The alt-history scenarios in this game are fantasy scenarios, where is the actual alt-history

[Zauberelefant]

What is a "wehraboo" ? Do understand the frustration. Not worth it when it is no longer enjoyable.

A pun on "Weaboo", people deeply infatuated with Japanese pop culture, eg animé.
"Wehraboo" extends that notion to German WW2 forces, like "king tiger best Panzer ever!!!1!"

 

[1 Star General]

I meant that the expansion policy of 1931 onwards would bring anyone with half a brain to the conclusion that at some point, the US will resort to these "provocations" and then, going to war with the US is on the table.
Like, if Tojo and his fellows would have thought through their ideas, they probably would have gone northern expansion, because who gives a damn about the USSR, right?

I think they've thought it through quite deeply. You actually see a lot of these opinions about Japan making a mistake by not focusing on the Northern expansion, but there are 2 major problems with that line of thinking:

1. Japan's elites were profoundly shocked by Germany, signing non aggression pact with the Soviet Union in 1939. The vision they had of alliance with Hitler against Stalin kinda evaporated (they did not have a crystal ball to see what will eventually happen and weren't privy to Hitler's strategic deliberations, they've learnt of preparations for Barbarossa relatively late). Moreover, they were already tied in a massive continental land war in China, with no end in sight. Meanwhile they see juicy and resource rich possessions of crumbling European empires to the South, looking like easy pickings (and as 1941-42 Japanese campaign proved - they were). Moreover, they see closing the supply routes to China from the south, rightfully, as a key to forcing the Chinese into submission and ending that draining war. All the arrows pointed South. Yes, the problem remained the US, but it was becoming increasingly clear in the preceding decades, as early as American mediation in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, that there is no way the US will ever accept a real great Japanese empire in East Asia. The Japanese elites realized that, hence they considered the conflict inevitable anyway.

2. Assuming the Japanese went along with the Northern Strategy - what were they to gain really? Yes, Mongolia and Siberia are resource rich, but most of these resources were not found yet at the time and these areas were underdeveloped, with barely any infrastructure. I hear ppl saying sometimes that Japanese were stupid, they should've finish the Soviets with the Germans before planning anything else. But with what (army tied in China) and for what (millions of square km of siberian forests)? Looking at this from their perspective, taking out the Soviet Union would be great, as it was considered a mortal enemy, but would not really solve any significant problems (except of Soviet threat - in case of German soviet war nonexistent threat anyway). And splitting the SU with the Germans would leave the other party with all the juicy industry and population centers, while the Japanese would just get taiga. The crucial resources that would allow them to build a truly self sustaining empire were in the South.

 

[kettyo]

I appreciate the compliment and will get to the argument itself shortly. First, to those who are commonly on these forums it's probably apparent that I've stepped away for a while, and I probably will do so again after this post. While I genuinely enjoyed the discussions I've had here, it just got exhausting between the tankies, wehraboos, and assorted moteley crew. Too many times I would spend hours tracking down sources and piecing together a detailed defense/attack of a particular position, only to have the other poster completely ignore/disregard everything I said in favor of some simplistic narrative. Some posts on this thread are a perfect example of this sort of thinking. That, RL pressures, and my diminishing interest in the game all gave me a great excuse to step away. All that to say that I probably won't be substantively involved after this post.

Those are the types of people who aren't really interested in your or anyone else's opinions because just....let be frank....they might lack the intelligence to be receptive and have an additive thinking...or it's kind of an identity thing to them.

But it doesn't really matter as a lot of people read these discussions and they can still benefit from your thoughts even if the immediate person you're answering to ignores it completely for said reasons.

E.g. i remember how some explanations of yours have inspired me to rethink some things, read after them and reevaluate my opinions. That's why i have mentioned you.

And of course fully appreciate your answer and respect your decision to step back a bit.

Also i'm glad i'm not alone with my opinion that leaving the Dunkerque pocket contained by the Germans and moving on to defeat France was more like a sound tactical decision than the mythical strategic gesture towards the British.

As far as i know the French resistance against Fall Rot turned out to be much more fierce than generally expected so in hindsight this also justifies the German decision. And that's even without the second BEF being a meaningful addition.

 

[kettyo]

Problem is the Philippines. Whatever resources Japan gained South of PI, would have their routes potentially open to attacks if the enemy was operating from the Philippines. Too big of a risk to gamble like that.

Sure it's a big risk but actually striking them was also a huge risk. They had a big luck and got away without a counterstrike at Pearl Harbour but it wasn't at all guaranteed it will play out so. And we don't even talk about the longer-term risks of being at war with the USA.

