What do you think?
The Greater War
Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The Reconstruction of Poland
The First World War did not end in Central Europe in November 1918. The armistices marked the creation of the Second Polish Republic and the first shot of the Central European Civil War which raged from 1918 to 1921. The fallen German, Russian, and Austrian Empires left in their wake lands with peoples of mixed nationalities and ethnicities. These lands soon became battle grounds and the ethno-political violence that ensued forced those living within them to decide on their national identity.
Civil War in Central Europe seeks to challenge previous notions that such conflicts which occurred between the First and Second World Wars were isolated incidents and argues that they should be considered as part of a European war; a war which transformed Poland into a nation.
Civil War in Central Europe seeks to challenge previous notions that such conflicts which occurred between the First and Second World Wars were isolated incidents and argues that they should be considered as part of a European war; a war which transformed Poland into a nation.
268 pages, Paperback
First published November 29, 2018
About the author
Jochen Böhler
12 books2 followersJochen Böhler is a Research Fellow at the Imre Kertesz Kolleg in Jena, where he teaches courses on the history of early twentieth-century Central and Eastern Europe.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 26, 2019
Sad to tell, but this book is example of how hard it is to grasp the Idea of Polish independence. There is a lot of solid information, but Author clearly cannot hold onto ancient soul of Jozef Piłsudski. That has seen a lot, and kept being good man. With plenty of wiseness, that kept him serene, true support.
I wouldn't call socialist, anyone who is, in all his life, rebuilding his nation. Federal nation does not mean socialistic, Union between good old nations. Also, as republic, It excludes Imperialistic Nationalism.
Over all it is fluently read (in Polish Edition) that is pattern of good writing skills. However all introduction has worried me so much, that it disturbed whole reading experience, indeed. I would rip it out (though its not Poetry, yet history reading should has that vivid inspiration).
I wouldn't call socialist, anyone who is, in all his life, rebuilding his nation. Federal nation does not mean socialistic, Union between good old nations. Also, as republic, It excludes Imperialistic Nationalism.
Over all it is fluently read (in Polish Edition) that is pattern of good writing skills. However all introduction has worried me so much, that it disturbed whole reading experience, indeed. I would rip it out (though its not Poetry, yet history reading should has that vivid inspiration).
June 7, 2022
Boehler focusses on all the hostilities that continued and even accelerated after the end of wwi. It's of particular interest for us today since it focusses on the much fought over territories of Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia. So much suffering and so much death when supposedly there was peace.
August 23, 2020
Lubię takie książki. Wsadza autor głowę w gniazdo szerszeni i poddaje to brzęczące towarzystwo drobiazgowej analizie (niemal wiwisekcji!). Tezę stawia prowokacyjną: że konflikty po 1918 roku na terenach byłej I Rzeczypospolitej to jedna wielka wojna domowa. Rzecz jasna z wyłączeniem konfliktu z bolszewicką Rosją. I, po namyśle, nie sposób odmówić mu racji ... tylko trzeba sobie przypomnieć jakim ona byłą wtedy państwem!
Kolejny raz mamy efekt niezwykle drobiazgowej pracy w archiwach - i naprawdę imponującej. (Jakie ciekawe przypisy, jaka bibliografia! Dobrych kilka lat czytania!!) Czuć tutaj opiekuńczego duch prof. Borodzieja.
Bolesna jest ta książka. JB co prawda nie uważa jak ja, że Polacy odzyskali niepodległość grubo za wcześnie, ale nie zostawia wątpliwości, że byli na nią kompletnie nieprzygotowani. To nieszczęsne pękniecie, uosabiane przez Dmowskiego i Piłsudskiego, te dwie trumny, które straszą nad Wisłą od dziesięcioleci.
I ten pogański nacjonalizm, wzięty od Heinego ... wypisz wymaluj. Ważna przestroga - w sam nas na te czasy.
