I would suppose the book describes the criteria for election and the countries elected, but I have no access to the book. Can anyone help? Show 10 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Lars Bosteen k 18 18 gold badges silver badges bronze badges. Finland was a dictatorship. Anixx - How so?
Add a comment. That makes it - Bregalad 5, 2 2 gold badges 25 25 silver badges 69 69 bronze badges. I am removing their inclusion for now, until I get further clarity. Also, here is the qualification on the link itself The three Baltic states were parliamentary republics after declaring their independence from the Russian Empire in , but were all occupied by the Soviet Union in After regaining independence by , all three countries resumed to parliamentary democracy.
ExpatEgghead That is precisely the issue. As Rory points out, there are difficulties in defining democracy and thus it now hinders upon the OP to clear his view of democracy.
The UK is both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, so I'm not convinced that placing it in its own category reflects how it is governed. It could be argued that it is more similar in its structure of government to, say, Ireland prime minister as head of government, with a titular non-executive head of state than Switzerland ruling council which acts as both head of state and head of government. How can you even question the inclusion of the UK?
I don't see the relevance of it being a monarchy. Show 23 more comments. Amandasaurus Amandasaurus 3, 2 2 gold badges 20 20 silver badges 28 28 bronze badges. Rory makes a good point. In that case I would argue that Iceland should have been on the list as a constitutional monarchy but in it was occupied by the British and then later by the USA.
The date of does complicate matters. Why isn't Australia and New Zealand on this list? Thinking about it more, I believe I could make a good case for the UK not being in the list as all normal democratic processes were suspended for the duration.
Only by-elections were held, generally uncontested and the composition of the government did not change. As the whole of the UK was essentially under a benign marital law, I would suggest only the USA was a functioning democracy in The UK just didn't have any elections for 10 years between and That is a long time, but the people who were there were elected in the first place.
So it was more of a long running elected government. No massively democractic, but not really undemocratic either. Anixx, this assertion is simply not true. British constitutional history is fascinating on precisely this topic. Anixx, have you ever heard of the Magna Carta? He also lobbied for policies that would make companies more willing to do business with the federal government, including tax incentives and advance payments for retooling and improving their production lines to make war materials.
With these measures in place, Knudsen and his team were able to approach individual companies to get their help producing the long list of items needed to fight the war. Chrysler, an automaker, agreed to invest millions of dollars into new facilities to produce tanks and anti-aircraft guns.
Another automaker, Ford, built a mile-long assembly line to manufacture BE Liberator aircraft. Henry Kaiser, who had made his fortune contracting for major projects like the Hoover, Grand Coulee, and Bonneville dams, set up a series of shipyards on the Pacific coast that turned out Liberty ships at a record rate.
Finding enough workers to run the factories was another challenge. Many of the Americans who would traditionally have filled these jobs—young white men—were quickly filling the ranks of the US military instead. Two key groups, women and African Americans, helped close the gap. Before the war, society generally expected women to focus on housekeeping and child-rearing once they were married.
Moreover, women who did work typically did not perform the kinds of tasks manufacturers needed now. As American industries mobilized, however, the allure of high wages and the need to make ends meet combined with the labor shortage drew women into all kinds of factory work that had previously been done almost entirely by men. Tanks move along an assembly line that produced cars and trucks before the war at Chrysler in Detroit ca.
African Americans were largely absent from defense industry jobs at the start of the war, owing to a combination of legalized and de facto segregation all over the United States, not just in the South. Half of the defense contractors who responded to one prewar survey by the US Employment Service said they would not hire African Americans for any job. This infuriated A. Randolph, who was already fed up with ongoing discrimination in the military, called for an enormous march in Washington, DC, to protest inequality in the military and defense industries.
Just days before the march was to take place, President Roosevelt met with Randolph and other African American leaders to negotiate.
The result was Executive Order , which banned racial discrimination in federally contracted defense industries and established a Fair Employment Practices Committee to enforce the new rules.
This was no quick fix. Employers still frequently hired as few African Americans as possible and gave those they did hire menial tasks with less pay.
Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in , however, Americans were seriously divided over what the role of the United States in the war should be, or if it should even have a role at all.
Even as the war consumed large portions of Europe and Asia in the late s and early s, there was no clear consensus on how the United States should respond. The US ambivalence about the war grew out of the isolationist sentiment that had long been a part of the American political landscape and had pervaded the nation since World War I.
Many Americans were disillusioned by how little their efforts had accomplished and felt that getting so deeply involved on the global stage in had been a mistake. Congress passed a series of Neutrality Acts in the late s, aiming to prevent future involvement in foreign wars by banning American citizens from trading with nations at war, loaning them money, or traveling on their ships.
But by , the deteriorating global situation was impossible to ignore. The urgency of the situation intensified the debate in the United States over whether American interests were better served by staying out or getting involved. Isolationists believed that World War II was ultimately a dispute between foreign nations and that the United States had no good reason to get involved. The best policy, they claimed, was for the United States to build up its own defenses and avoid antagonizing either side.
Neutrality , combined with the power of the US military and the protection of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, would keep Americans safe while the Europeans sorted out their own problems. Isolationist organizations like the America First Committee sought to influence public opinion through print, radio, and mass rallies.
0コメント