We still talk about the November and January uprisings with pious respect. They were unsuccessful, but our ancestors were ready to sacrifice blood in an unequal battle. Are we allowed to criticize them? The historian Marek Rezler is not afraid to say yes. And he doesn't mince words.
Marek Rezler is the author of a number of works devoted to the history of Greater Poland, including the latest monograph on the successful uprising of 1918-1919, which helped to win freedom for this province. In his new book, "Polish Independence 1918" the historian goes back further in the past - and analyzes the uprisings that are difficult to judge in superlatives. It makes judgments as firm as it is refreshing. Because he often says what other historians would like to say, but are not ready to do it.
An unnecessary fight?
"The November Uprising and the Polish-Russian war of 1831, most often perceived as a beautiful, heroic (and above all romantic) war epic, in retrospect can also be assessed as a cycle of unforgivable mistakes resulting from an emotional approach to the events taking place," wrote Rezler on the first great insurgency after Napoleon's fall.
Author of "Polish Independence 1918" he questions the very premises behind the insurrection. He points out that in the first years after the Congress of Vienna, the situation of Poles living in the Russian partition was not so bad, and the repressions were not as severe as we usually imagine.
Marcin Zaleski, The Taking of the Arsenal, 1830.
"The officials of the Kingdom of [Poland] were left with a lot of room for action," emphasizes Rezler. - “However, the constant persecution of Polish independence plots was accompanied by an increase in the level of science and culture. The activities of Konstanty Drucki Lubecki gradually raised the state's finances and economy to a high level, at the initiative of Fr. Stanisław Staszic, mining was developing ”. Moreover, the Kingdom of Poland had a large army, officially Polish, well-armed, trained at a high level, with many officers from the Napoleonic era, including even former participants of fights with the Muscovites.
Inevitable loss?
The conclusion today may sound surprising. Rezler claims that at the turn of the 1820s and 1830s, there were still real opportunities for "consolidating internal power and strengthening Polish self-government", and thus for a genuine improvement in the national situation of Poles. These hopes were lost only with the conspiracy in the cadet school that started the war. The uprising - the author has no doubts about it - had no chance of success at all. Only the French or the English could save them, but they had no interest in angering Russia and in violating its exclusive sphere of interest.
"The uprising began without a specific plan or command," concludes Rezler. - “The generals who opposed the cadets' speech on November Night (which cost them their lives) were right from a strictly military point of view. The defeat was only a matter of time. ”
The military advantage of the Russians was overwhelming. And politically everything was lost because radicals rejected the possibility of negotiating when it was still possible. Even at the most desperate moment - when even the remnants of national concessions could be saved by accepting the ultimatum of Field Marshal Ivan Paskiewicz against Warsaw, the hardliners refused to go back even a step. As a result, the Polish Seym, army and universities were liquidated. The loss was complete. But Marek Rezler has even sharper words of criticism for the organizers of another great uprising - the one that broke out in January 1863.
Unforeseen consequences?
"The events of [the January Uprising] abound in dramatic descriptions of heroic events, national martyrdom, and a desperate struggle that was to" bear witness "once again. Winning full independence from the beginning was not real "- says the author of " Polish independence 1918 " . And he bluntly states, "None of the goals has been achieved."
The Polish peasants, who were tried to win over the insurgents by announcing their enfranchisement, "quickly reckoned whose document is more credible and certain" and took the side of the tsar, who also promised them his own land. Support from abroad did not come despite promises made here and there. “In Italy and England, support for the Polish cause was expressed, but no specific steps were taken in this direction. Pope Pius IX spoke out strongly against the uprising, ”explains Rezler.
Hanging January insurgents in the painting by Stanisław Witkiewicz
Once again, in the author's opinion, a senseless spurt was organized, which was digging up the flickering hopes for even a limited autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland and the withdrawal of repressions. Instead of a détente, the suppressed uprising brought the years of the greatest terror. And the Kingdom of Poland itself was in fact liquidated, renaming it the Vistula Country - a province of the empire strictly subordinated to tsarism.
If the uprising had an indirect, general effect, in Rezler's opinion it was only such that the Franco-Russian alliance, which had been maintained for many years, broke up in its course, which led to ... truly catastrophic castles on the European chessboard for Poles.
Although Napoleon III, the ruler of France, assured of his support for the insurrection, he did not join the war. And the fact that Russia withdrew from it clearly weakened Paris' position and meant that nothing was stopping the rapid reunification of Germany. "The accidents then turned into an avalanche," emphasizes Rezler. - “In 1864 Prussia defeated Denmark, two years later Austria, and in 187 - France. On January 18, 1871, the founding of the German Empire was proclaimed in the Mirror Gallery of the Palace of Versailles. And it started with the gate opened by the January Uprising. ”
Source:
The article is based on the latest book by Marek Rezler entitled "Polish independence 1918" (Poznań Publishing House 2018).