If it is possible to convey in three words what happened 404 years ago, in the fall of 1612 (old style), in Moscow, then these words would be: “Poles, the Kremlin, cannibalism.”
And this is what happened.
The Russian militia that approached Moscow liberated almost all of Moscow from Polish invaders. The Poles and their minions took refuge in the Kremlin and Kitay-Gorod. They found themselves in a blockade, and very soon famine began among them. Despite the fact that periodically someone made their way to the Poles, food was not delivered in any significant quantity.
This is where what, in essence, began to mean the restoration and strengthening of Russia and the beginning of the weakening and death of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poles, the Kremlin and cannibalism.
“Let us turn to the eyewitness of these events, the Polish Colonel Budilo or, as he was called in Russia, Budzilo. This is how this Polish nobleman describes cannibalism and the degree of degradation of his compatriots: “There is no news in any chronicles, in any stories, that anyone sitting under siege suffered such hunger, because when this famine came and when there was no grass, roots, mice, dogs, cats, carrion, then the besieged began to eat prisoners, ate dead bodies, tearing them out of the ground: the infantry ate itself and ate others, catching people.
The infantry lieutenant Truskovsky ate his two sons; one haiduk also ate his son, the other ate his mother; one comrade ate his servant; in a word, the father did not spare his son, the son did not spare his father; the master was not confident in the servant, the servant in the master; whoever could, whoever was healthier than the other, ate that one.
A deceased relative or comrade, if someone else ate him, was judged as an inheritance and it was proved that the closest relative should have eaten him, and not anyone else. Such a doomsday happened in Lenitsky's platoon, whose haiduks ate the deceased haiduk of their platoon. A relative of the deceased, a haiduk from another dozen, complained about this to the captain and argued that he had more rights to eat him as a relative; and they objected that they had the immediate right to this, because he was with them in the same row, formation and ten. The captain... did not know what sentence to make and feared that the dissatisfied party would eat the judge himself, who fled from the judge’s seat.
During this terrible famine, various diseases appeared, and such terrible cases of death that it was impossible to look at a dying person without crying and horror... Many voluntarily went to death and surrendered to the enemy: happiness, if someone falls into a good enemy, he saved his life; but there were more such unfortunates who fell under such tormentors that before the surrenderer came down from the wall, he was cut into pieces.”
Passers-by became tasty prey for the distraught Poles. Moving around the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod was deadly dangerous.
“The Germans ate all the cats and dogs, ate honey with potions and grass... On October 1, the infantry and the Germans began to slaughter and eat people. They ate all the prisoners in the prison. One Muscovite was caught at the Nikolsky Gate, beaten and immediately eaten... Two infantrymen burst into the house of Prince F. Mstislavsky and began to look for food. The prince tried to drive them out, but they hit him on the head with a brick. Mstislavsky complained to Pan Strus, the commander of the Polish garrison. He ordered the execution of the perpetrators. The hanged men were immediately taken from the gallows, cut into pieces and eaten...”
http://www.proza.ru/2015/06/29/1247
Refusing to give up, hoping for help from the Polish king Sigismund, the Poles stockpiled... human meat. They salted it in huge vats. Abraham Palitsyn writes that after joining the Kremlin, Trubetskoy’s Cossacks “found a lot of treasures and half of human flesh, salted and under the slings a lot of human corpses.”
“I saw many of these,” says Pan Budzilo, a participant in the siege, “who were gnawing the ground beneath them, their arms, legs, and bodies. And the worst thing is that they wanted to die and could not. They bit stones and bricks, asking the Lord God that they would become bread, but they could not bite.”
http://www.proza.ru/2015/06/29/1247
Colonel Strus, who commanded the garrison of crazed Polish cannibals, agreed to negotiate a surrender only after he was attacked by his own subordinates for the understandable purpose of feasting on Mr. Colonel. But the negotiations yielded nothing. Then the Russians, simply losing patience, rushed forward and broke into Kitay-Gorod. The Poles fled to the Kremlin. Together with Pozharsky’s militia, the Cossacks, who had previously acted on the Polish side, also fought against the Poles. It was they who discovered the most terrible vats of salted human meat. This sight in itself does not evoke pity and mercy, and the Cossacks also saw that the Poles ate all their comrades who were captured by them. After which all the surrendered Poles in Kitai-Gorod were mercilessly destroyed by them.
Soon, as a result of negotiations, the Poles capitulated. The plan to place a Polish prince on the Russian throne was thwarted. Russia is saved. This is exactly what we celebrate on National Unity Day.
In conclusion, a few interesting facts:
- The final surrender of the Poles, their signing of capitulation and the throwing of Polish banners into the Kremlin mud took place on November 7.
- Together with the Poles, the so-called “Seven Boyars” (who let the Poles into Moscow against the will of the people) also sat in the Kremlin.
- The Romanovs also sat in the Kremlin. Including Ksenia Ivanovna Romanova with her son Mikhail, the future founder of the Romanov dynasty.
- Directly from the Kremlin, the family of the future monarch went to their patrimony, the village of Domnino near Kostroma. The headman there was... Ivan Susanin, who would soon give his “life for the Tsar”, saving only the chosen Mikhail Romanov from a specially sent detachment of Polish assassins.
But that's a completely different story...
For a long time, back in the 10th century, Volyn was part of Kievan Rus. Later, after the war, it went to the Principality of Lithuania, then to Poland, after the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - the Russian Empire. In 1921, its eastern part went to the Ukrainian SSR, and the western part to Poland. In 1939, Western Volyn was also annexed to the Ukrainian SSR. During the Great Patriotic War, it was occupied by German troops.
The Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Bandera movement), was formed in 1942. The impetus for this was the victory of Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad. The Red Army was gradually approaching the Reich Commissariat “Ukraine”, created in 1941 by the German occupiers on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR. At the OUN conference, a decision was made on armed struggle.
“The formation of the UPA as a military force took place according to a very logical organizational and political scheme within the framework of the OUN(B) ideology,” notes historian Alexander Dyukov. --
After the decision of the OUN(B) leadership to switch to guerrilla warfare, the local “auxiliary police” in Volyn and Polesie were mobilized into rebel structures. During February-March 1943, this gave the rebel forces about five thousand fighters.
In April, widespread mobilization of the combat-ready population began.”
Not only Ukrainians fell into the ranks of the UPA. It was replenished by prisoners of war, Germans, and Jews who escaped from German camps. However, Ukrainians were very wary of representatives of other nationalities. Organizationally, the UPA consisted of battalions of 300-500 fighters, companies of 100-150 fighters, platoons of 30-40 people and squads of 10 people.
“The destruction of the Poles began literally from the first days of the existence of the UPA.
Probably the first noticeable act of genocide was the extermination on February 9, 1943 of approximately 100 residents of the village of Paroslya by the Dovbeshki-Korobka (Peregiinyak) unit... - reports Dyukov. — After the battle in the town of Vlodimirets, this detachment entered the village of Paroslya under the guise of Soviet partisans and demanded help from the local Poles. After eating in peasant families, the soldiers of the detachment gathered the Poles in one place and hacked to death 149 people with axes.
Wikimedia Commons
During the period between the First and Second World Wars, Paroslya was a small village of 26 houses near the city of Sarny, now located in the Rivne region of Ukraine. By the time the massacre began, Poles made up about 15-30% of the population in Volyn, according to various sources.
“They called themselves Soviet partisans and said they were fighting the Germans,” remembers Parosli resident Vitold Kolodinsky, who was 12 years old at the time. - But who would believe them? It immediately became clear that these were Ukrainians.”
