Petition to add Poland

[MoonBase]

As am I. Since you are the person asserting that the Polish horsemen attacked the German tanks, you need to show something to prove it. It's not being a jerk, it's obeying the rules for a debate. When somebody says something ridiculous, they have to cite some proof for anyone to take them seriously.

Uhm, well, to be totally fair, you also made a positive assertion about Polish cavalry and German tank divisions: that charge-attacks never happened.


I've actually only seen one person assert that such charges happened (while another put forward that cavalry was used as mobile infantry and had the occassional successful charge against German infantry, but was generally unable to deal, either offensively or defensively, with German armor). We've got two people now who are making the claim that no cavalry charges against armor ever occurred.


So, both sides, pony up with the sources (Not you, Vertico. You provided your source already. )

 

[a4phantom]

I'm perfectly willing to believe that the Poles never used their cavalry against the German tanks. All I asked for was a source. I don't think it's "ridiculous" to believe that the Poles who had a prould cavalry tradition and did not have a tank army (before you blow up I'm not saying they didn't have some tanks) and who were desperately trying to ward off two super powers would have used cavalry against tanks, for lack of a better option. The German blitz was a masterpiece of combined arms, so indeed it seems unlikely that the Polish cavalry could have entirely avoided confronting German tanks. That said, I don't know if it happened. Perhaps the clever Poles managed to outmaneuver the panzers and only attack where they weren't present. For all I know the Poles never fought on horseback during the entire invasion, which would seem the third option besides running from tanks or attacking them. Which was it?

So I've shown my hand, which is nothing more than that I believed what may be a myth but seems like a logical inference. I have nothing invested in the idea, and no source, so I welcome you to prove me wrong. Where's your source refuting this "ridiculous" common belief? Certainly the "rules for a debate" should encourage someone so smug and condescending to, as MB says so diplomatically, pony up.

 

[Wodan]

Good grief, you guys. Can nobody be bothered? You'll debate the issue for hours but never bother to look it up.

http://www.cavhooah.com/wwii.htm (this site claims the charges happened)
http://www.cavhooah.com/polish.htm (this page, same site, claims the charges were fictional)

However, wikipedia says, in a section about Myths:
"The Polish military was so backward they fought tanks with cavalry: Although Poland had 11 cavalry brigades and its doctrine emphasized cavalry units as elite units, other armies of that time (including German and Soviet) also fielded and extensively used horse cavalry units. Polish cavalry (equipped with modern small arms and light artillery like the highly effective Bofors 37 mm antitank gun) never charged German tanks or entrenched infantry or artillery directly but usually acted as mobile infantry (like dragoons) and reconnaissance units and executed cavalry charges only in rare situations, against enemy infantry. The article about the Battle of Krojanty (when Polish cavalry were fired on by hidden tanks, rather than charging them) describes how this myth originated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

Wodan

 

[Antilogic]

Wodan beat me to it, but I'll add a World War 2: Battles on the Eastern Front book my old roommate has. It is quite explicit that the Polish avoided using cavalry charges against armored divisions. Also, as posted earlier, the original concept for this myth came from the Nazi propaganda machine--very effective, but still a bad source for the truth.

@a4phantom and Moonbase: By default, in debate, you assume something hasn't happened until someone can show it has (which means you have to show me that there was a Polish cavalry charge against armored tanks). For example, there's an invisible pink unicorn right behind you! Prove there isn't one, or, better yet, prove that despite its invisibility, it is indeed pink in color. Actually, I have to show somehow that an invisible pink unicorn could be behind you before that is even admissible as a charge. The fact is, somebody here didn't know the Polish cavalry myth was a myth, and I offered some correction. Call me smug and condescending all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to pass off misinformation as a reasonable position. I'm really getting sick of seeing that over and over again on the boards here.

And if you think my first post was smug and condescending, read it again. I thought that was quite direct and informative.

 

[a4phantom]

Wodan beat me to it, but I'll add a World War 2: Battles on the Eastern Front book my old roommate has.

