I would especially like to thank the Fulbright Program of the International Institute of Education and the East European Studies Committee of the American Council of Learned Societies for funding received between 1992 and 1994. Funding provided by die Graduate College, the Office of International Programs, and the History Department at the University of Nordiern Iowa also contributed to die completion of this paper. Portions of diis paper were presented at national conferences of die American Association for die Advancement of Slavic Studies in 1994 and 1995 (a Wilson Center-funded panel), die national conference of die American Cadiolic Historical Association in 1995, and the conference on "Christianity in East Central Europe and Its Relations with die West and die East" held in Lublin, Poland, in 1996. To all those who offered comments and suggestions, I extend my thanks. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for Slavic Review and Diane Koenker for their very valuable suggestions.

1. From south to north, the heaviest concentrations of Orthodox were in the Bilgoraj, Tomaszów Lubelski, Hrubieszów, Chelm, Wlodawa, and Biala Podlaska districts (powiaty). The Zamość, Krasnystaw, Radzyń, and Konstantynów districts also had some, though considerably fewer, Orthodox residents. (For a breakdown of the Lublin province population according to religious affiliation, see Konrad Sadkowski, “Church, Nation and State in Poland: Catholicism and National Identity Formation in the Lublin Region, 1918–1939” [Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1995], 85–86.) In this paper, I focus on the Chehm region and define it as being more or less coterminous with the Bilgoraj, Tomaszów Lubelski, Hrubieszów, and Chelm districts (although it also includes portions of the Zamość and Krasnystaw districts). A broader conception of the Chelm region (Chelmszczyzna), based on the area of the former Kholm (Chelm) gubernia (1912–1915), includes the Ukrainian areas in both the Chehn and Podlasie regions. From the standpoint of Roman Cadiolic administration, the Lublin province was more or less coterminous with the interwar Lublin and Siedlce dioceses, the Siedlce diocese being in the north of the province and the Lublin diocese the soudi. The Chelm region as defined in this paper fell widiin the Lublin diocese. The Catholic deaneries (the administrative level between “diocese” and “parish “) in or partly in the Chelm region were Bilgoraj, Tarnogród, Tomaszów Lubelski, Tyszowce, Zamość, Hrubieszów, and Chelm.

2. This included a combination of unused pre-1875 Greek Catholic (Uniate) churches in various degrees of disrepair and pre-1596 and post-1875 (in some cases, post-1918) original Orthodox churches. Some literature exists on the 1938 events. See especially Chojnowski, Andrzej, Koncepcje polityki narodowościowej rzgdów polskich w latach 1921–1939 (Wroclaw, 1979)Google Scholar; Kania, Janusz, “Likwidacja cerkwi na lubelszczyźnie w okresie miedzywojennym,” Chrześcijanin w świecie, 1982, no. 108: 50–89 Google Scholar, and Kania, , “Rozbiórki cerkwi na lubelszczyźnie w roku 1938 a stanowisko Biskupa Fulmana,” in Luzny, Ryszard, ed., Chrześcijański wschód a kultura polska (Lublin, 1989), 31–53 Google Scholar; Kirylowicz, Serafin, “Z dziejów prawoslawia w II Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej: Niektóre problemy na tle polityki wyznaniowej państwa, 1918–1939,” Posłannictwo, no. 1–2 (1983): 3–88 Google Scholar; Papierzyńska-Turek, Mirosława, Miedzy tradycja a rzeczywistoscia: Państwo wobec prawoslawia, 1918–1939 (Warsaw, 1989)Google Scholar; and Stawecki, Piotr, Nastepcy komendanta: Wojsko a polityka wewnetrzna Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej tv latach 1935–1939 (Warsaw, 1969).Google Scholar

3. Representative of the first opinion is Władyslaw Pobóg-Malinowski, Najnowsza historia polityczna Polski, 1914–1939, 2d ed. (London, 1967), 2: 828. He writes: “Troubled [by the conversion of Uniates to Orthodoxy], Lublin bishop Fulman signaled [zaalarmował] the administrative and military personnel. Widi his silent acquiescence it was agreed to remove the ‘main source’ of trouble.” Because Pobóg-Malinowski does not cite the source of this information, we cannot be sure of its accuracy. Kania represents the opposite position. He states: “Fulman not only did not inspire indirectly or directly the liquidation campaign, he was not informed about it, … and categorically condemned it.” See Kania, “Rozbiórki,” 52. Stawecki represents a vague middle view. According to him, Catholic priests were encouraged “to go on the offensive and paralyze the oppositional work of Orthodox priests “; however, “the Catholic Church in the Lublin province did not exhibit a greater role in this religio-assimilationist activity.” See Stawecki, Nastepcy komendanta, 195. Chojnowski repeats Stawecki's position, Koncepcje polityki, 230–32. Finally, Papierzyńska-Turek also assesses the role of the Church in the 1938 campaign, implying that the Polish Episcopate and Vatican might have played an important role. See Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 366–73. Although the Vatican's and Episcopate's involvement cannot be denied or confirmed without more research, I argue that local factors bore the greatest responsibility for the 1938 events. In my research I made extensive use of the minutes of Catholic deanery clergy conferences. They contain a wealth of information on the Church at the local level, specifically the views and activities of parish priests.

4. See Krasowski, Krzysztof, Episkopat katolicki w II Rzeczypospolitej: Myśl o ustroju państwa-postulaty, realizacja (Warsaw, 1992)Google Scholar. My own research focuses on the local dimensions of this process. See Konrad Sadkowski, “Church, Nation and State in Poland. “

5. See Luigi Glinka, P., Diocesi Ucraina-Cattolica di Cholm (Liquidazione ed incorporazione alla Chiesa russo-ortodossa) (Sec. XIX) (Rome, 1975)Google Scholar, and Weeks, Theodore R., “The End of the Uniate Church in Russia: The Vozsoedinenie of 1875,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 44 (1995): 1–13.Google Scholar

6. In the Podlasie region a strong sense of Polish national identity was transmitted by the predominant lower gentry. Conversely, in the Chelm (broadly, Lublin) region, the estate-dominated social structure with its more entrenched serfdom inhibited the development of Polish national consciousness. See Zygmunt Lupina, “Narodowa Demokracja w lubelskiem, 1919–1926 (Zasieg organizacyjnych i politycznych wpływów na terenie województwa lubelskiego)” (Ph.D. diss., Uniwersytet Marii Curii-Skłodowskiej, 1974), 19–24. For a Catholic priest's personal example concerning the interplay between class status and Russification, see Przez, X, Moje wspomnienia (Lublin, 1934), 8–9.Google Scholar

7. The research on the 1905 conversion of “former” Uniates to Catholicism is extensive. See, for example, the chapter on the separation of the Chelm region from the Kingdom of Poland in Chmielewski, Edward, The Polish Question in the Russian State Duma (Knoxville, 1970)Google Scholar. See also Blobaum, Robert, “Toleration and Ethno-Religious Strife: The Struggle between Catholics and Orthodox Christians in the Chelm Region of Russian Poland, 1904–1906>,” Polish Review 35, no. 2 (1990): 120.Google Scholar

8. That Ukrainian national identity was developing in the Chelm and Podlasie regions by the time of the 1905–06 Russian revolution is indisputable. Personal reminiscences attest to this. Further evidence is the 1905 publication in Hrubieszów of the Ukrainian periodical Buh, which was quickly suppressed by the Russian authorities. See Mikhailo Panas, “Spohadi Mikhaila Panasa,” with a foreword by Havriliuk, Iurii, in Martyniuk, Mykola, ed., Nadbuzhanshchyna (New York, 1989), 2: 734–42.Google Scholar

9. Various Catholic and pro-Catholic publications instilled this imagery. See, for example, Józef Pruszkowski, Ks., Martyrologium-Czyli meczeństwo Unii Swietej na Podlasiu (1905, 1922; reprint, Woodbridge, N.J., 1983)Google Scholar. An example from Polish literature is Władysław Reymont, St., Z Ziemi Chełmskiej: Wrazenia i notatki (1909; reprint, Warsaw, 1990).Google Scholar

10. This feeling intensified during the interwar years. Father Michał Niechaj, the most prominent supporter of Orthodox-Catholic union (but through the Byzantine-Slavonic rite, not the Greek Catholic Church) in the Lublin diocese in the 1930s, expressed the feeling well in 1937: “Until 1875 [the Orthodox population in today's Chełm region] belonged to the Catholic Church … it listened to Polish sermons … though linguistically it was separate [nie zamiłowal jezykowo] … Tragedy then came from the east … . Must we give up on this population which is so close to us, but which only sixty years ago was torn away from Poland, once by Moscow, now by Kiev?” Unwittingly, Father Niechaj also points to the ethno-linguistic distinctiveness of the Chełm region's Ruthenian population of the late nineteenth century and the root cause of their later desire to define themselves as Ukrainians. See Niechaj, Father Michał, “Zagadnienie unijne,” Wiadomości Diecezjalne Lubelskie 19, no. 3 (March 1937): 94–95 Google Scholar (emphasis in the original).