Kolejny raz mamy efekt niezwykle drobiazgowej pracy w archiwach - i naprawdę imponującej. (Jakie ciekawe przypisy, jaka bibliografia! Dobrych kilka lat czytania!!) Czuć tutaj opiekuńczego duch prof. Borodzieja.
Bolesna jest ta książka. JB co prawda nie uważa jak ja, że Polacy odzyskali niepodległość grubo za wcześnie, ale nie zostawia wątpliwości, że byli na nią kompletnie nieprzygotowani. To nieszczęsne pękniecie, uosabiane przez Dmowskiego i Piłsudskiego, te dwie trumny, które straszą nad Wisłą od dziesięcioleci.
I ten pogański nacjonalizm, wzięty od Heinego ... wypisz wymaluj. Ważna przestroga - w sam nas na te czasy.
Read
November 5, 2019The interwar period of Polish history was integral to national development. However, the popular narrative surrounding this time period tends to oversimplify and glorify the acts of the emerging Polish state. In reality, the situation in Central Europe was far more complicated and much less unified than is commonly thought. Bohler seeks to remedy this problem by arguing that the fighting in Central Europe can be better understood when it is seen as a civil war. Through this characterization, he shows that far from being finished, the process of nation-building was still in development during the interwar period.
The book’s introduction addresses the flawed popular narrative of the interwar period in Central Europe, the idea that Poland “finally reunited, stood as one” to defend itself victoriously against its hostile neighbors and the creeping influence of the Soviet Union. Bohler seeks to address the complicated side of this history, one in which “80 percent of the Polish-speaking population did not identify with the project of the Polish national state” (6). The book is structured thematically, with the first two chapters providing the context for Bohler's “Civil War” of 1918-1921. These chapters combat the popular narrative brought forth in the introduction by showing that most Central Europeans did not have a strong national identity. They went from living side by side in the same country, to fighting one another. Bohler develops the “civil war” theme primarily in the course of one chapter, the centerpiece of the book. Here, he devotes sections the Eastern and Western fronts of the war. The last chapter combats the popular narrative again with a discussion of paramilitary and civilian violence. He ends with a short conclusion and epilogue that explains his personal connection to the subject matter. In each chapter, Bohler emphasizes the lack of internal cohesion among Poles as another reason why it is more logical to see the fighting as civil war rather than a battle between nation states.
Bohler makes a well-developed and convincing argument. The first two chapters do an excellent job pressing the reader to question the assumptions of the popular narrative of the interwar period in Central Europe. He sets up his argument well by emphasizing the ideological differences between Poland’s two most famous leaders, Dmowski and Pilsudski, as well as the widespread ambivalence of Polish-speaking peasants (the majority of the population) towards Polish nationhood. By showing the conflict Polish leadership faced in determining whether their country would be a country for ethnic Poles, or a multi-national country based on historical borders, Bohler shows that even Polish leadership lacked a single idea of Polish national identity. Rather, the fighting between ethnically mixed territories demonstrates the high degree of ambivalence surrounding the conflicts. Bohler devotes an entire chapter to discussing violence against civilians, which provides further justification for labeling the conflict a civil war. When considering the widespread lack of a national identity among the population as well as the violence Polish militants inflicted on their own civilians, a “Central European Civil War” seems the best way to describe the conflict that took place.
While the argument is strong, the book could be improved with a clearer structure. As it stands, a large imbalance separates the third chapter and all the others. The book’s purpose would be better served if the third chapter, where the bulk of the argument unfolds, was divided up for the sake of clarity. In the third chapter, Bohler makes his case that the fighting in the Eastern and Western fronts of Central Europe was a civil war, and then goes on to discuss the Polish-Soviet War. As the author acknowledges, the Polish-Soviet War differs substantially from the other wars he discusses. While he argues that the fighting between Poland and her neighboring countries can be considered a civil war, he considers the Polish-Soviet War to be the connection between the “Central European Civil War” and the Russian Civil War (123). Instead of spending so much time advancing this separate argument within the same chapter in which he discusses the “civil war,” it would have made the book’s focus clearer if he had created a separate chapter to discuss this issue in depth. This would have also helped balance out imbalance in length between chapter three and the other chapters in the book.
