Petition to add Poland

[Giaur]

Running out of arguments? .... bla bla bla

Score some posts before considering to be taken seriously. Two digit numer for the begining.
P.S. You don't like Poland, it's your problem. Soon you will have to admit there is a nation on this world called Poland.

 

[Yeekim]

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.

I tend to agree that Poland is certainly not among the very first to be mentioned in a history course of the world. And although I do know about all those glorious events listed by a4phantom, mentioning Pulaski as a reason to include Poland in civ made me smile. I bet there is no nation to be left out if we started to delve that deep.

However, I do not agree that there has to be some specific reason to include a civ in the game. If a nation has a made contribution to the history great enough to make up decent UB and UU for starters, nothing is wrong with adding it. Civ is about rewriting history of the world, not about reliving it. And I daresay that even as we cannot really draw a winning comparison between Poland and Britain or Poland and Russia today, at some point in history Poland sure had a good shot to the prime league. A different role of dice somewhere could have made that difference.

I am Estonian. I would not add Estonia to the game, for all my patriotism. I could not think of a leader of that scope or of UU. But I could see Poland there, not among 20 first today but among 50 first tomorrow for sure. (hopefully)

The problem with more civs in certainly not connected with "historical feeling", but with all the work and balancing issues involved...

@Giaur: making conclusions based on number of posts one has made is a case of ill judgement taken to extreme. Even on this forum, there are members who make three illiterate and pointless polls a day, for starters...

EDIT: Sorry, the chap overly familiar with Polish history was Vertico...

 

[a4phantom]

Score some posts before considering to be taken seriously. Two digit numer for the begining.
P.S. You don't like Poland, it's your problem. Soon you will have to admit there is a nation on this world called Poland.

This stopped being interesting so long ago. The pro-Poles have listed their reasons for inclusion, people who disagree shouldn't sign the petition. Do widzenia.

 

[HungryMouse]

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.

But in your arguments you (not you in personal, but you in general) still tend to show that Poland is superior to many other countries: it produced more great people than some other countries included in the game, it occupied bigger territory than other countries, it NOW has GDP greater than other countries and so on and so forth. Of course you do try to prove that Poland is better than others. Naturally, on that ground I would oppose you.

Further, I read the whole thread and IMHO you did not provide very convincing arguments for inclusion of Poland as a separate civ. For me Slavs as a civ would fit better in the concept of the game.

I do not think that not knowing much about Poland shows my ignorance. You know, I have more interesting hobbies than studying Polish history, and in the schools here they really do not grant Poland a special role in the European history. Do you really think that people outside Poland would have a deep knowledge about battles Poland won or lost, about your great people, your kings and the size of your territory centuries ago? Should I call you ignorant if you do not know "too much" about my country (Estonia)? Again, if your point is that Poland is not more important than state X or Y then why should I know "too much" about Poland than let's say about Sweden?

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Further, I read the whole thread and IMHO you did not provide very convincing arguments for inclusion of Poland as a separate civ. For me Slavs as a civ would fit better in the concept of the game.

This is a very ignorant statement. Slavs are the most numerous of the three major language groups in Europe, counting over a dozen different nations of radically different history/cultural influences. To say that Slavs must be one civilization is to say that France and Spain must be one civilization, or Germany and England, because they are "Romanic" or "Germanic" in origin.

IMO Poland is important country in European history. I'll rate it on par with the Netherlands for inclusion in CIV.

 

[Mirc]

With the Netherlands? Did you know that Australia was called "The New Holland" (or something like that) and New York was called New Amsterdam?

 

[HungryMouse]

This is a very ignorant statement. Slavs are the most numerous of the three major language groups in Europe, counting over a dozen different nations of radically different history/cultural influences. To say that Slavs must be one civilization is to say that France and Spain must be one civilization, or Germany and England, because they are "Romanic" or "Germanic" in origin.

IMO Poland is important country in European history. I'll rate it on par with the Netherlands for inclusion in CIV.

This was rather an option for compromise decision between including and not including Poland.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

With the Netherlands? Did you know that Australia was called "The New Holland" (or something like that) and New York was called New Amsterdam?

Of course. I am a history wiz.

Poland was the domineering force in Central/Eastern Europe for centuries. But it was once upon a time. Moreover, in more recent times, Austria, Russia and Prussia carved it. History is written by the winners. So, you won't hear much about Poland in high school.

History is a very complex system, but I'm inclined to say had there been no Poland, the Ottomans would have defeated Austria, or severely weaken it. And without strong Austria to balance the French ambitions, are you sure the Netherlands would have existed today? Do you have any idea how many French kings have planned to, or actually warred for the Netherlands?

I am not Polish and I don't care whether Poland is in or out of CIV. But as I historian, I rate Poland as a second tier importance European state, along with the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden, only after the first tier powers that are currently included in the game.

 

[HungryMouse]

Of course. I am a history wiz.

Poland was the domineering force in Central/Eastern Europe for centuries. But it was once upon a time. Moreover, in more recent times, Austria, Russia and Prussia carved it. History is written by the winners. So, you won't hear much about Poland in high school.

Well, if you refer to the peak of Poland's golden age in 16th century, then let's not forget that it was the union with Lithuania and this fact is very well known. At that time Lithuania was powerful and a big share of Poland's fame and success has to go to Lithuania as well.

 

[Yeekim]

This is a very ignorant statement. Slavs are the most numerous of the three major language groups in Europe, counting over a dozen different nations of radically different history/cultural influences. To say that Slavs must be one civilization is to say that France and Spain must be one civilization, or Germany and England, because they are "Romanic" or "Germanic" in origin.

They did include Celts, for God's sake.

 

[Vertico]

No history this time. Relax.
Why I put the so many facts there? Not for Unconquered Sun whose statement is exactly what I think, not for a4phantom who knows history enough to talk about more interesting and detailed things but for people like danieldaniel who knows history from computer games or cartoons.

Words like "...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..."
or "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" is ignorance. Why not to fight with them?

I was not talking about enthusiasm but about polish influeance which many denies with stubbornness worth of better goals. Those "Glourious battles" with Turks was a part of European History not less significant than II world war and for sure more important than founding New Amsterdam. It is easy to repeat banalities about Renaissance but let's try to ask for its reasons. Turks were one of them.

I know that many people will not buy it but if at least one will be enough interested to discover that world is more complicated than it seems and are different regions in the world than Western Europe I will be very happy. Hough

P.S. Others at least will know that there is such country like Poland and will not mix it with Holland.
That's also a success

 

[Vertico]

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

Hehe Of course I know. But it doesn't change the fact that was a famous story in Europe. That's why You for example know it.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

About the Polish cavalry thing. Yes, the Poles used horses, and "cavalry" extensively in WWII, however a lot of this was for troop mobility. Not to charge the lines, but just to get around.

In fact, this was common amongst all the nations on the Eastern Front. When the Germans invaded Russia, the majority of their troops relied on horses or foot-marching to get around, as the force was not truly "motorized". Only the front-line attacking units actually had tanks or armoured cars. The role was logistical, not combat.

Germany used more horses in WWII than WWI.

As for Polish cavalry in WWII, they were actually quite useful. The Poles (probably foolishly) placed all their forces on the border with Germany so as to protect every inch of territory, instead of leaving territory for the Germans and setting up defences farther back in Poland, from where the Poles could counterattack against a more exhausted German advance (but to be fair they assumed their French allies would immediately attack Germany, which of course didn't happen).

Due to this mistake, much of the largely immobile Polish force was routed near the border, however the cavalry was able to retreat back to a point where they could counterattack. This was very useful. Not for using cavalry charges, but just for mobility outside of actual battle.

 

[danieldaniel]

@vertico

You have a very strange concept of fact, or you must be talking about another thread.

I think I start to understand the way this thread works: if someone agrees with you, he knows about history, if someone doesn't agree, he gets insulted, he is an ignorant, he learnt history from cartoons, he shoudn't be taken seriously.... I hope not every one in Poland is like you Vertico, then I would really start disliking the country.

I have no problems with eastern europe, in fact I have been there and I speak some Russian (ops! i forgot, you don't like Russia). Maybe one day you will realize that people in other countries don't get educated in polish nationalism, maybe when you go out a little bit.

I also know Turkey and its history very well, I have been there and I have turkish relatives. That the turks where at the doors of Vienna is known by everyone, but the Ottoman empire did not decline because they failed to take Vienna, but for a number of reasons that have more to do with economy and organization, the ottomans had reached their limits. But don't worry, here in Spain there's also some people like you, who think Spain saved Europe from the turks because Spain won the battle of Lepanto.

