Poland

[avoran]

Here's an idea for the expansion ... vote for Poland

At some point (1917? or triggered some event? someone with more detailed knowledge of the history can throw their two bits in here) I suggest that the CPs and (if Russia is still active) the Entente get the option of playing the Polish card: pay an NM penalty (biggish for the Germans, bigger still for the Russians and biggest of all for the multi-ethnic "Austrians") and create a new country on your side by handing whatever Polish cities you control (Warsaw a must plus any available of Posen, Brest-Litovsk, Vilna, Krakow, Lemberg and Przemysl) to "Poland". Poland starts out with relatively (though not totally) fresh manpower and high NM. And maybe a leader (Pilsudski?).

If the CP's play this and America is still neutral move it a bit further away from declaring war. If the Entente plays it, the opposite.

No need to boost Warsaw's PP value if the 'minimum income" idea from the "expanding the war" thread is adopted.

Am I missing something important?

[johnnybravo]

+1

[stockwellpete]

"In 1916, attempting to increase Polish support for the Central Powers and to raise a Polish army the German and Austrian emperors declared that a new state called Kingdom of Poland would be created. The new Kingdom in reality was to be a client state under military, economical and political control by the German Reich and its territory was to be created after the war of only of a small part of the old Commonwealth, i.e. the territory of Kingdom of Poland (Privislinsky Krai), with around 30,000 square kilometers of its western areas to be annexed by Germany. Polish and Jewish population in those areas was to be expelled and replaced by German colonists. A Regency Council was established in preparations of this, forming a proto-Government, and issuing currency, called the Polish mark. German efforts to create an army serving Central Powers however met with failure, as it lacked expected volunteers for German cause. After peace in the East was assured by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany and Austria-Hungary started a policy of creating a "Mitteleuropa" ("Central Europe") and on November 5, 1917, proclaimed a client Kingdom of Poland."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... orld_War_I

[stockwellpete]

I think probably the way to handle this is to have a "Mitteleuropa" event in November 1917 (provided the Central Powers control certain cities in the region) so Poland appears in the game as an ally of the Central Powers. If Germany is subsequently knocked out of the war then Poland could proceed to full statehood under Pilsudski.

[SSupras]

Yeah, but this game is about WW1 and not about what happened after that. Because if free Poland will be added to game, there should be involved too: the Russian civil war, Finland, baltic countries and new countries created after fall of AH. And this will create a big mess for the last turns of the game .

If we talk about Poland, the easier thing to somehow add it to game should be "Polish legions". Historically, if I remember right, there was 3 volunteer Polish brigades fighting for AH and one for Russia. There was also Polish volunteer "Blue Army" in France, but it didn't fought in WW1 (it was created too late). This can be added as event, when player can get additional garrisons paying only for production, without spending human resources (1 for Russia in January 1915, 2 for AH in December 1914 and May 1915) and maybe 1 Infantry for France at the end of 1918. However, if it should be historically, AH Polish units should be disbanded when Russia will not be a threat for CP anymore (for example after taking Riga, or after February revolution).

And, if the game would be more historical, there definitely should not be possibility to deploy new German, Austrian and Russian units in Warsaw, Posen and Krakow. Maybe in Vilna, Brest-Litovsk, Lemberg and Przemysl too, but those cities were not only Polish, there were mixture of many nationalities. So maybe creating Polish nationality hexes is a good idea (similar to Finnish hexes in Russia).

[stockwellpete]

Yeah, but this game is about WW1 and not about what happened after that. Because if free Poland will be added to game, there should be involved too: the Russian civil war, Finland, baltic countries and new countries created after fall of AH. And this will create a big mess for the last turns of the game .

I don't know that it will though. It is certainly quite complex as the large empires (Russian, German, Austrian and Ottoman) start to disintegrate. But maybe a clear distinction can be made between the attitude of the Entente powers to the "self-determination" of nations and that of the Central Powers? Firstly, we had the new Russian government's "Decree on Peace" (November 1917) which included these lines . . .

"The workers' and peasants' government, created by the Revolution of October 24-25 and basing itself on the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, calls upon all the belligerent peoples and their government to start immediate negotiations for a just, democratic peace. By a just or democratic peace, for which the overwhelming majority of the working class and other working people of all the belligerent countries, exhausted, tormented and racked by the war, are craving — a peace that has been most definitely and insistently demanded by the Russian workers and peasants ever since the overthrow of the tsarist monarchy — by such a peace the government means an immediate peace without annexations (i.e., without the seizure of foreign lands, without the forcible incorporation of foreign nations) and without indemnities."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... 26/26b.htm

Partly in response to this Woodrow Wilson, the US President, issued his famous "Fourteen Points" early in 1918 . . .