Overall, Bohler’s book provides a convincing argument for considering the complicated amalgamation of conflicts in Central Europe as a civil war. He demonstrates that these years were not the culmination of, but part of the process of fleshing out out the national borders and identity of a people who for the most part, did not have a national consciousness. Civil War in Central Europe fully engages with all elements of the conflicts at the time, ensuring a fair and balanced portrayal of the issues at stake. This would make it especially useful to those studying the interwar period in Central Europe or the development of nationalism as a whole.
The book’s introduction addresses the flawed popular narrative of the interwar period in Central Europe, the idea that Poland “finally reunited, stood as one” to defend itself victoriously against its hostile neighbors and the creeping influence of the Soviet Union. Bohler seeks to address the complicated side of this history, one in which “80 percent of the Polish-speaking population did not identify with the project of the Polish national state” (6). The book is structured thematically, with the first two chapters providing the context for Bohler's “Civil War” of 1918-1921. These chapters combat the popular narrative brought forth in the introduction by showing that most Central Europeans did not have a strong national identity. They went from living side by side in the same country, to fighting one another. Bohler develops the “civil war” theme primarily in the course of one chapter, the centerpiece of the book. Here, he devotes sections the Eastern and Western fronts of the war. The last chapter combats the popular narrative again with a discussion of paramilitary and civilian violence. He ends with a short conclusion and epilogue that explains his personal connection to the subject matter. In each chapter, Bohler emphasizes the lack of internal cohesion among Poles as another reason why it is more logical to see the fighting as civil war rather than a battle between nation states.
Bohler makes a well-developed and convincing argument. The first two chapters do an excellent job pressing the reader to question the assumptions of the popular narrative of the interwar period in Central Europe. He sets up his argument well by emphasizing the ideological differences between Poland’s two most famous leaders, Dmowski and Pilsudski, as well as the widespread ambivalence of Polish-speaking peasants (the majority of the population) towards Polish nationhood. By showing the conflict Polish leadership faced in determining whether their country would be a country for ethnic Poles, or a multi-national country based on historical borders, Bohler shows that even Polish leadership lacked a single idea of Polish national identity. Rather, the fighting between ethnically mixed territories demonstrates the high degree of ambivalence surrounding the conflicts. Bohler devotes an entire chapter to discussing violence against civilians, which provides further justification for labeling the conflict a civil war. When considering the widespread lack of a national identity among the population as well as the violence Polish militants inflicted on their own civilians, a “Central European Civil War” seems the best way to describe the conflict that took place.
While the argument is strong, the book could be improved with a clearer structure. As it stands, a large imbalance separates the third chapter and all the others. The book’s purpose would be better served if the third chapter, where the bulk of the argument unfolds, was divided up for the sake of clarity. In the third chapter, Bohler makes his case that the fighting in the Eastern and Western fronts of Central Europe was a civil war, and then goes on to discuss the Polish-Soviet War. As the author acknowledges, the Polish-Soviet War differs substantially from the other wars he discusses. While he argues that the fighting between Poland and her neighboring countries can be considered a civil war, he considers the Polish-Soviet War to be the connection between the “Central European Civil War” and the Russian Civil War (123). Instead of spending so much time advancing this separate argument within the same chapter in which he discusses the “civil war,” it would have made the book’s focus clearer if he had created a separate chapter to discuss this issue in depth. This would have also helped balance out imbalance in length between chapter three and the other chapters in the book.
Overall, Bohler’s book provides a convincing argument for considering the complicated amalgamation of conflicts in Central Europe as a civil war. He demonstrates that these years were not the culmination of, but part of the process of fleshing out out the national borders and identity of a people who for the most part, did not have a national consciousness. Civil War in Central Europe fully engages with all elements of the conflicts at the time, ensuring a fair and balanced portrayal of the issues at stake. This would make it especially useful to those studying the interwar period in Central Europe or the development of nationalism as a whole.