16 armed UPA fighters brought with them six captured Vlasovites.
“One asked my mother if she had an axe. He took it and went into another room,” says Kolodinsky. — The rest began to bring the Russians there one by one. Each time, only a dull sound was heard - and then silence. I wondered what they were doing there - cutting down the floor?
And they chopped them down, just like that. The bodies were lying one on top of the other.”
Then the fighters ordered the Kolodinsky family to lie on the floor - allegedly, they were going to tie them up so that the Germans would not punish them for helping the partisans. Pan Kolodinsky's parents, grandparents, brother and two sisters obeyed the order. The ax was used again. Only Witold and his sister Lila managed to survive, having lost consciousness from a blow to the head - the soldiers decided that they were dead.
Thus began the Volyn massacre.
The events culminated on July 11, 1943, when UPA fighters simultaneously attacked more than 150 settlements. In one of the churches alone, 90 people gathered for mass were killed.
The UPA destroyed Ukrainians who tried to help the Poles. Those who had a mixed family were required to kill their Polish relatives. One after another, Polish self-defense bases were created on the territory of Volyn, but most of them were destroyed by UPA fighters.
The Poles responded by attacking UPA bases. To replenish supplies, they raided Ukrainian villages. Blinded by the thirst for revenge, they attacked not only their enemies, but also exterminated civilians, including children 5-7 years old, and burned villages. Among the Poles, according to various estimates, from 50 to 100 thousand people died. Among Ukrainians there are several thousand.
Later, in Galicia, the UPA followed a different tactic, offering the Poles a choice - flight or death.
“I remind you once again: first call on the Poles to leave their land and only then proceed with liquidation, and not vice versa,”
- read the orders of the command.
By autumn, the activity of the UPA gradually fell. Although there were several episodes of massacres in 1945, attacks were no longer systematic. With the end of the war they stopped.
“Ukrainian militants learned the technology of mass destruction from the Germans. This is why the ethnic cleansing carried out by the UPA was so amazingly effective, and why the Volyn Poles in 1943 were almost as helpless as the Volyn Jews were in 1942, says American historian Timothy Snyder. — But why did Ukrainian nationalists decide to liquidate the Poles in Ukraine? In 1942, Ukrainian police received orders from the Germans to kill Jews. From whom did the UPA partisans, who were basically the same people, receive the order to kill Poles in 1943?” he asks.
A team of Ukrainian and Polish historians highlights There are many reasons that led to the conflict, starting from peasant riots and Cossack uprisings of the 16th-18th centuries, during the suppression of which a sea of blood was shed and which left mutual grievances and a sense of social injustice in the minds of future generations.
They also note the results of the war of 1918-1919, which Ukraine lost to Poland and began to view it as an obstacle to the creation of an independent Ukraine, the unsettled general political conditions after the First World War, the national policy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and subsequently Poland, based on nationalism.
On the Ukrainian side, they note the terrorist and sabotage activities of the OUN on the territory of Poland during the interwar period, and the anti-Polish activities of the OUN during the Second World War. According to historians, the influence of both regimes, Soviet and German, also played a role in intensifying the Ukrainian-Polish conflict. The war had a demoralizing effect on people and spurred a departure from the norms of social behavior, which led to the bloody and criminal nature of the conflict.
“The sources of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict during the Second World War in our common past are the result of long-standing mutual prejudices and grievances,”
- they think.
In July 2016, the Polish Sejm recognized July 11 as a national day of remembrance for the victims of the genocide committed by Ukrainian nationalists against the inhabitants of the Second Polish Republic in 1943-1945.
In the spring of 2017, in the Polish village of Grushovichi near Przemysl, there was an unauthorized monument to the UPA. The demolition of the memorial site was carried out by local activists, but the authorities gave consent to this, since the monument was erected without permission.
In February 2018, the Polish Senate criminalized propaganda of the ideology of Ukrainian nationalists, denial of the Volyn massacre and allegations of Polish complicity with the Nazis during World War II.
Map of the location of the village of Vershina. Territory of the Sharaldaevsky rural administration of the Bokhansky district of the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug
At the Verkhininskoe cemetery. Photo by Yu. Lykhin, 2005
Residential building in Vershina. Photo by A. Vishnevskaya, 1997
The history of Vershina, or how the Poles ended up in Siberia
Hearing the Polish greeting “Zen dobry” rather than “Hello,” I ask myself the question: Am I really in Siberia, 130 kilometers northwest of Irkutsk, on Russian soil? And until the moment I appeared here, everyone said exactly that. So who are these people?
In 1996, when I visited Vershina for the first time, my arrival here was not planned - the organizers of the tourist route to Baikal prepared several surprises for us. One of them was a visit to a village.
Outwardly, this village is not very different from many thousands of others scattered throughout both the European and Asian parts of Russia. But after just a few minutes of being among the residents of Vershina, the Pole feels almost like he is in Poland. Why? Thanks to this, the “zen of goodness”. However, Verkhinin residents’ knowledge of the Polish language does not end there. The descendants of Polish economic emigrants of the first quarter of the 20th century have largely preserved the language of their fathers, and, despite numerous Russicisms, the friendly hosts can be easily understood.
The peak appeared as a place of settlement for Polish miners who came here at the beginning of the 20th century following the reform of Peter Stolypin from the Dombrovsky coal basin. The tsarist authorities needed to develop the Siberian lands, and in 1906 the Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Stolypin began a reform according to which peasants could leave the community and settle in new, sparsely populated territories by that time, receiving land for cultivation. Those wishing to leave the western regions of the empire (they were promised state assistance in relocating) settled in Asian territories. Special warehouses with agricultural equipment, centers for displaced persons, barracks, schools, and hospitals appeared here. In addition to 15 dessiatines of land (1 dessiatine was then equal to 1.0925 hectares), the settlers received 100 rubles of one-time financial assistance and a discount on railway tickets.
Until 1918, Poland was divided into territories of influence, and the settlements (Błędow, Olkusz, Czubrowice, Sosnowiec and Khrushchobrud), from which the Verkhinin settlers came, lay within the borders of the Russian Empire. Those residents of the Dombrovsky basin, who were attracted by promises of various assistance from the state and decided to become immigrants, several months earlier sent their representatives, the so-called walkers, to Siberia so that they could choose a place to settle. The territory for the settlement was determined back in 1908. The great interest of miners in relocation is explained by economic reasons. A difficult social situation when, for example, according to 1911 data, earnings decreased by 10% within two years; illnesses associated with the profession, as well as the lack of hope for a better future - all this pushed for relocation. More prosperous peasants, in addition, saw this as an opportunity to quickly get rich.
Although Vershina was one of many settlements that appeared in these conditions, its phenomenon is that only here the Poles, despite significant integration into Soviet society, have retained to this day an awareness of their origin, the language of their ancestors (albeit with the addition of Russian words) , as well as religious differences. All this is of great importance to them.
However, despite the government’s promises, magazines of that time assessed the resettlement campaign negatively. This can be seen in the Silesian press, for example in “Kurier Zagłębia Polityczny, Społeczny, Ekonomiczny i Literacki”. In 1910, articles talking about emigration and re-emigration appeared repeatedly, often on the front page, and were not particularly optimistic. Those leaving for Siberia did not feel confident and safe, since they were leaving their old life, leaving their native places and the people among whom they grew up. The fact that, despite everything, they decided to make such a difficult move, clearly demonstrates the hard life, as well as the hopes associated with the resettlement. The people I spoke with have a very strong memory of the very first years of the village’s founding. Memories of this are passed on from generation to generation. Most memoirs say that the main reason for moving from Silesia was the difficult living and working conditions.