"The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied -- every province, every city, every point of vantage -- as a permanent addition to their territories and their power.

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us."

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Presid ... een_Points

So the Entente position and the new Soviet's position was for self-determination of nations while the Central Powers, particularly Germany, were much more focussed on empire building (see Mitteleuropa link below). If that basic difference of approach is accepted then that could inform how various situations are dealt with towards the end of the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa

[SSupras]

You're right as to Western Entente and CP goals, but as to Tzarist and consequently Soviet Russia, their goal was to dominate the Europe. In 1917 and early 1918, when bolsheviks were weak, they would have declared a will of peace and freedom for all nations of Russian Empire, but one year after that, when they gained advantage in civil war, they waged war against Poland, Ukraine and baltic countries in order to spread revolution into the whole Europe. So their main goal was world revolution and no countries at all, just one happy "international communist paradise on earth". And when they said "paradise on earth", they meant "hell on earth" for real.

[stockwellpete]

You're right as to Western Entente and CP goals, but as to Tzarist and consequently Soviet Russia, their goal was to dominate the Europe.

For Tsarist Russia I think they realised that industrially they were a long way behind Germany in 1914 and so their war aims were a bit more modest than to "dominate Europe" at that time. Ultimately, of course, I think you have a point, but in 1914 specifically they wanted to expand their influence mainly at the expense of the Austro-Hungarians and the Ottomans. Capturing Constantinople to give them trade security in the south was very important to them.

In 1917 and early 1918, when bolsheviks were weak, they would have declared a will of peace and freedom for all nations of Russian Empire, but one year after that, when they gained advantage in civil war, they waged war against Poland, Ukraine and baltic countries in order to spread revolution into the whole Europe. So their main goal was world revolution and no countries at all, just one happy "international communist paradise on earth". And when they said "paradise on earth", they meant "hell on earth" for real.

I disagree with you completely here but I recognise that this is a games forum and not really the place to develop a political debate. Suffice to say, I don't actually think the civil war was won by 1919 and it was Poland who actually attacked the Soviet regime first, not the other way round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Offensive_(1920)

The difficult thing for the game and how these are events are handled is this - what if the German player is able to knock the Russians out of the game in 1916? This, in effect, throws all the events that occurred on the eastern front forward by at least one year in terms of the date within the game. So things like Germany's client regime in the Ukraine under Skoropadski would then fit into the game's time-frame. And there are so many permutations of what might have happened with the various "White" centres of resistance (both monarchist and socialist) to the new state in Russia that would make them very difficult to model. And obviously the priority for Germany would be to get its best troops back over to the western front to gain an advantage there.

[SSupras]

The two things that HAD TO be before Poland and baltic countries gained independence, were:
- collapse of Russia
- Germany defeated in war

If the Germany would win against Russia in 1916 they would not loose the whole war and there wouldn't be free states in East Europe. So, when Germany are not defeated, there wouldn't be any Poland (just Mitteleuropa), and when the Germany are defeated, the game is almost over and in my opinion, there's no need of creating a mess for just some 'cleaning up' turns.

And if we are at point, who started the Polish - Russian war, it didn't start in 1920 with Kiev Offensive. It started in 1919: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War . From Polish point of view, Russian are the bad guys, who attacked Poland. And from Russian point of view, Poland was just a province, which started rebellion against 'Mother Russia'. So, Polish people think that Russia started the war, and Russian people think that Poland started the war. English Wikipedia (more neutral than Russian and Polish Wikis, I think) states that war started with Soviet westwards advance in 1919. The same says Russian and Polish Wikipedias, but interpretation of this fact can be different - does 'stopping the Russian march' mean that Russia started or Poland started the war?... There is the Polish proverb for this: "Point of view depends on the point of the seat"

[stockwellpete]

The two things that HAD TO be before Poland and baltic countries gained independence, were:
- collapse of Russia
- Germany defeated in war

If the Germany would win against Russia in 1916 they would not loose the whole war and there wouldn't be free states in East Europe. So, when Germany are not defeated, there wouldn't be any Poland (just Mitteleuropa), and when the Germany are defeated, the game is almost over and in my opinion, there's no need of creating a mess for just some 'cleaning up' turns.

Agreed, there would not be "free states" in east Europe - but would there be client states? If you answer this question "yes", then should they modelled in the game and if so, how? The Ukraine is very interesting from this aspect as it quickly passes through several stages including an independent democratic republic and a client German regime under Skoropadsky (hetmanate).

