What do you think?
Rate this book
The Polish Revolution: Solidarity
The author was with the strikers in the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk. He witnessed the defiance of the workers and the emergence of an improbable leader and hero in Lech Walesa. This book, therefore, acts as an eyewitness account of the occurances cited but also it provides an analysis of the powers ranged against Solidarity and of their pyrrhic victory. The author describes Solidarity's long underground struggle, its triumphant return in 1989 and the ironies of its subsequent disintegration.
388 pages, Hardcover
First published November 3, 1983
About the author
Timothy Garton Ash
43 books221 followersTimothy Garton Ash CMG FRSA is a British historian, author and commentator. He is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University. Much of his work has been concerned with the late modern and contemporary history of 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 12, 2012
Timothy Garton Ash’s book on the early years of a Solidarity movement is a striking blend of history and journalism. Ash managed to write a successful and relatively comprehensive account of the birth of Poland’s free trade union almost as the process was going on, when reliable sources were difficult to come by, and as the official state channels attempted to distort the real picture of the movement (often with success among some spheres of Western audiences).
Solidarity’s mass nature was possible to a unique combination of several factors that existed in Poland in the early 80s. The first was the demographic surge of young workers who benefitted from the success of communism in increasing the standard of life in the 60s and 70s, but were now suddenly faced with an economic collapse. Used to the temporary perks of the system, but only starting to experience its long-term flaws they were simply unwilling furious at their deteriorating condition and unlike their parents, bitterly experienced by the Stalinist post-war repressions, they were not afraid to voice this discontent. They were ripe for the picking of any revolutionary movement that would come about.
The second was the historical moment in which Solidarity operated. The détente conditioned American money on the assurance that basic human rights will be broadly respected in Poland. This was strengthened by the deal the Party made with the Church, where the latter cooperated with the regime on the condition that ‘God-given’ human rights will not be violated. As Karol Wojtyła was elected Pope in 1978, the influence of the Church increased immensely, and it did further again after his visit to Poland a year later. All these events solicited broader tolerance from the Party to any grassroots movement that it might have to face.
Finally, Solidarity was the first Polish movement to bridge the gulf that separated Polish worker and peasant classes from the intellectuals. This was achieved by the creation of such groups as KOR (Workers’ Defence Committee) which positioned intellectuals and university-educated specialists in the role of advisors to the workers’ union. The result of this merger was a vibrant opposition counter-culture, with prolific uncensored samizdat magazines and journals, or the underground educational enterprise known as the ‘Flying University’. The intellectuals participated in all the negotiations with the government and helped assure that the movement did not radicalise before reaching a critical membership mass.
Solidarity at its core was a movement deeply rooted in socialist ideology. It had both Catholic and nationalist undertones, but its basic postulates revolved around diminishing the power of the elites (the nomenklatura, but not the Party itself- Solidarity leaders knew that such a proposal would not be sustainable) and bringing wider autonomy and self-rule to the working people. This was exactly why it posed such a threat to the system. Unlike the Catholic Church, Solidarity was claiming the same type of legitimacy the Party did- to represent the workers. It was truly, as Ash put it, a “workers’ revolution against a ‘Workers’ State’”. In addition, while other Soviet bloc countries might not have some of the features characterising Polish opposition- strong Catholicism or bothersome independent farmers- they all had young working classes. This made the threat of Solidarity’s ideas even more immediate to the communist system. Ash quotes a Polish reformist Party journalist, Stefan Bratkowski, who summarised well this dilemma by observing that the Polish people “have taken socialism more seriously than the government ruling in its name. The question now is, will the government take the people more seriously, and will the people be able to take the government at all seriously”.
As Martial Law was imposed and Solidarity’s cells smashed, the Polish Communist Party attempted a process of ‘normalisation’ modelled after Kádár’s Hungary after 1956. This consisted of two steps. The first, in which the regime was successful, was making Poles unable to conspire against it (as was achieved by the Martial Law). The second was to make it indisposed to conspire against it. Here the Party failed. The repressions could not be as extreme as they were in ‘56; Jaruzelski hoped for a bloodless takeover, western creditors could not be further alienated, and the movement the regime faced was simply so large it would involve a nationwide bloodbath. As a result the ‘catharsis’ that occurred in Hungary in ’56 was not replicated in Poland. The Party continued to lose members, and the influence of the military and the security forces became pre-eminent. The Communist Party was again “a tiny clique sitting on bayonets”. The disintegration of its power, that was to culminate in 1989, was well underway.
The major drawback that I could identify in Ash’s book is that he frames his argument with a number of idealised pre-assumptions about Poland. He defines the Polish idea of ‘freedom’ is closely linked to national independence and that myths of national resistance there are “imbibed with mother’s milk”. More importantly, he claims that Polish identity is at its core define in opposition to Russia- in other words he treats the old notion of Poland as the Antemurale Christianitatis of Europe (or, in this case, rather the Bulwark of Catholicism as opposed to Russian Orthodoxy), as the core fundament of ‘Polishness’.
While this might be true to some extent, or define a part of the Polish population in the 1980s, it is hard to prove that these traits can be generalised to the entire Polish population, which after all was a product of centuries of interplay of different competing ideological, intellectual, and philosophical influences, out of which those of ‘national resistance’ and ‘anti-thesis of Russia’ are only some examples.
The above is important, as it plays a key role in Ash’s logic when he tries to understand the fierce rejection of Communist Party rule in Poland after WWII by large segments of the Polish public. He admits that it would be wrong to talk about socialism as a wholly alien body in Polish society. The Socialist Party was strong among the urban working class during the interwar period and socialism also had a solid rural base of support. What, according to Ash, was unacceptable for the Poles was the imposition of a Soviet-style socialism that was rejected from the outset as a continuation of Russian imperial designs towards Poland. This he directly links to the ideological make-up of the Poles described above.
Solidarity’s mass nature was possible to a unique combination of several factors that existed in Poland in the early 80s. The first was the demographic surge of young workers who benefitted from the success of communism in increasing the standard of life in the 60s and 70s, but were now suddenly faced with an economic collapse. Used to the temporary perks of the system, but only starting to experience its long-term flaws they were simply unwilling furious at their deteriorating condition and unlike their parents, bitterly experienced by the Stalinist post-war repressions, they were not afraid to voice this discontent. They were ripe for the picking of any revolutionary movement that would come about.
The second was the historical moment in which Solidarity operated. The détente conditioned American money on the assurance that basic human rights will be broadly respected in Poland. This was strengthened by the deal the Party made with the Church, where the latter cooperated with the regime on the condition that ‘God-given’ human rights will not be violated. As Karol Wojtyła was elected Pope in 1978, the influence of the Church increased immensely, and it did further again after his visit to Poland a year later. All these events solicited broader tolerance from the Party to any grassroots movement that it might have to face.
Finally, Solidarity was the first Polish movement to bridge the gulf that separated Polish worker and peasant classes from the intellectuals. This was achieved by the creation of such groups as KOR (Workers’ Defence Committee) which positioned intellectuals and university-educated specialists in the role of advisors to the workers’ union. The result of this merger was a vibrant opposition counter-culture, with prolific uncensored samizdat magazines and journals, or the underground educational enterprise known as the ‘Flying University’. The intellectuals participated in all the negotiations with the government and helped assure that the movement did not radicalise before reaching a critical membership mass.
Solidarity at its core was a movement deeply rooted in socialist ideology. It had both Catholic and nationalist undertones, but its basic postulates revolved around diminishing the power of the elites (the nomenklatura, but not the Party itself- Solidarity leaders knew that such a proposal would not be sustainable) and bringing wider autonomy and self-rule to the working people. This was exactly why it posed such a threat to the system. Unlike the Catholic Church, Solidarity was claiming the same type of legitimacy the Party did- to represent the workers. It was truly, as Ash put it, a “workers’ revolution against a ‘Workers’ State’”. In addition, while other Soviet bloc countries might not have some of the features characterising Polish opposition- strong Catholicism or bothersome independent farmers- they all had young working classes. This made the threat of Solidarity’s ideas even more immediate to the communist system. Ash quotes a Polish reformist Party journalist, Stefan Bratkowski, who summarised well this dilemma by observing that the Polish people “have taken socialism more seriously than the government ruling in its name. The question now is, will the government take the people more seriously, and will the people be able to take the government at all seriously”.
