Sąjūdis (Lithuanian independence movement) as an object of scholarly investigation has a certain history or maybe even a historiographic tradition. One of the first who started to investigate this problem was the representative of lithuanian diaspora in the US, professor of the University of Wisconsin Alfred Eric Senn. The changes of Lithuanian political life during the revival period were analyzed also by the Sąjūdis members themselves: Bronislavas Genzelis and Virgilijus Juozas Čepaitis. However, they often fail to avoid subjective views of certain personalities, their data is not always based on sources. Only at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries Sąjūdis received proper attention from historians. The society at large was presented with scholarly publications, collections of articles and sources on particular subjects. Among these publications one can distinguish the one written by Česlovas Laurinavičius and Vladas Sirutavičius which deals with the political history of Lithuania in 1988–1990. After the careful analysis of scholarly publications dealing with the topic of Sąjūdis, one may notice the tendency to restrict the investigations of the events only prior to the restoration of lithuanian independence in March 1990. However, the process of transformation of spontaneous social renewal movement into a public organization is still remaining a white spot in history. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is, to my mind, political. Historians are not willing to confuse their scientific investigations with their political preferences. In the Lithuanian historiography one might notice a tendency for historical investigations of Sąjūdis to intensify prior to the anniversaries of Lithuanian independence restoration. Historians usually restricted their works to the analysis of the national revival period events taking place in the country's capital. [.]
Sąjūdis (Lithuanian independence movement) as an object of scholarly investigation has a certain history or maybe even a historiographic tradition. One of the first who started to investigate this problem was the representative of lithuanian diaspora in the US, professor of the University of Wisconsin Alfred Eric Senn. The changes of Lithuanian political life during the revival period were analyzed also by the Sąjūdis members themselves: Bronislavas Genzelis and Virgilijus Juozas Čepaitis. However, they often fail to avoid subjective views of certain personalities, their data is not always based on sources. Only at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries Sąjūdis received proper attention from historians. The society at large was presented with scholarly publications, collections of articles and sources on particular subjects. Among these publications one can distinguish the one written by Česlovas Laurinavičius and Vladas Sirutavičius which deals with the political history of Lithuania in 1988–1990. After the careful analysis of scholarly publications dealing with the topic of Sąjūdis, one may notice the tendency to restrict the investigations of the events only prior to the restoration of lithuanian independence in March 1990. However, the process of transformation of spontaneous social renewal movement into a public organization is still remaining a white spot in history. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is, to my mind, political. Historians are not willing to confuse their scientific investigations with their political preferences. In the Lithuanian historiography one might notice a tendency for historical investigations of Sąjūdis to intensify prior to the anniversaries of Lithuanian independence restoration. Historians usually restricted their works to the analysis of the national revival period events taking place in the country's capital. [.]
I assert that methodological nationalism (national paradigm) is one of the main reasons of methodological inertia of the current historiography especially in the area of the post-communist European countries. In the current article I argue that comparative history could be a bridge between conventional (mainstream) historiography and approaches of so-called macrohistory. In this context typology should be treated as one of possible methods of comparative history. The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state. The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its paradoxically looking etimology also is plausible. ; I assert that methodological nationalism (national paradigm) is one of the main reasons of methodological inertia of the current historiography especially in the area of the post-communist European countries. In the current article I argue that comparative history could be a bridge between conventional (mainstream) historiography and approaches of so-called macrohistory. In this context typology should be treated as one of possible methods of comparative history. The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state. The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its paradoxically looking etimology also is plausible.
The purpose of this dissertation is to present the significant achievements and activities of this chaplain in many areas of his life. He is not a person well known and has not gained a rightful place in the Polish historiography. The author of this dissertation attempted to analyze the role of chaplain in the functioning of the Polish Legions, the battle for Przemyśl and pastoral work in the Polish Army. Also considered the impact of the priest chaplain on the activities of the peasant movement, attempted to determine the degree of the impact of journalism Socio-political face of ideological and programmatic opposition government. The author did not omit the question of the position of chaplain in the structures of conspiracy Lvov under Soviet occupation.
