Lithuania and the 1863-1864 Uprising

• ResearchGate: knygos tekstas

ENThe following is how the compilers of the Correlates of War (COW) research project, a US quantitative analysis of worldwide wars, presents, in the global individual descriptions published in 2010, the 1863–1864 uprising that aimed to re-establish the binary Polish and Lithuanian state that had been dissolved in 1795, which took place in the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that had been annexed by the Russian Empire: Intra-state War #580: The Second Polish War of 1863–1864 Participants: Russia vs. Poles Dates: 22 January 1863 to 19 April 1864 Battle-related deaths: Russia - 10,000; Poland – 6,500. Where fought: Europe Initiator: Poland; Outcome: Russia wins War type: Civil for local issues; Narrative: The once-independent entity of Poland had been partitioned among Russia, Austria and Prussia, with Russia gaining the largest portion. Although Poland initially had a degree of independence within the empire, it was lost as a result of the first Polish rebellion (intra-state war #517). After coming to the Russian throne in 1856, Tsar Alexander attempted to develop a better relationship with the Poles, but his limited reforms failed to dampen the Polish desire for independence. Marquis Aleksander Wielopolski, the local administrator in Poland, tried to force the Polish youth into the army, which led to open rebellion in January 1863. The Poles conducted guerrilla warfare against the numerically superior Russian forces for more than a year; however, the rebellion was ultimately suppressed. Poland lost all elements of self-government, and Russia implemented a strict policy of Russification. The individual description shown above of the 1863–1864 Uprising (January Uprising) does not match the reality of events. For instance, the once independent entity that had been partitioned was not Poland, but the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth.The 1863–1864 Uprising included inhabitants from each of the partitioned lands: Poland (formerly the Kingdom of Poland) and Lithuania (formerly the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Unfortunately, in the narration of military events the uprising is attributed to Poland alone; commentary is made only for incidents in the Kingdom of Poland. The death count in the Russian version is particularly unbelievable: poorly-armed volunteer rebels could not possibly have taken such a toll on the well-armed and trained Russian military. There are also errors of chronology and subject matter in the account of the war: Emperor Alexander II is referred to as Alexander, incorrect years are used for his reign, and Wielopolski was never the local administrator of Polish Kingdom. In presenting the mistaken account of the Lithuanian 1863–1864 Uprising to the world, COW made clear the necessity of a quantitative analysis of the war: because the 1863–1864 Uprising is known in the typology of wars as ‘the Second Polish War’, the objective of the research was to answer the questions of whether there was also a war in Lithuania, as there was in Poland, fitting the COW war criteria; and how the parties of the war should be named in terms of war classifications. Although the general aspects of the 1863–1864 Uprising in Poland and Lithuania are well documented in Russian, Polish and Lithuanian historiography, a systemic quantitative analysis is yet to be carried out. We do not want to say that there are no systemic quantitative data about the uprising: numerous researchers from Poland, Russia and Lithuania have submitted numbers relating to the forces, engagements and deaths on the Russian as well as rebel sides. On the other hand, the data are questionable: figures differ based on author, sources are often not cited or how the calculations were made is not clear [p. 93-94].