As Martial Law was imposed and Solidarity’s cells smashed, the Polish Communist Party attempted a process of ‘normalisation’ modelled after Kádár’s Hungary after 1956. This consisted of two steps. The first, in which the regime was successful, was making Poles unable to conspire against it (as was achieved by the Martial Law). The second was to make it indisposed to conspire against it. Here the Party failed. The repressions could not be as extreme as they were in ‘56; Jaruzelski hoped for a bloodless takeover, western creditors could not be further alienated, and the movement the regime faced was simply so large it would involve a nationwide bloodbath. As a result the ‘catharsis’ that occurred in Hungary in ’56 was not replicated in Poland. The Party continued to lose members, and the influence of the military and the security forces became pre-eminent. The Communist Party was again “a tiny clique sitting on bayonets”. The disintegration of its power, that was to culminate in 1989, was well underway.
The major drawback that I could identify in Ash’s book is that he frames his argument with a number of idealised pre-assumptions about Poland. He defines the Polish idea of ‘freedom’ is closely linked to national independence and that myths of national resistance there are “imbibed with mother’s milk”. More importantly, he claims that Polish identity is at its core define in opposition to Russia- in other words he treats the old notion of Poland as the Antemurale Christianitatis of Europe (or, in this case, rather the Bulwark of Catholicism as opposed to Russian Orthodoxy), as the core fundament of ‘Polishness’.
While this might be true to some extent, or define a part of the Polish population in the 1980s, it is hard to prove that these traits can be generalised to the entire Polish population, which after all was a product of centuries of interplay of different competing ideological, intellectual, and philosophical influences, out of which those of ‘national resistance’ and ‘anti-thesis of Russia’ are only some examples.
The above is important, as it plays a key role in Ash’s logic when he tries to understand the fierce rejection of Communist Party rule in Poland after WWII by large segments of the Polish public. He admits that it would be wrong to talk about socialism as a wholly alien body in Polish society. The Socialist Party was strong among the urban working class during the interwar period and socialism also had a solid rural base of support. What, according to Ash, was unacceptable for the Poles was the imposition of a Soviet-style socialism that was rejected from the outset as a continuation of Russian imperial designs towards Poland. This he directly links to the ideological make-up of the Poles described above.
March 19, 2010
This book is touted to be the most comprehensive reports on what was happening during the 18 or so months from the creation of Solidarity movement in Poland in August 1980 to the imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981. The author is a professor at Oxford, England, his his academic credentials are impeccable, and he is fully (one might say obsessively) invested in his subject.
The story of Solidarność is familiar to anyone who was even minimally conscious in the past 3 decades. Solidarność was born in Poland during the years of deep discord, miserable economic conditions, and constantly broken political promises. It was the period of dashed hopes for a better future while the society watched how Western countries were thriving and prosperous. Almost suddenly, and to the amazement of the world, Poles, en masse, took a hint from serious clashes in the city of Gdańsk, and within a short time the country became engulfed in a fierce struggle against communist authorities and the “Polish Revolution” of the 1980s was born.
The book has invariably received excellent reviews. However, I do not think that it is necessarily a good read. Ash is beyond obsessive in his level of detail and at times the stories become a jumble of words that, although valuable to a historian, make this an exceedingly slow, plodding, dry and dense read. When compared to Harvard historian S.M. Plokhy’s “Yalta: The Price of Peace” it pales in comparison as a good read. Where Plokhy draws one in with his prose, Ash does not. It is a shame, because the Polish Revolution was an extraordinary event that no one could have predicted could occur. Part of why it did had to do with the collective nature of Poles, who are stubborn, passionate, and whose will to have their own homeland, free of the ugliness of Soviet influence, never was extinguished. Ash does allude to this, as well as the influence of the Catholic church and the extraordinary charisma and leadership of the Polish pope. But saying the words does not give one a good picture of the passion of the Polish soul, even though the author was right where the action was, literally.
Even though he does not limit himself to shallow, superficial observations and even though he managed to interview and interact with many Solidarity activists, on various levels, and observe meetings and conversations at the time, he fails to bring the time to life in the same way that Plokhy brought Yalta to life. Perhaps this is a function of an English academic rendering, as opposed to a more “American” English telling. But there it is.
Perhaps the most important and interesting part of this book is Ash's analysis through the embarrassment of both the left and right, neither of which really supported the Polish people's struggle against the tyranny of the Soviets. He compared the reaction to the Spanish civil war and opined that there were no great novels written about the Polish struggle in the same way that there were over the struggle against the fascist rule in Spain. The left did not stand by the Poles' struggle because of the residual myth of the Russian Revolution (read imposition of another dicatorship) and the right (read Reagan) reaction was embarrassed, confused, and half hearted. Their ideology kept them from seeing past the distinctly socialist elements of the Solidarity struggle. And so it goes with Poland, who usually has to go it alone.
