The Rehabilitation and Ethnic Vetting of the Polish Population in the Voivodship of Gdańsk after World War II

List of Abbreviations

Introduction

The voivodship of Gdańsk was formed on 30 March 1945, before the end of the war. It included areas that had belonged to three administrative units between the wars: the Free City of Danzig, the Second Polish Republic, and the German Reich. The shape of the voivodship was adjusted in 1945–1946, so that in the end it included the following: the separate cities of Gdańsk, Sopot and Gdynia; and the powiats (counties) of Gdańsk, Gdynia, Kartuzy, Starogard, local coastal waters, Kościerz, Tczew, Elbląg, Malbork, Sztum, Kwidzyn and Lębork. By 29 May 1946, the voivodship had been expanded to include the counties of Sławno, Miastko, Słupsk, and Bytowo. Subsequently, these came under the authority of the voivode of Szczecin. This change had an impact on the subject examined in this book, for the process of vetting and rehabilitation regarding these four counties relates to the period when they belonged to the administrative unit in question. The voivodship of Gdańsk was thus a mixed area, comprising old counties that had previously belonged to the Second Polish Republic before the war (Gdynia, Kartuzy, local coastal waters, Starogard, Kościerz, and Tczew), and new counties annexed to Poland after the war (Gdańsk, Elbląg, Malbork, Sztum, Kwidzyn, and Lębork). The process of rehabilitation concerned the old counties, whilst the process of vetting was applied to the new ones, where the local population of Polish descent was subjected to it.

One of the effects of the occupation was the disintegration of the Polish community, a prime aim of German national policy intended to weaken national bonds and destroy the Poles’ unity. This aim was effected by creating the German National List (Deutsche Volksliste – DVL, Volksliste). The inclusion on this list of most of the inhabitants of these areas, frequently of Polish descent, was based on the conviction that the areas in question were historically German, and that they could quickly be re-Germanised. Inclusion on the DVL meant a recognition of German descent and the acquisition of German nationality. Therefore, a rapid settlement of the legal status of these persons became one of the most pressing and complicated tasks facing the post-war authorities. The liquidation of the effects of voluntary or compulsory enrolment on the Deutsche Volksliste was described as rehabilitation and led to strong emotions and condemnation, especially in the context of compulsory enrolment. During the 2005 Polish presidential campaign, this topic resurfaced when it was announced that the grandfather of one of the candidates for the highest state office had served in the Wehrmacht, ←15 | 16→one of the prime and most painful effects of being on the Volksliste³. During martial law in 1982, there was an attempt to discredit Father Henryk Jankowski by mentioning that his family had also been enrolled on the Volksliste.

Those who had waived their Polish nationality were often described as ‘traitors’ and Volksdeutsche in conspiratorial writings and have even been branded thus in post-war literature and by various social communities. And yet the term Volksdeutsche applies solely to those included in Group II of the DVL. We should note that this erroneous label of Volksdeutsche has been applied indiscriminately to anyone who held an Ausweis⁴, which is taken mean that they were collaborators and traitors, an opinion shared by many researchers of the topic⁵. The lack of clarification of this issue in academic publications has resulted in a repetition of well-worn false convictions among society, with the result that the topic remains extremely controversial⁶.

The second topic dealt with in this treatise is ethnic vetting, a process derived from the granting of eastern German territory to Poland in 1945 under the terms of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements. The population of this territory possessed German citizenship, resulting in the need to create a clear divide between Poles and Germans and to grant Polish citizenship to the former and expel the latter from Polish territory. The vetting was publicised as a legal process aimed at determining ethnic identity by administrative means, and was an exceedingly difficult task. A part of the population preserved a sense of belonging to the Polish nation, but many others had completely lost it under the pressure of Germanisation. Others still, despite their Polish descent, felt no connection with any sense of ←16 | 17→Polish identity. The Polish authorities conducted a heated debate on the criteria which the Vetting Boards should apply when separating Poles from the expelled German population. The principle of so-called broad vetting prevailed, driven by the need to swiftly make the Regained Territories Polish.

I describe the processes of rehabilitation and vetting in the context of the legislation applicable to Poland as a whole and to the voivodship of Gdańsk in particular, for it provided the basis for both operations. They underwent frequent modification because various circumstances regarding inclusion on the Volksliste had not been taken into consideration in the context of rehabilitation, whist in the context of rehabilitation there was not enough knowledge of the issues concerning the indigenous Polish population inhabiting the Regained Territories vis-à-vis post-war vetting. Insufficient awareness of these issues, the absence of qualified officials, the creation of a Polish administration from scratch in the regained areas, migrants and resettlement – all of this encumbered and delayed efficient rehabilitation and vetting. Furthermore, local officials often interpreted central regulations in different ways and sought to profit from the unregulated situation of persons deprived of civic and financial rights, resulting in many dramatic situations, including continued detention in labour camps and indiscriminate confiscation of the property of those being rehabilitated or vetted. A significant role here was played by security officials, whose stance towards the indigenous population often differed from that of the central authorities. The intimidation of these persons in various spheres of daily life had a particular ←17 | 18→effect on both processes. Hence, the discrimination of the indigenous population in Gdańsk is present throughout this treatise.

First, both of these processes were a major component of the German question extensively covered in Polish communist propaganda after the war. In particular, rehabilitation was presented as a struggle between the forces of democracy and the ever-present spectre of fascism. Secondly, granting civic rights to a segment of the population obliged to go through these processes turned them into potential voters in the political campaign that enabled the pro-Soviet forces to assume full authority in Poland. The supporters of this policy hoped that the mere creation of legislative conditions in this regard would provide a basis for extending their social influence. Such a manner of thinking whereby despite the enormous difficulties, the young Polish state fulfilled its obligations towards the people included on the Volksliste merely by adopting the appropriate legislation, was propagated towards the end of the 1960s by Julian Rados, a security police official⁷. Ignoring the harsh experience of thousands of Poles whose status and further fortunes often depended on the whims and moods of state officials should be included in the formula of historical interpretation which Michel Foucault has described as a reflection of the discourse of power⁸.

Rehabilitation and vetting occurred at a time not only of political changes, but also social changes. As in other regained areas, those areas belonging to Gdańsk voivodship witnessed the beginning of the creation of a new post-migration society in 1945. A characteristic feature of the first stage of this phenomenon was a confluence of various groups of people: persons resettled from central and south-eastern Poland, those repatriated from the eastern parts of the pre-war Republic, and the indigenous Polish population. These groups differed not just in terms of their territorial origin, but also in terms of cultural, political and economic characteristics, resulting in the emergence of fresh differences and sometimes even hostility. Mutual antagonism was mainly the result of economic factors. As a result of successful rehabilitation and vetting, people regained the rights to their property and farms. Until then, their properties had often been ←18 | 19→occupied by newcomers placed there by the authorities who wanted to preserve the uncertain status of the local population for the sake of material gain.

The choice of subject of this treatise was dictated by the absence of thorough works on this issue with reference to the voivodship of Gdańsk. The above-mentioned J. Rados tackled the subject of rehabilitation in Rehabilitation in Gdańsk Pomerania (Rehabilitacja na Pomorzu Gdańskim), but he limited himself to describing the legislation and the legal procedures of rehabilitation, thus narrowing the subject altogether. Vetting, too, has never been thoroughly examined concerning the area in question, although the subject has been dealt with several times in various works. For example, in his wok about vetting in Warmia, Masuria and Powiśle, L. Belzyt describes the subject with reference to parts of Gdańsk voivodship, i.e. the counties of Elbląg, Malbork, Sztum, and Kwidzyn, but for understandable reasons focuses mainly on the problem of Masuria⁹. Vetting has also been discussed as an element of the demographic, including national, processes initiated in the area in question after the war. Here we can note works by such authors as B. Maroszek¹⁰, L. Zieliński¹¹, R. Wapiński¹², and M. Hejger¹³.

The question of rehabilitation in a local sense has been discussed regarding Upper Silesia by Z. Boda-Krężel¹⁴, regarding Bydgoszcz by M. Romaniuk¹⁵, and regarding Greater Poland by K. Stryjkowski¹⁶. The legal aspects of crimes by the occupants, including the deprivation of Polish nationality, has been discussed at length by A. Pasek¹⁷. The only work devoted entirely to the problem of the Volksliste in Poland is the work by L. Olejnik¹⁸. The authors of works on ethnic ←19 | 20→vetting and the Polish indigenous population in the regained areas are, in addition to L. Belzyt, J. Misztal¹⁹, Z. Romanow²⁰, and G. Strauchold²¹.

Rehabilitation and vetting have both been covered in more general works devoted mainly to the Regained Territories or the German population²². Both of these processes have also been examined in the context of ethnic groups, in the case of Gdańsk voivodship Kashubians²³. Finally, these topics have also been covered in works about the activity of the Polish Western Union (Polski Związek Zachodni), an organisation keenly interested in the situation of the Polish indigenous population after the end of the war²⁴.

The literature mentioned here does not exhaust the list of works that were necessary to prepare this treatise. I have restricted myself to the works of authors who chose rehabilitation and vetting as the direct subject of their research or who, dealing with this topic on the side-lines of other works, helped impart a fresh impetus to the topic. The bibliography at the end of this work indicates the complex and multi-faceted nature of this issue. I have tried to present it in as broad terms as possible, in order to encapsulate all of the important elements that contribute to the process and outcome of rehabilitation and vetting in Gdańsk voivodship.