Recommended Poland's history books

In my effort to learn Polish history I've read a number of comprehensive histories of Poland. I've read the more famous ones that have been written in English. These would include:
·Adam Zamoyski
POLAND, A HISTORY, 2009
THE POLISH WAY, 1994
·Daniel Stone
THE POLISH-LITHUANIAN STATE, 1386-1795, 2001
·Norman Davies
GOD'S PLAYGROUND, Vols ! & 2, 1984 edition and 2005 revised edition.
·Jerzy Lukowski & Hubert Zawadzki
A CONCISE HISTORY OF POLAND, 2nd edition, 2006
·Patrice M. Dabrowski
POLAND, THE FIRST THOUSAND YEARS, 2016

I just finished a one hundred seven year old book (published in 1917 and described in the thread above). Surprisingly I found this book, THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF POLAND, to be one of the best. The narrative flowed easily thanks to Lewinski-Corwin's style of writing. The author wrote this book in 1917 while WW I was going on and a new Poland was attempting to be born. When he finished the book the Russian czar was already overthrown and the USA entered WW I.

The author mentions that few references have been given throughout the book. The reason ha says this was because his publisher advised against listing sources that a reader could not consult. Most of the references used were in Polish. His footnotes were printed though and I researched some of them.

August Sokolowski (1846-1924) and Wladyslaw Smolenski (1851-1926) where two of the historians used. Has anyone heard of them? Also Josef Grabiec, HISTORY OF THE POLISH NATION, 1909 was used as was ZARYS HISTORYI POLSKIEJ, 1913 (OUTLINE OF POLISH HISTORY).has any of the forum members used them or read them? It's too bad the references weren't published. They'd be helpful today.

One thing I will say is that the book was beautifully illustrated. I read a reprint version, pictured here, so I could write notes in it. The illustrations and some of the printing were poor and faded. I obtained an original copy through the library loan system from the library of Sarah Lawrence College in New York. The pictures were beautiful enough to be framed!

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed the book it has its pluses and minuses. Another interesting part is when the author talks about what the future holds from the perspective of 1917!

• 
  img20240820_12233152.jpg
  

Yes, I have always wanted to say how impressed we are by your efforts but my forgetfulness is really a nuisance. You remind me of myself, I have also always been a maniacal devourer of everything concerning Poland`s history. I started in the second grade elementary school when I robbed my elder sister of her history book for grade 5. :):):)

Are you suggesting that MK is in 5th grade?

No. Did I say I robbed him of a history book???

I finally finished this history book. The author, Samuel Astley Dunham, wrote this history, in English, during the 1830 Revolution. He was very sympathetic to the caus.
"But, whether victor or vanquished, the Poles must have the respect of humanity."

But in reading the history he's very critical of the kings who ruled during the so-called "Golden Age" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's as if the Poles stumbled on good luck despite their perpetual bumbling in any social, economic or political sphere.

Casimir IV ruled almost forty-five years!!! "The feeble though obstinate Casimir IV was regretted by nobody. Whatever good appeared under his reign...must be referred to the favor of Heaven; whatever bad, to the weakness of his administration." That's all he gets for FORTY-FIVE YEARS OF RULING!!!

Zygmunt I "the Old' ruled over 41 years. He gets good marks. Zygmunt II Augustus "As a king, he ranks very high...with him ended the greatness of Poland."
Zygmunt III ruled for a little more than 24 years. His reign was disastrous. With him, Poland slipped into the reign of Wladyslaw IV and the Deluge and the end of a great nation.

From reading all these histories it seems that Zygmunt II Augustus is probably Poland's greatest king. That's my unprofessional opinion. But he seems to have known what he was doing. Personally, I think he's Poland's greatest king, above Casimir the Great, above Bathory, above John Sobieski.

THE HISTORY OF POLAND, Mieczyslaw B. Biskupski, 2000. Part of the Greenwood Histories of Modern Nations.
Highly recommended!

This history series deals with the modern histories of nations. Most of this history is devoted to the 1914-2000 era. One chapter deals with Poland up to 1795; another chapter entitled "Poland's Long Century, 1795-1914". This is my first attempt into tackling a modern history of Poland. There is a 2nd edition published in 2018 that updates this edition. So far I have been unable to procure it.

M.B. Biskupski is a Polish-American historian. He received his PhD from Yale in 1981 and since 2002 he is the Endowed Chair in Polish and Polish-American Studies at Central Connecticut State University. Previously he taught at various colleges and at the University of Warsaw.

What's great about this book is that he has a way of describing complex historical events in a well laid out narrative, especially the ethnographic struggles, the economic situations, the political infighting. Exceptionally clear is his comparisons of the Pilsudskiites vs the endecja; why Pilsudski's coup took place; how come Poland failed against the Nazi invasion; how the Allies betrayed Poland at the conferences; characters such as Beruit, Gomulka, etc.

The layout of this history is also refreshing. There is a "Timeline of Historical Events" which is always helpful in studying so complicated a history. The end contains a notable people list with mini-biographies: from Wladyslaw Anders to Stefan Wyszynski. Finally a glossary and list of abbreviations and terms are listed (and help a lot), e.g. kresy, Polonia, AK, PRL, PZPR, etc., etc.

I love it when an historian produces a bibliographic essay which Biskupski does. This essay is a critique of Polish historiography written in the English language. It's well worth reading and he comments on some other Polish histories. These comments pretty much sum up a view of Polish history in English. (Remember these comments are based on books from two decades ago).
·Norman Davies's GOD'S PLAYGROUND has "errors and controversial interpretations" . (He's addressing the original 1982 editions).
·Biskupski gives good points to Zamoyski's THE POLISH WAY (which has since been revised and updated) and R.F. Leslie's THE HISTORY OF POLAND SINCE 1863.
·Pawel Jasienica's English translated works are "extraordinarily readable".
·"Impressive" is Robert I. Frost's AFTER THE DELUGE. Biskupski says no one yet has produced a major synthesis of the Cossack wars and the Deluge.
·"Unsatisfactory" is R.F. Leslie's REFORM AND INSURRECTION IN RUSSIAN POLAND, 1856-1865.
·He says there are no decent biographies (in English) of Pilsudski or Sikorski.
·Again Norman Davies's WHITE EAGLE RED STAR comes off with "...occasional lapses in fact and judgement..."
·Richard C. Lukas's THE FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUSR is valuable "...though marred by its polemical tone regarding Jewish issues"
·Lastly the story of the WW II Polish Underground State still awaits a comprehensive history.

For me this was a great intro into modern Poland. Sort of smoothed things out for me concerning the birth of the Second Republic amidst the wreckage of WWI and the communist period. It was during this communist period, when I was in grammar school, that I came into contact with a lot of kids who were new immigrants from Poland.

• 
  img20240925_14494821.jpg
  

CIVIL WAR IN CENTRAL EUROPE, 1918-1921, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF POLAND, Jochen Bohler, 2018.

This book is part of a series called "The Greater War, 1912-1923" published by Oxford University Press. The series presents the rise of nation-states before and especially after World War I. Other books in the series cover, Lithuania, Turkey, Russia, Austria, etc.

This book was printed in the UK; written in American English and produced by a German historian. Yep! This is a very unusual Polish history of the birth of the Second Republic.

It is heavily researched: 28 pages of reference works cited; 237 works in English-language scholarship. Most of the archives consulted were in Poland (11 locations) followed by the USA (five locations).

Bohler is a professor at the University of Jena, Germany. After his studies he moved to Warsaw for ten years. He married a Polish woman and started to raise a family there.
The book has an exciting, fast-flowing narrative. But since I'm a novice in the study of Polish history, this book started to confuse me. Why? Bohler claims that the Second Republic grew out of a "Central European CIVIL WAR". His explanation of why this is so caused me to start researching book reviews on line.

Secondly the other main themes also confused me. Firstly, nothing and no one was UNITED. No unity. Also the level of VIOLENCE produced against civilians by the Polish was unbelievable. This idea of violence against civilians is presented in Chapter Four, "Violence and Crimes Beyond the Battlefield". Much of the violence took place in the kresy region, directed against Ukrainians and Jews. Maybe that's why Ukrainians butchered Poles during World War II?

Two reviewers, Krzysztof Jaskulowski (PhD-history; PhD-sociology) and Tomas Balkelis (PhD, Univ. of Toronto) say that the histories of the Second Republic are dominated by idealized narratives of a united Polish nation. Jaskulowski says this notion still exists in modern public thought and in Poland's social imagination. He maintains that many Polish historians skim over the violence that happened.

Also contrary to popular belief, Polish society was NOT UNITED. The book presents contradictory goals, different interests, various Polish "power centers", parties and "warlords" who sometimes fought each other.

Bakelis points out that Bohler shows Polish society displayed a total lack of participation except for urban areas. The peasants were the "silent majority".

I finally went to ChatGPT (AI) and received the following. Positively Bohler's book gives a detailed portrayal of the politico-military chaos of the era. His approach provides a comprehensive perspective on how the Polish state was constructed amidst civil unrest, foreign intervention (Bolsheviks) and internal divisions.

Leaning towards a more critical view is the usage of the term "civil war" and the portrayal of Polish nationalism. Bohler's usage of the "civil war" term to describe Poland's 1918-1921 rebirth misrepresents the nature of the period. Critics say that the struggles for independence, the Bolshevik war, the internal political unrest are NOT civil war. Civil wars are factions fighting within a single state.

Bohler presents the depiction of Polish nationalism as "imperialistic" and "aggressive", particularly against inhabitants of the kresy. He overemphasizes the negative aspects of rebirth and downplays Poland's legit struggles for self-determination.

"Presentism". This concept popped up. I never thought of it. Bohler looks at the 1918-1921 period through "modern lens". That's why he calls it a civil war. It was among Slavic peoples. He oversimplifies Polish motivation for wanting to create their own nation-state.

Overall summary. From my perspective you better know your modern Polish history in order to read this book. This book explores the power vacuum after the great empires fell.

Criticism centers around the term "civil war". It's misleading. Poland's struggles were wars of independence, they were border wars along with internal struggles. Lastly Bohler portrays Polish nationalism as overly negative --- he downplays Poland's legitimate struggle for rebirth.

One thing that Bohler mentions (and reviewer Balkelis emphasizes) is because of the violent wars after World War I, the little Central European countries (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania) became more authoritarian and fierce enemies of each other. They never untied in alliances and that's why they were easy prey for the Nazis and Stalin.

• 
  img20241020_16260299.jpg
  

Little? Maybe Lithuania. Czechoslovakia was a medium sized European country, and Poland was (and still is) larger than Italy.

This Bohler guy sounds a bit like a German version of Dugin. Central Europe was never a political entity, so the very title of the book is nonsensical in itself.

Think outside of your Polish imperial nationalism and tell us why the Polish Ukrainian war of 1918-19 could be called a civil war????

It could be called a Polish civil war, or a civil war in Poland. Ukraine was, as the name of the country attests, simply a Polish borderland. But to call it a civil war in Central Europe is to suggest that CE itself was a political entity at some point in time whilst it never was.

This Bohler guy probably considers Mitteleuropa to be essentially German lebensraum hence his calling it a civil war. Preposterous.

Indeed, some inbreed, instead of moving to Ukraine proper, claim ownership of the Polish lands. F them!
---

German phew, an artificial creation thanks to conquests made by the rebellious Prussian province. Should know their place upstarts.