arado234 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 What would everyone thing to have it that if englands wiped out the american ind.production goes to the actual historical levels they were at at the time england fell?If this has been brought up before i apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The K Man Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 They probably should go up some, because I'm sure historically if England had fell, then surely the US would have stepped up production. (Especially since Canada would still be at war with Germany.) How much should it go up, is the question. Might be a little bit of a deterant to attack the Britain isle (atleast before the US is in the war.) Although, I guess in a sense, the production of US does go up once a sealion begins, with the % increase in activation towards the allies. Is that enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 It is hard to say if production would have increased or decreased if England surrendered. Canada may have just stopped wageing war with Germany and come to terms you stay on your side of the Atlantic we stay on our side. America was strongly opposed to the war in 39 and 40. One of the election themes was no Americans would lose there blood on foreign soil. Since our primary customer England would no longer be at war we may have actually lowered production. The big question would be if and how America would support the war with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Targul do you think america would still sit back and let germany keep on winning?I would like to think that they would realise that hitler was bent on world domination and that one day they would be next.Weather he could convince the american population of this is another matter.I think once he got re elected he would just start to raise his military output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bromley Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I think the point is that they'd have had little choice. Even if there had been a swing in public opinion when the UK fell, what could the US reasonably do? No army, no experience in combat, no experience in amphib landings (hell, no good base anymore where they can stage from). Remember that SC2 is extremely lenient, even after patching, with amphib operations (a product of the IgoUgo turns and no stacking rule). At the "best", you might have seen the US reinforcing the Monroe doctrine via gunboat diplomacy. And supplying Russia, naturally, although the Arctic convoys would now be impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Russia was supplied via Iran for its convoys. Much more so than Murmansk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 And through Vladivostok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts