Flood and fire. Prof. Andrzej Nowak on the past of betrayal and Polish-Polish war

pch24.pl 1 year ago

The fall of hope, the fall of belief that Poland would survive, caused a very large part of the nobility to go under the banners of Karol Gustav at the end of 1655. I will give the most unfortunate example: Jan Sobieski, the later hero, not only joined the Swedish banners, but he endured the longest under these banners, due to the fact that inactive in the celebrated conflict of the Dove, in which Czarniecki put effective opposition to Swedes in February 1656 Sobieski fought on the side of Swedes. So not only did he join the betrayal, but he continued in it longer than the others. – says prof. Andrzej Nowak, the author of the series “The Acts of Poland” (White Raven Publishing).

Dear Professor, the sixth volume of your best-selling series “The Acts of Poland” bears the subtitle “The Flood and Fire 1632-1673” and is mostly devoted to the Swedish Flood. In simple school I was taught that the Swedish attack on Poland was truly a spiritual war. Was the issue of religion and dispute between Catholics and Protestants truly crucial in terms of the war between 1655 and 1660?

Indeed, in the explanation that is born in the 18th century, that is, in the age of enlightenment, everything that was before, especially the 16th and 17th centuries, is attempted to present as chaos and a series of disasters caused by spiritual conflict. According to the “enlightened” departure from religion was to be presented as a hope of order, of stability, of avoiding bloody conflicts.

The spiritual motive has undoubtedly been a very crucial origin of conflict since the Protestant revolution, or since 1517. Protestantism raised the banner of the “holy war” against the Papacy called “the beast”, on the forehead of which the most dangerous corner was the Republic of Poland. “To wipe out this corner of the beast, to destruct it just due to the fact that it serves the Papals, that it serves the Latins”, that was the slogan that Charles Gustav first referred to in the 18th century during the 30 Years' War, and then Olivier Cromwell – a fanatical despot who headed the revolution in England. This slogan was besides referred to by the leader of the Czech Brethren, who was adopted in the Republic, in which the basic principles of tolerance continued, namely Jan Ámos Komenský, who from Leszno spent his correspondence throughout Europe to Protestant leaders, among others, to Cromwell's earlier call, or to Gustav II Adolf, king of Sweden. He called for an attack on the Republic of Poland to destruct the Republic of Poland.

This spiritual motive cannot be completely disregarded. This motive was peculiarly strong on the part of Protestant states, and doubtless it was besides at the time erstwhile Swedes, whose army consisted in a very large part of German mercenaries, plundered Polish churches, insulted the Blessed woman during the Flood and made up the Polish "defensive reflex" not only part of the Polish nobility, but besides Catholic bourgeoisie and almost all Polish peasantry, due to the fact that the spiritual origin was then the strongest. “How is that?” was asked, “If they destruct churches, destruct what is sacred to us, we must strike specified an invader, specified a mirror”, they were answered.

This is undoubtedly an crucial origin of a kind of national uprising, which broke out against the Swedes in December 1655, especially after the information that began to circulate around the country, that the Swedish invaders carried out an assassination on the top holiness for Polish Catholics at the time, that is, the Jasna Góra monastery.

In this sense, the spiritual component is indeed important. It was besides important, but instrumentally only utilized by Cossacks (it is evidently about Orthodoxy).

The Cossacks themselves, speaking most delicately, were not peculiarly religious. They just lived out of fighting and killing. Even in their interior rites associated with the choice of the hetman, there was no trace of attachment to Orthodox religion with the choice of the colonels. On the another hand, at the time erstwhile the wolves were raised by the revolt under the leadership of Chmielnicki against the Republic, it was the appeal to the slogan of alleged oppression, the persecution of Orthodoxy in the Republic (which had no connection with the reality in 1648) in 1596 and 1620 – erstwhile the Orthodox hierarchy ceased to be legally, due to the fact that King Sigismund III Vasa hoped to introduce the Union and only the Unica hierarchy was accepted – it was an crucial origin that was to mobilize, merge, unite the Ukrainian peasantry utilized as cannonal meat by Cossacks, by Chmielnicki.