I do not regret reading this, as it taught me much that I did not know before about the imposition of martial law and what happened during that time, or of the unique nature of the pure democratic struggle of those heady days.
The story of Solidarność is familiar to anyone who was even minimally conscious in the past 3 decades. Solidarność was born in Poland during the years of deep discord, miserable economic conditions, and constantly broken political promises. It was the period of dashed hopes for a better future while the society watched how Western countries were thriving and prosperous. Almost suddenly, and to the amazement of the world, Poles, en masse, took a hint from serious clashes in the city of Gdańsk, and within a short time the country became engulfed in a fierce struggle against communist authorities and the “Polish Revolution” of the 1980s was born.
The book has invariably received excellent reviews. However, I do not think that it is necessarily a good read. Ash is beyond obsessive in his level of detail and at times the stories become a jumble of words that, although valuable to a historian, make this an exceedingly slow, plodding, dry and dense read. When compared to Harvard historian S.M. Plokhy’s “Yalta: The Price of Peace” it pales in comparison as a good read. Where Plokhy draws one in with his prose, Ash does not. It is a shame, because the Polish Revolution was an extraordinary event that no one could have predicted could occur. Part of why it did had to do with the collective nature of Poles, who are stubborn, passionate, and whose will to have their own homeland, free of the ugliness of Soviet influence, never was extinguished. Ash does allude to this, as well as the influence of the Catholic church and the extraordinary charisma and leadership of the Polish pope. But saying the words does not give one a good picture of the passion of the Polish soul, even though the author was right where the action was, literally.
Even though he does not limit himself to shallow, superficial observations and even though he managed to interview and interact with many Solidarity activists, on various levels, and observe meetings and conversations at the time, he fails to bring the time to life in the same way that Plokhy brought Yalta to life. Perhaps this is a function of an English academic rendering, as opposed to a more “American” English telling. But there it is.
Perhaps the most important and interesting part of this book is Ash's analysis through the embarrassment of both the left and right, neither of which really supported the Polish people's struggle against the tyranny of the Soviets. He compared the reaction to the Spanish civil war and opined that there were no great novels written about the Polish struggle in the same way that there were over the struggle against the fascist rule in Spain. The left did not stand by the Poles' struggle because of the residual myth of the Russian Revolution (read imposition of another dicatorship) and the right (read Reagan) reaction was embarrassed, confused, and half hearted. Their ideology kept them from seeing past the distinctly socialist elements of the Solidarity struggle. And so it goes with Poland, who usually has to go it alone.
I do not regret reading this, as it taught me much that I did not know before about the imposition of martial law and what happened during that time, or of the unique nature of the pure democratic struggle of those heady days.
February 9, 2014
After spending a month in Poland a couple of years ago with five high school students I wanted to learn more about Solidarity, the movement which set the path for the amazing transformation Poland has experienced. Ash provides a detailed historical account of the Polish resistance movement of 1980 to 1981 referred to as Solidarity. Ash mixes his historical skills and judgments with the first hand accounts he gathered as he spent time with the workers, farmers, and intellectuals participating in the resistance.
Ash assumes the reader has some prior knowledge of Poland's tortured history as a people and nation. At the same time, some might argue Ash lets the story bog down in details and events. Yet,these are necessary as Ash tries to explain to those of us in the West the complexity of social forces which fueled the "Polish revolution." That complexity is part of the point Ash makes. Solidarity was not simply a labor movement, it is impossible to categorize simply as a "liberal" or "conservative" movement, the participants were not always noble and virtuous, and always lurking in the background was the threat of a Soviet invasion.
Ash provides a good description of Poland in the immediate years prior to 1980. Though dominated by Soviet and communist influence, most Poles still identified as Catholic and most Polish farmland had not been collectivized. Growing economic problems, increasing social and economic inequality troubled the youth being taught the socialist doctrines in school. Coupled with the teachings of the Catholic church, now led by a Polish Pope, and fueled by economic shortages and hardships, the people of Poland began to rise against their government.
The enjoyable parts of the book were when Ash describes the strikes led by Walesa and others. The workers made rules about their behavior, including banning alcohol from the strikes. Sympathetic priests were found to lead daily masses and if need be, Walesa could always start the Polish national anthem. Observations experienced by Ash add to the personal feel of the book. "...the noise of two hundred peasants sleeping, is incredible: it is not merely snoring, it is grunting and snorting, heaving and groaning."(128)
In this edition Ash adds a postscript which reflects both the passing of time and additional documents now available since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ash asserts again that western leaders misinterpreted the Polish revolution, which led to either taking no action, or taking actions which were not particularly helpful. The people of Poland were not helped by a Pope who encouraged them to resist while silencing priests in Central and South America asking for the same from their government. Nor were they helped by President Reagan's policies which used them convenient thorns in the Soviets sides, while funding and supporting indigenous movements in Central America.
In discussing the "failure" of Solidarity, Ash writes, "Solidarity gave people hope, hope and a sense of purpose. It gave them something to live for." It was a "revolution which killed no one," it strove for truth and non-violence, exposing the lies and violence of the Polish government. "The freedom they did achieve...was freedom from fear." (294-5)
For those of us who can't read Polish, this history of the Polish Revolution and Solidarity is a good place to start.
Ash assumes the reader has some prior knowledge of Poland's tortured history as a people and nation. At the same time, some might argue Ash lets the story bog down in details and events. Yet,these are necessary as Ash tries to explain to those of us in the West the complexity of social forces which fueled the "Polish revolution." That complexity is part of the point Ash makes. Solidarity was not simply a labor movement, it is impossible to categorize simply as a "liberal" or "conservative" movement, the participants were not always noble and virtuous, and always lurking in the background was the threat of a Soviet invasion.
Ash provides a good description of Poland in the immediate years prior to 1980. Though dominated by Soviet and communist influence, most Poles still identified as Catholic and most Polish farmland had not been collectivized. Growing economic problems, increasing social and economic inequality troubled the youth being taught the socialist doctrines in school. Coupled with the teachings of the Catholic church, now led by a Polish Pope, and fueled by economic shortages and hardships, the people of Poland began to rise against their government.
The enjoyable parts of the book were when Ash describes the strikes led by Walesa and others. The workers made rules about their behavior, including banning alcohol from the strikes. Sympathetic priests were found to lead daily masses and if need be, Walesa could always start the Polish national anthem. Observations experienced by Ash add to the personal feel of the book. "...the noise of two hundred peasants sleeping, is incredible: it is not merely snoring, it is grunting and snorting, heaving and groaning."(128)
In this edition Ash adds a postscript which reflects both the passing of time and additional documents now available since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ash asserts again that western leaders misinterpreted the Polish revolution, which led to either taking no action, or taking actions which were not particularly helpful. The people of Poland were not helped by a Pope who encouraged them to resist while silencing priests in Central and South America asking for the same from their government. Nor were they helped by President Reagan's policies which used them convenient thorns in the Soviets sides, while funding and supporting indigenous movements in Central America.
In discussing the "failure" of Solidarity, Ash writes, "Solidarity gave people hope, hope and a sense of purpose. It gave them something to live for." It was a "revolution which killed no one," it strove for truth and non-violence, exposing the lies and violence of the Polish government. "The freedom they did achieve...was freedom from fear." (294-5)
For those of us who can't read Polish, this history of the Polish Revolution and Solidarity is a good place to start.
June 24, 2019
Garton Ash's account of the 1980-81 Polish Revolution is both a history of the events, as well as that of someone who was there during them. As such he is unable to give a proper retrospective on their legacy, instead speculating on what the events would mean for the future of Poland. This version is an updated one that contains a brief summary of the events from 1989 and examines his own interpretations from 1983 (when the original was published). Overall it does a good job of showing the impact Solidarity had on Poland as a whole, and brings to life the many key figures both on the side of Solidarity and that of the government, and not just focusing on Walesa and Jaruzelski. As Garton Ash was able to interview many of the main leaders of Solidarity while working as a journalist in Gdansk, he thus provides a unique insight into their actions, one that a traditional work of history is not able to do. He also writes very clearly and smoothly, making for an easy read, though the many Polish names do make it difficult to keep up with at times.
July 8, 2010
Good history/case study of the Solidarity movement in Poland, up until 1981.
December 3, 2011
This was an interesting eye-witness account but since it was written in 1983, it doesn't deal with Solidarity after 1981. Thus its survival and ultimate victory is a whole other book.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews