The 160th anniversary of the outbreak of the January Uprising will most likely be an chance to match the heroism of the insurgents and the large importance of this rally for our national identity. There will besides be assurances that without the uprising there would be no independent Poland and if not for it, we would all talk Russian.
In fact, the same argument appears during the celebration of the subsequent anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising. In total, this propaganda and rationality-free claim is intended to justify subsequent disasters, their "winnery" meaning, according to the rule – they lost, but in the longer word they proved victorious.
Polish historical policy, especially after 2015 – is completely dominated by the cult of romanticist upheavals and the creation of national heroes of insurgents, conspirators, guerrillas, the word of the patriot is the alleged unbreakable, which, regardless of the circumstances, took up the fight, even though from the very beginning it had no chance of winning the ending. The greater his merit – to throw the challenge of the surrounding reality, both global and interior – is proof of the patriotism of the highest attempt. A classical example is the cult of the alleged cursed soldiers who took the form of spiritual quasi. This cult, completely separated from the real historical evaluation, infiltrated educational programs and messages, or even obliterated any another position on the past of Poland.
Is there so a real chance in Poland to take another look at the past of Poland in the 19th and 20th centuries seriously? Is there inactive area for serious reflection on another than insurrectional-romantic ways to independence, on realistic thoughts, on specified figures of Polish past as Stanisław Staszic, Ksavery Drucki-Lubecki, or Aleksander Wielopolski? Yes, in publications or in technological investigation conducted all the time – yes, but it will be a discussion on the margins, it will not be a dominant trend, and it will not appear in educational or media transmission at all. At the very least, discussing the policy of Alexander Wielopolski will be a background for reflections on his defeat and justification of the thesis that in Polish past there is no place for "co-operation", which always ends with a disaster. Currently, Poland is not utilized to show a completely different than a romanticist view of Polish politics (to this day), but to support the thesis that "there was no another way out", only uprisings and conspiracy. In addition, Wielopolski is besides utilized to discredit any thought of an agreement with Russia, in those times "conclusions", now good relations between countries. Thus, if any, it can be mentioned that Wielopolskie is simply a deterrent example.
Aleksander Wielopolski
But erstwhile we look at the 150-year-old discourse on this figure, which is eluded, rightly, as 1 of the most controversial but intriguing in our history, it will turn out that historians and politicians, besides strangers to him ideologically, were very frequently highly nonsubjective and even tolerant, noticing the political greatness of Margarbi, who – without omitting the mistakes he made – made very favorable conclusions to him.
The first major debate on Alexander Wielopolski took place after publication in the 1970s by Henry Lisicki (1839-1899) The panegirical biography of Margrabi, as was widely judged. The discussion took place mainly in Galicia, and its participants were the Kraków Conservatives, the measurement that Stanisław Tarnowski, Józef Szujski, Paweł Popiel or Stanisław Kozmian. The most meaningful assessment of Wielopolski was presented by Kajetan Kozmian in his book “The Year of 1863,” published in 1896. It was a affirmative assessment by all means:
“The full Polish society, in its various shades, with different varieties, sought complete independency and believed that abroad strength would aid to regain it. Wielopolski understood that the interior and external positions did not let specified a far-reaching solution. He assessed the benefits it could have had for the nation, which threatened him with dangers, and he was on the basis of a applicable compromise with Russia and possible concessions on the part of Russia, and he created a well-known, mysterious system. erstwhile Wielopolski drew deep-designed, salvific laws and reforms, the society did not measure the creators or creation.
Only erstwhile he faced up to military governments and resigned would he gain acceptance. erstwhile he returned armed with power, with large concessions and reforms, he lost all popularity and became hated. Nicholas I policy was revenge for 1830, Polish policy for 1831 With the accession to the throne of Alexander II, Russia's revenge policy for 1830 ceased. He understood this and wanted to usage Wielopolski; Polish society did not want to realize it, could not usage it, and the policy of revenge for 1831 did not halt on his part. The Polish society could neither get over, nor forgive Wielopolski, that he wanted to lead them to another, than to lead independence, and that is why he destroyed his work with his own hands, it itself fell into the abyss. little crucial and crucial to past is what it has done by means and means. First of all, it should be recorded: that Poles wanted everything or nothing; Wielopolski set the political wisdom rule – better than nothing.”
