University of Manchester



When and why is the forgotten past recovered? The Battle of Warsaw, 1920 and the role of local actors in the production of memory. Abstract Memory scholars mostly agree that although social memory is culturally constructed, political and institutional actors encounter various constraints when adapting the past to their group’s needs and values. The aim of this paper is to revisit this old question of the malleability and persistence of the past but in the context of the intensive memory production that emerged during a period of rapid change in post-communist transitional states. First, the paper probes the question why some collective memories re-emerge after a long period of suppression while others do not. And secondly, it examines the conditions under which local rather than national actors become more successful in recovering the forgotten past. The focus is on Poland; its distinct history of frequent ruptures in the continuity of commemorative tradition not only opens up opportunities for less constrained work of remembrance but also for repositioning the standing of national and local agents of memory production.Ewa Ochman (Russian and East European Studies), The University of Manchester, UK Address: School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PLe-mail: ewa.ochman@manchester.ac.ukThis is the final author version as accepted for publication (Version 2).It will be published in Memory Studies in 2018 (OnlineFirst) and then in the 13.4 October 2020 issue (Hard Copy). When and why is the forgotten past recovered? The Battle of Warsaw, 1920 and the role of local actors in the production of memoryThe malleability and persistence of images of the past has been the subject of considerable academic debate for a long time now. The assumption that present concerns fully determine how the past is remembered has been under scrutiny as many empirical studies have shown that the process of memory production involves a mutually dependent relationship between images of the past and the power constellations that they maintain. It has been argued that although social memory is culturally constructed, social actors encounter various constraints when adapting the past to their group’s needs and values (Schwartz, 1982, 1990; Schudson, 1989). The process of selection of pasts that are to take a prominent place in groups’ narratives is highly conditioned. After all, some memories do not resonate with audiences and have no mobilizing power; equally, some memories last longer than others (Spillman, 1998; Olick, 1999). The aim of this paper is to revisit this old question of the malleability and persistence of the past by taking the case of an East-European transitional state. Here, two conflicting remembering processes have been taking place in tandem. On the one hand there is the intensive memory production that usually emerges in new regimes during a period of rapid change (Hobsbawm, 1983; Verdery, 1999; Wawrzyniak and Kończal, 2017). But on the other, the transitional states have not been immune to the erosion of the central authorities’ dominant position in constructing commemorative practices that has been observed in mature democracies over the last few decades (Nora, 1998; Beck and Sznaider, 2006). This decline in the hegemony of the state over collective memory has been associated with the expansion of alternative agencies engaged in the work of remembrance and the increase in new modes of memory production. Thus the question of when and why the forgotten past is recovered warrants renewed attention. In the volume Power and the Past, published near twenty years after the fall of communism, Eric Langebacher notes that the magnitude of loss and the social prominence of the victims increase the chance for ‘a given memory to achieve the possibility of hegemony’ (2010: 33). For him, the need to mourn the dead, cope with loss and come to terms with a traumatic past is the key factor that brings about the public emergence of memory. Here he follows Michael Schudson’s (1989) - now canonical - argument on traumatic memories and reconstructions of the past. But Langenbacher also draws our attention to retrospective justice and points out how crucial for the victims and affected groups is the wider recognition of their suffering and the perception that justice has been done. He also argues that these suppressed memories can surface only if there is ‘a degree of freedom to enable voice and dissemination’ and when those oppressed and their representatives ‘feel powerful and safe enough to speak up’ (Langenbacher, 2010: 35-36). Clearly, such an upsurge of memories of grief, loss and injustice has taken place since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The Baltic States' preoccupation with previously silenced stories of the mass deportations to Siberia that occurred in the aftermath of World War Two, the Poles’ commitment to remembering victims of the Katyn massacre and the Ukrainians’ efforts to recover the memory of the Holodomor are probably the most widely known examples. The successful recovery of such pasts has been made possible by the strength of family memory in this part of Europe but it has also been aided by the preservation of unofficial memories by the anti-communist opposition and in the case of Poland by the Catholic Church. Likewise, the role played by post-communist state agencies of memory articulation such as institutes of national remembrance should not be underestimated. Basically, had these traumatic memories not had the capacity to support post-communist national identity constructions and not legitimised the new political and cultural elites they would not have been given a prominent place in the official commemorative landscape. But at the centre of my enquiry there is a very different case of ‘the emergence of memory’ to use Langenbacher’s phrase (2010: 33) – one that lies outside the predominant paradigm of remembering “tragic suffering”. The recovered past that I am concerned with is centred on military triumph rather than martyrdom, its wider public resonance was very limited by the time of the demise of the Soviet Bloc and it does not arouse strong emotions. And yet the official status of that past and its public resonance are steadily increasing and it has become a focus for diverse commemorative activities. I am concerned here with the Battle of Warsaw, the decisive encounter of the Polish-Soviet War (1919-20). And my intention is to examine why this memory has emerged again in Poland after decades of being sidelined. What are the specific conditions that make this spectacular comeback possible? And who or what is the main force behind the memorialisation of this rediscovered past? And finally, I am interested in what this case can tell us about the process of memory production and more specifically the recovery of a forgotten past in a post-communist transitional state. The