Undemonizing Dmowski on Jews Dmowski1

Myśli Nowoczesnego Polaka, by Roman Dmowski. 2007

Dmowski Inveighs Against Polish Passivity and Defeatism. Dmowski’s True Views of Jews: Tactical Anti-Semitism Owed to Clashing Polish-Jewish Interests

THOUGHTS OF A MODERN-THINKING POLE is the title of this Polish-language book. Originally published in 1903, its 4th edition, the subject of this review, came out in 1933.

Dmowski has been endlessly demonized by Jews and leftists because he stood up for Polish interests. Worse yet, his inspiring message was dangerous: It could actually motivate Poles to do something about those who were taking advantage of them.

NATIONALISM–THAT NAUGHTY WORD

Nationalism is nowadays often equated with “Hooray for our side” cheerleading. Not nationalist Dmowski! The thrust of his thought, in this work, was that Poles lacked substantive love for their nation (p. 12), were thinking and acting in a manner quite inconsistent with their interests, and were essentially lazy and passive. This very mentality had led to Targowica. (pp. 176-177).

“BETTER NOT DO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT GET OTHERS MAD” DEFEATISM CONFRONTED

Poles were prone to think that they had better dare do nothing that would give the ruling powers any further reason to be even more oppressive. (p. 70, 79). Some even hinted that there should be no Polish nation lest she oppress others. (p. 24). Although there was no such thing as a fixed national character (p. 44), the Poles’ situation under foreign rule had enabled them to vegetate. (p. 72).

WHO IS THE CHOSEN PEOPLE? IN WHAT WAY?

According to one aspect of Polish humor, the Jews were a Chosen People fated to exploit others, while the Poles were a Chosen People fated to be exploited by others. (p. 29). Nowadays, ironically, the similar “Jesus Christ of Nations” thinking is blamed for Poles’ presumed refusal to admit their wrongs towards Jews. Just the opposite! Such thinking–in actuality–tended, and tends, to facilitate a self-abnegating mindset among Poles.

“POLES MUST ALWAYS BE NICE TO OTHERS” DEFEATISM CONFRONTED

Interestingly, Poles often rationalized their passivity through such concepts as magnanimity, tolerance, and humanitarianism. (p. 89). Dmowski’s comment in this regard proved prophetic in describing far too many Polish leaders of today!

FATHER PIOTR WAWRZYNIAK’S ACTIVISM: POLES BEAT GERMANS AT THEIR OWN GAME OF ORGANIZATION AND EFFICIENCY

A spectacular exception to the Dmowski-condemned Polish passivity occurred in Prussian-ruled Poland, where the Poles were forced to develop their national character or face linguistic, cultural, and economic annihilation by the Germans. The Poles rose to the occasion at an essentially revolutionary pace! (p. 73-on).

LEWAKS FALSELY EQUATE PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM WITH HATRED. NOT SO.

Nationalism nowadays is often equated with hatred towards enemies. Dmowski was no hate-filled person. For instance, he said that, while the egoism of the Germans was an object of scorn or ridicule, their energy, discipline, ability to organize themselves, and level-headed thinking were admirable. (p. 191).

DO NOT CONFUSE NATIONALISM WITH CHAUVINISM

Likewise, nationalism is nowadays often equated with chauvinism. Dmowski was no chauvinist. For instance, he stated that he would be just as disgusted at the sight of a Polish teacher beating a Ukrainian child, for speaking Ukrainian, as he would be at the sight of a Russian or German teacher beating a Polish child, for speaking Polish. (p. 193).

Nor was Dmowski necessarily chauvinistic towards Poland’s minorities. He did consider the Eastern Galician Ruthenians (Ukrainians) as even lazier and more passive than the Poles (p. 95), but he also faulted Poles for pursuing fruitless avoid-offending-Ukrainians-at-any-cost policies (pp. 92-94), and for failing to pursue one of two strategies towards the Ukrainians: 1). Polonize them, or 2). Force them to earn the status of a nation–a nation that could become Poland’s ally against the Russians. (pp. 93-95). The 1st strategy is the one that Dmowski is remembered for, while the 2nd strategy is surprising in that it is the one that is normally credited to Pilsudski.

SO WHAT IS THE BOGEYMAN NATIONALIST?

Dmowski freely used the term nationalist. (e.g., p. 144, 151). He defined a nationalist as one who is attached to his nation’s language, customs, traditions, etc., and is particularly attuned to defending the interests of his nation. (pp. 144-145). The nationalist subordinates his interests to that of his nation, and his nation’s situation becomes his own, regardless of whether or not it affects his personal fortunes. (pp. 151-153).

DMOWSKI AND HIS REASONABLE POSITION ON JEWS

As for the Jews, Dmowski suggested that they lacked real fellowship with the Polish nation (p. 42) and had become the Third Estate in Polish society–to the detriment of the development of the common Polish people. (p. 43). He also concluded that the Jewish identity is so well crystallized over so many centuries that it could not be melded together with the more recently developed Polish national character. (p. 202).

THE JEWISH SCAPEGOAT MYTH

Far from making Jews into scapegoats, Dmowski actually blamed Polish leaders in this regard. He wrote: “We have allowed a huge mass of Jews to settle amongst us, and we have decreed that they have rights that, in many respects, were not granted even to native-born Polish townspeople. We did all this because our leaders had needed Jewish money. We did not hamper the new arrivals, we did not persecute them, we did not revolt against their acquisition of power–all because our SZLACHTA (nobility/gentry) saw it in their interest to back the Jews against the Polish townspeople, to the detriment of the entire Polish nation. Our townspeople were too weak, insufficiently united, and passive to counteract this obvious evil. The situation was not alleviated by the fact that we have presented our policy towards Jews as one of the greatest manifestations of our humanitarianism and tolerance.” (p. 90).

DMOWSKI’S ANTI-SEMITISM WAS TACTICAL IN NATURE

Roman Dmowski called anti-Semitism one of the manifestations of the “base instincts of the masses”. (p. 87). Nevertheless, he adopted an end-justifies-means position when he said that the combatting of Jewish dominance in petty trade is a sign of healthy national development (owing to the importance of economic emancipation of Polish society), regardless of whether it is merely the outcome of Christians going into business, or if it is also animated by some measure of anti-Semitism. (p. 87).

Dmowski reckoned that, especially owing to their large number, Polish Jews were one of the most difficult challenges that Poles faced. Instead of accusing Jews of being crooks, Dmowski suggested that these most commercialized of peoples were operating in an atmosphere which, at the time (1903), had seen chaos in economics as well as a marked overall decline in business ethics. (p. 295).

Nowhere in this work does Dmowski advocate the boycotting of Jews. This evidently developed later. However, Jews were not the only target of boycotts. The Prussians were using the boycott as an economic and political weapon against the Poles. (p. 74).