“Culture” represents the view that good neighbourly relations with Russia should be the first-planned goal of each Polish government. Zoological hatred of Russia is as humiliating as anti-Semitism. From a political point of view, anti-Russianism is more dangerous than anti-Semitism – due to the fact that Jews can leave Poland, while Russians will never cease to be our most powerful neighbours.” – Juliusz Mieroszewski, (“Culture”, 1957 No. 7-8”)
"What was called the doctrine of Giedroycie – Mieroszewski was not a doctrine, but a polemic position towards emigration, especially its London centre, and it came down to the message that it was not right to dream about regaining Vilnius and Lviv, but to want for independency of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. What is interesting is her peculiar renaissance in the country after the collapse of real socialism. It was adopted as something new, revealing, along with another emigrant views, rather alien to Giedroyci and Mieroszewski" – Bronisław Łagowski (To the students of Giedroycia)
"With Russia we have no disputed cases, but we can artificially make conflict situations if we interfere in disputes outside our east border" – Stanisław Stomma (New Neighborhood. Our east Policy.)
Previous article ("Ukrainian infatuation and order of Jerzy Giedroycia" in: Think Poland 8 – 15 June 2025) I devoted my discussion of Jerzy Giedroycie's treatments for improving Polish-Ukrainian relations and showed how unilateral and yet how unappreciated or even mocked by the Ukrainian side. In this article, we will look at what entered the Polish political discourse under the name of the doctrine of Giedroycia – Mieroszewski (D G-M). Juliusz Mieroszewski He formulated her thesis primarily in 2 articles written already at the end of a 4th century of public activity in the pages of Culture. They were: published in June 1973 “Poland Ostpolitik” and in September 1974 “Russian Polish complex and the ULB area”. (This stands for 3 countries – Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus.) From the point of view of current MP readers, it is surely interesting that a large part of the Polish Ostpolitik is simply a polemic with views Roman Dmowski and representatives of the National organization on emigration, which appeared in print in the emigrating London in the pages of Polish thought and the Polish Journal.
The reflections on D G-M should begin with the fact that Mieroszewski bases his imagination on assumptions – predictions that have mostly failed and are completely out of date today, and thus lacks logical and material basis to apply to another reality the remainder not so much of the doctrine as a certain political postulate formulated in a colourful and full polemic feud of the public. In his introduction to “Polish Ostpolitik” Mieroszewski wrote: “At a time of crisis and boiling, the russian government can disengage from Stalinism and nullify the business carried out by Stalin and Hitler. Restoring Poland's 1939 borders – Russia would number on a quarrel between Poles, Ukrainians and Lithuanians – which would not only prevent the creation of a common front but, on the contrary, would make a "community of interests" between Moscow and Warsaw, a community based on the 1939 border restaurant. ... The east programme must answer the question of how we should behave in the situation described above that can happen."
Supporters of the alleged D G-M seem not to announcement the simple historical fact that the restoration of the 1939 borders was not taken seriously in 1989, and if so, no of this happened. In fact, it would be possible to end reflections on 1 of the many political ideas that Mieroszewski profusely threw and with emphase depending on the current situation. Stefan Kisielewski pointed out that "Mieroszewski is simply a large publicist, due to the fact that he can highly suggestively contradict himself". In turn, Giedroć defended this attitude by claiming that "politics is not a sacrament" and "the problem of faithfulness is simply a very beautiful trait, but not in politics" and "very cold reasoning" which according to Giedroyć was guided by Mieroszewski "translators of his frequently changing views". He himself warned against mummification of old doctrines and beliefs.
And yet we gotta deal with it, due to the fact that current authors of Polish east policy frequently usage the slogan D G-M, and above all the authority and surname of Jerzy Giedroyć as a justification for the policy that first; it takes place in completely different realities, second; it does not take into account the mistakes of DG – M, third; it takes it out of context and separates it from another views of both intellectuals, so that it frequently does not have much in common with them, and in the most crucial points is their denial. In short, Lviv and Vilnius did not gotta give it to anyone due to the fact that no 1 gave it to us after 1989, nor did anyone seriously consider specified plans in Poland. On the another hand, from Mieroszewski's articles, we took over only what was evident in them: claims about the demonic imperialism of Russia, hopes of its disintegration, and, above all, prometeism, whose reflection is the tragical words of the Polish minister about being servants of the Ukrainian people and a saying in the Ministry of Finance about the request to keep another nation. As a result, we do not have Lvov, but we do have: the monuments of Bandera and Polish bones that run around Ukrainian dumpsters, we have a public finance disaster and a possibly hostile Ukrainian number in the largest Polish cities.