trajectory of the memory of commemoration of the Battle of Warsaw The Battle of Warsaw: the background to the study The Battle of Warsaw was fought from 13 August to 26 August 1920. It was the decisive encounter of the Polish-Soviet War (1919-20), which was initially fought to establish Poland’s frontiers in the east following the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires in the aftermath of the First World War. After early successes during the Kyiv offensive in April 1920, the Polish army was forced to retreat, unable to stop the advancing Red Army. Suddenly at stake was not just the eastern frontier but the very sovereignty of Poland, which had only regained its independence two years earlier after over a century of partitions by the Austria-Hungary, German, and Russian Empires. It was anticipated that were Warsaw to fall, Poland would become a Soviet satellite as the Red Army marched on to Germany to export revolution across Europe. Poland was advised by a 400-strong group of French officers and backed by the Hungarian government that tried to help with military supplies. In July 1920 the State Defence Council issued an appeal for volunteers and additional compulsory conscription. The Polish Church issued a pastoral letter in which it called for the defence of both Poland and its Roman Catholic faith against Bolshevism. The Red Army reached the Vistula in early August 1920 but unexpectedly met with fierce resistance near Warsaw in the area of Modlin, Radzymin and Wo?omin. A counterattack commanded by commander-in-chief Józef Pi?sudski followed and the Soviets were forced to retreat; the armistice was signed in October 1920. Polish casualties and losses during the Battle of Warsaw were estimated at 4,500 dead, 22,000 wounded and 10,000 missing (Odziemkowski, 2004: 444). In the newly created Second Polish Republic (1918-39) the Battle of Warsaw was assigned a central position in its national mythology. And yet, two decades later the 1920 victory had become an unmentionable event; and seventy years later, by the time of the fall of communism, the Battle had been totally forgotten. In his study of the malleability of social memory, Jeffrey Olick argues for the need to consider ‘the accumulated succession of commemorations’ (1999: 383) in investigations into how the past is culturally constructed. He points out that ‘[c]ommemorative images of the past not only reflect the commemorated event and the contemporary circumstances, but are path-dependent products of earlier commemorations as well’ (1999: 381). Essentially, in the process of preserving memories ‘[n]ew solutions depend on older ones, providing terms, issues, styles, and expectations as well as points of departure. Older images of the past – like the past itself – are both resources and constraints for the present’ (Olick, 2003: 263-264). What Olick calls the memory of commemoration is clearly one of the central factors that has impacted on the nature of the commemorative strategies undertaken in post-communist Poland with regard to the Battle of Warsaw. Many of the commemorative themes established immediately after the 1920 victory have been modified over time; others have remained unchanged and became the defining features of subsequent commemorations. Equally, the rupture in the continuity of commemorative tradition opened up opportunities for less constrained work of remembrance. Exploring the different developments in the commemorative history of the Battle of Warsaw helps to account for the way in which post-communist national and local authorities dealt with the founding moment of the pre-war Second Polish Republic. The “Miracle on the Vistula” and competing national self-understandings in the Second RepublicIn the newly created Second Polish Republic the memory of the Battle was used to articulate diverse identity projects promoted by the main political forces of the time. The country emerged from the First World War bitterly divided in its support for the two most prominent leaders involved in the fight for independence: Roman Dmowski and Józef Pi?sudski. Both leaders had a distinct vision not only of how to achieve independence but also of how to ensure the long-term sovereignty and prosperity of Poland. The Battle of Warsaw presented both camps with an opportunity to construct a particular version of the national past that could play an important role in their political legitimization and that could be used to express competing national self-understandings. From the outset, therefore, the reading of the Battle of Warsaw was multifaceted. Rogers Brubaker and Margit Feischmidt in their study of the construction of social memory show the extent to which the availability of material that is suited for mythmaking (e.g. ‘heroic military exploits’, ‘tragic martyrdoms’, and ‘larger-than-life figures’) impacts on commemorative opportunities (2002: 737). Using the 150th anniversary of the 1848 revolution in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia as their case studies, they demonstrate how scarcity of ‘the stuff of which myths are easily made’ (2002: 737) constrains the re-working of the past and its effective use for the needs and purposes of the present. In the case of the Battle of Warsaw the Polish mythmakers had particularly rich historical material to work with. It included visionary commanders-in-chief, heroic teenage volunteers, inspirational priests and ancient enemies. What Brubaker and Feischmidt call the ‘raw materials’ (2002: 735) was there in abundance to provide for diverse commemorative opportunities. The 1920 victory became the main component in the legend about the commander-in-chief, Marshal Józef Pi?sudski, which portrayed him as a heroic and talented military leader and legitimised his political supporters as protectors of Poland’s independence. In 1923, on 15 August, the third anniversary of the victory, Polish Soldiers’ Day was created to honour ‘the glory of Polish arms’ and to enshrine ‘the memory of the fallen in the centuries-old struggle for the [territorial] integrity and independence of Poland against the enemy’ (Honor, 1993: 23). At the same time, the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Assumption on 15 August. The multileveled symbolism of 15 August therefore rendered the day a particular framing of memory of the national past (Orla-Bukowska, 2006: 195). The Polish nationalist right headed by Dmowski and the Polish Catholic Church mythologized the war with commemorative narratives shaped by symbolic constructs of defeated “hordes of Bolsheviks” and crushed “troops of Antichrist”. The battle operated as a symbol of Poland’s historical role as a defender of Western (Christian) Civilization against the barbaric “other”. Sejm, the Polish lower chamber, pledged in 1921 to build a sanctuary dedicated to divine providence in gratitude for the victory. The role the Catholic clergy played in the battle was emphasised and