I'll take your word for that the book you named but don't have to reference says what you say, since I'm a nice and reasonable guy who isn't wedded to a position on this topic, but that's a little light. As for Wodan's post, he said his source went both ways.

It is quite explicit that the Polish avoided using cavalry charges against armored divisions. Also, as posted earlier, the original concept for this myth came from the Nazi propaganda machine--very effective, but still a bad source for the truth.

The Nazi propaganda machine claimed that they bulldozed through France. I'm an American and a Jew and the punchline to one of my favorite jokes is "Well, they said they were alive, but you know what liars those Germans are", but the fact that the Nazis said something doesn't make it untrue.

@a4phantom and Moonbase: By default, in debate, you assume something hasn't happened until someone can show it has (which means you have to show me that there was a Polish cavalry charge against armored tanks). For example, there's an invisible pink unicorn right behind you! Prove there isn't one, or, better yet, prove that despite its invisibility, it is indeed pink in color. Actually, I have to show somehow that an invisible pink unicorn could be behind you before that is even admissible as a charge.

I think you're confusing a debate with a trial. Prove to me that each of the planets (include Pluto for old time's sake) continued an elliptical tragectery around the sun yesterday. If you can't prove that they did (not, were projected to, but did), I guess by your logic we should assume they didn't.

The fact is, somebody here didn't know the Polish cavalry myth was a myth, and I offered some correction. Call me smug and condescending all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to pass off misinformation as a reasonable position. I'm really getting sick of seeing that over and over again on the boards here.

Sad straw man argument. You're not being called smug or condescending for offering your 'correction', but for the rude and superior way you went about it. I may have been wrong in thinking the Polish cavalry ever (aside from being ambushed apparently) fought with German armor. You say you once
knew a guy who had a book that says so. That doesn't make me 'ridiculous'
or demonstrate that I should not 'be taken seriously'.

And if you think my first post was smug and condescending, read it again.

Do you consider that sentence to not be smug and condescending?

I thought that was quite direct and informative.

Well if you thought so. My profile doesn't compliment me on logic or reason, so I guess I have to concede this one.

 

[Vertico]

in topic about cavalry vs. tanks.

I would say - no matter if cavalry charges tanks or not. For sure they didn't got killed like german movies showed. If they attacked armoured brigades (what I believe), they knew what they were doing. Polish cavarlymen was considered as elite and known their advantages and disadvantages and when they atacked, they atacked wisely using anti-tank weapons and mobility.

German tanks used in September Campaign, were very far from perfection. Mostly used PzKpfw I and PzKpfw II were removed as a result of shown experience - very slow, poorly armoured, with just machine gun as a weapon.
I would say a very good target for any troops, vulnerable to machine guns, grenades, not even talking about true anti-tank weapons.

If I was to decide if to send quick and well equiped fast cavaly versus slow and vulnerable german tanks, I would send them without a doubt

Poland cost Germans approximately the equipment of an entire armored division, and after September Campaing they had to rethink the idea of mobile warfare again, developing new types of tanks, when only PzKpfw V and PzKpfw VI were good enough to be an individual power.

And last interesting input from the other side:
According to Heinz Guderian's memoirs, the Polish cavalry charge at Krojanty impressed the Germans and caused a widespread panic among the soldiers and the staff of German 20th Motorised Infantry Division, which delayed their offensive and forced them to consider a tactical retreat.

As I said before - don't underestimate cavalry

 

[Mirc]

Let's say than hisory of Poland begins with cristianity (and we forget about previous rulers). It happend on 966AD. Please compare with all those Dutch, Serbians, Aborigines, Hittites, Cambodians etc. Even "great" Rome didn't last such long

966? The first organized state in Transylvania was formed in 800 something (nobody knows the exact date) and fought against Magyars in 822 AD. And I don't claim that's a reason to include Romania in civ. Not at all. (just so you don't get me wrong) You can't make a real comparison between civs based on the time they were formed. The only thing you can deduce from the time when they were formed is, well, the time when they were formed. In my opinion, that's not an argument in favor of Poland.

