This came up in my mind after earlier today doing a thread about Operation Barbarossa, where I was promptly told that it basically was a pipe dream that could have never worked out. Now, taking this into account and the fact that its basically the same with the Japanese in the Pacific: Isnt every WW2 strategy game, especially games like Hearts of Iron 3, highly unrealistic and unhistorical if they let you win for example Operation barbarossa as the germans? Of course, its a game. Its supposed to make fun. But isnt it wrong to say then that every game, that enables you to do things like that, is in reality not a historical WW2 strategy game?
I believe you're being confused by the fact that words can mean more than one thing.
Explore your logic further, they call these games 'realistic' and yet they're computer simulations and not actually the events happening in real time as you participate.
Mate, they're games. Games have options and different paths for the pleasure of the player. Half of the questions in this sub are "what if some thing that didn't happen happened," does it surprise you that that's a common theme in games?