The arguments that Mieroszewski utilized in the polemic towards Dmowski part of his article were besides wrong. On the 1 hand, he rightly noted that: “Fortunately, the vast majority of Poles realise that Russia is in our own interest – we gotta communicate 1 day.” To add: “Roman Dmowski besides understood, but he did not anticipate the problems of nationality or social changes in Russia. He only thought of making arrangements with the Tsaric Establishment (original spelling – O.S.)’ First, Roman Dmowski predicted specified problems. Secondly, that is why he preferred to deal with the “Caritime Establishment” due to the fact that he saw a completely irresponsible, destructive past for Russia, but as confirmed in the long word besides tragic for Poland, the hatred of the contemporary counterpart of the “democratic opposition” to his own state, resulting from spiritual and political alienation from his own nation.
Moreover, he besides noticed the achievements of the Bolsheviks erstwhile he wrote with appreciation about the achievements of the USSR in the field of industrialization in the article "Komiwojazer in trouble" published in the 1930 Warsaw Gazette. Dmowski besides understood the national character, knew the past and culture of Russia, recognized its specificity. He knew the language, spoke to Russian Duma, talked to the most crucial Russian politicians of the time. It is Dmowski's thoughts about Russia and the West written over 100 years ago that proceed to strike with their depth and actuality.
In 1917, examining the character of the Russian state and the attitude toward the West, he wrote: “The modern political thought in Europe is somewhat sectarian. It has certain dogmas, which it clings to with almost spiritual faith. 1 of these dogmas is that the only salvation of all country is the introduction of democratic institutions in Western Europe... fewer realize that Western institutions are a product of Western past and that they have their roots in distant Western history. (...) The Russian state in the past was based on east principles.” Above all, however, it was Dmowski, alternatively of the insane policy of prometeism at the expense of the wallets of the average Poles, and this towards the nation putting monuments to our genocidal killers, who set an example of the best knowing of what the ministers of the 3rd Republic call "transaction policy" – his actions in the Russian Duma, where in the parliamentary game he had only "blocks", should be an example and a lesson of the classics of the genre.
Believing in democracy and the "democratic opposition" as a universal cure for all pains is another fundamental mistake of Mieroszewski and Giedroycia itself. It is hard to give a better example than the 1 in “Polish Ostpolitik” over 60 years after Dmowski’s quoted statement, Mieroszewski, who claimed Dmowski’s mistake from his position as he believed Giedroć “very cold reasoning” characterized as follows: “This mistake is due to 2 false premises. First of all, that 1 should search an agreement not with the nation and the Russian society, but with the Establishment and, secondly, from the belief – how humiliating for the Russians – that totalizm and imperialism are a perpetual phenomenon in Russia, so he must talk to the Tsars or the Khrushchevs, due to the fact that the democratic government in Moscow will never be.” USSR as Dmowski wrote passed away, but sectarian, and in fact imperial and implemented by Western propaganda reasoning inherited from Mieroszewski continues. As a consequence of the promotion of democracy ? la Mieroszewski Poland supported the coup in Ukraine with the participation of neo-banderists and creates grotesque governments for refugees for Belarus, and who knows (all before us) may besides Russia.
