Vote: Shouldnt Finland-Sweden tree be on axis side in ww2 era ground simulator battles?

[ Do you think Sweden-Finlands ww2 tanks I-III rank should be on axis side in ground simulator battles? ]
  • Yes, beacause Finland fought Soviet union from 1939-1940 in Winter war (with supply of germany and sweden etc.) and laiter in Continuation War from 1941-1944 fighting alongside axis powers with overall losses of both Finland and Soviet union exceeding milion lives so theres no reason for them to be on the same side with Soviet union. +in game rn there are vehicles of finland on both sides so its basically Finland vs Finland-Sweden.
  • No, because at the very end of ww2 Finland had minor skirmish aggainst Germany because of The Moscow Armistice which demanded that Finland break diplomatic ties with Germany and expel or disarm any German soldiers remaining in Finland - the Lapand war (15 September 1944 – 27 April 1945) with few tousands casualities.
  • They should be removed from simulators because Sweden was neutral.
0 voters

Sweden was neutral during the second world war and traded with both Axis and Allies and aided Finland in Winter War.
Meanwhile Finland fought Soviets in winter war and then in contiunation war. So that is 1 neutral and 1 basically axis with same enemys like germans even if not officially axis then finland fought alongside axis in 1941-1944. (*Also the simulators are pretty unbalanced on axis side when it comes to number of nations. )
image
image

  • rn there are basically finland vs finland because there are some tanks from finland in german tree
    image
    image

One might argue that after finland signed an armistice with Soviets it was aggainst Axis in Lapland
“War” but that was really just to expel germans from its territory than full scale war with goals and the expeling of germans was forced by soviet union. There were minor losses of few tousands in Lapland War (finland vs germany) that can hardly be compared to overall losses of both sides exeeding milion in Winter War (finland vs soviet union) and Contiunation war (finland + axis vs soviet union).
image

So in historicall sense it can only 1) be on axis side or 2) not be in simulators at all as current state does not make much sense.
As for me I think they should be aggainst Soviet union as army of Finland was given german equipment and supply (or used soviet captured one but that does not really make them on their side) at least to like III rd rank.


image
image

This is how it is rn :

image
image

And this is how it should be :

I bet Simo Häyhä would agree.
image

10 Likes

Because they are similar neighboring nations which share history and culture and just because one was allied with someone thru period of several years doesn’t mean as much since WT has much larger scope than that.

Who else would you like to see as FIN allied nation? Mongolia? Burkina faso? Hungary?

Does not matter much? How else do you designate who is on whose side I also said up to the 3rd rank at least. Winter War and contiunation war are the only conflicts that are big enough in time of warthunders ww2 vehicles to designate side in simulators there were no other conflict those two countrys were part of since then. Also jokes on your Hungary is in game.

1 Like

The only reason why is queue times.

If you were going by alt history alone, you would put Sweden in the Axis team. But we always have more Axis players queueing up for sim than Allies. They added Sweden to the Allies to try and balance it out.

then the same can be argued for the Soviet Union. At the start of WW2 they very much helped Germany to attack Poland and were on the Nazi side for about 2 years until They started attacking the Soviet Union and taking their land att which point the Soviet switched sides for the remaining years.

Most sense would be to have countries divided into their alliances based upon BR/year of the tanks being used. instead of having a set matching for every BR.

1 Like

Well there was no fighting against other allies from soviet side (and soviets still did fight japan around this time) it was pact of nonaggression aka not attacking each other with germany until operation barbarossa not really an alliance. Unlike finland that directly fought soviet union in winter war with hundreds of thousands casualties and used german equipment from germany and support from sweden and other north countries. So it is not the same at all.

4 Likes

well they could not attack allies since the allied forces did not exist until formed in 1942 and with USSR being one of the founders.
but they did invade Poland, the Baltics and Finland. and arguably Poland was later one of the allied countries.

and it was a bit more than a pact of non aggression. they sent supplies to each other and preemptively chose what countries would belong to whom before attacking them.

