proper academic references in a hurry or on the bus!!

On the financial elites, perhaps we are all loyal to our own financial interests? Self-preservation? 'Survival of the fittest' (not my words of course ...)

If both yourself and Lurking are interested,

Learning is never wasted.

Cross the channel and further. In Trondheim Norway, in the Nidaros Cathedral there is the Lincoln pillar built by stonemasons from Britain. I gather that in Lincoln Cathedral there is a Trondheim pillar also.

Here you go!

It was fascinating to refresh my memory with the events of 1930's , 1940's and beyond. Many issues of these times are resurfacing in Brexit and Europe relationships with both Russia and US. I wonder whether Trump is familiar with the below..

*Brief summary as to why the Front Populaire came about after the Great Depression.
Interesting point about the
US expatriates leaving France in the tumult caused by the Depression. We could perhaps draw some parallels with today's situation .

histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/fra/pol/fp-pf.html

I also enclose below link which explains the French street mentality and shows that the French left-wing movement did not see eye to eye with Moscow and why being a communist or socialist in France does not equate you to being a dangerous fanatic hell bent on destroying everything capitalist.

www.port.ac.uk/special/france1815to2003/chapter7/interviews/filetodownload,38434,en.pdf

*I enclose Maths links from the other thread:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/002-3_monnet.html