@theROCmonster:
Please look it up Jen. When America was attacked our wartime economy kicked in. Our manufacturing capabilities rose over 33%. So how in the world is it more historically accurate to go against history? Oh and by the way America produced well over 100 aircraft carriers in WW2. Japan produced soemthing on the lines of 20.
You added in the women. Fine.
I am not comparing production levels. I don’t really care about them. What production capability did Germany get for taking Stalingrad? By the time they got it there was nothing left to USE for production capability. Right? So production capability has NOTHING to do with National Objective bonuses in Axis and Allies. National Objective bonuses are for achieving the mission objectives!
For instance: There is no bonus for Germany holding all German territories. (since there is one for America, this is my basis for the racism of the objective!). Why not? Because that did not matter to NAZI High Command, what they wanted was Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, London, etc!
For instance: There is no bonus for Japan holding all Japanese territories. (since there is one for America, this is my basis for the racism of the objective!). Why not? Because that did not matter to the EMPIRE, they wanted the DEI, to keep America out of the war, to take FIC.
For instance: There is no bonus for Russia holding all Russian territories. Since this is impossible anyway, it should be one! However, they get one for taking Neutrals…anyway…why? Spread of communism, NOT, I should point out, productivity!
For instance: There is no bonus for Italy holding all Italian territorie. (since there is one for America, this is my basis for the racism of the objective!). Why not? Because Italy wanted N. Africa, Egypt, S. Africa, the Middle East!
I have no established, by induction, that the national objectives have NOTHING to do with productivity at home. I don’t care what unemployment was, what mean income was, how many widgets were produced. It’s all not relevant to the discussion. What matters is that National Objectives, in Axis and Allies, relate SOLELY to achieving military success as defined by the historical govenments and to promote global war. That’s it. They have no bearing on anything else.
Therefore, I submit that Iwo Jima and Okinawa better fit this definition than Continental USA. Continental USA does not promote global war, it has nothing to do with historical mission objectives and therefore does not fit the definition of a National Objective, as defined in Axis and Allies. Would it have been a mission if, for instance, Oregon was invaded by the Japanese? Sure. THEN you would have a historical basis for this being a government mandated objective! Oregon was not invaded. (I think some bombs were dropped, but that’s not boots on the street!) Washington State was not invaded. The State of Alaska was not invaded! The State of Hawaii was not invaded! The District of Columbia was not invaded!
That’s all I am saying. NOs have a precedent for conquest or historical government mission objectives. The British and American ones are “one of these things is not like the others!” as they said in Sesame Street!
And since those only apply to Anglo-American countries, then I say they are racist. They dont apply to Russians, Germans, or anyone else!