After Khalkhin Gol, Japan realized their forces were out armored out industrialized vs the Soviets. And the Soviets never stripped the Far Eastern forces enough to make it a viable choice. Taking the Northern approach would have required a decision in the early 30;s were more resources went to the Army instead of the Navy.

I've talked about an alternative timeline where the Russians are forced to redeploy most of their reserve troops in the East to the West to counter Germany. I'm not fully sure Japan attacked in this case but i see a possibility for that.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

I've talked about an alternative timeline where the Russians are forced to redeploy most of their reserve troops in the East to the West to counter Germany. I'm not fully sure Japan attacked in this case but i see a possibility for that.

Why would the Soviets ever strip forces from the Far East and leave themselves vulnerable to Japan? Even against Germany, when their survival was in doubt, they left sufficient forces in the Far East.

 

[coffeelingfine]

I appreciate the compliment and will get to the argument itself shortly. First, to those who are commonly on these forums it's probably apparent that I've stepped away for a while, and I probably will do so again after this post. While I genuinely enjoyed the discussions I've had here, it just got exhausting between the tankies, wehraboos, and assorted moteley crew. Too many times I would spend hours tracking down sources and piecing together a detailed defense/attack of a particular position, only to have the other poster completely ignore/disregard everything I said in favor of some simplistic narrative. Some posts on this thread are a perfect example of this sort of thinking. That, RL pressures, and my diminishing interest in the game all gave me a great excuse to step away. All that to say that I probably won't be substantively involved after this post.

Just wanted to say that you're one of my favorite users here. Always enjoy your posts

 

[Fulmen]

Those are the types of people who aren't really interested in your or anyone else's opinions because just....let be frank....they might lack the intelligence to be receptive and have an additive thinking...or it's kind of an identity thing to them.

Intelligence and/or lack of knowledge (wisdom). Usually they're kids in their teens or early twenties; people who haven't had the interest to expose themselves to enough information to become pragmatic and learn to question and analyze what they read or hear. Usually that kind of naïvity goes away with age. Usually.

 

[kettyo]

Why would the Soviets ever strip forces from the Far East and leave themselves vulnerable to Japan? Even against Germany, when their survival was in doubt, they left sufficient forces in the Far East.

We're talking about a scenario where the Germans are even more successful than in reality, let's say they take the Mocow region and the Caucasus and another push towards the industrial center behind the Urals is imminent. In this case you don't care about the Japanese threat as the Russians as your very existence is threatened by the Germans. You have no choice, basically.

 

[kettyo]

Intelligence and/or lack of knowledge (wisdom). Usually they're kids in their teens or early twenties; people who haven't had the interest to expose themselves to enough information to become pragmatic and learn to question and analyze what they read or hear. Usually that kind of naïvity goes away with age. Usually.

Practically they lock themselves away from improving their understanding of things and their knowledge by just assuming they're always right no matter what

I'm not quite sure if it's fully age related. I think it's more like mentality related although mentality can change with age of course but i know tons of older people who are exactly like this. Some of them aren't even unintelligent just too fanatically believe in something which blocks them from improvement.

 

[Crecer13]

Why would the Soviets ever strip forces from the Far East and leave themselves vulnerable to Japan? Even against Germany, when their survival was in doubt, they left sufficient forces in the Far East.

Absolutely. Let's look at the official numbers:
06/22/1941: 703,714 people, with 10,080 guns and mortars (50-mm mortars are not counted), 3188 tanks and self-propelled guns (All light tanks; there were 132 SPG only on May 9, 1945), 4,140 combat aircraft, 94 ships (Warships of the main classes).
12/01/1941: 1,343,307 people, with 8,777 guns and mortars, 2,124 tanks and self-propelled guns, 3,193 combat aircraft, 96 ships.
07/01/1942: 1,440,012 people, with 11,759 guns and mortars, 2,589 tanks and self-propelled guns, 3,178 combat aircraft, 107 ships.
11/19/1942: 1,296,822 people, with 12,728 guns and mortars, 2,526 tanks and self-propelled guns, 3,357 combat aircraft, 98 ships.
07/01/1943: 1,156,961 people, with 13,843 guns and mortars, 2,367 tanks and self-propelled guns, 3,949 combat aircraft, 101 ships.
01/01/1944: 1,102,991 people, with 16,827 guns and mortars, 2,009 tanks and self-propelled guns, 4,006 combat aircraft, 102 ships.
05/09/1945: 1,185,058 people, with 20,695 guns and mortars, 2,338 tanks and self-propelled guns, 4,314 combat aircraft, 93 ships.

