Why Poland SHOULD be included in one of the official sets

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Ubik
LoD, give it up man, you are not making sense any more. Poland saved Europe from the bolshevicks? Yes, that's a good one indeed...


Please, read some unbiased history... the Red Army at the '20's wouldn't be capable of winning a footbal game - actually, the Red army was not an army in the terms we know it today, it became a real army after Stalins reform in the '30's

And definitely Lenin wasn't that fool to think otherwise. His main problem was to stabilize the revolution inside USSR, so he can go on with what he thought at the time was right. And also secure areas that could distress easily...

Going on a rampage against Europe was not an option - hell, they retreated from WW1 only a few months earlier.

So, what the heck are you talking about???

In the 1920's the Red Army tried to take back polish territory taken by the Germans and then made into the independent state of Poland by the treaty of Versailles. The Red army invaded and the Polish army forced them back, almost doubling the size of Poland. If they had taken Poland they would have been in a stronger position than in the 30's and 40's. In 1920 Hitler was a spy in the Nazi party working for the German Army, had he risen to power with the Soviets in control of Poland would he have argued for the Danzig Corridor, Would he have gone to War with Russia over it?, would the German Army of 100,000 imposed by the T of V been able to keep back the Red tide?


"Going on a rampage against Europe was not an option - hell, they retreated from WW1 only a few months earlier"
And a few months later they went to war with Poland


"it became a real army after Stalins reform in the '30's"
Reforms, don't you mean Purges. What was it, something like 1/5 Red Army officers were sent to labor camps


The Army really only got on its feet again in 43

[Ubik]

I don't think we are saying something different here, but let's check up the details:

Yes, the Red Army invaded Polish (as set by the Versailles Treaty) ground and was pushed back. Do you happen to know what the Red Army in the '20's was?

No, I thought so. The Red Army was a "revolutionary" army, with full democratic structure - nothing like an army as you and I know it. Officers were changing in a "cycle" basis, the soldiers had a word in everything that was happening etc. It was equipped very, very poorly, without logistic support and not even half mechanized unit.

Even the cavalry was actually ravaged. All the cavalry officers were of aristocratic origin, or Kozaks (the latter hated the Communists). Not to mention that they had no air force and only "ancient" artillery.

So, I repeat "what red army"???

About the Poland invasion. The British empire helped the Poles extensively, supporting the efforts to keep the outcome of the V.T. intact.

Have the Soviets taken (back) the land (it belonged to the Russian Empire) the whole Europe would invade to push them back in a week or even less.

So, no, nobody was threatened by that Red Army...

About the reform.

The Red Army was reformed during the years 1931-1938. Along with the two main industrialization plans performed by Stalin's regime, the Red Army was tourned into a real army (with ierarchical structure, standard officers etc. etc.). Then Jo S. decided the newly crowned army officials were way too dangerous for him and massacred or deported (Gulags) about 2/3 of them (along with more than 15 mi. of the USSR population...)


Yes, after that the army had a tugh time going back on track, but the German invasion worked miracles: A new generation of skilled officers along with the newly aquired equipment and the vast numbers, produced the best army of the world at the time.


Before 1932 the red army had one (number: 1) mechanized division. After the first reform, they possesed three dozens. They builded an Air Force from zero, and also equipped their divisions with modern (sometimes even ahead of their times) weapons. It is quite enlightening that before 1932 the Soviets had no tanks at all, and in 1939 they had the best tank in Europe.

...just for your information.

[Saint Marcus]

Plenty . How many and from what eras do you need them?

10. Any era will do. Can be modern or medieval or whatever. Preferably "military" leaders. Any help is greatly appreciated!

[LoD]

DonJoel: Poland being powerful at a certain timeframe was not my sole argument - you would know that should you have chosen to read the thread carefully.

Triped: Calling one's nation pathetic is a great offense for that person. I think you don't realize that. Well, you should. Better don't do that in real life - for example, if you would say that to my face, you would probably find yourself quickly in a horizontal position with several areas of you body aching real hard.


Ubik: First of all, I vow here before all the Apolytioners that I will give a thousand bucks for each completely unbiased history book you find.

Secondly, you're right, objectively the Soviet army was in a bad situation. However, you're not taking to consideration the fact that almost every country in Europe had poor military and economic resources at the time, for obvious reasons (WWI, hint hint). Especially Germany BTW. And for one thing, the Reds had a huge human potential, so an overcrowding strategy would be an option.

Finally: do you know what was the actuall objective for the attack on Poland? To "spread the revolution" over to Germany. Still implying that there was no continental threat?



MarkL: Hmm, for now I'll give a couple of ones from the top of my head:

-Zawisza Czarny - not exactly a leader, but Poland's most famous and one of Europe's most famous knigts.
-Stefan (Steven) Czarnecki - an officer which has showed outstanding merit in the war with the Swedish.
-Jan III Sobieski - originally the grand crown hetman (the highest commanding rank in Poland at the time), he led the Polish army into victories against Turkey. Later elected king, he commanded the expedition to assist the besieged Vienna.
-Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Ko¶ciuszko - he was the leader of the National Uprising in 1794.
-Józef (Joseph) Pi³sudzki - an early XXth century Polish national leader, considered one of the greatest.