So the Stańskis considered the political doctrine of Wielkopolska to be their own, although at the time of the uprising and before that they did not support it. In 1863, Kraków’s “Time” led a mysterious game with “white” and an emigration centre, which was the Lambert Hotel in Paris. In fact, he was on the side of the uprising. Only his defeat and reflection on its causes caused them to change their minds, and they acknowledged the right of Wielopolski. The boy of Alexander Wielopolski, Zygmunt (1833-1902) – he pointed out to Kraków conservatives that at the decisive minute they were "trading" Margrabi and are inactive hostile to him, finally, that they inactive point out errors to him, e.g. his policy towards the Agricultural Society. This does not change the general assessment, of course, that in conservative circles Alexander Wielopolski's "rehabilitation" was carried out, appreciating his perception of the Polish case by the prism of geopolitical conditions, rejecting dreams and maximalism for political realism, or yet questioning the romanticist ideological paradigm contained in the slogan – all or nothing.
At the same time, we note the same perception of Wielopolskie characters in the circles of Warsaw positivists. Here, the most powerful was Valery Przyborowski (1845-1913), A associate in the uprising, and then a writer, writer and historian, author of a monumental paper on the January Uprising. It was the work of his life – it appeared for many years. These were the following publications: "The Last Moments of the January Uprising", Vol. 1-4, Poznań 1887-1888; "The past of 2 Years 1861-1862", Vol. 1-5, Kraków 1892-1896; "Acts of 1863, Vol. 1-5, Kraków 1897-1919. That's 14 volumes. The work of Przyborowski, based on rich origin material, is useful for historians to this day. Alongside the introduction of immense factographic material in these books Przyborowski did not avoid grades, and frequently very sharp ones, but over 20 years he frequently spread his accents differently. In the case of Wielopolski he had various periods, e.g. in the late 1990s he criticized Margrabi for mistakes made between 1862 and 1863. However, in the final volume devoted to the past of the 1863 uprising, he decided on a synthetic, unemotional, definitely glorifying assessment. The book was published in 1905, more than 40 years after the end of the uprising.
Przyborowski draws attention to the fact that the fall of Wielopolski is not the consequence of his mistakes, but the attitude of the general public, who did not see in Margarbi the salvation and welfare of Poland. And 1 more thing – the author points out that the defeat of 1863 and the rejection of the Polypolska by most of the countrymen "sucked the Polish spirit". What did he mean? most likely the triumph of political madness and the rejection of reason. The proof that he meant it is simply a passage devoted to the heirs of the "red" who, despite so much experience, inactive believe that they were right and that Wielopolski was not. This was most likely a recently born insurrection camp, centered around PPS and adjacentity. For the remainder of his life, Przyborowski remained an enemy of the irredents, the enemy of the “imbile” and their reasoning about politics and the Polish cause, he was close to the “agreement” attitudes, at the time focusing around the Petersburg “Country” or shortly the Real Politics Party. Interestingly, Bolesław Prusai had the same attitude, whose attitude towards Margrabi was skeptical.
Poland's recovery of independency in 1918 – as could be expected – will end the "care" of Wielopolski. The full independency ideology, driven by the camp walsudczykowski seemed to yet throw Margarbi into the garbage of history. This was all the more possible, due to the fact that the second largest political camp in Poland, or National Democracy, was alternatively distant from Wielopolski. In 1905-1914, erstwhile the Polish representation in the State Duma put forward a task of autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland within the Russian Empire, it may have seemed that this was a revival of the Multi-Polish program. However, in political propaganda, the endecia practically did not invoke his legacy or his person. True, in 1905 Jan Ludwik Popławski He referred to the policy of Alexander Wielopolski in an extended text in the "Overview of All Poland", but it was an article addressed to elites, in later propaganda already in the pages of the legal press appearing in the Polish Kingdom – Margarbi on the banner was not restored.