Some of the settlers, dissatisfied with the conditions, returned to Poland, parting with the opportunity, in general, the only one, to improve their lot. It should be taken into account that only the most seasoned and the most prosperous were able to withstand the difficult living conditions in a foreign land and stay here. The uprooting of taiga lands, conflicts with the local population and life at first in dugouts or huts discouraged many people from wanting to stay. Returning to my homeland was also difficult, since I had to pay for the move myself and start my life again. After all, those who left for Siberia probably thought that they would never return to Silesia.
The Polish founders of Vershina found themselves not in a deserted region, but in the neighborhood of the Buryats. In addition to anthropological and linguistic differences, the settlers were also struck by the difference in religious beliefs. For Europeans, the Buryat religion seemed exotic. The close and constant presence of the only owners of the territory up to that time was of great importance for the preservation of the national consciousness and their own, including religious, culture of the Poles.
Due to the fact that the settlers came from different areas, before the resettlement they did not form an organized group. There were no traditions of living together that had developed over several generations. A new social life was just about to take shape.
From the very beginning of the existence of the Summit, in the process of forming and maintaining the self-awareness of the settlers and their descendants, the Christian faith and Roman Catholic rites were of great importance.
The settlers had to live somewhere, but they could not immediately build houses for various reasons, one of which was the difficult economic situation. Therefore, at a safe distance from the Ida River, along its right bank (the Buryats lived on the other side), they dug dugouts, lining the walls with wood. In order to obtain land for farming, it was necessary to uproot trees in the forest. Craft workshops appeared. The memory of the first difficult years still lives on.
Immediately after the resettlement, a decision was made to build a school and a church, which were erected in 1911–1915. Lessons in the three-year school (including the Law of God) were initially taught in Polish. Only the older residents of Vershina, who were students at that time, remember this well. The settlers themselves were the teachers. Then they continued their studies in Dundai, a settlement located three kilometers towards Irkutsk. This indicates that the Polish settlers were aware of and wanted to preserve the differences in their culture already at the time of settlement. After all, the most significant components of self-identification, taking into account the proximity of the Buryats, were language and religion.
During the Great Patriotic War, as a result of internal migrations in the country, representatives of other nationalities appeared in the village, and with them came another religion. I mean Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Armenians. But despite this, the inhabitants of Vershina of Polish origin retained their religious values and differences.
As I already mentioned, settlers from the Dombrovsky basin initially did not form a consolidated group. But although they came from different areas, they were all united by a common culture, traditions, origin, as well as the goal and means of its implementation. The situation of the emigrants and the settlement of the common territory led to the formation of an organized group of people who did not know each other. The further development of the community was influenced by the need to build houses, organize craft workshops, build a school, a church, as well as the proximity of people who differed from the settlers in many respects. Initially, walkers enjoyed a certain authority among emigrants. The form of the social structure of the village was influenced both by experience from the history of Polish emigrant communities and by the specifics of Russia and, later, the Soviet Union.
Since lands for the Poles were allocated from Buryat territory, from the very beginning these two different groups came into contact. Land for settlers was allocated on the high bank of the Ida River, where the Yamatsky stream flows into it. Hence the first name of the settlement - Yamat-sky site. But in the same year the name was changed to Trubacheevsky, which was associated with the surname of the representative of the Buryat village community Trofim Trubacheev, who opposed the appearance of emigrants here. As already noted, the harsh climate and difficult conditions of the initial period of settlement in the new place forced some of those who arrived to return to Silesia. Among them were walkers who, despite the lack of subsidies for the return trip, returned back.
It is known that national, cultural, religious or any other consciousness almost always strengthens as a result of attempts to eliminate it or unify it with another, for example, with the prevailing one in a given territory. But it also happens that it (consciousness) is susceptible to external influence.
In Verszyna, the awareness and expression of “Polishness” was greatly influenced by the socio-political situation in Russia, the USSR and then again in Russia. At the initial stage of the existence of Polish settlement there were no restrictions on the expression of Polishness. For example, a chapel for Poles and a school where they taught the Polish language were built. The situation changed radically during the Soviet Union: education in Polish was eliminated, the church was closed, and attempts were made to laicize (refuse religion) the population. However, the heyday of persecution came in 1937. Then the NKVD workers took out and shot thirty people - the most respected people in the village. This tragedy greatly influenced the fate of the survivors, especially women with children. There were no uprisings, riots, the usual difficult life continued. But everyone was intimidated, they were afraid to even teach their children basic prayers. The forced organization of collective farms in the 1930s was also one of the reasons for the impoverishment and fear of village residents.
For many years, the residents of Vershina had no contact with Poland. Immediately after moving to Siberia, the Poles corresponded with relatives and friends who remained in Silesia. But over time, they died, and this made it difficult to maintain the relationship. In recent years, contacts have begun to resume. In the 1960s, the village was visited by Hanna Krall, who described Vershina in one of her reports from the east of the USSR; reporters from Polish newsreels also came there. Newsreel reports, which during the period of socialism were shown before each show, primarily served to indoctrinate (process in the spirit of a certain doctrine) society.
The establishment of fairly regular relations between the residents of Vershina and their homeland became possible when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR. It was then that Polish missionaries and teachers began to come to Vershina. It was the late 80s - early 90s of the XX century.
During this period, Polish tourists began to visit the village, both independently and in groups. My first meeting with Vershina took place, as already noted, during a tourist trip. Tourists asked residents about the history of the village and customs. These meetings were and are of great importance for preserving “Polishness”, helping village residents to look at it in a new way. Suffice it to recall that Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski (his second term as president ends in December 2005) met with representatives of the Vershina during a visit to Irkutsk in the 1990s. This “Polishness” is no longer associated with past persecutions. On the contrary, Verkhinin residents understand that by representing a national group that is different from others, they arouse greater interest in themselves.
The specificity of political and social relations in the former Soviet Union led to a certain unification of the peoples and cultures located on its territory. Despite this, the residents of Vershina (I mean mainly that part of them, whose ancestors came from Poland, and specifically from the Dombrovsky coal basin ), for the most part retained the language and customs of their fathers. If a guest encounters Polish speech immediately upon arrival in the village (and sometimes earlier - on a bus when one of the Verkhinino residents is traveling), then the manifestation of customs is most easily noticed in rituals - both religious and secular, for example in the celebration of name days ( birthdays are celebrated in Russia).
In conclusion, I want to add one thing: although my last visit took place eight years ago (in the summer of 1997), I am sure that the hospitality and friendliness of the residents of Vershina to guests from all over the world, and especially to the Poles, is not being eroded. We can only live in hope that young people, just like representatives of the older generation, know, appreciate and cultivate the heritage of their ancestors.
Translation by N.A. Bartoshevich
LITERATURE
Bazylow L. Historia Rosji (History of Russia). - Wrocław, 1985.
Bazylow L. Syberia (Siberia). - Warszawa, 1975.
Emigracja z ziem polskich w czasach nowożytnych i najnowszych, XVIII–XX w. (Emigration from Polish lands in modern and contemporary times, XVIII–XX centuries). - Warszawa, 1984.
Emigracje zarobkowe na tle wschodnioeuropejskich i polskich struktur społeczno-ekonomicznych (Economic emigration against the background of Eastern European and Polish socio-economic structures). - Toruń, 1974.
Encyklopedia Powszechna (General Encyclopedia). - Warszawa, 1973. - T. I; 1974. - T. II; 1976. - T. III, IV.
Figura L. Wieś Wierszyna. Z problematyki kulturowej polskich mieszkańców Syberii (Village Vershina. From the cultural problems of the Polish inhabitants of Siberia): Praca magisterskaprzygotowana pod kierunkiem prof. dr hab. J. Bachorza. - Uniwersytet Gdański, 1995.
Tożsamość narodowościowa w diasporze. Wieś Wierszyna w Obwodzie Irkutckim w Rosji (National identity in the diaspora. Vershina village in the Irkutsk region in Russia) // Etnos przebudzony. Seria: Studia Ethnologica. - Warszawa, 2004. - S. 83–111.
Wiśniewska A. Proces kształtowania się i rozwoju tożsamości etnicznej mieszkańców Wierszyny (Syberia środkowa) (The process of formation and development of ethnic self-awareness of the inhabitants of the Vershina / Central Siberia /) // Etnografia Polska. - T. XLIV, no. 1–2. - S. 99–114.
Zarobki górników w Zagłębiu Dąbrowskiem (Miners’ earnings in the Dąbrowski basin) // Kurier Zagłębia Polityczny, Społeczny, Ekonomiczny i Literacki. - 30.05.1911 (nr. 146).
ANNOTATION
Agata Vishnevska. The history of Vershina, or How the Poles were found in the Siberia.
The article of Polish explorer is devoted to the history of the Siberian village Vershina founded by the migrated Poles at the beginning of the XX century. The author considers how the countrymen of Vershina reserved their language, polish culture and national self-consciousness.
Agata Vishnevskaya,
historian,
Warsaw, Poland
Magazine "Taltsy" No. 4 (27), 2005
Thanks to constant territorial expansion, which began in the 15th century, Russia included lands inhabited by hundreds of peoples. However, only from the time of Peter I Russia began to grow with Europe. The former Swedish fortresses, Baltic trading cities, the cathedras of the largest bishoprics came under the rule of St. Petersburg, and at the end of the 18th century, expansion began to be carried out at the expense of Russia’s largest geopolitical rival of the previous two hundred years - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. By 1795, this expansion culminated in the final division of Poland between Vienna, Berlin and St. Petersburg and the liquidation of an independent Polish state. “Lenta.ru” answers the 14th “controversial question” of Russian history: “The nature of the national policy of the autocracy and its assessment,” taking Poland as an example and talking with the Polish historian Mikołaj Getka-König, a graduate student at the Faculty of History at the University of Warsaw, a teacher Open University and member of the scientific society Collegium Invisibile.
According to Getka-König, the loss of independence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was predetermined by the short-sighted policy of a number of Polish magnates who sought to interfere with their eastern neighbor in their political struggle. In the future, the historian believes, the Polish elite had a chance to maintain the appearance of political and administrative independence - thanks to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, granted by Alexander I. However, the chance was missed after the uprising of 1830, raised by romantically minded youth. The Poles responded to forced Russification by emigrating, cultivating their native language within the family, and new uprisings. As a result, Polish society developed a clearly negative image of the Russian Empire, which still persists to this day.
“Lenta.ru”: Significant territories inhabited by Poles became part of the Russian Empire after the third partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. However, Russia had a significant influence on the internal politics of the Polish-Lithuanian state before. When does the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth really begin to lose its statehood?
: The Russian state begins to exert a fundamental influence on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the beginning of the 18th century, more precisely, from the beginning of the Northern War - during it, Peter I took advantage of the political confusion in the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
We must understand what the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was like back then. We call the Polish state of that time a gentry republic. An important role in governing the state was played by the nobility - the gentry, which was led by powerful magnates. For example, the Potocki and Czartoryski families. They, in turn, often sought support in the St. Petersburg court to strengthen their positions in Poland.
The political situation in general and the king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in particular were influenced by both the gentry and the protector countries. Russia was not the only patron of the Polish gentry groups. This was done by Austria, and a little later by Prussia.
As a result, gentry groups that sought support from other courts found themselves hostage to them. For example, the last king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Stanislaw August Poniatowski, a protege of Catherine II, received the throne thanks to Russia's military intervention - in 1764, an elected diet, under the supervision of the Russian ambassador Keyserling and at gunpoint of Russian troops, unanimously proclaimed him king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The nobles who came to the Sejm had no other choice. The influence of the Russian Empress Catherine the Great on Augustus is explained by their emotional and romantic connection. This connection and the assistance given to him by Petersburg in his ascension to the throne suggested that he would maintain some allegiance to Russia. However, in reality this did not have a serious impact on Augustus’s policy. Throughout his reign - until the complete decline of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - he tried to get rid of the protectorate of Russia. Catherine, for her part, tried to resist this. It ended the way it ended - the divisions of Poland and the complete loss of its statehood.
How interested was Catherine II in the partitions of Poland? It is known that it was she who drew the maps of the divisions.
During the first partition of Poland in 1772, Russia received the most peripheral lands (the areas of Vitebsk, Polotsk, Mstislavl, Dvina land, Livonia). After the Polish-Russian War in 1792, the second partition of Poland took place - its cause was the May Constitution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, perceived by Catherine as a step towards Polish independence from Russia. The Empress was clearly opposed to such ideas of Stanislav August and the Polish elites. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth lost the war, and all Belarusian lands up to Dinaburg, Pinsk, Zbruch, the eastern part of Polesie, the Ukrainian regions of Podolia and Volyn were ceded to Russia.
The last partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth occurred in 1795. The Kosciuszko Uprising, directed against the division of the country between Prussia, Austria and Russia, became the reason for these countries to completely liquidate the Polish-Lithuanian state. Russia received lands east of the Bug to Nemirov-Grodno. As a result, a fourth of all the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth went to Russia. Prussia and Austria received the rest.
Tell us about the conditions under which Polish lands became part of the Russian Empire. Did the Poles receive any guarantees of their autonomy?
As a result of the three divisions of Poland, Russia received the territory that we call the seven Eastern provinces. Today it is the territory of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. The gentry who lived in these territories identified themselves as Poles - they spoke Polish and lived according to Polish traditions. There were almost no large cities or urban bourgeoisie in this territory, but the rural population was quite significant in size.
At that time, rural residents could hardly identify their nationality, the population was mixed, therefore, speaking about the Poles in this territory, I will talk primarily about the gentry. The richest Polish magnates lived in these provinces, who became subjects of the Russian Empire.
Immediately after the partitions of Poland, St. Petersburg declared itself a supporter of peaceful policies in the new provinces and tried to improve relations with the Polish elite. It is known that in these lands the Polish gentry continued to concentrate significant power in their hands, although they were no longer in the forefront. The overall management system has changed. An administrative division appeared into provinces, which Russian governors came to govern. But the authorities tried to interest the gentry in state or military service to the emperor. This was quite difficult to do, since the cult of service to the emperor, as well as the table of ranks, were new to the Polish elite. It is important to note that the empire tried to motivate the Polish nobles to enter the state's service, and did not force them to do so. The authorities did not see the point in repression. This was the policy of both Paul I and his son Alexander I.
Can we say that the Polish elite sympathized with some country that participated in the partitions of Poland?
Before the partitions of Poland, magnates constantly sought support in the St. Petersburg court in order to strengthen their positions in Poland. That is why tycoons in Polish historiography are assigned a rather negative role. It is believed that it was they who brought the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to decline. The richest families did not fully understand that such relations with a neighboring empire would end in the division of their country.
In the traditions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which were preserved by the gentry, monarchical power had no real power. In fact, the country was ruled by magnates and gentry; their power was ideal from the point of view of traditions. And, of course, they wanted a weak monarch and looked for an ally in Catherine II who would protect this interest of theirs. They naively believed that Catherine would help weaken the monarchical power of Stanislaus Augustus without any consequences. They did not expect that in 1792 the Russian army would enter Polish territory to stay forever. Catherine used the situation to take possession of the territory. As a result, Catherine expanded her possessions not only at the expense of the eastern Polish lands, but also at the expense of the magnates and gentry.
How did the Polish elites relate to other members of the “union of black eagles” ( all three countries that took part in the partitions of Poland had black eagles in their coats of arms - approx. "Tapes.ru")? Were the conditions for the annexation of Polish lands to Austria and Prussia different from the Russian ones?
In Russia, the situation was most favorable for the Polish gentry. But the gentry managed to maintain influence not only in the territories annexed to Russia, but also in the Prussian and Austrian parts of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, in these territories it was impossible to imagine a Pole as a vice-governor, but in the lands annexed to Russia this happened. Prussia and Austria tried to brutally subjugate local elites by pursuing a policy of centralization. For the Poles, high centralization and constant control from the capital were shocking - they were not used to this way of governing the state.
How was the movement for the restoration of Polish independence formed and developed? What plans were there to reunite the divided lands?
After the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there was no single political force in the former Polish state capable of leading the liberation movement and regaining lost independence. The Duchy of Warsaw, which Napoleon founded in 1807 on Polish territories ceded to Prussia and Austria during the second and third partitions, was the first political entity to have the character of a Polish national state. The Polish elite hoped that the duchy would grow to the former size of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Relations between France and Russia were very difficult at that time, and everyone understood that both powers would still show their ambitions. Before the outbreak of the War of 1812, the Polish elite hoped to annex to the duchy the lands that had gone to Russia during the partitions of Poland.
In the end, it turned out differently - France lost this war, and a significant territory of the Duchy of Warsaw, that is, the former Prussian and Austrian lands, including Warsaw, were annexed to Russia. After Russia received the part of Poland previously occupied by Napoleon, it was not clear what Alexander would do - restore an independent Polish state or make these lands part of his empire. Certain hopes of the population were associated with independence, but in St. Petersburg they chose the second option. After Alexander I proclaimed the autonomous Kingdom of Poland within Russia, the Polish elites showed no desire to start a war with Russia for independence. On the contrary, the alliance with Russia successfully combined the territory of the Duchy of Warsaw with the territories of the seven Eastern provinces, annexed to the Russian state earlier.
Alexander sent to Poland people who for a long time determined the policy regarding the Polish territories - the Russian Nikolai Novosiltsev, the future count and comrade-in-arms of the emperor, the former foreign minister of the empire, the Pole Adam Czartoryski, who together worked on building the Polish administration and later remained in Poland to carry out Alexander’s policies. Russian diplomacy, which was headed by Adam Jerzy Czartoryski in 1804-1806, during the Napoleonic War worked on a project to seize Prussian territories and recreate the Polish state. However, this project was not implemented, and Alexander hardly had such an intention at all. When Czartoryski's plan became known, his influence at court noticeably weakened.
The history of the Kingdom of Poland began in 1815. As part of the Russian Empire, the Polish lands received their own constitution, an elected Sejm, the right to have their own army...
The Kingdom of Poland appeared after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and until the Polish uprising of 1830-1831, its territory was considered a separate state, in a personal union with Russia. That is, we were talking about the political unification of two states under the leadership of one monarch. The Russian Foreign Minister represented the joint interests of Poland and Russia, but the Kingdom of Poland had its own administration, army, tax system, finance and courts. Therefore, we can talk about the life of two separate independent states. The Poles themselves carried out government administration, and the ministers were subordinate to a single monarch, first to Alexander I, after his death - to his brother Nicholas I. The emperor was represented in the kingdom by his viceroy. Despite the monarch's autocracy, he did not influence Polish institutions. This idea can be supported by the fact that the official language of external relations of the Kingdom of Poland was French. All official state documents were executed in Polish and French. The constitution of the kingdom stated that only Poles could rule its lands.
As a counter-argument, it is often recalled that the control of the Polish army was carried out by the younger brother of Alexander I, Constantine, who in 1826 became the emperor’s governor in Poland. As a member of the royal family, he married a Polish woman, Zhanetta Grudzinska, for the second time - in this way he reinforced his Polish identity. Therefore, we can say that the very spirit of the constitution was not so much violated. The appointment of Nikolai Novosiltsev as tsarist “commissar” in Poland, who ruled the Duchy of Warsaw for two years after its occupation in 1813, was controversial. So the openly non-Polish origin of some of the tsar’s proteges worried society.
What were the motives of Alexander I, who gave the Kingdom of Poland a constitution?
It is not entirely clear what plan Alexander I pursued. It is known that the tsar was a man who wanted to please and enjoy the approval of those around him. He wanted to be seen as a liberal who would be praised in European capitals for his open and free views. Perhaps he wanted to appear as a merciful tsar who would not execute his enemies, because those who led the Duchy of Warsaw held anti-Russian views and fought with Russia on the side of Napoleon. Everyone expected that Alexander would begin to take revenge on his enemies. He, on the contrary, somehow responded to the people’s desire for independence - after all, the Duchy of Warsaw was a kind of parody of the state.
This act can also be explained by Alexander’s passion for liberal ideas. Perhaps he interpreted the Kingdom of Poland as a kind of experiment; he wanted to see what it was like to be a constitutional ruler. It is known that he instructed Novosiltsev to develop a draft Constitution of the Russian Empire. Nothing came of it, but there were such plans. He was intrigued by the ideal of constitutionalism.
How was the integration of Poles into Russian society carried out?
It is wrong to talk about the mass departure of Polish nobles to St. Petersburg to build a career, but there was such a trend. Alexander tried to attract the Ukrainian, Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Polish elites to public service. The Poles sat in the Imperial Senate. For example, we can recall the same Adam Jerzy Czartoryski.
Poles in St. Petersburg were engaged not only in politics and public service. The beginning of the 19th century was the time when Polish culture in Russia reached its peak. Polish artists such as Alexander Orłowski and Józef Oleszkiewicz began to compete with the Russians and receive commissions from the court. It is enough to recall the literary work of Adam Mickiewicz and his connections with Pushkin. Not only representatives of culture, but also the trading class were active.
Moscow also attracted Poles, but St. Petersburg remained more attractive to those who were more ambitious. Poles rarely traveled independently to other territories of Russia - many Polish families took root in Siberia only when they were deported there. However, until the 1830s the authorities were not interested in resettling the Poles. Many wealthy families living in the annexed lands sent their children to Warsaw, the capital of the Kingdom of Poland, so that they could settle in their homeland.
How did the Poles live when they found themselves in Russia outside the Kingdom of Poland?
Of course, Poles met with negative reactions at court and in public service, but this was more likely due to some common stereotypes. For example, the Polish nobleman was considered unfamiliar with centralized government. Accordingly, it was believed that, due to his nationality, he could not faithfully serve the throne and the dynasty.
Poland, along with the constitution, received many privileges, which in Russia at that time were considered very progressive. How does Polish historiography evaluate them?
In Polish historiography this point has not been assessed unambiguously. On the one hand, some contemporaries expected further development of Polish constitutionalism towards liberalization. After all, not only the gentry, but also the third estate participated in the political life of the country, although under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth only the nobility was allowed to participate in elections to the Sejm. The government of the Kingdom of Poland also managed to significantly improve the situation in agriculture and industry. Russian markets have opened for Polish producers. The twenties of the 19th century can be called the golden years of Polish industry.
Other historians, noting the liberality of the constitution, do not leave unnoticed the tendency to strengthen central power. In the twenties of the 19th century, a wide network of secret police appeared on the territory of the Kingdom of Poland, censorship began to work, and repressions were initiated against the political opposition to the tsar. But in many respects this was the decision of the Polish authorities; It cannot be said that such measures were taken exclusively by St. Petersburg.
The liberal attitude of the Russian authorities towards Poland gradually began to change. Can we say that the restriction of the constitution was accompanied by repression?
Back in 1815, it was clear that the gift of a constitution to the Poles by Alexander I was a certain “act of affection.” Alexander was an absolute monarch, God's anointed. He believed that he had to justify his policies only to God, and not to his subjects. Perhaps the tsar expected special treatment from the Poles - for his liberalism.
In addition, the first governor of the emperor, General Joseph Zayonchek, and his entourage adhered to rather despotic views. In addition, the change in the emperor’s liberal sentiments was associated with a pan-European context: in the early 1820s, a wave of anti-monarchist revolutions swept across Europe. Europe after the Congress of Vienna experienced many upheavals. The example of Napoleon as a symbol of the French Revolution broke the “old regimes” in many countries. The authorities feared that such sentiments could lead to chaos. The government, feeling its insecurity, began to treat the opposition much more strictly. In 1820, an uprising of the Semenovsky regiment broke out against the military commander Count Alexei Arakcheev. All these events made Alexander into a ruler similar in style to his father and grandmother.
In 1818, the emperor, opening the Polish Sejm, said that he was satisfied with its work. But two years later he expresses his dissatisfaction and criticizes the activities of Polish managers. This Sejm rejects the law abolishing the publicity of legal proceedings. Alexander did not like criticism, and he did not like this decision. In response, contrary to the constitution, he convened the third Sejm only in 1825, and not in 1822, as was required.
The year 1825 can be considered a critical point, despite the fact that the convening of the Diet a few months before the death of the emperor passed without incident. No one dared to criticize the authorities, and this fully met the expectations of St. Petersburg. However, the activities of secret anti-Russian societies in Poland and Lithuania begin to gain momentum, and Alexander decides to replace the Polish ministers. For high positions, he selects people younger than himself, who were more faithful to the methods of the absolute monarchy - in contrast to the old elite, who remembered the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the same time, the Polish army was led by his despotic brother Konstantin. It is not known why Alexander sent him to Warsaw - to strengthen control over the Kingdom of Poland or to rid himself of the company of his brother, with whom the tsar had strained relations.
How did Polish society perceive the uprising of December 1825?
Related materials
If we talk about the Decembrist uprising, then in the Kingdom of Poland society was most interested in the progress of the investigation of the Poles, who were among the conspirators. These were mainly members of the Patriotic Society - a secret organization of officers, most of whom came from the Ukrainian and Lithuanian gentry. A delegation sent from Russia also took part in the investigation into the cases of Polish participants in Decembrist societies. Later a trial took place before the Polish Senate. In Poland, few people believed that the defendants were really among the Decembrist conspirators, so the Senate found them innocent. Today, thanks to the disclosure of archives, it became known that they were indeed present on the lists.
For the Poles, what was more important was the fact of the death of Alexander I - and the potential ascension to the throne of his unloved brother Constantine. News reached the Kingdom of Poland late, this created a restless atmosphere. When it became clear that Nicholas would eventually ascend the throne, this did not reassure the public. Almost no one knew the new emperor even in the political elite of the Kingdom of Poland, not to mention in wider circles.
How was the figure of Nicholas I later perceived?
The trial of the Decembrists greatly influenced the public's attitude towards Nicholas. It is important that Polish aristocrats and people from high society were in the dock. To raise his authority in the Polish lands, Nicholas needed to be crowned on the throne in Warsaw. Nicholas did not show much desire for this, because you can only be crowned once - on the Russian throne, the rest of the privileges follow automatically from this. But we were talking about international relations, and the negative attitude of the Poles was not in his favor, and besides, Nicholas’ position in the international arena was not strong. In 1829, the tsar finally came to the Kingdom of Poland and officially ascended to the Polish throne. Nicholas was a complete propaganda success. The Poles had the opportunity to meet their king, who arrived with his wife Alexandra and son Alexander. The image of the happy royal family walking the streets of Warsaw, talking with residents, softened the hearts of the Poles.
Nicholas did not immediately begin to curtail constitutional government in Poland. What is this connected with?
Nicholas I was never distinguished by liberalism. He probably thought the Polish constitution was a bad idea from the very beginning of his reign. It was clear that he wanted to see the Kingdom of Poland as part of Russia. In addition, it is much easier to manage one state than two. Perhaps he did nothing in the first five years of his reign because he did not want to greatly change the political system created by his brother. The Constitution of Poland was a matter of international relations, and Nicholas did not want to contradict pan-European liberal sentiments. But as soon as the Poles wanted more and began to criticize the authorities, the emperor changed his mind. Some high-ranking Poles tried to convince Nicholas that the situation in Poland was not satisfactory to the population and they would like to change it without revolutionary changes. The emperor did not believe this and perceived the uprising of 1830 as disobedience to his will, so there could be no talk of preserving the independence of the Kingdom of Poland.
Is it true that it was the granting of relative autonomy to the Polish lands within the Russian Empire that ultimately predetermined the uprising of 1830?
Yes, we can say that the constitutional system itself provoked the Poles to revolt. It was obvious to Nicholas that the uprising was possible due to the excessive freedom enjoyed by Polish society, and the answer to this should be a tough policy to stifle radical sentiments. Nikolai understood that autonomy was teasing the Poles, and it was difficult to move from complete dependence to independence.
It is necessary to clarify the sentiments of the rebels in order to fully understand what exactly happened. The uprising of 1830 was led by officer Pyotr Vysotsky. His comrades-in-arms were a group of young officers and students, brought up in the traditions of romantic radicalism and far from the Polish political elite. The structure of the Kingdom of Poland was an impossible compromise for them. Under the current conditions, future rebels had no chance of great career success. For officers and students, rebellion was a way to change the world in which they lived. It was about changing not only the government, but also the whole system, the paradigm in which young people existed. For them, Russia looked like a despotic state - accordingly, a personal union with such a power had a negative impact on the political structure of the Kingdom of Poland, they believed.
The riot was also provoked by rumors circulating in Warsaw that the Polish army would be expelled from the country to help suppress revolutions abroad, which Russian diplomacy was actively engaged in. In addition, the general radical mood in Europe incited young people to revolt.
The point of no return for the rebels was their murder of several Polish generals. It was no longer possible to lie low peacefully. Adam Jerzy Czartoryski tried to calm the situation and present the uprising to Nicholas as an act of temporary discontent - the Poles were supposedly loyal to the tsar, but wanted change. But Nikolai did not make concessions. In the rebellion he saw a reason to strengthen power. The small group of rebels stumbled upon the king's intolerance to any criticism. The war has begun.
What role did secret patriotic societies in Poland play in the uprising?
There were secret societies that did not strive for riots and revolutions, but simply influenced the cultural life of society. Those who were dissatisfied with the state of affairs in Poland wanted a revolution. The 1830 riot was started by officer Wysocki, who was a member of the Patriotic Society and the leader of the military radical democratic wing of the Polish liberation movement.
It is difficult to say now what the real motives of the rebels were. Many of the participants in the riot, who later lived in exile, said that the ultimate goal of the uprising was to kill the Tsar. However, it is possible that they attributed such radicalism to themselves much later. The rebels were also aggressive towards the king’s brother, the Polish military leader Constantine.
What were the results of the 1830 uprising?
Its result is the elimination of constitutionalism. First of all, the Sejm and the Polish army were liquidated. Confiscations of property began from families involved in the formation of the provisional government. Many Polish politicians emigrated to Europe, and the Tsar sent those who were radically minded to Siberia.
In 1832, the Organic Statute appeared - a document that prescribed the autonomous rights of the Kingdom of Poland. There are few of them left. After the uprising, the Kingdom of Poland was no longer highlighted in a separate color on maps of Europe; it became part of Russia. Since the 1840s, the monetary system in force throughout Russia and the system of weights and measures were extended to the territory of Poland.
The governor of Poland could no longer be a Pole, as was the case before the uprising; he became Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich. The Russians began to rule Poland. From this moment on, we can talk about the Russification of Poland, which aimed to increase the efficiency of management of Polish lands.
How much did life change in the Kingdom of Poland after the Constitution was replaced by the Organic Statute?
The organic statute had no practical application and was constantly violated. This didn't bother anyone. Paskevich and Nicholas I ruled according to their own whims. Before the uprising of 1830, the tsar’s policy was very delicate, but the peak of political radicalism in St. Petersburg came after the uprising of 1863, when constant partisan warfare began in Poland.
How did the liberation movement function after the death of Nicholas I?
After the death of Nicholas I in 1855, Warsaw was filled with protest moods and dissatisfaction with the authorities, including the new governor, Prince Mikhail Gorchakov, who replaced Paskevich, who had ruled Poland for 25 years. Alexander II immediately showed himself to be a liberal and replaced Gorchakov with his younger brother Konstantin. However, the government’s liberal course further convinced the radical Poles that only through pressure on St. Petersburg could they achieve new concessions, and an attempt was made on Constantine’s life.
What sparked the riots of 1861 that eventually led to another uprising two years later?
Paradoxically, one of the reasons for the unrest of 1861 was the loss of Russia in the Crimean War and the ascension of the young Tsar Alexander II to the throne. This was a time of significant weakening of Russia's position in the international arena. The organizers of the uprising hoped for the weakness of Alexander II and for the help of Napoleon III, who at that time was waging war with Austria, supporting the Italian liberation movement. But the French emperor had other plans.
Alexander II, wanting to raise his authority in the Kingdom of Poland, began to reform the lands and return exiles from Siberia. Everything changed when in 1863 a recruitment drive was announced for 12 thousand young Poles - they were suspected of being close to the national liberation and reform movement and thus wanted to isolate them from the radicals who were gaining strength. This decision turned out to be fatal and led to a riot. The first attacks on Russian garrisons began, and partisan detachments began to appear. As a result, the Polish militia, completely untrained in military affairs professionally, fought the Russian army for two years.
To what extent did two successive uprisings provoke the policy of Russification of Poland and by what measures was Russification carried out?
Russification can be considered a response to the uprisings. Alexander II behaved exactly like his father after the uprising of 1831. He chose to strengthen his power. He began the process of recognizing Russian as the state language in Poland. Since the late 1860s, all state documents were executed in Russian. The only thing that helped the Poles was a long acquaintance with this language. Before the uprising of 1831, no one knew Russian in Poland, because there was no such need. The Poles spoke French with the Russian elite.
Under Alexander II, Russian became the state language, it was taught in schools and universities, shops and theaters also became Russian. The Russian Criminal Code was extended to Poland. Polish self-government bodies - the State and Administrative Council, government commissions and the Executive Committee - were abolished. The institution of governorship was eliminated, and all power was transferred to the Governor-General of Warsaw.
The last governor of the Kingdom of Poland (until 1874) was General Feodor Berg, who participated in the suppression of the 1863 uprising. In St. Petersburg it was decided that after the death of the general, his successor would receive the title of governor-general. The historical administrative division into voivodeships was replaced by a division into provinces; the Polish lands in their totality began to be called the Privislenskie provinces or the Privislensky region, which humiliated the national self-identification of the Poles.
How much has Russification affected the daily life of Poles?
Of course, Russification was not perceived with great enthusiasm. The attempt to turn Poles into Russians only damaged the image of Russia. The policy of Russification did not stop until 1915, when Poland ceased to be part of Russia. But cultural life continued in Poland: theater, art, newspapers and literature in Polish were available. Many Russian cultural figures sympathized with the Poles. For example, the director of the Warsaw theaters, hero of the defense of Sevastopol Sergei Mukhanov, who staged Polish performances. At that time, a lot depended on personal relationships.
In 1875, Socrates Starynkiewicz was appointed president, that is, the mayor of Warsaw, whom we still remember with kind words. He gained his popularity for his open views and ideas for modernizing the city. It was he who carried out work on the construction of a sewer system in the city, which at that time did not exist either in Moscow or in St. Petersburg. He published his decrees in Polish. He did not speak the language, but at his request the decrees were specially translated. Only the Russian military elite had an acutely negative attitude towards the Poles. But I would not talk about significant repressions against the Polish population.
Many Poles were friends with Russians, but they viewed interethnic marriages negatively. The question of what nationality the children from such marriages would belong to remained open. In addition, the Poles sought to preserve their national identity. I would note that the negative attitude was mainly manifested towards the administrative apparatus imposed from St. Petersburg, and not towards the Russians as such.
How strong was the fight against Russification? Did it develop into a struggle for the independence of the Kingdom of Poland?
After the uprising, no one thought of waging a guerrilla war. Secret societies ceased to exist. Polish language and traditions were cultivated within the family. Socialist organizations created in the same vein as “People’s Will” in Russia caused more problems for the authorities. But the fact is that such organizations did not strive to build an independent Polish state. Their desire was to establish the international power of the proletariat. There was no fight against organizations planning new uprisings, since there was no need for this.
After the fall of Russian power over Poland, many Poles tried to take revenge. This was reflected in the destruction of cultural monuments left by the Russians on Polish lands, but nothing more.
To what extent did the events of the 19th century influence the attitude of today's Poles towards Russia? Is this still remembered or have the events of the 20th century come to the fore?
Relations between Poland and Russia in the 20th century were no less complex than in the 19th century. Today, these relationships are viewed more through the prism of the 20th century, which is perceived negatively. If we talk about the 19th century, we can say that the Poles’ perception of this period is too unambiguous. Many, for example, do not see positive aspects for Poland in the activities of Alexander I. But it must be said that the formation of a negative attitude towards this historical period was influenced by the images created by Polish literature. For example, Adam Mickiewicz painted an image of Emperor Nicholas I, which did not entirely correspond to reality. Often in his works Nikolai appears as a pole-hater, which was not so openly expressed. I believe that relations between Russians and Poles at that time were not entirely negative.
Poland has been one of Russia’s most convinced and consistent opponents on the world stage for more than a quarter of a century. The Poles, as a rule, motivate their historical hostility by three factors: the annexation of Western Ukraine and Belarus to the USSR in 1939, Moscow’s assistance in the creation of the Polish People’s Republic after the end of World War II, and Russia’s “annexation” of Poland as a result, as Warsaw historians like to say, "Four sections of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Due to the fact that the other day marked 202 years since “Poland’s annexation to the Russian Empire for eternity,” we have an opportunity to discuss the third factor in more detail...
First, a little background. It should be noted that relations between Rus' and Poland were never cloudless. Back in the distant 10th century, when the Russians made a choice in favor of spiritual community with Byzantium and political independence, the Poles chose to submit to the papal throne. From that moment, despite the blood relationship, in value, cultural and political terms, the two Slavic peoples found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades, and the Poles took an active part in the implementation of the European concept of “Onslaught to the East.”
They twice committed large-scale acts of aggression against the Old Russian state under the pretext of participating in internecine wars, and even managed in 1018, by taking Kyiv, to try to completely subjugate Rus', but were expelled. Starting from the 14th century, Poland, together with Lithuania, began to actively seize the lands of the southwest of Rus', which rightfully belonged to the Rurik dynasty. As a result of creeping expansion in the 16th century, most of the territory of modern Belarus and Ukraine, as well as part of the western regions of modern Russia, came under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the occupied lands, the Poles established a regime reminiscent of the apartheid of the twentieth century, only much harsher. The Orthodox East Slavic population was virtually completely powerless.
In 1610, the Poles were at the peak of their power - their troops occupied Moscow. A year later, they committed a terrible massacre in the Russian capital, as a result of which about 7 thousand Muscovites died. However, in 1612, the people's militia led by Kuzma Minin And Dmitry Pozharsky liberated the capital from the invaders, after which luck turned away from the Poles for 300 years. In the middle of the 17th century, following an uprising Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the Russian-Polish War, the Left Bank of the Dnieper and Kyiv were ceded to Moscow.
Despite the fact that the Russian tsars had all the rights to a good half of the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for more than a hundred years Moscow, and then St. Petersburg, behaved with great restraint, artificially maintaining the integrity of the Polish-Lithuanian state and providing all possible assistance to its authorities. And only when Prussia declared its territorial claims to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, Russia, with the formal consent of the Polish Sejm, annexed part of the territory of Rus' in the region of Vitebsk and Polotsk. However, in 1791-1792, radical forces, harshly opposed to the Orthodox and Lutherans, raised their heads in Poland. Russia responded by sending its troops into Warsaw.
In 1793, the so-called “Second Partition of Poland” took place, as a result of which part of the territory of Belarus and the Right Bank of the Dnieper was returned to Russia. The Poles were unhappy with the loss of lands that they considered their colonies. In 1794, an uprising began under the leadership of Tadeusha Kosciuszko. The rebels brutally dealt with the Russian garrison of Warsaw and moved east, to the territory of modern Belarus, but were completely defeated by troops under the leadership of the brilliant Alexandra Suvorova. After the Warsaw magistrate handed Suvorov the keys to the city, the Russian military commander released thousands of captured militiamen and officers to their homes and declared an amnesty. As a result of the Kosciuszko uprising, Russia took over the remaining non-Polish lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Western Belarus and Volyn. St. Petersburg did not even lay claim to any native Polish lands.
However, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, Polish nationalists became active allies Napoleon. In 1813, Russian troops, in pursuit of Bonaparte, occupied the puppet Principality of Warsaw formed by the French. During the Congress of Vienna, Austria and Prussia agreed to transfer most of the “Principality” to the control of the Russian Empire. However, no “annexation” occurred. And here's why.
On May 3, 1815, the Kingdom of Poland was formed, which was connected with Russia only by a “personal union.” Poland became a separate state from Russia, headed by Alexander I. The formula “two countries - one emperor” began to work. Liberal Alexander granted his new Polish subjects as many rights and freedoms as few others in the world had.
The Poles received their own Constitution, government (State Council), parliament (Sejm), army, independent monetary system and passports. The laws of the Kingdom of Poland guaranteed freedom of Catholic religion, the use of the Polish language and the opportunity to participate in elections. In Russian-Polish relations, for the convenience of Warsaw, not Russian, but French was used. It was separately stipulated that leadership positions in the Kingdom of Poland could be held by ethnic Poles. An exception could be made only for representatives of the imperial family (for example, in 1826, Alexander’s brother became governor in Poland Konstantin, married to a Polish woman).
By order of Alexander I, cities destroyed during the war were rebuilt in Poland, industrial enterprises were created, swamps were drained, and roads were built. The Polish Bank was established and the University of Warsaw was founded. In ten years, the population of “unfortunate” Poland has doubled (!).
However, the freedoms granted by Alexander had the opposite effect than expected. Representatives of the Polish gentry perceived all this as weakness, and raised an uprising in 1830-1831 with the goal of removing the tsar from the throne, seizing the territory of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and restoring Poland within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The rebels gathered a very large army (more than 80 thousand people), arrested (and then killed) representatives of the local administration and members of their families. But from May to September 1831, Russian troops inflicted several serious defeats on the rebels and, ultimately, put them to flight. In the autumn the rebellion was suppressed.
As a result of the uprising, Emperor Nicholas I abolished the Sejm and the State Council in Poland, introduced a provincial system of government and closed the University of Warsaw. In official office work under Nicholas on the territory of the Kingdom of Poland, the Russian language began to be used (along with French). The metric system was replaced by the Russian imperial system of measures, and the ruble replaced the Polish zloty. All legislative power passed to the emperor. However, the economic development of Poland under Nicholas I received a new impetus. The Emperor eliminated Poland's customs border with Russia, and given how much had already been done to develop Polish industry, local entrepreneurs received simply limitless opportunities.
Alexander II, who replaced Nicholas, sharply changed the political course of the imperial family in relation to Poland. He radically expanded the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland, restored the state council, created local governments, and founded a number of Polish national higher educational institutions. In 1861, serfdom was abolished in Poland, as in Russia, and Polish peasants, unlike Russians, were well provided with land at state expense.
And again, according to good tradition, the Polish elites took liberal reforms as a sign of weakness. In 1863, a new large-scale uprising began in Poland. We must pay tribute to the Polish peasants - under the impression of receiving personal freedom and land, they did not support the rebellion of the gentry. For this, the rebels launched a bloody terror against the peasants, who, in turn, in some places themselves began to fight against their former masters on the side of the Russian army. In 1864 the uprising was suppressed.
It must be said that after the uprising, the Russian authorities once again behaved very humanely. Most of the riot participants were released on all four sides; only one sixth of the rebels were punished. Of the 77 thousand identified rebels, despite all their atrocities, 128 people were executed, 800 were sent to hard labor. 12,500 were deported from Poland to remote areas of the Russian Empire.
For some time, freedom of assembly was limited in the Kingdom of Poland, and a fine was imposed for using the Polish language in public places. In addition, the Polish “Latin” alphabet was banned. It was after these events that Polish nationalists relied on inventing a “Ukrainian language” and a “Ukrainian nation” in order to weaken Russia. After the passions around the rebellion subsided, the Russian emperors, until the Revolution of 1917, gradually expanded the rights of the Poles.
In general, the preferences that Poland received from the Russian tsars produced amazing results. If in 1818 the population of the Kingdom of Poland was only 2.6 million people, then in 1900 it was already 10 million! The level of taxation in Poland at the beginning of the twentieth century was approximately 20% lower than in Russia. For every ruble of taxes paid, Poland received 1.14 rubles in government subsidies (in the European part of Russia subsidies were 2 times lower). 5-6 times more was allocated for education in the Kingdom of Poland than in Central Russia. When the average literacy rate in the empire was 19%, in the Kingdom of Poland it had already reached 35... Although only 8% of the royal subjects lived in Poland, approximately 25% of the industrial output of the empire was produced there.
In order to create “hothouse conditions” for the Poles, the original Russian territories did not receive enough funds. Thanks to decades of generous Russian investment, Poland was able to emerge in the 20th century as a fairly successful independent state. How she “thanked” her benefactors in 1919-1920, and then in 1938, is a slightly different story...