April 21, 2022
Książkę dobrze się czyta. Autor dokonał rozsądnego doboru faktów do przedstawienie, nie zarzucił czytelników szczegółami. Z drugiej strony nie zgodzę się, że nikt nie patrzył na omawiane wydarzenia całościowo. Takie spojrzenia są w każdej syntezie historii Polski z tego okresu! Główna teza, nazywająca walkę o granice wojną domową, jest naciągana. Owszem, autor słusznie przedstawia podobieństwa i specyfikę konfliktów, ale jednak możemy sobie w prosty sposób wyznaczyć ważniejsze cechy wojny domowej niż zmienność sojuszy czy organizacje paramilitarne. Przede wszystkim nic z tego porównania nie wynika.
September 17, 2019
Świeże podejście do historii, można chyba powiedzieć, że pasujące do współczesności. Choć wygląda na to, że właśnie wracamy w Europie i USA do XIX wiecznych koncepcji... Ale, wracając do książki: Norman Davies w "Europa. Rozprawa" napisał "Problem „narodowego skrzywienia” zniknie dopiero wtedy, kiedy historycy i specjaliści od nauczania przestaną uważać historię za narzędzie polityki państwowej". Ta książka nie jest historią pisaną z perspektywy jednego narodu. Jak sugeruje tytuł, autor przyjął założenie, że walki, które trwały w latach 1919-1921 na granicach Polski z krajami sąsiednimi nie były bo prostu lokalnymi wojnami międzynarodowymi. Wziął pod uwagę wieloletnie współistnienie narodów w ramach imperiów zaborczych, które spowodowało, że okolice nowych granic państw były sąsiedzkim tyglem etnicznym i kulturalnym. Dlatego też walki o kształt granic między sąsiadującymi państwami miały charakter wojen domowych. Śledząc argumentację autora można się z tym punktem widzenia zgodzić. A na pewno należy przyznać, że takie podejście powoduje, że historia staje się bardziej wielowymiarową i ciekawą. Jestem pewny, że znajdą się krytycy, bo autor nie stosuje taryfy ulgowej nawet dla ikonicznych postaci naszej historii. Zapewne zostanie to potraktowane, jako obrazoburczy atak. Ja w każdym razie uważam, że warto przeczytać i się zastanowić.
September 4, 2019
Bardzo dobra książka dla takich jak ja, którzy coś tam już wiedzą o temacie ale jest to wiedza poszatkowana i niepełna gdyż:
1. Pozwala usystematyzować sobie wszystkie zawiłe zdażenia z historii Polski w ważnych dla nas latach 1918-1921
2. Pozwala spojrzeć szerzej na sytuację różnych grup społecznych w tamtym okresie i uświadamia ogrom zniszczeń jakich doznały nasze ziemnie podczas I Wojny Światowej.
3. Pokazuje okrucieństwo narodowowyzwoleńczej wojny, coś o czym nie powiedzą nigdy w szkole. Jednocześnie autor stara mocno by książka nie brzmiała jak oskarżenie przeciw Polakom - jasno pokazuje że to okrucieństwo w tamtych czasach było normą i bie zależało od pochodzenia etnicznego...
1. Pozwala usystematyzować sobie wszystkie zawiłe zdażenia z historii Polski w ważnych dla nas latach 1918-1921
2. Pozwala spojrzeć szerzej na sytuację różnych grup społecznych w tamtym okresie i uświadamia ogrom zniszczeń jakich doznały nasze ziemnie podczas I Wojny Światowej.
3. Pokazuje okrucieństwo narodowowyzwoleńczej wojny, coś o czym nie powiedzą nigdy w szkole. Jednocześnie autor stara mocno by książka nie brzmiała jak oskarżenie przeciw Polakom - jasno pokazuje że to okrucieństwo w tamtych czasach było normą i bie zależało od pochodzenia etnicznego...
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews