C.a 200 Swedes fought for Germany. Way, way fewer than the allies, that number in the thousands.
One of the main reasons for Sweden intervening in Norway would be to keep the Soviets out.
More French from the division Charlemagne defended the Reichstag than flew in Normandie-Niémen
1 Like
Does not matter. Even if some 1000 fought directly for germany and 2000 for allies its nothing compare to those around 20 000 that fought for Finland durring ww2. And Finland was fighting aggainst soviets. So again no reason for them to be on side with Soviets.
4 Likes
We need to make a suggestion…
2 Likes
I mean this is not really suggesting any vehicles or new trees. Just a vote if people agree to switch side. Which majority do agree. So I dont see whats issue for the devs. Just put them on axis side. Why make another suggestion with vote and wait months to even be checked my mods to even appear on forum?
2 Likes
Finland was still an Axis partner. We say Turkey won WWII despite “fighting” in the last few weeks of the war. Finland spent more time aiding Germany and actively fighting the Allies (USSR was a part of the Allies). Should we excuse Romania and Hungary from being Axis members (they only fought Soviets, never on the Western Front)?
1 Like
10.000 fought for Finland. We don’t know exactly how many Swedes fought for the allies, but the number is likely in the same ballpark.
Anyways, ultimately Sweden did not fight for anyone and it’s a Swedish tech tree, not Finnish, and Sweden was and is a liberal democracy with strong allied leanings during WW2.
No, there were no official swedish allied corps so exact numbers are unknown but highest estimates for Swedes on allied side are around 3 000 ( and not all were actively fighting) with lowest estimates stating around the same as for germany 200-1000. Recruiting was disallowed for both sides so if they wanted to serve they had to travel outside of Sweden.
Allied side is not at all anywere near the known numbers what fought for Finland. In Swedish Volunteer Corps alone there were actively fighting almoust 10 k from previously volunteered 15 k. But that was not the only force fighting for Finland there was also Swedish Volunteer Company and there were also Swedes fighting other axis volunteer corps. Many Swedes fought even before ww2 in Finnish civil war. There was also Northern Army Corps under command of Archibald Douglas (which as also pro german with very strong anti soviet sentiment) of over 25 k that was on border with Finland in defence aggainst Soviets and Archibald was planing to go in Finland if Soviets reached too far in Finnish territory close to Sweden but ultimately didnt.
Swedes in winter war:
Swedes in continuation war:
Did not fight officially but the ammout of man fighting aggainst Soviets in volunteer armys is many times greater than any estimates for ones in allied service. And no its not just “Swedish tree” anymore its more of Nordic tree since there are Finnish, Norwegian and Danish vehicles all of which were on axis side in ww2 and Sweden as said multiple times had strong trade relations with Germany.
Can be democracy all it want but anti soviet sentiment and fear of soviet invasion was far greater than anything at the time. Just no reason for them to be on side with soviets even if you take Sweden by itself by its actions its still a lot more pro axis in sence of anti soviet. And with all its Nordic subtrees it is ultimately Axis with strong anti soviet sentiment which continued long after ww2.
1 Like
A partner of convenience. To retake territories lost after they got invaded by… Soviet Union.
This is like calling Soviet Union partner of Axis , because they agreed to split Eastern Europe and invaded Poland together.
2 Likes
Again no. Like I said further up. Its not the same at all. Soviets never fought alongside germany.
2 Likes
Whilst i agree with your general view on things i am not sure that all of the recent participants are on topic.
In every serious WW 2 war game Finland is paired in the Germans/Axis as this was for most of the war the a matter of fact. It doesn’t matter that Finland was forced to accept the USSR wish to expel the remaining forces in Q3 1944 - they got support by Germany as Sweden and the UK refused to help them (they were asked first).
Technically seen Sweden was neutral in WW2 - but when gaijin creates such combined trees they are mainly focused on sales and not about historical accuracy so discussing some support from Sweden towards Finland are distracting from the main issue:
WT lacks any kind of willingness to create something similar to immersion which is manifested by adding countless c+p vehicles or (like in this case) show zero interest in a kind of dynamic nation pairing which would allow a flexible allocation based on certain eras.
Your claim “only fought Soviets” is technically seen not correct - the Romanian and the Hungarian air force fought also US and RAF bombers and escort fighters attacking their countries.
But this does not change the fact that they were exclusively (Hungary) or at least until the coup d’etat in August 1944 (Romania) axis powers.
Whilst i share your general view on this topic you might consider the exchange the word "“Sowjets” with “the USSR” otherwise this your statement is technically seen not correct as the:
Vlasov Army
Ukrainian SS Division
were technically seen Sowjets.
The first due to the fact that they were mainly former Russian POWs and the second because the Ukrainian SSR was a quasi-state and co-signer of the USSR founding declaration.
Why are you mocking his words? Sowjet is how some nations spell Soviet.
Yeah, like
Hungary is as close to being a de jure member of the axis as you can point to any nation if you’re familiar with my country’s history.
It’s a pretty dark bit of history how eager Hungary was to participate in axis ideology until it seemed like Germany might lose, and only then were attempts at “Swing politics” implemented to have us lose in a light that showed us as victims rather than perpetrators beside Germany.
Now one can argue general populace versus the political elite there, but political elite at least was strongly tied with german politics for more than mere convenience if one studies the entire post-versailles to VE day period.
Romania I can’t comment about. All I know of it it in WW2 was that Horthy/Szálasi wanted to impress germany well enough to return Erdély and some change.
I am not mocking words. Look up the definition of the word “Soviet”" or Sowjet":
-
1917, “type of elective council forming a unit in a socialist government,” from Russian sovet “governing council,” literally “council,” from Old Russian suvetu “assembly,” from su “with” (from *su(n)- “with, together,” from PIE *ksun- “with”) + vetu “counsel.” The Slavic word is a loan-translation of Greek symboulion “council of advisers.”
-
As a noun, “citizen of the USSR,” by 1920. As an adjective from 1918, “of or pertaining to government by soviets;” by 1920 as “of or pertaining to the Soviet Union.”
I simply pointed out that his claim is not correct as there were actually Soviets fighting alongside Germany. I just added the first two standard examples for this.
His sentence would be fully correct if he had used the wording the USSR instead. And this with a narrow interpretation of the word “alongside” - in the broader sense the invasion of Eastern Poland can be seen as alongside as they fought the same nation: Poland.
Fully admitting that Hungary is far away of being my strength it seems to be a situation like in movies when a prisoner freshman has to decide which prison gang he will join (if he is allowed to have a choice) - who looks more suited to provide security with the least loss of autonomy.
Trapped between a superpower like the USSR and a growing superpower which had defeated the most respected army in Western Europe (France regarding combat- and manpower) in just 6 weeks with on average way inferior hardware (ground) and way less but somehow unbeatable (Pervitin) soldiers might not be the easiest decision.
I mean the Hungarian leaders were fully aware of that the declaration of war against Germany (by UK and France without helping Poland) will cut off the German oil supplies by the RN blockade so it was logical that Hitler had to attack the USSR (and mainly conquer their oilfields in the Caucasus) before they would be strong enough to attack him.
Have in mind that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was basically just an act of desperation (or a violent “all in”) as they had similar issues with the US oil embargo 1940 - so either they die slowly without having oil or they go “all in” with a surprise attack to destroy the backbone of the USN Pacific fleet and gain with that enough leverage to negotiate a peace deal. We learned that they failed too.
Just a small hint you might not be aware of: The US produced 80% of all oil before the outbreak of WW 2 - so without being able to move any kind of machinery (no matter of being for civil or military purpose) neither the Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan were able to survive. So their leaders had from their pov no real alternatives as they were fully aware that the will get outproduced by the US industrial might.
My apologies, I read your statement in a condescending tone.
1 Like
Yeah and there were also Americans fighting for Nazi Germany. Almost none. It’s meaningless and historically irrelevant.
Former citizens of the USSR who fought on the side of Germany cannot be called “Soviets”. They have given up their right to be a member of the Soviet people. In fact, these are people like Bandera, they are Nazis which cannot even be described as “human”, much less “Soviet”. People who fight against the Soviet Union cannot be considered it’s citizens, this is common sense.
U are free to express your opinion - but imho your logic expressed in your whole post has 2 essential flaws:
-
It renders any civil war participant fighting against against the official government to a non-citizen. Technically seen all violent revolutions like in the Russian Empire or in China are civil wars.
-
The pure fact that the USSR demanded that any soviet POWs in custody of Western Allies had to be transferred to the USSR (arguing that they were their citizens) makes your whole post useless.
This is on the semantic level, not relating to the strict actual definition. I’m sure you could have figured this out purely from context, but chose to write your reply in bad faith instead.
On a legal level, I doubt the USSR considered literal enemy combatants its citizens and not just foreign POWs when captured. Meaning in terms of protections. Traitors were executed.
There is a difference between actual knowledge and fact-free opinions.
You just provide clear evidence that you spread just fact-free opinions.
Look up the not communicated or published agreement made at the Yalta Conference regarding the repatriation of so called “displaced persons”- Stalin wanted those people explicitly and they (POWs and soviet citizens fighting the USSR) were treated as traitors without revoking their citizenship.
Look up Order No. 270 or just read this superficial summary on wikipedia:
Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war - Wikipedia
and find out that the pure fact that Soviet soldiers were captured made them automatically guilty of treason - and traitors.
I don’t care about you or your views as this is not my business - but if you spread just plain opinions in a public forum you have to accept that there might be a reply supported by facts which you may dislike.
I kindly ask you to stop dragging this thread further away from the actual topic. Thanks in advance!
What a great BS of all time.
Wikipedia is redacted by CIA - the first anticommunist machine on the entire planet. Goebbels said less lies than this cursed agency.
1 Like