History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

Pawel Jasienica's THE COMMONWEALTH OF BOTH NATIONS, CALAMITY OF THE REALM, 1992. This book starts at 1648 and ends around 1695. For such an intense period of Polish history, the book is quite short. Only 287 pages. I guess it's such a sad chapter of history that even Jasienica doesn't want to investigate it much.

Firstly, Jasienica (I'll refer to him as PJ) points out how the peoples of the Ukrqaine were horribly mistreated. Also, the Ukraine did not want to leave the commonwealth but only to become a partner. "The Ukrainian national consciousness was still in the process of formation, though already strong in numbers, but it could not find room for itself within the structure of the Commonwealth. It was ready to remain loyal to the Crown, but only on the condition of being promoted to the rank of a third equal partner in the federation. Equality would mean the acceptance of the existing social order with all its flaws." P.3

The difference for the Ukrainians (most of whom were serfs) would be that they would labor for Ukrainian lords, not Poles, not Jews, not the clergy.

This time in the Ukraine the Cossack revolt happened TOO QUICKLY. The Commonwealth loses at Zolte Wody and Korsun due to desertion by "Registered Cossacks". Also all the Orthodox clergy wholeheartedly supported the rebels. The clergy preached to the serfs and the serfs willingly agreed. The Cossack revolt of 1648 was set in motion quickly, almost pushed from behind by a united ideological spirit.

"The entire campaign of 1648 was conducted ineptly on the Polish side, the soldiers were led into action in the wrong way and induced to suffer the nervous shock sustained by participants in loosing battles." P. 24

Then there was a fiasco at a place called Pilawce. The Polish forces held their own against the Cossacks. The Tatars did not help. Then the Polish commanders held an impromptu meeting and decided to withdraw with their entourages. The Cossacks at first thought it was a trick. They watched and waited. No one pursued the fleeing polish army, defeated by its own commanders.

"The 'Disgrace of Pilawce' set a definite watershed in history. The Commonwealth had lost irretrievably a chance of becoming a decisive power in eastern Europe." P. 26
"Bohdan Chmielnicki (the great Ukrainian leader) made the Commonwealth appear naked before the world and its own children." P. 37

"The average nobleman was taught at school worship of the status quo. The great lords...knew well the world and its workings. They were consequently well aware of the Commonwealth's shortcomings and its chaotic organization. The lords wrote stinging satires, condemned anarchy, egoism, profligacy, governmental laxity and other sins, while at the same time manipulating the rank-and-file gentry in their own interest, handing out and taking bribes whenever the occasion allowed it." P. 44 Talk about a sack of hypocrites. And then you wonder why Poland got eaten up by its neighbors.

"The studies of the historian Wladyslaw Czapinski documented the magnates' pessimistic evaluation of the crisis and their anticipation of a partition of a country. Such views inspired a policy AIMED AT PRESERVING THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE ESTATES AND THE PRIVELEDGES ATTACHED TO THEM, EVEN UNDER ANOTHER SOVEREIGNTY." P. 44 Wow! Doesn't matter who the overlord is, as long as he doesn't bother me and my domain.

So finally, the great battle takes place at BERESTECZKO (1651) and the Commonwealth has the upper hand . But "...the victory at Beresteczko was left unexploited...the country was sick, its internal condition rendered it incapable of rational action." P. 68

Then the very next year - 1652 - a small Polish army was attacked and captured at BATOH by a large Cossack-Tatar army. Cossack spies sewed confusion and set fires in the Polish ranks. The Cossacks paid the Tatars for the entire captured Polish army and proceeded to hack each one to death. Note that many were cavalrymen and could be ransomed for rewards.
"Dead dogs don't bite." ---Chemielnicki

So the situation keeps getting worse. First an epidemic. Then PJ describes the first time the "liberum veto" was used and the confusion and mis-steps that followed. PJ covers how the magnates ruled and mentions Zygmunt III and his choice of supporting the magnates as a base for his authority. A big mistake. The magnates just kept taking over and by mid-century PJ quotes a contemporary voivode named Jan Leszczynski:

"We lost so many million, so many men and we still remain in the same turmoil. Despite so many taxers, recruitment and bloodshed, we have won no advantage over the enemy; we can neither win nor buy peace or even only a breathing space, facing ever growing dangers." P.83

1654 brings on the good, old Ruskies and the Ukraine joins the Muscovites as their vassal. Chmielnicki and the Muscovites meet at Perejaslaw to formalize this agreement. PJ says Perejaslaw gave Russia its cue and it took it with gusto. From then on the Ukraine would go slip-sliding away for good.

And finally, the DELUGE starts. Sweden needed money and decided to target the weakest, richest state full of discord --- the Commonwealth.
I am puzzled as to why the Radziwill name is so revered today. Janusz R. was the Benedict Arnold of Poland. A traitor of the first magnitude. He just switched allegiance to Sweden and welcomed them.

The bumbling that went on in Poland during the Swedish invasion was devastating. The Commonwealth armies disintegrated. Poland pretty much surrendered to Sweden without a fight. Sweden then proceeded to rape Poland of everything, literally everything from art to gold to spiral staircases. I've heard that Poland was looted WORST during the Deluge than during WW II. This time the devastation hit Poland proper - the heartland.

