Recent content by CharlesMartell

No. I mean a limited offense to capture all of Netherlands and most of Belgium. Not necessarily with the goal of invading France. I dont think the Germans had many Panzer IVs in 1939 so a blitzkreig type operation might be problematic.

This was the original plan, I believe. The original plan of Hitler and the German High Command was to capture the North Sea coast and force Britain/France to come to peace terms. In OTL there was a plane carrying all the secret plans which crash landed in Belgium forcing the Germans back to...

As for the first question, I think you need to get Lord Halifax as PM instead of Churchill before the invasion of France. In OTL Halifax was one of the "doves" looking for a way of getting Britain out of the war they had bumbled into. Tricky though, since Halifax was not a sitting member in the...

I could easily imagine Italy deciding to sit out the war, just as Franco did with Spain. Much harder to see any set of circumstances where they would join the Allied side. I don't think anyone in Italy would forget that they basically got screwed at the Versailles conference after joining the...

True. The point to make though is that compulsory voting in itself doesnt mean high turnover of politicians, necessarily.

To answer the question. My understanding is that the Great Wall of China was a true defensive structure. Hadrians Wall was intended more as a political-economic demarcation, to show clearly to Roman and Barbarian alike the extent of the Empire. The Romans (being the fighting machine par...

That's an urban myth. The wall CANNOT be seen from space. Even China's own astronauts couldn't see it with an unaided eye.

Im not sure about that. Prime Minister Robert Menzies of Australia served 17 years continuously as PM under compulsory voting. It has been argued btw that compulsory voting makes pork barrell politics less viable since its harder to buy off a constituency when the number of voters is much larger.

Perhaps, but that isn't what this thread is about ;) Personally I think compulsory preferential voting is the ideal voting model as I have described here https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=6810611&postcount=25

The voting rights of ex-felons vary from state to state in OTL. http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-as-an-ex-offender.html BUT who says that "Failure to Vote" needs to be a felony offense. In Australia you pay a fine of $20. It is the exact equivalent of getting a parking ticket.

I don't follow you :confused:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION We the People.... Article I Section 4 3: Participation in the democratic process being both a right and a responsibility, it shall be compulsory for all eligible citizenry to attend a place of voting, have their name duly checked against an electoral roll, and...

Totally disagree. Every major decision of the war (indeed the decision to end the war) was made as part of a "war cabinet" which included Hirohito. All decisions were made in his name and he could have refused to accept the advice of the war cabinet at any time. There are plenty of documented...

So be it. I don't think that needs to even be a factor. The Japanese ultimately can decide what form of government they want. There is nothing inherently wrong with a monarchical system of government. Lots of (peaceful) countries have had such systems for centuries e.g. UK, Netherlands...

Hence my point. That he be asked to abdicate from the role BEFORE facing trial. btw It doesnt necessarily follow that conviction would lead to execution. He might have been simply exiled to Okinawa or somewhere similar that the Allies could keep an eye on him indefinitely.