I'll give more soon, as soon as I remember them .

LoD

[DonJoel]

Lod, I can see that you love your country very much, I love my country very much too. But the fact is, Poland got nothing to do in civilization. Im sure its a nice country but the facts are still the same.

[LoD]

DonJoel: Nice to know that we are both patriotic, but what facts do you mean ?

MarkL: Another one I rembered:
Henryk D±browski - active during the Napoleonic period, he organized the Polish Legions.

LoD

[DonJoel]

Well by saying the "facts" I mean that there are not enough things that Poland has done to qualify. If you put in Poland there are atleast 30 other nations that has to be included.

You must admit that the french, the english, the germans, the romans, the greeks and russia all have contributed alot more to the world than Poland and they have all been bigger to.

Of course, the polish nation was alot more advanced than the Iroquais (Well, actually most countries were more advanced and bigger than the Iroquais) but Poland is an Europan civilization and there are enough of those already.

Theres really not much more to say, i suggest you make a polish civilization in the editor, it will probably be easy.

[Sarxis]

I am mostly Polish, and I don't know TOO much about it's history (third generation USA), but I DO know that Poland was a very powerful force in Europe, and still is today to some extent.

I think one of the things that may have aided Poland's, maybe not so much 'downfall', but it's inability to stay abrest with its European and Russian neighbors was it's lack of colonization.

Or did they colonize?

[LoD]

DonJoel:

Well by saying the "facts" I mean that there are not enough things that Poland has done to qualify. If you put in Poland there are atleast 30 other nations that has to be included.

Of course, that is your opinion, and you're fully entitled to it - I repsect that. If you do not provide some arguments supporting it, however, keep in mind that I'm highly unlikely to be convinced.

Theres really not much more to say, i suggest you make a polish civilization in the editor, it will probably be easy.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I won't accept it. First of all, the graphics would never be as professional as in the official civs. Secondly, the official set civs are made by people who now all ins and outs of the game, therefore they will make a much better job at balancing it. Finally, which is the most important fact, a user-made civ will never have the same prestige as the official civ, and will never be accepted into sanctioned tournaments.


Anunikoba: You're right, Poland never had any colonies worth talking about. Unfortunately.

LoD

[ogotai]

Triped - I request: don't say a word from now! You had already showed us your level...


LoD:

the actuall objective for the attack on Poland? To "spread the revolution" over to Germany

That's a fact - I learnt about it in liceum (polish word), eeee (its middle school, eee, you know..? school where you go to before you go on the university you may say: secondary school ) and I had seen a documentary on Discovery channel

LoD:

-Zawisza Czarny - not exactly a leader, but Poland's most famous and one of Europe's most famous knigts.
-Stefan (Steven) Czarnecki - an officer which has showed outstanding merit in the war with the Swedish.
-Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Ko¶ciuszko - he was the leader of the National Uprising in 1794

Don't miss the heart of the matter LoD... We are talking rather about rulers, not generals, so let's focus on them

I'm confused between:
Józef Pi³sudski and Jan III Sobieski ,hmm...

DanJoel:

Lod, I can see that you love your country very much, I love my country very much too.

And I love my country very much, but I'm on this forum from today, and I couldn't show you all how I love my country - Poland

But the fact is, Poland got nothing to do in civilization

Why not?!

Im sure its a nice country

Naturraly! It is very nice country! I invite you all to visit Poland (but look out for rowing(rouwing..?) bands


Anunikoba - my best wishes to you for your memory (not every one remember about his descend...)

LoD:

Of course, that is your opinion, and you're fully entitled to it - I repsect that. If you do not provide some arguments supporting it, however, keep in mind that I'm highly unlikely to be convinced.

Tak trzymaæ
Me too... (it's not a translation )

Thanks for the suggestion, but I won't accept it. First of all, the graphics would never be as professional as in the official civs. Secondly, the official set civs are made by people who now all ins and outs of the game, therefore they will make a much better job at balancing it. Finally, which is the most important fact, a user-made civ will never have the same prestige as the official civ, and will never be accepted into sanctioned tournaments.

I agree with LoD.

Anunikoba: You're right, Poland never had any colonies worth talking about. Unfortunately.

Why "unfortunately"?!
You wish that Poland has had some colonies for example in Ausralia, North America..? Maybe we should conquered seas with aur baltic fleet, and built new "homes" on non our lands..? heh, I don't think so... Poland naturraly has fought wars in the past, but there were deffence wars, or wars with our neigbours who could menace us... Nothing more. We always fought for our freedom and independency... Our ambisious newer was to rule the world, or half of the world, like some countries in the past. Our aspiration was to be here in Central Europe where is our place and to have strong, safe from enemies, culturate (?), with economical safe, etc (LoD pomórz - brakuje mi s³ów...) country - Poland.
But to add in this discussion more arguments for Poland, it would be better if Poles in history had asimilate people in their colonies like did GB, Spain, etc...
But did the Incas, Indians, Aborigeans, etc... want this asimilation..?

