Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Hollywood Goes to War

Excerpt from The War Comes to The Silver Screen by Jane Schultheiss* (2001, San Fernando Valley University Press)

Introduction

Perhaps nowhere else, except by way of degree, was the fevered pitch of combating the looming global antifascist struggle seen than in Hollywood itself, the one place on earth as physically removed from the front lines of Europe as possible, and yet the writers, and directors in the motion picture collectives were some of the most ardent supporters joining in the revolutionary struggle across the pond.

The eclectic melting pot of Hollywood in this timeframe is part of the reason, with exiled UFA filmmakers from Weimar Germany rubbing elbows with Russian filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein and American directors like Erich von Stroheim and Orson Welles; but the larger reason was the production of the cinema newspapers.

Unlike the Great War, where the wartime needs of nitrate had nearly halted the production of film stock, the introduction of non-nitrate safety film in the UASR allowed for film that was safe to handle in the field and would not be competing with resources needed for wartime production. The other innovation in film stock was the introduction of monopack color film, which was capable of creating a full color image in the field using a single strip of film without the need for special cameras (though its technical limitations made it unsuitable for use in studio productions, who still used the three-strip process).

Under the auspices of the People's Secretariat for the Culture, Hollywood was offered a constantly updating manual on how to assist the antifascist struggle, members of the PubSecCul sat in on story meetings, reviewed screenplays for every major film collective (Bar Melrose Ave. who refused script review), pressured filmmakers to change storylines or in some cases scrap or delay entire films.

Where PubSecCul's influence showed the strongest was their power over the international export market. In order to exhibit a film internationally during the war, a film was required to obtain an export certificate. Film could either be given an "A" certificate, cleared for release within the COMINTERN, or the much more coveted "B" certificate, a film that was cleared for release in all countries.

That was not to say that filmmakers in the UASR were eager for censorship. After all, it had been less than a decade since the film industry threw off the restrictions of the Breen Code's heavy-handed moralism. But the imminent threat of fascist extermination had motivated Hollywood to support the war effort regardless of any mandate.

This book is not a comprehensive tome of all the films on World War II Between 1940 and 1946, some 2000 films were produced. Instead we will be looking at key films from this period to examine the evolving relationship between the People's Secretariat for Culture and the motion picture collectives of Hollywood.

The Office of Film Technology


The revolution came at a precarious time for Hollywood. Only a few years prior, the switch from silent film to sound had strongly favored the major studios, leaving many of the smaller "poverty row" studios out in the cold, and with the advent of color photography via the three-strip process, it was feared that the smaller collectives would be unable to reach the same audiences as the Lankershim Blvd., Melrose Ave., Culver City, Pico Blvd., and Olive Ave. collectives could reach.

The solution then came in the form of the Bureau of Film Technology, (BurFilmTech). An office that was dedicated to the advancement of the technology of film production, and to the equitable disbursement of those technical benefits. Through BurFilmTech the expensive three-strip color cameras were as accessible and affordable to the smaller collectives like Radford and Gower as they were to the major collectives like Culver City.

The holy grail of BurFilmTech would be a single strip of color negative film that could be handled without any kind of special camera or projector.

The first breakthrough would come in 1936 when the Kodak Photographic Film Collective released "Color Reversal Film, Type I" better known by its trade name of "Kodachrome."

Initially only released in 8mm and 16mm formats, Kodachrome saw enormous success with amatuer markets. But it was the UASR's insistence on making the film and camera as inexpensive and accessible as possible that set loose thousands of new filmmakers who would document their lives in the post-revolution era. It would be these amatuer films that would serve as the basis for a new generation of filmmakers.

While popular with citizen filmmakers, the reversal nature of the film made it unsuitable for use in Hollywood, who continued to use the Technicolor three-strip process. That was not to say that the process was without its limitations. The monochromatic film was extremely slow, with a sensitivity to light equivalent to an ISO rating of 15. The complex beam splitter and filter assembly, further reduced the amount of light reaching the film, necessitating additional light in order to properly expose the film.

In cases such as Culver City Collective's production of The Wizard of Oz, temperatures inside the studio would regularly reach 40 degrees, necessitating frequent breaks for the cast and crew.

With productions starting to experiment with the use of Kodachrome reversal film as an alternative to the bulky three strip cameras, BurFilmTech continued to work with Kodak to perfect the single-strip color film process.