The Impact of Great Powers on the Structure and Competences of the International Humanitarian Organisation the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA)UNRRA – United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, whose achievements are not sufficiently reflected in the historiography of the post-war period, is an interesting object of research for many reasons. In this article, we have attempted to show the mechanisms which great powers resorted to in order to secure a dominant position not just in terms of prerogatives but also administrative structure. The main task of the UNRRA was to offer aid needed for the economic and moral reconstruction of the countries occupied by the Axis. This was a massive challenge in logistical and theoretical terms. An efficiently functioning aid organisation could serve not just peace building on humanitarian foundations but also be a test for the paradigm of the United Nations the founding of which it preceded. And it was for just those reasons that many countries expressed apprehension as to the US dominance visible in the negotiations while realising that humanitarian assistance without taking account of the economic potential of that power would have been doomed to fail.
The Council of Constance and its attitude towards the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy In the article the involvement of the delegation of the Kingdom of Poland in the work of the Council of Constance (1414–1418) was assessed. The analysis was carried out chiefly from the point of view of the key issues in the external policy of the Jagiellon monarchy; the analysis also focused on the reactions of the participants of the Council to the activities of the Polish delegation. Although the author agrees with the opinions that the Polish Kingdom did achieve an image success in Constance, yet he is of the opinion that the success played a secondary role as regards real-life events which took place in Central Europe; he also thinks that the success tends to be exagerated by Polish historiography. Apart from a narrow group of intellectuals, the contention between Poland and the Teutonic Order was of little interest to the Council participants, and hence he comes to the conclusion that military activities were a much more effective weapon in the defense of Polish-Lithuanian interests.Although without a doubt, Jagiello and Witold overestimated the significance of the Council in respect of solving the conflict with the Teutonic Order, yet they achieved a tangible success which consisted in a change of perception of their states as well as subjects by the contemporary European elites. Therefore, the author puts forward a hypothesis that the mission of the delegation of the Ja-giellon monarchy to the Council of Constance was one of those episodes in the history of Poland and Lithuania, which constitutes a permanent legacy of common historical identity.
The transformation of the political system in Poland after the negotiations of the'Round Table' resulted in an increased interest in modern history, accompanied by a desire to reckon with the past, in particular with the period of communist rule after 1944. Since the 1990s, government authorities and political parties have made a natural move to legitimize the democratic political system in the area of social memory and historical policy. This process has been initiated by constitutional changes, coupled with a truly spontaneous social movement to change national symbols, names of streets and squares, patrons of schools and universities, institutions and manufacturing plants rooted in the overthrown system of communist Poland. The humanities, in particular historiography, have taken steps to reassess attitudes to Polish and global history. The issues of social memory, national identity and historical policy have been reflected in the ideologies and platforms of various political parties. The issue of social (national) memory has become entangled in political disputes and a struggle for 'control of the past', of interpretations of history, the value of patriotism and, by extension, of the electorate, has been waged mainly by the Law and Justice (PiS), Civic Platform (PO), and the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) parties. This paper analyzes and describes the most influential political movements in Poland in the early 21st century as regards their attitude to collective memory and the concept of historical policy. These attitudes are presented in terms of the conservative, liberal, critical and totalitarian 'models of historical policy'. The study implies that the conservative and liberal models predominate, clearly influenced by the ideology of Christian democracy and national tendencies. The attitude of conservative parties in particular is characterized by disrespect for academic findings and interpretations of history, a frequently ad hoc approach to facts and assessments of the past, which follows from a desire to find the in-depth historical legitimization of the status of a given party in society and to dominate the electorate. ; The transformation of the political system in Poland after the negotiations of the'Round Table' resulted in an increased interest in modern history, accompanied by a desire to reckon with the past, in particular with the period of communist rule after 1944. Since the 1990s, government authorities and political parties have made a natural move to legitimize the democratic political system in the area of social memory and historical policy. This process has been initiated by constitutional changes, coupled with a truly spontaneous social movement to change national symbols, names of streets and squares, patrons of schools and universities, institutions and manufacturing plants rooted in the overthrown system of communist Poland. The humanities, in particular historiography, have taken steps to reassess attitudes to Polish and global history. The issues of social memory, national identity and historical policy have been reflected in the ideologies and platforms of various political parties. The issue of social (national) memory has become entangled in political disputes and a struggle for 'control of the past', of interpretations of history, the value of patriotism and, by extension, of the electorate, has been waged mainly by the Law and Justice (PiS), Civic Platform (PO), and the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) parties. This paper analyzes and describes the most influential political movements in Poland in the early 21st century as regards their attitude to collective memory and the concept of historical policy. These attitudes are presented in terms of the conservative, liberal, critical and totalitarian 'models of historical policy'. The study implies that the conservative and liberal models predominate, clearly influenced by the ideology of Christian democracy and national tendencies. The attitude of conservative parties in particular is characterized by disrespect for academic findings and interpretations of history, a frequently ad hoc approach to facts and assessments of the past, which follows from a desire to find the in-depth historical legitimization of the status of a given party in society and to dominate the electorate.