In this text, Popławski pointed to the experience of the policy of Poland in the context of fresh challenges for Poland. He considered that in the realities of the early 1960s, Wielopolski outlined the only possible programme for the country, that is to say, "to guarantee the essential legal and political autonomy for the Polish people, which is compatible with the interests of the real Russian state". Popławski realistically estimated that at that time there was no global economical situation that would give hope for the unification of indigenous Polish lands by Russia and the expansion of Kingdom borders, due to the fact that "Russian politics had another interests and tasks at the time and later".
National Democracy could not officially announce that it continued the policy of Multi-Polish and was guided by its political doctrine (Popławski called Margrabi "real policy"), for respective reasons. Firstly, he was an aristocrat and a typical of noble politics, and ND appealed to the nation and people, secondly, Wielopolski did not gain the support of Poles, and ND based its activities on the support of broad social circles (especially after 1905), thirdly, Wielopolski lost, so it was hard to set him as a function model. More useful was Multi-Polish for the Allied ND Real Policy organization (SPR). The organization focused on conservative elements and in addition its first president was hr. Zygmunt Wielopolski (1863-1919), Margrave's grandson. His individual was a natural link between him and the SPR, and indirectly through it besides from the ND. Zygmunt Wielopolski worked closely with Roman Dmowski from 1914 to 1915, being president of the Polish National Committee established at the end of 1914 supporting the policy of orientation towards Russia. Dmowski was the president of the Committee. individual layout very symbolic.
Thus, in 1918 it may have seemed that Alexander Wielopolski would yet vanish from political discourse and at most only historians would take care of him. After 1918 Poland accepted, especially after 1926, an insurrection narrative, convincing citizens that independency owes only to uprisings. Hence the cult of the 1831 and 1863, hence the cult of the veterans of the January uprising, the establishment of Podchorze Day on 30 November 1830, hence many monuments and commemorations of the people and battles of that period. Where is the place for Wielopolski? And yet, here we come to 1 of the top paradoxes, it was after 1918 that favorable or even enthusiastic assessments of margrave characters came out of circles of PPS veterans and legion movement, including Józef Piłsudski himself. First order was Artur Śliwiński (1877-1953), PPS activist, walsudczyk. In the past of the January Uprising published in 1919, he wrote about Wielopolski:
“From his tremendous and incredibly assured figure he was blowing up any gloomy majestate, which raised respect and surprise over Newa. The large Polish lord, wearing his lion's head high, and before no 1 unflinching a hard neck, was in the atmosphere of servicefulness specified a remarkable phenomenon that he raised a sensation. In doubtful cases he saved a situation of unwavering confidence, which frequently impressed the Moscals to the highest degree... Russian dignitaries with increasing admiration looked at this magnate, who did not compete at the levels of his career, but straight from the backdrop of the country elevated to a advanced office, dared to fight the governors of the Tsar himself in Warsaw, and in St. Petersburg surrounded himself with pride and ordered respect for his person. They didn't know what to do with him. It saw the strength, it understood that services of specified a man could not be rejected if Poland was to be calmed, but at the same time it was not believed and feared gathering his demands."
Amazing? At first glance, yes, but erstwhile Joseph Piłsudski repeats this in 1924, it will signal that Margrabi was considered a prominent figure in this political circle.. Pilsudski said: “I wanted to love him for greatness, for he had the pride and dignity of his nation. I see a wonderful scene – a winter palace in a immense St. Petersburg, a large army of dignitaries waiting for the entrance of the Tsar, waiting – standing, humbly and patiently – margrave sits. erstwhile he was asked to rise, due to the fact that the Russian majesty is to enter at this moment, he replied, “I will only emergence before my king.” He wasn't a slave, large strength, large pride. He fell, stifled by the rim of bayonets on 1 side and on the other, fell under the force of contempt, frequently crushed by the insult of hatred."
