Minorities Treaty 1918 a British Political Tool Giertych

Dmowski Czy Pisudski?, by Maciej Giertych. 1995

Why Not Dmowski AND Pilsudski? Clarifies the Much-Politicized Narutowicz Assassination

DMOWSKI OR PILSUDSKI is the title of this Polish-language book. It contains helpful timelines of major events in the lives of both Dmowski and Pilsudski. (pp. 131-133). The author sees Dmowski as not only a great statesman, but also as one of the great theorists of Polish political thought. (p. 33). Dmowski’s national movement was closely involved with the new Polish Army in France, and with Haller’s Army. (p. 20-on). Dmowski played a major role at Versailles (p. 73-on) and is credited with being one of the creators of post-Versailles Europe. (p. 63).

In much of this work, Giertych expresses his disagreements with Pilsudski’s policies. For instance, he believes that, had the Pilsudski-Petliura alliance succeeded in creating an independent Ukraine, this new state would have become an enemy of Poland. (But if Poland had gone down in defeat in 1920, any potential danger to the Polish state from Ukraine would have become a moot question.)

Giertych frowns upon all of Poland’s insurrections, including the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, as futile bloodletting. (But the lack of a Warsaw Uprising would have “confirmed” the Communist propaganda that non-Communist Poles are unwilling to fight the Nazis, and are irrelevant to Poland’s future.)

OLD POLITICAL FACTIONALISM REVIVED

Giertych seems to try too hard to elevate Dmowski by putting down Pilsudski. In fact, some of the criticisms of Pilsudski smack of childish Pilsudski-Dmowski factionalism. For instance, the author questions the Catholicism of Pilsudski (p. 90), which is ironic in view of the fact that Dmowski was hardly a practicing Catholic most of his life.

PILSUDSKI AND FREEMASONRY

Many of the men associated with Pilsudski were allegedly Freemasons. These included Jozef Beck, Bronislaw Pieracki, Edward Rydz-Smigly, Tadeusz Holowko, and Stefan Starzynski. (p. 27, 89). Giertych believes that some branches of European Freemasonry had been pro-German, going back to Frederick and Great, and were now steering Lloyd George in a pro-German, anti-Polish direction. Other branches of Freemasonry wanted to support the resurrection of the Polish state for their own ends. They had also formed the League of Nations as a device for controlling European nations, and this lives on today in the form of the European Union. Finally, both Pilsudski and Dmowski had to deal with the influences of the Freemasons. (pp. 71-72, 80).

THE SO-CALLED MINORITIES TREATY WAS FOR SELFISH BRITISH (AND JEWISH) BENEFIT

The author describes how the Minorities Treaty came about. (pp. 76-77). England did not want Polish Jews moving to England. This was one reason for the Balfour Declaration (1917)—siphoning off emigrant Jews to Palestine. However, for England, it would be best of all if Jews remained in Poland, which would likely occur if they got what they wanted. As part of the Minorities Treaty, the Jews demanded special rights. For instance, instead of becoming part of the Polish nation, the Jews would get to maintain their self-imposed apartheid (my term) through such things as government-funded schools in the Yiddish language. Although the demands of the Minorities Treaty were eventually toned down, in order not to stir up anti-Semitism or to increase Jewish emigration from Poland, the Polish nation was still forced to sign it.

YES, NARUTOWICZ HAD BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF POLAND BY NON-POLISH VOTE

The election of Gabriel Narutowicz occurred only because of the votes of Germans and Jews. (p. 84). Narutowicz did not have the support of the majority of Polish voters. Incidentally, he was a Freemason. (p. 89).

THE NARUTOWICZ ASSASSINATION NOW AN ANTI-POLISH TOOL

Giertych recounts the assassination of Gabriel Narutowicz. Various politicians had exploited the assassination politically [as some Polish leftists (e. g., Adam Michnik vel Szechter, and, more recently, Paul Brykczynski) do to this day], using it as a club against the Endeks, or even an indictment of Poland in general. This has been going on although there is no evidence that anyone other than the convicted and executed assassin, the deranged individual, Eligiusz Niewiadomski, had been responsible for this crime. (p. 83).

Note that the Endek protests against Narutowicz accepting the presidency had been entirely peaceful in nature. But what do facts matter when someone wants to score political points against Poland?

Politicizing an assassination is so easy to do. Although Giertych does not develop it further, the American reader may find parallels between the blaming of the Narutowicz assassination on Endeks, or Poles in general, and the American liberals’ blaming of the 1963 lone-assassin JFK assassination on an “atmosphere of hatred” allegedly caused by conservative political opponents of JFK, or on America overall having become a “sick society” desperately in need of liberals’ remedies.