"Both in Poland and Lithuania the magnates surrendered to the Swedes expecting their assistance against Moscow." P. 116
"The Swedish protectorate assumed immediately the form of a ruthless and rapacious occupation." P. 117

Reading PJ's history, the impression I got was the people, the peasants, fought while the nobles and clergy fled the country. PJ mentions that the peasants, later on in Polish history, often cared little who was fighting whom for what. But during the Deluge... "In the 17th century things were as yet not at that stage, the peasant of western Poland...was ready to fight the Swedish invader even though he also had accounts to settle with the Polish landlord." P. 122

Finally in Dec., 1656, in Hungary an agreement was made to partition the Commonwealth. Sweden, Brandenburg, the Radziwill family and Jerzy Rakoczy of Transylvania (Dracula's homeland) were ready but it fell apart when the Poles soundly defeated Rakoczy. Salvation at last!!!

Then peace came in 1660. On the books Poland won. In reality she was the biggest loser. It took a century for Poland to reach the population it had during the "Silver Age". Over one million people were lost due to famine, starvation and lastly hostilities. Ukraine was slipping into Russia and three hundred sixty-five years later the Ukrainians are still looking for FREEDOM. My personal view is they danced with the devil throughout history and they're still paying for it.

They were so upset with "polonized" overlords so now they're dancing with the Russians. Ukrainian infighting made sure nothing would ever get resolve until Russia was the overlord.

The rest of the history will be tackled at a later time. Roughly 1661 to 1695, the time of Sobieski. And PJ is not too complimentary of the great king by the way,

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

@Bobko
Thanks. As I mentioned previously, I'm new to studying Polish history. It's so difficult, so convoluted, so these synopses of various histories force me to remember the historical narrative. Also it provides other people a little insight into Polish history that they might not know about. Thirdly it's a list of Polish historians whose works are in English even though the historian could be German, American, British or Polish.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

I finally finished up Pawel Jasienica's THE COMMONWEALTH OF BOTH NATIONS: THE SILVER AGE, 1987. This is the first of his Commonwealth trilogy. Strongly recommended. My opinion is that if anyone wants to start studying Polish history from the beginnings then they should tackle Jasienica's histories first, i.e. his books on the Piasts, on the Jagiellonians, and his trilogy on the Commonwealth.

This volume covers Poland's history from the death of Zygmunt II Augustus to the death of Wladyslaw IV and the start of the Cossack rebellion. This history presents the glory of Poland during this period but Jasienica also points out the beginnings of the rot that would consume the nation after the 1650s. That's one thing about Jasienica. He doesn't cut any slack when it comes to a critical view of Polish history.

A few items or themes are brought up. PACIFICISM. Pacificism was deeply rooted in the gentry and set the tone and exerted a major influence on Poland's course in history. Jasienica (I will refer to him as PJ throughout) says the pacificism was one of the main causes of the downfall. The nation was incapable of mounting the best form of defense which was a strong offense.

"The landed gentry did not like war, for they had more to lose than to gain. For the peasants...every campaign opened the opportunities for advancement...The Commonwealth was vast, the class divisions fluid, and identity documents had not yet been invented." P. 78 For the poor it was opportunity sometimes. For the landed gentry it hurt.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH. Not too good. The church was heavily entwined in Polish history. By 1572 it was already quite hostile to the idea of religious tolerance. Poland had figured out a way for a multi-religions, multi-ethnic, multi-national state to exist.

But "The champions of the counter-reformation (e.g. the Jesuits) were set on destroying an already existing ideological bond overriding differences of faith and disregarding the accumulated wisdom of centuries." P. 115 "The doctrine of Counter-Reformation was a contradiction of the very essence of the Commonwealth's harmony." P. 116 Jesuits became the official CENSORS of thought and expression. Most detrimental to the Commonwealth.

What PJ covers in great detail is the first election in the new Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He goes into the Henrician Covenant and the Pacta Conventa. PJ points out the Henrician document defined the king's OBLIGATIONS but not his RIGHTS. PJ quotes an Italian writer John Botero, 1592, "Finally the king has as much power as his wisdom and skill will provide." P.42. PJ details why Poland went ahead of electing kings after the first election fiasco. This wasn't covered in any other history books I read.
During this Silver Age the groundwork for Poland's future was laid out by Zygmunt III. "The multinational and multidenominational Commonwealth needed a leader of another caliber than a man riddled with complexes, moderately gifted, and governed by ideological fanaticism. He placed religious bigoty ahead of national interest." P. 116 And Zygmunt III ruled forty-five years!!!