I dont really see more axis players in sim than allies especially at lower tiers I think its actually the opposite. I guess depends on timezone too. But still thats not really valid reason even if that was the case. What if I dunno they added australia (just example of clear allied side just other way around) and there were more allied players so they would put them on axis side just for the sake of “balance” of numbers of players. Thats not the most logical thing to do.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

sure, but the Russians didn’t know that though. So the Russians went into Poland thinking they were “allied” with Germany

i actually don’t know enough here to have any sort of valuable opinion.
BUT knowing after the fact what Germany actually did during and after that “preemptive strike” makes it seem very much like NOT a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is not ment to keep the land after the attack, only diminish the aggressors forces so that they are no longer a threat. That is not what Germany did. They very much could have, but they didn’t…

I dont really think German and Soviet relationship matters all that much in this conversation as they are already on opposide sides as they should be. Main point is that in ww2 only ones Finland actually had a war and bloody conflict with are Soviets while Sweden was trading with both sides (allies and axis) + helping Finland when in war with Soviets. So theres 0 historicall reason to be in same team as Soviets in sims. Nor it makes sense for balance reasons, because how many allies or axis players are there really just matters on time zone and BR.

1 Like

Bruh why are half of the messages flagged??

Apparently, debunking the notion that Germany was “saving Europe from an expansionist Russia” during WW2 was just too offensive a concept for someone.

5 Likes

You were saying that? Cant really tell. Btw you can just “unflag” it by editing and saving it again.

So you can. Wow, that’s easy to get around.

For any Gaijin moderators who happen to see this, I’d be happy to edit my reply to be less offensive if you would tell me what the offending part actually is. I’m just talking history here.

1 Like

Putting Sweden on the Axis side for WW2 might help balance things a bit.

1 Like

I think it flags automatically after certain number of people “flag” it. Tho point is having soviets and sweden/finland at the same side in sim is just nonsense. No matter the soviets vs germany war afterwards as only ones Finland really had full scale war with was Soviet union in winter war that completly throws any minor skirmishes late war with Germany out of the window.

1 Like

indeed, it would fix balance and history.

1 Like

Sweden can be put on either side but the real question is why can’t we completely customize the lineup?

What if I want USA vs everyone or everyone vs USSR, etc.

I am not a mod (which are players like you and me) but if your post was flagged it was for sure by regular forum members due to the mentioned cooperation of Germany & the USSR.

Everything suited to question USSR actions are not welcomed in this forum.


Regarding the rest of your post:

Not bad, but imho too much conclusions based on assumptions.

Fully aware that this getting flagged, therefore short & sweet:

  1. Imho you focus way too much on the MR pact. Of course the USSR had imperialistic intention to spread their ideology (as proven within the cold war). If a neutral person reads your overall post it looks like that the MR pact (and therefore the Germans) enabled them to focus on Finland or the Baltic states. I found not a single source confirming this view; maybe you can share them with us.

  2. Regarding claims that Poland was responsible for getting invaded: Imho the Polish government is not that innocent as it is described in biased history writing for getting attacked. If they had granted the access to Danzig, they could have avoided the hostilities. Most of the guys are not aware that Poland was a kind of pariah from the mid 1920s to the mid/end 1930s - and it was ruled by a military dictatorship. Their behavior in general (several wars with neighbours) and their treatment of minorities within their artificially created borders was a factor almost erased from the history.

  3. From a very holistic pov i agree that WW 2 was inevitable - but imho not only based on the Versailles treaty (borders, territory loss, reparations), it was also a fight regarding supremacy on the continent - like in several hundred years before.

  4. If you see the efforts of the UK and the US to create a global war - fighting the Germans was logical. I do not agree that a clash with the USSR was based on this “Lebensraum” or " Generalplan Ost" nonsense as shown in a previous post - it was simply a economic need as without oil, there is no economy. So with the RN blockade there were no oil imports from outside Europe possible. If you see famous US or UK historians like Citino, House or Roberts spreading myths based on German sources (Guderian etc.) based on ideology “Lebensraum” it is rather disappointing as they do usually neglect the fact that modern warfare was impossible without access to oil.

  5. You see the same effects on Japan with the US oil embargo in 1940.

  6. From a pure political and economic perspective the US and the USSR managed to take out the former superpower UK (bankrupt after WW 2) and prevented the Germans to become one. At least in theory the USSR and Germany are natural allies as their economies combined could have dominated the world in the last century. That’s why US foreign policy was always eager to avoid any possible alliances of those two countries.

  7. That 2 dictators like Hitler and Stalin fought a war was imho mainly ideologically motivated. And placing 150+ divisions near the borders to Germany based on fear of a German invasion is rather nonsense - the main reason of the early success of the Wehrmacht was a total lack of fortified defensive positions. The USSR general staff was fully aware of that the USSR is “unbeatable” just based on the vast distances and superior man power (including reservists) - the limitation of the Weimar republic to have just a 100k men army prevented to build up a pool of reservists. So this defensive claim is like the “total surprise” claim debunked since decades.

2 Likes