‘What’s The Largest Margin(s) By Which A Post-1900 Presidential Candidate(s) Could Win The Popular Vote?’
Also, ‘Earlier National 18-Year-Old Voting Age’.
Also, ‘Earlier National 18-Year-Old Voting Age’.
I would imagine the main thing is that a good many people are either not allergic or only slightly allergic to it. I can get up to my neck in the stuff and only have a few little blisters crop up on my wrists. I have worked with guys, however, who could get into it and come out looking like the Toxic Avenger. Not a good allergy to have when working as a land surveyor!Why was urushiol (the active chemical in poison ivy and its relatives) never used for modern chemical warfare? Bundles of burning poison ivy/oak/sumac has a long history in pre-modern chemical warfare in parts of the world thanks to the incapacitating effects of the smoke which if inhaled causes blistering of the lungs and spreads throughout the body and seems like a more mild form of mustard gas (or at best severe reactions to tear gas). The blisters and pain doesn't go away for weeks in some individuals. Was urushiol smoke just too impractical to deliver via chemical munitions compared to chlorine, mustard gas, or other modern chemical weapons?
Not much difference initially, since Czechoslovakia was essentially just "Greater Czechia" from the beginning (apologies Marek!). In the longer run, Slovakia would've had to select a different capital, probably Presov or Kosice. Bratislava/Pressburg was probably given to the Slovaks so they could have a port on the Danube.WI Austria keeps Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava in the breakup of the Dual Monarchy? According to the Austro-Hungarian ethnic map, it was well within the German part, and even to this day Bratislava is one of the closest national capitals to another country's border.
*Hoping to not offend anyone here, but feeling it's near-inevitable*with the protest going on in Western New Guinea, if the Act of Free Choice (in 1969) had gone the other way (with a real vote instead of the 1025 people "voting") how would have it gone afterwards (and would the Indonesians used military force if it had not gone there way)
Some states have compromises in that model where the judges are appointed but need to be re-elected, or some judges are appointed while others are elected, and all sorts of variations like that. A lot of states also have limits on how judges can campaign compared to other politicians. Although it's still very possible to "buy" your way into the ranks of judges by outspending opponents and knowing the right people in local and state politics (which often means donating to their campaigns).Sadly enough, popular election of judges is a common thing in a lot of states here in the good ol' USA, and has been for a long time. Seems like a terrible idea to me, but I suppose only marginally worse than political appointees...
Searching "poison ivy inhalation" brings up accounts of people inhaling it by accident (usually by people burning logs covered in poison ivy) which usually involve trips to the hospital, steroid injections, and weeks of misery. But I'd assume even for someone non-allergic to poison ivy it would produce an effect similar to inhaling tear gas given the mechanism of introducing urushiol to the body. It's also noted that repeated exposure to urushiol can produce worse and worse responses. Perhaps in the past when people were more rural and would have had more exposure, more people experienced reactions?I would imagine the main thing is that a good many people are either not allergic or only slightly allergic to it. I can get up to my neck in the stuff and only have a few little blisters crop up on my wrists. I have worked with guys, however, who could get into it and come out looking like the Toxic Avenger. Not a good allergy to have when working as a land surveyor!
I can't really think of one, Western Banat was possibly the most-confused ethnologically of the old Lands of the Crown of St Stephen (just like throwing that in ). If I remember correctly, the Germans only sort of nominally handed administration of W Banat over to the Serbs - they kept the real power to themselves. Lots of "Volksdeutsche" in the W Banat.Small plausibility check: is there any sense in transferring the Serbian Banat to Romanian occupation during ww2? It sticks out like a sore thumb on the map of axis-occupied Europe otherwise, and it has a (small but not insignificant) native Romanian population and could provide further compensation to Romania for their losses in Transylvania and southern Dobruja. Perhaps some form of joint Romanian-German administration, since it also has a significant German population.
Gah. Complexities inherent in that one about made my head a-splodeTrying to get my head around this one...
Are we talking British Indian Muslims, and from anywhere across British India, e.g. from Hyderabad as equally as from Baluchistan? They would presumably get land grants in order to move that far? What areas are we looking at? Just the protectorates of Khiva and Bokhara, plus Kokand? Or into Turkmenistan and the Kazakh Steppe? Or even further afield? Any such colonisation is going to need a whole range of forts JUST AS RUSSIAN COLONISATION/CONQUEST OF THE AREA HAD DONE.
So, the timeline you are looking at is along the lines of:-
Russia wins the war with Japan
No Triple Entente, and either the Entente Cordiale never happens or does not interfere with alliances? Or what...? I can't see France ditching Russia at all in this period, even if Russia becomes friendly with Germany. You'd need to explain the sides in your world war for me.