"The informed public opinion understood and the rest of the people sensed that the Commonwealth was for Zygmunt only an instrument or a stage for the accomplishment of his dynastic or ideological goals inspired by the counter-reformation." P. 184

"There are many valiant men in the Polish army, but God alone knows how they are led. It is no longer the same free and independent nation: because of their king they become the puppets of Austria" This is Gustav Adolphus of Sweden commenting on Zygmunt III. P. 241

Next up was Wladyslaw. In a letter he sent to the emperor in Vienna (May, 1632) he said "...since his early youth he disliked Poland and dreamed about Germany." PJ said that a "...mature politician approaching forty would not have committed such sentiments to paper. Yet six months later (November, 1632) he was the new king." P. 258
PJ provides an excellent prequel to the Deluge period. He brings out some important points that other historians I've read don't. Historians say Poland was wise to stay out of the thirty Years War. Yes that's true BUT Poland was also fighting for thirty years (1600-29) during the Thirty Years War against Swedes, Muscovites, Turks and Tatars. JS says other scholars don't mention that Poland's resources were depleted and the society was exhausted. Even though no harm came to Poland proper during this time, this exhaustion would determine how fit Poland was to tackle the next chapter: the Cossacks and the Deluge.

"...the country flourished as a monarchy, though in theory as a 'republic of the gentry' was gradually superseded by the actual hegemony of the magnates." P. 275 But PJ does not place blame for the oncoming dysfunction of the Commonwealth solely on the magnates. "Magnates plotting against their own monarch were very common in Europe at the time." P. 95 The problem is that Zygmunt II, for example, coddled the magnates. PJ states that after the Zebrzydowski Rebellion (1607) something went amiss. The king should have punished the leaders. Usually such a victory would strengthen the royal power. But nothing happened. PJ says this established a precedent for future situations.

The magnates were powerful. PJ says they had estates, castles, armies but seemed unable to protect their own territory. PJ said their conduct revealed a lack of mental discipline. In other words, he's saying they were stupid. One example is the magnates in Ruthenia could never protect their own from Tatars.

PJ mentions that until 1648 no disasters touched the heart of the Commonwealth. Because of the mediocrity of the "Silver Age", which PJ also called the "Indian summer", nothing was reformed therefore when disaster came it came viciously. We have an American saying which could apply to this Silver Age. We'd call it the "Age of everyone being fat, dumb and happy".

Two pillars of a nation are investigated: MONEY and DEFENSE. No nation can conduct its common business, i.e. the treasury and defense, then through the EXECUTIVE POWER. (paraphrasing PJ). PJ says the "nation", represented by the deputies of the "gentry" tried since the beginning of the 16th century to reform the state structure and reduce the excessive holdings of the church. It was not the nation but the rulers who treated their subjects as instruments of their private ambitions. The rulers are responsible for the fall. The rulers coddled the magnates and allowed them to run the show so that the magnates could allow the kings to proceed with their "wacky" ambitions.

How economic reforms failed is unbelievable. "The attempt to control commercial activities, MADE BY A BODY OF NOBLEMEN HOLDING TRADE IN CONTEMPT, was pathetically naïve." P. 286 Here is one example that literally floored me. "In the third decade of the seventeenth century, under Zygmunt III, concerned businessmen purchased and destroyed copies of an economic treatise that knowledgeably described various forms of fraud, offered ways in which the treasury could prevent them, and demanded sensible reforms, notably taxes on the gentry and clergy." P. 287

Next a lot of abuses were carried on against the peoples of Ukraine. Lots of revolts were brutally quelled. "No one was much concerned. The year 1647, the last of the Commonwealth's Indian summer, ended peacefully, though various 'signs in heaven and on earth' as for example an exceptionally mild winter, were said to auger great and dire events." P. 324

"The Commonwealth had a log experience of paying dearly in lives and money for the dynastic ambitions of its rulers." P. 40

The book concludes:
"Disaster was brought about by men who were kings of Poland, grand dukes of Lithuania and Ruthenia IN LAW, but not IN THEIR HEARTS." P. 338

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]


Hello, I'm intrigued by your statement. Could you provide an example or two of political angles you learned from the author. Thanks.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

Lots of info. Thanks. I'm just starting Jasienica's first volume: THE COMMONWEALTH OF BOTH NATIONS: THE SILVER AGE. I've read his COMMONWEALTH OF BOTH NATION trilogy backwards, The reason for this was how I was able to obtain the books.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]


Good info. Thanks for the insights. I'm learning alot!

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

Yes I had to Google the PAX Assoc. A communist Catholic organization? More nationalistic?
I have to admit I had to read his books and write down stuff he mentions, then I had to Google that info to fully understand. When I came to his life I had to do the same thing.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

Some interesting points about Jasienica's style of historical writing. He's considered a popular historian rather than an academician. The books I've been reading have no footnotes, no bibliography, no preface or introduction and no index. It's like picking up a novel. He oftentimes references historians that he evidently uses as sources but unless you are seeped in Polish history you wouldn't know who they are.

Because he was always in such trouble with the government, he purposely stayed away from writing modern Polish history like the Second Republic or World War II. He would have had to tailor his history according to the prevailing Marxist historiography of the time. That's why he picked the Piasts, the Jagiellons, the Commonwealth. Google says that his books, after his death in 1970, became the most reprinted histories of Poland.

What I wish was translated into English was his TRZEJ KRONIKARZE (THREE CHRONICLERS), 1964. It's the story of three Medieval chroniclers of Polish history and they provide a great overview of society throughout the ages. He also wrote DWIE DROGI (TWO WAYS), 1959, about the January Uprising --- an even I'm always interested in because of my family. This book is not in English. Too bad!

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

I just finished Jasienica's HE COMMONWEALH OF BOTH NATIONS II: CALAMITY OF THE REALM, 1992 English version. He more I read about this historian (plus the comments made above), the more someone should make a movie about his life!!! He lived a jam-packed life, did a lot of things and died young.
He was a journalist first and foremost. This is how he made his living. He was a contributor and editor of newspapers, magazines, weeklies, etc. he also worked for PAX Association and became director of the Polish Caritas charity.

PAWEL JASIENICA WAS NOT HIS REAL NAME. it was his "pen name". his real name was Leon Lech Beynar. How did this happen? He was a soldier. He was in the Polish army, captured by the Wehrmacht but managed to escape. He joined the Armia Krajowa and was also an editor of an underground newspaper. Attempting to dislodge the Nazis from Wilno his outfit was captured by the Soviets. He was given a choice to join the Soviets or spend vacation in Siberia. Instead, he escaped and rejoined the AK. He then joined the anti-Soviet campaign and was wounded in August, 1945 (remember the was "ended" in May, 1945 in Europe). The village of Jasienica was the place where he was recuperating from his wounds. He used this name to hide from the communists.

He was always in trouble with the government because of is outspoken views concerning freedom of speech and expression. In the 1960s he started his history books and got into more trouble over censorship. Wow! What a life!!!

• 
  As a young officer in Polish Army
  
• 
  Late 1960s with his secret police wife Zofia Darowska O'Bretenny
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]


After reading Polish history and the histories of Eastern Europe, I stared to reflect on the utter brutality of existence. The butchery is absolutely mind boggling!!! I sit back and say to myself I'm lucky that I was born, that there's an existent line of descendants that produced me. I sometimes thought of my ancestors who came to America as bombastic idiots. Naturally not all of them; some of them. If they were alive today I would kiss their hands as thanks for having the foresight to pack up and leave the "old country" and make a new life in the USA. I had a great-uncle who came here but left his wife and kids in Russia (then later Poland). After WW II he never heard from any of them ever again. He died alone in the USA in the 1950s I think. Geez! By the grace of God I am.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

Has anyone heard of Polish historian Pawel Jasienica?

He was a journalist, historian and soldier. He was born in Russia to Polish parents and educated in Lithuania. When the Russian Revolution started his folks moved to the newly independent Poland. Jasienica was a prolific author and five of his most popular books have been translated into English. Of the five his trilogy of the Commonwealth has been a "best seller" in Poland and even here.

I read THE COMMONWEALTH OF BOTH NATIONS III: A TALE OF AGONY many years ago. Currently I'm reading THE COMMONWEALTH OF BOTH NATIONS II: CALAMITY OF THE REALM. The trilogy was published in English in 1992.

His narrative style flows like storytelling. He was very influential in popularizing Polish history during the 1960s. He's a "popular historian" rather than an academic type.
The volume that I'm reading starts with the death of Wladyslaw IV and goes through the Deluge.

Why I'm asking about him is that he is the most critical Polish historian I've ever read. He will describe an event, a city,, a campaign, a sejm, a commander, a truce, whatever and comment on the incredible ineptness of the Polish in face of Cossacks, Tatars, Muscovites and Swedes. Truly he really gives credence to the term "dumb polak". He doesn't hold anything back. I was shocked a little.

In doing some research about him I found that he is credited with a strong command of historical sources. With that command he adds a lot of comments that present a broader picture of these disastrous times.. his interpretations are definitely NOT complimentary of Polish leadership, diplomacy, priorities, "patriotism", etc. I've never read this view in other Polish history books. And these books were best sellers in Poland.

Unfortunately, Jasienica died young of cancer at 60 years old.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

This thread has gone off kilter. The current book in discussion has absolutely nothing to do with US presidents and Native American and their death tolls.

This method of "deflection" derails many threads on this forum. Many historical topics I've tried to read just desintegrate into the ozone and the rest of the thread is plain garbage, usually way off topic.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

@Barney
Just a reminder to you that this is a Polish History forum. If you would like to discuss Native Americans I can recommend some great history forums to you.
It does surprise me that the moderators allowed your diversionary comment to be posted. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

My first reaction to reading your comment was "He's absolutely right, no questions about that." While I was reading BLOODLANDS, I was also reading Niall Ferguson's THE WAR OF THE WORLD, 2006. This is a history of the world from 1904 to 1953. Ferguson contends that this time frame was actually one continuous war of our world.

Naturally "Uncle Joe" Stalin plays a major part. From a world view he even put the Japanese in their places. That's why Japan thought nothing of attacking the USA but were afraid of Stalin and never bothered the Soviets during WW II.

I think that Stalin shaped the worldview for decades of the 20th century. Even though he butchered his own people and afterwards they tried to downplay "Stalinism", I really believe he is secretly revered in Russia today. The yearning for those "idealistic memories" of his times are still --- I believe --- near and dear to the Russians even to this day. They may talk of Peter the Great but secretly they wish they, as a country, were at the level of power during Stalin's time.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

BLOODLANDS EUROPE BETWEEN HITLER AND STALIN, Timothy Snyder, 2010.
"Stalin's suggestions were transformed into orders, the orders into quotas, the quotas into corpses."
(Pg. 309)

The "Bloodlands" would constitute the geographical area from the Oder - Neiss Rivers west of Poznan all the way to Smolensk; from Leningrad to Kursk to Kharkiv to the Crimea. It includes all the famous cities: Minsk, Warsaw, Vilnius, Kiev, Lviv, Lublin, Riga, Lodz, Gdansk, Cracow, Novgorod, Balystock and on and on.

The victims were not combatants. They were unarmed civilians or prisoners of a regime or prisoners of war. The total murdered comes to over FOURTEEN MILLION. The major theme of the book is the intentional atrocities that occurred through the interaction of totalitarian regimes. Events that Snyder covers are:
The Holodomor (1932-33) - the man-made famine caused by Stalin's policies in the Ukraine.
The Great Terror (1937-38) - its purges, executions and deportations.
The Nazi invasion of the USSR.
Hitler's campaign to exterminate Slavs (especially Poles) and other "racially inferior" groups.
The Holocaust and how it developed over time.
Finally the post-WW II ethnic cleansing campaigns are dealt with.

Snyder emphasizes that these killings were not COLLATERAL DAMAGE due to warfare. They were deliberate attempts by the Soviets and Nazis to reshape societies. Snyder focuses on mostly civilian suffering, especially how ordinary people were the targets.

Snyder criticizes Western European-centric histories that just highlight the Holocaust and neglect other crimes against Slaves (Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, etc.) and also Stalin's role in contributing to the death toll. We view the Holocaust in isolation but Snyder includes it in the very insane machinations of Eastern European history. From this view I learned quite a lot.

Today many people don't realize the WW II started with Stalin as a Nazi ally attacking Poland. Stalin, between 1939 and 1941, massacred thousands of Poles. By the time WW II started Stalin was an expert in mass killings. Hitler and his gang had to learn quickly. Learn they did and they bypassed Stain's totals.
Snyder covers how the Holocaust developed into the Final Solution and how it fit into the Bloodlands. The Nazis believed the Soviet Union was a Jewish state. In the end the Soviets downplayed the Holocaust. To emphasize the Holocaust was to downplay the suffering of ALL SOVIETS in the motherland. That was Soviet thinking, especially after WW II.

Stalin created the gulags in 1931 and by the post-war they grew to 476 camps holding 18 million people ( more than every man, woman, child in New York City, TWICE OVER).

The starvation in the Ukraine (1932-33) that Stalin caused killed not only Ukrainians but Poles, Russians, Jews, Germans and whoever happened to be living in that area at that time. No one in the outside world knew of this famine. The NY TIMES was especially duped. Stalin was brilliant like a magician to hide the death of millions.

Stalin's Great Terror (1937-38) was the ethnic killing of nationalities in the Soviet Union. The largest group of butchered ethnic peoples were Polish, especially in Ukraine and Belarus. Stalin believed the Poles were fascists attempting to undermine the USSR, The Great Terror also went unnoticed in the Western world except for some show trials and army purges.

Most Polish Jews were exterminated at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka by carbon Monoxide gas (1942). These were not "concentration camps" but "death factories". You were shipped there to be killed.. Most Jews east of the Molotov-Ribbentrop line were killed by shooting or starvation and not by gassing. You can say overall, in the Bloodlands, from 1932 to 1945, most of the killing was by starvation then shooting then gassing. The shooting was quite personal. One on one during Stalin's purges or the Nazis execiuting groups over open pits.

Some interesting points. The highest number on non-combatant deaths in one area would be Minsk, Belarus. More people died in Ukraine than anywhere in Eastern Europe or in Europe or in Asia (including China) during this period. It included not just Ukrainians but anybody else who happened to live in or be there: Poles, Belarussians, Jews, German Soviets, etc., etc.

Other points of interest. "Nearly as many NON-JEWISH Poles were murdered during the war as European Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. For that matter, more non-Jewish Poles died at Auschwitz than did Jews if any European country, with only two exceptions: Hungary and Poland." (Pg. 406)

The Wehrmacht was told that Poland wasn't a real country, that Polish soldiers were not real soldiers, that the German dead were "murdered" not killed in action. Thus it was logically correct to kill Polish POWs.

When the Nazis captured Soviet POWs they put them in camps without shelter or food and left them to starve. Cannibalism started up. The Nazis offered the Soviet POWs a form of salvation. Join the Nazis. Many did, especially Ukrainians. They were sent to a training camp called TRAWNICKI where they became police and concentration camp guards and were called "Trawnicki men". Thousands of Belarussians, Russians and Germans living in the USSR were recruited into occupation police forces.

Everyone lumps concentration camps together but there were death camps and there were work camps. Auschwitz was famous because it was large and it was both types. In 1944 Auschwitz became the pre-eminent site for the Final Solution. By then most of the Polish Jews were dead; exterminated in camps that had been built and already dismantled (see above).

Auschwitz is famous because it began taking in Jews from areas OUTSIDE the Bloodlands, e.g. Hungary, Franc, Italy, etc.

"Auschwitz was indeed a major site of the Holocaust: about one in six murdered Jews perished there...Auschwitz was also not the main place where the two largest Jewish communities in Europe, the Polish and the Soviet, were exterminated. Most Soviet and Polish Jews under German occupation had already been murdered by the time Auschwitz became the major death factory. By the time the gas chamber and crematoria complexes at Birkenau came on line in spring 1943, more than three quarters of the Jews who would be killed in the Holocaust were already dead. For that matter, the tremendous majority of all of the people who would be deliberately killed by the Soviet and Nazi regimes, well over ninety percent, had already been killed by the time these gas chambers at Birkinau began their deadly work. AUSCHWITZ IS THE CODA TO THE DEATH FUGUE."
(Pg. 383)

Finally the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 unveiled Stalin's evilness to the eyes of the Allies and this time period could be said to be the first stirrings of the "COLD WAR" that was to come. Then came Yalta (Feb., 1945) and Potsdam (July, 1945) and the Allies knew Stalin's real make-up. By then Stalin didn't care. He was the "master manipulator". He destroyed Hitler and the Nazis. He destroyed all the enemies (real or imagined) of the USSR. He re-shaped all of Eastern Europe and its many societies. Churchill and FDR kow-towed to his demands.

I do believe in heaven and I do believe in hell. After reading this book there has got to be a hell as a reward for the perpetrators who created the Bloodlands.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

BLOODLANDS EUROPE BETWEEN HITLER AND STALIN, Timothy Snyder, 2010. 543 pages including preface, introduction, bibliography, footnotes, and index. It took me more than three months too read. This book is an historical nightmare. You read it because you're fascinated by the utter gruesomeness of human existence. This is a "for real" horror story. For now I'll just list some excerpts.

NOTE: This history is the story of Hitler, of Stalin and how they caused death to only civilian or unarmed prisoners. Military casualties are not covered in this history.

"Mommy, are the Soviets taking us to hell?
---Wieslaw Adamczyk, 11 years old, in a railcar on his way to Siberia after the Soviets invaded Poland

"One day the children suddenly fell silent (in the playground), we turned around to see what was happening, and they were eating the smallest child, little Petrus. They were tearing strips from him and eating them. And Petrus was doing the same, he was tearing strips from himself and eating them, he ate as much as he could. The other children put their lips to his wounds and drank his blood. We took the children away..."
---at a village in the Kharkiv region during Stalin's Great Famine in the Ukraine (1932)

"The chief executioner at Kalinin, whom the prisoners never saw, was Vasily Blokhin...he commanded an execution squad in Moscow (during the Great Terror). At Kalinin he wore a leather cap, apron, and long gloves to keep the blood and gore from himself...Using German pistols, he shot, each night, about two hundred and fifty men, one after another."
---in 1940

"The model came from Greiser, who ordered the creation of a ghetto for 233,000 Jews of Lodz on 8 February 1940."
---Arthur Greiser, the creator of the ghetto concept and a major proponent in various "euthanasia" programs starting in the 1930s.

"Together, between September 1939 and June 1941, in their time as allies, the Soviet and German states had killed perhaps two hundred thousand Polish citizens, and deported about one million more."

"As many Soviet prisoners of war died ON A SINGLE GIVEN DAY in autumn 1941 as did British and American prisoners of war over the course of the entire Second World War."

"The Germans shot, on a conservative estimate, half a million Soviet prisoners of war. By way of starvation or mistreatment during transit, they killed about 2.6 million more. All in all, perhaps 3.1 million Soviet prisoners of war were killed."
(NOTE: Stalin regarded Soviet POWs as traitors. During the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet prisoners were just confined in camps without any food or shelter. The aim was to starve them to death as fast as possible.)

"Of the nine million people...of Soviet Belarus in 1941, some 1.6 million were killed by Germans in actions away from the battlefields, including about 700,000 prisoners of war, 500,000 Jews, and 320,000 people counted as partisans (the vast majority of whom were unarmed civilian)."
(NOTE: Soviet partisans also killed another 17,500 people "as traitors". Roughly two million non-combatants in Belarus perished)

"By spring 1943, fires burned at Treblinka day and night...Women, with more fatty tissues, burned better than men; so the laborers learned to put them on the bottom of the pile."

Chapter 10: Ethnic Cleansing

"By the end of 1947 some 7.6 million Germans had left Poland (as refugees or deportees)...from early 1945 to late 1947, perhaps 400,00 Germans native to lands that were annexed by Poland died; most in Soviet or Polish camps, and a second large group caught between armies or drowned art sea."
YIKES !!!

• 
  Bloodlands.jpg
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

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
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

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
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]


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.

History / Poland: Her heroes and her traitors [239]

Poland has been around as a nation a long time. Longer than Germany and longer than Russia, as we know it today.in that long period of time she has definitely produced a number of traitors. Lots of them in my opinion.

This thread definitely lists a few of them. Oftentimes traitors are produced because of internal conflicts - civil wars. Civil wars are the breeding grounds for traitors and Poland has had her share of civil wars. Some of the ingredients of civil wars are that they are based on 1.) GREED - the desire to maximize power and profit over control of the nation and/or 2.) GRIEVANCES - a reaction to an injustice and/or OPPORTUNITY - both sides feel the time is right to get something done there way through violence. Polish civil wars seem to have a hefty dose of all this.

My group of traitors are the ones responsible for the end of Poland as an independent country. After a period of two decades, they made sure Poland could never determine the course of her own fate.

That group was everyone involved in ruling Poland during 1697-1717. THE WORSE PART OF IT ALL IS PRETTY MUCH NO ONE THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES AS TRAITORS. As you read about this period the major players come off as greedy idiots afraid of losing everything and in the end they lost their country.

·Everybody involved in electing August the Saxon
·Definitely August II himself who tried to partition Poland not once but twice.
·All those involved in the Sandomierz Confederation backing August II and co-operating with Peter of Russia
·The royalist backers of August II AND THE CONFEDERATES OF TARNOGRAD. Both pathetic groups were duped into fighting each other and duped into negotiations. Worse, they were slapped into the Silent Sejm (1717), thus bringing to an end Poland's independence.

Out of all the published comprehensive outlines of Polish history (in English), this period is not investigated in depth. It's "glossed over" because it's such an embarrassment.

Unfortunately, there is a hero in this scenario. History records him as a hero. He's one of the "great men" of history. That person is Peter the Great. That's why he's termed "the Great". For us Poles that's a crying shame.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

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
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

@pawian
He starts the first chapter be telling about a people the Latin chronicles called the "Poloni".They lived around the Warta, Odra and Notec Rivers.
The last chapter, which I have not got to yet, is entitled "The Polish Question and the Great War". So that would be 1917, the year the book was published. So the author covers about 950 years of history or so.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF POLAND, Edward H. Lewinski-Corwin, PhD, 1917.

I'm fascinated by this book because it's so easy to read. The narrative of events are so clear that it makes understanding easier. I'm surprised this book has not stayed in print longer. For me it seems to be one of the best flowing histories of Poland.

I'm about 40% through the 628 pages book and I decided to investigate it. I'll comment on the books contents when I finish it.
Because I'm enjoying and understanding a lot of events, I began to wonder how accurate the book was. There was an agenda to write this history but did that taint the actual history in any way? What type of historian was Lewinski-Corwin?

Edward H. Lewinski-Corwin, PhD (1885-1953) WAS NOT AN HISTORIAN. That surprised me. He received his degree from Columbia University and was a healthcare practitioner in city and state health departments. In 1934 he was inducted as an Honorary Fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives.
But he was also an activist for Polish independence to English-speaking Americans. During World War I he was Secretary of the American Polish Relief Committee. It was during this time he wrote this history book. He says,

"There are very few works in the English language which reveal a true understanding of Polish history."

"Undertaken with a view of presenting an accurate account of the political and social evolution of Poland, based especially and largely on Polish sources of information."
He mentions two events that will foster a rebirth of Poland: the downfall of the Russian Empire and the entry of the USA in WW I. "...the two outside circumstances which will have a powerful bearing upon the equitable solution of the Polish Question."

The book was reviewed in 1918 by Robert J. Kerner in the AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (the journal of the prestigious American Historical Association). Kerner (1887-1956) was a professor of history and Slavic studies at the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. The book received a good review and over time other historians used it as a reference in writing history books about Europe.

The reason I investigated this book so thoroughly was because I absolutely love the way he presents the social history of Poland, step-by-step through time, i.e. the people, the classes, the nobles, the clergy, the peasants, the "outsiders", etc.

• 
  img20240810_15342037.jpg
  
• 
  img20240810_15293608.jpg
  
• 
  img20240810_15255766.jpg
  
• 
  img20240810_15312466.jpg
  

Life / The Legacy of Polish Poster design [36]

Absolutely love this art form. Check out these faces!

• 
  1e7510952f2c5f887116.jpg
  
• 
  cdafaeb9dcefa603ad08.jpg
  
• 
  2a8650d2f88148ef48ad.jpg
  
• 
  f091ec563f8c0308e95b.jpg
  

Life / The Legacy of Polish Poster design [36]

Merged:

Polish School of Poster Art

Has anyone investigated this art form from Poland? Hands down it's phenomenal! Polish artists used poster art as a means of artistic expression by interpreting and commenting on the subject (usually a movie or play) of the poster. They tied it into a reflection on their society which was the communist Polish People's Republic (1950s to 1980s). The graphic design is amazing. There is a Warsaw Poster Museum that contains Polish posters going back to the 19th century.

• 
  Polish art
  
• 
  Butterfly
  
• 
  299db05db31bdb02c7ea.jpg
  
• 
  a4ac4469b78adb805c5f.jpg
  

History / Poland's January Uprisings of 1863 [86]


What the heck is this post all about? What does it mean? How does this have anything to do with the 1863 Uprising? Belgrade? What's Belgrade have to do with the original topic?

History / Poland's January Uprisings of 1863 [86]


I have to admit that I agree with you concerning a "hatred" of Russians and all things Russian. The stories I heard as a child from my grandparents always pointed out the dislike for Russians. These grandparents were born in the 1880s-90s, one generation after the uprising. One set came from Bylorussia. Since it was closer to "mother Russia" it was not that repressive. The other set came from south of Lublin. The closer you lived near another empire's border the more repressive the local government was.
Nothing was "Polish" anymore, everything was "Russian". No one was educated; no one went to school. Luckily the men were educated in barns and cellars at night and learned reading, writing, math, history, etc. the women were totally illiterate. They knew some arithmetic. They didn't even know about money until they came to the USA. Religious education was in Polish and that's how hymns and prayers were learned. Secretly other education took place during religious education.
I was shocked to find out how illiterate the Polish people were in 1860. 81% were totally illiterate (out of 4,764,446). (statistics from R.F.Leslie, Reform and Insurrection in Russian Poland, 1856-1865). This translates into people NOT INTERESTED AT ALL IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY. It didn't matter to millions who was the overlord was as long as they could eek out a subsistence living. THAT'S WHY SO FEW PEASANTS SUPPRTED THE UPRISING.


I'm finishing up reading about the 1863 uprising. One side of my family were peasants; the other side were minor landowning szlachta (lived in a village; did their own farming) in Bylorussia. The bottom line is that the Polish landowning "gentry" wanted to keep their own people enslaved as serfs and continue a "type of lifestyle" that contributed to the rot that started in the Commonwealth in the 18th century. Unfortunately, history now tells us that the lousy Russian czar (Alexander II) freed the serfs in his domain. He gets the credit whether you like it or not because of how wretched a fiasco the 1863 Uprising was!!!
Reading the history leading to the birth of the Republic is fantastic. It was brutal but everything was planned and executed and the Polish kept winning against anyone. This was their third "major" time at bat and they hit a grand slam! Finally.
But you have to remember that many had to find a better way to survive. Millions left the lands of the Polish culture. My people came here NEVER TO STAY; ONLY TO MAKE MONEY AND GO BACK. Within a month of living in the USA they sent for their families never to return to the "OLD COUNTRY". Thank God!
As a side note, as an American, this is why I hate anything to do with "Confederate" in US history. I despise everything about US Southern Confederacy and its history and its memory. If they had won in 1863 then my people would probably have never thought of coming to the USA. Amen!

History / Poland's January Uprisings of 1863 [86]

@Mr Grunwald
Many thanks for the info. I'm still learning about this uprising. Very complicated, especially the reasons why.

History / Poland's January Uprisings of 1863 [86]

I'm very interested in the January Uprising because I believe it affected one side of my family. I'm pretty sure in 1850 they were serfs. The generation I could remember talking to were born in the 1880s. unfortunately I was too young and didn't ask questions. The reason my grandparents came to the USA was because they were only hired farm hands. But my grandmother's older brother owned property. He left that property (and his whole family) and also came to the USA. I think he got land because of the 1863 uprising.

The info about this uprising in English is very scarce. The events leading up to it are very confusing.
I know the following sporadic details:
1.)It was being planned for a long time.
2.)The real reason for the unrest was agrarian and social reform amongst the Polish landlords and magnates under the watchful eyes of the Russian overlords.
3.)Reforms were coming from Aleander II anyway and it seems the Polish landowners did not have a plan to synchronize their reforms with the upcoming czarist reforms.
4.)There was another, more radical group. They were the instigators of the uprising. These radicals were allowed back into Poland after Nicholas I died.
5.)The unplanned event was the "conscription crisis" where hotheads ran amok without any leadership or a plan.

I'm still struggling to figure out more of the details. In this thread it is mentioned if Poland's uprisings were worth the bloodshed. I have to admit this 1863 rebellion seems to be a badly bungled fiasco! Whatever aims they had were totally unrealistic fantasy, i.e. go back to 1772 for example.

So to me it was a question of who was going to lead the way for agrarian/social reforms: the Polish or the czar and his admins. Each was trying to undermine the other. What stands out is that the Polish landowners did not want to budge concerning serf labor. Times were changing but if they had their way they would be content with ongoing slave labor. They argued and dickered around too long. The Russians started to take the initiative.

Your thoughts?

History / Recommended Poland's history books [257]

Another history book, in English, concerning the January Uprising of 1863.

REFORM AND INSURRECTION IN RUSSIAN POLAND, 1856-1865, by R.F. Leslie, 1963. I managed to obtain this book through the US inter-library loan system and am making my way through it.

Robert Frank Leslie (1918-1994) was a British professor and a specialist in Polish history. One of his other books is POLISH POLITICS AND THE REVOLUTION OF NOVEMBER, 1830, published 1956, 1969.

This is not a military history of the insurrection. The last chapter basically deals with that. The book is 251 pages long excluding the bibliography. 151 pages are devoted to the background and events that led up to January, 1863. Diplomatic maneuverings and Polish politics cover another sixty pages.

• 
  Title Page & Contents