Understanding your neighbors

The Polish Cultural Center in Moscow hosted a presentation of the biography of Józef Pilsudski, published in the “ZhZL” series, famous since pre-Soviet times, and written by Russian historian, Moscow State University professor Gennady Matveev. This is not the first book in this series dedicated to a controversial personality perceived quite controversially in Russia.

Indeed, what are the “lives of remarkable people” - the lives of characters who can adorn a symbolic plaque of honor, or the fates of famous people who have contributed to world history, regardless of whether it is positive or negative? Moreover, the criteria for placement on the honor board change over time, and recent idols (for example, among the fiery revolutionaries, heroes of numerous books from the ZhZL series of the Soviet period - these works are now sold in used bookstores at a symbolic price) are overthrown from their pedestals. Therefore, “remarkability” can rather be interpreted as “remarkability”, as a characteristic of a person’s significance for history without school assessments such as “progressive” - “reactionary”, “good” - “bad”.

This approach allows us to publish in this series biographies of such historical figures as Pilsudski, Mazepa, Mannerheim. These books allow us to better understand our neighbors, whom we often treat with prejudice (just as they treat us). The book about Mazepa, for example, allows us to understand why all the Ukrainian hetmans after Bohdan Khmelnytsky and before Mazepa were considered traitors in Russia, what motives guided them when maneuvering between Moscow, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sweden and Crimea. And the almost “canonized” Bogdan himself, shortly before his death, negotiated with the Swedes, bypassing his Moscow overlord. Mazepa, on the other hand, sought to preserve an autonomous Ukraine, which was at odds with plans to create a “universal” empire that did not tolerate local independence. Peter had his own truth, his Ukrainian friend and then enemy had his own. In Russia, Peter is idealized; in Ukraine, there is an active campaign to “promote” the image of Mazepa as an impeccable patriot. As usual, the extremes have little in common with real historical events, and ideology leads to the profanation of history. And, as a result, to disappointment in the opportunity to engage in serious historical research, rather than momentary crafts. The book about Mazepa is an example of objective research, authored by Tatyana Tairova-Yakovleva, a specialist in Ukrainian history of the 17th century.

Let us return, however, to Pilsudski, a personality who still causes considerable controversy in Poland, despite the two monuments erected to him only in Warsaw (in other cities there are also many monuments to the marshal, who was a socialist in his youth). A postage stamp with his portrait, issued in a series dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the restoration of an independent Polish state, became a sign that the end of the communist regime was approaching - although the first parliamentary elections with the participation of Solidarity were still six months away. Gradually, this figure acquired mythologized features - as happens with other “founding fathers” of various countries.

Most Poles have a positive view of Pilsudski, although there are critics - both on the left (socialists who cannot forgive him for abandoning his original political views) and on the right (nationalists who consider him a bad Catholic and generally too left-wing). In particular, we are talking about the League of Polish Families, a right-wing radical party of Catholic nationalists that was part of the government of Jaroslaw Kaczynski and cannot stand the tradition associated with the name of the marshal. In Russia, Pilsudski - for those who have any idea about this large-scale figure - is a symbol of the Polish national idea, which in past centuries often collided with the Russian national idea. It is clear that in Soviet times any objective publications about him were impossible - except that already in Gorbachev’s time a biography of the marshal was published, written by historians from the Polish People’s Republic, from which, however, a lot of factual material could be gleaned.

And now - an extensive work, professional and de-ideologized. A work that paints a portrait of a complex man with a strong character, a good military leader (who, by the way, had neither a military nor a higher civil education), a talented politician, a patriot of Poland who wanted her well - and, at the same time, created a strictly authoritarian political regime , which suppressed the opposition and limited the civil rights of the population. Of course, he acted with the best intentions, wanting to restore order in a country prone to anarchy, where once every deputy of the Sejm from the small nobility could block the royal decision, ensure its stable development for the long term - but he alienated a significant part of thinking Poland, which did not want applaud every action of the country's leader. The protest even affected the army, in which Pilsudski was very popular - according to Gennady Matveev, during his reign, more than 3,500 young career officers left the armed forces. The inability to achieve civil consent seriously weakened the country on the eve of World War II, in which the state system created by Pilsudski showed its fatal vulnerability (though the marshal did not live to see this).

There is a strong belief that Piłsudski's dictatorship was inevitable as an alternative to weak parliamentary democracy - but remember that in Finland around the same years, Mannerheim refrained from carrying out the coup that some of his supporters were pushing him into. This means that there were alternative solutions after all - history in general is very rarely determined.

In any case, Pilsudski is a hero of Poland, who realized the dreams of many generations of Poles who wanted to live in an independent country. How should Russians treat him? How about a Russophobe who fought for ideological reasons against any Russia - be it Tsarist or Bolshevik? Or as a person whose pragmatic priorities - as in the case of Mazepa - objectively diverged from the geopolitical aspirations of St. Petersburg or Moscow? In the second case, there is an opportunity to avoid emotions and for a common sense understanding not only of the motives of a particular person’s actions, but also of the paths of development of entire countries. Without this understanding, relying only on historical stereotypes (of which, by the way, there are many in relation to Russia), it is very difficult to build normal partnerships with neighbors. The books in the “ZhZL” series contribute to such understanding, a calm analysis of facts, and invite discussion in connection with their interpretation - and this is their value not only for the scientific audience, but also for the general reader.

The author is vice-president of the Center for Political Technologies