Historical or Ahistorical give us both !!!

[Dalwin]

And please tell me how in the world would Stalin (real life or in game) know where the German troops actually are at? They might not be on the border province but just 2 provinces in. You have no clue. And what leader would make a decision like going to war and break your nonaggression pact (less than 2 months old) without knowing anything?

Once again this falls under the situation where you as a player knows what you've done but the AI has no clue you moved all your troops to France.

You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of historical nations level of military intelligence if you think the Soviets would have had no idea that the Germans had moved their entire army west. Fog of war in games is often an oversimplification, an easy mechanism to add some unknowns. Countries were never completely blind.

In fact, Stalin had good solid intel in the weeks prior to Barbarossa from both his own and British intelligence services warning him of the German buildup and that invasion was imminent. Stalin chose to ignore these warnings and hence his forces were caught disastrously by surprise.

 

[21oliver]

Jju your points are well taken but we must consider some other facts.

First of all you must avoid using common sense when discussing individuals like Stalin (or Hitler, Mussolini etc...), they often were rash, impulsive and flew in the face of common sense (hello purge...). Would the Soviets have full details? No. Would they know once Germany invaded the West? Im sure they did. Were they in contact constantly with the West? I simply dont know.

Hell Hitler never believed the West would go to war over Poland, he was wrong. The biggest mistake many make here is by interpreting the events of history as being the only possible outcome of a given situation. I dont think its unreasonable to give the Soviet Union a 1% monthly chance to break the M-R Pact, modified upwards if the Germans dont maintain enough troops on their borders. Now what does this do? First of all as Germany now you can no longer unrealistically exploit the game (I have attacked Netherlands/Belgium/Yugoslavia/Denmark/Norway all at the same time) as you are forced to constantly address a real threat to your game. In addition every so many games something new and interesting will toss your game into dissaray forcing you to scrap your plans and make major adjustments. Its fun, its different and it could have happened.

Just like there is a % chance the Czechs will fight, there should likewise be a chance the Allies dont fight over Poland. Maybe the deal with the Soviets scares them? Maybe they simply are still indecisive? Perhaps a small chance the Poles surrender Danzig? These are all real possibile alternatives to history, even if they are small % ones.

Adding a few dozen small % plausible situations would likely pop a few per game and keep the game interesting. We dont need any sandboxy things, just the typical ones that have been discussed over and over in history, and the % can stay small, its all thats needed to give the game a breath of fresh air.

 

[21oliver]

The Soviets not only knew of the German buildup on their border but there had been thousands, yes thousands of violation of Soviet airspace by German aircraft. Stalin was in a coma.... Which is why i dont retroactively give Stalin any credit like others due that he simply appeased Hitler to allow his nation time to re-arm. Stalin wasnt that solid a strategic long range thinker. Stalin was mad at the west because they wouldnt ally with him and welcomed allying with Hitler so he could 1) watch Germany and the west destroy each other and 2) He had made overatures and was in discussion for the Soviet Union to join the Axis, but HItler wouldnt have any part of it, unlike Italy who was basically the younger brother of Germany, doing what they were told, the Soviets allowed to run amok would ruin much of Hitlers plans.

 

[Ikarases]

And please tell me how in the world would Stalin (real life or in game) know where the German troops actually are at? They might not be on the border province but just 2 provinces in. You have no clue. And what leader would make a decision like going to war and break your nonaggression pact (less than 2 months old) without knowing anything?

Once again this falls under the situation where you as a player knows what you've done but the AI has no clue you moved all your troops to France.

Again, I'm not saying it would have to be as soon as Poland is split. Even if you had your head under a piece of divot, you'd possibly know that Low Countries and France are being attacked. It doesn't need a genius to figure out that the German invasion force Poland was taken with isn't as strong as it was in September.

This has been gone over a billion times. Without the nerfs German AI can't defeat France.

It can and it does. Look at HPP Germany. France invested rather heavily into ships rather than creating the picture of that incompetent nation which manufactures white flags. If that takes France surviving even as late as 1941, I'll take it. I've seen these games, where, although heavily bled, Germany used their hefty amount of experience and rolled over the Russkies in a 1942 Barbarossa. And I have no issues seeing this happen every now and then. In the end, nobody, who thinks out of the box a little and knows something about the WWII, should.

Yes because it was a smart date for Stalin to do it on. First off Stalin didn't know the start date as Hitler never gave that to the Russians. So it would take time to you know mobilize some troops. Second, Russia wanted to see how things progressed. What if Poland was winning? Would Stalin invade? And isn't it easier to invade against little or no defending troops? You as the ahistorical supporter needs to present a logical and coherent argument for why you think something would have happened differently.

HPP also has some delay with Russian invasion of Poland. I can't see why it wouldn't work in vanilla as well. If Soviets get frightened and don't act, because of UK guaranteeing Poland, Germany logically keeps eastern Poland.

I have history which did happen. But your argument is pure speculation.

You can have all the history you want and I agree all I do is guess, with a little insight into the matter. Why do you keep on playing a game in which you attempt to change history then?

And I guarantee you that no matter what you do, the game will always end up ahistorically. D-Day never happening, Warsaw liberated by British or Bitter Peace signed? But that's a change nobody cares for, as HoI isn't made to go further after that.

This issue isnt about surprise its about operating at something closer to reality. For example the UK although they dominated the skies and seas wouldnt leave the home isles totally empty, they wouldnt dare risk it. We might, because we have faith in gaming the system. We also know exactly when DOWs are going to happen, they didnt. They had to constantly prepare for it.

I agree with that. Building up my officer ratio in 1936 as Finland? Oh, please...

 

[Beagá]

You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of historical nations level of military intelligence if you think the Soviets would have had no idea that the Germans had moved their entire army west. Fog of war in games is often an oversimplification, an easy mechanism to add some unknowns. Countries were never completely blind.

In fact, Stalin had good solid intel in the weeks prior to Barbarossa from both his own and British intelligence services warning him of the German buildup and that invasion was imminent. Stalin chose to ignore these warnings and hence his forces were caught disastrously by surprise.

Truth be said, it´s not like he had many choices. The only real chance the soviets had of avoiding the onslaught in 1941 was attacking Germany, ideally when they were invading France. If there was any sign he would attack by 1941, germans would simply ignore Greece and Yugoslavia and do a preemptive strike. With similar, if not worse (for the russians), results.

Also, don´t underestimate the morale impact of being attacked instead of attacking, even for a country like Russia or US. After all, IIRC the brits also had intel of the japanese attack plan - yet did nothing. Did it cost some lives? Yes. Was it Worth it (at least if you were British or russian)? Certainly.

Finally the reason why Hitler did a war was because he was certain there wouldn´t be a two-front war - IMO the possibility of a russian backstab in 1940 wouldn´t be that far-fetched, but the problem would be what to do later regarding the game (events etc). Making Germany surrender in 1941 is certainly cool but then - what after?

 

[Dalwin]

Truth be said, it´s not like he had many choices. The only real chance the soviets had of avoiding the onslaught in 1941 was attacking Germany, ideally when they were invading France. If there was any sign he would attack by 1941, germans would simply ignore Greece and Yugoslavia and do a preemptive strike. With similar, if not worse (for the russians), results.

Also, don´t underestimate the morale impact of being attacked instead of attacking, even for a country like Russia or US. After all, IIRC the brits also had intel of the japanese attack plan - yet did nothing. Did it cost some lives? Yes. Was it Worth it (at least if you were British or russian)? Certainly.

I do not disagree with your statement about the strategic advantages of being attacked instead of being the aggressor, to a certain point. Would the Soviets have been able to pull off the same level of mobilization and industrialization if their backs had not been up agaisnt the wall? Likely not. They also would not have lost much of their most industrialized territories. Sure a lot of industry got moved westward, but nowhere near all of it.

The real trick is to be ready for war but manage to get the other guy to be the aggressor in spite of your readiness. Some would say that you might also avoid war by being ready for it, but it is hard to prove that philosophy.

Then again we are talking about nations making the optimal decision strategically while knowing full well that they often made suboptimal or even outright bad decisions historically.

 

[jju_57]

So many posts . I'll try to address most points in this post.

First Turkey. I admit I'm not that well read on why the SU never attacked Turkey. It can't be because Turkey was some superpower. There had to be deep political reasons that probably involved the UK. And I do know that most of the border between Turkey and SU had very little troops due to the mountains. So me moving my troops to attack say Bulgaria shouldn't result in SU DOW'ing me. There has to be a logical reason based on historical influences that were going on. But for randomness I would like to see SU attack Turkey once in a while because as player of SU I do that about half the time!

Vanilla HOI3 games do have soviet troops moving into Poland late September. It's rare because 99.9% of the time Poland has already given up. But in some games I left Poland to concentrate on the west first and I've seen SU invade Poland as long as the war lasted long enough and I made some advances.

As for SU attacking Germany in Fall 1939. First off in real life this requires supplies, plans, logistics, support troops and all kinds of other stuff. The planning itself might take 2-3 months. No matter how crazy Stalin might be it is unrealistic to invade Germany without some plans and the necessary supplies which weren't realistic in HOI3. So the whole assumption has a major hurdle to overcome.

So I'm the real world Stalin in September 1939. Poland falls. I have great spies and find out Germany moved ALL it's troops out of Poland to the west. Even if I wanted to do something I need a plan and the supplies to do it. That takes time. Germany defeats the West by November 1939 which is when my plans are ready. But now they start to move the troops back.

And let's not forget there was just a token force let in Poland in 1940. Why didn't Stalin do something then? After all he had to know France was next and the bulk of Germany forces would be fighting the Allies. So sorry but logic says there is zero chance for SU to attack Germany in 1939.

I agree the leaders were kinda nuts. Hell the entire Barbarossa plan was for the complete collapse of the SU armies in 1941 with no plan on what to do if that didn't happen. I'm sure some general must have brought it up at some point but as far as I can tell nothing was done about it. But the planning still took over 6 months and supply stockpiling took almost a year. And yes the Yugoslavia Greece thing caused a delay.

As for military intelligence that was way off for many parts of the war. Stalin would not know the German positions unless he conducted massive aerial recon flights which didn't happen. In the real world troops don't mass on a border. A single company or battalion is up front. Heck at Omaha on D-day for the most anticipated invasion in the world only had 4 companies of troops actually near the water.

So some forward companies or units and Stalin has to assume the rest are nearby.

 

[Dalwin]

Even if I were to agree with your assertion of there being zero chance of Stalin attacking in '39, or even if I were to, for the sake of argument, extend that assessment to 1940; it does not answer the most important aspect of what we are discussing.

All those arguments apply degrees of hindsight that the leaders of the period did not have. It is not important, after the fact, to say there was no way Stalin could have invaded. What is important is did Hitler have some degree of doubt or uncertainty as to what Stalin's intentions were and how far he could be trusted? I think the answer to this last question is that of course he did.

We, as players, lose that sense of uncertainty. Some of us think it is important.

 

[Ikarases]

So I'm the real world Stalin in September 1939. Poland falls. I have great spies and find out Germany moved ALL it's troops out of Poland to the west. Even if I wanted to do something I need a plan and the supplies to do it. That takes time. Germany defeats the West by November 1939 which is when my plans are ready. But now they start to move the troops back.

If you defeat the West by November 1939, then the balance is out of whack...? It's like you've been invading Poland and the West at once which I'm not sure Germany would be able to.

So sorry but logic says there is zero chance for SU to attack Germany in 1939.

I agree on that. Germany invading the West are, however, much better invasion conditions

 

[21oliver]

There had to be deep political reasons that probably involved the UK. And I do know that most of the border between Turkey and SU had very little troops due to the mountains. So me moving my troops to attack say Bulgaria shouldn't result in SU DOW'ing me. There has to be a logical reason based on historical influences that were going on.

The Soviets fought the Turks in the Crimean war in the 1850s and again in WW1, there was a long history of conflict and issues between the two nations add to that you have Stalin who was interested in land grabs and empire building. Now add to that all the Major powers embroiled on the Western Front in a major war and finally add to that Stalin realizes there arent any Turkish troops for thousands of miles off his border, Turkey whom by the way he knows at this point is far militarily behind his nation. Are we saying that there is a zero percent chance he couldnt have tried to grab at least some land? land he already coveted?

Dalwin pretty much hits the nail on the head. As with my earlier points none of us can say with 100% certainty that things couldnt have happened differently. I am not proposing every eventuality be covered but rather the most logical ones. Soviets attacking Germany early? sure i can see that happening. Soviets rolling into Turkey like above? Sure.

Many players get to caught up in what happened as opposed to what was plausible. The game is seriously missing the human element which is why i have been hammering away at some more random occurrences. The game already includes ahistorical plausible elements (Czechs fighting, random start date for Spanish Civil War, Nat Spain/Turkey able to join the Axis) so where is the reach all of a sudden that makes some more such a problem?

Another thing seriously lacking is the ability to have a ceasefire and transfer of territory. Perhaps in the above scenario The Soviets cross the Turkish border, and then stop or Turkey redeploys its troops. Is it inconceivable that there could be a ceasefire and ceding of territory like say Finland? Historically that happened all the time.

For all those who fight to to keep the game 100% historical, and then attempt to do things ahistorically (like play Germany and win) and then attribute it to their greatness at being more successful then historical leaders, be advised that the game is lacking in many areas that will ever keep it from being truly historical. Too many elements simply arent included, some for obvious reasons others not so. Another thing i simply cannot fathom the more i read is how people continuosly feel the need to game the system, when the game is far too easy as it is. I usually stop in 41 or 42 because the game has already been decided, and i often let the AI handle my combat to help even things out. People really enjoy playing the same scripted game over and over and over and feel the need to game the system as well? Its like me playing basketball against a 5 year old AND making him be blindfolded and tie one hand behind his back, and then celebrating when i win?

I want to be able to sit down and play a game where i have to think. Where i know if im not on my game, the game will make me pay for it. Where there is actually a chance at losing. We can discuss the AI and MP and all the other issues, but at least the game can be more interesting. My usual routiine is buy the game. Love it for a month, bitch about all its faults after that and then not play for 6 months. Id like to change this trend.

 

[jju_57]

The Soviets fought the Turks in the Crimean war in the 1850s and again in WW1, there was a long history of conflict and issues between the two nations add to that you have Stalin who was interested in land grabs and empire building. Now add to that all the Major powers embroiled on the Western Front in a major war and finally add to that Stalin realizes there arent any Turkish troops for thousands of miles off his border, Turkey whom by the way he knows at this point is far militarily behind his nation. Are we saying that there is a zero percent chance he couldnt have tried to grab at least some land? land he already coveted?

My question was why didn't Stalin do this? It really can't be because they had a couple of run down divisions there. So there had to be another reason Stalin didn't do this in real life. My knowledge in this area is limited but I hope to expand it as I'm intrigued to know what really stopped Stalin from attacking Turkey.

 

[21oliver]

More then likely, like Hitler he simply got distracted and got his attention diverted to other issues. As the war began Stalin was just getting his shit together, reorganizing the Military, Improving the Industry etc... he had no grand plan in place nor was he ready to act on it. He wasnt as far along as Hitler nor as focused. He more or less took advantage of the results of the war. He would have gotten around to it eventually. Early on there was a fear of Germany, and no desire to go to war with the west as well, so Stalin didnt really expand much. Later on probably he didnt want to go to war with the UK. Churchill did make a secret agreement with Stalin (which pissed FDR off when he found out) i dont recall Turkey being a part of it however, I remember Greece/Bulgaria/Romania/Yugoslavia etc being involved.

Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to what nations or leaders do. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan in the 80s? What could they possibly want with that nation of rocks? Why do India and Pakistan continue to fight over Kashmir? They have so many issues dealing with their own nations why bother when its of little value?

Sometimes its greed or religion (as in the Kashmir case), sometimes its who knows?

 

[Pansloven]

Its not like Stalin was nuts about Trabzon or Erzerum or any of undeveloped parts of Tukrey, which were densly populated by the population which would oppose him every step of the way. The Russians only ever wanted Constantinople and full control of the Black Sea (obviously they first had to gain control over the eastern Balkans at least). Having said that during the prewar period Germany invested lots of capital and political influence in controlling the Balkans which were an essential part of invading southern Russia and also a possible route to the Middle East. Germany worked hard to attract Turkey to join the Axis like it did in the previous war, however Ataturk neutrality legacy was very strong, luckily for Turkey. If Stalin had invaded Turkey he would have just been bogged down without having any special benefits, plus he could have been reasonably sure that the Turks would remain neutral, i mean if he gambled that the Japanese would not strike him from behind, Turkey was a sure bet compared to that.

 

[Dalwin]

My question was why didn't Stalin do this? It really can't be because they had a couple of run down divisions there. So there had to be another reason Stalin didn't do this in real life. My knowledge in this area is limited but I hope to expand it as I'm intrigued to know what really stopped Stalin from attacking Turkey.

This is just my opinion, of course, but here is my assessment of why Stalin did not invade Turkey.

1.) They did not have much that he wanted in the short term, other than the Bosporus controlling access between the Black and Mediteranean Seas.

2.) They did not lead to him reaching things he wanted, i.e. what is gained by getting to the Allies in the MidEast or the Balkans to which he already has easier access routes.

3.) The terrain and logistics made them not worth the effort.

4.) Hitler didn't give him time to get around to it.

Could things have happened differently so that a war between the Su and the Turks took place? I don't think that is a far fetched hypothesis at all, especially once the game takes us off the historical rails.

 

[jju_57]

This is just my opinion, of course, but here is my assessment of why Stalin did not invade Turkey.

1.) They did not have much that he wanted in the short term, other than the Bosporus controlling access between the Black and Mediteranean Seas.

2.) They did not lead to him reaching things he wanted, i.e. what is gained by getting to the Allies in the MidEast or the Balkans to which he already has easier access routes.

3.) The terrain and logistics made them not worth the effort.

4.) Hitler didn't give him time to get around to it.

Could things have happened differently so that a war between the Su and the Turks took place? I don't think that is a far fetched hypothesis at all, especially once the game takes us off the historical rails.

I've been doing some research and your 4 points are some of the reasons why Stalin didn't do it. Basically the costs outweighed any real benefit and it would be logistical hell going over those mountains.

So that brings us back to the assumption that if Turkey moved its troops off the border and say attacked some country that Stalin would then DOW Turkey. First off I think we can 100% rule out Stalin attacking Turkey if Turkey went to war against the Axis (say attacking Bulgaria in 1941). So I think the only situation that politically supports a DOW against Turkey is if Turkey DOW'd the Allies or maybe neutral Iraq. So this itself logically limits what Turkey can do to even allow Stalin to attack Turkey.

But as you pointed out there are real reasons that have nothing to do with having no troops on the border as to why Stalin would not DOW Turkey. Bottom line is it wasn't worth it to them. So to claim that this should be a higher probability simply because Turkey moved its troops around is illogical.

 

[21oliver]

Unfortunately i think it didnt happen simply because it didnt happen. I dont think logical came into play with people like Hitler and Stalin. I think if given the chance they both would have conquered everything they could. Stalin got started later then Hitler, the Allies were already involved and in force. Then he started co-operating with the Allies. I think later on it was likely not wanting to come into conflict with the Allies more then anything. To say Turkey had nothing of value i think is a simplification. Providing the Soviet Union with naval bases in the Med i think would have been of tremendous value. When the Soviets and Germans were discussing Soviet entry into the axis the Germans were trying to steer Stalin towards India, but he wanted the Middle East, Hitler wanted no part of that.

I try never to use the terms logic with these people. Remember we are discussing possibilities. Turkey wasnt Axis at the time, in fact they were sort of split in both directions. I think that any nation that leaves its self totally undefended vs Hitler or Stalin would have something to fear.

I think it likely that because Stalin was late in preperation and didnt actually get aggressive (discounting Finland and Poland) until after Barbarossa, in which case he needed Ally help, the lack of a move against Turkey was so as to not provoke the Allies. But if our game turns in some unusual way, who is to say no? I still think nations such as Turkey be required to defend their borders (Canada maybe not so much, but Turkey? yes too many enemies).

 

[Pansloven]

Unfortunately i think it didnt happen simply because it didnt happen. I dont think logical came into play with people like Hitler and Stalin. I think if given the chance they both would have conquered everything they could. Stalin got started later then Hitler, the Allies were already involved and in force. Then he started co-operating with the Allies. I think later on it was likely not wanting to come into conflict with the Allies more then anything. To say Turkey had nothing of value i think is a simplification. Providing the Soviet Union with naval bases in the Med i think would have been of tremendous value. When the Soviets and Germans were discussing Soviet entry into the axis the Germans were trying to steer Stalin towards India, but he wanted the Middle East, Hitler wanted no part of that.

I try never to use the terms logic with these people. Remember we are discussing possibilities. Turkey wasnt Axis at the time, in fact they were sort of split in both directions. I think that any nation that leaves its self totally undefended vs Hitler or Stalin would have something to fear.

I think it likely that because Stalin was late in preperation and didnt actually get aggressive (discounting Finland and Poland) until after Barbarossa, in which case he needed Ally help, the lack of a move against Turkey was so as to not provoke the Allies. But if our game turns in some unusual way, who is to say no? I still think nations such as Turkey be required to defend their borders (Canada maybe not so much, but Turkey? yes too many enemies).

I wholeheartedly agree with your point that the AI should change its strategies if a player changes theirs. And yes gamewise, if Turkey declares war on one of its neighbors that it would be rational for the AI controlling the SU to roll the dice and maybe stage an invasion. On the side note your historical comments are way oversimplified and you don't need that to stress your already good point regarding the game. I assure you that there were no credible plans of invading neutral Turkey by the SU. The whole dynamic between the Allies (SU being a part of the Allies) was the desire of Churchill to preserve the British empire, and Stalin to expand the Soviet empire (at least after the Tehran conference when it was realistic that Germany would lose the war). Turkey's neutrality was vital for both of those interests, it would have been clearly insane for Stalin to ponder invading it.

 

[21oliver]

Your essentially making my point.

There were no plans in place for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini etc... until such time as they decided to do so. There doesnt have to be a grand scheme of things here. If Stalin realizes there are no Turkish troops for a 1000 miles and all he has to do is send some 60 yr old infantry men and walk across the border perhaps he does... It depends on how the game is going. I made the point where i agree about the balance between the UK and the Soviets. But supposing in our game, the Soviets are never really at risk from the Germans and simply do not need Allied assistance, suppose the UK is on their last legs with not much fight in them... Now the situation might look much different to Stalin....

The chance should be there, based and modified by the circumstances as the present themselves. We cannot simply ignore possibilities because it makes sense to us.

Turkey's neutrality was vital for both of those interests, it would have been clearly insane for Stalin to ponder invading it.

Why? The Uk wouldnt have been able to take on the Soviets at that point, and the Allies needed the Soviets against the Germans. Suppose there was a threat of a ceasefire between the Germans and Soviets? And Stalin clearly was insane...

 

[Pansloven]

Obviously there couldn't have been a grand strategy plan when Hitler was the one dictating the tempo of events, and his decisions were in many respects clearly unpredictable. On the other hand Stalin proved that he had enough reason to listen to his advisors when it came to the defense of the SU. That's when he abandoned the communist propaganda and went full on patriotic. But as the ending of the war drew closer the communist hardliners regained their former influence and convinced Stalin to go along with Churchill mostly against Roosevelt, while trying to plant the seed of mistrust between them. You see the orthodox marxists clearly believed that getting eastern Europe was enough for the SU to get the resources, manpower and the IC to create an empire, while the capitalist countries would implode from within. What they didn't count on was that most European countries would go all social-democratic and simply buy-off the discontent working class . Stalin was not insane he was a product of the times he lived in. Paranoia was essential for the communist regime to survive because it was never accepted by the majority of the population, there was a real and constant threat of the reaction as they called it. Its not moral, or good by any means but clearly the communist agenda could not have prospered without totalitarianism and Stalin was a good man for that awful job.

 

[21oliver]

I personally think Stalin had a white jacket in the nut house with his name on it. I dont give him as much credit as say Lenin, i think things worked out for stalin as much be the circumstances and how they unfolded. And the question of whether or not nations should or should not invade each other should come down to the circumstances and how they play out. Perhaps in history the opportunity simply didnt present itself at that time to take this course of action, perhaps in one of our games (as i pointed out) the circumstances may dictate otherwise.

Remember also that Diplomacy is seriously lacking in the game, there are no real ongoing negotiations between nations, no threats made, counter threats, offers etc... we dont have the ability to really take advantage of all that.

My points are simple.

1) Stalin wasnt the most sane person in the world.
2) Nor the most trustworthy.
3) He wanted an empire.
4) The Soviets had a history of conflict with the Turks.
5) Stalin was interested in the middle east, turkey not only would help guard that flank but provide a mediteranean port.
6) Stalin clearly had animosity to the West so its likely if the circumstances were favorable he might be inclined to fight them.

Game issues;
7) IF Turkey appears undefended
8) IF the war is going well enough on all fronts that the Soviet Union is in no real danger
9) IF the allies appear weak and unable to resist his move into Turkey

Then and only then there would be a small (10%) chance he jumps in. Then you could modify that (10%) down or up depending on a variety of issues.

I cant say with 100% surety that i know for a fact there were absolutely no conditions where as Stalin would have invaded Turkey. If someone else can your special, so please give me the upcoming lotto numbers!

Even if it is considered a reach by some, i can at least make an argument for it based on the evidence at hand, as opposed to say justifying Albania conquering the world with Militia.... IMO its no more of a stretch then Nat Spain or Turkey joining the Axis which the game allows.

We need some variety, as long as its plausible im all for it. The Czechs didnt fight, but when that decision fires i dont feel like PI destroyed history, its definitely plausible, and as it should be its a small (10%) chance of occurrence.