The dispute over the Polish-Slovak border 1918-1945 There are historical disputes and conflicts between states and nations that are well known and still resonate in the consciousness of society. Examples can be found in the history of Polish-Ukrainian or Slovak-Hungarian relations, which often influence current political and social thinking and attitudes. On the other hand, there are conflicts about which the public knows little, and their awareness is tied only to a specific region, although their course and the severity with which they were fought are comparable to those that are much better known. One of such conflicts is the dispute over the Polish-Slovak border in the years 1918-1945, on which the chapter focuses. After World War I, the regions of Spisz, Orawa and Czadecki became the subject of a Polish-Czechoslovak territorial dispute. After two years of constant conflict, the Conference of Ambassadors decided to divide the territory between Poland and Czechoslovakia. A new border dispute occurred in 1938 after the signing of the Munich Agreement. Poland gained further parts of Orawa, Spisz and Czadecki. After the outbreak of World War II, the separated parts of the territory were annexed to Slovakia, which was Germany's ally in the September campaign. After 1945, the border returned to the pre-Munich state. During this long conflict there were armed clashes and murders. The dispute also had a strong and negative impact on Polish-Slovak relations, especially just before and during World War II. Today, this topic is usually dealt with only by Polish and Slovak historiography, but the interpretation of the events is different. In this paper, I will try to answer the question of what was the essence of the dispute, why the topic is little known in the public opinion and why Polish and Slovak historians still cannot agree.
Among many conflicts between United States and Soviet Union during the cold war era, one of the longest were Namibia's independence war and civil war in Angola. In the historiography, especially South Africa's literature, both of them are linkaged and known as Border War. However, Namibians had begun their struggle in 1966, twenty years later there was no perspective to finisz the war. The major breakthrough appeared in 1987–1988 thanks to series of meetings between president of the US, Ronald Reagan and general secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. The key role played the year 1988. One year later United Nations has implemented Resolution 435 of Security Council from 1978. From that day, South Africa Defence Forces were beginning withdrawal from Namibia's territory. This article refers about the most characteristic and important aspects of United States' and Soviet Union' negotiations in 1987–1988, especially before and during Moscow summit in May and June 1988. ; Spośród wielu sporów istniejących między Stanami Zjednoczonymi a Związkiem Sowieckim w czasie zimnej wojny jednymi z trwających najdłużej była wojna o niepodległość Namibii i wojna domowa w Angoli, w literaturze traktowane niekiedy jako jeden konflikt, nazywany południowoafrykańską wojną o granice. Walka Namibijczyków o wolność trwała od 1966 r., jednak 20 lat później wciąż nie było widać perspektyw szybkiego zakończenia konfliktu. Przełom nastąpił w latach 1987–1988 dzięki seriom spotkań i negocjacji, jakie odbyły się między administracją prezydenta USA Ronalda Reagana i sekretarza generalnego KPZS Michaiła Gorbaczowa. Dla rozwiązania kwestii Namibii kluczowym rokiem był 1988 dzięki podpisaniu w Nowym Jorku grudniowych porozumień między władzami Angoli, Kuby i RPA. Rok później rozpoczęto realizację Rezolucji Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ nr 435, a wojska południowoafrykańskie zaczęły stopniowo opuszczać terytorium Namibii. Artykuł ma na celu wskazać najważniejsze aspekty negocjacji między USA i ZSRS w sprawie Namibii w latach 1987–1988, głównie przed szczytem i w czasie jego trwania (Moskwa, przełom maja i czerwca 1988 r.).
