Curry Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 In SCI when England falls the Candian MPP's go kind of into a limbo. I am in a game currently where England (UK) falls. But the USSR and the USA are at war quickly with the Axis. Canada is still allied. But her MPP goes into a sort of limbo hold that the US cannot use. In reality I am sure that if the NAZI's took over the UK Canada would stand with the USA as they did in WWII with the UK. And I think I have mentioned this before, no UK ships stay free and head to the US or Canada. Ha. I think the Royal Navy would have never given up. For sure a better percentage of staying in the fight then the French who are factored into the game. Jersey can help me, but I believe the UK had plans to send the Royal family to Canada if the Nazi's did invade England when all seemed so dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I agree with you. In SC2 I believe that there will be two options that players could edit in: 1st - The political capital of the Commonwealth moves to Canada or 2nd - When the UK falls Canada allies it self with the USA. As for the Royaly Navy I would like to see any Royal Navy Ship in a US or Canadian Port when the UK falls become Free Brits - 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korut Zelva Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 On Canada Montreal should be the city and Halifax the port! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Maybe once the UK has fallen the USA should be the power controlling all the allied minors (i.e. receiving their incomes and having the ability to spend these MPPs to reinforce all minor allied units). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Maybe the US should be a minor power of Canada when Britain has fallen. No... I would like to see Canada as a force to be dealt with no matter what major power is conquered. They (we) would have stayed in the war with however was still fighting. Whatever the choice is Canada would not have surrendered if the UK did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Churchill had made it very clear that if it looked like the UK was about to fall, the Royal Family and the Royal Navy were to head to Canada to continue fighting the war... Before the USA entered the war Canada was the Arsenal of Democracy. Almost all the vehicles used by the 8th Army in its drive across North Africa were made in Canada... Canada did 48% of all convoy duty... 1 in every 10 citizens was in the Armed Forces (a rate higher than any other country). Canada built hundreds of thousands of vehicles, planes and ships... It ended the war with the 4th largest airforce and the 3rd largest navy in the world... Canada would never have surrendered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: Canada would never have surrendered... Rah rah. Mackenzie King didn't even want to contribute a second division to the defence of the UK, and in fact did not do so until the fall of France. Second Division didn't arrive in the UK until August 1940, and the Third Division never even mobilized until May - after France was invaded! King's limited liability outlook is no secret. There is ample evidence to believe that if the British Air Commonwealth Training Plan had been "discovered" sooner, perhaps even the 2nd and 3rd divisions would never have been contemplated. I wouldn't suggest Canada's participation in a war after the fall of the UK so matter-of-factly. Certainly French Canada would have remained a wildcard - perhaps even more vehemently anti-war than ever before. No doubt popular sentiment would have been high, but how much blood King would have been willing to shed to re-enter a UK under German control is open to some amount of debate. Likely any efforts to be made in that direction would have been largely American. Given a neutral America, it is not unlikely to believe that Canada would have concluded a peace with Germany - especially if the non-aggression pact with the USSR were in effect at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Curry, Interesting topic. Edwin and Michael D., I agree with Michael on this one. Aside from the reasons he's mentioned, which I agree with completely -- and have to admit I didn't know about before he wrote it -- there are some other factors. As usual I have to say I can't imagine the Germans ever putting together a credible trans-Atlantic invasion. Also, I can't imagine them wanting to because it would have immediately drawn the United States into the war! So, the only possibility would be Germany feeling confident that it could also take on the United States in actions spanning the Atlantic. I think even Hitler (perhaps I should say, especially Hitler) would have wanted to consolodate his position, take control of the African colonies, such as The Belgian Congo (where he'd have been informed there were uranium deposits). And, most important of all, he'd have wanted peace in the west in order to launch -- or insure the success of -- his invasion of the USSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: Canada would never have surrendered... Rah rah. Mackenzie King didn't even want to contribute a second division to the defence of the UK, and in fact did not do so until the fall of France. Second Division didn't arrive in the UK until August 1940, and the Third Division never even mobilized until May - after France was invaded! King's