Russia LOSES the Great War, and part of the peace settlement is for Britain to annex the areas it presumably occupies at the end of the war
I don't think that the annexation itself is going to cause a Revolution, but if you are talking Nicholas II and especially if you are talking Rasputin, then as soon as a major defeat becomes inevitable there are going to be strong forces to try and get him to abdicate. I understand that general anti-Tsarist forces will be a lot less in this timeline, but at the same time he just got his ass handed to him in the world war, and knowing NIcholas II he copied OTL and assumed personal command of the armed forces, so blame can be placed at his door.
OTL his abdication personally was demanded by people who did not know about Alexei's condition. So the expectation was, AT THAT MOMENT, he would abdicate and Alexei would become Tsar under a Regency. Of course, what happened was that Nicholas II could not abide the idea of this happening to Alexei, given how ill he was, and abdicated in BOTH his and Alexei's name, throwing the crown to his brother Michael. That MIGHT have worked - Michael had ONE opportunity to save the monarchy, if he had accepted it straight away. Units on the front were already swearing allegiance to him, but instead he told those who had come to see him that he would only accept the crown if the Duma, as representatives of the people, asked him to - of course he was asking this in the EXPECTATION that the Duma would do just this, but it was too riven with factions to manage it and the crown effectively lapsed.
In your situation, the monarchy might be strong enough for Michael, if he has survived the war, to accept without equivocation and head off the descent into provisional government. If he is dead, perhaps his cousins are strong enough in his stead.
I think it would've been yet one more weak ally that Germany would wind up having to prop up. Might've done a little bit of good by opening a 2nd front with France, but you can see by zipping ahead to 1940 just how well Italy did in that regard. Besides, there's the whole idea of Italia Irredentia, which would've made any real Italian involvement on the same side as Austria-Hungary extremely unlikely. Not like the Entente was either willing or able to deliver on the promises they made to Italy in 1915 though.I'm sure this has been brought up before and I would not be surprised if it's considered a minor cliche at this point, but I may as well pose the question anyway.
What if Italy had been part of the Central Powers in World War I? They were part of the Triple Alliance that would later form the core of the Central Powers and indeed were a founding member alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary but stayed neutral at the start of the war before joining the Allied Powers a short while later.
I don't think Italy would've been quite as a reliable ally for Germany, but they were certainly more formidable than Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire, both of which were seen as vestigial empires. Plus there's the fact that Austria-Hungary would not have to fight a war on two fronts and instead focus all their attention on the Russian front while Britain and France could not even make it to Gallipoli without encountering resistance from the Italian Navy augmented by the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman naval forces as well..
If Italy sided with the Central Powers in World War I, I think it would have still ended with an Allied victory but the war would have been a lot bloodier and lasted a few years longer, and would be even longer and bloodier if the United States doesn't get involved in 1917.
Vienna WAS promising territorial adjustments in Gorizia to get Italy onside in July 1914, if I remember my Albertini right. It might not have been much, but it would have been something, and if the Italian government could have directed ambitions towards Tunis, Haute Savoie or Corsica in the short term it could have workedI think it would've been yet one more weak ally that Germany would wind up having to prop up. Might've done a little bit of good by opening a 2nd front with France, but you can see by zipping ahead to 1940 just how well Italy did in that regard. Besides, there's the whole idea of Italia Irredentia, which would've made any real Italian involvement on the same side as Austria-Hungary extremely unlikely. Not like the Entente was either willing or able to deliver on the promises they made to Italy in 1915 though.
It would've involved competence on the Italian side, which seems to have been in rather short supply until late '18. In 1940, Musso's forces were more than evenly matched against the French, but they were barely able to make any headway in Savoy and Nice, even though the French had much bigger problems to worry about at the time. Doubt if they would've done much better 20-odd years earlier.Vienna WAS promising territorial adjustments in Gorizia to get Italy onside in July 1914, if I remember my Albertini right. It might not have been much, but it would have been something, and if the Italian government could have directed ambitions towards Tunis, Haute Savoie or Corsica in the short term it could have worked
Braubitsch, Kleist, von Boch, Blomberg, Halder (most definitely) and maybe Keitel. As long as Guderian and Mannstein hang around, other new plug in German generals and the general staff will keep the Wehrmacht humming along as RTL. The tactical operators, who are competent, and who can rise, are just too deep in that army for a Stalin like purge to have a similar effect.I had a pondering question that was kind of circling in my mind for about a week: What would've happened if Adolf Hitler decided to do a Stalin-like purge of his staff and generals? And if possible, who would be the targets? I would imagine this would be after the Night of the Long Knives and before the invasion of Poland.