The transformation of the political system in Poland after the negotiations of the 'Round Table' resulted in an increased interest in modern history, accompanied by a desire to reckon with the past, in particular with the period of communist rule after 1944. Since the 1990s, government authorities and political parties have made a natural move to legitimize the democratic political system in the area of social memory and historical policy. This process has been initiated by constitutional changes, coupled with a truly spontaneous social movement to change national symbols, names of streets and squares, patrons of schools and universities, institutions and manufacturing plants rooted in the overthrown system of communist Poland. The humanities, in particular historiography, have taken steps to reassess attitudes to Polish and global history. The issues of social memory, national identity and historical policy have been reflected in the ideologies and platforms of various political parties. The issue of social (national) memory has become entangled in political disputes and a struggle for 'control of the past', of interpretations of history, the value of patriotism and, by extension, of the electorate, has been waged mainly by the Law and Justice (PiS), Civic Platform (PO), and the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) parties. This paper analyzes and describes the most influential political movements in Poland in the early 21st century as regards their attitude to collective memory and the concept of historical policy. These attitudes are presented in terms of the conservative, liberal, critical and totalitarian 'models of historical policy'. The study implies that the conservative and liberal models predominate, clearly influenced by the ideology of Christian democracy and national tendencies. The attitude of conservative parties in particular is characterized by disrespect for academic findings and inter- pretations of history, a frequently ad hoc approach to facts and assessments of the past, which follows from a desire to find the in-depth historical legitimization of the status of a given party in society and to dominate the electorate.
Wieloautorska monografia poddająca oglądowi XX wiek z perspektywy jego znaczenia dla procesu samoidentyfikacji jednostek i/lub społeczności oraz – w przypadku tych drugich – umiejscowienia dwudziestowiecznych wydarzeń w strukturze pojęć kluczowych dla samookreślenia się Słowian. U podstaw prezentowanych tekstów leży założenie, że przeszłość, postrzegana jako ciąg wydarzeń, jest jednym z czynników determinujących tożsamość i definiujących system narodowych wartości, znajdujących odzwierciedlenie w kulturze. Autorzy, odwołując się do narzędzi z warsztatu literaturoznawcy, semiotyka, historyka i kulturoznawcy, dążą do umiejscowienia wydarzeń XX wieku na mapie pamięci współczesnej Europy. Poddają oglądowi zarówno te wydarzenia, które napiętnowały dzieje najnowsze, stając się przyczyną narodowej (lub światowej) traumy (rewolucja lutowa, wybuch II wojny światowej i in.), jak i te, które są wartościowane pozytywnie (zakończenie II wojny światowej, upadek muru berlińskiego, pielgrzymki Jana Pawła II i in.), stając się powodem do dumy. W centrum uwagi znajdują się nie tylko wydarzenia określające obraz Europy w wymiarze polityczno-geograficznym, wyraźnie obecna jest również perspektywa mentalna, która sprzyja dotarciu do źródeł narodowych fascynacji oraz narodowych traum, a także pozwala zrozumieć mechanizmy rządzące tworzeniem mitów i wskazać narzędzia do ich odczytywania, którymi są – często pozornie ukryte – treści odwołujące się do przeszłości. ; This multi-author monograph looks at the 20th century from the perspective of its role in self-identification of individuals and/or communities as well as – in the latter case – of the place occupied by events of the 20th century in the structure of concepts that are key for the self-identification of Slavs. At the heart of each of the presented papers is the premise that the past, seen as a chain of events, is one of the factors determining identity and defining the system of national values which find their reflection in culture. Drawing on the tools of literary studies, semiotics, historiography and cultural studies, the authors undertake to put 20th century events on the map of contemporary European memory. They examine both the events that left a dreadful mark on contemporary history, causing a national (or global) trauma (like the February Revolution or outbreak of World War II) and those seen as positive (like the end of World War II, fall of the Berlin Wall or John Paul II's pilgrimages) and evoking the feeling of pride. At the centre of attention are not only events defining the image of Europe in terms of political geography. Also clearly present is the mental perspective, which fosters recognizing the sources of national fascinations and national traumas, helps understand the mechanisms of myth-making, and points to the tools for reading myths that are constituted by, often seemingly hidden, references to the past.