The story about the two guys in America I had never heard, do you really expect foreing people to know that?

Really Vertico, I understand your "facts", I just don't consider them so important as you do, apart from being exaggerated (poland a major allied country in WWII, battle of vienna as important as WWII....) and extremely biased. Now you can start insulting me again.

 

[Vertico]

The Poles (probably foolishly) placed all their forces on the border with Germany so as to protect every inch of territory, instead of leaving territory for the Germans and setting up defences farther back in Poland,

Commanders were afraid that German just stop, having Gdansk and western Poland. Just as Sudenten Land in Czechoslovakia. nobody was sure that time that Hitler is going to global war.

Danieldaniel. I won't insult you and never meant to.
Especially when I forced You to think what is visible in your last post.
I'm often exaggerating only because people are exaggerating on the other side - just to keep the balance

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Commanders were afraid that German just stop, having Gdansk and western Poland. Just as Sudenten Land in Czechoslovakia. nobody was sure that time that Hitler is going to global war.

Danieldaniel. I won't insult you and never meant to.
Especially when I forced You to think what is visible in your last post.
I'm often exaggerating only because people are exaggerating on the other side - just to keep the balance

Actually, I didn't mean to sound like I was berating the Poles. It is only "foolish" in hindsight. And probably the biggest reason it was foolish was that the Poles trusted the French to hold up their side of the bargain and attack Germany relatively rapidly from the west.

When the Germans attacked Poland, they had skeleton defences in the west. 30 divisions, none of which really had any tanks or armour against more than 100 well-armed French divisions. In fact, the whole purpose of the Polish "posture" was to take heavy casualties, but succeed in tying down enough German forces to allow the French to win in the west.

Now, admittedly, the other part of the failure was that the Poles underestimated German mobility, but even still the Poles managed to tie up virtually all of the German air and ground forces for 4 weeks.

Four weeks may not seem like a lot, but to put it in perspective, the combined forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the British Expiditionary Force only lasted 5 weeks against the Germans before France fell. And considering Poland had no natural boundaries and was virtually enveloped by Germany while France had the Maginot line, the Ardennes, and the freaking nation of Belgium in the way, Poland did well.

The Polish military fought valiantly. They shot down nearly 300 German planes, even though the Poles only had 300 fighters themselves against a German force of over 1000 modern planes. After leaving Poland, a full half of German tanks were either destroyed, or damaged. About 19,000 German soldiers died fighting Poland, while only 26,000 died fighting the combined forces of the west.

The Polish defence was better planned and executed than the French/Belgian/Dutch/British defence. The fatal flaw of it all was that it relied on the French to act quicker and take the offensive initiative, rather than sitting and waiting.

 

[Giaur]

This stopped being interesting so long ago. The pro-Poles have listed their reasons for inclusion, people who disagree shouldn't sign the petition. Do widzenia.

I am for inclusion. And I listed my arguments. Why leaving?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I think the problem with adding Poland is that in its "tier" of civilizations, there are a lot of other potential candidates, and Poland just doesn't have any real defining charactersitic to put it above the pack of Ukraine, the Netherlands, and others.

 

[MoonBase]

@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).

Absolutely agreed, but that's a tad different from asserting that said thing never happened. As you did.

Assume it didn't != assert that it never did.

If you're going to get nitpicky over someone else's application of debate rules, you should follow them yourself, is all I'm saying.

The fact is, somebody here didn't know the Polish cavalry myth was a myth, and I offered some correction.

Well, actually, the fact is that myth was corrected well before you chimed in, with a reference to the way the Polish Army did use cavalry, and with a reference, no less. And without resorting to making a positive contrary assertion.

And when asked to back up your positive assertion, you demured to proper debate rules. Which I pointed out, apply to you, as well.

I don't know about smug and condescending, and never said anything in that direction.

 

[cthom]

i haven't followed every post in this thread, but the way it's been going for/against has been fairly predictable. 'Petition to add .......' insert your own country and it's likely to end up the same. that's why i use mods that include Scotland, i don't need to gripe with firaxis or anyone else and nobody else passes on their poor knowledge of history!