Matrix Games Forums

while i have learned quite a lot of the main concerns of the US in this forum, say, the capture of the royal navy... , any WWII experts to tell me the motives of Stalin to fight the Germans, if nothing happens in the russia border in Su/Fa41? cos, imo russia and the axis were "friends" in Fa1939, at least they share poland, right?

i love this game, but just doesnt feel good about the fixed entry date for the US and russia, of which i have expressed my view in several seperate threads in this forum. i understand its hard to factor sth that wasnt happened in history, e.g. if there was no pearl harbour ... but i think it is equally diffiuclt btn assigning a fixed entry date for the US and russia, and just leave it to a probability that will increase by a no. of factors (time, RP of Axis, attack of neutrals by Axis, fallen of england, fallen of canada .... )

iirc, there's a mod that got a variable entry date, can someone point that to me as well?

AN

First let me point out that there is in fact no "fixed" entry date as you put it. Russia will enter the war instantly when attacked by Germany same goes for US. If for some reason the axis powers do not attack either country at an earlier date, then Winter 1943 is the absolute latest they will enter the war. Keep in mind this is a World War 2 game and on top of that it ends in 1946, so basically they have to come in at some point otherwise what the hay is the point? In my humble opinion, if an Axis player doesn't want to be at war with Russia and or the United States, then what the hay are they doing playing a WW2 strategy board game again?

I agree the system is far from ideal and I too would like to see some variables inserted into the mix, but basically that takes alot more work, and actually would probably have created even more arguments among players[;)] I think the system is not perfect but it does work. For good or ill the developer's it would seem decided to leave it to the players. I have lost a game as allies myself by AV without moving a single US or USSR unit and I think this will be adressed soon by changing when AV is calculated from instantly to at end of US turn.

As for your history question I think that definately Germany and most likely the USSR both knew they were going to fight all along. I think the term "friends" must be used very loosely when describing the relationship between facist Germany and Communist Russia. I think if Great Britain had fallen Stalin would certainly NOT have attacked Germany, but he certainly would have knew it was only a matter of time and would be arming accordingly. I dare say that if the British Isles had fallen there would be no way that the United States would declare war on Germany. At least not for several years while they built up a massive armed forces and only if reasonable negotiation with Germany was completely out of the question. As for falling of Canada - get real[:-] Any historian who tells you that Germany would have launched an invasion of North America is a moron plain and simple.

Hitler's whole reason for all his moves leading up to Barbarrosa were all calculated for just that purpose, to attack the SU. Some of Germany's other ventures (Greece and N. Africa) were only undertaken because of Italy's blunders.

And the US was in the war from the start. Lend Lease, the destroyers deal, embargo on Japan, presence in Hawaii and Phillipines. Roosevelt need for political support for the war was the only thing that cause the wait in entry. Thanks, IJN for Pearl!

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were most certainly NOT friends; they were both making ready to attack the other from the get-go.

The reason Stalin was paralyzed for the first period of Barbarossa was a combination of his realisation of just how badly he'd miscalculated the timing of Hitler's attack, and the overwhelming German successes.

If Germany had not attacked the Soviet Union when she did, the Soviets would most likely have attacked Germany in 1942 or 43 at the latest.

Heh. The US was really first militarily involved in the war a few weeks prior to Pearl Harbour protecting Atlantic shipping.

I don't think you can say the US was involved because of various trade deals. The British got goods from the US by buying them, and they weren't that cheap either - I think the UK has only in the last decade finally paid off its WW2 debt to the US. On the other hand, US companies were also doing brisk business with Germany - General Motors (Opel subsidiary) and Ford owned a vast amount of the German automobile production, and quite happily churned out a large portion of Nazi Germany's war machinery (the ubiquitous Opel Blitz truck being a famous example) as well as securing useful resources for the Reich. Undoubtedly though the US government favoured the cause of the UK, and frowned upon such dealings, especially when war broke out.

I agree with Terminus. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were certainly not friends. Hitler was intensly opposed to Communism while Communism is idealogically opposed to Capitalism (Stalin lumped Nazi Germany in with the Western Capitalistic states).

What may have you confused is that there was a treaty (Ribbentrob-Molotov) between Germany and Russia. The Russians signed the treaty because they knew they were unprepared for a war with Germany at the time and hoped it would give them time to prepare. I'm not quite sure why Germany signed the treaty, perhaps to lull Stalin into complacency while Germany built its war machine. I'm pretty sure that one of the points of the treaty was the splitting of Poland.

I believe that Germany's incentive for the Treaty with the Russians was in the form of massive raw materials shipments from the Russians: wood, coal, iron ore, wheat.

The Germans were shipping back steel and chemicals. .. but the Germans soon stopped fulfilling there end of the deal.

Stalin didn't want to provoke Hitler, so he kept up his shipments until the German invasion.

From what I have read Hitler was very inclined to attack the SU but hr was actually looking for a agreement with the SU about Germany's mastery of Europe. During this meetig between Molotov and Rippentrop a British air raid took place and when Ribbentrop started to speak who the SU would profit from the UKs defeat anf this defeat was close to hand Molotov asked "if that is so, then why are we in this shelter and whose are those bombs which are falling"...

There was a very serious possibility for a strategy that was centered on the Mediterranean.

In addition German intelligence unterestimated the strength of the SU's tanks by more than 100% (24.000 instead of 10.000) while Germany had 3.500. Guderian warned against the attack and told Hitler that those numbers were way to low. Later on Hitler told Guderian that if he had known the real number of Russian tanks he would not have attacked.

But I will agree that every fibre in Hitler's body must have yearned to attack the SU.

And Stalin was genuinly surprised by Hitler's attack (despite having received intelligence reports about a German attack for month - including the likely attack date). Even after the German troops have crossed the borders he still believed in a misunderstanding and tried to negotiate. He even forced his commanders not to go into defensive positions right before the attack was sceduled to take place in order to not provoke the Germans.

From what I have read Stalin always stuck to the letter to the agreements he had signed (the negotiations were the bad part... and I doubt that he would have done differently this time - unless the conquest of Germany would have been 100% certain.

And I think there is a great difference between US land-lease and a "sub exclusion zone" and active participation in the war.

Without Hitler declaring war/attacking the SU and USA I think that neither would have declared war on Germany for at least some more years.

CharonJr

PS: And yes, AFAIK the M-R pact was about ressources in addition to defining spheres of influence.

Edit: Argh, provoke, not prevent the Germans...

what CharonJr's talking is what confirms with my understanding, that is, Hilter is very keen on attacking su, but Stalin has no real intention to attack the axis.

but in WAW, axis may not attack su at all as axis got little incentive to attack su (of course many ppl will disagree, esp. the double-team SU players). it is especially true if the Germans fail to take GB and Suez, a full force su invasion will invite aggressive allies to attack the soft southern coast. (some may agrue that axis u-boat is the soln for the axis, but given the superior productivity, it is not that difficult for the allies to turn the tide in the altantic by ASW research. axis simply dont have the resources to win the u-boat war they attack su at the same time.)

however, an axis player that take moscow will still lose the game if the axis panzers go too deep in su and the allies take berlin b4 1945.

so i think the game will be more enjoyable (esp for those who hate those ahistoric moves) if the game can somehow gives the axis more incentive to attack su.

imo, once certain % of regions/ RP/ ppl of SU is controlled by the axis, axis will at least win a marginal victory if the allies failed to achieve certain goals by certain time (event and time is open for discussion). this may not be the perfect soln, but i think its on the right track.

AN

It is impossible to know what might have happened had Germany not attacked the Soviet Union. Clearly there was tension between Hitler and Stalin. If you are looking for an authoritative view that Stalin may well have planned to attack Germany though, I'd recommend Suvorov (who is actually a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun).

HERE is a one overview of his position. It is presented more completely in his books Icebreaker, Dni M ("M Day"), and The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War. While most historians dispute his arguments, no one can ever know for sure what the actual truth might have been.

In my mind though, the Soviet attack is less about history and more about game balance. What fun would the game be if Germany knew she could count on the Soviets to maintain their neutrality and focus entirely on wiping out the western allies before turning east? In order to maintain balance within the game, Germany and the Soviets must go to war.

And they do, in Winter 43 the Soviets are free to attack the Germans. No game balance problem here.

I think you really need to play the game from both sides allot to say their is a game balance issue. Mostly because there are so many different things you can do. Some times we are hit with a strategy that seems like it is a guaranteed victory for that side, but I dispute everyone of them.

Case in Point. It was pointed out recently that the US can, on the turn of entry into the War, move the entire west coast fleet to surround Japan and prevent resources from reaching Japan. This seems like a game breaker, as the Japanese usually attacks Pearl harbor and then moves the fleet to support the southern resources area. Thus they are in a tough spot to move back to Japan and open a supply route, also we tend to use supply up to get the resources repair and count on moving supplies from Japan for the next turns movement. Hard to do that if your island is surrounded.
There are some options for the Japanese to counter this, including posting fighters and bombers in northern Japan to cover the sea north of Japan. This may slow or stop the allies all together. You could choose to attack the US west coast with carriers instead of Pearl Harbor, you could also invade at the same time if it is undefended. This works really well as the fleets can not retreat as you occupy the sea zones thus they are sunk.

So the main problem is if you guess wrong or do not cover your bases you get caught by surprise and then be think there is a balance problem.

The game is well balanced, but there are really tough choices in this game.

ORIGINAL: jchastain

It is impossible to know what might have happened had Germany not attacked the Soviet Union. Clearly there was tension between Hitler and Stalin. If you are looking for an authoritative view that Stalin may well have planned to attack Germany though, I'd recommend Suvorov (who is actually a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun).

HERE is a one overview of his position. It is presented more completely in his books Icebreaker, Dni M ("M Day"), and The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War. While most historians dispute his arguments, no one can ever know for sure what the actual truth might have been.

In my mind though, the Soviet attack is less about history and more about game balance. What fun would the game be if Germany knew she could count on the Soviets to maintain their neutrality and focus entirely on wiping out the western allies before turning east? In order to maintain balance within the game, Germany and the Soviets must go to war.

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. I was not suggesting that the game wasn't balanced (though realistically no game is ever perfectly balanced - that wasn't the point). I was instead saying that allowing the Soviets to attack Germany without being attacked themselves is required less because it was historically destined to happen and more because that flexibility is required in order to achieve balance. It was simply a comment directed at those who were questioning whether or not Stalin would ever have attacked Germany and reminding everyone that this is a game and not a historical simulation and that sometimes a bit of creative license is necessary.

I have a question for you guys, what did Hitler's generals think of attacking Russia? I know they didn't come out and oppose it(speaking out in the 3rd Reich was bad for your health lol) but im curious of how they felt about it. Anyone know?

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I have a question for you guys, what did Hitler's generals think of attacking Russia?

Most of those whose opinion mattered (OKW and OKH top generals like Keitel, Jodl, Brauchitsch and Halder) considered Barbarossa as the professional challenge they were glad to have a chance to undertake.

There were no moral objections of invading yet another country, there wasn't even an opposition to mandate to perform war crimes against commissairs and so on.


Drax

A couple of books are out to shed some light on this original question. "What Stalin Knew" and "Stalin's Folly" seem to add little to the initial impression that Stalin evidently looked at Hitler as perhaps a soulmate.

It would explain his devastation in the beginning days of Barbarossa.

If this can be construed as true, then the USSR under Stalin would have never attacked Germany......an interesting premise.

As was true at the outbreak of hostilities, it may have been more likely they would have become fast allies, excepting Hitler's view of Communism of course.

yes but surley they must have known of Russia's vastness and massive manpower. Morality aside, just the logistics alone should have given them reason to think it might not be a good idea. But of course, I have the benefit of hindsight, it's a lot different when you are actually there.

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

yes but surley they must have known of Russia's vastness and massive manpower. Morality aside, just the logistics alone should have given them reason to think it might not be a good idea.

Russian collapse in 1918 took place in living memory of all German WW2 generals. It has been achieved despite the fact that only half of German army could fight in the East.

In 1941, Germans could dedicate two thirds of their army for the task.

Logistics, although far from American standards, brought Germans to the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov line. There was no physical reason that prevented Germans from digging in in say November 15th and awaited Russian counterattack from prepared positions.


Drax

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

A couple of books are out to shed some light on this original question. "What Stalin Knew" and "Stalin's Folly" seem to add little to the initial impression that Stalin evidently looked at Hitler as perhaps a soulmate.

It would explain his devastation in the beginning days of Barbarossa.

If this can be construed as true, then the USSR under Stalin would have never attacked Germany......an interesting premise.

As was true at the outbreak of hostilities, it may have been more likely they would have become fast allies, excepting Hitler's view of Communism of course.

A major factor in the Red Army's horrible performance in the early war was because the officer corps had been devasted by Stalin's purge and as a result there were very few experienced officers in place at the time of the invasion. I truly believe that Stalin would have attacked Germany at some point, though I won't even try to guess when that might have been or how it would have turned out. Too many unknowable variables. And I don't think there's any way the Soviet Union and Germany would EVER have been true allies. Hitler had envisioned invading the Soviet Union for many years, even before he came to wield supreme power. And Stalin never trusted Hitler at all. I think as long as these two men were their respective heads of state, war between them was inevitable at some point.

Opinion duly noted Guderon.

Like you said, too many unknowables from the inner workings of these two tyrants.

You may very well be right, either way it makes for some good hypothetical historical scenarios.

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Opinion duly noted Guderon.

Like you said, too many unknowables from the inner workings of these two tyrants.

You may very well be right, either way it makes for some good hypothetical historical scenarios.

That could be another comp game in itself! [:D]