One more aspect must be mentioned erstwhile considering DG-M. Mieroszewski East and Russia did not realize due to the fact that he did not know him at all. This was stated by individual another than Jerzy Giedroć, who said in an interview available in Polish Radio: “He simply did not know Russian issues. He knew neither language nor literature.” In comparison with the allegations that Mieroszewski put to Dmowski in his article, and whose Polish content displeased God's gedroytists consider it a revealed truth, it sounds rather comical. It turns out that the superb publicist on the issue which was taken as banners in modern east politics fell into classical besservisserve. This feature is traditionally attributed in Poland to residents of the erstwhile Galicia and it besides fits well with the silhouette of Mieroszewski, a impoverished Galician intelligent noble-born, raised by a German nanny. The cognition of the West was besides rather schematic, superficial, and the ratio devoid of criticism and making it seem that in this area he was trying to go with fashionable currents. any ex-cathedra evaluations even embarrass and surprise that their author is an authority for many in the field of geopolitics.
Juliusz Mieroszewski
For example, in 1951 he wrote: “We are at war with Russia... Everyone is an ally regardless of the designation of the borders on Oder and Nysa.” At the same time he proclaimed the inevitability of planet War III and called for the formation of an global legion composed of migrants from our part of Europe. His assessment of the Anglo-Saxons is astonishing in his naivety, of which he wrote: “The chief criterion of the Anglo-Saxon nations is peace.” “We will be 1 of the national or cantonese republics of united Europe or we will not be at all.” “The answer to the technological view in applicable life is liberalism.” “By nature, democracy is simply a pacifist form of the system.” “The freedom of the planet is the real and real national interest of the United States.” “Americans are most – not – imperial.” “Those who preach today, relatively, make it clear that global and political cooperation is possible with the Soviets, that a compromise is possible, are not empiric.”
However, not only the ignorance and misjudgement of the author consist of the creativity and the idolatrous reception of Mieroszewski's publicist. The second reason is its selective treatment, and possibly the fact that Polish politicians and publicists who were "bred in Culture" have never truly looked at another Mieroszewski articles. And it is worth it, due to the fact that in the stream of decisive and omnipotent assessments which he wrote on the pages of Culture there were highly accurate ones, specified as the 1 that is the motto of this article, but they just flew away, and possibly never in the selective memory of his followers: e.g. on Polish politics during planet War II: “From the beginning we played only 1 piano. We played on it persistently even erstwhile it was absolutely certain that we were playing only ourselves and heaven. “Fortepian Russian” did not interest us.” O PRL: ‘There is no ‘state on emigration’. On the another hand, there is simply a Polish state forced into the russian bloc. Despite the occupation, it is the only Polish country in the world.”
About Polish-Russian relations and even russian relations: “As Russia withdraws completely from Poland there will be no obstacles to establishing average and correct relations between us and the russian Union. We should always stress that the aim of our policy is only to regain independence, not to destruct the russian Union and to destruct communism on all the lands of the earth. On the contrary, we want a average relation with the russian Union between the countries that are neighbouring.” "Any democratically elected Polish government would no uncertainty search the best possible relation with Moscow. This is in our apparent and undisputed interest. I besides do not think that the anti-Russian organization could be created in Poland. hatred is neither a program nor a policy. hatred is simply a possible resistance. Our hatred of Russia is not “zoological” and there is inactive a readiness on the part of Poles to arrange Polish-Russian relations on average conditions. No 1 chooses their neighbors. The Irish might besides like a nation another than English for their neighbours.” About Gomułka: “It would be voted Gomułka believing that he gives guarantees to keep this nIeperfect sovereignty for which 10 dreary years were awaited.” About planet War: “The war-Polish-Russian is not in our interest even if it is to origin a planet war ended with a full triumph for America. planet War is not in anyone’s interest regardless of its final outcome.” However, this set of sober thoughts and realistic assessments was carefully deleted from the memory of Mieroszewski.
Even in “Polish Ostpolitik” there were statements as correct as such: "It is not the work of Poland to liberate Ukraine as it is not the work of Ukraine to liberate Poland.’ This thought was placed by Mieroszewski in the context of the emigration of plans of the Polish federation with Hungary and Czechoslovakia. According to Mieroszewski, "the liberation of Ukraine" is necessary, however, due to the fact that "Russia will not let national plans to be implemented due to the fact that it is imperialistic." Today, erstwhile all 4 countries are part of NATO and the EU, this prophecy of Mieroszewski seems peculiarly unfortunate. The thought of the federation of our countries, to which the Visegrad group seems to be the most valuable and real inheritance of geopolitical immigration thought.