The collaborative nature of post-revolution UASR meant that photochemical engineers who had formerly been working at places like Technicolor, Dumont & Kodak could openly collaborate with each other, no longer jealously guarding trade secrets from their competition, as well as trade notes with their equivalents at Tasma and Svema in the USSR.

The breakthrough came in 1939 with the release of "Color Motion Picture Film, Negative Type 1, 25D" better known by its trade name "Cinecolor." Initially planned to use a BOPET[1] base provided by Wilmington Photochemical, the film was notably tougher and resistant to damage, to the point of requiring new tools in the editing room. The dye layers and the separations used were developed by Technicolor, while the photosensitive emulsion was developed by Kodak.

The realities of wartime production however, forced Cinecolor to switch to the older Cellulose Triacetate base for the duration of the war.

Contrary to popular belief, the work being done to develop improved photographic film was not being driven purely by the needs of Hollywood. The experiences in the Civil War had shown the People's Secretariat for Defence the importance of aerial photo reconnaissance, with Wilmington and Kodak being tasked with developing films and cameras that could operate at the high altitudes demanded from the Photo-donnas[2].

BurFilmTech's technological equity mission saw the disbursement of thousands of rolls of the new film to any film collective who needed it, with the older three-strip cameras being used extensively by the Hyperion, Termite Terrace, and Ruby Orchestra animation collectives.

Will This Picture Help Win The War?


Between 1940 and 1946, Americans regarded the prospect of propaganda with a certain level of wariness. It had barely been a decade since the studios used their cinematic bully pulpit to preach against the evils of socialism. Clear access to information is foundational in a democratic society, and the one-sided nature of propaganda was thought to be tainted with suspicion. Yet the contradiction was that the total war effort required for the defense of the proletariat against reaction made propaganda a necessary evil for the socialist governments.

That is not to say that American's reluctance for propaganda was not without merit. Many had bitter memories of WWI and it's "Committee for Public Information," more commonly known as the "Creel Committee" after its chairman, George Creel. Under Creel the CPI had blanketed the country with posters, pamphlets, and the so-called "four minute men" who would whip up rousing speeches in theaters and other public venues in order to drum up support for the unpopular war.

Unlike in 1914, where the consent for an unpopular war of imperialism had to be manufactured, the fledgling republics were under the direct threat of extermination at the hands of the Nazis, which drove the narrative in 1940. The war was not one of patriotic duty to an arbitrary nation, but one of survival, where the cost of losing was unthinkably high.

For many former directors and crew members who had worked for the Weimar Republic's UFA prior to it being taken over by the Nazis, the fear of that exact same thing happening in Los Angeles drove them to produce propaganda films for the UASR.

It was shortly after his elevation to the role of Premier, that John Reed would take the first steps in the propaganda war by ordering the creation of a division in the WFRA to document the war and show the citizens back home what their efforts on the home front were accomplishing.

With the new directive established, PubSecCul would provide guidance to the film collectives under the newly created "People's Office for War Information," or POWI, under the auspices of its first Secretary Nelson Poynter.

The first films released during the war were scarcely different than pre-war pictures, only with Nazis or the war providing a background element.

In one example, Hal Roach's slapstick comedy The Devil With Hitler, Hell's board of directors decided that Hitler should replace the devil. Satan, having fought his way to the top of Hell's hierarchy, refuses to allow a "flash in the pan" like Hitler to usurp his position. By inserting himself as Hitler's valet, he cajoles the german leader into releasing several prisoners, thus performing a "good deed," and making him ineligible for Hell's throne.

A relative newcomer to the movie colony, Poynter had chosen to set up his office in the former Taft Building on the corner of Hollywood and Vine.

Rather than acting as a censor, Poynter asked filmmakers in Hollywood to consider eight questions before making a film.

  1. Will this picture help win the war?
  2. What war information problem does it seek to clarify, dramatize or interpret?
  3. If it is an "escapist" picture, will it harm the war effort by creating a false picture of the United Republics, her allies or the world we live in?
  4. Does it contribute something new to our understanding of the world conflict and the various forces involved, or has the subject been adequately covered?
  5. Does the picture sufficiently depict enemy regimes in such a way that their evil is evident?
  6. Can the picture cause a morale problem, either for troops on the field or comrades at home?
  7. When the picture reaches its maximum circulation on the screen, will it reflect conditions as they are and fill a need current at that time, or will it be outdated?
  8. Does the picture tell the truth or will the young people of today have reason to say they were misled by propaganda?
The films produced under the auspices of POWI could be broken down into five categories, with a manual on how best to approach such a film being published on loose leaf paper, a sign of how rapidly changing the artform was.

1. Why We Fight - Why We Fight films were primarily produced in the early phases of the war, with the eponymously named films being helmed by John Ford, and featuring animated segments by Hyperion Animation. The broad mission of these films was to explain to audiences in the Republics the geopolitical situation that led to the current conflict and why it was necessary. The most controversial of these, 1941's Why We Fight: Hitler's Plans featured leaked documents that showed Germany's postwar plans for USSR, the so-called "Generalplan Ost," as well as their plans for what to do with Americans after the Nazis conquered the United Republics. The release of this film in the UASR and USSR stirred outrage at the Nazis, and the release of it in the United Kingdom had caused a major diplomatic incident from the then-neutral Britain when Germany's ambassador gave a statement condemning the film in a way that confirmed the authenticity of the documents.

2. The Enemy. The most important lesson that POWI tried to impart on filmmakers working on the war effort was that the German, Japanese, Italian, and Brazilian people were not their enemies. They were fellow members of the proletariat. The hatred and the blame for the conflict fell onto the bourgeoisie who elected the leaders and provided their base of support. The lens of condemnation also fell onto those who had made themselves willing stooges of the fascists, their rank and file who were true believers.

3. The United Nations. Over thirty nations had rallied together to fight the fascist menace. POWI produced films that showed how each nation was joined in the global struggle against fascism in their own unique way. From films showing the united COMINTERN front in the USSR, to films shot in the jungles of Brazil as Argentina fought off the integralists in Brazil. If an ally fell short of the COMINTERN ideals, it would be glossed over in order to focus on their contribution to the war effort. Where this policy was the most controversial were the films made showcasing the efforts of the French and British forces. British and French imperialism were glossed over in favor of realpolitik, "Yes we Americans reject capitalism," said the manual, "but we do not reject our British ally."

4. The Home Front. The fledgling workers republics in America had been forced to endure rationing and hardships. These sacrifices on the homefront could not go unacknowledged or unappreciated, if POWI wanted to keep morale up at home. Every pound of flour saved at home was a loaf of bread for the soldiers in the field to march on. With the revolutionary movement in a fight for its very survival, every bit of effort on the homefront helped.

5. The Fighting Forces. Scenes of battles naturally made for dramatic film and were something that filmmakers wanted to portray. The POWI on the other hand urged filmmakers to use that footage for more than simple melodrama, but to illustrate the purpose of the fight and to give the greater context of the battle. The Office encouraged filmmakers to show all parts of the fight, even those not directly on the front line, and to show American service-members of all nationalities to emphasize the pluralistic nature of the WFRA.

The First Motion Picture Brigade


Under the auspices of the WFRA, the First Motion Picture Brigade had a simple mission, documenting the war. How they could go about that was up to the unit commanders, but the mission was simple.

Armed with 16mm cameras and kilometers of Kodachrome, the brigade went to work showing the agricultural situation in the Soviet Union, allowing audiences to see how the UASR's rationing system had allowed Russian soldiers to fight in the battlefields as opposed to tilling the fields.

Newsreels, Cinema Newspapers, and Documentaries poured out of the front lines to an audience back home that was hungry for information.

Where the front advanced, cameras followed. Documentary crews would profile some of the soldiers fighting at the front lines, humanizing them for the audiences at home. Soldiers like Jane Schafer became household names due to their documentary coverage.

In some cases camera crews were able to slip in behind enemy lines and tell the stories of those who had faced fascist persecution. One such film, For the Love, profiles a group of Uranian and Sapphic refugees who had fled the new Integralist regime in Brazil for Peru before taking up arms against the regime. The film, and many others like it, brought home the human cost of the war and the need to protect those most vulnerable to fascist aggression.

Notable Films from WW2:


  • Dragon's Seed (1940) - Directed by Esther Eng - Adaptation of Pearl Buck's novel tale of Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion. Starring Anna May Wong, Keye Luke, and Sessue Hayakawa in the lead roles.
  • Invisible Man in Baghdad (1941) - Directed by Ford Beebe - Set in the wartime Middle East, features a StateSec clerk (Vincent Price) who comes across the Invisible Man formula from the previous films and teams up with a local Turkish rebel (Turhan Bey) to battle Turkish agitators in Baghdad.
  • Deadly Encounter (1942) - Directed by Irving Pichel - The story of a MDSS infiltrator within the German American Bund during the 1930's.
  • Viva Rio! (1942) - Directed by Michael Curtiz - A historical thriller centered on the short lived Rio Commune, and the role of Salgado in its repression. Ends with Brazil declaring war.
  • Schicklgruber Doing the Lambeth Walk (1942) - Edited by Charles A. Ridley - A short recut of existing footage from Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" that has been edited to make it appear that the Nazi soldiers in the film are dancing to the song "Lambeth Walk," a song that they had criticized as being "full of Jewish mischief and animalistic hopping."
  • Mrs. Miniver (1942) - Directed by William Wyler, the story of a British housewife (Greer Garson) who deals with the political chaos and the eventual formation of the Franco-British Union and declaration of war. Notable pro-British propaganda.
  • Hangmen Also Die! (1943) - Directed by Fritz Lang, written by Bertold Brecht - A drama set in occupied Czechoslovakia about the assassination of the brutal "Hangman of Europe," Reinhard Heydrich. Stars Anna Lee, Brian Donlevy, and Walter Brennan as Czech partisans.
  • Saludos Camaradas (1943) - Hyperion live-action/animated anthology, highlighting the socialist nations of Latin America, their unique cultures, their burgeoning socialism, and their struggle against the Integralist threat.
  • The North Star (1943) - Directed by Lewis Milestone - A Soviet-American war film centering on a village of Ukrainian partisans resisting Operation Teutonic. Starring Anne Baxter as an American journalist, and Ukrainian actors Dmitri Milyutenko and Viktor Dobrovolsky as partisans.
  • Sherlock Holmes in Debs (1943) - Directed by Roy William Neill - In the then-present of 1943, Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and sidekick Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) attempt to foil a Nazi plot to disrupt the wartime alliance between Comintern and the newly formed Franco-British Union. Notable Pro-British bias.
  • The Negro Soldier (1943) - Directed by Stuart Heisler - a documentary urging the enlistment of African soldiers.
  • Sexual Snafu (1943) - Directed by Chuck Jones, written by Theodor Geisel - The character of Private Snafu is used to illustrate the dangers of unprotected sex within the ranks and guides the viewer towards various sexually transmitted diseases
  • Der Fuehrer's Face (1943) - directed by Jack Kinney - Donald Duck is another overworked worker in Nazi Germany, continually beaten down by the war machinery that envelops his life.
  • The Battle of Stalingrad (1944) - Directed by Frank Capra - A documentary exploring the Battle of Stalingrad in real time.
  • Conquista (1944) - Directed by John Ford, narrated by Orson Welles - Follows a group of Chilean soldiers directly on the Bolivian front.
  • The Imperial Menace (1944) - Directed by George Stevens - A documentary targeted at Japanese Americans, focusing on the terror of the regime of Hirohito (through his surrogate Yasuhito) and the imperial machinery that allows it to plunder other nations. Ends with a guide as to how to identify spies within the community. Considered outdated and its targeting of spies within the Japanese American community inaccurate and insensitive.
  • The Battle of Sao Paulo (1945) - Directed by John Huston - Depicts the Battle of Sao Paulo from the perspective of Argentinian soldiers.
  • Superman (1945) - Directed by Dave Fleischer- A full length adaptation of the previous shorts, Siegel and Shuster's Man of Tomorrow fights an assortment of villains, robots and monsters, unleashed by Japanese and Nazi scientists.
  • Engines of Death (1946) - Documentary on the Holocaust, one of the first major ones in production. Noted for its use of brutal footage directly taken from the camps and its use of detailed interview from survivors.

[1]: Biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate, known OTL as Mylar or ESTAR, OTL this was developed in 1955 for the U-2 spyplane, was eventually adopted by the motion picture industry in the OTL 1990's.

[2]: Slang term for the F-34C-3 Belladonna: The F-34 Belladonna was a single-engined high-altitude interceptor developed by the Bell Aircraft Design Bureau, with the C-3 model being a variant built for aerial photo reconnaissance.
 
Last edited:
In this timeline does Paris and France as a whole still keep their tested and true tradition of a string working class with very militant trade unions?

And is the traditional May day riot in Paris and other Franco British towns still a thing?
 
In this timeline does Paris and France as a whole still keep their tested and true tradition of a string working class with very militant trade unions?

And is the traditional May day riot in Paris and other Franco British towns still a thing?
Probably very neutered by the FBU government and elites, including their media. Can't have the working class know that they're constantly being suffocated by capitalism, so at best, the unions that are kept around and not constantly infiltrated/monitored/busted are those which are very reformist and run as if though they themselves are businesses.
 
Probably very neutered by the FBU government and elites, including their media. Can't have the working class know that they're constantly being suffocated by capitalism, so at best, the unions that are kept around and not constantly infiltrated/monitored/busted are those which are very reformist and run as if though they themselves are businesses.

How or what neutered them though?
It's not like France even today has a pretty militant trade unionist movement.
I have trouble seeing how without CIA meddling a lot of unions would just renounce their communist roots ITTL since it was the CIA that created massive splits within them.
Same goes for the UK really. Before Thatcher broke them unions were super strong.
So except if the FBU really stepped up their game I have trouble seeing how they were able to neuter them. Especially in a world where you have both the UASR and the USSR.
 
Last edited:
How or what neutered them though?
It's not like France even today has a pretty militant trade unionist movement.
I have trouble seeing how without CIA meddling a lot of unions would just renounce their communist roots ITTL since it was the CIA that created massive splits within them.
Same goes for the UK really. Before Thatcher broke them unions were super strong.
So except if the FBU really stepped up their game I have trouble seeing how they were able to neuter them. Especially in a world where you have both the UASR and the USSR.
It's been said throughout that the FBU will eventually morph into full-on corporatism, and one of the essences of corporatism is state-approved unions. And don't underestimate the capitalist state ability to set up a security apparatus that can and will do whatever's necessary to keep the populace in line, without them even knowing that it is the capitalist state doing so.
 
How or what neutered them though?
It's not like France even today has a pretty militant trade unionist movement.
I have trouble seeing how without CIA meddling a lot of unions would just renounce their communist roots ITTL since it was the CIA that created massive splits within them.
Same goes for the UK really. Before Thatcher broke them unions were super strong.
So except if the FBU really stepped up their game I have trouble seeing how they were able to neuter them. Especially in a world where you have both the UASR and the USSR.
A better example I think would be modern South Korea, at least for most of the modern history of the FBU. Weakness of political opposition groups due to repression, but very powerful and militant resistance from trade unions, whose core cadres will fight the cops with steel poles and slingshots that pierce riot shields.
 
LOL Corporatism sounds like what we have here in Singapore. So is there a FBU NTUC (National Trade Union Congress)? :V
 
The modern Franco-British Union seems to me more of an East Asian state capitalist model, true.

It's a mixture of a Singapore-Japan single party dominant politics and a South Korean/Taiwan capitalist economic model.

And a wider culture that has more attributes of a modern OTL American "Blue state" or "purple state" rather than OTL Britain or France, with those near-OTL American levels of police presence, censorship, repression, incarceration, etc.

It's kind of hinted already in the last update through the state of emergency measures by the Mitterrand government. Probably reminiscent of the LBJ-Nixon-Reagan "law and order" measures in OTL US commencing. A version of a war on drugs and the 1994 crime bill, the militarization of police forces, etc.

You can probably include the Singaporean and Japanese methods of neutering the opposition through gerrymandering, lawsuits, court actions, unofficial government censorship and more present corporate censorship and also the yakuza elements of intimidation that gets downplayed in mainstream newspapers.

Definitely a more socially and culturally conservative society, but not much. The Anglican Church in Britain and the Catholic Church in France having more unofficial influence in public life, even with the nominal "secular" nature of the FBU.

I assume all of those are quite present, more or less.

The FBU unions are also going to be mostly "patriotic" "yellow unions" with the trade union leaders connected to the ruling party and I assume that many of them are also going to be craft unions and company unions that are regulated by the government.

They are not necessarily the more leftist sectoral industrial unions, though those are present too, but neutered.

All of this are because of the greater existential threat to capitalism being posed by the ever more closing of international markets by the expansion of communism worldwide throughout the Cold War. Something that capitalist states doing "free trade" and "open borders" with each other and with the Comintern bloc doesn't necessarily fix.

Even more so with the Comintern bloc starting its transition to lower-stage communism.

Reds! is not a liberal internationalist utopia. That's for sure.

"Freedom" here is even under greater threat than OTL, entailing those measures to be done.

Less room for error on the part of world capitalism to mismanage itself and allowing people greater space to express social and cultural rebellion. Something that can be allowed OTL but not here.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious how they did it, because fighting both the CIA and the KGB who will probably have a hand in this sounds like a daunting task.
Also I just hope Philippe Martinez has a role to play In the FBUs contemporary history, because funni moustache man is always a blessing.
Well, the FBU has its own security organization, the Joint Security Bureau, which works subtly to break up the power of communists in the trade unions (with the help of anticommunists within them and criminal organizations like the Union Corse)

Later, there is the Red Scare of the 50's, which accelerates this, and later a sort of counterpart to the war on drugs and crime, which explicitly targets working class neighborhoods and subtly undermines radicals.
 
Well, the FBU has its own security organization, the Joint Security Bureau, which works subtly to break up the power of communists in the trade unions (with the help of anticommunists within them and criminal organizations like the Union Corse)

Later, there is the Red Scare of the 50's, which accelerates this, and later a sort of counterpart to the war on drugs and crime, which explicitly targets working class neighborhoods and subtly undermines radicals.
Subtle might be pushing it, especially when Britain is involved, even as the worse half of the FBU.
 
I'm curious about what's going to happen to the Soviet Union post war. It's implied that it will reform to a more American style system if I'm not mistaken, but I'm wondering how that's going to play out.

Wasn't it originally going to split with America in some of the earlier outlines for the TL?
 
I'm curious about what's going to happen to the Soviet Union post war. It's implied that it will reform to a more American style system if I'm not mistaken, but I'm wondering how that's going to play out.

Wasn't it originally going to split with America in some of the earlier outlines for the TL?
Stay tuned! Big part of the post war period.
 
In cases such as Culver City Collective's production of The Wizard of Oz, temperatures inside the studio would regularly reach 40 degrees, necessitating frequent breaks for the cast and crew.
Since we're talking centigrade, not Fahrenheit, I take it that the UASR has gone metric at some moment, right?

Which begs the question, has FBU gone metric, too, or imposed the Imperial measurements on the Continent, or each half sticks to its own system?
 
Since we're talking centigrade, not Fahrenheit, I take it that the UASR has gone metric at some moment, right?

Which begs the question, has FBU gone metric, too, or imposed the Imperial measurements on the Continent, or each half sticks to its own system?
My understanding is that the imperial system of measurements are pretty much dead ITTL. Metric is already common on the European continent, and France would resist going along with imperial units, after all, Republican France CREATED the metric system.

This not not an authoritative answer, but I'd imagine that Britain would switch to metric in a similar manner to what the OTL USA tried to do in the 1970's, only with more success.

The only holdouts you might see on a national level would be would be Americuba and maybe Rhodesia.

You might also see some older Brits who'd grouse about the metric system as part of the "continentalization of Britain" but they'd be a fringe group on par with LaRoucheites IOTL.
 
Last edited:
Since we're talking centigrade, not Fahrenheit, I take it that the UASR has gone metric at some moment, right?

Which begs the question, has FBU gone metric, too, or imposed the Imperial measurements on the Continent, or each half sticks to its own system?
Metrification is a given for military and industry in Britain, but customary units are tied to English conservatism out of stubborn Anglo defiance. So a road will be signed in kilometres, but food will be sold in customary units, same with the measurements in cookbooks. People will still measure height in feet/inches, while talking about 100 metre football pitches, talk about weighing twenty stone while measuring the bags of cement in kilogrammes.
 
Metrification is a given for military and industry in Britain, but customary units are tied to English conservatism out of stubborn Anglo defiance. So a road will be signed in kilometres, but food will be sold in customary units, same with the measurements in cookbooks. People will still measure height in feet/inches, while talking about 100 metre football pitches, talk about weighing twenty stone while measuring the bags of cement in kilogrammes.
That's somehow even more cursed than if they'd just stuck with the imperial system.
 
Metrification is a given for military and industry in Britain, but customary units are tied to English conservatism out of stubborn Anglo defiance. So a road will be signed in kilometres, but food will be sold in customary units, same with the measurements in cookbooks. People will still measure height in feet/inches, while talking about 100 metre football pitches, talk about weighing twenty stone while measuring the bags of cement in kilogrammes.
I would have thought that France would push for Metrication as part of the union with Britain.
 
Back
Top