On Theoretical History

Preamble

The field of history is divided into two major disciplines: known history, and theoretical history. Known history deals with the times before and after the Unification--that is, the periods before year 2259 (AC) and after year 0 (SU)--and theoretical history deals deals with the "missing years" between. 

This article assumes basic familiarity with the known history surrounding the Unification. If you haven't already, we recommend you read this article first. 

An Introduction to the Missing Years

Before year 2259 (AC) and after year 0 (SU), our knowledge of history seems to be fairly intact. The known historians will tell you that this is all we need, that we can't be missing much history, that the the world was nearly unified already under the GUSS, but the fact remains that we have no idea how the revered "Great Unification" happened. What they don't seem to understand is that any substantial piece of missing history should be alarming. The fact that the world somehow came to be governed under one body during this time should make it even more so.

It seems plausible enough that the One World Party (OWP) is a direct descendant of the GUSS; after all, if we assume that not much history was lost, the GUSS came into power shortly before the Unification. But how did a loose coalition of Communist and Socialist countries, many of them democratic, become a worldwide, authoritarian, one party state? Did they? Or did the OWP come from somewhere else entirely? These are some of the major questions of theoretical history. The following document will introduce some of the major theories.

Proposition 1: The World Unified Peacefully Under the Global United Socialist States

Supporters of the GUSS Theory argue that:

1. In the years before the Unification, the power of the GUSS was steadily increasing. It's absurd to assume that the trend toward more power that the GUSS was experiencing stopped when we lost track of history.
2. By 2259 (AC), the GUSS had substantial power over almost every nation in the world--easily more than any other known organization--making it the most plausible candidate for world domination.
3. Membership to the GUSS was voluntary, which would have encouraged collaboration and cooperation. Many feats accomplished during the Unification, such as the creation and adoption of a constructed language with words taken from almost one hundred different natural languages, would have been most easily accomplished through the collaboration of different nations.

Critics argue that:

1. The GUSS was not the first international organization to gain mass support and power. The United Nations eventually had almost all nations as members, but it didn't end up taking over the world.
2. The GUSS was, at least on paper, committed to democracy, though many of its members weren't strictly democratic. 
3. Membership to the GUSS was voluntary. Known history has shown us that most of the GUSS's member nations were vehemently opposed to homogenization, and because of the structure of the GUSS, unpopular ideas were scrapped. If a nation didn't approve of what the GUSS was doing, they could pull out. An attempted Unification of the world by the GUSS would either have caused the end of the GUSS, or a world war. 
4. This gives no explanation whatsoever for the missing history.

Proposition 2: The World Unified Through a World War, in Which One Group Asserted Dominance Over the Others

Supporters of the World War Theory argue that:

1. The pre-unification world has a long history of imperialism.
2.  In general, governments do not like to give up their power, and people do not like to give up their independence, making it likely that the world was unified by force. Any suggestion of unification, especially by a large power like the GUSS, would have been met with strong opposition, and likely violence. 
3. A government that wanted to hide the fact that it was established through violence might do so by censoring history.

Critics argue that:

1. Imperialism tends to result in a ruling class, which tries to assimilate or annihilate the original residents of the dominated area. The the group that unified the world seems to have tried very hard to avoid favouring some groups over others. 
2. Modern-day society is, while arguably dictatorial, very unlike most dictatorships established through violence, in that it has a very large social safety net, equal government protection for all groups, and a separation of the judicial branch from the rest of the government. 
3. A government that wanted to "censor" history would do better to rewrite it than to simply redact it.

Proposition 3: The World Unified in the Face of a Global Threat

Supporters of the Global Threat Theory argue that:

1. Almost every major human group in history was formed to increase the chances of survival and success for its members, which stands to reason that this one was as well.
2. Social psychology experiments have shown that presenting a threat and having people work together to solve it is one of the most effective ways of getting them to form groups.

Some supporters believe that the threat may have been manufactured.
Critics argue that:

1. Where humans have already formed groups, a common threat will often serve to separate them even further. 
2. The groups that humans naturally form are small, and personal. It is difficult to get even the members of a single nation to cooperate. On a global scale, the idea that a group could have formed "naturally" in the face of a threat is inconceivable.

Proposition 4: The Missing History Was Caused by a Disaster or Mass Technological Failure

Supporters of the Disaster Theory argue that:

1. During the centuries preceding the missing years, information was becoming increasingly concentrated in one place: the internet. If it became sufficiently concentrated, the failure of even a few key servers could mean the loss of massive amounts of data. 
2. Computers connected to the internet are susceptible to viruses. One virus could destroy all of the computers in a network. 
3. The last existing document from the time before the missing years is from a small, community newspaper. It's likely that a small newspaper would be late to adopt the newest systems of information storage.

Critics argue that:

1. The absence of information is too complete to have been caused by a failure of only the central systems. Many individuals and businesses kept backup files on their local hard drives, many of which wouldn't have been connected to the internet.
2. In 2259, books, paper, and hard copies of information probably still existed. The absence of these strongly suggests that the destruction of information was deliberate.

Proposition 5: The Missing History Was Deliberately Deleted by the Government

Supporters of the Deliberate Deletion Theory argue that:

1. The absence of information is too complete to have been anything but deliberate. 
2. If any of the more sinister theories about the unification are true, the government had good reason to hide history from the people. 

This theory is often held by supporters of the World War and Global Threat unification theories.
Critics argue that:

1. A disaster of some sort could account for the completeness of the missing history, if information was stored in very few places (see Disaster Theory)
2. If the government was established peacefully, then there's nothing to hide
3. The government supports theoretical history research. If it were trying to hide something, it wouldn't.