The Far East was seriously fortified, the experience of June 22, 1941 was seriously taken into account here. In the USSR, they were not stupid and always seriously counted on the threat from Japan.
But all the same the main reason why Japan did not move to the USSR was the Fighting on Khalkhin Gol. While in the USSR it was considered a local border conflict, Japan considered it a serious conflict at the level of the Russo-Japanese War.

 

[kettyo]

Back to topic in game terms i think a negotiated peace could be possible if let's say Germany reinstalls an unaligned Poland with neutrality spirit without Danzig and reinstalls an unaligned Czechoslovakia with neutrality spirit without the Sudeten and Southern Slovakia. Maybe the Allies transfer some old German colonies back too.

Agreeing to this would remove much of the tension Germany has generated to reflect the change in Allied attitude and reopening the possibility of trade.

Something should be done about the Soviet Union not attacking the reinstalled Poland the first thing of course.

That's something the Allies might have considered realistically i think. I'm fairly certain it didn't work in reality and also that most German players wouldn't opt for it but the option being there couldn't hurt, maybe as a decision. Yes, only if Churchill is not in power

 

[Voigt]

If Japan attacks Soviet Union this is a even bigger gamble then strike south I would think.

Like already said in this thread there wasn't much to gain for Japan in Siberia, and they already binded lots of soviet divisions in the far east without beeing in a state of war.

So even if an Japanese attack burdens the Soviet suffiently, so then Germany defeats the Soviet Union, and Japan take some Taiga, then Japan needs to gamble on Hitlers Psyche.
It would only worth it for Japan, if Hitler continjes the war with the Allies now with full force, so that now a strike south with the Allies even more occupied by Germany can give even less resistance.

If Hitler instead signs like a peace of honour with UK, or mostly just does a "Sitzkrieg"/Phoney War with them, then Japan really does't have gained much. If they guard all of the TransSib against Soviet Partisans, they could maybe trade with the Axis and get raw materials and Oil from them, aslong as Japan has something to offer in return for trade.
But to get a railway line up to the needed cargo capacity, this would probably take several years of improving the transsib further with lots and lots of trains and waggons build.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Back to topic in game terms i think a negotiated peace could be possible if let's say Germany reinstalls an unaligned Poland with neutrality spirit without Danzig and reinstalls an unaligned Czechoslovakia with neutrality spirit without the Sudeten and Southern Slovakia. Maybe the Allies transfer some old German colonies back too.

Agreeing to this would remove much of the tension Germany has generated to reflect the change in Allied attitude and reopening the possibility of trade.

Something should be done about the Soviet Union not attacking the reinstalled Poland the first thing of course.

That's something the Allies might have considered realistically i think. I'm fairly certain it didn't work in reality and also that most German players wouldn't opt for it but the option being there couldn't hurt, maybe as a decision. Yes, only if Churchill is not in power

What about the soviet occupied poland?

And why should Hitler actually do that? His long term goal was "Lebensraum", so tolerating poland was out of the Question.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I personally like all of the alt-history things. Sure, its unrealistic but this isn't a full-on simulator either. You really don't want a full-on simulator. Never go full-on simulator.

If I wanted to play historical, I can always do so. The option of having the alt-history paths there doesn't take away from it. It only adds on to the experience of the game and adds life to it. Instead of a 200 hour game experiencing the realistic side of Hoi4, you can spend another 200 on facist england, another 200 on Communist england and another 200 on monarchy england. It gives you more bang for your buck instead of becoming a game that is shelved after X amount of hours.

I have no issue with any of the alt-history paths because it doesn't affect me if I don't want it to. There is the historical AI focuses box so now its up to me to choose correctly.

Not that I ever play historically as I can only do X amount of those before I am so bored due to knowing whats going to happen.

Is alot of unplausible? Well sure. Alt-history is implausible period because it didn't happen. If it was going to happen, it was going to happen. Making an arguement for why it -could- have happened is irrelevant. It's implausible regardless. Sorry. Germany could have never actually beaten the USSR. Even if they defeated England and France, they could have never defeated the USSR. USSR would have been absolutely massacred in their population, but they wouldn't have surrendered. Eventually, man for man, USSR would have defeated the Nazis who were having equipment problems.

Even if Italy was more competent, I still don't see USSR losing... and this is coming from someone who loves to play Italy and Germany in thsi game. I recognize that its implausible, but that's what makes it fun.

Alt-history paths do not affect the historical side of the game unless you let it.

 

[Fulmen]

What about the soviet occupied poland?

And why should Hitler actually do that? His long term goal was "Lebensraum", so tolerating poland was out of the Question.

I've covered this in greater detail in other threads before, but in the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations, the Germans originally offered that a neutral rump Poland be maintained, roughly corresponding to the area of what became the General Governorate. It was specifically the Russians who shot that idea down; they wanted the Polish state wiped off the map of Europe.

In the early-to-mid 1930s Hitler also tried to ally the Poles against the Russians.

Now, the rump of a formerly hostile Poland would've likely still been swallowed up by the Reich come Barbarossa, but if things had gone different with the Poles, i.e. German-Polish alliance against Russia, it's not inconceivable they could've had a place in Hitler's New World Order, albeit largely as a client state of Germany, especially if the latter actually won the war.

Of course the Poles choosing to ally the Germans in the 1930s is nothing short of pure fantasy, but the point here is the liquidation of Poland as Nazi policy was not set in stone.

 

[1 Star General]

I've covered this in greater detail in other threads before, but in the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations, the Germans originally offered that a neutral rump Poland be maintained, roughly corresponding to the area of what became the General Governorate. It was specifically the Russians who shot that idea down; they wanted the Polish state wiped off the map of Europe.

In the early-to-mid 1930s Hitler also tried to ally the Poles against the Russians.

Now, the rump of a formerly hostile Poland would've likely still been swallowed up by the Reich come Barbarossa, but if things had gone different with the Poles, i.e. German-Polish alliance against Russia, it's not inconceivable they could've had a place in Hitler's New World Order, albeit largely as a client state of Germany, especially if the latter actually won the war.

Of course the Poles choosing to ally the Germans in the 1930s is nothing short of pure fantasy, but the point here is the liquidation of Poland as Nazi policy was not set in stone.

Indeed, Poland, which had a sizeable army, experience of fighting in the East and defeated the Soviet Union in 1919-1921 war, was actually highly desired as an ally by Hitler and he went to great lengths to get Warsaw on his side (work on that intensified after Munich, the last proposals were issued in January - February 1939). The decision too wipe the Poles out was made only after British guarantees in April and Polish FM speech in Polish parliament in May 1939, when he made clear there's gonna be no agreement with Berlin.

 

[kettyo]

What about the soviet occupied poland?

That is a difficult question indeed. Maybe no way for the decision if the MR-pact is done?

And why should Hitler actually do that? His long term goal was "Lebensraum", so tolerating poland was out of the Question.

I don't think Hitler would have done it but we're talking about a realistic separate peace scenario here and some German players might do it for role playing reasons.

 

[Zauberelefant]

That is a difficult question indeed. Maybe no way for the decision if the MR-pact is done?




I don't think Hitler would have done it but we're talking about a realistic separate peace scenario here and some German players might do it for role playing reasons.

If you're role playing Hitler, then you should not be able to whitewash him. Have him killed/imprisoned/whatever, but as long as he rules the Reich, his behaviour must be historical, imho.

There are enough "Hitler wanted peace" lies around already. Don't want that in my games.

 

[GrounchoVilla]

It's a portmanteau of "wehrmacht" and "weeaboo". A weeabo is a Japanese pop culture fan (usually American) who believes Japanese things are the best things in the whole world simply because they are Japanese. A wehraboo is a WWII-era German army fan (usually American) who believes WWII-era German army stuff (soldiers, tanks, planes, guns, etc) are the best in the world simply because they are WWII-era German, and no amount of reality will dissuade them from this belief.

"b-b-b-ut PANTHER TANK GOES BRRR-put-put-what the $@#% happened to the transmission on this thing? Why is this cannon jammed? NOOOO MY PERFECT GERMAN TANK"

 

[kettyo]

If you're role playing Hitler, then you should not be able to whitewash him. Have him killed/imprisoned/whatever, but as long as he rules the Reich, his behaviour must be historical, imho.

There are enough "Hitler wanted peace" lies around already. Don't want that in my games.

That's how you like to play him.

But all players shouldn't be forced to mirror the complete mindsets of leaders i think as it would just make the game more boring for no good reason.

Let's say i'd like to play a more cautious and more diplomatic Germany. That's certainly far from historical - much more like bismarckish than hitlerish - but why should i be denied in doing so? And yeah i wouldn't like civil war and other complications coming with a major political shift.

Additionally there's not much mechanism in the game to replace leaders within the same ideology so you're forced to stay with Hitler in this case. You can't switch to let's say Göbbels. Or can't switch to let's say Berija from Stalin (yet).

If my words about roleplaying have confused you then excuse me, i've meant roleplaying yourself, not the historical Hitler in which case you might be right although i seriously doubt if many people would like to do that over and over again.