In 1660, handfastning, signed and sworn by Frederick III, was revoked by reason of his assumption of the Danish throne in 1648. The annulment of the provisions of this act was the result of fundamental changes in the political system that led to the formation of absolutism in the Kingdom in the 1660s. These kinds of acts used to occur in Denmark from the mid-thirteenth century. Of special importance, especially for the development of Danish parliamentarism, was the handfastning issued by King Eric V Glipping under the pressure of the Danish nobility in 1282. This document, called in historiography Denmark's first constitution, constituted the existence of Hof, determined by historians as the feudal Danish parliament. This moment is considered as the beginning of the history of parliamentarism and representative rule in the Kingdom of Denmark. By issuing this exceptional act, the monarch committed himself for the first time in the history of Denmark to convene annually at a fixed time an assembly called the Hof, which was a representation of the magnates. Including this obligation within the framework of the law obliged the king to rule with the participation of the nobles, which led to a significant weakening of royal power with a simultaneous increase in the importance of privileged states. By acquiring a number of new and existing rights and freedoms, confirmed by the handfastning of 1282, they were able to impose their will on the king and participate in the rule of the state to a greater extent than before. Important provisions of this document also include the king's commitment that he would not imprison anyone without a court judgment, and other concessions of the ruler regarding judicial law, fragments regarding the so-called king's letters, as well as the limitations of numerous royal prerogatives, especially regarding tax entitlements. The provisions of this handfastning also confirmed the existing and newly established state privileges. ; W 1660 r. doszło do kasacji handfastning, podpisanego i zaprzysiężonego przez Fryderyka III w związku z objęciem przez niego tronu duńskiego w 1648 r. Anulowanie postanowień owego aktu było wynikiem zasadniczych zmian ustrojowych, które doprowadziły do ukształtowania się rządów absolutnych w Królestwie w latach 60. XVII w. Tego typu akty występowały w Danii od połowy XIII w. Szczególne znaczenie, zwłaszcza dla rozwoju duńskiego parlamentaryzmu, miał handfastning wystawiony przez króla Eryka V Glippinga w 1282 r. pod presją rodzimego możnowładztwa. Dokument ten, nazywany w historiografii "pierwszą duńską konstytucją", ukonstytuował istnienie Hof, określanego przez historyków feudalnym duńskim parlamentem. Moment ten poczytuje się za początek dziejów parlamentaryzmu i rządów przedstawicielskich w Królestwie Danii. Wydając ten wyjątkowy akt, monarcha po raz pierwszy w historii tego państwa zobowiązał się do corocznego zwoływania o stałej porze zgromadzenia zwanego Hof – będącego reprezentacją możnowładztwa duchownego i świeckiego. Ujęcie w ramy prawne tego obowiązku obligowało króla do sprawowania rządów przy udziale możnych, co prowadziło do znacznego osłabienia władzy królewskiej przy jednoczesnym wzroście znaczenia stanów uprzywilejowanych. Nabywając szereg nowych oraz już występujących praw i wolności, które potwierdzał handfastning z 1282 r., w większym niż dotychczas stopniu miały one możliwość narzucenia swojej woli władcy i uczestnictwa w sprawowaniu rządów w państwie. Do ważnych postanowień tego dokumentu należy zaliczyć również zobowiązanie się króla, że nie będzie nikogo więził bez wyroku sądowego, oraz inne ustępstwa władcy dotyczące prawa sądowego, fragmenty odnoszące się do wystawiania tzw. listów królewskich, a także ograniczeń licznych regaliów królewskich, szczególnie w zakresie zwyczajowo przysługujących monarsze uprawnień podatkowych. W postanowieniach tego handfastning potwierdzone zostały też dotychczasowe oraz nowe przywileje stanowe.
In 1660, handfastning, signed and sworn by Frederick III, was revoked by reason of his assumption of the Danish throne in 1648. The annulment of the provisions of this act was the result of fundamental changes in the political system that led to the formation of absolutism in the Kingdom in the 1660s. These kinds of acts used to occur in Denmark from the mid-thirteenth century. Of special importance, especially for the development of Danish parliamentarism, was the handfastning issued by King Eric V Glipping under the pressure of the Danish nobility in 1282. This document, called in historiography Denmark's first constitution, constituted the existence of Hof, determined by historians as the feudal Danish parliament. This moment is considered as the beginning of the history of parliamentarism and representative rule in the Kingdom of Denmark. By issuing this exceptional act, the monarch committed himself for the first time in the history of Denmark to convene annually at a fixed time an assembly called the Hof, which was a representation of the magnates. Including this obligation within the framework of the law obliged the king to rule with the participation of the nobles, which led to a significant weakening of royal power with a simultaneous increase in the importance of privileged states. By acquiring a number of new and existing rights and freedoms, confirmed by the handfastning of 1282, they were able to impose their will on the king and participate in the rule of the state to a greater extent than before. Important provisions of this document also include the king's commitment that he would not imprison anyone without a court judgment, and other concessions of the ruler regarding judicial law, fragments regarding the so-called king's letters, as well as the limitations of numerous royal prerogatives, especially regarding tax entitlements. The provisions of this handfastning also confirmed the existing and newly established state privileges. ; W 1660 r. doszło do kasacji handfastning, podpisanego i zaprzysiężonego przez Fryderyka III w związku z objęciem przez niego tronu duńskiego w 1648 r. Anulowanie postanowień owego aktu było wynikiem zasadniczych zmian ustrojowych, które doprowadziły do ukształtowania się rządów absolutnych w Królestwie w latach 60. XVII w. Tego typu akty występowały w Danii od połowy XIII w. Szczególne znaczenie, zwłaszcza dla rozwoju duńskiego parlamentaryzmu, miał handfastning wystawiony przez króla Eryka V Glippinga w 1282 r. pod presją rodzimego możnowładztwa. Dokument ten, nazywany w historiografii "pierwszą duńską konstytucją", ukonstytuował istnienie Hof, określanego przez historyków feudalnym duńskim parlamentem. Moment ten poczytuje się za początek dziejów parlamentaryzmu i rządów przedstawicielskich w Królestwie Danii. Wydając ten wyjątkowy akt, monarcha po raz pierwszy w historii tego państwa zobowiązał się do corocznego zwoływania o stałej porze zgromadzenia zwanego Hof – będącego reprezentacją możnowładztwa duchownego i świeckiego. Ujęcie w ramy prawne tego obowiązku obligowało króla do sprawowania rządów przy udziale możnych, co prowadziło do znacznego osłabienia władzy królewskiej przy jednoczesnym wzroście znaczenia stanów uprzywilejowanych. Nabywając szereg nowych oraz już występujących praw i wolności, które potwierdzał handfastning z 1282 r., w większym niż dotychczas stopniu miały one możliwość narzucenia swojej woli władcy i uczestnictwa w sprawowaniu rządów w państwie. Do ważnych postanowień tego dokumentu należy zaliczyć również zobowiązanie się króla, że nie będzie nikogo więził bez wyroku sądowego, oraz inne ustępstwa władcy dotyczące prawa sądowego, fragmenty odnoszące się do wystawiania tzw. listów królewskich, a także ograniczeń licznych regaliów królewskich, szczególnie w zakresie zwyczajowo przysługujących monarsze uprawnień podatkowych. W postanowieniach tego handfastning potwierdzone zostały też dotychczasowe oraz nowe przywileje stanowe.