W Culture in December 1952 published an interesting article by Czech politician Huberta Ripka talking about the Polish-Czech federation. The thought of the federations of European states, which besides revolved throughout Mieroszewski's work, was not meaningless, although sometimes in its position it reminded the concept of Mitteleuropa besides much. This was one more time a reflection of mediocre cognition and knowing of history. Mieroszewski, for example, considered the failure of the Polish east politics and imperialism to be the main origin of Polish misfortunes, in rule ignoring not only the function of Prussia, but besides the Prussian actions through Austria for the creation of the "Ukrainian nation", in which he again showed mediocre cognition and misjudged compared to Dmowski. On the another hand, Jerzy Giedroć returned to the most common-minded thought of the Central European federation, but of course without Ukraine he returned after the turn of 1989. In his 1991 message to Wprost, he said: “We are a country of Central Europe and we should build our future in this part of the world, based on the relation between Czechoslovakia and Hungary. It is actual that these countries are not looking forward to specified cooperation, but this does not mean that we should halt trying to establish it."
When discussing the DG – M it is besides essential to emphasise that, apart from a fundamentally correct Polish point of view, idée fixed the creation of independent states between Poland and Russia, he was never the Anti-Russian Giedroć. On the contrary, almost all of Culture was focused on building an agreement between Poland and Russia. And although the illusion of an agreement with the Russian “democratic opposition” was on the table, as was the case with Mieroszewski, the full of the actions and statements went beyond that framework. Giedroć published in Paris the largest Russian works created after 1945. Polish translations of Boris Pasternak's fresh and Aleksandra Solzenicin This is the most famous, but not the only one, there were peculiar Russian and Russian-language cultural numbers. Russian literature Giedroic read in the first and valued no little than Polish.
J. Giedroycia's statements are peculiarly crucial for Polish-Russian relations after the turn of 1989. In an interview with Natalia Gorbanevska in 1991 he said: "I fear that the fight against Sovietism, against Sovietism, against communism will not turn into an anti-Russian fightIt’s okay. ” He added: “For me personally, the issue of normalization of Polish-Russian relations, and not only in the political aspect, can always stay these or another differences, but in the aspect of cultural cooperation.” He repeatedly regretted stopping teaching Russian in the 3rd Polish Republic. He saw economical benefits in relations with Russia saying: "Relations with Russia are very important: it is simply a immense country, it has the natural resources we need, that is, we should care about good relations with Russia." He noted the danger of subjecting Polish politics to Americans. He kept saying that independent Ukraine was beneficial to Poland, but in 1991 he warned that: “We must take care of the best relations with this neighbour, who can become a military power. And there are dangerous things, though marginal. chauvinist and anti-Polish groups appear in western Ukraine.”
There is besides another message by Jerzy Giedroyć, who, if published in the present climate of intellectual blindness and barbaric amok under another name, would make the leaders of the Polish opinion respect the author as a "Russian onuca" and the "brother nation" would bring Giedroycie into the approved list of proscriptions by the authorities of the 3rd Republic. In 1991, Jerzy Giedroic wrote: “As far as Ukraine is concerned, it is besides crucial to note that the large condition of Ukraine, especially the left-coaster, is mostly affected. That is why we insisted – and our statements on this substance were printed in the “Continent” – to organise a plebiscite in these matters. It should not be demanded that the borders of Ukraine run as they imagine them – it is simply a substance of the people's will. There are a full array of circuits that want to belong to Russia, they feel related to Russia and this must be regulated.” This was written erstwhile inactive the monuments of Bandera were not common and it did not come to anyone's head that it could be prohibited in Ukraine to usage Russian language, that souvenirs of Pushkin or Bulhakov would be torn down.
What George Giedroci would say, we can guess and it is worth doing. We besides have specified a work to prevent the name of the large Pole being utilized for evil purposes, so that his awesome and respectable heritage so accurately read by Stanisław Stomma is not falsified and misappropriated by a group of political madmen and media outcasts, who frequently work for abroad money and in abroad interests.
Olaf Swolkień
Think Poland, No. 25-26 (22-29.06.2025)
