From East to West. Modernization in the Western and Northern Territories of Poland (1944–1989)

Abstract

At the end of World War II (1943–1945), the Soviet Union appropriated the eastern parts of Poland, while part of Germany was incorporated into the remaining Polish territory. This was a revolutionary transformation. The German population of Silesia, Pomerania, and Eastern Prussia was replaced by Poles mainly from the Polish eastern territories. This initiated a process of organizing a new social and economic reality in a socialist way: settlement, reconstruction of towns and villages, industry, administration, education, and encounters of different social groups, regional cultures, and mentalities. Till the end of the 1970s, these regions were seen by Polish sociologists as social laboratory in which the process of “Soviet-inspired modernization” took place at high speed.

1 Introduction

Collective awareness of present-day Polish society perceives Poland as a quite uniform country with respect to culture, language, nationality, and religion. From a historical and sociological perspective, this is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon existing for less than 80 years.¹ The idea of complex harmonization² within the concept of the modern national state had been propagated by the political camp of national democrats when Poland regained its independence after World War I (Koryś 2006). Its later implementation took place under different historical conditions and under the influence of a political group with completely different values — the Polish Workers’ Party. Realizing this idea was the consequence of the agreements concluded at Jalta and Potsdam at the end of World War II. Their provisions shaped the development of Polish statehood on a new territorial and social basis. The imposed communist government of Poland took over eastern parts of the German Reich, while the Soviet Union annexed eastern provinces of Poland. This led to a massive exodus of the German population from the new Western and Northern Polish Territories and the relocation of Poles from their homelands in the East (Musiał 2011, 206–207; Kochanowski 2016, 35).

These events had serious consequences for the later socioeconomic development of the People’s Republic of Poland (PRP). Spatial mobility of masses of people, their dissociation from their traditional place of residence, from their domestic culture and history, and from their class and family relations, became an important element of the wide-ranging and revolutionary reform program of the communist party. Its supporters called for the reconstruction of villages and cities, industries, and administration, as well as for the transformation of the political, social, and economic relations, which should lead in the end to the emergence of a modern socialist state. This process implied the realization of the Soviet concept of state socialism and the method of central planning (Jarosz 2013). The socialist (or better: “Soviet-inspired”) modernization aimed at civilizational progress and meeting the needs of a Poland that had gravely been wrecked during the war. It was necessary to speed up industrialization and urbanization, to reorganize the traditional agrarian sector, and to expand education and social policy.

The mentioned processes of modernization proceeded with particular intensity in the former German regions, which had been “regained” in 1945 by the new Polish state. The new “social laboratory” of Poland was marked by different social phenomena: intensified migration, settlement and integration, problems with coexistence of new settlers and local people, social mobility of new settlers and their integration into the new Polish “socialist society,” and the integration of the new territories into the rest of the country. Such cases attracted very soon the attention of Polish sociologists, mainly from the school of Florian Znaniecki, who found in the “regained lands” a suitable area for sociological research. Today, their analyses and studies testify to the achievements and impediments of socialist modernization in the PRP. They show the analytic, documentary, and policy-oriented role of Polish sociology in the period of state socialism.

This chapter will discuss three fundamental problems: (1) concept of socialist modernization as model of socioeconomic development, (2) the historical conditionality of this development in the “regained territories,” and (3) the contribution of Polish sociology to the discussion of the challenges of socialist modernization in these areas.

2 The Concept of Socialist Modernization

Modernization may be looked at from a historical or sociological point of view. In the first case, it is a complex process of longue durée entailing social, political, economic, cultural, and mental changes within Western civilization, which reached its climax during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries³ (Sztompka 2005, 130). Modernization is also a theory of social change and a research instrument allowing sociologists to describe, analyze, and explain the transition of societies from tradition and backwardness to modernity (Krzysztofek and Ziemilski 1993, 6).

Yet what do we understand by modernity? As a rule, it is defined as a historical epoch initiated by enlightenment ideas adopted by the American and French revolutions, the industrial revolution in England, and, finally, the proletarian revolution (Musiał 2013, 33). Shmul N. Eisenstadt tried to identify the multiple causes of social change and concluded: “The idea of multiple modernities presumes that the best way to understand the contemporary world — indeed to explain the history of modernity — is to see it as a story of continual constitution and reconstitution of a multiplicity of cultural programs” (Eisenstadt 2000, 2). According to this definition, there are many forms of modernity, among which we may discern the Soviet inspired or socialist type from the Western type.⁴ The Soviet-inspired variety, however, is also rooted in Western social thinking (Suchanek 1999). Similar views about pluralist social systems and their development are to be found in Wallerstein’s “World Systems Theory” (Wallerstein 2007, 32–3) or Feliks Koneczny’s “Theory of Multiple Civilizations” (Koneczny 1935, 1997).

Modernization can further be understood by the “Theory of Dependent Development.” It may unfold on the basis of a dependency relation between a peripheral state and a center of progress. This describes, for instance, the relation between Poland and the Soviet Union (Szczepański 1985, 16–17). As Sztompka (2002, 508) underlined, modernization is “an intended, targeted, planned process (…) that approaches an acknowledged model of modernity, as a rule a model of an existing society considered as modern.” Yet, modernization is more than a sociological theory. It is a specified model of development imitating a good example, or it is a revolutionary reform program of an underdeveloped country. It may put the principles of a given ideology into practice as Marxism-Leninism attempted after the Russian revolution to modernize the Soviet Union and, after World War II, also its satellites in Eastern Europe (Križan 1991).

The Western and socialist processes of modernization show different properties. The first model features competitive democracy, market economy, welfare state, and mass consumption (Zapf 1990, 17). Talcott Parsons, representative of a functionalist modernization theory, characterized modern societies by secularization and enlightenment, industrialization, mass production, rationalization, autonomy of social subsystems, individualism, urbanization, and literacy (Parsons 2009). The second model is autocratic and distinguishes itself mainly by central planning, collectivization of agriculture, industrialization with a preference for heavy industry, political terror, strengthening of the military, ideological combat, and the psychological concept of the new man (Davies 2010b, 1021–25). This differentiation shows the complexity of Poland’s socioeconomic development after 1945 and the tensions between the communist elite and the majority of society — not only in the “old” Poland but also of those people with a peasant background who have been relocated in the new Northern and Western Territories. Both models feature, however, some common traits of socioeconomic development.

I shall demonstrate the functioning of such systems of common modernization features in the PRP using a general model of socialist modernization (Fig. 2.1). The model distinguishes two fundamental modernization aims characterized by nine indicators of socioeconomic development. The first aim is the change of the living environment concerning the physical transformation of all aspects of the environment in which the social and economic life is taking place. It consists of four individual indicators (1–4) and an integrating indicator (5):

• 1. Accelerated industrialization is the most important basis of modernization. It has far-reaching social, economic, and political-ideological consequences: central planning, set-up and expansion of industrial structures, a class system with a growing workers’ class and a technical-intellectual elite, development of science and technology, growth of infrastructure and construction, overcoming civilizational backwardness, improvement of the quality of life, military strength (Kostrowicka 1978, 172–3), establishing and legitimizing political power, rapid economic growth, import of knowledge, hampering individual initiative in industry, and lack of private capital (Križan 1991, 80).

• 2. The consequence of industrialization is urbanization and the development of new urban centers around emerging industrial plants, which attract masses of people often from rural areas.

• 3. The result of industrialization and urbanization is, after all, an increase in jobs and reduction in unemployment. Under Marxism-Leninism, labor was the core element of socioeconomic development, and the socialist firm was the center of new social relationships.

• 4. Within all three processes, spatial mobility of the population takes place — that is, migration from the countryside to the cities and to new urban centers and regions of the country. It is the common driver for the three preceding indicators because, during the period of resettlement, it regulated the amount of human resources needed for work in industry, for settlement in cities, and for the expansion of the workforce or administration.

• 5. Dissociation from the traditional social order — the common motive for all modernization processes which have together decisive influence upon the change or dissolution of the initial cultural, religious, and traditional order. It consists, for example, in retrenchment of traditional agriculture or restriction of rural overpopulation.

Fig. 2.1

Model of socialist modernization in the Polish People’s Republic. Source: Own design

The second aim comprises changes of mentality. It concerns the transformation of the axiological basis, attitudes, and thought patterns through the influence of changes in the living environment (6–9):

• 6. Secularization and rationalization — both activities in the context of modernization mean separating the religious sphere from other areas of life, such as politics, science, or culture, and replacing it with the expansion of bureaucracy and economic policy, in order to accelerate the economic growth.

• 7. Democratization — the postulate of social equality, which in the political sphere was only a propaganda slogan.

• 8. Education aimed at eliminating illiteracy and, in higher education, training staff for the research, administrative, and industrial sectors.

• 9. Social policy in the form of guaranteeing access to public services, such as free healthcare, social security, and organizations of leisure.

From the point of view of the socialist modernization model, the mentioned features may be seen as particular articulation and competing alternative to the Western path on the way to modernity (Zysiak 2017, 139).

Starting point for analyzing modernization in the Western and Northern Territories of the PRP is the spatial mobility of the population. This process characterizes the social transition from backwardness and tradition to modernity. It also contributes to the dynamics of social change, creating new forms of behavior, needs, and structures resulting in demographic and cultural transformation. In addition, spatial mobility propels industrialization, urbanization, and reorganization of labor and speeds up their pace. The following paragraph will deal with the historical conditions and consequences of spatial mobility and their perception by Polish sociology.

