The Evolving Protection of Borders of the Reborn Second Republic of Poland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Evolving Protection of Borders of the Reborn Second Republic of Poland Paweł Lubiewski Police Academy in Szczytno, Poland Abstract. The Second Republic of Poland, after regaining independence as a new state and creating state structures, faced many serious challenges. Barely formed boundaries required effective protection as soon as possible. An important problem was the process of gradually gaining power over the borders. While its protection system was developing on the western border, regular military operations continued in the east. This task was not facilitated by the incompletely resolved border conflicts and the ethnically patchy population living in the border areas. One of the most serious problems was the lack of experience in protecting the state borders caused by the loss of independence. For the above reasons, the process of developing the border protection system of the Second Polish Republic lasted several years. How difficult that task was is shown by the number of border formations that were brought into existence at that time, subjecting them to various modifications. As a consequence, due to difficult relations between the Republic and neighboring states, the developed system of border protection was not uniform. It also had to face still not fully stabilised situation in Europe. DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0012.8402 http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.8402 Keywords: Second Republic of Poland, border development, border protection system, border agencies Introduction In today’s globalised and increasingly universalised world, the concept of a nation acquires particular value. In the simplest of words, one can say that a nation is the culmination of culture and beliefs of a certain number of people. Groups of people with similar characteristics perceive themselves as social unity. It should be noted, however, that cultural identity is as changeable as the culture that defines it. There is no nation that has always been or is defined exclusively in biological terms. The evolving national identity forms communities — nations. The source of the nation’s origin is broadly understood culture, such as a common language, ethnic origin or religion. The aforementioned common identity is the basis for the formation of a national identity, i.e. of a pillar which unites the nation. Since a nation as a community inhabits specified territories, those are also a part of its identity — the homeland. It seems that it is only when one refers to the con- cept of homeland that national identity begins to acquire a more distinct character. What is an inherent feature of most nations is the awareness of the homeland and the relevant spatial reference (geographical location), which determines the sources of the nation’s identity historically. Emerging nations strive to create structures which they can be managed by, and which are the foundations on which the state is based. On the other hand, the state, as a political community, strives to delineate its borders to be separated from others and to consolidate power in the designated territory. Therefore, it is the national iden- tity which is the primary factor creating the prerequisites for the development of the Internal Security, Special Issue 53 Paweł Lubiewski structure of national borders. Homelands and the borders which they are defined by are not real entities, but they are perceived in the same way as national identity. The above values are not of a permanent nature. Political geography is sub- ject to alteration, first of all, as a result of conflicts, which often lead to changes in national borders. Borders can be a cause of a conflict or a location where conflicts take place. This is due to the fact that countries which share borders and co-exist in the immediate vicinity are exposed to conflicts, although this is not the only reason, of course. Conflicts, on the other hand, frequently result in border changes. This leads to the assumption that borders are not permanent, but are processes that cannot be finalised. There is no doubt that borders are inextricably linked to social relations, which are political in nature and are constantly changing. Hence, as a socio-spatial creation, the border plays an important role in the formation of human territoriality, and therefore the political maps of the world. Main Part Many a time, history has shown how changeable state borders are, how unstable the existence of the states themselves can be. The state, which is defined, among other things, by borders, is an essential element of international politics, which is very variable and often unpredictable in itself. As Grzegorz Balawajder points out, ‘the historical development of the state border proves that it is not a category constant in time and linear in form (....) Along with the development of countries as well as transformations underway within state structures, the border evolves.’1 The history of the Republic of Poland is an excellent example of how unstable the borders of the state and its independence are and how much careful attention must be given to those values. In this context, it is worth returning to the eighteenth century, so tragic in its course for the history of the Polish statehood. In the second half of this century, a series of historical events, which to a large extent had been brought about by the negligence of the Polish politics of that time, led to the devel- opments whose consequences were so dramatic for Poland. Not long before, still strong the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth2, established by virtue of the Lublin Union, signed in 1569, which the then existing great powers had had to reckon with, was erased from the map of the world for a long time. Within a short time ‘three consecutive partitions (1772, 1793, 1795) divided the Polish territories between Prus- sia, Austria and Russia. The then Duchy of Warsaw (1806–1815) was formed from the Polish lands of the Second and Third Prussian Partition and annexed by an agree- ment signed in Vienna, ending the war between France and Austria. The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) divided the Polish lands between Prussia, Austria and Russia. The fall of the January Uprising (1864) resulted in the fall of a certain distinctiveness of the (Congress) Kingdom of Poland, annexed by Russia and proclaimed in 1815’.3 1 Balawajder G, Granica państwa jako kategoria wielowymiarowa. Pogranicze. Polish borderlands studies, 2013, Vol. 1, p. 47. 2 Agreement concluded on July 1, 1569 at the General Assembly in Lublin between the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 3 Szreniawski J, Wybrane zagadnienia tworzenia i roli granic państwowych, Administracja. Teoria — Dydaktyka — Praktyka, Vol. 3 (32), p. 8. 54 Internal Security, Special Issue The Evolving Protection of Borders of the Reborn Second Republic of Poland Such a state lasted continuously for more than a century. One hundred and twenty-three years of non-existence of the Polish state affected several generations of Polish people, but did not extinguish the aspirations for national liberation. It was known that in order for the state to reappear on the maps of Europe, a considerable reconfiguration of pro-Polish forces, on the international, and in particular on the European political scene, would have to take place. As pointed out by Jerzy Topolski, ‘the awareness that Poland’s independence can only be brought about by changes in the international balance of power, above all by the political disintegration of the Holy Alliance (i.e. the camp of the partitioning states), had already been very clear even before the January Uprising’.4 Such a chance appeared with the outbreak of the First World War, when ‘finally the camp of the invaders was broken up, as expected. And although it was a positive fact for the Polish question, the idea that the victorious side in the future war (and thus also one or two invaders) would not want to resign from the Polish lands (at least in part), and this contradicted the obvious idea of rebuilding the state within the former borders.’5 Undoubtedly, the efforts of the Poles to rebuild the state that had been lost, the source of which, despite the efforts of the invaders, was the sense of national identity, had a significant influence on the decisions made during the design of the new map of Europe. The power of this will is described by Jerzy Topolski: ‘the twentieth century fulfilled the hopes of many generations of Poles, providing them with a rebuilt state. However, it did not result from any logic of history or historical justice in which these generations believed, but from a happy coincidence of circumstances, i.e. events in the international arena favourable for Polish plans. Had it not been for them, all the already known actions, as well as will and struggle would be to no avail. But when this coincidence of events became a fact, the will to have a rebuilt state and to prepare for such a possibil- ity turned out to be necessary. Without these preparations and without this state of mind, even these happy series of events for the Polish matter would not have been enough for Polish political freedom to really burst out during the First World War.’6 In 1918 Poland was restored after a long period of captivity. Many countries recognised this fact quite quickly by diplomatic means, but ‘the recognition of the Polish state by the former occupying states was of particular importance. Diplomatic relations with Austria were already established on the 11th of November 1918 and with Germany on the 21st of November 1918. Soviet Russia proposed an exchange of diplomatic representatives on the 27th of November 1918. The allied and associated States participating in the Versailles Peace Conference have impliedly recognised on 15th January 1919, allowing its representatives to participate in the deliberations.