the young chaplain Ignacy Skorupka’s death became a powerful symbol of patriotic sacrifice (Bartnicki, 2007: 205-18). Skorupka accompanied teenage volunteers on a battlefield in Ossów near Wo?omin. According to one version he was killed by a stray bullet when administering the last rites; another suggests that he was killed when leading soldiers to attack (IPSB). The chaplain’s sacrifice emerged as the main component of the “Miracle on the Vistula” narrative which portrayed the victory as a divine intervention and stressed the unique and historic relationship between The Mother of God Queen of Poland and the Polish people. The myth of divine intervention was used by Pi?sudski’s political opponents to undermine his legend as a protector of Polish independence and to challenge his supporters' place in national collective memory. The prospects of the “Miracle on the Vistula” narrative to secure a permanent place in the national commemorative tradition were strong since a majority of Poles self-identified through Catholic symbols and rituals, and attachment to Christian values was one of the most stable and persistent characteristics of Polish identity. Lyn Spillman (1998), one of the key contributors to the debate on the malleability and persistence of images of the past, argued convincingly that one of the key reasons that some collective memories persist and others do not is ‘their meaning in oppositional politics’ (469). She demonstrated, by comparing the American and the Australian centennial and bicentennial commemorations of their founding moments, that ‘the more semiotic flexibility they [past events] offer, the more robust those events will be in collective memories’ (469). By the time of the bicentennial anniversary, the Australian founding moment was no longer attributed a strong significance, while its American counterpart ‘remained a robust element of national collective memory because it offered multiple interpretative possibilities in a variety of contexts.’(469). The Battle of Warsaw, evidently, was likewise open to multiple readings and Dmowski’s and Pi?sudski’s supporters were able to associate the victory with different sets of values and ideological intentions. However, before memories of the 1920 victory – that clearly had great potential for oppositional politics – could take root and become fully institutionalised, Poland lost its independence again and commemoration of the Battle of Warsaw was strictly forbidden. By the end of World War Two not only had Poland’s Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, unveiled in Warsaw in 1925, been destroyed by the Germans but less prominent sites of memory dedicated to the heroes of the 1920 victory had met a similar fate. The trajectory of commemorative tradition was broken. The Polish People’s Republic and state-sponsored forgetting The new authorities of the Polish People’s Republic - that were established in the aftermath of the Red Army victory over the Nazi Germany - rebuilt the Tomb to the Unknown Soldier but the plaques commemorating the Polish-Soviet War were sent to a storage-room in Warsaw’s military museum. The Tomb now became the chief symbol of the fight against fascism and Nazi Germany (Kubik, 1994: 177). The communist authorities had no use for Polish Soldiers’ Day either. Polish Army Day was now commemorated on 12 October, the anniversary of the 1943 Battle of Lenino fought against Nazi Germany and recalling the first major engagement of Polish soldiers fighting alongside the Red Army. This change in the nationally celebrated holidays was indicative of a profound shift in how Polish military struggles were to be viewed and used in national mythmaking. The 1920 victory on the Vistula and the soldiers’ heroic sacrifice became taboo (Kubik, 1994: 177). Likewise, the communist authorities set out to eliminate or restrict access to any sites of memory connected to the ‘Miracle on the Vistula’ narrative. In Ossow the field where chaplain Skorupka died became an army firing ground, a bridge allowing access to the Chapel dedicated to The Mother of God Victorious was dismantled and the nearby military cemetery was left to decay (Samorz?dowa Instytucja Kultury). In Warsaw’s Our Lady Victorious Church the famous triptych depicting the victory was boarded up (Królikowski, 1991: 70). This imposed forgetting also included history education. A 1994 public survey examining the dissemination of historical knowledge in communist Poland shows that 34 per cent of respondents were of the opinion that there was no information whatsoever about the Polish-Soviet War in the Polish People’s Republic, 41 per cent felt that the information was untrue, and 21 per cent was unable to say (CBOS, 1994: 5). The only other event - according to the survey - that was even more closely guarded by censorship was the Katyń massacre (54 per cent of respondents felt that there was no information about the massacre and 35 per cent that the information was falsified) (CBOS, 1994: 5).The commemorative trajectory of the Battle of Warsaw that has shaped the process of recovery of the memory of the Battle of Warsaw includes not only the production of memory in the Second Polish Republic but also the forced erasure in the Polish People’s Republic. By the time communism collapsed the historical significances of the Battle of Warsaw was largely unknown. In 2003, the Institute for Political Studies at the Polish Academy of Science conducted research into contemporary Polish society’s attitudes towards the past, mapping Poles’ responses to questions about the historical events that most stirred their pride. The Battle of Warsaw occupied 16th place, receiving 3.3 per cent of the “vote” (Kwiatkowski, 2008: 269). There is strong evidence that memory of past events that had been censored by the communist authorities was often preserved by biographical memory and transmitted to subsequent generations by family networks (Szacka, 2010: 131-132). But the Battle of Warsaw occurred before the cataclysm of World War Two. The traumatic memories of the Nazi and Soviet occupations successfully displaced memories of the Polish-Soviet War that Polish society might have otherwise clandestinely held onto. Equally, the short-lived Second Republic had not had enough time to effectively institutionalise the commemorative tradition of the 1920 victory. The task of integrating the memory of the Battle of Warsaw into the national collective memory occurred at the time when many Poles - especially those who did not personally experience the ‘Red Army’s march’ on Warsaw - were still grappling with traumatic memories of the First World War. In consequence, after the fall of communism the recovery of the commemorative traditions of the 1920 victory has been more convoluted than might otherwise have been expected. After all, the Battle of Warsaw is perfectly suited to be the core myth of the newly independent Poland considering its