Regards,
Mirc

 

[danieldaniel]

Adding to the dates discussion, the first Spanish independent state was cerated in the V century, not 900 hundred years ago as someone posted.

From the wiki:
“With time, a secondary form of the word Hispania gained usage: Spania. According to Isidore of Seville, it is with the Visigothic domination of the zone that the idea of a peninsular unity is sought after, and the phrase Mother Hispania is first spoken. Up to that date, Hispania designated all of the peninsula's lands. In Historia Gothorum, the Visigoth Suinthila appears as the first king of "totius Spaniae"; the history's prologue is the well-known De laude Spaniae ("About Hispania's pride") where Hispania is dealt with as a Gothic nation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania

Many count the fall of Constantinople as the end of the Roman Empire, that makes a lot more than 1200 years of history. That’s all very subjective anyway.

Numbers apart, I think Poland makes a great civ for an European scenario, but just not enough for full civ. As I understand Poland golden age took place during the 16th century. At that time the world was being explored by the western European countries, whose culture was still flourishing under the Renaissance. The seeds of the French and industrial revolutions were being planted... When we isolate Poland and compare it with Mali or the Incas it looks great, the sheer numbers look great, but if we look at the role it plays in European history, we see that it stayed away from the main events of its time, it plays a marginal role.

 

[LDeska]

Hmmm most of you takes our petition too personally. I haven't put in the body of petition a word about removing any nation, that is already included in civ4. I haven't named any particular nation before which Poland has to be included.
Don't take this a petition as a petition against any other nation. It's just a petition to add Poland as a playable civ, that's all.

P.S. a4phantom - thanks for your support! Each vote counts

 

[a4phantom]

in topic about cavalry vs. tanks.

I would say - no matter if cavalry charges tanks or not. For sure they didn't got killed like german movies showed.

I'm absolutely willing to believe that
1. movies lie
2. propaganda lies
3. Nazis lied better than practically anyone

iIf they attacked armoured brigades (what I believe), they knew what they were doing. Polish cavarlymen was considered as elite and known their advantages and disadvantages and when they atacked, they atacked wisely using anti-tank weapons and mobility.

Here's where it starts to fall apart logically and look like patriotism speaking to me. Poland lost. No shame there, France lost and Britain orAmerica would have lost too without water barriers, and more easily per capita, but the fact is that whatever Poland did to try and stop those tanks it did not work.

German tanks used in September Campaign, were very far from perfection. Mostly used PzKpfw I and PzKpfw II were removed as a result of shown experience - very slow, poorly armoured, with just machine gun as a weapon.
I would say a very good target for any troops, vulnerable to machine guns, grenades, not even talking about true anti-tank weapons.

That's true. On the other hand, no one had seen the blitz in action. The closest thing anyone had had to the power of German (and for all their primativeness, I hope you're not denying that they were a mighty weapon) was the proxy war of Franco's fascists in Spain. When Hitler's Panzers and Stukas blasted across the Polish border, no one understood German equipment or tactics, so for the Poles to have adapted brilliant and perfectly fitted countermeasures on time would been almost super human.

If I was to decide if to send quick and well equiped fast cavaly versus slow and vulnerable german tanks, I would send them without a doubt

Especially if you were trying to save a country that was being overwhelmed and they were all you had. That's why I find it hard to understand Antilogic's outrage at my belief that cavalry came into contact with tanks.

Poland cost Germans approximately the equipment of an entire armored division, and after September Campaing they had to rethink the idea of mobile warfare again, developing new types of tanks, when only PzKpfw V and PzKpfw VI were good enough to be an individual power.

I wonder what had happened if the French and Brits had had the preparation and nerve to make good on their declaration and invade Germany from the west while Poland was holding out.

And last interesting input from the other side:
According to Heinz Guderian's memoirs, the Polish cavalry charge at Krojanty impressed the Germans and caused a widespread panic among the soldiers and the staff of German 20th Motorised Infantry Division, which delayed their offensive and forced them to consider a tactical retreat.