Pomimo upływu wielu lat od opisywanych poniżej wydarzeń oraz dość już dzisiaj bogatej literatury dotyczącej tego problemu, nadal brak jest w polskiej historiografii dostatecznie pełnego i wyczerpującego zagadnienie omówienia udziału polskich sił zbrojnych w mającej miejsce w styczniu i lutym 1920 r. operacji przejmowania ziem scedowanych Polsce przez Niemcy na mocy postanowień traktatu wersalskiego. Podobnie jest też z opisem ich przekroju społecznego. Znacznie lepiej przedstawiają się natomiast badania dotyczące przebiegu akcji rewindykacyjnej ze stycznia i lutego 1920 r. Dzieje się tak, choć tematyka ta – od czasu do czasu – głównie przy okazji kolejnych rocznic, zdaje się budzić pewne zainteresowanie historyków. Nie inaczej jest również obecnie, gdy trwają obchody stulecia odzyskania przez Polskę niepodległości państwowej.Stąd też autor postanowił pokazać możliwie pełny skład oraz przekrój społeczny wojsk Frontu Pomorskiego, które w styczniu i lutym 1920 r. wzięły udział w akcji przejmowania ziem pomorskich przyznanych Polsce na mocy traktatu w Wersalu. Poza tym omówił on też ich proweniencję, a także wpływ, jaki miała ona na ich stan oraz rzeczywistą wartość bojową w momencie rozpoczynania się akcji rewindykacyjnej. W efekcie tego widoczna jest skala tej wojskowej operacji, która wskazuje, że była to wówczas najważniejsza akcja militarna odrodzonej Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej. ; Obwohl seit den unten beschriebenen Ereignissen viele Jahre vergangen sind und es heute eine recht reichhaltige Literatur zu diesem Problem gibt, fehlt es in der polnischen historischen Literatur bis heute an einer ausreichend vollständigen und das Phänomen erschöpfend behandelnden Abhandlung über die Beteiligung der polnischen Streitkräfte an der Operation, bei der im Januar und Februar 1920 die infolge des Versailler Vertrags von Deutschland an Polen abgetretenen Gebiete übernommen wurden. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit der Beschreibung ihres sozialen Querschnitts. Dagegen sieht es bei den Forschungen zum Verlauf der Wiedergewinnungsaktion vom Januar und Februar 1920 wesentlich besser aus. Dies ist so, obwohl diese Thematik von Zeit zu Zeit, hauptsächlich anlässlich von Jahrestagen, ein gewisses Interesse bei den Historikern zu erregen scheint. Nicht anders verhält es sich auch gegenwärtig, während der Feiern zum 100. Jubiläum der Wiedergewinnung der staatlichen Unabhängigkeit durch Polen. Deshalb hat der Autor auch beschlossen, die möglichst vollständige Zusammensetzung und soziale Struktur der Armeen der Pommerschen Front zu präsentieren, die im Januar und Februar 1920 an der Aktion teilnahmen, bei der die Pommerschen Gebiete übernommen wurden, die Polen durch den Vertrag von Versailles zugesprochen worden waren. Außerdem bespricht er auch ihre Herkunft sowie den Zustand und den tatsächlichen Kampfwert zum Zeitpunkt des Beginns der Wiedergewinnungsaktion. Dadurch wird der Umfang der militärischen Operation sichtbar, der aufzeigt, dass es sich dabei um die damals wichtigste militärische Aktion der wiedergeborenen Polnischen Republik handelte. ; Despite the fact that many years have passed since the events described below occurred and the literature on this problem is quite rich, Polish historiography still lacks the complete and comprehensive discussion concerning the issue of the participation of the Polish armed forces in the operations of taking over the territories assigned to Poland by Germany under the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which took place in January and February 1920. A similar situation takes place with the description of their profile. On the other hand, the research on the process of the revendication actions of January and February 1920 looks much better. Yet, this subject, from time to time - mainly on the occasion of subsequent anniversaries, seems to arouse some interest of historians. It also happens now when the centenary celebrations of Poland regaining independence are taking place.Therefore, the author decided to show the possibly full composition and social profile of the Pomeranian Front troops, which in January and February 1920 took part in the takeover of Pomeranian lands granted to Poland under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, he also discussed their provenance and the impact they had on their condition and actual combat value at the time the revendication action began. As a result, the magnitude of this military operation is visible, which indicates that it was then the most important military action of the reborn Polish Republic.
Obwohl seit den unten beschriebenen Ereignissen viele Jahre vergangen sind und es heute eine recht reichhaltige Literatur zu diesem Problem gibt, fehlt es in der polnischen historischen Literatur bis heute an einer ausreichend vollständigen und das Phänomen erschöpfend behandelnden Abhandlung über die Beteiligung der polnischen Streitkräfte an der Operation, bei der im Januar und Februar 1920 die infolge des Versailler Vertrags von Deutschland an Polen abgetretenen Gebiete übernommen wurden. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit der Beschreibung ihres sozialen Querschnitts. Dagegen sieht es bei den Forschungen zum Verlauf der Wiedergewinnungsaktion vom Januar und Februar 1920 wesentlich besser aus. Dies ist so, obwohl diese Thematik von Zeit zu Zeit, hauptsächlich anlässlich von Jahrestagen, ein gewisses Interesse bei den Historikern zu erregen scheint. Nicht anders verhält es sich auch gegenwärtig, während der Feiern zum 100. Jubiläum der Wiedergewinnung der staatlichen Unabhängigkeit durch Polen. Deshalb hat der Autor auch beschlossen, die möglichst vollständige Zusammensetzung und soziale Struktur der Armeen der Pommerschen Front zu präsentieren, die im Januar und Februar 1920 an der Aktion teilnahmen, bei der die Pommerschen Gebiete übernommen wurden, die Polen durch den Vertrag von Versailles zugesprochen worden waren. Außerdem bespricht er auch ihre Herkunft sowie den Zustand und den tatsächlichen Kampfwert zum Zeitpunkt des Beginns der Wiedergewinnungsaktion. Dadurch wird der Umfang der militärischen Operation sichtbar, der aufzeigt, dass es sich dabei um die damals wichtigste militärische Aktion der wiedergeborenen Polnischen Republik handelte. ; Despite the fact that many years have passed since the events described below occurred and the literature on this problem is quite rich, Polish historiography still lacks the complete and comprehensive discussion concerning the issue of the participation of the Polish armed forces in the operations of taking over the territories assigned to Poland by Germany under the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which took place in January and February 1920. A similar situation takes place with the description of their profile. On the other hand, the research on the process of the revendication actions of January and February 1920 looks much better. Yet, this subject, from time to time - mainly on the occasion of subsequent anniversaries, seems to arouse some interest of historians. It also happens now when the centenary celebrations of Poland regaining independence are taking place.Therefore, the author decided to show the possibly full composition and social profile of the Pomeranian Front troops, which in January and February 1920 took part in the takeover of Pomeranian lands granted to Poland under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, he also discussed their provenance and the impact they had on their condition and actual combat value at the time the revendication action began. As a result, the magnitude of this military operation is visible, which indicates that it was then the most important military action of the reborn Polish Republic. ; Pomimo upływu wielu lat od opisywanych poniżej wydarzeń oraz dość już dzisiaj bogatej literatury dotyczącej tego problemu, nadal brak jest w polskiej historiografii dostatecznie pełnego i wyczerpującego zagadnienie omówienia udziału polskich sił zbrojnych w mającej miejsce w styczniu i lutym 1920 r. operacji przejmowania ziem scedowanych Polsce przez Niemcy na mocy postanowień traktatu wersalskiego. Podobnie jest też z opisem ich przekroju społecznego. Znacznie lepiej przedstawiają się natomiast badania dotyczące przebiegu akcji rewindykacyjnej ze stycznia i lutego 1920 r. Dzieje się tak, choć tematyka ta – od czasu do czasu – głównie przy okazji kolejnych rocznic, zdaje się budzić pewne zainteresowanie historyków. Nie inaczej jest również obecnie, gdy trwają obchody stulecia odzyskania przez Polskę niepodległości państwowej.Stąd też autor postanowił pokazać możliwie pełny skład oraz przekrój społeczny wojsk Frontu Pomorskiego, które w styczniu i lutym 1920 r. wzięły udział w akcji przejmowania ziem pomorskich przyznanych Polsce na mocy traktatu w Wersalu. Poza tym omówił on też ich proweniencję, a także wpływ, jaki miała ona na ich stan oraz rzeczywistą wartość bojową w momencie rozpoczynania się akcji rewindykacyjnej. W efekcie tego widoczna jest skala tej wojskowej operacji, która wskazuje, że była to wówczas najważniejsza akcja militarna odrodzonej Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej.
