Undemonizing Dmowski on Jews Wapinski

Roman Dmowski, by Roman Wapiński. 1979

Undemonizing Dmowski: Reacting Intellectually, and Not Emotionally, to His Statements on Jews

This work analyzes the Endek leader, and includes many seldom-published photos of the same. [Review based on 392-page 1988 edition]. The extensive quotations from Dmowski, including from his relatively obscure works, alone makes this book worthwhile. Owing to the proliferation of the topics presented, I can only discuss a few of them.

DMOWSKI WAS A SOPHISTICATED INTELLECTUAL

Agree with Dmowski or not, but realize that he was no lightweight. The biographical details presented make it obvious that Roman Dmowski was far from a provincial xenophobe. He had exposure to many different cultures because of his travels, already by 1898-1899, to such places as France, England, Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland, and Brazil. Dmowski was involved with many influential circles in western Europe. He also spoke fluently in several languages, notably French, English, and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese. (p. 87).

A COLLECTIVE NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS MAKES A NATION

Author Wapinski (p. 74) provides an extensive quote from Dmowski’s 1895 JEDNOSC NARODA. Dmowski notes that languages do not in and of themselves create nationalities. For instance, the Bretons in France have their own language, but no one speaks of a Breton nationality. Conversely, the Swiss Germans, Austrians, and Prussians all speak the same language, but do not thereby form a single nationality. Poles form a nationality because they have a collective national consciousness, a single national spirit, and a sense of unity as a nation.

“ETHNOGRAPHIC FRONTIERS”–AN EVENTUAL BOGUS ISSUE DIRECTED AT POLAND

The author also quotes from Dmowski’s 1895 KWESTIA LITEWSKA. Dmowski points out that, had the Partitions never occurred, Lithuanian political separatism would have never emerged. [Of course, the same holds for Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Byelorussian separatism.] While considering the Lithuanians, Dmowski brings up the example of Switzerland, in which case Francophones and Germanophones [and Italionophones] speak their own language, yet consider themselves part of Switzerland. Pointedly, Dmowski then expresses respect for the language and culture of Lithuania. [This refutes the notion that Dmowski was a chauvinist whose only regard was for ethnic Poles, or that Dmowski advocated that Poles, given the opportunity, should Polonize, by force or otherwise, the non-Polish members of the Kresy. Furthermore, if the example of Switzerland is pressed, one should add that the French and Italians (along with the Germans) living there form their own respective ethnographic territories, yet consider themselves Swiss in nationality, and the non-Germanophones freely accept the overall German dominance of Switzerland.] Since Dmowski had written all this by 1895, it is obvious that whatever hostility he later expressed towards Poland’s minorities was a consequence, and not cause, of their attitudes and conduct towards Poland.

CONTEXTUALIZING JEWISH PARASITISM

Nowadays, the phrase “Jewish parasite” has Nazi connotations of Jews innately driven to exploit others, and of being vermin fit for extermination. Writing decades before the German Nazis, Dmowski used the phrase “Jewish parasite” without such connotations. In fact, author Wapinski points out that Dmowski did not express any well-developed philosophy about Jews, so we should not read too much into Dmowski’s isolated statements about Jews. (p. 109).

[One should also realize that many of the occupations practiced by Jews, notably usury, were commonly seen as parasitic ones in that they did not involve the creation of products (e. g., crops). In addition, these Jewish-practiced occupations carried the connotation of unearned privilege (not requiring “real work”–the heavy physical labor that was the lot of the overwhelming majority of Poles), and were often ones that were burdened by the additional stigma of taking advantage of others.]

Consider also the specific context of Roman Dmowski’s remarks. Quoted in the 1895 WYMOWNY CYFRY, Dmowski spoke of the Jews being parasites in the sense that they live within and off other nations. (p. 107). [Thus, “parasitic nation” is not necessarily pejorative, insofar as the Jewish nation, having no country of its own, is forced to live off other nations–in much the same way that the term “beggar” is not necessarily pejorative, insofar as the person living off others is not in a position to be gainfully employed.]

DEMOGRAPHICS ADDED TO JEWISH ECONOMIC HEGEMONY

Jews become dominant when they have a much greater rate of natural increase in population than Poles (for instance, 229% versus 35%, during 1850-1890, in the Wilno (Vilnius) area: p. 107). Conversely, Poles have been able to advance the most economically, notably in Prussian-ruled Poland, where the Jews were the fewest. (p. 107-108). In addition, the Polish successes in Prussian-ruled Poland drove even more Jews to move elsewhere in much the same way that a healthy organism drives off parasites attempting to colonize it. (p. 108). Clearly, then, Dmowski’s remark equating Jews and parasites, though certainly uncharitable, and unacceptable in modern discourse, was in the context of economic rivalry and usual Jewish separatism. (p. 109). [One wonders if some Jews, seeing Poles entering business and other traditionally Jewish-monopolized fields, did not sometimes see the Poles as parasites.]

DMOWSKI WAS NOT UNILATERALLY NEGATIVE ABOUT JEWS

Pointedly, Dmowski recognized that Jews can and do become patriotic Poles. Writing in the 1903 PROGRAMIE STRONNICTWA DEMOKRATYCZNO-NARODOWEGO, Dmowski stated that Jews can adopt Polish culture, and become unreservedly and fully one with Polish society when they support Polish national goals, including the reduction of the power and influence of separatist Jews. (p. 112). Clearly, then, Dmowski did not see ALL Jews as parasites, and he did not see parasitism as some kind of trait that was innate to Jews–much less an unchangeable one.