As I said before - don't underestimate cavalry

According to the Wiki page, there were no tanks at Krojanty. I do like this though: "After the end of World War II it was still used by Soviet propaganda as an example of stupidity of Polish commanders, who allegedly did not prepare their country for the war and instead wasted the blood of their soldiers." Communists have no sense of irony. The page also says: According to George Parada in Invasion of Poland (Fall Weiss): "Contrary to German propaganda, Polish cavalry brigades never charged tanks with their sabres or lances as they were equipped with anti-tank weapons such as 37 mm Bofors wz.36 (exported to UK as Ordnance Q.F. 37 mm Mk I) antitank guns, that could penetrate 26 mm of armour at 600 m at 30 degrees. The cavalry brigades were in the process of being reorganized into motorized brigades". Another weapon was anti-tank rifle model 1935 (karabin przeciwpancerny wz. 35). Its calibre was 7.92 mm and it could penetrate 15 mm of armour at 300 m at 30 degrees. Which I'll take as an endorsement of the crazy idea that the cavalry did fight tanks.

 

[Vertico]

When we isolate Poland and compare it with Mali or the Incas it looks great, the sheer numbers look great, but if we look at the role it plays in European history, we see that it stayed away from the main events of its time, it plays a marginal role.

It seems You don't know the European History enough. It was something very opposite. Give me "main events" were Poland played a marginal role and I will give you here events, to support my words:

1) 1004-1018 - Wars with Holy Roman Empire, won by Poland. There not many powers in Europe able to not get conquered or vassalized by Holy Roman Empire and their crusades

2) 1410 - Battle of Grunwald - Greatest battle of mediewal Europe. Poles, Lithuanians, Tatars, russians, Moldavians beat proud chivalry from Teotonic Oder and Western Europe Mercanaries. That was also the first time when were used bombards on the battlefield. Victory finally stoped nothern crusades.

3) 1444 - Crusade and battle of Varna. - Coalition of christian countries (Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Papacy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Moldova , Wallachia and Venice) under orders of polish King started a crusade against turk who just started to advance in Southern Europe. Battle finally was lost and this had a major influence on Balcans and let Turks to conquer smaller countries one by one.

4) Jagiellonian Dynasty - Who rulled several countries (mainly Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia, hungary) with territory over 2 000 000 km² form Baltic Sea to Adriatic and Black Seas. Jagiellonian Queens were mothers of Emperor of Holy Roman Empire, kings of Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Sweden, Muscovy, Dukes of Lithuania, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Saxony.

5) 1655-1661 Northern Wars - Conflicts between Sweden and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia, Brandenburg-Prussia, the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark-Norway. Maybe not the biggest one but significant in XVII century.

6) 1683 Battle of Vienna and Holy League- Turning Point in history of Ottoman Empire. Holly League forces (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Franconia, Saxony, Swabia, Austria, Bavaria under command of Polish King Jan III Sobieski were able to repell siege of Vienna, and advance with other great victory at Parkany. That was the begining of the end of Ottoman Empire

7) American Revolutionary War - Among many of recuits from all europe, two peaople became a national heroes of USA - Kościuszko and Pułaski. Kościuszko was recuited by Franklin in France and then became head engineer of Continental Army. His work made significant contributions to the American successful retreat from the battle of Ticonderoga and victory at Saratoga in 1777. From 1777 to his death, Pułaski fought in the American Revolutionary War for the independence of the United States. He was a noted cavalryman and, as the "Father of the American Cavalry," created Pulaski's Legion, one of the few cavalry regiments in the American Continental Army. He took part in the Battle of Brandywine, the Siege of Charleston, South Carolina, and the siege of Savannah, Georgia. One of the first tributes to Pułaski was paid when George Washington on November 17, 1779 issued a challege-and-password set for identifying friend and foe when crossing military lines: "Query: Pulaski, Response: Poland".