3 Historical Conditions and Consequences of Spatial Mobility in the “Regained Territories”

Socialist modernization of Poland was a direct result of applying Soviet policy in postwar Poland. Only for a lesser part, it resumed Polish concepts of modernization of the interbellum (Koryś 2006; Musiał 2013, 105–163). After the German surrender in 1945, the political aims of Moscow focused on reorganizing the geopolitical order in Central and Eastern Europe, on enhancing the ideological influence of state socialism in the conquered countries, on pushing back the Germans behind the Oder river, and on extending the USSR on Polish territories. This was meant to overcome national and ethnic conflicts in future Europe. To this end, the victorious powers decided to carry out mass relocations of the population of different nations. Such plans were accepted by the US and the UK at the conferences of Teheran (November/December 1943), Jalta (February 1945), and Potsdam (July/August 1945) since they wanted to avoid conflicts with the USSR (Osęka 2016, 23).⁵

For Poland, these provisions implied the dominance of Soviet policy over decisions of the Polish government in exile, which had been transferred to London during the war. Thus started a new “peaceful” occupation of Poland, which, in fact, meant again the loss of political independence for 45 years. Nevertheless, the Polish state resumed its activity in the years 1944–1945. Political power was assumed by a communist government under the influence of the Soviet Union. All visions of socioeconomic development of Poland were subordinated to Moscow, in particular the primacy of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the system of state socialism (Musiał 2011, 206–240). Western development programs, like the Marshall Plan, were declined by the “new Poland” (Szatlach 2014, 337). The first step toward transferring Soviet into Polish policy was the publication of the propaganda reform program, the PKWN⁶ manifesto. The second document was the Six Years Plan stressing the development of industry in Poland. The third document crowning the foundation of the Polish People’s Republic was the constitution of 1952. All three of them can be seen as modernization programs determining the main features of Polish development until 1989.

The transformation of the Polish state after World War II affected not only the political-ideological but also the physical sphere. In 1945 started the process of a geographical and cultural westward dislocation by about 200 km. Parts of German territories (Pomerania, Danzig, Neumark, Lower and parts of Upper Silesia, and parts of Eastern Prussia) were included into the Polish state. Simultaneously, seven eastern Voiwodeships of Poland (Wilno, Nowogródek, a part of Białystok, Polesie, Wolhynia, Lwów, Stanisławów, and Tarnopol) were annexed by the USSR. In the West, the new borders were fixed by the Oder-Neisse line. In the East, Stalin implemented the old demarcation of the Polish eastern border by Lord Curzon and Sergei Sazonov (Davies 2010a, 960–961, 968). After 25 years, the dictator had achieved the aims of Russian policy during World War I and the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1921). It was decided, however, that Poland could preserve its autonomy and would not become a Soviet republic.

Figure 2.2 shows the geographical changes of Poland. Only half of the territory of the second Polish republic is situated within the borders of the PRP. The new state comprised only four-fifths of the area of its predecessor: 312,688 km² instead of former 389,720 km². In other words, the lost area (178,220 km²) was considerably larger than the gained area (101,200 km²) (Davies 2010a, 949–50).

Fig. 2.2

Translation of Polish and German borders in 1945

The decision to move German and Polish borders threatened to expand German-Polish antagonism. It could lead to enhanced conflicts and tensions what was to be eschewed after the end of the war. The Soviet policy aimed at pushing back the German influence as far as possible to the West. Soviet propaganda underlined the weakening of the German state, in particular those parts that had strongly supported the Nazi regime. On the other hand, it strived for an ethnic unification of the territories on both sides of the Curzon line to avoid potential ethnical conflicts between Poles, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, and Lithuanians (Kochanowski 2016, 35).

The new borders and the motive of ethnic homogenization led ultimately to the expulsion and deportation of the Polish population from the eastern provinces into former German territories and the simultaneous displacement of the Germans (Davies 2010a, 968). According to Polish sources, a total of 3, 2 million Germans⁷ were expelled from the territories awarded to Poland in the years 1945–1950 (Osękowski 1994, 106). Thus, an unprecedented ethnic change took place. According to Jerzy Kochanowski (2016, 37), around 520,000 Ukrainians, Byelorussians, and Lithuanians had left the “new Poland” by August 1946. The Polish (and partly Jewish) population was forcibly resettled from the eastern territories in two waves: the first “repatriation” in 1944–1948 (1,258,993 people), and the second “repatriation” in 1955–1959 (223,241 people). People from central Poland, prisoners from concentration camps, forced laborers, soldiers, and Polish refugees returning from West Germany settled on the former German territory. A total of 5,120,993 people settled there by the end of 1948 (Sienkiewicz et al. 2018, 474–475). In addition, about 1.5 million people from the USSR, East Germany, and other foreign countries returned to Central Poland. These rates are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Number of displaced Poles from the eastern provinces

The propaganda of the communist government declared the expulsion of the Polish population from half of the Polish state annexed by the USSR as “repatriation” or “return to the homeland.” In fact, it was the eviction of an autochthonous population that had lived there for centuries (Eberhardt 2000, 49).