The anti-Catholic motif in the fight against Rzeczpospolita, Poles and Poland will return for the following centuries. It reminds me of 1 of the conversations I had with Mr. prof. a fewer years ago on the Incorrect PL Radio. It afraid Fyodor Dostoevsky and his phenomenal fresh “Biesy”, in which the Russian author wrote explicitly that the threat to the world, the threat to the empire is not Catholicism. This threat is the Polish Catholicism – folk, somewhat naive, where religion is passed on by grandmothers and grandparents. How is it that centuries pass by, and all enemies of Poland and Poles attack on us and our homeland always take anti-Catholic action first, and yet the religion in the nation continues?

On the 1 hand, as the editor recalled, in the tradition of Russian imperialism it is crucial to emphasize Catholicism in Poland as a basis of hostility, which if destroyed, Poland will cease to be any obstacle to further expansion of Russian imperialism in Europe.

I will give 2 examples but the 1 you quoted. I would just add that Dostoevsky spoke on this subject much more comprehensively in his "Diary of a Writer" published in the most popular paper in St. Petersburg in the 1970s, where he repeated the thesis cited by your editor much more strongly.

It so happens that on December 12 I was at a large conference in Warsaw devoted to the past of various forms of Russian imperialism. During this event a very interesting lecture was given by Prof. Stanisław Wiech from the Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, who carefully analysed plans prepared by the Russian government in May 1914, which was shortly before the outbreak of the large War. The Russian government, who wanted to someway overcome the consequences of concessions against Catholicism, which occurred as a consequence of the revolution in 1905, erstwhile the proof of tolerance was introduced; erstwhile Catholic churches were allowed to be built to a limited degree in the territory of the Russian Empire, especially on the alleged lands taken, or erstwhile lands of the Republic (formerly it was completely prohibited). To this day, our discourse suggests: “Well, this imperial Russia, especially after 1905, erstwhile it was already Duma or Parliament; erstwhile institutions were installed there normal, western, civilized state was a large country where Poles could live well.” This is the thesis that always offends me among the devotees of Józef Mackiewicz – a superb author who completely did not understand, did not remember, had no awareness of how terribly destructive towards Poland, towards Polishness, towards all nations another than chauvinist, nationalist, based on the strategy of demolition of another Russian empires, supposedly the "liberal" Russian empire.

These detailed plans made by governors and Russian ministers in 1914 are grotesque in this hatred, inferno to take distant any rights from Catholics again. And the goal is the same: weaken and then destruct the basis of Polishness.

And the second example: in a very interesting interview given inactive in the 1990s by Alexander Dugin, the spokesperson for the most violent Russian imperialism in the last 30 years, he said straight what changes in Poland should be introduced to make it beneficial for Russia. First, he mentioned “the demolition of Catholicism.” In his opinion, Catholicism must be destroyed, and effort to find and exposure neo-Paganism in Polish tradition; show that if there was any Poland that Russia could communicate with, it was Poland before the Latin baptism, pagan Poland. It can be seen that this is besides increasingly referred to in mass culture in Poland. Alternatively, Dugin continued, there may be any sects, any centres of alternate religions or supported religions to weaken Catholicism. Then Poland will cease to be a threat to the large Russian empire. Alexander Dugin presented this prescription openly.

Thank you very much. Let us return to the sixth volume of “Todays of Poland”. Is it a coincidence that the biggest storm on Jasna Góra Swedes took place on the eve of Christmas?

It's most likely a Provident coincidence. This was surely not specifically planned by the Swedes, as they would have preferred to have won at least 2 weeks earlier this “curtant” as he had despised the walls of the Jasna Góra monastery commanding the siege of General Burchard Müller. However, the Swedes failed and so continued their efforts until Christmas.

In simple school, that I would mention to that time again, I was taught that the Swedes attacked Jasna Góra due to the fact that they wanted to bargain everything that could be stolen from there...

The historical reasons for the attack on Jasna Góra were much more complex. Of course, the component of plunder, the component of theft was crucial in all decision of Swedish troops, which – I emphasize with full work – ravaged Polish lands as no another army before them, and no army after them. Of course, another kind of demolition involving the export of hundreds of thousands of people into Russia caused the Moscow business in the east parts of the Republic at the same time, but returning to the Swedes and their destructive business I emphasize: yes, the targets of looting were for the Swedes a precedence erstwhile it came to attacking Jasna Góra but in addition, the Swedes had a strategical or operational goal.

Jasna Góra was the only impenetrable fortress, the only impenetrable opposition point on the border between almost entirely occupied by Swedish troops with the Crown and Silesia, where the last base of King Jan Kazimierz was located, which was the refuge of Opole Silesia. That is why the Swedes wanted to cut this communication, which could go through Czestochowa, through Jasna Góra between King John Kazimierz and guerrillas of Polish independence, who would rise the rebellion against the Swedish occupation. Obtaining Jasna Góra was, I repeat, a very crucial operational goal – to cut off the anticipation of returning the king to Poland by the shortest way. The King, as we know, returned in a circular way from the south through the Carpathians, but what undoubtedly helped him was this mobilization, a immense social mobilization, or even a national 1 caused by the echoes of Swedish aggression on Jasna Góra, due to the fact that then the effort to make a bottom-up aid by peasants from Żywiec, by guerrilla troops besides mostly peasant from Wielkopolska, to defend the brightest Queen of Heaven and Earth, or parent of Divine Czestochowa. These thousands of people are starting to pull to Jasna Góra. Among Poles, there is simply a feeling that they must fight! To fight for the expulsion of the enemy who was previously admitted to the Republic of Poland, due to the fact that if he is not expelled, it will be the end of Poland, the end of our faith.

The peasants did the right thing. Why have many magnates and aristocracy not acted in the same way? Why so many of them shouted “Vivat Carolus Gustavus rex”?

Again in the details, the causes are complex and very different. any deserve nothing but condemnation and contempt. I am referring to the behaviour of Wielkopolska leaders, led by the author of satyr, the Poznan Voivodeship Krzysztof Opaliński, who chose to surrender before the weaker Swedish forces entering Wielkopolska than the common move, which he commanded together with the Kaliwa Voivodeship Andrzej Grudziński. This was only due to the fact that Opaliński felt it would be good for King Jan Kazimierz, whom Opaliński did not like to remove and eliminate. We better be ruled by Swedes, and if not Swedes, then anyone else, just to get free of the hated king, elected just a fewer years earlier completely legal and correct.

This part of the magnate pride, which did not admit its own king and felt that it had the right to decide erstwhile to knock the king down and ally with all external enemy of Poland, to defeat him who was considered an interior enemy, or king, is simply a very crucial part of the betrayal which took place in 1655 and here, indeed, the surrender at the estuary in July 1655 is the top disgrace experienced by the Republic.

An even more gross example is Jerome Radziejowski. This traitor, solely due to individual strife with the king, allied himself with all enemy of the Republic to destruct the hated king. It was Radajowski who led to the merger, to establish contacts for the demolition of Poland between Chmielnicki and Karol Gustav. In fact, he tried to cooperate, erstwhile again, with all enemy of Poland, to destruct Jan Kazimierz, to become a kind of politician from the grace of the Polish occupiers. It's a truly scary example of betrayal, and it's an undefiled betrayal.

These are simple things erstwhile it comes to moral evaluation – here there is no uncertainty that it was a sleazy, worst possible behaviour of trampling simple loyalty to the Republic.