meaning-making capacity, its usefulness for oppositional politics and its rich historical material which is required for effective mythmaking. The recovery of the memory of the Battle of Warsaw in post-communist Poland ‘The eighteenth decisive battle of the world’ and state-sponsored commemorationIn post-communist Poland the restoration of pre-war traditions and the process of reclaiming a national heritage lost under communism began with the revision of nationally celebrated holidays. In 1992 Polish Army Day was “returned” to its pre-war date of 15 August. Clearly, 12 October was no longer appropriate as it recalled the questionable brotherhood-in-arms with the Soviets and undermined other Polish military heritage related to the struggle against Soviet oppression. In 1995, on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Warsaw, the Parliament voted in a resolution stating that those who sacrificed their lives in 1920 ‘will for ever stay in the memory of the Polish nation’ (Monitor Polski, 1995). The state ceremony commemorating the Battle is now organised as part of Polish Army Day in Marshal Pi?sudski Square at the foot of the Tomb to the Unknown Soldier; now with plaques too honouring those who fell in the Polish-Soviet War. The presidential speeches delivered annually at the ceremony have managed quite successfully to revitalize the Battle of Warsaw mythology (see for example Presidential Speeches). The pre-war commemorative narratives that were produced by the two competing camps led by Pi?sudski and Dmowski have now been amalgamated into one powerful metanarrative of sacrifice for the national and universal good. Stories of Pi?sudski’s visionary leadership, soldiers’ bravery, and the nation’s heroism most potently symbolised by chaplain Skorupka’s death, have been used to show Poland’s unique role as a defender of Christian European civilization and the country’s long history of fighting for ‘our freedom and yours’ (see for example President Kaczyński, 2007). A particular emphasis has been placed on Poland’s contribution to the struggle against communist totalitarianism that started in 1920 and continued until the final victory in 1989 (see for example Director of the Polish History Museum Kostro, 2010:1). Love of freedom has been identified as one of the most persistent national traits that has been successfully passed on to successive generations. In presidential speeches and also in historical exhibitions, commemorative publications and state-sponsored proclamations the Battle of Warsaw has been presented as ‘one of the most important battles in world history’ and as one that ‘decided not only the future of Poland but also the entire continent’ (President Kaczyński, 2009). Lord Edgar D'Abernon, a British diplomat who termed the Battle of Warsaw ‘the eighteenth decisive battle of the world’, has been the most frequently quoted witness of the events of summer 1920. By the time of the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Warsaw, Poland was in a position to organise major celebrations. The programme of commemorative events included outdoor exhibitions with huge screens onto which images of Pi?sudski and Lenin were projected, conferences, documentary film screenings and history competitions (Spacerownik Historyczny, 2010). The main exhibition prepared by the Polish History Museum was unsurprisingly entitled: The eighteenth… the battle that changed world history (Sosnowski, 2010: 3). But this framing of the Battle of Warsaw as one of the most significant events in the national and European past stands somehow in contrast to the lack of major state-sponsored remembrance activities. Ultimately, the main focus of the annual celebrations on 15 August in Warsaw is the Polish Army as a whole not just the Pi?sudski soldiers of 1920. The huge state-sponsored effort undertaken for the 90th anniversary has not resulted in long-lasting commemorative activity. So far - that is by 2017 - no museum dedicated to the 1920 victory has been opened and no national monument has been erected. Equally, no research institute promoting knowledge about the Polish-Soviet War has been established. A similar picture emerges from investigations into the process of the post-1989 renaming of public space. Although Marshal Józef Pi?sudski, the symbol of Poland’s independence struggle, was generally popular as a replacement for names commemorating communist achievements, there is a notable absence of names referring directly to the Battle of Warsaw (Ha?as, 2004: 132). This half-hearted commitment to the recovery of the memory of 1920 reflects the wider context of memory production in post-communist Poland. Barry Schwartz (1982: 396) in his study on constructions of the past points out that it is in the interest of groups in power to recall events experienced recently by society, as they arouse peoples’ emotions quicker and in a more direct way. Similarly, Michael Schudson (1989) argues that collective memory production is not only about the past we want to choose to remember but also the one we cannot escape. Such a past imposes limits on the scope we have to choose what to remember and even our freedom with regard to remembering since it ‘becomes part of us; and shapes us, it influences our consciousness, whether we like it or not’ (Schudson, 1989: 110). In Poland after the fall of communism the commemorative effort undertaken by the state institutions of memory has mainly focused on the more immediate past, on stories of victimhood and martyrdom from the Second World War that had previously been supressed. These memories have a strong resonance with Poles and they have been effective in mobilizing Poles’ support for the rejection of communist-era values. Thus they are more useful for expressing the ideological intentions of the new state. At the same time, however, a widespread interest in memory of the Battle of Warsaw has developed in the municipalities on whose territories the battle took place. And it is local authorities that have been at the forefront of remembrance work aimed at a national not just regional audience. Remembering the 1920 victory in the locality In post-communist Eastern Europe the shifts in socially organised remembering are marked by characteristics specific to the region. Democratisation processes, the economic transition from a socialist central planning system to a market economy and decentralisation have all impacted on how collective remembrance has been reconfigured after the collapse of communism. The increased importance of municipalities in memory production in transitional East European states has been noted by several scholars (for example Czaplicka et al., 2009; Thum, 2005). In Poland, one of the most important factors to have shaped the development of memory production at the local level were the territorial and administrative reforms of 1990s that have created self-governing municipalities (headed by mayors) and