Ukrainians Exploited By Poles Debunked Edwards

The Polish Captivity, Vol. 2 of 2: An Account of the Present Position of the Poles in the Kingdom of Poland, and in the Polish Provinces of Austria, Prussia, and Russia (Classic Reprint), by Sutherland Edwards. 2015

A Fascinating Briton’s Observations in 1860 Partitioned Poland. Poles Did Not Oppress Ukrainians. Embryonic Galician Ukrainian Separatism. The Vintage of Long-Repeated Anti-Polish Propaganda

The author travelled extensively across foreign-ruled Poland, and provided the 2nd volume of this 1863 fact-filled account, along with a foreigner’s mid-19th century perspective unclouded by later developments. Owing to the breadth of information presented, I can only focus on a few matters. To see the first volume and Peczkis review of: The Polish captivity: an account of the present position of the Poles in the kingdom of Poland, and in the Polish provinces of Austria, Prussia, and Russia (v.1 ) (1863).

PARTITIONED POLES PUSH BACK AGAINST THE OCCUPANTS

In 1861, the Polish inhabitants of Russian-ruled Warsaw issued a proclamation to all Poles. (pp. 351-356). It re-affirmed the criminality of the Partitions and the drive to restore a free and independent Poland. It complained that the occupation powers are sowing quarrels between peasantry and landlords, between Poles and Ruthenians (Ukrainians), and between Poles and Jews. (p. 352). It also complained about the suppression of the Polish language, of Polish religion, and of Polish institutions of learning, and of forcing Poles to serve as soldiers for the imperialists’ causes.

As for class differences, it stated (p. 354) that the landlord who strikes a peasant, and the peasant who listens to agitators, are equally criminal. (p. 354). It enjoins Poles to settle their differences amongst themselves, and never to resort to the perfidious ruling authorities. It urges Poles to unite and support national efforts. Finally, it affirms the fact that Lithuania and Ruthenia had become part of Poland of their own free will, and should not now allow the ruling powers to entice them against Poland. (p. 355).

Now consider Prussian-ruled Poland. The German authorities were already hostile to the Polish language (p. 83) and were against the teaching of Polish history. (p. 84). [Ironically, today Polish authorities de-emphasize Polish history in favor of so-called Europeanism]. Poles and Germans tended not to associate in private life. (p. 86).

EARLY POLISH PEASANT NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The author touches on Polish peasant national consciousness in Austrian-ruled Galicia. He showed how Polish patriotism was manifesting itself in Krakow regardless of class interests, but only educated Polish peasants were reliably active. (p. 57). This suggests that overall “peasant passivity” towards Polish national interests was more apparent than real.

THE 1846 JACQUERIE

Edwards clarifies the peasant revolt of 1846 in Galicia. He talked to peasants and proprietors alike, including those who had lost loved ones, and they were unanimous in their position that the Austrians had ultimately instigated the revolt. (pp. 66-69).

POLES DID NOT OPPRESS THE UKRAINIANS

That Poles had been oppressing the Ruthenians, a modern “truth by repetition”, is decisively rejected by Edwards, and is based on his personal observations. Thus, Poles offered not a word of protest about the establishment of Ruthenian primary schools (p. 63), and have otherwise left the Ruthenians to their own devices. (p. 65). Poles did not attempt to stifle the emerging Ruthenian language. (p. 114, 115). In the past, the likes of Michael Wisniowiecki and Jan Sobieski were Ruthenians (p. 112), yet they never complained about Poles being oppressive to Ruthenians, and found no separatist national distinction between Poles and Ruthenians.

[Note that the longstanding GENTE RUTHENUS NATIONE POLONUS did not imply a lack of Ukrainian national consciousness. It implied the lack of a SEPARATIST Ukrainian national consciousness. These are two different things.]

Thus, Ukrainian national consciousness was long compatible with some kind of association with Poland. Far from resenting Polishness as something imposed upon them by Roman Catholics and “Polish imperialists”, Ruthenians, for the longest time, had been happy to be educated in Polish language and culture. (p. 112).

In Galicia, the Ruthenian Greek Catholic clergy played a major role in driving the new separatist Ruthenian movement. (p. 114). Already the Greek Catholic Archbishop (in this case, Jachimowicz) was protesting the spirit of Polishness in Austrian political life (p. 114). [Decades later, Poles would complain that Bishop Sheptytsky (Szeptycki), himself now self-identified as a separatist-oriented Ruthenian though coming from a long self-Polonized Ruthenian family, was “transforming good Ruthenians into anti-Polish Ukrainians”.]

To avoid confusion about various and changing manifestations of Ukrainian national consciousness”, I, for purposes of this review, divide it into the following overlapping stages: 1). Ruthenian as a language, and not just a peasant dialect, 2). Ruthenian as a nationality, and not just “locals”, 3). “Ruthenia” and “Ukraine” having connotations of ethno-nationality, and not just place names, 4). The separatist entitlement of Ruthenians (sensu #2 and #3) to their own independent nation. (Edwards does not mention stages #3 and #4, at least not directly, and these are probably later developments.)

As for #1, Ruthenian, as a modern literary language, was yet to be invented. (p. 114). The Ruthenian priests, who influenced the Ruthenian deputies, invariably spoke Polish among themselves. (p. 114). Ironically, as for #1 and #2, at least some of the Ruthenian deputies sitting in the Galician Diet, and giving support to the champions of the Ruthenian “nationality”, did not even know the difference between the Ruthenian and Polish alphabets. (p. 58). In fact, while protesting the making of Polish the official and educational language of Galicia, Ruthenian deputies spoke Polish, as did all educated Ruthenians–in much the same way that the educated classes in Brittany spoke French. (p. 63). Edwards also contends that, given a choice, the Ruthenian peasant would prefer that his child be educated in Polish instead of the popular idiom (Ruthenian). (p. 63). [All this helps explain why Poles [notably the Endeks], had, for a long time (and without lapsing into chauvinism), sincerely believed that Ruthenians would readily accept re-Polonization. Dmowski, noting the advanced state of separatist-oriented “Ruthenianism” by his time, was ambiguous about this.]

Edwards considered “Ruthenian nationality” a nonsensical term. (p. 71). In fact, he believed that “Ruthenianism” (that is, Ukrainian separatism, especially its anti-Polish variety) was a “curious and newly-invented thing”, and that Ruthenian peasants (who, of course, comprised the overwhelming majority of Ruthenians) were much more interested in acquiring land in the wake of the emancipatory measure of 1848 than they were in “Ruthenianism”. (p. 58). After Jachimowicz made his statement expressing hostility to Polishness, a large body of Ruthenians assured the Austrian Emperor that they considered their interests identical to that of the Poles. (p. 61). [One can reasonably suppose that, were the Polish state resurrected in 1860 instead of 1918, the vast majority of Ruthenians would have been loyal to it.]

[Even when looking at the matter retrospectively, with the Ruthenians/Ukrainians having unquestionably becoming a separatist nationality, the premise of “contrived nationalities”, as a strategy of DIVIDE ET IMPERA, should nevertheless find appreciation. As recently as WWII, the German conquerors and occupants of Poland were trying to convince the Kaszubs [Kashubs] and Gorale [GORALENVOLK], that they were separatist-oriented nationalities, thereby to set them against Poles and Poland.]

THE OLD VINTAGE OF FOREIGN PRETENSIONS AGAINST POLAND

One striking feature of the book is the antiquity of the bogus imperialist arguments against Poland–many of which assumed the status of “truths” by the 20th century. For instance, Russia was already making claims to Galicia by enlisting Ruthenians as Russians (although the two peoples had diverged long ago: pp. 109-110), and because “The Poles were oppressing the Ruthenians”, thereby giving Russia a right to intervene (p. 62, 71). [Anticipating 1939 USSR]. This was doubly ironic because subjugated Poland did not even exist, and was in no position to oppress anyone even if she had wanted to, and because the Russian wolf was protesting the tyranny of the Polish lamb. (p. 62; see also pp. 18-20). Austria was already using the Ruthenian movement as an anti-Polish tool. (p. 61). The Russian and Austrian governments [like their modern counterparts] were faulting Poles for “mixing politics and religion” to try to silence the voices of Polish patriotism. (p. 158).

Russia [and, not mentioned, also Germany] was already claiming that all territory that had once been linked with her–no matter how tenuously, creatively, or long ago–rightfully belongs to her (p. 139), (meaning, of course, that there could not possibly be room for a Polish state of any size!) Russia was also already asserting that territories, where Poles are a minority of the total population, rightfully belong by default to Russia [As at 1943 Teheran] and that, furthermore, those not of tribal Polish origin, who nevertheless consider themselves Poles, are not. [Nowadays, some Lithuanians claim that the Poles of Lithuania somehow are not “real” Poles, because they (correctly or incorrectly) are the descendants of Polonized Lithuanians.]

In rebuttal, Edwards defends Poland’s claims to territories (including those that, in modern parlance, do not have an “ethnographically Polish” majority), as he writes, (quote) Whatever dialect the peasants may talk, and whatever the ancient history of the country may be, it would be difficult for a Russian writer to persuade us that the land of Mickievicz (Mickiewicz), Kosciuszko, and Sobieski is not Poland. (unquote). (p. 139). Now consider this silly business of “real” Poles. Edwards comments, (quote) To say that Wilna [Wilno, Vilnius] is not Polish is like saying that Burgundy is not French…however distinct its origin…It is also quite true that it [Wilno] is not Polish in an ethnological point of view, just as Normans are not Saxons, nor Saxons Britons, though the descendants of all these races in England are all Englishmen. (unquote)(p. 141). Touche!