8) Duchy of Warsaw and Napoleonic Era - In 1797 in Italy was formed a first Polish Legion, fighting for France against Austria. Then Polish army was fighting under command of Napoleon almost everywhere when he advanced through his military campaings. As a result for some time Poland retaken independency as a Duchy of Warsaw. Polish troops were first who enter Moscow.

9) 1914-1918 I World War - Even if Poland didn't enter the war as independent country, polish troops were one one the major forces in war especially on the eatern front. "Polish Issue" was also one of the most discussed worldwide and finally Polish indepedence became a fact. In one his "Fourteen Points" USA president Woodrow Wilson ponted:
Establishment of an independent Poland with access to the sea
But for independence Poland had to fight their own.

10) 1920 - 1921 Miracle at the Vistula and Soviet advance - The Bolsheviks had in 1919 gained the upper hand in the Russian Civil War, having dealt crippling blows to the White Russians. Vladimir Lenin viewed Poland as a bridge that had to be crossed so that communism could be brought to Central and Western Europe, and the Polish-Bolshevik War seemed the perfect way to test Bolshevik strength. Bolshevik speeches asserted that the revolution was to be carried to western Europe on the bayonets of Soviet soldats and that the shortest route to Berlin and Paris lay through Warsaw. Bolsheviks defeat in several battles in Poland stopped Soviet Union from ekspansion for the next 20 years

11) 1939-1945 II World War - Poland was one of the major Allied Countries. Polish troops were fighting at every front from Siberia, to North Africa, from Poland, to Antlantic Ocean. Polish cryptologists had a major influence of breaking the enigma code and 147 polish pilots in Battle of Britain has scored 20% of total kills of RAF



So, Danieldaniel, which main events I missed where Poland didn't play a role?

 

[danieldaniel]

And it seems to me you don't understand history. Every european country has fought some "greatest battle of [whatever]" against its neighbor, and most have fought against the turks at some point. I'm sorry, but your list doesn't impress much.

So, Danieldaniel, which main events I missed where Poland didn't play a role?

I quote myself in case you missed it...

...the world was being explored by the western European countries, whose culture was still flourishing under the Renaissance. The seeds of the French and industrial revolutions were being planted...

 

[Vertico]

I wonder what had happened if the French and Brits had had the preparation and nerve to make good on their declaration and invade Germany from the west while Poland was holding out.

I watched once a documentary movie done by BBC where some historians said, that Germany was no prepared to war in 1939 what was clearly visible during September Campaign. hitlers and his commanders had a tough problem to be solved as Poland made an alliance with France and UK in August 1939. They first though to attack on France but in such situation they were sure, that Poland will open a second front. So they made a pact with Soviets hoping that "West won't die for Gdansk" and atacked Poland first. They were right unfortunetly and because of "Western betrayal" and next Phony War, the war last 5 years.
Those historians made a hypothesis that if Allied forces had atacked from West, the war would have been over in 2 weeks. And Soviets would be afraid to invade Poland after such clear reaction of the West. They were waiting 17 day to attack, not sure how France and UK would behave.

edit:
@Danieldaniel
bla bla bla

 

[a4phantom]

P.S. a4phantom - thanks for your support! Each vote counts

You won it, so you earned it.

 

[Mirc]

1444 - Crusade and battle of Varna. - Coalition of christian countries (Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Papacy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Moldova , Wallachia and Venice) under orders of polish King started a crusade against turk who just started to advance in Southern Europe. Battle finally was lost and this had a major influence on Balcans and let Turks to conquer smaller countries one by one.

If I were you I wouldn't bring this up. Do you know the full story?

 

[danieldaniel]

@Danieldaniel
bla bla bla

Running out of arguments?

Nationalism can be good if taken in a small amount, otherwise it may lead fanaticism. Your stories about glorious battles against the Turks may work good when told to a Polish audience, but don’t be surprised if foreigners don’t share your enthusiasm with the story of Kościuszko and Pułaski.

I’m sorry to make this plain to you, but Poland’s contribution to European history is generally not considered to be very important, except for school history teachers in Poland. In fact, the whole history of the world can be explained and understood without mentioning Poland a single time.

