Endek Thinkers An Anthology Torunczyk

Narodowa Demokracja: Antologia mysli politycznej “Przegladu Wszechpolskiego” (1895-1905), by Barbara Toruńczyk. 1983

Primary Sources on Endek Thought: Jan Ludwik Poplawski, Roman Dmowski, etc. On Jews, Ukrainians, Freemasonry, etc. Finnish and Irish Nationalism as Models for Polish Nationalists to Emulate

THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATS: AN ANTHOLOGY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT FROM THE “PRZEGLAD WSZECHPOLSKI” (1895-1905), is the title of this Polish-language work. After a moderately long introduction, it features an abridged version of articles from the said Endek publication. (All the paginations in my review are based on this book, not the original, and are from the said publication unless otherwise noted.)

This work is especially useful for understanding Endek thinker Jan Ludwik Poplawski. It also features Roman Dmowski, Zygmunt Balicki, and some unidentified Endek authors.

POLISH NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE MASSES

What does Polish peasant national consciousness actually entail? Poplawski, in 1897, described what had developed in the 19th century. The common people, for the first time, were in solidarity with the national ideals and aspirations of educated Poles. (p. 97).

Note that, despite this, Poplawski is NOT saying that Polish peasant national consciousness was nonexistent prior to the middle or late 19th century. He suggests that the peasants of old had a self-identity based on religious affiliation and tribal distinctiveness, and that they had an unclear historical memory of an independent Poland. (p. 97). [By now a century in the past]. Since the Slavic tribes that had originally formed the Polish people had long since lost their identities, Poplawski must have been referring to peasants considering themselves “Poles” in some tribal sense. In addition, the fact that peasants had some understanding of a long-ago free Poland, even if it was vague, indicates that they had some kind of early national consciousness.

ENDEKS ON JEWS

Dmowski (1901) suggested that the dynamic Jewish element of Warsaw had grown very influential, at the expense of the Poles, in endeavors as diverse as society, politics, religion, and culture, for a simple reason. Jews were relentless (“pushy” in modern parlance), while Poles were the opposite, and it is those who are relentless that emerge dominant (pp. 138-139). Jews, no matter how thoroughly Polonized, were, generally devoid of Polish national feeling and thinking. Although Jews may express sympathy for Poles mistreated by the foreign powers, Polish national issues are foreign to Jews. (p. 139).

THE LITWAKS (LITVAKS)

An author named Ignotus (1903) alluded to the Litvak problem when he mentioned that the Jewish element in Warsaw is becoming larger and more powerful as Russified Jews move there from places such as Kishinev [site of a massive recent pogrom] and Kiev. (p. 158). In addition, even Jews native to Warsaw are becoming Russified as facilitated by tsarist Russian de-Polonization policies. (p. 156).

THE FLEXIBLE LOYALTIES OF JEWS

Ignotus also made the following observations about Jews: In Hungary, Jews became chauvinistic Magyars. In Prussian-ruled Poland, Jews became pro-Prussian. In eastern Russian-occupied Poland, Jews became pro-Russian. In Russian-ruled central Poland, Jews at first vacillated in their loyalties and then, after the defeat of the Polish January 1863 Insurrection, and having sensed Polish weakness in general, became pro-Russian. (p. 157). All of the foregoing has a prosaic explanation: Jews tend to side not with those who treat them better, but with those who they consider to unambiguously be stronger. This also explains the apparent paradox of Jews being pro-Russian even though the Russians “hate and despise them more than anyone else does”. (p. 157).

SOME SURPRISING ENDEK NUANCE ON JEWS

It should be stressed that Endek antagonism towards Jews (or Endek responsive antagonism to pre-existing Jewish aloofness/antagonism towards the Polish cause) was never absolute. To begin with, Dmowski (1905) pointed out that Jews in Poland are a reality–one with which Poles must come to terms. (p. 211). Dmowski (1901) recognized that Jews are of good and bad character, and that his generalization about even assimilated Jews does not apply to all of them. (p. 139). In addition, Dmowski (1905) emphasized that some Jews have a genuine interest in the Polish cause–something Poles should do likewise. (p. 222). One unidentified Endek (1900) author essentially exculpated Jewish conduct by suggesting that, while Polish Jews may identify with Polish language and culture, they should not be expected to identify with the Polish national cause–owing to injustices they had experienced from Poles, and because Jews have a strong sense of their own self-identity. (p. 165). Another unidentified Endek author (1903), while pointing to the aloofness of Jews to the Polish cause, and the growing and objectionable character of Jewish economic dominance, emphasized the fact that some Jews become “unreservedly Poles” These Jews not only adopt Polish culture, but also identify with the Polish national cause, as shown by the fact that they oppose Poland-aloof Jews. (pp. 121-122).

THE ENDEKS ARE NOT PICKING ON JEWS

Finally, the Endek attitude towards Jews must be placed in broader context. Dmowski (1905) implied that the Germanization, Russification, and “Judaization” (my term), of Poles and Poland, are ALL equally objectionable to the patriotic Pole. (p. 217).

ENDEKS AND RUTHENIANS (UKRAINIANS)

The Endeks have been mischaracterized as valuing only ethnic Poles and of being essentially intolerant towards other ethnicities living on Polish soil. This is untrue. An unidentified Endek author (1903) wrote of National Democrats appreciating the culture of non-Poles, and of striving to enjoy good relations with them. (p. 121).

There is no single Endek position on the subject of minorities, and Dmowski has been accused of advocating the forced Polonization of Ruthenians. This is incorrect. Skrzycki and Dmowski (1902) were open to two possibilities: If Ruthenians are to become Poles, then they should be Polonized. If, on the other hand, the newfound Ruthenian nationality is real, then the Ruthenians should act like one, because, for now, “they are even more passive and lazy than the Poles.” (p. 152). Ironic to perennial Ruthenian complaints about both active and passive Polonization processes, Skrzycki and Dmowski (1902) pointed to the Ruthenization of the Polish peasants of Podolia. (p. 145).

POLISH NATIONALISM IN CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONALISMS OF OTHER PEOPLES

The Partitions of Poland, and ensuing foreign rule, took their toll. The destruction of the Polish state had obviously caused non-Polish ethnicities to lose their Polonocentric orientation. In addition, Dmowski (1908) realized that, where Poles formed a minority, they had become weakened by Russifying tendencies–to the point that they found themselves increasingly incapable of competing with the emerging separatisms of the other ethnicities. (p. 293).

LIKE THEN LIKE NOW: POLES TRY TO HARD TO PLEASE OTHERS

An unidentified Endek author (1896) warned against a continuing Polish spirit of appeasement. He recounted how Polish efforts to avoid war, by handing-over territory during the First Partition, had only led to the final destruction of Poland. (p. 90).

NOT TRUE THAT DMOWSKI WAS CONTENT WITH POLAND UNDER FOREIGN RULE

The oft-repeated Endek emphasis on organic work needs to be qualified. Jan Ludwik Poplawski (1898) rhetorically asked what good are another 20 or 200 Russian-tolerated reading rooms when the substantive Polish content is minimal. What good is another hour of instruction in the Polish language when the tsarist authorities bar Poles from administrative posts? (p. 110).

NEITHER VIOLENCE NOR ROMANTICISM: MODELS OF PRODUCTIVE NATIONALISM

The dream of a free Poland never ceased. Roman Dmowski’s (1902) vision of effective nonviolent opposition to foreign rule cited the examples of Ireland and Finland. (p. 116).

THE PERNICIOUS NATURE OF FREEMASONRY

Dmowski (1905) clarified his opposition to Freemasonry. He placed it in the broader context of various manifestations of anti-religious radicalism. (pp. 232-233).