Piłsudski, himself a nobleman, saw the soul's brother in Wielopolski. erstwhile he writes about loneliness, dignity, large pride and large strength – it's like he's talking about himself. In 1924 Piłsudski was on the political margin, which he experienced hard due to the fact that he felt rejected by the nation, and for the second time, the first time in 1914, erstwhile his shooters welcomed the closed shutters and gloomy silence in Kielce. However, it is curious that Piłsudski, the admiral of the 1863 uprising, says that Margarita “fell under the force of contempt and hatred." And who started that hatred? Conspirators of the “red” sign, then bequeathed by the walsudczyks as heroes. How can this be reconciled? How can 1 at the same time worship an uprising caused by the “red” and pay specified a tribute to Multi-Polish? seemingly Piłsudski someway reconciled it, seeing in Margarbi not pro-Russian politics (the scene in the winter palace clearly impresses him).
Stanisław Cat-Mackiewicz In his book on Piłsudski, he points out that he did not share the hatred that the insurgents had for Margarbi: “He, who spoke so much about ‘foreign agencies’, pointed to so many of his contemporaries as conscious or subconscious abroad agents, did not share the view of the insurgents of 1863 as a traitor. On the contrary, he writes about him: “the top name”, and respects a patriot with a large political line.” Mackiewicz besides reminds of the past of the appearance of Piłsudski shadow of Wielopolski in the autumn of 1914 in the ruins of the erstwhile seat of Wielopolskie. "Margrave faced him not as a traitor or an enemy agent, but as a patriot pointing to the irresponsibility of a mad act, this war without the certainty of a win," Mackiewicz wrote.
Another installment of the dispute over Wielopolski brought the Second planet War, or, in fact, what happened to its conclusion. Poland was again in Russia's sphere of influence (ZSRR) and Wielopolski returned again. His return is linked to a loud, considered scandal Ksaver Pruszyński's book (1907-1950) Margarbi's devoted policy. The book had 2 editions, in 1944, of “New Poland” in London and 1946 already in Poland. The 1944 book was dedicated to the late General Władysław Sikorski, which made Pruszyński want to emphasize his political realism in relations with Russia. Note bene the motto of the book was Piłsudski's celebrated saying about Wielopolski, starting with the words “Greatness where your name...”. The book, of course, had a political subtext, a call to abandon the policy of protest against geopolitical reality by emigrating, Pruszyński called for realism and agreement with Russia (ZSRR). Margarich was to be the patron of this change in London politics. Especially due to the fact that so many prominent Poles considered him 1 of the largest statesmen. Pruszyński wrote at the end:
"Wielkopolski knew that Poland gives power, recognition, respect, love, in life only soaps, buffoons, warchołoms, innkeepers and strong-gabians, what they vat, kiss and weapon God does not contact national wounds, and that greatness is appreciated in us – after death. Wielopolski knew that the crumb of this recognition, of this respect, of the trust which began to be held by him soon, but after the non-prescription with which his name was preserved by Aleksander Świętochowski, Józef Piłsudski, Feliński, Spasowicz, Prussia, Sempołowska, Grabski, Dmowski would have reversed the course of national affairs a fewer months ago. And now these heads discovered at the convenient station in the Kingdom, these words of appreciation which were to come from the lightest and furthest, were only what the lush, May flowers were, at the same time, all the suffocating mass cast upon the coffin of a man whose share was only mud, stones and thorns."
However, London did not share the enthusiasm of Pruszyński, who was accused of treason and selling out of communist power. Author, Prewar Conservative and Camp Power Jerzy Giedroycia, next to Adolf and Alexander Bocheński, or Piotr Dunina Borkowskiego – was the backbone of the magazine “The Young Rebellion”. In the opinion of many, he made a amazing volt, though Alexander Bocheński besides chose a road akin to him. And he besides published a book on Polish politics, written during the war. Its past of foolishness in Poland, in which it formulated the same conclusions as Pruszyński in Margrabi Wielopolski. After 1956 they will be joined by Stanisław Mackiewicz, who will return from emigration to Poland.