We had influence on world (yes world) in rather good way - try tell something really bad about Poland...

[orange]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But the RUSians The people of RUS conquered all the Kievan eras and owned the area between Vladimir (near Moscow) to near Byzantine.

I am also lead to believe that they were guards for the Byzantines at one point...

But, you could probably argue that the Vikings technically ruled them after 1200 then the polish around 1400 until the nearly-idigenous Cossaks came

Something in your eye DarkCloud?

[St Leo]

St Leo: 1. It was a country at that time. First of all, don't you think that even a brief occupation of Europe would prove dissastrous to its economical and scientific progress

No, I don't. The Dutch, the Hansa, and others did a pretty good job of ignoring dominant military powers. As for science, the state would be far too multi-cultural impose its own ways. After all, the Ottoman empire was pretty much the result of the Turks conquering the Byzantine Greeks and trying to subdue Arabs, Transylvanians, and others.

as well to its cultural heritage.

So we end up with a few more minarets in architecture, so what?

Secondly. why are you so sure that it would fall apart?

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, and the Empiers of countless Chinese dynasties all fell apart. Turks do not have any superpowers I know of that would allow them to crush everyone; Assyrians can attest to the weaknesses of the "crush everyone" technique.

Wouldn't it be equally or even more probable that it would assimilate the conquered?

The Mughal empire was very different from the Ottoman empire; something tells me that the conquered people in question had a lot to do with that.

[LoD]

ogotai:

Don't miss the heart of the matter LoD... We are talking rather about rulers, not generals, so let's focus on them

I'm confused between:
Józef Pi³sudski and Jan III Sobieski ,hmm...

You've confused two things - I wasn't giving possible Polish rulers, I was listing Great Leaders (you have the info on Great Leaders in the Changes section of my Civ site ). So what I think is that Great Leaders shouldn't be kings, but rather the great people who fought for the "Polish cause" by means of force.

On the colonial matter - sure, it's nice that we had no negative impact on the natives of some far-away lands, but I think there were areas where Poland could have set up profitable colonies - after all, at one time the Ist Republic had acces to the Black Sea, and thus the entire Mediterranean Basin (granted that we would get through the Bosfor and Dardanele straits of course ). And those colonies could have had a small influence on the native population - just becuse its a settlement doesn't mean it has to devastate the local culture.
However, you're right, what you stated was the idea of the Polish Republic, and I second that.


St. Leo:

No, I don't. The Dutch, the Hansa, and others did a pretty good job of ignoring dominant military powers. As for science, the state would be far too multi-cultural impose its own ways. After all, the Ottoman empire was pretty much the result of the Turks conquering the Byzantine Greeks and trying to subdue Arabs, Transylvanians, and others.

First of all, Hansa was not a country. Secondly, keep in mind that what you are describing as "dominant military powers" were very similiar to the Dutch, as far as cultural etc. matters were concerned. Now the Ottoman empire had very different culture - scientific heritage, religion, values. 'Nuff said.

So we end up with a few more minarets in architecture, so what?

And a couple of thousand pales decorated with humans.....

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, and the Empiers of countless Chinese dynasties all fell apart. Turks do not have any superpowers I know of that would allow them to crush everyone; Assyrians can attest to the weaknesses of the "crush everyone" technique.

What you have presented is an inductive statement. Just because all the large empires have fallen apart, doesn't mean that this had to as well. As an analogy, just because you have seen many swans and they all were white, doesn't mean you can say that a black swan does not exist, since you can always bump into one.

The Mughal empire was very different from the Ottoman empire; something tells me that the conquered people in question had a lot to do with that.

(edited) So, first you are comparing the Ottoman to great empires that not only managed to not be culturaly assimilated, but accomplished the opposite, and now you're again returning to the "wild horde" argument? Please be consistent.

LoD

[krzysiek]

Yet another Polish Great Leader (probably more famous in US than in Poland). Not one of the greatest but worth mentioning.

Pulaski, Casimir
Pronounced As: kasimr plask, Pol. Kazimierz Pulaski käzmyesh pooläsk , c.1748-1779, Polish patriot and military commander in the American Revolution. Born in Podolia of a noble family, he participated with his father in forming (1768) the Confederation of Bar to oppose Russian influence in Poland. In the unsuccessful rebellion against the Russian-dominated king of Poland, Stanislaus II, he gained military fame. After the Confederation was suppressed by Russian troops, he escaped (1772) to Prussia and later to France. There he met Benjamin Franklin, who gave him a letter of recommendation to George Washington. Joining the Revolutionary cause in 1777, he served at Brandywine and Germantown. In 1778 he resigned a cavalry command rather than continue in service under Gen. Anthony Wayne, and he organized his own cavalry unit, the Pulaski Legion, which saw a great deal of service before Pulaski was mortally wounded while leading a cavalry charge in the attack on Savannah.

[LoD]

krzysiek: Quite a good choice. What would you think about Bem BTW? Or Sowinski?