The contribution of a nation to world history can’t be measured through a series of battles and wars, there’s a lot more to it and that’s a very old fashioned way to understand history. Poland has surely its place in European history, no one denies that, but it’s not a prime one. You can not compare Poland with Russia, Germany, England, France or Spain. Those are the modern European nations that are present in CivIV. Adding Poland to that list is like putting a bottle of cooking white wine next to a bottle of Don Perignon, that’s just not right.

I think CivIV is better off without Poland. If they are going to add new civs there are many others that come before Poland, and there’re also many leaders from the existing civs that are far better choices than adding Poland, such as Charles de Gaulle or Abd al-Rahman III to name just two. Before adding a new civ to the game there has to be a good reason, otherwise the overall historical feeling of the game suffers, the more civs the better is not a good way to do things.

That’s just my opinion, I certainly don’t expect you to share it, but there’s no need to say someone doesn’t know about history just because his opinion differs from yours.

 

[HungryMouse]

11) 1939-1945 II World War - Poland was one of the major Allied Countries. Polish troops were fighting at every front from Siberia, to North Africa, from Poland, to Antlantic Ocean.

That can be applied to any nation and any war. In every army there are tens and hundreds of nationalities.

BTW tell me more about front in Siberia... The only I can think of is the war with Japan in the mid-1945, but that did not take place in Siberia, but in Manchzhuria and China.

On the topic I agree that battles and wars mean very little for picking the civilisation for a computer game. What I expect from the game is a fun to play, and I personally would not have fun to play with a civilisation I know quite a little of. For sure it does not mean that Poland is a minor nation or an unimportant country, but it's just somewhere far away and blends with other Slavic nations, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Slovenians, Serbs... Again leaders. It's cool to play as Napoleon, Washington or Stalin, because almost everyone knows these guys. But Polish king? Hmmm, doesn't say much to me.

Again, it's my personal perception of the game. Maybe it's just that Poland had to have better PR in history to be "cool" to play.

Well, and the issue of balance of course. It has been noted that there are too much of European nations already, perhaps this is why Malis are there although for many people (me including) they are probably even less known as Poland, but nevertheless Africa couldn't not be left solely for Egypt...

 

[LDeska]

The fact that you don't know too much about Poland only shows your ignorance. In other words - if I would know nothing about Spain, should it be removed from civ4? I think no. The whole thread and petition says about our arguments - it's not just saying 'I want it'. And one more thing danieldaniel - has anyone said that Poland is the most important state in the world? No, we just want it to be included as one of many states and I repeat - I don't want to say that Poland is more important than state X or Y.
If you do not share this point of view - it's ok, we acknowledged that, you may rest in peace.

 

[Alphidius]

I just signed the petition.
Anything for more European Civs to be added in the near future!

 

[a4phantom]

I watched once a documentary movie done by BBC where some historians said, that Germany was no prepared to war in 1939 what was clearly visible during September Campaign. hitlers and his commanders had a tough problem to be solved as Poland made an alliance with France and UK in August 1939. They first though to attack on France but in such situation they were sure, that Poland will open a second front. So they made a pact with Soviets hoping that "West won't die for Gdansk" and atacked Poland first. They were right unfortunetly and because of "Western betrayal" and next Phony War, the war last 5 years.
Those historians made a hypothesis that if Allied forces had atacked from West, the war would have been over in 2 weeks. And Soviets would be afraid to invade Poland after such clear reaction of the West. They were waiting 17 day to attack, not sure how France and UK would behave.

edit:
@Danieldaniel
bla bla bla

It's hard to distinguish the facts from the conventional wisdom regarding that period. For example, Nevile Chamberlain is regarded as a coward and a fool who thought he could buy peace by giving Hitler what he wanted. But some people argue that he knew full well that war with Germany could not be stopped, and was buying time to prepare Britain to survive and triumph, because the Germans had such a huge headstart on building an airforce. But he'll always be remembered badly.