One another crucial publication event should be noted. It was the appearance of a monumental work Prof. Adam M. Skałkowski. The author was a prominent historian, a associate of the National League, although after 1918 he was not politically active. During planet War II, he developed the Polish household archives in Chrobrze and the fruit of this work was a three-volume large work. crucial that his edition was supported by the then government, at the head of which he stood Władysław Gomulka. After 1948, this would not have been possible – Wielopolski could have been a good argument in the first phase of post-war governments, but it did not fit in the Marxist schemes of the Stalinist period. For orthodox Marxists he was a typical of classes having, reactionary and bigot. He could not be the patron of Polish-Russian (Soviet) relationship due to the fact that they became leaders of “red” – Jaroslaw Dąbrowski, Zygmunt Padlewski, or Zygmunt Sierakowski, and the another side Alexander Hercen and Nicholas BakuninSo, the fierce enemies of Margarbi.
So let us ask the end of the question – how are matters related to the legacy of the memory of Wielopolski, his white and black legend, happening today, under completely different conditions? There is no question that the alleged historical policy adopted by the Polish authorities is simply a denial of everything that Wielopolski left us, which I wrote about at the beginning of this text. The passage of time, contrary to what could be believed, did not make Wielopolskie only a historical theme. So officially, as in the second Polish Republic, or for most of the period of the Polish People's Republic – Multi-Polish acts as an anti-hero pattern. Well, if the function model is fighting to the end and (video Warsaw uprising) and the heroes are insurgents and soldiers cursed, then the function model cannot be Wielopolski. In addition, there is besides a Polish east policy aimed clearly at confronting Russia, warming the story of the First Republic, the story of the January uprising, the Inter-mortar and the alliance with Ukraine.
If we follow the statements of historians about Wielopolski and publications that have been published, it may seem that the white legend of Margrabi is inactive alive, at least among historians. If we're going to look for votes against, we're going to go first. Prof. Andrzej Nowak from Krakow, creating itself as the sole interpreter of Polish history, with peculiar emphasis on Polish-Russian relations. He late commented on Alexander Wielopolski during the publication of a book devoted to Ksaver Pruszyński. Criticizing the historical layer of Pruszyński's book (which he has the right to do), he selectively discusses any issues intended to discredit Pruszyński in its entirety, as well as the policy of Multi-Polish. Here is 1 example:
"In fact, Wielopolski was chosen by the Tsar as a tool of politics towards the Kingdom of Poland precisely due to the fact that nobody was behind Wielopolski: that is why it was a tool that can be utilized in the framework of always current imperial policy divide et impera. The man behind whom no 1 stands, who has a strong position only thanks to the nomination received in St. Petersburg, can be utilized and disposed of at any time."
In this criticism, Nowak even denies the authors from the PPS and Józef Piłsudski camp, who emphasized Margrabi's independency and his hard character and dignity in relations with Russia. Furthermore, it is not actual that the Russian authorities did not want Wielopolski to have any support in the country. That's just not true. Yes, military and bureaucratic circles do, but a camp centered around Duke of Constante and Alexander Gorczak he was most curious in the sustainability of reforms and the acquisition of a average camp, including Andrzej Zamoyski, with whom even in the spring of 1863, even though he insisted on rebuilding Poland within the limits of 1772, which disqualifies him as a politician.
Andrzej Nowak is besides prominent a historian not to know about it, yet he denies the obvious. This biased communicative is intended to service both the historical thesis promoted in the 19th century by the “red” that it makes no sense to have any talks with the “Moscals”, even if she lost Poland on this, and to justify the current policy guided by the same assumption. Multi-Polish is to be just a deterrent example, not an inspiration or a model of realistic thinking.
Jan Engelgard
This is simply a fragment of a major technological article that will appear in the Book dedicated to Dr. John Sękow
