[Theodore]

Even though Pilsudski was a member of the Socialist party, I've found no refference to nationalisation or other socialist programs under his regime.

Did Pilsudski implement socialist policies or was he a socialist in name only?

[Ombrageux]

I thought he was very conservative? I imagined him to be the sort of reactionary Catholic nationalist, not a socialist. But I know very little about him.

[Red Star]

From what I gather, he held nationalist and not internationalist views, and broke with the radical wing of the party. May be he had socialist inclinations - any sources on the Polish economy during the period might shed some light on this.

Wait until Shade2 gets here, Theo...

[Shade2]

I imagined him to be the sort of reactionary Catholic nationalist,

He became Protestant in order to marry his wife and converted to Catholicism in order to marry a second wife.
He wasn't strongly nationalistic-first he wanted Poland to become part of Austro-Hungary as third kingdom, then to create mulit-national confederation in Eastern and Central Europe.
He was more interested in grand projects, then focusing only on Polish nation. For example he gived more attention to matters of Whites and Ukrainians, while rather neglecting Polish uprisings in Poznan and Silesia.

[Lokakyy]

My rather shallow material read about Piłsudski (briefly described) seems to point out that he started out as a nationalist, but rather progressive one, but in the end of his life, he was a bitter old conservative who had come to the belief that authoritarianism was the only way to secure Polish national interests.

[Theodore]

Well, the question wasn't about his social policies, but the economic policies of his regime. Were they more market-oriented of socialistic, Shade2?

[kami321]

According to wikipedia,

The Provisional People's Government of the Republic of Poland, formed in Lublin, bowed to Piłsudski, who set about forming a new coalition government. It was predominantly Socialist and immediately introduced many reforms long proclaimed as necessary by the Polish Socialist Party (e.g. the 8-hour day, free school education, vote for women). This was absolutely necessary to avoid major unrest. However, Piłsudski believed that as head of state he must be above political parties, and the day after his arrival in Warsaw, he met with old colleagues from underground days, who addressed him socialist-style as "Comrade" ("Towarzysz") and asked for support of their revolutionary policies; Piłsudski rebuked them with his famous remark that "I took the red tram of socialism to the stop named Independence, but that's where I got off". He declined to support any one party and did not form any political organization of his own. He also set about organizing a Polish army out of Polish veterans of the German, Russian and Austrian armies.

[Thunderhawk]

Dispite his occational dictatorship, Pilsudski was a believer in democracy and pluralism (American style, allowing some hypocracy for the greater good).

By the end of his life "democracy" in Poland was waining and largely rallied around extremes and populists. A democratically ellected official was killed, disunity through out the country, minorities were being ignored or oppressed by governments and the economy wasnt picking up much.

Relations with minorities inside Poland and nations outside Poland weren't very friendly or cooperative. Especially with the people Pilsudski wanted to form a Confederation with. Nationalism and extremism was winning over the masses politically, causing ever greater rifts and hatred towards minorities, Jews and various ideologies.

He was a Pole whose anationalist policies and beliefs died while his nationalist acts (defending Poland) were used to sound the drum for more like acts.

[Lokakyy]

Dispite his occational dictatorship, Pilsudski was a believer in democracy and pluralism (American style, allowing some hypocracy for the greater good).

His final reign before his death doesn't seem to support this argument - unless your definition of "american style" hypocrisy for the greater good extends far enough.

[Thunderhawk]

He did not reign absolutely for a long periods of time. Most of his time he spent trying to "force" reform and threatened to curtail the government or just seize power. A threat he carried on as head of the military. Unlike Ataturk, he largely failed.


By the "end" of his reign, relations with the people he wanted to ally had either soured (Lithuania, Czechoslovakia), or the people were inaccessable (Ukraine swallowed into the USSR). His "grand" plans were reduced to application in a Poland unsuitable for them, and largely unaccepting of them. Earlier miss-management of Poland blossomed into resentment by minorities (30% of the population) and periodic revolts. To maintain order he used a heavy hand, to instill reforms he threatened a heavy hand.

Pilsudski was not authoritarian in concept. He was a mediocre politician with limited tools, divisive "supporters" and ideas he didnt know how to implement. By modern standards he would be a multiculturalist and an idealist (day dreamer).



By the way, athoritarian means to get "socialist" ends can be done, and was the norm back them in Europe too. Just look at Poland's neighbours.



As for socialist policies, Education was made available for every one, women were given the right to vote, and all people were considered equal (Nobility/aristocracy was thrown out). Minorities got their say in regional and federal governments and had their own schools. Im not sure if these were specifically Pilsudski's ideas, but he supported them.


All of those, btw, were extremely limited in the regions of recreated Poland prior to independance. Prior to WW1 women's right, equality of class, public education and support of minorities were rare everywhere, especially in the poor ass-backward regions of Eastern Europe where Poland was.

[Raf]

Pilsudski wasn't a conservative or nationalist at all. He had bad relations with the Church and right-wing National Democracy. Extreme catholics disliked him so much that they created after the Battle of Warsaw the myth of Virgin Mary beating soviet troops on the outskirts of polish capital (so-called "the Miracle of Vistula"). No one of them could admit that the author of this victory was Jozef Pilsudski, an atheist and admirer of jewish people.

Religion wasn't important for him - he converted two times from catholicism to protestantism and vice versa. For the long period of his life he was an atheist (but not fanatic). His regime tried to balance between socialists and conservatives. It provides very weird situations, for example when his most loyal comrade Walery Slawek (old socialist revolutionary) was ordered to visit the great aristoctatic family of Radziwill's in their estate of Nieswiez.

He wasn't popular among western countries (especially in Britain and France) because during the Great War he fought for Central Powers. He believed that Russia was the greatest enemy of polish independence, so it would be better to ally with Germans and Austrians, who were far more tolerant towards polish feelings than Romanov's regime. After the coup d'etat he tried to balance between Soviet Russia and Germany. As we know, it wasn't a good strategy. It was the main failure of his reign.

[Thunderhawk]

After the coup d'etat he tried to balance between Soviet Russia and Germany. As we know, it wasn't a good strategy. It was the main failure of his reign.

I disagree. Any alliance with the Nazis or the USSR would come with losses and vassalship. It was a lose-lose-lose situation. Staying neutral was the most bloody, but also the most honourable.

[kami321]

Any alliance with the Nazis or the USSR would come with losses and vassalship. It was a lose-lose-lose situation.

Keeping in mind that as of September 1939 the Polish army was actually bigger in size than the German army, this army would have certainly provided a significant contribution to the German war effort on the Eastern Front, have the alliance between the two powers been successfuly negotiated and signed. This just might have been enough to shift the balance of the war on the Eastern Front in favor of the Axis, and the situation wouldn't have been so bad then at all.

However, it is questionable whether Hitler would have tolerated Poland as part of the Axis. Strong evidence suggests he would have tried to dismantle Poland one way or another.

[Shade2]

Keeping in mind that as of September 1939 the Polish army was actually bigger in size than the German army

Nope. That is one of several myths propagated by German propaganda. I don't blame you for this, they have soaked to mainstream view long time ago, just like the "cavalry charges" against tanks.
Polish army had circa 1,000,000 troops, German 1,800,000.
But those are only those in front, not the reserves in French border.
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288
Month Germany Eastern Western Norway Finland South-Eastern Africa Italy
Sep 1939 3 60 49 0 0 0 0 0

However, it is questionable whether Hitler would have tolerated Poland as part of the Axis. Strong evidence suggests he would have tried to dismantle Poland one way or another.

I have somewhere estimates of forces he believed would be possible to gather against Soviet Union with Polish help. The less known fact is, that it was planed that Japan would join the war if Poland joins also.
As to territorial plans Hitler wrote in 1933 that he would annex Western Poland and leave some puppet state suboridinated to German foreign and economic policy. This wasn't nothing new-German Empire in WW1 had exact same plans (including the expulsions of Poles and settlement of German colonists). However he tempted Poles with some territories of Belarus and Ukraine, and Memel(but that was not serious I think). If Poland would join Anti-Comintern Hitler planned to use it as buffer against Soviet invasion during the war with France(Poland would be neutral in this conflict). Later he wanted to create Ukraine in order to counterbalance both states by having them to rely on Germany to protect from each other.