What if the U.S. had not entered the war?

Simple. If the U.S. had not entered the war then WWI would have dragged on for a couple more years until finally either Britian or Germany was starved out and could no longer support itself for war. The destruction would have even more terrible and the casualties still more astronomical. It is possible that the influenza pandemic would have caused even more trouble with the soldiers had they still been fighting trench warfare in 1919. I also feel that if the U.S. never entered the war that Germany would have succeeded in taking Paris (since the Brits and French had grown so weak) and woulod therefore have won the war. As it was the German Army was only 37 miles to Paris at the moment the Americans joined the War. With a German victory the Versailles Treaty would have been completely in their favor and they would gain numerous territory across the globe as well as demand extremely unreasonable indemnities of the Allies (exactly the opposite of what the Allies did to Germany in the actual Versailles Treaty) All-in-all, without American support the Brits and the French would have fallen to the German/Central Alliance and suffered the exact way the Germans did when they didn't win.

What if the Frankfurt Assembly had succeeded?

If the Frankfurt Assembly had succeeded then Germany would have formed a democratic, liberal, self-governing, and federally unified "empire". Friderick William IV would've been named the first emperor of Germany, which would have been a territorial combination of the smaller states plus Prussia. There are a couple extreme scenarios for the effect of this accomplishment. The first is, of course, is the antagonistical view. In this view all of friedericks worst fears would have been realized: Because he imposed himself by force on the lesser states they will gain a feeling of nationalism/ revolution and revolt against him, Austria may declare war on the newly formed state in the hopes of taking over, and/or he may have been disowned from the Hohenzollern because of his willingness to accept a position of a constitutionally limited and revolutionary representative position. These would lead to anarchy, the collapse of the empire, and possibly even the end of the hopes for a unified germany. On the other hand, however, is a brighter outlook. The Frankfurt Assembly tag-teaming with emperor William could have led to a peaceful and very liberal conscientious regime. Maybe a success story comparable to that of America, in which all the different nationalities could be treated as equally and justly. All would depend on the actions of the radicals.

Miscellaneous

So I know this isn't exactly a post topic but a comment Rob posted on one of my earlier posts got me thinking. I want to see what everyone thinks about this. Feel free to disagree its an open ended thing. Could Napoleon be blamed for WWII? I know there were many other factors than Hitler involved in WWII so this is mainly going to be focused on the European theatre. Here's what I think. Napoleon tried to unify Europe. He tried to make it all the same, same metric system, same republic, same flag, same customs, same dress, in other words a uniform europe was a better Europe. This is where Nationalism came into play. The different nations began to see the beauty of their old and independent cultures. Thus Germany became more "unified" as the peoples felt a more patriotic emotion towards their homeland. This nationalistic view would be passed on for a few generations until the man we all know as Adolf Hitler was born. He was raised with this pride and loyalty to his beloved nation. When he was a teen he saw the devastation of WWI and when his fellow german brothers needed someone to blame for their pain and suffering, Hitler, as we all know, blamed those foreigners, the "not true germans", the Jews... the story continues on from there. But all I'm saying is that if Hitler had not been raised with such a dedication to his country would he have been compelled to do all he did?

Lasting Legacies

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire left many lasting legacies. It showed how the new Republic enabled a nation to exercise power more effectively than the traditional monarchy. Also it gave the modern world new methods of political organization and authoritarian rule. But most importantly, it left the legacy of nationalism. Without the Frenchman's national loyalty and patriotism Napoleon's army would not have been nearly as successful. Not only that but it proved to all the other nations what can be accomplished when a military force has something they're willing to die for... as opposed to the uneagerness of an army with nothing to fight for. Nationalism is something that the U.S. has always had since the formation of our beloved country but keep in mind that in the German melting pot of different cultures and provinces they had no idea of a love for the state. Thanks to the French Revolution, however, they gained a love for their country that became extremely apparent in WWII and that continues to this day.

Salon

To all fellow Salon attendees,

I, Benjamin Franklin, wish to thank you all for a wonderful afternoon of enlightening conversation and delicious food. But mostly I wished to express my gratitude toward the fabulous company. I spent most of my time discussing with Voltaire, Lady Catherine, Ms. Mary, as well as Rousseu and even Immanuel Kant. From these powerful men and women I learned much about their viewpoints on the American Revolution, Deism/Religious tolerance, and politics. Lady Catherine and I nearly got into a fight over the proper form of government. She claims it to be absolutionist which is an absolute atrocity! If it hadn't been for Ms. Mary I probably would've poured a bucket of that amazing iced tea all over her exquisite gown. Nevertheless I found that I tended to agree with mainly everyone during our deeply informative discussions on religion and the American Revolution. The consensus appeared to me that the belief in religious toleration was abundant throughout most of Europe's enlightened thinkers. I found Kant's take on virtues to be quite astonishing, however. The way he perceived accepted statements as moral laws just bewildered me. As for our humble rebellion, many if not all the Saloners that I encountered were in great favor of it. Some argued that it didn't show the proper respect towards the government which it should have (like Burke, you silly fool) but mostly they were proud of the Americans and their desire to be free and equal and have a ruler who is for the people and by the people. All-in-all, I wish to thank the host for her hospitality, the guests for their open-mindedness, and (although one should eat to live and not live to eat) the food, for being so tasty! :)

Benjamin Franklin

We the People of Mrs. Isikdags's Salon, in order to form a more eloquent setting, add wisdom to the discussion, and provide a fun yet provacative atmosphere, do ordain and establish that none other than the infamous, light-hearted and multi-talented Benjamin Franklin shall be attending the Salon on the 3rd day of December in the year of our Lord two-thousand and eight.

My name is Benjamin Franklin. I was born in the beautiful city of Boston on the seventeeth day of January in the year 1706. I ran away to Pennsylvania all alone when I was 17 because I could no longer take the beatings I was taking at the hand of my brother in Boston. I am happy to say that the move paid off, and that it was in Philadelphia where the majority of my accomplishments took place. Over my long life I had many great achievements. Some I am most proud of include my publishing of the Richard's Almanack in 1733, my founding of the first public library, and of course my signing of both the Declaration of Independence and the new U.S. Constititution. Besides my civil and political commitments I also enjoyed dwelling in the great excitement that is science, and as a result of this wonderful ferver I invented the Franklin Stove (which is still in use today), swimming fins and bifocals just to name a few.

Contrary to what you may believe I did not write either the Declaration nor the Constitution. Even though Tommy likes to tease me and say that the only reason why I wasn't given the job to procure the wonderful documents (since it was basically my ideas that it included) was because I would have thrown in too many jokes and anecdotes amongst the rebellious and independence babble. I have to admit, though, that he's probably right. I am known throughout the colonies as a fun and, since the death of my dear wife, flirtatious man. If you ever read that Richard's Almanack it includes my best collection of thought-provoking as well as dastardly humorous one liners like "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." (There's some other stuff in there as well of course). In France, because of this great sense of humour and quick wit, I was most popular among the ladies.. and I mean who can blame 'em? Funny, it was actually due to this great popularity that enabled me to convince France to sign the Treaty of Alliance with the Americans in 1778. Anywho, I believe in a loving God, although, not necessarily in a particular religion, they all work. However, I do stand firm in the belief that a democracy is the best type of government out there, it gives people a voice, treats men as equal, and checks and balances the wise and passionate ruler known as the President.

My life was full of ups and downs, great accomplishments and great electric shocks (stupid kite), but all in all it is a life I am immensely proud of. It is a life that earned 20,000 spectators at my funeral when I passed at the age of 84 in the year 1790. It is a life that saw immense improvemtns in everyday living. And it is a life that saw and helped create the birth of a new nation.

What beliefs did many Europeans hold in the seventeenth century that contradicted a scientific outlook?

There were many beliefs held by Euopeans during the 17th century that contradicted a scientific outlook. One of those was the strongly-held belief that the heavens were perfect. Until the development of Galileo's telescope no one had a reason to believe that the moon was in fact covered in craters formed by passing comets. Plus as more and more disoveries were made regarding the movement of the planets and the magnitude of the universe those that held faith in the beautiful crystalline spheres or the existance of Heaven began to become worried. Suddenly some of Christianity's deepest beliefs were in question. The heavens were the realm of God, the place of saints, so how could it be imperfect? Where was heaven if not in the stars? Many of these discoveries made by Galileo and others therefore shook the Chrisitian community and when more and more evidence came to call it true those that couldn't stand to let their deep faith be called untrue decided instead to call the great astronomers heretics and blasphemers and their work false. This religious faith was the most intense/ prominent contradiction to the scientific outlook during the 17th century.

Violence Prompt

Whether or not violence should be tolerated for political gain is a rather unfair question, in my opinion. Violence is one of those things no one likes, obviously, but it is, as a matter of fact, very effective. Take the American Revolution, if violence had been banned from polictical endeavors where would the United States be today? Not the "United States" that's for sure. What about Britian's Civil War? The U.S's Civil War? The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s in America. Violence has been and always will be the most effective way of accomplishing political change. It is most certainly not the best way but it has been proven to work. I suppose then that I would have to say violence is acceptable for political gain. As for executing the King after a revolution... I think the King should be given a form of pardon, like Jimmy Carter was after watergate. Let the King disappear and be forgotten, putting him to death isn't necessary.

Prompt 5

There are definitly recurring patterns in the rise and fall of empires. The success of an empire can be best described as the flow of pedals on a bike... up to a peak then pushed back down to a lull until it slowly rises back up and so on. The Roman Empire (not the Holy Roman Empire mind you) is a great example of this. The Roman Empire started off small. But gradually it grew, mainly thanks to conquest (a.k.a war). However, the Roman Empire expanded so much that it stretched itself thin leaving itself vulnerable, so when another war broke out with the Gauls(?) (correct me if you wish Sarah) the Romans were helpless to stop them. There are other modern versions of Empires too like the USSR and the British Empire. What do all these empires have in common? War. War enables empires to expand but ALSO leads to their downfall. An empire can neither thrive nor fail without war. Many would think that war can only be devastating e.g. the Romans fell because of a war with the Gauls(?), the Cold War was a doosie for the USSR, and World War II caused Great Britian to just exhaust itself. But look at it from another perspective. This great nation we call our own, the United States of America, became what it is today because of a war, the Revolutionary War. So, in my opinion, an empire's rise and fall can be traced back to war.