resulted in a degree of emancipation of the Polish periphery. By the 2000s ‘Poland ha[d] become one of the most decentralized countries in Europe’ (Levitas, 2014:2). As local authorities have become political actors in their own right they need to acquire their own legitimacy and therefore heavily engage in local identity politics and memory work. The memory work has concentrated on reorganising the commemorative landscape and modifying local imagery to enhance the cultural standing and historical status of municipalities. It is intended to boost the solidarity and self-esteem of inhabitants and to encourage a sense of collective responsibility for the future of their locality. The municipalities’ socio-political uses of their historical past are influenced and constrained by several factors of which the nature of the past they are making use of and the memory of commemoration are particularly significant. In the case of Wo?omin and Radzymin, the municipalities on whose territories the battle took place, the past that is most suited for the construction of local identity - the Battle of Warsaw - had been a constitutive part of the nation-building process before the Second World War and thus has national not just local significance. The memory of commemoration of the Battle of Warsaw includes decades of imposed forgetting but it also includes unofficial acts of remembrance undertaken by local civil society. It is these bottom-up commemorative initiatives that have become the foundation of municipality-sponsored memory work. The re-discovery of local heritage related to the Battle of Warsaw in Radzymin and Ossów near Wo?omin had been initiated by local priests, private citizens and voluntary organizations before the fall of communism. The first attempts to restore the commemorative tradition of the 1920 victory were carried out in the early 1980s when censorship was temporarily relaxed under pressure from the anti-communist Solidarity movement (Odziemkowski, 1993: 17). In 1981 in Ossów a local resident funded a wooden cross marking the place where chaplain Skorupka fell (Samorz?dowa Instytucja Kultury). In the same year a damaged obelisk, situated near a cottage where Skorupka’s body had been laid after the battle and the Mother of God Victorious chapel were renovated. In Radzymin the military cemetery - that before the war had been the focus for state-sponsored commemorative activities - was also renovated (Kolatorski and Wnuk, 1995: 103). In 1988, just before the fall of communism, the Society of Radzymin Friends was founded and became a chief promoter of the previously censored memories through educational and publishing activities (Królikowski, 1991: 62). Owing to its efforts names of streets connected to the 1920 victory were restored and a local school was named after a commanding officer mortally wounded near Radzymin (Kolatorski and Wnuk, 1995: 97). But the Society’s most spectacular initiative was the construction of the ‘Path of Polish Nation’s Golgotha’, an avenue connecting the military cemetery with the town’s church. Along the avenue stone replicas of Poland’s highest military decoration – the cross of Virtuti Militari – have been erected in honour of the military commanders and regiments that fought in Radzymin in 1920 (Wielkie Dni Radzymina, 2006:53). As the chairman of the Society explained, the site was created because: ‘never in Polish history in such a short time did our nation experience so many tragic moments [as in Radzymin]’ (Wnuk, 2010: 5). The memory work undertaken by civil society in the localities where the Battle of Warsaw took place has been officially noted and the inhabitants of Radzymin have earned the reputation of protectors of “scared memory”. Bishop Józef Zawitkowski in his sermon during the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Warsaw organised in Radzymin and attended by President Lech Wa??sa referred specifically to the ‘silent heroes of the town’ who ‘preserved the pure secret about the Miracle on the Vistula’ and who themselves deserve ‘a monument and the Cross of Valour' [a military decoration given to soldiers of the Polish-Soviet War] (1995: 18-19). The local civil society’s strong commitment to commemorations of the Battle of Warsaw has been inspired by the physical landscapes of Radzymin and Wo?omin, where the 1920 fighting took place. Claudia Koonz (1994) in her study of the relationship between geographical sites and collective memory argued that ‘[p]ast events seem fixed in the landscape where they occurred’ (1994:258) and, following Maurice Halbwachs, she drew our attention to the capacity of landmarks to ‘exude a sense of timelessness’ (1994:260). It is precisely this persistence of the physical surroundings where the Battle of Warsaw occurred that has shaped local attitudes to the nationally forgotten victory and inspired local family memory. And it is family memory that is of particular interest to us here. Joanna Kurczewska (2007) in her study of the role of family memory in times of system transformation argues that in post-communist Poland family memory is shaped by a “weak nation“ - that is typical for ‘times of pluralistic democracies’ (2007:74) - and by a local community. The local community can be either “weak” or “strong” too. The weak community’s memory has a very short time-span and ‘fails to extend back beyond socialist Poland and the occupation during World War II' (2007:74). By contrast, the strong local community is rooted in a distant past and its historical horizon stretches back well beyond the grandparents' generation. In the latter case, family memory simultaneously ‘orients itself toward the locality, the nation and the family’ (2007:75). Heroic and military memories, while organically tied to local history, have tendency in particular to anchor themselves in the national past and the nation’s values and traditions. Clearly, Radzymin is a case of the latter. Local authorities in their commemorative work have drawn heavily on the imagery of ‘sacred space’ and the symbolic value of family memory. They have adopted the role of the official heir and custodian of the pre-war commemorative tradition and have modelled many of their activities on those of the 1920s and 1930s (see for example Wielkie Dni Radzymina, 2002; Krakowska, 2010: 20-26). Annual celebrations at burial sites and the restoration of monuments honouring the fallen soldiers that had been destroyed during communism are the most obvious continuations. Unsurprisingly, Skorupka’s heroic death on the battlefield has returned as the main focus of memorial activity. In 2010, as a result of local efforts, he was posthumously awarded Poland’s highest decoration, the Order of the White Eagle, by the Polish president at a ceremony in Ossów (Rocznik Wo?omiński, 2011:419). Local authorities have also tried to foster Ossów’s and Radzymin’s reputation as centres for national commemorative activity, which