In the case of the Radziwills, the substance is more complicated. erstwhile Janusz Radziwiłłł capitulated in front of the Swedes, Lithuania, which he considered to be his primary homeland and had the right to do so, was almost entirely occupied by Moscow, which ravaged her mercilessly. The demolition of Vilnius by Moscow troops was unprecedented.

In this situation, it can be said that the choice of Swedes by then powerless hetman Janusz Radziwiłł – who had previously conspired with Protestant leaders or rulers in Europe, including Sweden, with Seven-garden, where the Duke was a Calvinist religion to weaken the influence of Catholicism in Poland – was someway rational. However, this limit of betrayal was exceeded in the end of 1655, erstwhile Janusz Radziwiłłł surrenders Lithuania without any authority to regulation the Swedish king. There is, however, 1 thing softening the accusation against Janusz Radziwił and his uncle, Bogusław, in this act, was a kind of choice of lesser evil. Moscow has already occupied Lithuania and in this situation seeking care in the Swedish King, since Poland is temporarily incapable to supply any care to the Lithuanians could be considered a kind of desperate act of hope in hopelessness or hopelessness. I'm not justifying Radziwiłl, I'm just showing the circumstances.

I besides remind you that this fall of hope, the fall of belief that Poland will survive, caused that a very large part of the nobility went under the banners of Karol Gustav at the end of 1655. I will give the most unfortunate example: Jan Sobieski, the later hero, not only joined the Swedish banners, but he endured the longest under these banners, due to the fact that inactive in the celebrated conflict of the Dove, in which Czarniecki put effective opposition to Swedes in February 1656 Sobieski fought on the side of Swedes. So not only did he join the betrayal, but he continued in it longer than others. Others had previously decided to declare their service to the Swedes and start a large Polish-Lithuanian uprising in defence of independence. First the Confederacy of Wierzbołowska in Lithuania and then the Confederation of Tyszowiecka in the Crown.

Is this all, the full heroic conflict with the Swedes had to end with a fratricidal, bloodthirsty conflict under Mątwa, erstwhile the most glorious, just victorious armies of the Republic murdered each another in any inconceivable rage of chaotic hatred?

I don't know if it had to end, but I'm certain it's worth considering the sources of this swamp, in which the chance to rebuild everything that the Republic lost during the Flood. Let us remind that in 1660 the biggest military victories of the Republic came. Not only peace with Sweden in Ołowa without any territorial losses, but besides an incredibly superb triumph over Moscow and Cossack troops in the north under Polaka and Basia, and the most superb triumph most likely in the full past of the Polish weaponry, that is, forcing the surrender of the full Moscow army under Cudnow by Hetman Jerzy Stanisław Lubomirski.

Hetman Lubomirski, the most well-deserved of all magnates during the Swedish Flood for the defence of Polish independence; the man without whom Jan Kazimierz would not return to Poland stands across the plans of this John Kazimierz and his wife Louisa Maria. Plans that had nothing to do with the improvement of the Republic, as any textbooks have said today. It was just a private task of the queen of the enthronment in Poland, her niece, due to the fact that she had no children, and then she married a candidate from France. No improvement task was involved, but only the desire to introduce in the life of Jan Kazimierz a French candidate married to the niece of Queen Louis Maria in Poland.

To impose on noble citizens the necessity of choosing a candidate dictated to them by the surviving king was radically contrary to the law, to the constitutions of the Republic and to the political customs in Poland, with the basis of freedom as the citizens of the Republic understood it, which was the freedom to elect a ruler. “We have the right to choose a ruler. We can choose wrong, we can choose right, but no 1 will dictate to us who is to be that ruler," they said.

This is what caused him that erstwhile Lubomirski stood on the side of the law and was undoubtedly right, then the king and queen decided to destruct him and so charged him with treason, which was a cry for vengeance to heaven with injustice, due to the fact that no of the traitors from the period of the Swedish Flood were judged and not convicted, and the man most deserved for the triumph of this large national uprising in the defence of the Republic – hetman Jerzy Stanisław Lubomirski, winner from Miracle, liberator of Krakow, Toruń, Bydgoszcz was sentenced as a consequence of the intrigue of the royal court for treason, deprived of all positions, all possessions and forced to emigrate. The Queen twice sent paid assassins on him...

