Changes

[[File:Brykczynski-Paul-2016-g.jpg|thumbnail|250px|Paul Brykczanski]]

<b>In 1918, the Second Polish Republic was created. What did the new Poland look like in 1918? Were Poles optimistic about their future?</b>

<b>What kind of challenges did Poland face after it was recreated? What was the political environment like?</b>

Interwar Poland faced enormous challenges, most of which were shared by other Eastern European states. First, was the challenge of introducing democracy to a people with virtually no experience of political liberty. Second, was the problem of dealing with powerful and hostile neighbors, Germany and the Soviet Union, who would ultimately join forces to destroy the Polish state 1939. Third was the question of economic reform--like most countries in Eastern Europe, Poland was a primarily agricultural state desperately trying to industrialize and modernize its economy. And finally there was the so-called “nationalities question.” About 30% of the country’s population was comprised of ethnic minorities, mostly Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, and Belarusians, many of whom did not wish to be the citizens of a Polish state.

<b>Who was Gabriel Narutowicz? How did he become prominent in interbellum Poland?</b>

Narutowicz was an extremely successful Swiss-educated engineer who had left Poland as a young man. Yet he decided to give up his comfortable life in Zurich in order to help rebuild the country of his birth. His vision of Poland was an idealistic one--he envisioned a democratic, progressive, and tolerant state in which different ethnic groups would be able to coexist harmoniously under the rule of law. His rise to prominence boils down primarily to his international experience and personal charm, a combination which made him one of the country’s most successful diplomats.

<b>How strong was anti-semitism in Poland?</b>

It was much stronger than many people realize. The most powerful political movement of the day, known as the National Democrats, was rabidly and pathologically antisemitic. But at the same time, in 1918 opposition to antisemitism was also stronger than many people, especially outside of Poland, may think. What I tried to show in the book was that antisemitism, and ethnic hatred more broadly, was the subject of a profound debate. Fundamentally it was a debate between the inclusive and closed visions of the national community--a debate which seems to have raised its head again today, not only in many European countries but also in the United States. Antisemitism isn’t as central to this debate as it used to be, but if we substitute the word “Jews” for “migrants,” the forces at play are not entirely dissimilar.

<b>How did Poland react to his assassination?</b>

The initial reaction was shock and outrage. Even those antisemitic politicians who had stoked the fires of hatred and called the president a “Jewish stooge” initially condemned his murder. But even though no one publicly condoned the assassination, many nationalists portrayed it as a natural reaction to the Jews’ participation in the election. And the murderer was quickly turned into a sort of tragic hero, whose intentions were pure and noble even if his actual actions were misguided.

<b>What surprised you the most when you were researching this project?</b>

I think most surprising was the power and reach of antisemitism, on the one hand, and the existence of such forceful opposition to it, on the other. Interwar European society, and in this case Poland is an exemplar rather than an exception, was extremely polarized. In the end, the nationalists and antisemites won the debate in most countries, but it in the early 1920s the struggle was perhaps at its peak and all options were still on the table.

<b>How would you recommend using your book for a history class?</b>

Aside from helping understand the rise of nationalism and antisemitism in interwar Europe, the book can be used to get students to think about how the interplay between contingent events and structures determines historical outcomes. This is a very important question, which is often poorly theorized and understood. Finally, the book can serve as a cautionary tale about the power of hateful discourse to create violence, which in turn can further radicalize discursive structures. Today, this story seems relevant not only in the classroom but beyond it as well.