considering the size of municipalities (Wo?omin has 51,000 and Radzymin 25,000 inhabitants) is a bold undertaking. In 1999, Pope John Paul II visited Radzymin following two invitations from local authorities. Polish presidents and high-ranking state officials have been regularly invited to attend celebrations at military cemeteries. Furthermore, representatives of the Hungarian state have participated in events memorializing Hungarian help in 1920 (Rocznik Wo?omiński, 2012: 422). Successive mayors of Wo?omin have presented themselves and their local community as the leading force in the recovery of the memory of the 1920 victory. In 2010 Mayor Mikulski explained: ‘Today, we the inhabitants of Wo?omin wish Ossów to open the gates to spread knowledge of the history of the Battle of Warsaw’ (Mikulski, 2010: 6). In 2016 Mayor Radwan in her letter appealing to the Polish president to support the creation of the Battle of Warsaw museum pointed out: ‘I appeal to you, Mr President because of the feeling of being responsible for a dignified memorialization of Polish heroes, which should be of concern to all representatives of our state [not just Wo?omin’s]’ (Radwan, 2015: 2). At the same time, while emphasising the patriotic responsibility for honouring the soldiers’ sacrifices and the duties of the custodian of ‘sacred space’, economic imperatives have been high on the local authorities’ agenda. And that is not surprising. The multiplicity of uses of heritage has been widely acknowledged in literature (see Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000). As argued by Ashworth and Graham, ‘… [heritage] is an economic resource, one exploited everywhere as a primary component of strategies to promote tourism, economic development and rural and urban regeneration. But heritage is also a knowledge, a culture product and a politics resource and thus possesses a crucial socio-political function’ (2005: 7). As the director of a municipal institution responsible for the promotion of the 1920 heritage explained: ‘Providence preordained that Wo?omin be responsible for that [disseminating knowledge about the Battle] and that Wo?omin can give a lot to Poland. But if this project comes to fruition it will also give a lot to Wo?omin. (…) Wo?omin should go in this direction, because this is a goldmine.’ (XIV Sesja, 2015a: 43). Battlefield tourism and local entrepreneurshipJohn Urry (1990: 112-120) in his exploration of the heritage industry draws our attention to the critical role played by local agents and local authorities in the industry’s expansion. The promotion and development of heritage tourism is part of many local strategies for economic growth and job creation. In Wo?omin and Radzymin the development of heritage products around sites related to the Battle of Warsaw has been seen as a priority. Local authorities over the last two decades have established an annual programme of commemorative events that includes a marathon, an angling competition, a cycling rally and the national cavalry championship (see for example Bitwa Warszawska website). The events attract competitors from the region and nationwide. The main attraction of the day is the re-enactment of the Battle of Warsaw, which draws huge numbers of visitors from Warsaw. The battle is followed by music concerts and a firework display while entrepreneurs from the region make the most of business opportunities. During the 90th-anniversary re-enactment young people could be seen handing out flyers advertising, for example, a military auction site, a college of further education and financial services (Author’s visit to Ossów, 14 August 2010). A tourist brochure promoting ‘original ideas for the weekend’ published by the Mazowsze Regional Tourist Board was also distributed and quite a few businesses had exhibition stands. The annual celebrations are now evidently part of a tourism product that is to aid regional development. The association of the towns with the ‘Miracle on the Vistula’ enhances the places’ cultural and economic attractiveness therefore local authorities have been pursuing their heritage-led growth strategy with unwavering determination. Experts from national history museums, archives and libraries have been brought in to help with the development of commemorative projects (XI Sesja, 2015: 17-18). Experts from regional tourist boards have been helping to make the towns more attractive to visitors (see for example Grabowski, 2015). The success of heritage products to a large extent hinges on close collaboration between local authorities and other regional and national bodies concerned with the preservation and promotion of heritage sites (Urry, 1990: 113). The ‘Programme for the Development of the Tourist Product’, devised in 2008 by the Wo?omin local authority, has been modified several times since then mainly due to problems with fundraising schemes. But essentially the tourism product involves a culture park with a multimedia museum dedicated to the Polish-Soviet War, a conference centre, an infrastructure for active tourism (sport activities) and most recently a hub for historical re-enactment groups (Strategia, 2015). It is expected that by offering multiple types of heritage attractions (educational, military, religious, protected landscape) the product will achieve national rather than simply regional significance. The emphasis on the leisure aspect of the park reflects the number and the type of visitors the park wants to attract. Richard Prentice in his study on heritage as a tourism product shows that gaining historical knowledge is not the chief reason why tourists visit historical sites (Prentice, 2005: 250). Pursuit of leisure is the main motivation for the majority of visitors. As the incomes of Poles and the amount of time they can dedicate to leisure increase, so too will the number of heritage product customers. In Radzymin and Wo?omin the annual commemorations already attract new audiences because of the diverse programme of commemorative events and because of the hugely popular re-enactment of the Battle of Warsaw. In fact, it is largely due to the development of heritage attractions that the topic gets news coverage and generates media interest (Samorz?dowa Instytucja Kultury). This amalgamation of war commemorations, “heritage tourism” and business in the localities where the Battle took place has its precedence in mature democracies. Examples of the “commercialisation of memory” of the First and Second World Wars are widespread across western countries and this fact has not necessarily been always deplored. Bruce C. Scates who researched battlefield tourism in Gallipoli argues that even though ‘battlefield tours are a profitable subset of the whole heritage industry’ (2009: 72) we should not dismiss the capacity of such engagements with the past for generating authentic emotions and deeper meanings. Sam Edwards who investigated battlefield tourism in Normandy