This deplorable contagion of the royal court, the king and the queen, in turn caused a defensive reaction on the part of the Hetman Lubomirski. The instinct at which Lubomirski himself crossed the line of betrayal at any point. But he did it after he was hounded. I do not want to say forced, but surely provoked by the action of the royal court, erstwhile in order to save himself he sought aid in the imperial court, that is, Vienna; in the King's court, or the elector of Brandenburg and yet even in Moscow. This is the tragedy of the Republic, that in the civilian war resulting from this, the anticipation of completing the liberation war in the east, restoring the borders before the Flood and regaining Kiev was drowned, due to the fact that it was the most crucial failure which could not be recovered, due to the civilian war in Poland.

Henryk Sienkiewicz portrays King Jan Kazimierz in practically superlatives, as the 1 without which Poland would not be. Jacek Komuda – a fantastic author in love with the First Polish Republic – presents Jan Kazimierz as a origin of all evil, a conspirator and a man who would sign a pact with the devil himself for his sick ambition. Which of these 2 writers is closer to the truth?

Historiography is divided in the opinion of Jan Kazimierz as well as the literature of beauty. My answer on the basis of the simplest analysis of historiography and the sources I have learned is simple and at the same time encouraging more nuanced thinking.

Jan Kazimierz was a actual hero without whom Rzeczpospolita would not have survived in these hard times. He was specified a hero under Zborów erstwhile in a desperate effort he forced the remnants of the Crown Army to aid the besieged heroes of Jerem Wiśniowiecki at the head. He was besides a hero at Berestek – the largest conflict in the 17th century fought by the Polish and Lithuanian troops, in which individual command of Jan Kazimierz was conclusive. Then the boycott of the steep parts of the magnates, parts of the nobles who did not want to proceed this triumph made it not full used, but it was undoubtedly 1 of the most crucial and superb victories in the past of the Polish weapon that was credited by Jan Kazimierz as the chief commander and organizer of the fight plan.

Finally, the 3rd title to fame, which must not be forgotten, is that at the minute erstwhile everything collapsed, erstwhile Moscow and the Cossacks took 3 fifths of the Republic, or the full east area, and the Swedes occupied 2 Fridays, or the western part, that is, the full Republic of Poland but Jasna Góra, Lviv, Zamość and Gdańsk, was in the hands of abroad occupiers, but Jan Kazimierz, forced to emigrate in Opole, did not break down.

Undoubtedly, his wife, whom I had just criticized, Louis Maria, had a bearing on this. She and her husband played a large function in building each another up together so as not to capitulate. The Swedish king sent letters to Jan Kazimierz to capitulate him to give Poland to him, but Jan Kazimierz did not do what Stanisław August Poniatowski would do almost 150 years later, i.e. he did not sign any abdication, but took the lead in the fight for independence. If Jan Kazimierz had not led this fight, it would not have been the Republic. The Confederates themselves wouldn't be enough. The king was the basis of legal resistance, and indeed John Kazimierz played specified a function in the following years of the fight until 1660.

At the same time the same king was small, he was vile in many of his moves, he was blinded by individual hatred, fierce as in the case of the Hetman Lubomirski. We request to combine these different aspects of the operation of a peculiar king in 1 picture, as in the opinion of each man we request to find a place to show weakness, due to the fact that in each of us there are these elements and elements of greatness on a different scale. In Jana Kazimierz, these 2 conflicting themes are connected as in possibly no another ruler, and hence it stirs specified controversy, but the verdict of condemning or apologising is unhistoric. A author has the right, but not a historian. A historian should show reality in all its complexity, due to the fact that only specified a reality is interesting.

God bless the conversation.

Tomasz D. Kolanek