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.
2 Likes
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…
1 Like
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.
8 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.
2 Likes
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You see the same effects on Japan with the US oil embargo in 1940.
-
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.
-
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.
3 Likes
I think they shouldnt put any nations to the axis side. The lack of players on each side depends on Timezones and that GSB has this rotation lists. It also lacks of players bc of the fact that GSB get no “special” content.
If GSB would get more content like EC Battles with different objectives like in ASB and get rid of the rotation lists or make it so that everyone can play to anytime their fav brackets, then you would slowly see a growing on playerbase in GSB again and the brackets fill up with players.
But in the current state you only see the same players playing their brackets plus summer is here/near and people used to go outside over sitting at home playing WarThunder. Especially great games coming out too. So thats a bunch of reasons why playerbase is actual pretty low in GSB.
A different thing would be putting some nations to the soviet/chinese on the cold war era and high tier, bc there the queing times are double or x3 over the WW2 era.
1 Like
sweden was neutral.
finland was first on the axis side and then switched to the allied side.
the best solution would be to let the axis vehicles fight on the axis side and let the allied vehicles fight on the allied side. but unfortunately the tech trees were built for RB and not for Sim.
1 Like
Sure but Finland only really fought Soviets in full scale war while sweden and germany did supply Finland in this war. Does not make any sense to put Finland on side of Soviets no matter what for the I-III ranks sim battles. + there are already some tanks from Finland in german tech tree so the battle can basically be Finland in german tree vs Finland in swedish tree.
5 Likes
This was part of the secret protocols of the MR pact. Europe was effectively divided between the two powers, with the Germans declaring complete “political disinterest” with the regions of Eastern Poland, the Baltics and Besserabia. Look familiar? That’s also a list of the places the Soviets invaded after the MR pact was put into place. Finland is never explicitly mentioned AFAIK, but I presume it was simply a case of it being so obviously in the Soviet sphere there was no point making it clear.
Either way, the MR pact was the lynchpin that allowed the Soviets to freely invade their neighbours without immediate risk of Germany jumping them while they were busy.
This is very questionable. Hitler made his views on an independent Polish state very clear in 1930, stating that they (And the Czechs) were a “rabble not worth a penny more than the inhabitants of Sudan or India. How can they demand the rights of independent states?”
Even if we don’t take him at his word, you need only look over at the Sudetenland to see what happens when you give Nazi German the small territorial concession they want.
And while Danzig itself might be majority German and in favor of annexation, the overall Polish corridor was not.
And finally, as already mentioned above, the MR pact explicitly divided Poland between Germany and the Soviets. I doubt they’d simply blow off the Soviets so directly even if they did get Danzig.
Wars often have more than once cause. Yes, Germany Barbarossa’d for resources needed to fight the allies, but it wasn’t the only reason, or even arguably the main one. The MR pact (yet again) provided Germany with substantial raw materials from the Soviets in the form of trade deals. And this did include oil. Huge amounts of it. Attacking the Soviets hurt their oil income substantially, and that wouldn’t have evened out until they hit the Caucases.
No, the primary factor for attacking the Soviets was ideological. Hitler hated communists, and slavs, and most of all communist slavs. He also wanted to expand Germany, literally to make it bigger, and where better to expand than the vast, resource rich territories of Russia, whilst also eliminating one of his most hated rivals.
What does that have to do with anything? Stalin mobilized his troops because his closest territorial rival had just finished eating two European states and was eyeing up a third right on his border. The rather obvious conclusion being that the second Poland falls the Soviets would be squarely in the Nazi’s sights. Moving troops around serves two purposes, readiness in case the worst happens and deterrence to prevent said worst.
And the horrific losses the Soviets suffered during early Barbarossa had many causes, but I assure you a lack of bunkers was not one of them. Horrible doctrine, being filtered down through inexperienced officers, to underequipped troops, relying on horrific logistics that basically collapsed the second any strain was put on it, under complete German air dominance, accounts for most of it.
1 Like
Wdym are you still talking about simulator battles? Simulator sides are suposed to be based on who realistically fought who (in case of ww2) or who would teoretically fight who (in case of after ww2 and modern vehicles) + higher Br simulators are basically USSR+China vs everyone.
2 Likes
Sweden can be on both red and blue team in sim EC? Makes sense to me
6 Likes
@Aegis270 @Uncle_J_Wick guys thats cool and all talking about Barbarossa, Hitler ideas and German-Soviet relationship. But it does not really matter all that much in discussion about Finland. Finland simply has to be aggainst Soviets like said earlyer and Sweden did not really fight anyone.
Exactly. Sweden was basically on both sides while Finland only had full scale war with soviets (while having mainly german gear and swedish supply and every other game puts them on axis side).
2 Likes