EDIT: also client state was set up in Poland in 1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of ... 80%931918)

I think these questions are moderately important if you want to keep the game within the current 1914-18 timeframe but they become much more important if the game is eventually extended into 1919 and beyond.

[stockwellpete]

And if we are at point, who started the Polish - Russian war, it didn't start in 1920 with Kiev Offensive. It started in 1919: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War . From Polish point of view, Russian are the bad guys, who attacked Poland. And from Russian point of view, Poland was just a province, which started rebellion against 'Mother Russia'. So, Polish people think that Russia started the war, and Russian people think that Poland started the war. English Wikipedia (more neutral than Russian and Polish Wikis, I think) states that war started with Soviet westwards advance in 1919. The same says Russian and Polish Wikipedias, but interpretation of this fact can be different - does 'stopping the Russian march' mean that Russia started or Poland started the war?... There is the Polish proverb for this: "Point of view depends on the point of the seat"

I would say that the opening text in the Wikipedia link you have provided rather supports my position though. The very bad mistake the Soviet regime made was to continue advancing towards Warsaw after the initial Polish onslaught was thrown back. There were big arguments in the Russian government about it with Lenin and Trotsky on different sides. The wrong argument among Bolsheviks said that Polish workers would greet the Red Army as liberators and, as a result, Soviet Union could link up with German worker's movement through Poland and give big boost to revolutionary impetus there. The correct argument amomg Bolsheviks said Polish workers would regard Red Army as invaders and would defend Warsaw against it - unfortunately this side lost the argument and very bad mistake was made.

[SSupras]

also client state was set up in Poland in 1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of ... 80%931918)

No, there wasn't such a client state under German dominance. It was planned to do, but never put into action and this is written in this wiki article too, if you read carefully. The problem was that, at that time Polish nation could accept Russian (more hardly) or Austrian (more easily) dominance over Poland, but they could never accept German dominance. It was because of difference between those countries on treating Polish nation during 120 years of its occupation. That was the reason for disbanding finally Polish legions fighting for AH - the soldiers refused to swear loyalty to German Emperor (but they all sweared loyalty to the Austrian Emperor earlier).

The correct argument amomg Bolsheviks said Polish workers would regard Red Army as invaders and would defend Warsaw against it - unfortunately this side lost the argument and very bad mistake was made.

Luckily, we live at peaceful times, so we can discuss about it using only words, without any guns. For me and many nations of eastern Europe this mistake was made fortunately, but this is a subject for neverending discussion (what would happen if) and as you noticed earlier, this forum is not place for this...

[stockwellpete]

No, there wasn't such a client state under German dominance. It was planned to do, but never put into action and this is written in this wiki article too, if you read carefully.

Well, there was some sort of development towards a client Polish state at this time. In January 1917 a Provisional Council of State was chosen by the Germans and Austro-Hungarians and in April 1917 it was given control over education, the law courts and propaganda. Then a Regency Council was established in September 1917 that had responsibilities for schools and the courts. A Prime Minister, Kucharzewski, was in office from November 1917 and these arrangements continued until the end of the war. In terms of the game there is probably not enough there to warrant modelling this "half-realised" client state, but certainly a fully independent Poland should appear in the game if both Russia and Germany are defeated before the end of the game (it will only happen very occasionally). I think the Ukraine would actually provide a better example.

[SSupras]

In terms of the game there is probably not enough there to warrant modelling this "half-realised" client state, but certainly a fully independent Poland should appear in the game if both Russia and Germany are defeated before the end of the game (it will only happen very occasionally). I think the Ukraine would actually provide a better example.

The only reason for doing free Poland is that it would last more than half a year, without it this will be just a mess for some last turns of the game.

I don't know if there would be such games where AH can defend half a year after German surrender. I'd like very much to have free Poland, baltic countries, Hungary, Yugoslavia and so on in this game, but I don't know if the work put into creating them will be efficiently spent, because all those countries in 99% games will not have any influence in game.

But of course this will let to make great mods and scenarios with all those smaller wars after WW1.

[FOARP]

One can argue endlessly about who started the Polish-Soviet war (my vote's for Jerzy Hoffman ) but there's no question as to who won it, and that's not the Soviets

Personally, I'd love to see the German client states in the east appear in-game. Looking through the LUA's, I note that Red Finland was included as a country although it is not represented in-game - was the plan originally to have a third AI-controlled faction representing the communists? The only way I can see this game being able to accomodate the situation in eastern Europe after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk is to have such a faction, although implementing this may require a lot of work.