11. Space constraints do not allow me to devote more attention to the Roman Catholic “use” of the Uniate past. Suffice it to say that while in 1918 Church and pro-Catholic commentators denied the significance of the ethno-national difference between Catholics and Uniates in referring to the pre-1905 period, they also consciously and energetically opposed the return of the Uniate Church to the Chełm region for fear that it would promote Ukrainian nationalism. On Bishop Fulman's opposition to the reintroduction of the Uniate Church to the Chełm region between late 1918 and the early 1920s, specifically his correspondence with Greek Catholic Archbishop Andrzej Szeptycki (Andrei Sheptyts'kyi), see Sadkowski, “Church, Nation and State in Poland,” 122–40.

12. See Krasowski, Episkopat katolicki, and Sadkowski, “Church, Nation and State in Poland. “

13. See Dziennik Praw Państwa Polskiego, no. 21, position 67, 28 December 1918; and Monitor Polski: Dziennik Urzedowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, no. 135, 20 June 1919. See also Monitor Polski, no. 116, 2 August 1922. This third law placed 115 former Orthodox properties in the Lublin province under the jurisdiction of the Lublin voivod (provincial head). The laws are reprinted in Kiryłowicz, “Z dziejów prawosławia,” 67–75.

14. In the Chełm region, the Catholic clergy's initial accommodation of the Orthodox Church was expressed at their deanery conferences. At their November 1920 conference, for example, the Chełm deanery clergy discussed a decision by the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education (MWRiOP) to allow the establishment of seven Ordiodox parishes in the Chełm deanery. This, the priests said, would be acceptable to the Catholics as long as they could create three of their own parishes from the former Uniate ones. Archiwum Archidiecezjalne w Lublinie (AAL), Rep. 61.1.6 (Deanery Clergy Conference Minutes, 1918–1924), Chełm deanery clergy conference, 17 November 1920.

15. For example, the minutes of the Chełm deanery conference of April 1921 noted that “Father Konopka [a Jesuit missionary] discussed the Orthodox-Ukrainian problem in the Chełm region and indicated an increase in agitation and military organization…. Nevertheless, Polish work will continue to be conducted in church, while tolerance and respect will be shown to those Orthodox Ruthenians who come to church.” See AAL, Rep. 61.1.6, Chełm deanery clergy conference, 21 April 1921.

16. In the fall of 1921, the Chełm deanery priests complained that the Central and District Land Office was not allocating former Uniate lands fast enough. The priests lamented that “delays especially result in Ruthenians illicitly planting crops on lands projected for the Church. Economically, these delays are hurting those priests in small, newly established parishes. Only the intervention of diocesanal audiorities will … guarantee … effective Polish holdings in the borderlands.” AAL, Rep. 61.1.6, Chełm deanery clergy conference, 22 September 1921.

17. In sum, in the Chełm deanery alone, one church was repossessed in 1917, one in 1918, seven in 1919, one in 1922, one in 1924, and still another at an unspecified date. A total of seven former Catholic churches and five former Uniate churches were reclaimed, the most significant being the Uniate cathedral in Chełm (called “on the Hill” [na Górce]), the seat of the former Uniate diocese of Chełm. See Spis kościołów i duchowieństwa diecezji lubebkiej, 1939 (Lublin, 1939), 73–89. Similar repossessions took place in other deaneries in the region from 1918–1924.

18. Based on an official compilation by Lublin province authorities completed on 26 January 1923. See AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I (Former Uniate Churches and Their Properties, 1918–1938), Letter from the Lublin province voivod, Stanisław Moskalewski, to Bishop Fulman, No. L: 2543/Pr.B, 28 February 1923. According to the list, in addition to the 260 pre-1914 Ordiodox churches on the territory of the post-1918 Lublin diocese, there were 138 pre-1914 Ordiodox churches on the territory of the post-1918 Siedlce diocese, or 398 Orthodox churches on the territory of the entire post-1918 Lublin province on the eve of World War I. In contrast, according to Miroslawa Papierzyńska-Turek, there were 400 Orthodox churches prior to World War I on the territory of the Lublin province. In the entire province by 1922, 154 had been repossessed by the Catholic Church, 7 were being used by the state for “cultural purposes,” 35 had been destroyed during the war, 164 stood closed, and 40 were being used by the Orthodox. See Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 313.

19. In March 1925, Bishop Fulman informed the Lublin voivod that there were only six unresolved claims for Orthodox churches in the Lublin diocese. “Catholics are no longer demanding any additional churches [once confiscated by the Russian state].” See AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Bishop Fulman to the Lublin voivod, No. 736, 6 March 1925.

20. For example, in May 1919 the Hrubieszów deanery clergy agreed to “reclaim all [unnecessary or abandoned] Ordiodox and former Uniate churches so as to return a Polish and Catholic character to the deanery as quickly as possible.” See AAL, Rep. 61.I.6, Hrubieszów deanery clergy conferences, 22 May 1919 and 12 May 1921; and Rep. 61.I.6, Zamość deanery clergy conference, 6 June 1921.

21. See the discussion of views in AAL, Rep. 60.I.138 (Deans and Deaneries in the Lublin Diocese, 1865–1931), Letter from Bishop Fulman to Father Wacław Kosior, No. 3352, 18 November 1921; and AAL, Rep. 60.I.138, Letter from Father Waclaw Kosior to Bishop Fulman, No. 260, 23 November 1921.

22. AAL, Rep. 60.I.138, Letter from Father Wacław Kosior to Bishop Fulman, No. 260, 23 November 1921. Also, on the engagement of the Chełm deanery priests in this matter, see AAL, Rep. 61.I.6, Chełm deanery clergy conference, 24 November 1921. In the end, the deanery was left intact.

23. AAL, Rep. 61.I.6, Father Wacław Kosior, Report on the Chełm deanery for 1922, 16 January 1923.

24. AAL, Rep. 61.I.6, Chełm deanery clergy conference, 10 June 1924.

25. AAL, Rep. 61.I.6, Chełm deanery clergy conference, 16 October 1924.

26. Archiwum Państwowe w Lublinie—Oddzial w Chełmie, Akta instytucji wyznaniowych pow. Chełmskiego (1833–1945) (nieuporzadkowany zespół) (APL—OC), unmarked syg. (Chełm Deanery Clergy Conference Minutes), 17 November 1920–19 December 1927), Chełm deanery clergy conference, 18 December 1924. At this meeting, the priests also agreed to ask Bishop Fulman to exempt them and other priests in religiously mixed areas from 5 percent contributions from their salaries to the Curia's Secretariat for Social Matters so they could devote more resources to Church work in these areas. It is not known whether this proposal was accepted.

27. With the March 1921 Constitution and the 1925 Concordat between Poland and the Holy See, the Catholic Church had defined for itself a privileged status among Poland's religious institutions by the mid-1920s. Putting increasing emphasis on social Catholic organizing—expressed especially through the Catholic League in the late 1920s and then Catholic Action in the early 1930s—and disengaging itself from direct political action—compelled especially by “defeat” in the 1928 Sejm elections—the Church engaged more and more in creating pro-Catholic attitudes, beliefs, and behavior—in effect, a pro-Catholic societal culture. Through a victory over people's hearts and minds, the Church hoped ultimately to shape political life. These tendencies were unfolding as Józef Piłsudski launched his coup in May 1926 and came to power and then were accelerated as a result. They were a response to religious-institutional imperatives, but also to the new regime's call to structure Poland's multinational society according to legal equality and not integration around the Polish nation. By sending a positive message to Poland's national and religious minorities, Piłsudski, with his socialist background, inspired apprehension and opposition among most Church people.

28. At their June 1927 conference, for example, the Chełm deanery clergy were instructed to report all instances of Orthodox “excesses” to their dean, Father Kosior, and they established Tuesdays for special conferences on “Ordiodox propaganda.” Later that same year, Father Kosior reported on the decline in the number of conversions from Orthodoxy in 1927. By now, this was an established pattern. Thus, in 1929 Bishop Fulman reported that 6, 710 Orthodox had converted to Catholicism since 1921: 976 (1921), 1, 174 (1922), 1, 001 (1923), 878 (1924), 736 (1925), 795 (1926), 585 (1927), and 565 (1928). See AAL, Rep. 61.I.7 (Deanery Clergy Conference Minutes, 1925–1930), Chełm deanery clergy conferences, 12 June 1927 and 19 December 1927; and AAL, Rep. 61.XII.1, A 1929 handwritten response by Bishop Fulman to a questionnaire on the Ordiodox Church submitted by Włodzimierz Dworzaczek, a Poznań publicist.

29. For example, in November 1928 Father Kosior criticized the Chełm deanery priests for a lack of interest in social work, warning them at the same time of an increase in “offensive work” by the Orthodox: “ [The Orthodox] have organized a conscious attack against our declaration of the equality of mixed marriages… . They are pulling Polish girls into Orthodox churches and Russifying them. They are making fanatics of Orthodox children and are demanding that they be removed from Catholic religious classes. In a word, Orthodoxy is going on the attack. As a rule, we too must go on a long-term attack. Mixed marriages must be reduced … conversion from the Orthodox side must be demanded… . We will repulse the attack. Honest Catholics will not allow their daughters to go to Orthodox churches. We will eradicate [all] indifference.” See AAL, Rep. 61.I.7, Chełm deanery clergy conference, 7 November 1928.

30. AAL, Rep. 61.XII. 1, Letter from Father Wacław Kosior to Bishop Fulman, No. 499, 7 September 1927.

31. AAL, Rep. 61.XII. 1, Handwritten note with list from Lublin voivod Antoni Remiszewski to Bishop Fulman, 15 October 1927. The note informed Bishop Fulman that Bishop Przeździecki of the Siedlce diocese was sent the same list and that he (Remiszewski) had yet to receive the “ministerial” proposal. While the note and list were sent on 15 October, Bishop Fulman's own handwriting on the list shows that he saw the list on 18 October. See also Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, , 357–58.

32. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.1, Copies of individual letters (all No. 3213) to the Biłgoraj, Chełm, Hrubieszów, and Tomaszów Lubelski deans from Bishop Fulman, each dated 19 October 1927. The Biłgoraj dean's report to Bishop Fulman of his meeting with administration representatives was missing.

33. AAL, Rep. 61 .XII. 1, Letter from Father Melchior Juściński to Bishop Fulman, No. 406, 9 November 1927.

34. AAL, Rep. 61 .XII. 1, Letter from Father Juljan Bogutyn to Bishop Fulman, No. 36, 23 November 1927.

35. The meeting was directed by the Chełm starosta and included the heads of the offices in charge of religious and nationality affairs in the Lublin province administration. “Invited from local society” were: “T. Kozerski, Rzewuski, Czachowski, Hilgier, Kaper.” The priests in attendance were Fathers [Wacław] Kosior, [Karol] Sawicki, [Ignacy] Gołkowski, and [Stanisław] Batorski.

36. AAL, Rep. 61 .XII. 1, Letter from Father Wacław Kosior to Bishop Fulman, No. 581, 1 November 1927.

37. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.1, Letter from Father A[ntoni] Sadłowski, No. 178, 27 June 1929.

38. In a letter to the MWRiOP in May 1934, the Lublin voivod wrote: “The current difficulty [for the Orthodox in Komarow, Tomaszów district] lies in the absence of a church, which was dismantled in September 1929 on the inspiration of the Roman Catholic priest, with the material from it used in the building of an elementary school.” See Archiwum Państwowe w Lublinie, Urzad Wojewódzki Lubelski Wydział Społeczno-Polityczny (APL, UWLWSP), syg. 641 (Establishment of Orthodox Parishes in the Lublin Province, 1920–1934), 397, Letter from the Lublin voivod, Dr. Józef Rozniecki to the MWRiOP in Warsaw, No. AWz.B.2/19, (no day) May 1934.

39. Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, , 357–58. See also APL, UWLWSP, syg. 641, 85, Handwritten list of thirteen Orthodox churches “dismantled so far,” 8 May 1929, signature illegible. According to this list, seven churches were on the territory of the Siedlce diocese, and six in the Lublin diocese. A seventh church in the Lublin diocese was the one Father Antoni Sadłowski had removed. Thus, the maximum number of churches that might have been removed from the territory of the Lublin diocese was sixteen.

40. Stawecki, Nastfpcy komendanta, 193.

41. To date, I have been unable to obtain data regarding the 1927–1929 events in the Siedlce diocese. One of two things must have occurred there. Either the Lublin voivod undertook actions there (removing seven former Orthodox churches) that were similar to those he undertook in the Lublin diocese without Bishop Przeździecki's involvement, or the bishop and specific clergy of the Siedlce diocese participated with the Lublin voivod as Bishop Fulman and his clergy did in the Lublin diocese. See also the discussion on the 1937–1938 events.

42. APL, UWLWSP, syg. 641, 352–55, Letter from the Lublin province voivod, Dr. Józef Rozniecki, to the MWRiOP, Political Department I, no number, unsigned, “secret,” 26 February 1933.

43. See AAL, Rep. 61.XII. 1, Letter from the Lublin province voivod, Stanisław Moskalewski, to Bishop Fulman, No. L: 2543/Pr, 28 February 1923.

44. See APL, UWLWSP, syg. 641, 350–51, Letter from the Lublin province voivod, Bolesław jerzy Świdziński, to the MWRiOP in Warsaw, No. Awz.B2/6, 30 May 1932; and APL, UWLWSP, syg. 641, 352–55, Letter from the Lublin province voivod, Dr. Józef Rozniecki, to the MWRiOP, Political Department I, no number, unsigned, “secret,” 26 February 1933.

45. Based on a 1929 handwritten response by Bishop Fulman to a questionnaire on the Orthodox Church submitted by Włodzimierz Dworzaczek, a Poznań publicist. See AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Włodzimierz Dworzaczek to Bishop Fulman, 28 November 1929; and draft letter from Father L[udwik] Kwiek, Lublin Curia Chancellor, to Włodzimierz Dworzaczek, No. 4760, 20 December 1929.

46. On a national scale, according to Papierzyńska-Turek, who bases her statistics on 1933 MWRiOP figures, the Orthodox possessed 640 Uniate and 240 Catholic churches in 1914. By 1924 the Orthodox retained 350 former Uniate and 80 former Catholic churches, and the Catholic Church had claimed 175 former Uniate and 140 former Catholic churches. The remaining (135) disputed Orthodox churches stood unused, damaged, or had been dismantled or transformed to serve other purposes. See Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 343.

47. Space constraints prevent me from discussing the Lublin Church's lack of success with the Byzantine Slavonic rite, or “neo-union” as it was called. The rite was created in the early 1920s on the initiative of the Siedlce diocese bishop, Henryk Przeździecki, to bring the Ordiodox in Poland into the Catholic Church; the Greek Catholic rite was deemed too “Ukrainian” and Latinized for this work. The Byzantine Slavonic rite, especially its religious-political dimensions, has received relatively little attention from historians. In 1932 Henryk Ignacy Lubieński published Droga na wschód Rzymu (Warsaw), a sharp attack on the “neo-union.” The book was quickly condemned by the Church. Press articles from the response to the book were compiled and published as Dyskusja prasowa wokół ksiazki Droga na wschód Rzymu (Warsaw, 1933). See Lomacz, Bozena, “Praca duszpasterska duchowieństwa neounickiego (Diecezja podlaska w latach 1923–1939),” Novum 6 (May 1980): 81–103 Google Scholar; Stanisław Wilk, Ks., Episkopat Kościola katolickiego w Polsce w latach 1918–1939 (Warsaw, 1992), 166–85Google Scholar; Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 404–41; Krasowski, Episkopat katolicki, 180–85; and Sadkowski, “Church, Nation and State in Poland,” 234–49.

48. As related and quoted by Chojnowski, Koncepcje polityki, 230. See also APL, UWLWSP, syg. 428 (Voivod Lecture, 1939: “Personnel Politics toward the Ukrainian and German Minorities and the Projected Three-Year Plan of De-Ukrainianizing the Civil Service in the Lublin Province “), 1.

49. Centralne Archiwum Wojskowe (CAW), 1.313.3.2 (Polonization and Repossession in the Chełm Region, 1937–1939), Letter from General Mieczysław Smorawiński to Coordinating Committee directors, 17 July 1937. General Smorawiński stated that “in the initiation and carrying out of the repossession [of souls] we must remember that the main goal is the recovery of former Poles for the Polish state and nationality, and not for the [Catholic] Church. Putting forth slogans about religious repatriation might very often harm the main goal because people who have been Ukrainianized have in some places grown attached to the Orthodox Church.

50. For example, Father Zygmunt Surdacki, the director of Catholic Action youth in the Lublin diocese, was present at the committee's 4 June 1937 meeting, as were four professors from the Catholic University of Lublin, [Ignacy] Czuma, [Witold] Krzyzanowski, [Paweł] Skwarczyński, and [Zygmunt] Kukulski. CAW, I.313.3.2, Coordinating Committee Communique No. 1 and Resolution, based on a meeting of the committee of 4 June 1937; and the “Regulations” of the Coordinating Committee, 28 May 1937.

51. On relations between the Polish Episcopate and the Camp for National Unity, see Krasowski, Episkopat katolicki, 136–39. A copy of the “Declaration” by Colonel Adam Koc, which launched the Camp for National Unity, is reprinted in Rudnicki, Szymon and Wróbel, Piotr, Druga Rzeczpospolita. Wybór tekstów źródhrwych (Warsaw, 1990), 301–8.Google Scholar

52. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from General Brunon Olbrycht to military personnel carrying out the Polonization of the Chelm region, 26 October 1937 (emphasis in the original).

53. For example, the Chełm deanery had 23 religious and social organizations in 1920, 44 in 1932, and 131 in 1939. See Sadkowski, “Church, Nation and State in Poland,” 112, 206–7, 280–81. The “Chełm Land” holiday developed after Polish independence was regained. It was held annually during one week in September to celebrate simultaneously “Chełm Land” and the Virgin Mary. Its importance in shaping the Polish public's ideas about the Chełm region can be seen, for example, in the fact that the final Catholic mass of the 1933 celebration was aired on Polish radio. Also, in 1937 it was referred to as a “national holiday.” See Kronika Nadbuzańska, 6 August 1933, 3 September 1933, and 17 September 1933; and Wiadomości Diecezjalne Lubelskie 19, no. 10 (1937): 302–3.

54. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from General Brunon Olbrycht to military personnel carrying out the Polonization of the Chełm region, 26 October 1937.

55. Based on the contents of a letter from the Lublin province voivod, Jan de Tramecourt, to MWRiOP officials in Warsaw, no decision had been made to remove Orthodox churches by early December 1937. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from the Lublin province voivod, Jan de Tramecourt, to the MWRiOP in Warsaw, No. L.PPWz.II.2/34, 4 December 1937.

56. This meeting was referred to in a lecture given by the Lublin voivod, Jan de Tramecourt, to administration personnel in 1939 entitled “Personnel Politics toward the Ukrainian and German Minorities.” This lecture was given at the third such meeting of administration personnel devoted to nationality problems. The first meeting was held on 31 January 1935 and the second on 4 March 1938. See APL, UWLWSP, syg. 428, 1; and Chojnowski, Koncepcje polityki, 230.

57. The basic agreement was signed 18 November 1938 and, following a series of approvals, came into effect on 30 June 1939. See Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 182–93.

58. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from General Brunon Olbrycht to the minister of military affairs, No. L27/Tjn.K.K., 8 March 1938.

59. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from General Brunon Olbrycht to the minister of military affairs, No. L60/Tjn.K.K., 12 April 1938.

60. AAL, Rep. 61.I.10 (Deanery Clergy Conference Minutes, 1936–1938), Chełm deanery clergy conference, 30 December 1937. Unfortunately, the minutes from other deanery conferences of late December 1937 were not present in the Lublin Archdiocese Archive so no comparison could be made. Furthermore, the archive did not contain any Lublin diocese deanery conference minutes for 1938–1939.

61. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from Colonel Michalski to Colonel Turkowski, No. L.dz.4542/tj.B.W., early (number illegible) August 1938 (emphasis added). Bishop Fulman and other high-ranking clerics in the Lublin diocese received their decorations on 11 November 1938, the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Polish Second Republic. The others decorated were: Father Wacław Kosior (the Chełm dean), Father Wincenty Hartman (a senior priest in Zamość and former Chełm dean), Father Antoni Szymański (the rector of the Catholic University in Lublin), Father Edward Nowosielski, Father Zygmunt Ochalski, Father Franciszek Szeleźniak, and Father Florian Krasuski. See Wiadomości Diecezjalne Lubelskie 20, no. 12 (December 1938): 394.

62. Stefan Baran, a Ukrainian representative to the Polish Sejm, provided the location of the 112 proposed parishes in a report to the Polish prime minister on the destruction of the Orthodox churches on 21 July 1938. Baran's report is reprinted in Kiryłowicz, “Z dziejów prawosławia,” 76–88.

63. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from General Brunon Olbrycht to Colonel Sadowski, No. L25/Tjn.K.K., 8 March 1938.

64. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from the Lublin voivod, Jan de Tramecourt, to Bishop Fulman, No. L.PPWz.I.2/13, 21 April 1938.

65. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Bishop Fulman to the Lublin voivod, No. 1149, 22 April 1938.

66. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Bishop Fulman to Father Edward Dabrowski, No. 1149 [sic], 22 April 1938.

67. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Father Edward Dabrowski to Bishop Fulman, No. 35, 10 May 1938.

68. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Father Melchior Juściński to Bishop Fulman, No. 104, 31 May 1938.

69. AAL, Rep. 61.XII.I, Letter from Bishop Fulman to Father Melchior Juściński, No. 1512, 2 June 1938.

70. Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 370–73, makes this same point.

71. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from Colonel Marian Turkowski to Bishop Fulman, 13 June 1938.

72. CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from Bishop Fulman to Colonel Marian Turkowski ( “response to 13 June 1938 “), 4 July 1938. See also the letter from Colonel Marian Turkowski to the Ministry of Military Affairs, Department of Security, number illegible, 11 July 1938, in which he requests intervention with the MWRiOP to establish salaried positions for priests in Łaziski and Szewnia.

73. Wiadomości Diecezjalne Lubelskie 20, nos. 8–9 (August-September 1938): 274. See also CAW, I.313.3.2, Letter from Colonel Michalski to Colonel Turkowski, No. L.dz.4542/tj.B.W., early (number illegible) August 1938.

74. Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja., 361–62.

75. The report is reprinted in Kiryłowicz, “Z dziejów prawosławia,” 76–88.

76. CAW, I.371.2.173 (Gendarmerie situation reports, 1937–1938), Letter from M. Kamiński on behalf of the Lublin voivod to the command of the Second Military District, No. L: PPWz.II.2/77, 18 July 1938.

77. For example, of an incomplete list of 117 structures in the report prepared by Stefan Baran that were either burned (3) or dismantled or destroyed (114), 94 were in the Lublin diocese and 23 in the Siedlce diocese. See Kiryłowicz, “Z dziejów prawosławia,” 76–88.

78. CAW, I.371.2.173, Letter from M. Kamiński on behalf of the Lublin voivod to the command of the Second Military District, No. L: PPWz.II.2/77, 18 July 1938; and Stawecki, Nastepcy komendanta, 194.

79. CAW, I.313.3.2, Unsigned letter to the commander of the Second District Headquarters, No. L.dz.998/tj, 25 May 1939.

80. Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 372.

81. Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, no. 35, 18 April 1939, position 222. The law was reprinted in Wiadomości Diecezjalne Lubelskie 21, no. 5 (May 1939): 179–82. See also Papierzyńska-Turek, Miedzy tradycja, 352–53; and Mysłek, Wiesław, Kościół katolicki w Polsce w latach 1918–1939: Zarys historyczny (Warsaw, 1966), 117.Google Scholar

82. This was made clear by Bishop Fulman in his 4 July 1938 letter to Colonel Marian Turkowski regarding the creation of two new Catholic parishes in the Zamość district. An earlier example of the differences between Warsaw and the Lublin administration and military authorities over how to handle the Orthodox-Ukrainian “question” in the Chełm region was the mixed Orthodox Church-government commission which stipulated that the Orthodox, with the signing of an Orthodox Church-state agreement, would be allowed to have 112 parishes in the Lublin province.

83. Wiadomości Diecezjalne Lubelskie 1, no. 1 (December 1918): 8.

84. As Sabrina Ramet has pointedly noted, “all religious systems are value systems and … values always matter in politics. The consequence is that religion is intrinsically a political concern.” See Ramet, Sabrina Petra and Treadgold, Donald W., eds., Render unto Caesar: The Religious Sphere in World Politics (Washington, D.C., 1995), xi.Google Scholar