This exchange of territories and population engendered enormous modernization effects. For the second Polish republic, the eastern territories were of mythical importance as symbol of the former glory of the first republic and the Jagiellonian times of nobility democracy with its multicultural character and a special form of patriotism. On the other hand, the eastern lands stood out by a low level of social and economic development. Forty-six percent of the second republic’s area were inhabited by one-third of its population: 4,3 million. Ukrainians, 3,5 million Poles, 0,9 million Byelorussians, 1 million Jews, 0,4 million others (Lithuanians, Tatars, Karaites, Germans), and 2 million indigenous people (in Polish so-called tutejsi) (Mędrzecki 2015, 65). Most of them lived in rural areas and were occupied in agriculture. Among the Poles, there was the landed gentry, the intelligentsia, and the “settlers” (osadnicy) from central Poland executing administrative functions (civil servants, military, police, teachers, but also peasants). Social, national, and religious cleavages became a source of internal tensions. The bulk of the population remained in the premodern era. Despite sizeable investment, these territories were marked by civilizational backwardness, an autarkic economy, and lacking infrastructure (Osęka 2016, 17).

In the PRP, the eastern territories became a taboo. People born there were registered as born in the USSR. The lands annexed from Germany were glorified by the communist government. In order to legitimize the change of borders, to gain the favor of the transferred population and the rest of society, and to familiarize them with the reality of a new cultural environment, the new Polish government created the term “regained territories” (ziemie odzyskane), referring to the medieval period of the Piast dynasty when these lands were situated within the borders of the Kingdom of Poland. The recourse to the historical argument was meant by the communists to legitimize the “returns” of these territories into the homeland and acquaint the new population with the erstwhile home country (Eberhardt 2018). After 1956, the new territories were called “Western and Northern Territories.”

Before the war, Polishness had little influence in the history and economic and cultural life of these regions. In 1939, 8,8 million people were living there, among them 7.1 million Germans and 1.3 million Poles (mostly in Upper Silesia, “autochthonous population”). In addition, military operations and the invasion of the Red Army caused the destruction of big German cities like Breslau, Stettin, and Danzig. Thus, the territories were a “blank sheet,” which enabled the policy of Polonization (Osękowski 1994, 107–110).

The organization of Polish social, political, and cultural life in the “regained territories” started with the set-up of new institutions for administration and science.⁸ The task of these institutions consisted of supporting and organizing the settlement policy and of collecting material on the mechanisms of the operation. The Scientific Council for the Problems of the Regained Territories counted eminent scholars among its members⁹ (Markiewicz 2005; Czubiński 1998, 113–114).

The catastrophic losses and damages of World War II, the new rulers, the change of borders, and the relocation of population had deep effects upon social change in the whole country. The census of February 1946 revealed that the Polish population had fallen since 1939 by one-third to only 23.9 million inhabitants. The population density dropped from 89,8 to 76,4 inhabitants per km². Only a small percentage of the population lived in the same place as before 1939 (Davies 2010a, 951). The population exchange took place not only in the new territories. Similar processes happened also in Warsaw, which had to be reconstructed or newly built and settled after 1945.

The war had caused deep structural changes in Polish society. The intelligentsia had been decimated, and the landed gentry and the community of Polish Jews practically ceased to exist. Social advancement (mainly the rural population) was followed by the social decline of other social classes. There was no way back to the organization of political, economic, and cultural life of the interbellum. The propaganda encouraged people to settle in the new Polish territory (Fig. 2.3). The Ukrainian, German, Byelorussian, and Lithuanian minorities disappeared almost entirely. Poland also lost the cultural center in the eastern provinces with the two university cities of Wilna and Lemberg. Because of the relocation, the Polish-speaking and Roman-Catholic population gained an absolute majority. The Polish People’s Republic, thus, became the first homogeneous national state in the history of the country.

Fig. 2.3

Example of a propaganda poster: “The Regained Territories. Future of Poland. The Democratic Bloc has won them and shall keep them” (Edmund John). Source: Skoczek (2015, 43)

Despite all the losses, Poland was also to benefit from the new political and territorial order. The “Regained Territories” had a better industrial infrastructure and more resources (coal, iron ore, industrial structures, a modern rail and road network, and a number of cities and sea ports). The provinces annexed by the USSR were predominantly less developed agrarian areas (the so-called B-Poland). The incorporation of Silesia and Pomerania enhanced the chances of industrialization and modernization of the economy. The new borders showed a certain coherence with mountain ranges (Sudetes and Carpathian), the Baltic, and large rivers (Oder and Bug).

4 The Contribution of the Sociology of the Western and Northern Territories to Analyzing Achievements and Failures of Socialist Modernization

The relocation of Poles into the “Regained Territories” created a prolific “laboratory of social processes,” which proceeded there more intensively than in the “old” parts of Poland. Sociology could play a special role in the documentation and analysis of settlement activity, finding there a wide field for empirical research. Sociology was a special discipline in the PRP since it could refer to its excellent methodological and intellectual roots and bourgeois traditions from the interbellum period. On the other hand, it experienced directly an ideological turn by the introduction of Marxism-Leninism and was confronted with the political, economic, and social crises of the PRP (Walerski 2022).

The leading sociological scholars from Kraków, Warsaw, and Poznań participated actively in the organization of new scientific centers in the new regions. Kazimierz Dobrowolski and Paweł Rybicki, both from the Scientific Council for the Problems of the Regained Territories, initiated research on different concepts of rural settlement and the organization of neighborhood groups, communal groups of settlers, and social institutions guiding urban settlement (Kwilecki 1968a, 305). Such projects were decided at the first meeting of the Council in 1945. The plans envisaged to relocate “compact population groups being able to keep up old social relations which would facilitate adaptation and integration into a new living environment” (Ziółkowski 1962, 265).

This strong engagement of sociologists in the new territories resulted in a sociology of the Western and Northern Territories. Of course, it was unique for Poland. As a new subdiscipline, it aimed at research on the social consequences of internal and external spatial mobility mainly in the form of relocation of parts of the Polish population. In some ways, it could be compared with sociological field studies on national minorities in the eastern provinces in the interbellum period.

Andrzej Kwilecki explained that migration was an important element of the socialist revolution in the PRP, since migration neutralized the political reforms that Polish society would never have accepted: “the fact that it was possible on 1/3 of the state territory, i.e., in the newly settled Western regions, to organize deliberately society, the ownership system, the land reallocation etc. was beyond any doubt of great importance for the reconstruction of the socio-economic system in the whole country” (Kwilecki 1976, 99).

Historically, Polish sociology experienced two development phases. Between 1945 and 1949, empirical research was resumed, and the first chair of sociology was established at the University of Wrocław. However, under Stalinism (1949–1956), sociology was regarded as a “bourgeois science,” and it was removed as subject of study from the university curricula. Party sociologist Adam Schaff criticized the school of Znaniecki. The thaw of 1956 entailed a renaissance together with an extraordinary upswing of the sociology of the Western and Northern Terrotories. The 1960s and 1970s saw the golden age of Polish sociology (Walerski 2022; Kwaśniewicz 1995, 39–67) characterized by praxeology.¹⁰ The number of research institutes, scholars, and publications grew. The bibliography on social problems of the Western and Northern Territories (till 1965) compiled by Andrzej Kwilecki (1967) counted some 400 contributions.

The institutional organization of sociological research in the “Regained Territories” suffered from difficult material and personal conditions. In the beginning, the discipline was situated mainly in academic centers outside of the region. Chairs at the universities of Warsaw, Kraków, Poznań, and Wrocław had a section on the sociology of the Western and Northern Terrotories (Kwilecki 1968a, 309). Only in the 1960s, new research centers were set up in other Polish cities (Katowice, Opole, Gdańsk, Szczecin, Koszalin, Słupsk, and Zielona Góra) in order to support the social development of these regions and the scientific development of sociology (Dulczewski 1967). An important role was played by associations like the Society for the Development of the Western Regions (Towarzystwo Rozwoju Ziem Zachodnich, 1957–1971) and by state institutes¹¹ (Kwilecki 1968a, 309; Sakson 1987, 105). A leading position was taken up by the Western Institute at Poznań (Instytut Zachodni). Its department of sociology coordinated research in the whole region. Its staff functioned as advisor and head of research teams responsible for the long-term planning in these territories (Kwilecki 1968a, 309–310). In fact, the institute was highly politicized since it was designated to legitimize the Polish claims to the Western and Northern Territories. Over the years, these centers contributed to the study of industrialization, demography, social mobility, cultural change in the countryside, and the social impact of schools.

New centers for the study of external spatial mobility were set up in the 1970s: the Committee for Poles Abroad (Komitet Badań Polonii) at the PAN headed by Hieronim Kubiak from the Jagiellonian University Kraków, and the Institute for the Research on Poles Abroad (Instytut Badań nad Polonią) at the Catholic University Lublin. Only after 1989, the latter institute addressed the problems of Poles in the East, which were obstructed in the communist period for ideological reasons (Horoltes et al. 2019, 11–12). In 1973, the PAN set up an Institute for the Study of Poles Abroad at Poznań (Zakład Badań nad Polonią Zagraniczną) (Sakson 1987, 111).

The sound institutional foundation of Polish sociology contributed to establishing interdisciplinary networks of scholars (demographers, ethnographers, legal experts for international law, linguists, geographers, and above all historians and sociological scholars) in the Western and Northern Territories.

Polish sociology stood under the influence of the empirical methodology and humanistic approach of Florian Znaniecki.¹² His student Zygmunt Dulczewski (1916–2004) used the autobiographical method and extended it by the idea of organizing competitions for diaries of the inhabitants of the Western and Northern Territories. The climate of the political change in October 1956 caused a broad social resonance for this idea. Representatives of all professional groups, women and men, town and village people, former autochthonous inhabitants, “repatriates,” remigrants from abroad, pioneers of settlement, and settlers from the central regions of Poland participated in these competitions. At the initiative of Dulczewski, the Western Institute organized (1956) the first competition on the memories of settlers—the diary of the settler of the regained territories (Pamiętnik osadnika Ziem Odzyskanych) (Dulczewski and Kwilecki 1963). Ten years later (1966), the Western Institute announced a second competition on the memories of young people who were born there (Dulczewski 1968). Until the end of the 1960s, there have been (also by other scientific institutes) about 70 diary competitions organized for the local population, settlers, and the youth in many towns and villages in the “regained territories.” They mostly had been announced for the 15th and 20th anniversary of the “return” of these regions to Poland (Kwilecki 1968a, 308–309; Sakson 1987, 107). In 1961, Dulczewski’s research team at the Western Institute in Poznań published a collective volume describing the emergence of a new society (Dulczewski 1961).¹³ In the same year, Dulczewski began a series of publications in the field of sociology of the Western and Northern Territories titeld: Western Territories. Studies and Materials. As part of this publication series, 13 works by outstanding Polish sociologists have been published.¹⁴ Ten years later (1971), this collective work was repeated (Dulczewski 1971, see also Sakson 1987, 109,111).¹⁵

As said, Dulczewski applied the autobiographical method in the tradition of Znaniecki from the interbellum period. In 1965, the Wrocław section of the Sociological Society, together with the Society of fans of Wrocław, issued a survey questionnaire: “What means Wrocław for you?” This questionnaire was connected to a similar survey of 1929 in Poznań initiated by Znaniecki and was repeated by the chair of sociology of the University of Poznań in 1964. The aim of the Wrocław survey was to gain material about the formation of a compact city community from a population with different regional origins (Kwilecki 1968a, 309).

The 25th anniversary of the “return” of the Western and Northern Territories in 1970 saw a new competition of the Western Institute aiming at different social problems: professional labor, family life, living and neighborhood relations, plans for the future, leisure and culture, views and interests concerning the city, the region, and the country, but also concerning different political events and the education of young people (Sakson 1987, 108). Thus, sociologists tried to obtain an exact picture of the last 15 years of socioeconomic development. In the 1970s and 1980s, more studies of valuable biographical material were published, enabling research of social development in this part of the country.¹⁶

The competitions also served the aim to enhance the identification of the displaced persons with the new region. The sociologists were looking for advantages and positive attitudes instead of critical comments. They revealed optimism and fascination with the method of diary research. This may be seen as a barrier for science since it instrumentalized the memories for propaganda use.

Next to such traditional approaches, other methods were applied. Descriptive monographies dwelled on particular social phenomena like social stabilization, attitudes toward problems of the city, individual regional groups and places, and the development of culture. Reliable data were collected by surveys of the Center for Opinion Research of the Polish Broadcast in selected cities (Kwilecki 1968a, 308–309). In some places, sociologists conducted — individually or in teams—so-called intensive studies aiming at in-depth knowledge of the social environment of the settlers, their way of thinking and behavior, and their political, social, and cultural interests. After 1956, the weekly and daily press also published field reports (Dulczewski 1958, 228–232).

Theoretically, the sociology of the Western and Northern Territories introduced West European and American concepts. Janusz Ziółkowski (1962, 269), for instance, analyzed the society of the new territories, using terms like “Americanization,” “cultural pluralism,” “social assimilation and integration,” and a cultural “give and take” in the process of adaptation. There were very little influences of Marxism-Leninism since this ideology did not fit well with the reality of social and cultural change in these regions.

In general, Polish sociology did not develop a new theory dealing with migration and relocation of Poles and Germans. Nevertheless, for more than 50 years, special paradigms evolved and found recognition in 2005 as “sociology of the Western and Northern Territories.” It reflected modernization in these areas. The concept of modernization did not show up, however, until the 1960s. All social and economic changes were described in terms of progress, entitlement, activity, evolution, intensification, repair, improvement, professionalization, politics, creativity, program, reconstruction, expansion, influence, or dependence (Kocik 1986, 13). Only in 1962, Janusz Ziółkowski referred in the context of social development in the “Regained Territories” to Raymond Aron’s (1959, 4) concept of social modernization:

The integration of the Western Territories into Poland was, among other things, so important because it enabled already in the first post-war years what the French sociologist R. Aron had called ‘social modernization’, which under the Polish (and not only Polish) conditions is equivalent to urbanization. Despite severe war damages, the housing potential of the urban centers in the Western Territories was big enough to accommodate the waves of newcomers from the village. In addition, it approached the pre-war level by systematic reconstruction. (Ziółkowski 1962, 280)

At the end of the 1960s, “modernization” was successfully introduced to rural sociology and social theory (Turski 1968; Turowski 1970; Bornus and Turowski 1970; Paluch 1976). Many of the phenomena and challenges of socioeconomic development in the new territories can be analyzed as manifestations of socialist modernization. The empirical material of the sociological studies contributed significantly to the understanding of the modernization processes in these regions. The scholars observed with special interest the changes in the composition of the population concerning their origins. They distinguished Polish autochthonous people (Eastern Pomerania, Opole-Silesia, Masuria) from displaced persons (settlers, repatriates) and inhabitants of the former German-Polish border areas. The encounter of numerous regional groups differing in culture, language, way of life, national awareness, and so forth led to the rapprochement of autochthonous people and settlers and the emergence of new communities. In addition, one had to adapt to new living conditions (landscape, architecture, infrastructure, technology, industry, natural environment, cities). Observing the conditions of coexistence of different population groups and their conflicts furthered research on social integration: how do different groups merge and new social units evolve? How are cultural patterns aligned, regional barriers and isolation of different groups overcome? How can social ties be enhanced, mixed marriages made possible? And finally, how can different regional groups form a unified society? (Kwilecki 1968b; Żygulski 1962; Nowakowski 1963).

Conditions and consequences of the encounter of different ethnical and cultural groups set another research focus. The scholars were interested in cultural features, behavioral patterns, attitudes, traditions, customs, and views of resettled people. Problems of forming identity and national awareness got discussed as well as the “clash of cultures.” Migration played an important role for raising and deepening national awareness. According to Kwilecki (1976, 99), the settlers in the new regions were convinced of their “national mission.” This implied a connected life of workers and peasants and simultaneously the recognition of workers as natural allies of the village. Finally, migration influenced the integration of the national and the cultural space of Poles:

Migration allowed to get acquainted with the country, its centers, and its landscapes. It helped to break the isolation of traditional local communities and to confront and interpenetrate regional cultures, customs, and ways of life. It helped to increase the number of local or regional homes of individual displaced persons and families. This emotional tie of Poles to different regions is based or complemented in family contacts and in the dispersion of the families over different parts of the country. (…) Family ties were created between cities in different parts of the country, which became manifest in multiple forms of communication, in visits on occasion of marriages, funerals, holidays or visits to family cemeteries. By consequence, the territory of the People’s Republic of Poland within its new geographical and political borders is based upon completely new social relations, upon a sustainable system of social bonds and new connections between regions. It resulted from migration and an integrated cultural space combining old symbols and traditions, which represent different old centers and historical monuments, and newly installed symbols of modernity like big industrial structures, new residential areas, streets or, as of late, big tourist hotels. All these are symbols, which are linked to the mobility of people. (Kwilecki 1976, 100)

After a couple of years, in which the migration processes in the new territories slowed down, scholars could analyze the changes in the demographic structure. Janusz Ziółkowski found that the demographic change in the Western and Northern Territories was larger in the 1960s than before 1939. The new demographic structure showed an equilibrium between the sexes, a smaller population density than in the rest of Poland (73 as against 93 inhabitants per km²), and a higher degree of urbanization (55.8 percent of the urban population against 45.2 percent in the rest of the country). A high birth rate inaugurated a “new autochthonization” of the newborn generation. The “Regained Territories” displayed the highest population growth in Europe, a high share of people up to 15 years of age (39.4 percent), and a very high share of married women in the age group 15–29 years, which was 16 percent higher than in the rest of the country (Ziółkowski 1962, 257).

Already during the interbellum period, Polish sociology observed the migration from the village to town. In the context of modernization, urbanization meant social advancement of the settlers in the hierarchy of urban life (work and occupation, quality of life, education, social security, healthcare, etc.). Urbanization shifted the labor force from agricultural to non-agricultural occupations, and people could count on social advancement. Wrocław, the biggest city of the new territories, was settled by 40 percent rural population and by 41.2 percent of people from smaller towns (Kwilecki 1968a, 315).

Each geographical and historical region belonging after 1945 to the PRP was subjected to sociological analysis. The research focused upon the formation of large territorial communities as a result of migration. So, another new subdiscipline emerged—the sociology of the sea. Its scholars (Ludwik Janiszewski, Robert Woźniak, Bolesław Maroszek) studied the professional life of “people of the sea”: fishermen, seamen, and dock workers in the regions along the Baltic Sea, Szczecin, Koszalin, and Gdańsk (Markiewicz 2005). The social changes in the large state farms (Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne, PGR) of the provinces of Koszalin and Olsztyn have also received much attention (Kwilecki 1968a, 312, 316).

The macro perspective was followed by the micro perspective, which analyzed different social patterns and social roles of the pioneers in the “Regained Territories”—that is, first settlers, administrative staff, organizers, activists, and newcomers. Because of their high social status and progressive role, these pioneers became the first “modern” citizens of the PRP. A highly motivated scientific community documented the achievements of socialist modernization in the respective regions. Their analyses testify to the “advantages of backwardness” of the local population. Urbanization, industrialization, communal equipment, and the rural infrastructure had a higher level than in their old places of residence (see Fig. 2.4), which could be put to productive use by the settlers.

Fig. 2.4

Electrification of the Polish village, 1960

However, sociological research also points to barriers of development and progress. A sizeable part of the settlers was not prepared to use the civilizational amenities of former German areas. They tolerated serious devastation of existing property. The focus on development problems of the new regions led to treating the lost Polish eastern provinces as a taboo. The change of social reality was performed by distancing the people from their natural environment and native culture. Such measures led to the disintegration of families and of social ties spreading over generations. The attempt to integrate people of different background, classes, and strata resulted at times in conflicts and antagonisms.

