Polish 1609 Grab of Moscow Not Imperialist Lutoslawski

The Polish Nation (Classic Reprint), by Wincenty Lutoslawski. 2018

Leading Endek Thinker Clarifies Misconceptions About Polish Nationalism, of the SZLACHTA, of Polish “Imperialism” and the 1609 “Seizure” of Moscow, and of Poland as “Jesus Christ of Nations”

The author, Wincenty Lutoslawski (1863-1954) was a National Democrat (Endek), and friend of Roman Dmowski. This short book covers the content of a lecture he had delivered in the United States in October 1907.

UNDEMONIZING THE POLISH NOBILITY (SZLACHTA)

At the time of the publication of this book, misleading stereotypes already circulated about Poland as a nation of aristocrats and sharp class differences. (p. 32). Later, this became a mainstay of both Ukrainian nationalist and Soviet Communist propaganda, and is “received wisdom” in the present.

Wincenty Lutoslawski shows that it was the exact opposite: The Polish SZLACHTA constituted 14% of the Polish population. In contrast, its counterpart in England was only 2% of its population, and had far fewer rights and liberties. (p. 32). As for the false stereotype, Lutoslawski unmasks it in this fashion, (Quote) To call Poland an aristocratic country is like calling Spain a heretic country because so many heretics have been burned in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition was due not to the number of heretics, but to the religious fanaticism and cruelty of the believers. The great number of nobles in Poland is not due to aristocratic prejudice, but simply the endeavor to make all men as equal as possible. It was forbidden under the penalty of infamy to accept or to use titles in Poland…(unquote). (p. 33). Later, such titles were bestowed, to servile, low-character Poles, as a reward from Austrian and Prussian rulers.

THE PRUSSIAN MOLTKE GIVES A BACKHANDED COMPLIMENT TO POLISH EGALITARIANISM

Lutoslawski elaborates on Field Marshall Count von Moltke’s, POLAND. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH (1885 English translation)(pp. 34-on). [See my review]. The Prussian Moltke is a hostile witness to Polish achievements and character. He condemns the Polish Constitution, notably the lack of a feudal hierarchy, the elective nature of offices, the absence of a warlike nobility, insufficient deference to the rich and powerful, absence of the kind of clear-cut difference between the privileged and the non-privileged that is prevalent elsewhere in Europe, and other obvious Polish “vices” that are really disguised virtues.

“Might makes right” thinking was much more typical of Europeans other than Poles. Lutoslawski summarizes the situation in Poland, (Quote) The growth of liberties in every respect was due to voluntary concessions of the stronger party–the king to nobles, the nobles to peasants, the Catholics to Protestants, the Christians to Jews–not to violence and bloodshed. (unquote)(p. 56).

THE ENDEKS WERE NOT SOME KIND OF NARROW CLIQUE

Lutoslawski shatters many LEWAK misrepresentations of Endeks. For instance, instead of being some kind of narrow hyper-traditionalist or hyper-Catholic, Lutoslawski elsewhere promotes belief in reincarnation and yoga. Far from being some kind of narrow, ethnocentric ideologue, Lutoslawski, in this book, speaks positively of cosmic consciousness (pp. 54-55).

In addition, far from having a conception of Polish-ness that is chauvinistic or exclusivist, he praised the fact that Poles have welcomed people of many different nationalities and religions into their realm. As for “essential Polishness”, Lutoslawski treated as a virtue the Polish habit of appreciating other cultures, and other aspects of the creative and synthetic nature of Polish thinking. (pp. 58-59).

DO NOT LUMP ALL FORMS OF NATIONALISM INTO THE SAME SMELLY BOX

Nowadays, nationalism is a dirty word in academia. The leftmedia regularly smears Polish nationalists as (what else?) fascists and neo-Nazis.

The author appreciates the essential difference between imperialistic nationalism and emancipatory nationalism. He notes that, (Quote) Many patriots in other countries are really patriots of their state and not of their nation. Such is the patriotism of those Russians who dream of the greatness of Russia as a limitless expansion over territories conquered and administered by force under the direct oppression of their original inhabitants. (quote)(p. 55).

EVEN THE 1609 POLISH “SEIZURE” OF MOSCOW WAS NOT AN ACT OF POLISH IMPERIALISM

Lutoslawski notes that, in contrast, the Poles have never sought to conquer others. Had they done so, Poland could have ruled over Bohemia, Hungary, Romania, etc. (pp. 56-57). When the Polish general Zolkiewski took Moscow in 1609, he could have forced the Polish will on the Muscovites. Instead, he magnanimously allowed them to elect their own tsar. (p. 57).

UNDERSTANDING POLAND AS THE “JESUS CHRIST OF NATIONS”

Even the Endek conception of emancipatory nationalism does not necessarily imply the concept of national egoism. Lutoslawski makes this obvious as he clarifies the much-misrepresented “Jesus Christ of Nations” belief among Poles. He comments, (Quote) It is well within this line of Polish activity that the Poles alone among the nations of Europe have created a religious and philosophical doctrine, according to which they have not only rights but also duties towards the other nations, a mission to fulfill for the welfare of mankind. This doctrine, called MESSIANISM, has been often perverted and ridiculed, as though the Poles considered themselves a privileged nation, deserving the first rank of mankind. But the true meaning of MESSIANISM is that every nation ought to have a mission and not be lost in national egoism. (unquote)(p. 53).

Let us expand this theme. Far from accepting social Darwinist notions of the inevitable and perpetual struggle between nations, Lutoslawski believes that, “The Polish MESSIANIST sees in the future cooperation of nations instead of the present competition of states.” (p. 53).

Note that all this is a far cry from the Judeocentric misrepresentations of Poland, as “Jesus Christ of Nations”, in which Poland is imagined to think of herself as “too good” to have done any wrong to Jews and others.

ENDEKS NOT UNILATERALLY HOSTILE TO JEWS

The Endeks are best known for their views (real or presumed) about Jews. While the author believes that Jews retain their characteristics even when assimilated, and stresses differences between Poles and Jews, he refrains from making derogatory statements about Jews. (pp. 44-45). Pointedly, Lutoslawski has a positive view of the times that Poles and Jews had gotten along. He writes, “Anti-Semitism has never been strong in Poland, and in 1862 Jewish rabbis took part with Catholic bishops and Protestant pastors in the great national funerals and demonstrations.” (p. 50). He also cites several “true Poles” that have a non-Polish name, including Estreicher. (p. 34). If Estreicher was of Jewish background, it shows that Lutoslawski recognizes the premise that a Jew can become a “true” Pole.

STOP DEMONIZING THE ENDEKS

In conclusion, many of Lutoslawski’s beliefs are in direct contradiction to what Endeks are supposed, by their detractors, to believe. What are we to make of this? Did Endek thinking turn significantly anti-minority and anti-Jewish only sometime after 1907 (the date of the contents of this book), and as an effect, not cause, of their growing lack of solidarity with the Polish cause?

In any case, it is obvious that Endek thinking was not monolithic. The carping criticisms of the Endeks, frequently voiced by certain Jews and the LEWACTWO, tell us more about prejudices of these self-appointed critics than they do of the presumed moral failings of the Endecja.