There has been a recent and rather heated discussion on whether the Poles were all enthusiasts of French rule as they felt they were better off than being under the Russians.
I felt that such a generalization needed some nuance. It is true that when you read accounts by generals and dashing cavalry officers, you tend to get the impression that all Poles loved Napoleon and hated the Russians with a vengeance. But the true picture is more complicated, especially in 1812.
First thing to note is that many Poles were unwillingly involved in that war, as conscripts or bystanders. No enthusiasm there for a war with Russia. Then, and importantly, the French armies did much to curb any Polish enthusiasm for French rule by behaving really badly. Not only in the Grand Duchy but in the regions they liberated as they advanced (some of which had belonged to Poland before the partitions). I copy below a passage on the conduct of the French troops as they advanced through those territories in the summer of 1812. These passages are by a Polish interpreter attached to IHQ, a Monsieur Krasicki.
"Monsieur Gzospky heard that the French would be coming by his estate in a few days’ time. He did everything he could to make sure they would be well-received, baking cakes, making pâtés, roasting meat and collecting ham and drinks in abundance. The long-expected day arrived and he was overcome with joy. He ran before the French offering them bread and salt (an old tradition in Poland and Russia, a greeting the serfs confer on a new master when he arrives in the village, the equivalent of the Greek’s earth and water). He invited them to come and dine and they accepted with pleasure. The officers found a banquet laid out in the house whilst the soldiers were well-received in the barns and the courtyard. He was an excellent host. They ate, they drank, they laughed. Then, suddenly, one of the officers remarked that he liked Monsieur Gzospky’s boots. He had him take them off. Another took his trousers and a third his coat and soon, despite begging them to stop, he was stripped so he was as naked as the back of his hand. The officers were in hysterics and retired whilst a great number of soldiers remained and began to pillage and sack the house. Fortunately, Madame Monsieur Gzospka escaped their clutches and made off into the neighbouring forest whilst her humiliated husband threw himself under the sofa and his whilst the pillaging continued. When the brigands left he set out to find his wife. Everything had been carried off. He was not left a shirt or a pair of breeches. He had a neighbour who was also an enthusiast of the French and had welcomed them the same way; he was treated in the same manner. He had also been stripped. How is it possible they asked themselves, anger in their hearts and tears in their eyes, that these are our friends?"
He cites other examples, including gang rape, some Bavarians throwing a baby into a fire, robberies and murders. He rails against the French and what they were doing to the people of Poland.
And he was a Pole in French service.
I only write this to show that not every Pole was an ardent enthusiast of French rule. This should be remembered when writing generalizations about Poles and their "traditional enmities".
Yes if English is your only language you have no choice - otherwise without reading French you cannot study the French army in depth.
And what did Napoleon say about Poniatowski, Poland's best hope? Hmm, he was not very nice, writing to Murat "I know Poniatowski better than you do. He is a lightweight and of little consequence, even more so than the Poles usually are, and that's saying something. Nobody trusts him in Warsaw. Still, you better look after him well and manage him."
We'll should agree to disagree on the Poles and their relationship with Napoleon. After all he did establish the Duchy of Warsaw and he footed the bill for much of the Polish war effort, even to the extent of taking some of the Polish units into his pay even though they were Duchy of Warsaw troops.No, I don't agree to disagree, Boney created to Duchy for political reasons and not of the goodness of his heart, foreign troops were always more expendable to him than his own French - in case Boney thought it was good for him to sacrifice the Duchy of Warsaw and the loyal service of Polish units - he tried to do so, it came back to him.
Those Poles who saw this - gave him the boot. And others - rightfully asked themselves what Polish interests they defended in the West Indies and in Spain.
I think Napoleon's attitude to the Poles is best summed up by what he did to the Polish Legions. Not only did he send them to Haiti, but, in 1797, he was even drawing up plans to send them off to Egypt and India. In both case that was because their presence embarrassed him when he was busy negotiating a peace with Austria.
Napoleon was a formidable soldier, but he was also ruthless when it came to making peace.
@Kevin F. Kiley Any more than I agree that a serving military officer should renounce his oath of allegiance and participate in the overthrow and usurpation of the government he was sworn to defend. It’s a trait Napoleon shares with many, all of which I find unattractive, from Oliver Cromwell to Muammae al- Gadaffi. But there you go, it’s all perspective I suppose.
@Kevin F. Kiley So Alexander succeeding to the throne by a plot was bad because it was patricide, whereas Napoleon creating a throne by a plot was okay because you judge the regime to be corrupt. Surely if honest meritocracy was your desire, isn’t the nepotistic establishment of your siblings on the thrones of puppet regimes somewhat at odds? Otherwise, what do Louis, Jerome or Joseph have to offer? At least Alexander was an heir and a Russian. Napoleon was an usurper and not even French. On the whole it appears that Alexander treated the Poles who fought for France reasonably well, although it is acknowledged that condition worsened later. Napoleon appeared willing to trade away his ‘loyal’ Poles to suit his own ambitions. In the murky world of 19th century empire building they both seem to come out with equally dirty hands, at least where the Poles are concerned. This makes the admiration that Poles exhibited to him in his lifetime, and that some still practice today, even more curious. That is why I’m driven to conclude that the common denominator is the personality cult of Napoleon himself.
It was of course Weider, who wrote that silly book: Napoleon, Man of Peace running the same sort of selective history that Kevin and others try to push. That was the point of my reference to Fawlty Towers, where the argument over who started it actually depended on what “it” was. Depending on your nationality, the Second World War started on several different dates in different areas. These arguments over why wars happen are extremely complex - AJP Taylor put WW1 down to German railway timetables - and do not depend on who actually declared war or other simplistic approaches. Indeed if you play the computer game Civilisation, you will get along fine until you are the biggest state and the others attack you in a Coalition, because they fear your power - enemy of my enemy etc.
Indeed, how can Napoleon be called one of history’s major personalities, if he was driven by events (Zamoyski) pushed by people few could even name now. Surely, the major figures drive the tides of history?
Kevin, most of the peasants in the army of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw were conscripts. They were not volunteers. You can't say they willingly fought anyone.
And, earlier, there are numerous complaints from French commanders in Italy in the 1790s or in Haiti complaining that the Poles did not fight hard enough. They weren't enthusiastic enough, even. Which undermines the idea that they were very willing warriors.
Before I close, I would ask, kindly, that you do not take to bad-mouthing all Russians writing things like "they are a predatory nation" and then listing those grudges you have with their current government.
If we continue like that we may just as well throw stones as enter into a debate.
But the nature of language is that it depends on it’s common use. When the usage changes, so does the definition. When a phrase is defined by the judgement of “excessive” then the common understanding of what constitutes a level of normal loyalty comes into play. For example, one of the diagnostic traits of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder was “excessive” hand washing. If we applied that to most of us today, many of us would have a frequency hitherto seen as excessive.