A couple of other socially caused modernization barriers may be enumerated: a strong bond of the population with their old cultural and social customs, mindless imitation of different behavior patterns, susceptibility to the influence of new ideologies, extravagant lifestyles and increasing competition for material goods, a low level of knowledge about cultural processes, destruction of the old culture of the settlers, primitive attitudes of the settlers with respect to the material culture of the household, industrialization without urbanization, overdrawn government investments, an excessive pace of development, and a sense of insecurity: until the ratification of the Treaty of Warsaw in 1970 between the PRP and West Germany, the Poles were anxious about the return of the Germans.

Mental blocks may have also resulted from political limitations of sociology. Many scholars consolidated the propaganda view of the historical and social reality, using concepts like “migration,” “repatriation,” or “Regained Territories” without considering the historical background. Janusz Ziółkowski, for instance, wrote repeatedly, conforming to the propaganda, about the “return” of the Western and Northern Territories to Poland. His writings show an anti-German bias, while he has no critical word about the Soviet Union. There is no integral textbook on the sociology of the western and northern regions, nor is there an overarching theory of Polish migration. Empirical research dominated theoretical thinking, which implied an unsatisfactory relation between science and politics.

The dynamic development of sociological research in the Western and Northern Territories came to an abrupt halt at the beginning of the 1970s. Field research and the diary competitions, which according to Dulczewski should be repeated every ten years, were also discontinued. The political authorities declared the integration of the people residing in the new territories as completed. However, many specific problems of these regions were considered intractable because of political reasons (Sakson 1987, 109).

During the dawn of actual socialism and the period of transformation, the sociological center of Wrocław took up the studies on the Western and Northern Territories. The VII Polish Congress of Sociology in 1986 opened with a plenary session on the “Regained Territories” and the processes of integration (Misiak 1990). In 1988, a team of scholars from all over Poland studying problems of the local population convened at the Western Institute of Poznań. They collected data and conducted many field studies in places of ethnic or language communities of Silesia, Kashubia, Masuria, and Ermland, as well as among the German minority (Sakson 2017, 531).

5 Conclusion

A new Polish state was created after 1944. It was an unparalleled historical act to provide the “new Poland” with new borders and to endow the Polish society with a partly new identity. The effort implied a manipulated version of history, an authoritarian political system, a complex Soviet-inspired modernization policy, the glorification of a progressive class, that is, the proletariat, the propaganda of peace, and the victory of socialism over fascism. These changes laid a fertile ground for the development of a modernization path, which was new for Poland and which tried to combine idiosyncratic features of socioeconomic development with the general properties of the system. The Western and Northern Territories of Poland reflected these modernization processes.

Usually, socialist societies are characterized by a low level of mobility (mainly because they have closed their state borders). In contrast, Poland experienced intensified external and internal mobility and dislocation, which took place immediately after World War II. This created the conditions for introducing a new political and social system in Poland, which resulted in the transition to an industrial society. It established a solid foundation for the PRP and the Third Polish Republic.

The sociology of the Western and Northern Territories, in many respects, did not fit into the narrow structure of the prevalent ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, it provided stimuli to analyze social stratification without regarding the symptoms of social differentiation solely from the class point of view. The most relevant social concepts employed by the sociologists of the Western and Northern Territories right from the beginning were “ethnic groups,” “regional-geographic communities,” “youth,” “men and women,” “individual pioneers,” or “family communities.” By their very nature, these concepts reflected the social facts to be analyzed (Markiewicz 2005).

Sociological research in the new territories yielded two contradictory views of socialist modernization. The first underlined a high intensity of modernization, openness, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The second drew attention to social uprooting and atomization of the people and a slow evolution of collective awareness (Sakson 2017, 530). Polish sociology had a rich theoretical and methodological background based on the empirical school of Florian Znaniecki and on strong American and West-European influences. In general, sociological research is not interested in ideologies, but in human beings, their subjectivity, and their real needs. Polish history demonstrated that the political leadership did not respect this principle. Political and economic ideas, arbitrary relocations of borders, enforced development, and historical propaganda became more important than the people, their culture, history, and memory. This resulted in a powerful modernization barrier.

The settlers and inhabitants of the new territories proved strength and activity, like the whole of Polish society, which succeeded in reconstructing the country from the devastations of the war and in building a strong nation. Only after the big turn of 1989, sociologists were able to observe objectively the real political and social cleavage between the “Regained Territories” and central Poland. After 1945, former central Poland became the new East, which did not fit to its mental and cultural reality.

The history of the new lands reflects a Polish drama after World War II. Only in 1990, Germany recognized these territories as part of the Polish state. The People’s Republic had occupied them under the protection of the USSR, which stationed their troops preferentially there. The Polish eastern territories and the remaining Poles there became entirely “depolonized” and “sovjetized”, what for several decennia became a taboo topic in public opinion.

The modernization of the Western and Northern Territories can be viewed only partly as a success. The stumbling block for the project was the very model of modernization based on authoritarianism and a wide range of problems that could not be solved along this development path. A typical example is the low innovation intensity. It became most visible in the former state farms of the new lands, which, after they lost their government subsidies in transformation, were marked by poverty and backwardness.