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.uk

This 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).

1

When and why is the forgotten past recovered? The Battle of Warsaw, 1920 and the role of local actors in the production of memory

The 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.

2

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

3

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

4

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 Wołomin. A counterattack commanded by commander-in-chief Józef Piłsudski

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-

5

communist national and local authorities dealt with the founding moment of the pre-war Second

Polish Republic.

The “Mi racle on the Vistula” and competing national self-understandings in the Second Republic

In 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 Piłsudski. 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.

6

The 1920 victory became the main component in the legend about the commander-in-chief, Marshal

Józef Piłsudski, 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 Wołomin. 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 Piłsudski’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,

7

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 Piłsudski’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.

8

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 (Samorządowa 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

9

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 commemoration

In 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

10

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 Piłsudski 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 Piłsudski and Dmowski have now been

amalgamated into one powerful metanarrative of sacrifice for the national and universal good.

Stories of Piłsudski’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.

11

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 Piłsudski 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 Piłsudski 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 Piłsudski, 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 (Hałas, 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

12

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

13

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

Wołomin 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

Wołomin 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 (Samorządowa

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

14

(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 Wałęsa 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 Wołomin, 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

15

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 Wołomiński, 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 (Wołomin 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 Wołomiński, 2012: 422). Successive mayors of Wołomin 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 Wołomin wish Ossów to open the

16

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 Wołomin’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

Wołomin be responsible for that [disseminating knowledge about the Battle] and that Wołomin can

give a lot to Poland. But if this project comes to fruition it will also give a lot to Wołomin. (…)

Wołomin should go in this direction, because this is a goldmine.’ (XIV Sesja, 2015a: 43).

Battlefield tourism and local entrepreneurship

John 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 Wołomin 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

17

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 90 th-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 Wołomin 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

18

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 Wołomin 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 (Samorządowa 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 Wołomin 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

19

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. Wołomin 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

20

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

21

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) Zwycięstwo w Bitwie Warszawskiej jako dar Bożej Opatrzności. Warszawskie

Studia Teologiczne XX(1): 205-218.

Bitwa Warszawska [a website dedicated to the annual commemorations of the Battle of Warsaw

sponsored by the Wołomin County Office]. Available at: < http://www.bitwawarszawska.pl/>

[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 Społecznej (1994) BS/104/91/94. Available at:

http://www.cbos.pl/PL/publikacje/publikacje.php (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.

22

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.

Hałas E (2004) Polityka symboliczna i pamięć zbiorowa. Zmiany nazw ulic po komunizmie. In:

Marody M (ed) Zmiana czy stagnacja? Społeczeństwo 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 Święto Żołnierza (1993). Rozkaz Dzienny Nr 126 Ministra Spraw Wojskowych, z 4

Sierpnia 1923 R. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej, pp.23-29.

IPSB-Internetowy Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Ignacy Jan Skorupka. Available at:

http://www.ipsb.nina.gov.pl/index.php/a/ignacy-jan-skorupka (accessed 10 March 2016).

Kaczyński L (2007) Żołnierze Wojska Polskiego, Rodacy. Available at:

http://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum-lecha-kaczynskiego/aktualnosci/rok-2007/art,149,688,udzial-

prezydenta-rp-w-obchodach-swieta-wojska-polskiego.html (accessed 10 April 2016).

23

Kaczyński L (2009). Możemy być dumni z męstwa i odwagi polskich żołnierzy. Available at

http://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum-lecha-kaczynskiego/aktualnosci/rok-2009/art,21,575,mozemy-

byc-dumni-z-mestwa-i-odwagi-polskich-zolnierzy.html (accessed 10 April 2016).

Kolatorski W and Wnuk J (1995) Bitwa pod Radzyminem, 1920. Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół

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 pamięć i znaczenie. Rzeczpospolita (Dodatek Promocyjny

Muzeum Historii Polski) 13 August, 1.

Krakowska M (ed) (2010) Wołomin-Ossów 90 lat pamięci zwycięskiej Bitwy Warszawskiej, Wołomin

14-15 VIII 2010. Wołomin: Urząd Miejski w Wołominie.

Królikowski L (1991) Bitwa Warszawska 1920 roku: działania wojenne, zachowane pamiątki.

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.

24

Kwiatkowski PT (2008) Pamięć zbiorowa społeczeństwa 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:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2508304 (accessed 10 April 2016).

Mikulski J (2010) Przedmowa Burmistrza Wołomina. In: Krakowska M (ed) Wołomin-Ossów 90 lat

pamięci zwycięskiej Bitwy Warszawskiej, Wołomin 14-15 VIII 2010. Wołomin: Urząd Miejski w

Wołominie, 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. Święto 29 Pułku Strzelców Kaniowskich w Kaliszu. Available at:

http://www.audiovis.nac.gov.pl/obraz/67225:1/h:286/ (accessed 1March 2016).

Odziemkowski J. (2004) Leksykon wojny polsko-rosyjskiej: 1919–1920. Warszawa: Oficyna

Wydawnicza Rytm.

25

Odziemkowski J (1993) Święto Żołnierza Polskiego. In: Honor i Ojczyzna Święto Żołnierza. 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, <http://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum/> [accessed 10 May

2016].

Radwan E (2015) List do Prezydenta, Andrzej Dudy, 4 August 2014. Gazeta Wołomińska 7(40): 2.

Available at: http://www.gazetapatria.pl/partia_drukowana/patria_nr047.pdf (accessed 10 April

2016).

26

Rocznik Wołomiński (2011) VII. Kronika Wołomina. Wołomin: Urząd Miejski w Wołominie.

Rocznik Wołomiński (2012) VIII. Kronika Wołomina. Wołomin: Urząd Miejski w Wołominie.

Samorządowa Instytucja Kultury „Park Kulturowy – Ossów Wrota Bitwy Warszawskiej 1920 roku.

Available at: http://www.ossow1920.pl/ (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 zmieniła losy świata. Rzeczpospolita (Dodatek

Promocyjny Muzeum Historii Polski), 13 August, 3.

Spacerownik Historyczny “Do Broni!” (2010). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo ZP.

27

Spillman L (1998) When do collective memories last? Founding moments in the United States and

Australia. Social Science History 22(4): 445-477.

Strategia zrównoważnonego rozwoju gminy Wołomin do 2025 (2015). Wołomin: Urząd Miejski w

Wołominie.

Szacka B (2010) II wojna światowa w pamięci rodzinnej. In: Kwiatkowski PT, et. al. (eds) Między

codziennością a wielką historią. Druga wojna światowa w pamięci zbiorowej polskiego

społeczeństwa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, pp.81-132.

Thum G (2005) Wrocław 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 Przyjaciół Radzymina.

Wielkie Dni Radzymina (2006). Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Radzymina.

28

Wnuk J (2010) Radzymin Cud na Wisłą 1920. Radzymin: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Radzymina.

Zawitkowski J (1995) Okazał moc swego ramienia. Homilia wygłoszona z okazji 75 rocznicy Cudu nad

Wisłą, Radzymin 15 VIII 1995. Poznań: Pallottinum.

XI Sesja Rady Miejskiej w Wołominie (2015). Protokół. Available at: http://wolomin.bip.net.pl/?

a=10670 (accessed 3 April 2016).

XIV Sesja Rady Miejskiej w Wołominie (2015a). Protokół. Available at: http://wolomin.bip.net.pl/?

a=11031 (accessed 3 April 2016).

29