Oh well, region locks and lazy people not matching the allowed countries for their giveaway suck in any case. That was just a prime candidate because of the almost free EU keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aww i thought we had started a guessing game... you given up already?
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah that game is practically banned everywhere. took me an hour to sort out every place that and strike something 4 whatever sucky region locked game it was. noticed so many people not put the region lock and all ill can think off you is they better be able to reroll for days
Comment has been collapsed.
Especially when those creating giveaways fail to pay attention to them. P
Comment has been collapsed.
If it would pissed you off stop giving your permission to delete such giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
but won't that just elongate the time it takes me to be able to join GAs again?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes but then they are learn to create region locked giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also you have a right to require them to give you a copy that works in your region or mark it as not received. If you really want to teach them a lesson.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well i doubt he's going to be able to give me the game...
So marking as not received and him taking the hit is the only other option, but being lvl 6 i doubt he'll notice 1 slot less haha
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny how level 6 people don't know how region locked giveaways should work, or others after 50+ given games and years on the site have no idea how bundling rules work. People are getting lazy :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Having it marked not received in your stats is the punishment, there are infinite slots if you just make some giveaways so that only hurts very new people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Another option is to wait for the (likely) re-roll, and then enter future giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not all region locks are clear to see AND a part make it region lock free that people can activate the games with a VPN
I like it when i have the possibility to use a VPN by games that you don't can buy or HumbleBundle don't want give german users.
If i do that, when i win, is then under my control.
But yes, winning a good shooter that are surprisingly then a CIS/RUS key with only that language and can't be redeemed by me was a experience i don't liked too.
Comment has been collapsed.
do you think it would be possible for me to activate through vpn?
Any issues with that?
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't risk my account in order to activate one game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know someone who did it like multiple dozen times and they haven't even got a warning... This is not to encourage such behaviour, but I can't recall seeing even one instance when they punished using a VPN. STILL NOT AN ENCOURAGEMENT
Comment has been collapsed.
First:
- I don't know the country you live in
- I don't know the country from the one you won the key and/or from which region the key is
- I am no VPN pro
Second:
When i were in the same situation i would write with the gifter and found out from which region the key is and if the game is available in my language or at least english.
After that i would look if the game is a older one or newer one.
Old ones need only a activation with VPN and you can play it after that without problems.
Newer ones need a VPN for activating and when you want play it in the first 3 month you need a VPN everytime you play it too.
Solution is activate it with VPN and play it first after 3 months and 1 day, without a VPN, :o)
It looks that a new thing appears that always need a VPN connection (mostly CIS/RUS Versions) but maybe that can be avoided with the "don't play it 3 months" too.
And then i would decide if the effort/work and(or bad sites are too much for the game i won as example i would never play a game, with story, that are only in russian language... because i would only understand very few words. By a random shooter without story that can change^^
Oh and don't forget: Using a VPN is against the rules from Steam.
How good that i activated all games, that can't be activated in germany, at vacations cough cough
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes i love going on holidays :)
I just got back from singapore... nudge nudge wink wink
Comment has been collapsed.
Theoretically it is prohibited by the steam tos. But your decision after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I activated a dlc with a VPN once and didn't touch it til a year later, so no problems, I think the vpn time is 3 months minimum to be safe. But if you don't want to risk it, it's your choice what to do, mark as not received or allow a re-roll.
Comment has been collapsed.
Germans can just VPN to any other Euro country, so the store prices will be exactly same. And since it's only about their silly laws and not loss of profits, I'm quite sure Steam doesn't care one bit. With no real borders people could just drive a short distance to another country and activate their wins on a laptop there.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is not about the laws, it is about the publishers do not think their games are "art". Art is exempt from those laws.
Comment has been collapsed.
Try doing art of a thousands of years old good luck symbol used all around the world in Germany and see what happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please read the laws and read up on court rulings, before you post something uninformed.
There is sufficient art that uses symbols that are not allowed in everyday use. For example movies ("Das Boot" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). The symbols can be used in books, discussion the symbols' origin and use.
And -behold- there are games on Steam that use at least a set of those symbols and are sold in Germany without any censoring or legal action taken against them (as far as I know):
https://store.steampowered.com/app/6250/Making_History_The_Calm__the_Storm/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/283020/The_Campaign_Series_Fall_Weiss/
Comment has been collapsed.
Which part of my post was uninformed? I merely said "try that and see what happens", not what is going to happen.
https://kotaku.com/wolfenstein-2-has-a-strange-workaround-for-germanys-cen-1819985020
Edit: are you're making a claim that if I hand painted the symbol on a red armband it would be art since it's not mass produced and I could walk around Germany wearing it just fine?
Comment has been collapsed.
Uninformed in the way that there are games that use e.g. the swastika.
When reading the linked article keep in mind that censoring is done by the developers/publishers as the do not want to risk a law suit. As far as I know there has not been a lawsuite on the matter since the late 90s for a mainstream game. If I remember correctly, there have been a couple of lawsuits for Nazi glorifing games since then.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games nobody cares about since they aren't selling millions of copies. All-time peak players 46 and 72, good chances that nobody in Germany even bought those.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only point I am trying to make is that one has to differentiate between censorship by the state and voluntary censorship by the publishers.
Comment has been collapsed.
And the only point I'm trying to make is that one has to differentiate between VPN to Russia to score almost free games and VPN inside the same price region to just to be able to accept the gift.
Comment has been collapsed.
On your edit. There has to be a context that does not glorify. A handpainted swastika would lack that context.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously as a part of my artistic performance I'm wearing it sarcastically as a hipster to point out how bad it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or violence, blood, gore, etc.
Point is not art as a picture, but art as a form of creativity. Banning of swastikas makes a bit more sense than turning people into androids/zombies in a game like they did with Carmageddon and some others. On the other hand, I'm not sure why swastikas are problem in games where you have no choice just to kill the nazis, like Wolfenstein, but germany is surely peculiar when it comes to the topic of it, and general censoring.
Comment has been collapsed.
Adam the text is to all, not only you i don't looked from which country you are so i say it before you take it personal if you live in on of the ones in my examples.
I don't see what negative effect triggered by a "Hakenkreuz" on a banner or a name or whatever. At least as long as it is not for glorifying.
In short:
I want have the same game experience, as in all other countrys, when i kill the evil germany nazi zombies in all the games.
Yes i am a bit of sarcastic. Maybe because i like to laugh over myself too :-D
Ps.: Free Tibet. In my eyes the only country on the world that learned how the world should be and moved in the right direction.
and got a bad reward for it
In germany the politicans hold or see us still "guilty".
And each and every nation that don't like anything that germany do came up with the Nazi thing. Each time it is so disgusting and annoying.
A lot of german people are over cautious to anything related to that.
Without a question. The World Wars were bad. Germany have done ugly things in the second one BUT
I have not fighted in a war.
I don't have killed people.
I don't raped anyone.
and so on
AND to say that clear ... a lot of other nations have dark points on there histories too
! Please read only further when you can handle, maybe other oppinions then yours !
1) England with Scotland/Ireland ... (and they created the first KZ's -surely only for good things cough)
2) USA with many atom tests, the us natives (indians), overwhelming ammount of wars since 200(?) years -mostly it is "only" pillage smaller countries ressources... at least in the past 20 years-. Afghanistan -they refused that a pipeline build throught there country (to turk. = europe when i remember me right).... after the "war" the pipeline was build (surprising or?^^), and the rare minerals sold for pennys to the USA/France/UK (nearly everytime this are the biggest 3 that win after a war -but as examples Australia/Canada/Germany make profit from them too-). Irak wanted more money for there oil ... faked toxic weapons + bad dictator (but the usa lifted him in that position)... war... oil price save. A north african country wanted more money for there oil... bad dictator (yes the usa lifted gadafi in his position too)... war... oil price save (but year later still chaos in that country). Guantanamo, allowed torture (waterboarding and such ugly stuff... at people that haven't seen a court or a lawyer -it hitted a german guy too and it give a movie over it...-). By a lot of the examples i speak from things that happen NOW and i don't see a lot raising there voice against all this cruelty that kill a lot of people.
3) RUS (or better udssr because this one is splittet to a lot of countrys now) with many atom tests -killed a lot of mongolian people and this ones have still problems with all this radiation-. Afghanistan. Ethnic wars...
4) Turk. with ethnics wars
5) Republic of China with Tibet
And did you hear that people like me say, as example, that the common US people are responsible for the wars?. No, because other ones have the control over that.
I have "a lot of" US friends and i don't know anyone from there that stand behind wars or torture
It would give sooooooo much examples and a few nations killed much more people then the 3. Reich (Germany).
That make it not better that germany did horrible things at the WW II but the people should see that this lay in the past and the ones that did it are mostly dead (and for sure want not play Wolfenstein or other games^^) and germany is not the only country with bad marks.
YOU can't be responsible only because you live in a country that (have) done horrible things (in a war). When you can do anything against it, it is a other thing. But the "common people" have no control over a war or military things.
Have a open eye on maybe problematic things OK, cut out a part of the history (if good or bad) NOT OK
I worked in my past with ill old people that experienced the WW II by themself. ALL, i repeat ALL, cry when they talked from there experiences. Sitting in a UBoat and waterbombs all around, with the fear of dying without the possibility to change anything on it. Killing people because they were forced to shoot or get shooted. Females that are raped after the war by "winner" armies that are stationed in the german reich. Such stuff
Comment has been collapsed.
Stalin killed millions more people than Hitler did, but do we see Putler apologizing for it? Nope, instead he's dreaming of a new Soviet Union where he can continue to massacre everyone with a different political view. And if you compare communism with national socialism, you can add China etc to the death totals making the difference even greater. But do we see anyone blaming communism for that? Nope, instead everything bad must be the fault of nazis.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somebody explained it to me as the nazi ideology was racially base (mostly), so they were simply the enemies of the system, for being who they were.
I'm not sure what is the better/worse, the nazi system or the socialism's where someone were the enemy of the system by being too rich, being born into a too rich family, being religious, raising a word against the starvation because of the fucked up agronomic plans / any decision of the party or just being a semi-random victim of a show-trial. Both were horrible on their ways, but I'm certain that the unchanged way of Russia, and influence over Europe is one of the reasons they avoid most of what they would deserve.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to their beliefs nazis were trying to improve humanity with the racial cleaning so they thought they were doing good. Meanwhile communists are killing their enemies who only want freedom from the oppression for purely selfish gain.
Both nazis and communists are very bad, just saying they get treated totally differently for the crimes some other people did ages ago. This is not equality.
Nordic countries are socialistic, where people can get free money from the government after others paid it with taxes. It's a totally different system than communism where the government owns everything including your life and can do anything they want with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
True. Us in Hungary having had a socilaist dictature in the 20th century, and at its worst it came close to communism in some elements (You had some private things, as long as you were nice, but generally were treated as you borrowed it from the state), likely the totalitarian nature blurred the line a bit for me. (Socialism is economic system, while communism is economic and political, at least as long as the socialist system is not pandering to the soviet commuist one, as eastern european ones were :\ )
Comment has been collapsed.
I reeeeeeally don't want to defend communism, here (i see the blacklists already coming), BUT, the communists, the revolutionaries that started the revolutions in their countries, really thought they were the good ones. In their eyes, after destroying the old system, the new one would be paradise, where the people wouldn't ever be hungry anymore, everybody would be equal, there would be no more oppression, etc. They were also trying (in their own view) to improve humanity by creating the perfect society.
Also, even if Stalin and Mao together killed more people than Hitler, what boggles the mind is the way Hitler did it. Stalin and Mao's policies caused widespread famine, which caused millions of deaths. But historical studies seem to agree it was criminal negligence, not done on purpose. However almost all of the deaths of the nazi's regime, were absolutely planned. There was policy of deliberate and systematic genocide against jewish and other minorities, from the Wannsee Conference, to the atrocities committed against the civilian population on the eastern front. In that way, nazism is worse, because to the nazis, you were an enemy to the state, which deserve execution, from the very second you were born. That is the reason in the extermination camps the guards didn't have any second thoughts about sending children to the gas chambers.
So yeah, I think nazism deserves their terrible reputation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not talking about early idealism but the what they actually did with their paradise. The same thing still continues in modern communist countries so the deaths just keep on piling up. Or people end their life being tortured in prisons and asylums as an essential part of their legal system.
What do you count it as when people were sent to die in gulags in Siberia etc? Among them ethnic minorities and other sorts of people they didn't like to look of. I really fail to see it as any kind of better to be in a concentration camp somewhere where piss freezes mid-air than a Central European climate. Do you really believe the BS about anything they did to massacre their own and other people to be accidental? "Oops, I forgot to not send 15 million kulaks to die in Siberia, my bad LOL" yeah right. Bit like enemies of Putler just happen to be unlucky and buy radioactive cereal by accident today.
And communism deserves equal if not worse terrible reputation. They just won the war unlike nazis so they get to write their own history and nobody bothers the winner. If USA hadn't been so keen to protect the Soviet Union, we could've kicked their ass and today we would be talking about their evils just like we talk about nazis now. And just like always, they protected their next worst enemy causing the cold war era. This is sadly how the world works.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I said, I didn't want to defend communism. When I talked about "accidental deaths", I was talking about the famine. Obviously force-transfer of people around the Soviet Union caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Also, it's not that USA wanted to protect the Soviet Union. We were very close to third world war very soon after the end of the second. The problem was that the Soviet land army was much stronger than whatever the allies could throw at them. Even in the Cold war, the allies thought that in case of war, best case scenario the soviet army would advance at least till France.
Comment has been collapsed.
If Americans or Germans had any sense back then, both could've come through Finland and easily won an actually cold land war. Leningrad and Moscow are just a short distance from here and you don't have to trek through a burned down Eastern Europe. Everyone talks about invading Russia in winter, but the Soviets tried to invade Finland in winter and froze to death.
At least they are wiser today: https://www.army.mil/article/141917/usrak_soldiers_attend_finnish_armys_cold_weather_training :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but the supply lines would be a nightmare. It was already a nightmare attacking land-only.
Actually, Finland helped nazi germany invade Russia and attacked from their country with the strong help of the Germán army, the finnish-soviet front, and they were eventually beaten back.
Comment has been collapsed.
So a supply line through thousands of kilometers of burned down land with no resources is better than a short one with plenty of resources? That's what the Germans thought as well and which is why they failed just like Napoleon did. Sadly they were also the only country offering us military aid (Sweden etc helped otherwise of course) even if they had bad intentions for us later. We won our part of the war to take back the land they had stolen from us before, it was Germany failing that ended the war for us too. We could only beat Soviet Union in a land war, not them teamed up with USA and UK. But because we did, we didn't share the faith of the Eastern block countries.
Comment has been collapsed.
The supply line through Ukraine had better communication, better roads, no problem with water logístics, and actually it was richer and better farmland. The burned down land was because the soviet scorched earth policy. Finland also had a serious supply problem during the war because of the scorched earth policy, which was increased because of the poor terrain.
Also, if you check a map, the distance from the finnish frontier to Moscow is almost the same than from the Germán (at that time) frontier to Moscow. It's barely a hundred kilómetres less.
Not to offend the brave and impressive finnish war effort, but Finland lost the continuation war. They attacked the soviet unión in a surprise attack, in the middle of a purge of the best officers of the Red army by Stalin, while Russia was being destroyed by Germany and helped by the Germán army.
At the end of the war, Finland had to agree to lose their recovered land, lost even more land, had to pay a huge amount of war reparations, had to conduct war trials on their own army, had to demobilize, was forced to fight their old allies in the Lapland War, and had to agree to stay neutral in the Cold war. And they were actually lucky that Stalin wanted to eliminate Germany, and he wasn't bothered to occuppy Finland. That, and Stalin personal promises to UK and USA that they would leave Finland alone.
No, USA and UK would never invade Finland to help the Soviet unión. But even if they tried to help Finland, it would be doubtful they could have stopped the Red army if they had decided to invade Finland. The Red army of that time was that impressive and the Soviet unión had a direct land link to Finland
Comment has been collapsed.
You missed the point of Leningrad. Yes they scorched the earth of other countries to prevent invasion, would they scorch their own as well? The whole point of them being so desperate for that exact land was that it provided a clear and short route to invade them.
We didn't have a supply route problem, we had a supply problems. It was the supplies that we got from Germany, not their army in any relevant way.
We're also the only country in the world who has paid the unjust war reparations. And like I said, we couldn't continue fighting when our only ally lost and everyone would attack us next.
You sure seem to think highly of them, we don't because we have actual experience. But enough of this already, go Google White Death or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Winter War was a military conflict between the Soviet Union (USSR) and Finland. It began with a Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939, three months after the outbreak of World War II, and ended three and a half months later with the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the organisation.
The conflict began after the Soviets sought to obtain some Finnish territory, demanding among other concessions that Finland cede substantial border territories in exchange for land elsewhere, claiming security reasons—primarily the protection of Leningrad, 32 km (20 mi) from the Finnish border. Finland refused, and the USSR invaded the country.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's exactly what they did. The russians ruined their own land to prevent the Germán army, that almost reached Moscow, from getting supplies.
About the Germán army help, you seem to be forgotten the 67,000 strong AOK Norwegen and the help of the Luftflotte 5
Also, about the war reparacions, didn't Germany finally paid the last of them, like less than a decade ago
I know about the dismal performance of the Red army during the winter war and the excellent finnish resistance. Hitler and the Germán high command, and even the finnish goverment of the time knew it. That's the reason they thought they Could win the war. But the Red army under Zhukov was a totally different beast.
Again, the reason Finland basically surrendered it's not that they were worried about any attack by UK or USA. It's that they had to fall back to the lines of defense they had at the end of the winter war. And that line only held with massive Germán support. With germany retreating, total defeat was just a matter of time.
You seem to think I am attacking personally Finland or something. They finnish army very well. But they were punching above their weight.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, you are defending Soviets personally imagining they are something they are not. I'll rather remember the words of 3 people actually involved in those wars. You can go on by yourself from now on if you still want to sing their praises.
Comment has been collapsed.
... and this all started with a complaint about region-locking....
Comment has been collapsed.
Which were mainly caused by the Soviet Union cheating the system by reselling their free games everywhere so everyone else has to suffer from them. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
No offense, but your opinion, that Finland could have withstood the full brunt of the 1945 Red Army, and that they only surrendered because fear of an attack from other countries, is an opinion not shared by any historian. Not even by the finnish policitians of the time, like Mannerheim, like he wrote in his memoirs.
But it seems you are taking this conversation too personal, so I won't say more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not taking anything personally, I just want stop having to read walls of text and I never said that. You are the one who claims that the joke of an army couldn't have been easily defeated by US forces. So can se stop this already of not?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's your opinion. I would recommend military historian Russell Weigley's "Normandy and Falaise: A Critique of Allied Operational Planning in 1944" or John Ellis' "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War" , if you want to check how the allied ground forces were actually far from perfect.
Comment has been collapsed.
I stopped caring about what you imagine is my opinion already. I recommend you to read what is said instead of assuming silly things and discussions could go somewhere. I recommend you take a look at the stats where they suffered 4-6x losses for almost every battle and stop bothering me already.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You are the one who claims that the joke of an army couldn't have been easily defeated by US forces" Your opinion.
"we couldn't continue fighting when our only ally lost and everyone would attack us next" Your opinion
"If Americans or Germans had any sense back then, both could've come through Finland and easily won an actually cold land war"
"It was the supplies that we got from Germany, not their army in any relevant way."
"We're also the only country in the world who has paid the unjust war reparations"
"We could only beat Soviet Union in a land war, not them teamed up with USA and UK"
As I said, it's you that keeps saying opinions as if there were undisputed facts. I am just pointing out that either you are wrong, or basically every historian, and people like Lennart Oesch or Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, voted as greatest Finn of all time, are wrong or liars.
Comment has been collapsed.
You still aren't getting any of it so why even try? I'm pointing out that you're arguing with your own illusions of my opinions, not me. And it's going nowhere so just please stop?
Only thing you're saying is that the Soviet army is perfect and unbeatable by anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Soviet army was far, far, far from perfect. And no army is unbeatable. But we are discussing if Finland, which shared a frontier with the Soviet Union, could have really stopped the Stalin if they had decided to eliminate Finland after Germany or during the attack of Germany. Considering the Finland resistance, they would have suffered tremendous losses and Finland would have held till the end. Maybe US and UK would have, overtly or secretly, supported Finland in that war.
But either every historian, and people like Lennart Oesch or Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, voted as greatest Finn of all time, are wrong and liars, or no: Finland wouldn't have won. Put it to the numerical superiority, better armament, ability of the soviet High Command or whatever.
Ok, since we can agree that we disagree, we can stop now.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are the only one talking about 1vs1 ignoring the whole context of a world war going on. I agree with historians about history but they aren't recording what if scenarios into history. We could've stopped a long time ago but you for some reason felt the need to tell me over and over again how perfect the Soviet Union was.
Comment has been collapsed.
(Sigh) Have I ever said the Soviet Union was perfect? Seriously? The UK and the USA (specially the UK) were never going to invade Finland just to help Stalin. At most they would do nothing. At best, they would actually help Finland, which was what they did, getting Stalin to promise to not invade Finland. Every historian...
OK, look, you win. OK. You know more than everybody else who have studied Finland and world war history. Every historian that said that Finland would never survive the full attack of the Red Army are liars. The reports and letters from the allies where they tried to convince Stalin to leave Finland alone are forgeries. Lennart Oesch or Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, Finland's famous statemen were just traitors to the finnish people, surrendering when they could have easily won against the Red Army.
Every other comment you write will just be trolling and I will ignore. Goodbye.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm merely just giving you back what you give me. False claims based on imagination and arguments based on those. So nice of you to finally get what it feels like and stop it. I told you several times that you're fighting with yourself, not me, so I didn't win anything. I already said I agree with the historians, but do you ever listen to anything I say? Nope, you're stuck on 1 line said earlier totally out of context and focus on beating that lie with pasting me walls of text. Good job little Putler troll, you earned your pay.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just one last line. I don't have a good opinion of Putin. More like the opposite. So calling me Putler troll is an insult I feel is uncalled for considering I have never insulted you. That's it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You just sounded like one of them, they are everywhere in social media these days getting paid to spread lies like https://euvsdisinfo.eu/finland-puts-russian-kids-in-prison-disinformation-that-shaped-the-minds-of-millions/
If you don't want to be called that, I suggest in next discussion you have to actually listen to what the others are saying and if you're unclear about what is meant, ask them for clarification instead of starting to attack them based on your own delusions. Focusing on 1 misunderstood thing and ignoring everything said after is a basic troll tactic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, I should stop now, but I'll bite one more time. I mean, you already blacklisted me while I had whitelisted you. Not complaining, mind you. You have every right to whitelist or blacklist whoever you want.
When you said, and I quote "We're also the only country in the world who has paid the unjust war reparations", do you mean that Finland was the only country in the world that had to pay war reparations? Because Germany, among others, had to pay too. Could I have some clarification?
When you said, and I quote "We could only beat Soviet Union in a land war, not them teamed up with USA and UK" , do you mean that Finland would have beaten the Soviet Union if they USA or UK had done nothing? Because that's not what every historian says, including finnish leaders on the time. Could I have some clarification?
When you said and I quote "If Americans or Germans had any sense back then, both could've come through Finland and easily won an actually cold land war", do you mean if Germany or America had gone through Finland to invade Russia, they would have easily won? Because the distance to Moscow is almost the same from the German frontier. And the land and roads and train lines are much worse. Not to mention the logistical nightmare. The US High command in the Cold War never had any serious plan to invade Russia through Finland. And they are professionals. Could I have some clarification?
When you said, and I quote "You are the one who claims that the joke of an army couldn't have been easily defeated by US forces", do you mean that the US would have easily defeated the Red Army? Because I have actually given you sources that point how little prepared were the allied armies when fighting the german army. Russell Weigley's "Normandy and Falaise: A Critique of Allied Operational Planning in 1944" or John Ellis' "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War". That's the consensus right now. Yep, Hollywood wasn't exactly right. Could I have some clarification?
When you said, and I quote "It was the supplies that we got from Germany, not their army in any relevant way.", do you mean the German Army didn't help much? Because that's not every historian says, and that's not even a "what if". They are events that actually happened. Even finnish leaders of the time, Lennart Oesch or Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in their memoirs admit the help from the German army was fundamental for the finnish army advance. Could I have some clarification?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't care one bit who lists who. I just wanted you to stop that since you kept totally ignoring what I say, but you went on and on and on and on without any regard to what I was saying. Also this thread isn't a very great place for this which you also ignore completely.
Do you understand what is the difference between getting a bill and actually paying it?
Do you understand the difference between Finland with Germany as an Ally in war with Soviet Union and Finland without any allies in war with the Allied forces including but not limited to USSR, USA and UK?
Do you understand the difference between walking 2000km from Germany to Leningrad and walking 32km from Finland to Leningrad?
Do you understand that the Soviet army that you hold in such high respect was part of the Allied forces?
And they were a joke where officers had the job of walking behind the lines and shooting everyone who turned back. Every army back then was so badly trained that most didn't even have the guts to shoot at other humans. They just had the worst morale because they knew they are the evil invaders which is why huge amounts of them deserted the front if they just could. We demonstrated very clearly that they are trivial to beat with 4-6x or even 10x more losses on their side if you just have something to believe in giving your troops morale. So yeah if you imagine they were any kind of hard to beat, you also must believe every production and military statistic they only had on paper during the cold war. Their economy wasn't working at all, but all they had to do was claim they spent billion trillion rubles on military and USA felt the need to match or beat it. Only thing they had going on for them was numbers of cannon fodder, I would assume Americans fighting for freedom and apple pie would've been as numerous but with much better morale. Nothing to do with how difficult Germany was to beat.
So can we stop already?
Comment has been collapsed.
You haven't answered any of the points when I asked for clarification, as you claimed I had to do.
Anyway, " Do you understand the difference between walking 2000km from Germany to Leningrad and walking 32km from Finland to Leningrad?" Leningrad could have fallen in a day and it wouldn't have mattered that much. Moscow was the center of the soviet war effort.
"Only thing they had going on for them was numbers of cannon fodder" Actually that's from Hollywood and Enemy at the Gate. Number supperiority for the soviets over the germans was never more than 1.5 at best. 2x at the very end of the war.
"Do you understand that the Soviet army that you hold in such high respect was part of the Allied forces?" You are obssessed by what I didn't say about the soviet army. The german army was, pound by pound the best army in the war, over the soviets or the american armies. The way german soldiers fought in the west front is amazing.
"Do you understand the difference between Finland with Germany as an Ally in war with Soviet Union and Finland without any allies in war with the Allied forces including but not limited to USSR, USA and UK?" Finland surrendered a full year before Germany. And they actually attacked their old ally. And USA and UK never had any invasion plans for Finland.
"They just had the worst morale because they knew they are the evil invaders which is why huge amounts of them deserted the front if they just could. We demonstrated very clearly that they are trivial to beat with 4-6x or even 10x more losses on their side if you just have something to believe in giving your troops morale. So yeah if you imagine they were any kind of hard to beat" They beat the german war machine, and they pushed back the finnish army to the last line of defense in the continuation war, after beating Finland also in the Winter War. No army with that morale would have won World War II. Morale was actually one of the strongest suits of the soviets, according to all historians. I particularly like Antony Beevor in that regard. I mean, either the finnish leaders were traitors and liars, or you are right. I have never actually seen a finnish person dismissing and insulting their own leaders as you are doing.
Yeah. Let's stop. We can agree to disagree.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess USA would be totally fine with losing New York since it's not the capital, nobody would care if that falls in a war, if you think Leningrad, their historical capital til 1918 and 2nd biggest city was irrelevant to the war. Also go talk with someone who was in the war if you want actual information, not what some guy who was nowhere near wrote ages later. I have done that so I don't have to make up what historians have said. You clearly have made up your mind about the Soviet Union just being superior so no fact will change that. Finnish leaders were traitors, that especially makes you a Soviet troll since they were the ones demanding their imprisonment. If you actually had read any history, you would know that in the after war Finland it was very important to never say anything bad about the Soviets. There is even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization.
Really, just stop, period.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said that the finnish leaders were traitors. You are saying that they surrendered a year before Germany even if Finland could have beat the Soviet Union alone. They also wrote in their memoirs that they had to do it because the soviet union would have conquered Finland otherwise.
So, according to you, either you are wrong, or the finnish leaders were liars at best, traitors at worst.
Can we please stop now?
Comment has been collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
in 1940, a rapprochement with Nazi Germany, the only power able and willing to help Finland against the expansionist Soviet Union, which lead to the nation's re-entry into the Second World War in 1941.
The Wehrmacht's defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad led Finland to basically revert to its 19th-century traditions, which had been perceived as highly successful until the Russification of Finland (1899–1905). Finland's leaders realised that opposing the Soviets head-on was no longer feasible. No international power was able to give the necessary support. Nazi Germany, Finland's chief supporter against Russia, was losing the war. Sweden was not big enough, and its leadership was wary of confronting Russia. The western powers were allied with the Soviet Union. Thus Finland had to face its big neighbour on its own, without any greater power's protection. As in the 19th century, Finland chose not to challenge Imperial Russia's foreign policy, but exerted caution to keep its independence.
At least pretend to read what you are given and stop making up lies about my opinions. I've asked you to stop how many times already? But always the response is more blah blah blah blah, so just ask yourself if you can finally stop or not? You are the one who wants this so you can troll some more, not me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have read about Finlandization. So?
"Finland's leaders realised that opposing the Soviets head-on was no longer feasible"
If Finland was strong enough to oppose the soviet union in the military field, who cared about internacional alliances? Nobody else was going to invade Finland
Let me ask you a simple question. That's it: When Lennart Oesch or Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim said in their memoirs that military defeat against the soviet union alone was unavoidable, were they lying? It's a simple yes/no question. Either they were liars or they weren't.
Or, we can agree to disagree and stop this.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are the only liar here. What part of me agreeing with them is so damn hard to get through to you?
Just stop and go away, go make up stuff about someone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I am actually confused here. Do you mean that you agree with them that military defeat of Finland against the soviet union alone was unavoidable in 1944? Because that was exactly my point from the beginning
OK. We agree. Let's stop.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes that is something we can agree on, you are very confused and making things up. Why do you imagine I was telling you over and over that you aren't fighting with me but your own lies about me instead? But nope, blah blah blah blah blah.
Since you can't seem to stop and you are the most boring kind of troll that doesn't even provide any entertainment, just repeating the same lies over and over, I'll admit you won the trolling and will just use this to not have to see any more of it. Have fun with your next victim.
Comment has been collapsed.
You said "We could beat Soviet Union in a land war"
"We demonstrated very clearly that they are trivial to beat with 4-6x or even 10x more losses on their side"
So I tried to explain to you that actually the Red Army, whatever you think about them, was a very strong army. World War history is a hobby of mine.
Anyway, since we agree, we can finally relax.
Comment has been collapsed.
You felt the need to make up more of your lies even when I'm not seeing them, your work is already done little Putler troll, you can stop.
Comment has been collapsed.
One more insult and I will report you.
I have been always extremely polite, pointing out that I was explaining that literal sentences you made were wrong. Good bye.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes we know, the Soviet Union was perfect, you won, you can stop spamming me. I'm not reading any of your crap so what is the point? Just go away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude,
a) Never said the soviet union was perfect or even good
b) Stop harassing me. OK? Leave me alone
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes we know Stalin did nothing wrong, now your work is done and you really can stop spamming me. You are only proving my point with whatever lies you came up this time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reported to support for obvious spamming and harassment
Comment has been collapsed.
You really are desperate to get blacklisted. You won, just stop spamming me with more of your lies. I'm not reading them and nobody else is interested. So just stop already. Stopping means not spamming me any more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always use VPN to activate games, since the total activating keys thing is banned by steam here
Comment has been collapsed.
Since there is no clear way for people to know easily and accurately from the start what region locks apply to many keys, and since sites like Humble post information that just isn't true about where the keys will activate, it's not surprising that folks make mistakes with region locks. I just did, recently, in a giveaway where they key would probably have worked for the winner, but how am I supposed to be sure? Humble said it wouldn't, other information said it would, and it comes down to whether or not someone wants to take a chance with it.
The problem isn't with users, it's with the companies that restrict the keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess this is not common knowledge unless one visits the discussion forum, but there are usually region information recorded in the Humble Monthly bundle thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely, and just recently I relied on that information, and gave away a game that had - I believed - a ROW key. And then Humble popped up a warning box advising that the game key wasn't good for the country my winner was from. And that makes me choose between two sources of information when I have no way of knowing who to believe. I trust the details in this forum. But Humble, with its support problems, is telling me that the key won't be good there, and you know they won't be accountable.
Comment has been collapsed.
hey, sledge,
there are some posts on SG that help people understand region locking. I had to get some help with it before because I was gifting directly from the store and got quite a bit of assistance from some SG users. I think it is pretty complicated unless someone helps explain it. I didn't understand it at all before then. And yeah I'm a level 6 SG user right now lol so I fit the query :p
I think I was level 7 for about 2 days :D
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah but the gifter didn't even try.. didn't put any region lock info in at all...
i had a lock at humble bundle site and the info is there..
Comment has been collapsed.
Here in Europe, region locked things have been our nightmare for decades.
We had to import American SNES cartridges and then install them into an adapter in order to work on European SNES (most games, like Chrono Trigger and tons of other ones, have never been released outside JP/NA).
We had to work our way out with modifiers on the Playstation to adapt American CDs (again, Final Fantasy Tactics and the like - only for American systems).
Luckily I'm not German where half of the games are still restriced nowadays..
Though, I'm too ignorant in general to answer. Better be safe and never enter a giveaway locked for Northern Italy/San Marino although.. they all almost are activable here xD
Comment has been collapsed.
SNES was not region locking, it was because the US used NTSC television signals and we used PAL. (And the French used SECAM, because of course they had to invent a new system instead of using someone else's standards…)
Comment has been collapsed.
So if a giveaway is region restricted and lists several regions, does that mean the key will work in those regions or not work?
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people here are just too lazy to read or mark the giveaways as region restricted.
I am sorry that happened to you twice in such a short time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry if that's a dumb question, but I just had a look at my Forged Battalion purchase plus the store page, but I can't find any region lock info. Is there none because I bought it in Central Europe or am I too blind to find the info?
Comment has been collapsed.
depends on what you bought... you may have bought a region free version
as opposed to a bundled version
Comment has been collapsed.
I got it as part of the Humble Monthly.
Edit: Nevermind, I just found the list...
Comment has been collapsed.
Coming to think of it, since you can't enter any other GA of that game until that issue is resolved, would you like to have my key? I'd probably give it away anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it too hard for people to work out region locking? Especially for a lvl 6 gifter..
My last 2 wins have been unredeemable due to region locks, and again i won't be able to join any GAs for the game until it's resolved...
Am i just being a whiny little prick for complaining about it?
Is it possible to swap a Korean key for one that can activate in Australia?
Comment has been collapsed.