The Gilded Age

When I read that quotation, I have to say it sounded more like something his father might have come out with than Henry himself: unless it was a justification for being inordinately rich.

He had a great daughter. A son any man would be proud of
 
Didn't we have another thread with Owen good-naturedly tearing apart that view?

Yeah, although admittedly that was in WH and as we all know, nobody reads WH.

He had a great daughter. A son any man would be proud of

Yeah, Mary was a pretty decent queen.
 
Did we decide that Mary was a good queen beyond the relatively modest achievement of not messing things up?

I think "not messing things up" qualifies one to be considered pretty decent. Aside from the whole Jane Grey fiasco there weren't to my mind any major uprisings, which makes her a much better queen than the Northumberland regency was. And infinitely better than Elizabeth's reign was. If she had stayed on the throne for another 20 years the subsequent protestant "squabbles" of the 17th century probably wouldn't have occurred.
 
World War One created Hitler...
nope.avi
actually, both of your points are simplistic. Social currents in the 18th century resulting from the implementation of democracy in continental Europe and the crumbling of the long-standing old order during the process of the industrial revolution, the experience of wars and revolutions from the radical left that this led to (and the counter-movement this spawned), the unique experience of Germany after world war one and during the great depression, and associated factors of this AND the weakness of the german state in that moment of history. All colluded to create the conditions "just right" for nazism to rise.
You could probably have framed that in a way that didn't make it look embarrassingly teleological and Sonderweg-like.
Thats an unprovable hypothesis, and merely ones opinion. Another opinion could argue that even without world war one occuring, the social tensions inherent within that period of history made the rise of nazism exceedingly likely (one can point to fascismo in Italy for example, Italy had minimal involvement in WWI and yet fell into the arms of Benito Mussolini). At any rate we can't really know, since its all conjecture. As some historians say, historiography is an argument that never ends.
Italy had enormous involvement in the First World War, leading directly to revolutionary conditions in the country itself. There were, what, 1.5 million Italian casualties by the lowest reasonable estimates? Caporetto nearly caused the collapse of the Italian state in the northern plains. A resort to martial law and to the assistance of British and French troops in crushing riots was what the Italian government relied on to maintain order by late 1917, and those conditions - less the British and French troops - had not changed by 1922. The original Fascist groups came out of a combination of ideologues, crime bosses, and many of the famous Arditi, members of an Italian stormtroop organization from the war. It is impossible to imagine how some sort of Fascist organization would have even existed, much less seized control of Italy, if Giolitti and others had had their way in 1915 and kept Italy out of the war.
Doesn't change the fact that had we not attacked them in WWI, they would have ended up making a better choice.
Germany attacked the United States. Something about "unrestricted submarine warfare". You might've heard about it.
:huh:
Even prior to American involvement Germany was running into some pretty serious social/economic issues that definately would need to be addressed once the war was over. I would in fact argue that American involvement helped Germany as it forced the war to close earlier(ie: Germany hadn't falled apart) and we at least tried to get an equitable peace treaty.
American involvement in the war lengthened it by at least one year and completely changed the outcome. :p
I think "not messing things up" qualifies one to be considered pretty decent. Aside from the whole Jane Grey fiasco there weren't to my mind any major uprisings, which makes her a much better queen than the Northumberland regency was. And infinitely better than Elizabeth's reign was. If she had stayed on the throne for another 20 years the subsequent protestant "squabbles" of the 17th century probably wouldn't have occurred.
ITT: Owen supports Rome Rule
 
I think "not messing things up" qualifies one to be considered pretty decent. Aside from the whole Jane Grey fiasco there weren't to my mind any major uprisings, which makes her a much better queen than the Northumberland regency was. And infinitely better than Elizabeth's reign was. If she had stayed on the throne for another 20 years the subsequent protestant "squabbles" of the 17th century probably wouldn't have occurred.

what does that even mean.... :mischief:
 
what does that even mean.... :mischief:
It probably would've meant hemorrhoids. You're not supposed to spend twenty minutes on the toilet except in a case of serious bowel distress; twenty years would be outrageous.
 
American involvement in the war lengthened it by at least one year and completely changed the outcome. :p
What do you think the outcome would've been without American involvement?
 
What do you think the outcome would've been without American involvement?
I assume Dachs was making a joke about the German offensive which brought Britain and France very close to agreeing to a negotiated peace.
 
What do you think the outcome would've been without American involvement?
Complete financial collapse in Britain and France before the end of the year 1917, inability to keep industrial war machine going, severe undersupply of Anglo-French military forces, and food shortages in both countries, especially Britain. Presuming that the Russians ceased to be a serious military threat as well - not an unreasonable assumption - the Germans would have met negligible resistance on the Western Front and probably could've secured a peace treaty including Ludendorff's sine qua non, Belgium.

I've made multiple posts on this, and also incorporated the idea into the Eurasian War alternate history I wrote once upon a time. This post discusses it somewhat, and led into a broader discussion that included this one. More facts there.
 
:popcorn:

Man Episode 2 is interesting. That St. Louis bridge is still there.


And Johnstown Pennsylvania was more deadly than the Titanic sinking :cry:

Worst manmade disaster in U.S. history except for 9/11. Bodies found 350 miles away.
 
Complete financial collapse in Britain and France before the end of the year 1917, inability to keep industrial war machine going, severe undersupply of Anglo-French military forces, and food shortages in both countries, especially Britain. Presuming that the Russians ceased to be a serious military threat as well - not an unreasonable assumption - the Germans would have met negligible resistance on the Western Front and probably could've secured a peace treaty including Ludendorff's sine qua non, Belgium.

I've made multiple posts on this, and also incorporated the idea into the Eurasian War alternate history I wrote once upon a time. This post discusses it somewhat, and led into a broader discussion that included this one. More facts there.
Oh, thanks. I'll get back to reading your other posts when I have the time.
 
He's my favorite comedian/musician. Unfortunately most of his program exists only in German.
He's quite good. But I still think Tim Minchin is by far the best comedian/musician.


Link to video.
 
Back
Top Bottom