calls for more complex investigations of the dynamic of commercial commemoration and suggests that in ‘the social production of memory the “sacred” and the “profane”, pilgrimage and tourism, the “transcendent” and the “trivial” (…) are not simply opposites and that they are not necessarily antithetical’ (2009: 89). In Wo?omin and Radzymin, as we have seen, the interactions between commemoration and commerce are particularly multi-layered. The local authorities feel responsible for the memorialization of the Battle of Warsaw (and this feeling is rooted in the memory work undertaken by civil society when such activity was officially forbidden) but they are also motivated by the economic benefit for their towns. Ossów and Radzymin have become tourist attractions but as a result general awareness of the historical significance of the 1920 victory has increased and the forgotten Polish-Soviet War burial places returned to a map of national sites of memory. Conclusion The Battle of Warsaw has become a focus for diverse commemorative activities in post-communist Poland and the official status of the memory of the 1920 victory and its public resonance are steadily increasing. The central aim of this paper was to find out why this memory has come back again after decades of being sidelined. What are the specific conditions that make this spectacular resurgence possible? This recovery could have occurred because major social and political transformations create the conditions in which a radical revising of the commemorative landscape is possible. New ruling elites are usually interested - for legitimisation purposes - in reclaiming national heritage lost under the previous regime. The state-sponsored commemorations that are organised annually in Warsaw on 15 August are used as an occasion for promoting Poland’s self-image in post-cold war Europe: a freedom loving nation that had been at the forefront of the fight against communist totalitarianism. However, as this paper shows, the new ruling elites have not been fully committed to the revitalization of the pre-war commemorative narratives of the Battle of Warsaw. It is the more recent traumatic past that has been recovered since the fall of communism and that strongly resonates with Poles that is being used for oppositional politics and which lies at the heart of state-sponsored mythmaking. And thus, rather, it is the municipalities directly affected by the events of 1920 that have become the main force responsible for the recovery of the memory of the Battle of Warsaw. Wo?omin and Radzymin are the centres of national commemorative activity. The importance of the 1920 past for local identity, together with its commercial capacity have been primary motivations here. Local authorities in decentralised Poland are responsible for their electorate’s socio-economic future and they are expected to put forward a strategy for economic regeneration. The memory of the Battle of Warsaw organised around places and objects with historical significance can increase local revenues from tourism as well as promote a sense of pride in place identity and strengthen the cohesion of the local community. The municipalities’ spectacular success in recovering the Battle’s commemorative tradition would not have been possible had it not been for the erosion in the hegemony of the state over collective memory. As in post-communist Poland local authorities have become political actors in their own right, they have been able to take on the role of the main promoter of the nation’s foundation myth, a role previously reserved for the national ruling elites. The commemorative activities, although taking place in one specific locality, have engaged actors at all levels: local, regional, national and international and have aimed to reach audiences beyond the local community. The range of activities includes annual celebrations at burial sites as well as the national cavalry championship and the re-enactment of the Battle. The local agents occupy the position of the main authority over memory production because this role is not filled by the state-sponsored institutions of memory and the national government. Furthermore, the local authorities regard themselves as principal custodian of the nation’s sacred past; this has two sources. Firstly, this sense of duty to recover the forgotten memories and to honour the soldiers’ sacrifices is rooted in the landscape. The sense of the timelessness of the victory is best preserved in physical surroundings and around objects directly connected with the events of August 1920. And secondly, the local actors’ status as the keepers of the nation’s sacred past is legitimised by the memory of commemoration of the Battle of Warsaw. Most specifically, the memory work undertaken by local civil society during the time when such activity was prohibited and ‘the eighteenth decisive battle of the world’ was a non-event. Reference list Ashworth G J and Graham B (2005) Senses of place, senses of time and heritage. In: Ashworth G J and Graham B (eds.) Senses of Place: Senses of Time. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 3-12. Beck U and Sznaider N (2006) Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1-23. Bartnicki R (2007) Zwyci?stwo w Bitwie Warszawskiej jako dar Bo?ej Opatrzno?ci. Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne XX(1): 205-218.Bitwa Warszawska [a website dedicated to the annual commemorations of the Battle of Warsaw sponsored by the Wo?omin County Office]. Available at: < ; [accessed 12 March 2016].Brubaker R and Feischmidt M (2002) 1848 in 1998: The politics of commemoration in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 44(4): 700-744.CBOS Centrum Badania Opinii Spo?ecznej (1994) BS/104/91/94. Available at: (accessed 16 March 2016).Czaplicka J, et al. (2009) (eds) Cities after the Fall of Communism. Reshaping Cultural Landscapes and European Identity. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Edwards S (2009) Commemoration and consumption in Normandy, 1945-1994. In: Keren M and Herwig HH (eds) War Memory and Popular Culture. Essays on Modes of Remembrance and Commemoration. Jefferson, NC and London: MacFarland, pp.76-91.Grabowski G (2015) Szlak Bitwy Warszawskiej 1920: przewodnik turystyczny. Warszawa: Mazowiecka Regionalna Organizacja Turystyczna.Graham B, Ashworth GJ and Tunbridge JE (2000) The uses and abuses of heritage. In: Graham B, Ashworth G J and Tunbridge JE (eds.) A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold, pp.11-26.Ha?as E (2004) Polityka symboliczna i pami?? zbiorowa. Zmiany nazw ulic po komunizmie. In: Marody M (ed) Zmiana czy stagnacja? Spo?eczeństwo polskie po czternastu latach transformacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, pp.128-152.Hobsbawm, E (1983) ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions’. In Hobsbawm E and Ranger T (eds.) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-14.Honor i Ojczyzna ?wi?to ?o?nierza (1993). Rozkaz Dzienny Nr 126 Ministra Spraw Wojskowych, z 4 Sierpnia 1923 R. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej, pp.23-29.IPSB-Internetowy Polski S?ownik Biograficzny. Ignacy Jan Skorupka. Available at: (accessed 10 March 2016).Kaczyński L (2007) ?o?nierze Wojska Polskiego, Rodacy. Available at: (accessed 10 April 2016). Kaczyński L (2009). Mo?emy by? dumni z m?stwa i odwagi polskich ?o?nierzy. Available at (accessed 10 April 2016).Kolatorski W and Wnuk J (1995) Bitwa pod Radzyminem, 1920. Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjació? Radzymina.Koonz C (1994) Between memory and oblivion: concentration camps in German memory. In: Gillis J R (ed) Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 258-280.Kostro R (2010) Bitwa Warszawska, jej pami?? i znaczenie. Rzeczpospolita (Dodatek Promocyjny Muzeum Historii Polski) 13 August, 1.Krakowska M (ed) (2010) Wo?omin-Ossów 90 lat pami?ci zwyci?skiej Bitwy Warszawskiej, Wo?omin 14-15 VIII 2010. Wo?omin: Urz?d Miejski w Wo?ominie.Królikowski L (1991) Bitwa Warszawska 1920 roku: dzia?ania wojenne, zachowane pami?tki. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Kubik J (1994) The Power of Symbols against the Symbols of Power. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Kurczewska J. (2006) The role of family memory in times of system transformation. International Journal of Sociology 36 (4): 67-79.Kwiatkowski PT (2008) Pami?? zbiorowa spo?eczeństwa polskiego w okresie transformacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Langenbacher E (2010) Collective memory as a factor in political culture and international relations. In: Langenbacher E and Shain Y (eds) Power and the Past: Collective Memory and International Relations. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp.13-50.Levitas A (2014) Local government reform as state building: what the Polish case says about “decentralization”. Watson Institute for International Studies Research Paper 14:1-41. Available at: (accessed 10 April 2016).Mikulski J (2010) Przedmowa Burmistrza Wo?omina. In: Krakowska M (ed) Wo?omin-Ossów 90 lat pami?ci zwyci?skiej Bitwy Warszawskiej, Wo?omin 14-15 VIII 2010. Wo?omin: Urz?d Miejski w Wo?ominie, 2010.Monitor Polski (1995) Uczczenie 75. rocznicy Bitwy Warszawskiej. Nr 46, poz. 515.Nora P (1998) The Era of Commemoration. In: Nora P and Kritzman L D (eds) Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past, vol. III, trans. by Arthur Goldhammer. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 609-637.Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe. ?wi?to 29 Pu?ku Strzelców Kaniowskich w Kaliszu. Available at: (accessed 1March 2016).Odziemkowski J. (2004) Leksykon wojny polsko-rosyjskiej: 1919–1920. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Rytm.Odziemkowski J (1993) ?wi?to ?o?nierza Polskiego. In: Honor i Ojczyzna ?wi?to ?o?nierza. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej, pp.5-17.Olick JK (1999) Genre memories and memory genres: a diological analysis of May 8, 1945 commemorations in the Federal Republic of Germany. American Sociological Review 64: 381-402.Olick JK (2003) What does it mean to normalize the past?: Official memory in German politics since 1989. In: Olick JK (ed) States of Memory: Continuities, Conflicts, and Transformations in National Retrospection. Durham N.C.: Duke University Press, pp.259-288.Orla-Bukowska A (2006) New threads and an old loom: national memory and social identity in postwar and post-communist Poland. In: Lebow NR, et. al. (eds) The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe. Durham and London: Duke University Press, pp.177-209.Prentice R (2005) Heritage: a key sector in the ‘new’ tourism. In: Corsane G (ed) Heritage, Museums, and Galleries. An Introductory Reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp.243-256.Presidential Speeches delivered on 14-15 August 2005-2014 available at the official website of the President of the Republic of Poland, <; [accessed 10 May 2016].Radwan E (2015) List do Prezydenta, Andrzej Dudy, 4 August 2014. Gazeta Wo?omińska 7(40): 2. Available at: (accessed 10 April 2016).Rocznik Wo?omiński (2011) VII. Kronika Wo?omina. Wo?omin: Urz?d Miejski w Wo?ominie.Rocznik Wo?omiński (2012) VIII. Kronika Wo?omina. Wo?omin: Urz?d Miejski w Wo?ominie.Samorz?dowa Instytucja Kultury ?Park Kulturowy – Ossów Wrota Bitwy Warszawskiej 1920 roku. Available at: (accessed 17 April 2016).Scates BC (2009) Manufacturing memory at Gallipoli. In: Keren M and Herwig HH (eds) War Memory and Popular Culture. Essays on Modes of Remembrance and Commemoration. Jefferson, NC and London: MacFarland and Company, pp.57-75.Schudson M (1989) The present in the past versus the past in the present. Communication 11: 105-113.Schwartz B (1982) The social context of commemoration: a study in collective memory. Social Forces 61(2): 374-402. Schwartz B (1990) The reconstruction of Abraham Lincoln. In: Middleton D and Edwards D (eds) Collective Remembering. London: SAGE Publications, pp.81-107. Sosnowski P (2010) Osiemnasta... bitwa, która zmieni?a losy ?wiata. Rzeczpospolita (Dodatek Promocyjny Muzeum Historii Polski), 13 August, 3.Spacerownik Historyczny “Do Broni!” (2010). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo ZP.Spillman L (1998) When do collective memories last? Founding moments in the United States and Australia. Social Science History 22(4): 445-477.Strategia zrównowa?nonego rozwoju gminy Wo?omin do 2025 (2015). Wo?omin: Urz?d Miejski w Wo?ominie.Szacka B (2010) II wojna ?wiatowa w pami?ci rodzinnej. In: Kwiatkowski PT, et. al. (eds) Mi?dzy codzienno?ci? a wielk? histori?. Druga wojna ?wiatowa w pami?ci zbiorowej polskiego spo?eczeństwa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, pp.81-132.Thum G (2005) Wroc?aw and the myth of the multicultural border city. European Review 13(2): 227-235.Urry J (1990) The Tourist Gaze Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.Verdery K (1999) The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Wawrzyniak J and Kończal K. Provincializing memory studies: Polish approaches in the past and present. Memory Studies. First Published January 25, 2017, DOI: 10.1177/1750698016688238.Wielkie Dni Radzymina (2002). Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjació? Radzymina.Wielkie Dni Radzymina (2006). Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjació? Radzymina.Wnuk J (2010) Radzymin Cud na Wis?? 1920. Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjació? Radzymina.Zawitkowski J (1995) Okaza? moc swego ramienia. Homilia wyg?oszona z okazji 75 rocznicy Cudu nad Wis??, Radzymin 15 VIII 1995. Poznań: Pallottinum.XI Sesja Rady Miejskiej w Wo?ominie (2015). Protokó?. Available at: (accessed 3 April 2016).XIV Sesja Rady Miejskiej w Wo?ominie (2015a). Protokó?. Available at: (accessed 3 April 2016). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download