Colours work, proportions good, and relevant symbology. Well done.
An in-universe graphic breaking down the design of the US flag.
View attachment 437794
Mittelafrika
Flag of the Afrikanische Föderation Deutsche Kolonien ("African Federation of German Colonies"), better known as Mittelafrika. The Linz Conference stripped the Allies of their colonial possessions, and transferred them to German control. It was in Africa were the Kaiser had the greatest plans: since the 1890's, the Germans dreamed of "Mittelafrika": a single German landmass located roughly in central Africa, connecting the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Stretching from the Zambezi River up the southern edges of the Sahara, the dream became a reality on New Year's Day in 1920. The flag follows a scheme similar to the British colonial flags, featuring the German tricolor in the canton and a gold background (symbolizing the wealth of the newly-conquered lands and victory over the enemy). The coat of arms is also featured: the Iron Cross with a shield superimposed, rimmed red and colored blue, with an eight-point white flag (the unofficial symbol of Germany's colonial empire).
Malagasy Federation
A latter effect of the highly ineffective communist administration over the colonial of France was an incredible spike in economic abuse as the French coffers ran low. Industrial output was severely affected by the socialist policies, which minimized profits and created a very unstable administration. Paris needed a way to offset these losses, and they quickly turned to Africa. Native workers were brutally oppressed, forced to labor in plantations and manufacture facilities. By the late 20's, some 50 million workers had been killed throughout French Africa due to this inhumane program. The colonial administration was also very ineffective: local governors enforced their rules through violence and bloody repression. This mixture of social discomfort led to a nationalistic revival among the native community. In the spring of 1929, when sowing season began and authorities renewed their violent practices, a general revolt spread. The Malagasy War of Independence (1929-1930) was brief yet decisive, as the French had placed few troops in Madagascar and replenishment was difficult (supplies had to go around the African continent, as the Suez Canal had been blocked). Pierre Rabetsara, a former plantation worker, led the revolution, and after the French were expelled, declared the Malagasy Federation in early 1930, with him as President. Although ideas of democracy and justice were at the forefront of the revolutionary struggle, Rabetsara quickly overrode the young Constitution and led the country down a path of authoritarianism and fascism.
The flag features the Ravenala, a broad palm tree and a symbol of Madagascar (which can also be found in OTL state seal of Madagascar). The red saltire symbolizes the unity forged by the sacrifice of those who died before and during the war of independence; the green represents nature and peace, while the golden border means wealth for all and the diversity of the Federation.
I'll give you that. But then again, wasn't the Soviet Union a massive tyrannical dictatorship were a select few exploited the mass majority to keep their own wealth and power? Just as portrayed by Orwellian literature, communism leads to a form of "disguised" capitalism, hidden by nationalism, propaganda and whatever the regime makes you believe. Since France is low on cash, and they happen to sit over a gold mine, they won't oppress natives (who they considered inferior) simply because it goes against the state ideology. In many cases, communist rulers don't truly believe in the cause, they just seek power and wealth.While the flag is really cool, I don't see how socialist France could continue to exploit colonies. Colonialist exploitation is capitalism, the product of the once powerless bourgeoisie gaining demographic leverage over the small but powerful landed aristocracy through urbanization and the dismantling of feudal systems. Socialism is the dismantling of capitalist exploitation; the product of the large and once powerless proletariat gaining leverage over the small but powerful bourgeoisie through strike action. In each case, a class has taken advantage of weaknesses in an ossified system to advance its own interests. The interests of the bourgeoisie are continuous and increasing acquisition at everyone else's expense; the interests of the proletariat are those of everyone else in the world who has been excluded from the collective prosperity produced by our own alienated labor. This fundamental aspect defines socialist revolution.
I'll give you that. But then again, wasn't the Soviet Union a massive tyrannical dictatorship were a select few exploited the mass majority to keep their own wealth and power? Just as portrayed by Orwellian literature, communism leads to a form of "disguised" capitalism, hidden by nationalism, propaganda and whatever the regime makes you believe. Since France is low on cash, and they happen to sit over a gold mine, they won't oppress natives (who they considered inferior) simply because it goes against the state ideology. In many cases, communist rulers don't truly believe in the cause, they just seek power and wealth.
I'm sure the tens of millions of people who died under the regime of Stalin beg to differ, not counting the 6.5 million people who died only between 1932-1933 due to famine, caused primarily due to Soviet collectivization programs and other forms of agricultural policies which decimated the population and economic productivity of the country. Whatever the case, communism will inevitably lead to any form of despotic rule veiled under the premise of "people's power" (Animal Farm is a primary example of this). In this scenario, we can expect a post-revolutionary France with no money, needing a way to extract money quickly. Colonial exploitation was a pretty good way of doing that, as inhumane as it was.Nope. The USSR underwent the greatest revolution in human quality of life that any society in the 20th century saw. Socialist production did not take the form of an imperial system of exploitation, but a vehicle of cooperative labor and distribution that benefited the periphery as much as the center. Yes, cultural phenomena occurred which were at times regrettable, but no aspect of this from the prison system to the cult of personality or the occasional abuse of the psychiatric system was either unique to the USSR or in any way attributable to the socialist revolution of production. If anything, most of the failures of policy attributable to the Stalin era specifically can be understood as an uncritical attitude towards advances in western academic thinking which at the time were more often than not deeply incorrect. It should have been socialist theorists like Kollontai or Zemlyachka that guided the party's course in these fronts, especially during these dangerous post-Tsarist times, as unelimiated patriarchal structures contributed a great deal to keeping the social revolutions of the USSR from what they could have been.
I'm sure the tens of millions of people who died under the regime of Stalin beg to differ, not counting the 6.5 million people who died only between 1932-1933 due to famine, caused primarily due to Soviet collectivization programs and other forms of agricultural policies which decimated the population and economic productivity of the country. Whatever the case, communism will inevitably lead to any form of despotic rule veiled under the premise of "people's power" (Animal Farm is a primary example of this). In this scenario, we can expect a post-revolutionary France with no money, needing a way to extract money quickly. Colonial exploitation was a pretty good way of doing that, as inhumane as it was.
Bringing up Animal Farm is pretty cliche and you know Orwell was a socialist right?
So, few things here.Bringing up Animal Farm is pretty cliche and you know Orwell was a socialist right?
And I can't disagree with your opposition to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc., but communism isn't all gulags and starvation. Anarchists and other libertarian-minded types have opposed both capitalism and authoritarian regimes masquerading as "communism" - whose leaders usually didn't have any intention of abolishing the state unlike libcoms - since the days of Lenin.Whatever the case, communism will inevitably lead to any form of despotic rule veiled under the premise of "people's power"
Nice literal Soviet era propaganda, bud.The great economist Professor Leonid Abalkin has particularly interesting things to say
snip