limited liability outlook is no secret. There is ample evidence to believe that if the British Air Commonwealth Training Plan had been "discovered" sooner, perhaps even the 2nd and 3rd divisions would never have been contemplated. I wouldn't suggest Canada's participation in a war after the fall of the UK so matter-of-factly. Certainly French Canada would have remained a wildcard - perhaps even more vehemently anti-war than ever before. No doubt popular sentiment would have been high, but how much blood King would have been willing to shed to re-enter a UK under German control is open to some amount of debate. Likely any efforts to be made in that direction would have been largely American. Given a neutral America, it is not unlikely to believe that Canada would have concluded a peace with Germany - especially if the non-aggression pact with the USSR were in effect at the time. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Curry, Interesting topic. Edwin and Michael D., I agree with Michael on this one. Aside from the reasons he's mentioned, which I agree with completely -- and have to admit I didn't know about before he wrote it -- there are some other factors. As usual I have to say I can't imagine the Germans ever putting together a credible trans-Atlantic invasion. Also, I can't imagine them wanting to because it would have immediately drawn the United States into the war! So, the only possibility would be Germany feeling confident that it could also take on the United States in actions spanning the Atlantic. I think even Hitler (perhaps I should say, especially Hitler) would have wanted to consolodate his position, take control of the African colonies, such as The Belgian Congo (where he'd have been informed there were uranium deposits). And, most important of all, he'd have wanted peace in the west in order to launch -- or insure the success of -- his invasion of the USSR. What you fail to consider is this: Would the USA have sat idlely by and let Britain crumble in the dust? Even in 1939 and beyond, the USA was taking steps to prepare for war (including mobilizing its armed forces; taking over ocean patrols; etc, etc)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Ummm....you really think that politicians never change their minds? The quote you gave was during the vote for war - the House of Commons voted unanimously, save one dissenter, to declare war on Germany. King was going with the overriding public sentiment of the time - and at the same time - the SAME TIME - was working out how he could limit Canadian participation in that war! The quote you give is valueless in determining what course of action he would have taken a year later had the UK fallen. Unless you can connect some dots I'm clearly not seeing? Politicians play to public sentiment - King was no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Ummm....you really think that politicians never change their minds? The quote you gave was during the vote for war - the House of Commons voted unanimously, save one dissenter, to declare war on Germany. King was going with the overriding public sentiment of the time - and at the same time - the SAME TIME - was working out how he could limit Canadian participation in that war! The quote you give is valueless in determining what course of action he would have taken a year later had the UK fallen. Unless you can connect some dots I'm clearly not seeing? Politicians play to public sentiment - King was no different. And can you not see the political minefield King was in? Canada had declared war on Germany. It had committed itself. King was the leader of the country... French Canada was divided on the issue. And King had to side-step conscription, thus relying on volunteers... Plus, you are aware, are you not, that it takes time to call up men, train them, and then ship them overseas...? When British and French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, Canada had the ONLY fully equipped division in the UK to meet a Nazi invasion... Canada also had the second largest foreign contingent of fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: Would the USA have sat idlely by and let Britain crumble in the dust? Even in 1939 and beyond, the USA was taking steps to prepare for war (including mobilizing its armed forces; taking over ocean patrols; etc, etc)... What do you think they did during the Battle of Britain? Granted, Lend Lease was in effect and the USN was not exactly idle in the North Atlantic. But any invasion of Britain would likely - if you think it was even possible - to be short and sweet, given what we know now about the state of their defences at the time. German invasion plans were rather pitiful in themselves, but if they managed to land a force in the summer of 1940, I don't see what Canada could have done about it - or the USA for that matter. As for the US "preparing for war" - any idea how long that actually took? It took Canada about 3 years before they had any forces worthy of the name in the field. Even by June and July 1944 some argue that the time they spent "training" had been in many ways wasted. Modern armies don't jump up overnight. The US would not have had much to contribute to a defence of the British Isles, especially if Japan accelerated her aggression in the Pacific concurrently with a German invasion of Britain. None of which is the point - I agree that the US would largely have been responsible for whatever continuation of the war was possible after the fall of Britain. You say the US were preparing for that. I agree there also, but whether or not a declaration of war - or a continuation of Canada's war in that event - is not open and shut. Again, that would largely be dependent on what the Soviet Union did - would the USSR be sad to see UK fall under German control? Very difficult to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Ummm....you really think that politicians never change their minds? The quote you gave was during the vote for war - the House of Commons voted unanimously, save one dissenter, to declare war on Germany. King was going with the overriding public sentiment of the time - and at the same time - the SAME TIME - was working out how he could limit Canadian participation in that war! The quote you give is valueless in determining what course of action he would have taken a year later had the UK fallen. Unless you can connect some dots I'm clearly not seeing? Politicians play to public sentiment - King was no different. And can you not see the political minefield King was in? Canada had declared war on Germany. It had committed itself. French Canada was divide on the issue. King ahd to side-step conscription... Plus, you are aware, are you not, that it takes time to call up men, train them, and then ship them overseas...? When British and French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, Canada had the ONLY fully equipped division in the UK to meet a Nazi invasion... Canada also had the second largest foreign contingent of fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain... </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Michael Dorosh: The fallacy in your thinking is to assume the USA and Canada might have not prosecuted the war had Britain fallen.... Given Hitler's ideological bent on destroying the USSR, it follows that Germany would have invaded the USSR, thus upping the ante for North America to band together in joint dfence and mobilization... And with Britain's capitulation, Japan would have been eager to grab its possessions overseas... The USA had made it very clear from the very beginning, warning Japan that the USA would not stand by and let Japan take over British possessions... So no matter how you look at the situation, the USA was heading towards war, while Canada was already in the struggle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Ummm....you really think that politicians never change their minds? The quote you gave was during the vote for war - the House of Commons voted unanimously, save one dissenter, to declare war on Germany. King was going with the overriding public sentiment of the time - and at the same time - the SAME TIME - was working out how he could limit Canadian participation in that war! The quote you give is valueless in determining what course of action he would have taken a year later had the UK fallen. Unless you can connect some dots I'm clearly not seeing? Politicians play to public sentiment - King was no different. And can you not see the political minefield King was in? Canada had declared war on Germany. It had committed itself. French Canada was divide on the issue. King ahd to side-step conscription... Plus, you are aware, are you not, that it takes time to call up men, train them, and then ship them overseas...? When British and French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, Canada had the ONLY fully equipped division in the UK to meet a Nazi invasion... Canada also had the second largest foreign contingent of fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain... </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Michael Dorosh: LOL I am amazed at your thinking about how peaceful all the nations would have bcome once Britain fell... LOL Gee, if only Britain had fallen we would never have had a WORLD WAR... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: Michael Dorosh: The fallacy in your thinking is to assume the USA and Canada might have not prosecuted the war had Britain fallen....I never said that. I think they would have turned their attention to the Pacific. Given Hitler's ideological bent on destroying the USSR, it follows that Germany would have invaded the USSR, thus upping the ante for North America to band together in joint dfence and mobilization...And allowing the US and Canada to turn attention to the Pacific. And with Britain's capitulation, Japan would have been eager to grab its possessions overseas...Allowing Canada and the US to turn attention to the Pacific. The USA had made it very clear from the very beginning, warning Japan that the USA would not stand by and let Japan take over British possessions...Allowing Canada and the US to turn attention to the Pacific. So no matter how you look at the situation, the USA was heading towards war, while Canada was already in the struggle... [/qb]And would have no way of prosecuting a war against Germany after the fall of the UK, espeically since they would be, like the US, concentrating on war in the Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: You laugh at the number of Canadian fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain and you don't even know the number??? LOL So much for a knowledgeable discussion... LOL I don't recall laughing, but by all means, impress me with your googled numbers. How many RCAF squadrons flew in the Battle of Britain, and how many of those pilots were on strength with the RAF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: Michael Dorosh: LOL I am amazed at your thinking about how peaceful all the nations would have bcome once Britain fell... LOL Gee, if only Britain had fallen we would never have had a WORLD WAR... LOL What do you think the US and Canada could possibly have done in the autumn of 1940 with the United Kingdom under German control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Kelly's Heroes, If I may get something in between the laughing sessions you're having with Michael ... The United States did not go into an uproar of war mania when France fell to Germany. I don't think it would have been much different if Britain would also have fallen while the United States was still neutral. If the country were in the war when Britain was invaded then I agree it would have gone through great lengths to liberate the Island and resurrect it's ally, and the next on the agenda would no doubt have been France. But if the U. S. A. were neutral when the British Isles fell, the majority of people would have said it was Britain that declared war on Germany -- over some eastern European issue. And that would have been as far as it went. The United States prior to Pearl Harbor was going out of it's way to not get into any war on either of it's oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: Michael Dorosh: LOL I am amazed at your thinking about how peaceful all the nations would have bcome once Britain fell... LOL Gee, if only Britain had fallen we would never have had a WORLD WAR... LOL What do you think the US and Canada could possibly have done in the autumn of 1940 with the United Kingdom under German control? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Kelly's Heroes, If I may get something in between the laughing sessions you're having with Michael ... The United States did not go into an uproar of war mania when France fell to Germany. I don't think it would have been much different if Britain would also have fallen while the United States was still neutral. If the country were in the war when Britain was invaded then I agree it would have gone through great lengths to liberate the Island and resurrect it's ally, and the next on the agenda would no doubt have been France. But if the U. S. A. were neutral when the British Isles fell, the majority of people would have said it was Britain that declared war on Germany -- over some eastern European issue. And that would have been as far as it went. The United States prior to Pearl Harbor was going out of it's way to not get into any war on either of it's oceans. I was just trying to keep things light. If I recall Michael did the laughing first... The USA might have been neutral in name only, but make no mistake, the US was gearing up for war. Just look at the number of military personnel that were being mobilized in the years 1940, 1941... Not to mention the ships that were being built... Considering it was the USA that mainly equipped itself and all its allies with military equipment in WWII, it is no small stretch to consider the fact that the USA plus Canada, India, Australia, NZ, plus many more peoples (Mexico, as just one example)... would eventually have taken the fight to Europe. In North America there would have been the combined British and American fleets, not including the titanic shipbuilding that was under way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heroes Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Hmmmm.... All of this might make an interesting "what-if" scenario for SC2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes: As I mentioned previously, Hitler would have turned to invading the USSR.Yeah, I think I mentioned it once or twice also... Both Canada and the US would have built up their forces. D-Day would have come... not in 1940... not in 1941... but it would have come.From where? Teleportation? In the meantime, all freedom-loving peoples would have made their way to North America, to join in the soon-coming "Great Crusade"...How? Rubber dinghy? In the meantime, the Germans would have had their hands full fighting the USSR plus all the partisans that would have risen up throughout Europe...Like the tens of thousands of Dutch partisans who fought on the Russian Front? Oh, wait, they were fighting for the Germans... The USA had already mobilized 250,000 soldiers in 1940... And equipped them with wooden guns and cannons; I've seen the pictures... Really, your comments are drawn straight out of The History Channel and since you're showing no sign of independent, analytical thought, perhaps I'll take this as another reminder of why not to post in the SC forums. I simply objected to your rah rah Go Canada speech (still do, really). If you want to believe that Canada would have invaded the United Kingdom using Greenland as a staging base, go for it. I hope the game developers don't take that sort of nonsense seriously and draw their own conclusions. You still haven't answered the questions about "Canadian" pilots in the Battle of Britain, nor suggested a better source for understanding what King or the Canadian government might have done if Britain capitulated, but then again, I guess they don't show that on the History Channel either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts