The Émigré Critique of Method in the Historiography of the Polish People’S Republic

In Whose Name is the Story Told? The Émigré Critique of Method in the Historiography of the Polish People’s Republic

Artur Mękarski

For a large number of Poles who left Poland during the Second World War, the restoration of peace in 1945 did not mean the end of life in exile. Although the war was over, they decided to stay abroad, unwilling to return to a country which, deprived of half of its pre-war territory and reduced to absolute obedi- ence to the Soviet Union, had lost its independence. It is no exaggeration to say that historians were among the leading figures of the Polish diaspora in the West, playing an important role in its cultural life. Apart from the two leading figures, Marian Kukiel and Oskar Halecki, both of whom had succeeded in winning international recognition for their historical writing in the inter-war period, Polish émigré historiography was also represented by such scholars as Stanisław Bóbr-Tylingo, Anna Cienciała, Adam Ciołkosz, Leon Koczy, Stanisław Kościałkowski, Karolina Lanckorońska, Walerian Meysztowicz, Edmund Oppman, Henryk Paszkiewicz and Piotr Wandycz.1 With the mounting pressure on the historical profession in Poland by the communist regime at the turn of the 1940ʼs and 1950ʼs, émigré historians could hardly think of a more important task than that of reviewing and assessing the work of historians writing in the People`s Republic of Poland. This seemed the task for which they, as political exiles concerned about Polish culture, felt a special calling. In what follows, I am going to offer some insight into what appeared to be the most characteristic aspects of the émigré critique of the methodological dimension of domestic historiography. This “methodological turn” was bound up with the elevation in Poland of the theory of historical materialism (in its Stalinist version)—here also referred to as a theory of social emancipation—to the position of the main theoretical instrument to be applied by scholars in presenting and interpreting the past.2 At its core, the

1 On the Polish émigré historiography see: Habielski, 1998; Habielski, 1995; Mękarski, 2011; Stobiecki, 2005; Stobiecki, 2001; Stobiecki, 2003; Stobiecki, 2004a, Stobiecki, 2002; Stobiecki, 2004b; Stobiecki, 2004c. 2 On the problem of the Stalinist version of the theory of historical materialism and the pro- cess of the Stalinization of Polish historiography see: Stobiecki, 1993a; Stobiecki, 1996; Stobiecki, 1993b; Stobiecki, 1997; Grabski, 1992; Grabski, 2000; Romek, 2004; Górny, 2006; Wolniewicz, 2006.

344 Mękarski theory centered around the ideas of class struggle and technological determin- ism. Plagued by class conflicts, humankind had to pass through the eras of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, to reach the “end” of history in the epoch of socialism/communism, when it finally managed to extricate itself from the misery of class antagonisms and thereafter enjoy perfect freedom. The estab- lishment of Polish Peopleʼs Republic marked the beginning of socialism. Historians were entrusted with the task of reconstructing the road to socialist reality. The performance of this task consisted in identifying the so-called “pro- gressive traditions”: processes, events, and people that were considered to have played a crucial role in driving humankind along the path of social progress. I am concerned, however, not with reconstructing the émigré critique of historical materialism as such, but rather with demonstrating the efforts émigré authors took to prove that the theory was abused in the service of purely ideo- logical agenda. Eager to reveal what they termed the adjustment of Marxist vocabulary to the needs of the ruling party, they also showed they had no use for Marxism itself—whether it was or was not pressed into service to the goals of the communist regime—and did not believe it was possible to apply it in a scholarly fashion. In conclusion, I will also comment on what can be referred to—for want of a better word—as a “side-effect” of their critique. Foremost among the works published in Poland during the Stalinist era and reviewed by émigré authors was the so-called mock-up version of the history of Poland (it was published as a full-length book). Prepared under the aegis of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the work was supposed to represent a new, Marxist approach to national past.3 The volume was greeted with particularly bitter criticism by émigré authors, who rejected both the interpretation of Polish history it offered as well as the theoretical presuppositions on which it

3 Some leading Polish historians (Stanisław Arnold, Celina Bobińska, Józef Gierowski, Stanisław Herbst, Stefan Kieniewicz, Witold Kula, Tadeusz Łepkowski, Henryk Łowmiański, Emanuel Rostworowski, Marian Henryk Serejski) were involved in preparing this work which was to be published in many volumes. In the first half of the 50s there appeared only its first two volumes: Historia Polski. Makieta [Mock-up History of Poland], vol. 1: Do roku 1764 [To 1764], ed. by H. Łowmiański, part 1: Do połowy xv w. [To the Middle of the 15th Century], part 2: Od poł. xv w. [Since the Middle of the 15th Century], Warsaw 1955; vol. 2: 1764–1864, ed. S. Kieniewicz, W. Kula, part 1: 1764–1814, part 2: 1814–1864, Warsaw 1956. The remaining volumes were published in the 1960s: vol. 3: 1850/1864–1918, ed. by Ż. Kormanowa, I. Pietrzak- Pawłowska, part 1: 1850/1864–1900, part 2: 1900–1918, Warsaw 1960; vol. 4; 1918–1939, ed. by L. Grosfeld, H. Zieliński, part 1: 1918–1926, chapters 1–13 (1918–1921), Warsaw 1966. This work was never brought to a successful completion.