1. Polonia Restituta
The final demise of the Republic of Poland at the end of the 18th century took place at the moment when Europe of late feudalism was entering a new phase of its’ development, the effects of which included capitalism and democracy, which were manifested at various times and in various forms. Simultaneously, it was the period of its’ peak power. Such modernising transformations also affected the Polish lands which, at that time, were under partitions. Therefore, individual territories which used to belong to the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, were subject to the oppressors in line with their specific characteristics. Meanwhile, differences among Russia, Austria and Prussia in the form and the course of the process of modernisation were significant since the very beginning and did not diminish in the course of time. They encompassed all material issues within their range. This is the first circumstance whose consequences had to be gradually eliminated in the Second Republic of Poland. The second one was related to the situation of Poles in the partitioning states. It was always unfavourable, but at the same time, the inconveniences caused by it affected them in various modes. Thus, their existence under the partitions for almost a century and a half was designated by various rhythms, influencing different feelings of identity, mentality, tastes, lifestyle, etc.
Nevertheless, throughout this period, the hope for regaining independence has never died; the activities of Poles, sometimes organised in large groups and sometimes manifested in the acts of the most persistent individuals, which were meant to bring this moment closer, had never ceased. They participated in insurrections and diplomatic activities, conspiracies and organic work; sometimes, they were only left with the mystic belief in God’s work which, after the period of repentance, would mark the end of Poles’ suffering. And then the moment came when the laboriously constructed magnificent structure of European civilisation was shaken. A great war broke out, for which our poet Adam was praying. A common war, not so much of people, but of the European superpowers. The European continent turned out to be too small for their imperial goals. This very war, in which some Poles managed to mark their presence in an active manner, resulted in the fact that a possibility of creating our own state appeared in November 1918. It made references to the tradition of the former Republic of Poland, but was, in principle, a completely new structure. Its’ territorial, social, systemic and political shape had to be created among numerous adverse external circumstances and serious inconsistencies of internal nature. Fortunately, there were people who had sufficient imagination, will and power to accept these tasks and to implement them in an optimal form, taking the actual circumstances and possibilities into account.
The state encompassed lands from all three partitions, thus territories which had lived their own life for over a century. The future of such state depended, to a great degree, on the possibility of building internal ties and constructing a uniform, efficiently operating state machine. In a word, a unification of lands had to take place which formed a part of the Revived Poland and, obviously, of people who inhabited them, local communities that functioned for over one hundred years in different political, economic, administrative and cultural systems, in order to transform them into a single organism.
The process was simultaneously taking place in two dimensions, which were the effects of two different mechanisms. The first of them was short- or long-term activities of the elites holding power at a given moment. On the other hand, the second was natural and spontaneous and was taking place independently of the will of the ruling parties, sometimes in agreement with it and sometimes against it. This is how the Second Republic of Poland was born and matured until the moment when the brutal aggression of both neighbours in September 1939 brought an end to its’ existence. The end of the second, even greater war, which started then, did not offer a new revival to Poland and it did not bring freedom to Poles.
2. European Experiences
The case of emerging/ reviving/ uniting Second Republic of Poland was not completely unique in the history of Europe. It is enough to mention examples of two countries, dating back to the 19th century, whose long-lasting unification process ended at almost the same time (in 1871). These were the Kingdom of Italy and the German Empire (Second Reich). Thus, it took place half a century earlier than the establishment of the Second Republic of Poland. It is also possible to mention yet another European case, chronologically closer to the birth of the Second Republic of Poland. It was a new Balkan state established in parallel to it: The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SHS, Yugoslavia since 1929). A question emerges whether the unification processes in these states had a similar course or whether each of them was characterised by different features. Also, did the earlier experiences of Italians and Germans provide some sort of inspiration or even models for Poles? Let us pay attention to this last aspect.
It is necessary to take a look at the circumstances accompanying the establishment of the above-listed states. Diplomatic, as well as military activities and the generally conducive international situation played a decisive, even though differing with respect to intensity, role. However, the sole process of unification had a long-lasting nature. The first clear attempts at the unification of Germany and Italy became apparent after the Vienna Congress closing the Napoleonic age. Developing Romanticism was conducive to them. They took place in several stages. The events of the Spring of Nations between 1848 and 1849 definitely formed an important phase. However, the final closure was still over two decades away, filled with efforts and struggles. In the case of Poland, activities aimed at unification of the lands of the Republic of Poland divided between three oppressors and reconstruction of the independent state started slightly earlier and lasted much longer. They bore fruit in the short-term episodes such as the Duchy of Warsaw, the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Posen and the Free City of Cracow, which offered Poles a semblance of their own state in the 19th century. Nevertheless, it was not a continuous process and individual gains did not add up. In turn, the decisive act of unification, which was the beginning of the construction of an independent state, lasted much shorter. Its basic part took place between 1918 and 1921, even though it started slightly earlier and was also continued afterwards (1917 - 1922). On the other hand, the sole process of unification lasted throughout the short period of independence.
The initial state, which designated the type, the scale and the sequence of undertaken activities, was also different. Namely, attention should be drawn to the fact that both in the case of Italy and Germany, areas gradually incorporated into them functioned as separate states (e.g. Bavaria or Saxony, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), which independently operated for centuries and not years, yet they belonged, apart from few exceptions, to the same circle of civilisation. The case of Polish lands, and, more precisely, the areas of the First Republic of Poland, which finally became a part of the revived Polish state, was different. The oppressors, i.e. Austria, Prussia and Russia, differed in multiple respects, such as language, religion, culture, as well as the political system, which reflected the scale of differences between Poles from individual districts - as they were sometimes called - subject to long-lasting pressure. Additional circumstances differentiating them were: length of time under the partitions and intensity, and in particular the efficiency of the de-nationalising policy conducted with respect to the Polish subjects by all three superpowers. Their consequences were differences in the linguistic area, very clear in the inter-war period (e.g. the famous “usztywnianie męskich przodków” in Poznań). Polish language of the residents of Kraków, Poznań, Warsaw and Vilnius had, in each case, their own colour, vocabulary, syntax, melody and, obviously, accent.
Due to this, and possibly to other reasons, it is difficult to find any foreign experiences or models in the unification activities undertaken in the Second Republic of Poland. Certainly, they were used extensively in the case of constructing the state’s political system with paragons provided by France, Switzerland or even the USA, but in a greater degree, attention was focused on the past and on the attempts of drawing from the heritage of the First Republic of Poland. It did not offer any spectacular effects. Applying the models of state organisation deriving from it in the form of the Commonwealth of Both Nations and later even Three Nations was simply impossible in completely changed social and cultural circumstances. The revived Polish state adopted a unitary form and tried to put it to practice, with varying success. Germany and Italy were different. The first one retained the character of a federation; in the second, a regional structure was applied. Both these solutions turned out to be durable and they continue to function to date. Both these states were almost completely free from national minorities, whose significant presence constituted a great challenge for the subsequent governments of Poland. It consisted in the necessity of finding some integrating dimension for approx. 1/3 of the Polish citizens with the Polish state. However, the last issue was only an indirect heritage of the partition era and therefore, in spite of great significance, I will only signal its’ existence here.
3. Description of Lands Forming a Part of the Second Republic of Poland
In a definite majority - yet not exclusively - these were lands that used to belong to the First Republic of Poland and which, as a result of subsequent partitions and territorial transformations after the Vienna Congress, were incorporated into three partitioning powers of Russia, Austria and Prussia and were ruled by them from one hundred and forty-six years to only (!) eighty-five years (case of Kraków and the neighbouring areas). Together with their oppressors, they experienced subsequent stages of modernisation processes occurring in them, typical for the 19th century Europe. Thus, these were system evolutions (formation of Austro-Hungary and the German Empire as constitutional monarchies, beginnings of constitutionalism in the Romanov Empire) and also economic, social and cultural changes, i.e., in a broad term, civilisation changes, caused by the process of capitalism. Simultaneously, they formed separate entities within their borders and they were treated differently; usually, they were a peripheral, potentially even a front zone, subject to severe administrative, police and military control. Most frequently, they were also significantly under-invested, e.g. with respect to infrastructure. Living conditions were also tougher; dignified existence required greater effort than in other areas of the partitioning state.
However, this was not the only source of diversification. None of the partitions - as this is the diversification that I deem of key importance - was a uniform area. Let us remember: with respect to administration, the Austrian partition encompassed Western and Eastern Galicia; Russian partition included the Kingdom of Poland, also known as the Congress Kingdom and later the Vistula Land, and six governorates of the Northwestern Krai and three governorate of the Southwestern Krai (for Poles, these were the Annexed Lands, and later the Eastern Borderlands); finally, the Prussian partition was the Grand Duchy of Posen (later Provinz Posen) and other areas that belonged to various districts of the Prussian state and later the Second Reich.
Apart from such clear-cut differences of political and administrative nature, there were also a number of further important differences of natural character, i.e. geographic and environmental and also other ones, shaped in the course of historical processes, such as economic, cultural, denominational and ethnic. They posed a serious challenge for the party governing Poland since 1918. Their gradual elimination and wiping out was one of the major objectives of political activities of subsequent ruling parties, even though they were implemented in various manners and with varying effects.
4. First Stage of Unification Activities
Decisions made in the first weeks of independence and activities resulting from them had, on the one hand, the nature of temporary solutions, caused by specific circumstances, yet in a number of cases they were also the beginning of further, long-term processes and phenomena.
Thus, the first step along this way was establishment of central authorities of the new state. Certain Polish state institutions, however deprived of full sovereignty, started to function already between 1917 and 1918. At the end of October and the beginning of November 1918, the first centres of Polish sovereign authority were established, initially with only local range: in Kraków for Western Galicia, in Cieszyn for Cieszyn Silesia, in Lublin for a portion of the Kingdom of Poland, and finally in Warsaw for its’ remaining portion. However, a decisive moment in this respect was Józef Piłsudski’s initiative, which consisted in an independent political and legal act. It was him assuming the function of the Temporary Chief of State. All hitherto centres of power became immediately subordinate to him (Regency Council in Warsaw, the Polish Liquidation Commission in Kraków and the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland in Lublin), as well as some political elites who understood the importance of this act.
The Temporary Chief of State who held both the executive and the legislative power in his hands ruled areas that managed to get free from the occupation of central states, i.e. the last stage of the oppressors’ rule over the Polish lands. Simultaneously, he was managing activities aimed at liberating the remaining areas of the former Republic of Poland. The formation of Polish statehood was a complex process, happening simultaneously on several levels. One of them was the military level. It consisted of fights or even wars waged on several fronts: German, Czechoslovakian, Ukrainian and Bolshevik, as well as Lithuanian. It is also impossible to overlook three Silesian risings and the Wielkopolska rising. This situation called for urgent formation of armed forces by the young state.
In November 1918, it only had at its’ disposal approx. 30,000 armed soldiers, the so-called Polnische Wehrmacht. There was a grand human reservoir from which it was necessary to set up the Polish Army as soon as possible. It consisted of legionnaires from three brigades and members of the Polish Military Organisation, soldiers of the former Eastern Corps and other Polish formations set up in Russia since 1917, the Blue Army of General J. Haller that was under formation in France, the Wielkopolska Army, divisions of the Polish self-defence still fighting at the borderlands and finally young, or even very young volunteers to wanted to join the army. A common military service was introduced and conscription started. At the end of 1920, the armed forces of the Republic of Poland had almost one million soldiers. However, these were people deriving from various formations, trained differently, wearing different uniforms and carrying different arms and, furthermore, of differing political orientation. The last aspect referred primarily to the commanders. It was necessary to unite them into a uniform structure and institution: the Polish Army.
In a symbolic manner, this process was initiated by a ceremony that took place in November 1919 at the Kraków’s Main Market Square. It was the Feast of Unity of the Polish Armed Forces. The whole process lasted much longer and was completed only when the majority of officers and non-coms were young Poles who started the service in 1918. At the moment of outbreak of WWII, only the generals included soldiers with various biographies, yet with a slight dominance of the Legion element. It has to be noted that the individual regiments forming a part of the Polish Army laboriously cultivated their tradition, which often dated back to the partition period. At the same time, it was not a secret that the personnel making them up in the autumn of 1918 were still, e.g., Austrian or, even more frequently, Russian officers.
On 16 November 1918, Józef Piłsudski as the Temporary Chief of State notified the Entente states via a special despatch about the establishment of the Polish state, the Republic of Poland, and subsequently created its’ central civil and military authorities, starting from the government. Armed struggles between 1919 and 1921 did not hinder further unification activities with priority importance for the young state. They referred to its’ territorial, systemic and administrative shape. Obviously, between a political decision which has the character of a valid directive and its’ entry into force, practical application and, eventually effects that it brings, a certain period of time always has to elapse; nevertheless, in the formal aspect, the change was effected.
The new structures of authority created by the Chief of State and people appointed to manage them gradually started to rule over further areas incorporated into the Republic of Poland, installing the institutions of the new state on them. They had similar structures and competence everywhere and they were subject to the Warsaw government. They were introduced in place of local authorities of various political and national orientation that existed there. Initially, they had certain features referring to the local tradition, originating from the partition times. The lands of the former Prussian district, reluctant towards Piłsudski, guarded their administrative independence (Poznań and Pomerania provinces) the longest (until 1922); these areas had their own management in the form of a separate ministry.
In parallel to the executive power which eventually consisted of a government made up of several ministers headed by the President of the Council of Ministers subordinate to the parliament, subsequently with a prime minister, the Temporary Chief of State also appointed two other, in line with Montesquieu’s principle, separate segments. These were the legislative authority in the form of the single-chamber Legislative Sejm, established in February 1919 (Constituanta) and the judiciary authority. Partially Polonised authorities of the justice system were incorporated into the general territorial and competence structure (three instances).
The first act of the Sejm was adoption of the “Small Constitution.” It constituted an initial version of the systemic premises of the Second Republic of Poland and was the starting point for subsequent unification activities until the adoption of a full constitution, which took place in March 1921. In the ideological sphere, the Constitution specified in the preamble that the Second Republic of Poland was a direct successor of the First. Without delving into detailed system assumptions of the young state here, as well as modifications introduced later which included the so-called August Amendment of 1926 and the second constitution of April 1935, it is worth paying attention to the fundamental evolution that the office of the President of the Republic of Poland, which replaced the Chief of State, has undergone. In the light of both constitutions, the position and competence related to it were changed by 180 degrees. This difference resulted from a change in the state model which, from a parliamentary and cabinet, changed into presidential in form; with respect to content, it was a simultaneous turn from parliamentary democracy to growing authoritarian power. Irrespective of this, both constitutions offered a strong framework for the progress of unification. The fact that the Polish state adopted a unitary form (in practice, there were few exceptions from this model) was conducive to it. On the other hand, the mode of managing armed forces in the form of three independent head authorities (General Inspectorate of Armed Forces, the Ministry of Military Affairs and the General Staff and later the Main Staff) was unique.
A uniform (though with slight modifications) network of public administration was incorporated into the uniform territorial structure of the state, finally formed in 1922. It consisted of province authorities with province governors and president of the capital city of Warsaw, subsequently poviat authorities headed by starosts and commune authorities (both urban and rural), with presidents, mayors and commune administrators. Province governors and starosts were directly or indirectly subordinate to the government, whereas presidents, mayors and commune administrators were elected. In crisis situations, government commissionership was appointed. This was the case in Warsaw and in Kraków. The situation with respect to local government institutions was more diverse; in any case, their formation lasted the longest. They changed in the course of time; furthermore, there was also territorial diversity which, to a certain degree, was the remnant of the partitions. This was the case of the Silesian Province autonomy and existence of province governments in Poznań and Pomerania. Territorial government institutions, as well as professional institutions were characterised by greater susceptibility to modifications.
Unification of police took place in stages. Its’ fundamental framework was created between 1918 and 1923. It consisted in establishment of uniform Polish structures. The process was started the earliest, i.e. on 29 December 1919, in Poznań, slightly later in the former Kingdom of Poland and in Galicia (Małopolska); the latest, i.e. in 1921, Polish police structures started to be formed in Silesia and in the Eastern Lands. Nevertheless, these activities had a uniform legal base everywhere in the form of the “Act on State Police” of July 1919. The final closure of the entire process took place in 1928 via a Resolution of the President of the Republic of Poland. Still, the Silesian Province retained its’ own, separate police structure (Police of the Silesian Province).
5. Long-Term Activities
Long-term activities mean long-lasting processes and not one-time decisions or events. Some of them resulted from decisions of authorities, others took place in a partially or completely independent manner. Even though their beginnings date back to the first months of the Second Republic of Poland, yet their basic course started at the moment when the borders and the system have already been determined, when the major political institutions have acquired a democratic mandate, i.e. deriving from mass elections, and have already commenced to function normally (in a better or worse manner).
Among long-term activities, legal unification definitely had great significance; this process has been described quite thoroughly. Lands that formed parts of the Polish state were subject to six different legal systems. A discussion on the mode of putting an end to this situation was initiated already in June 1919. The Codification Commission appointed by the Legislative Sejm decided that it was necessary to create a completely new, uniform Polish legal system. Determination of the general legal framework of the state in the March Constitution was conducive to the activities of the Commission. However, it should be remembered that the constitutional wording had, in a definite majority, a declarative nature and only laid out the general principles on which establishment of the legislation of independent Poland was going to rely in the future. In spite of the fact that the law enforcement institutions, i.e. the structure of courts and prosecution offices, were determined in the decree of the Chief of State already in February 1919, yet the legal provisions which they were going to guard still had shape inherited after the oppressors, only slightly corrected here and there. In spite of the general declaration abolishing the legal system of the partitioning powers and occupation authorities, the former standards and provisions regulating all spheres of collective and private life remained in force in practice. New ones, established by the Polish Sejm and executive bodies, were introduced gradually in their place. This was a long-lasting process, which was not complete at the moment of outbreak of WWII, especially in the area of civil law. On the other hand, complete unification of penal law was performed. Its’ basis was a new code, which entered into force in 1929. Professor Stanisław Wróblewski, patron of the current seat of the Law Faculty (Jagiellonian University), played a significant role in the unification of the law of the Second Republic of Poland.
Another process of great significance for the social and cultural unification of citizens was related to education. Already in February 1919 a system of compulsory, common and free education (on the primary level) was introduced. This was a starting point for further development of education, as well as higher studies, whose effects contributed positively to the heritage of the inter-war period. This process, abruptly halted by the outbreak of the war, proceeded dynamically in the inter-war period. Thanks to it, it was possible to overcome, to a significant degree, one of the most important elements of heritage of the partitions, i.e. considerable and sometimes high level of illiteracy. One of the major functions of the educational system was integration. The school system, as well as the military service, were the most important institutions on the basis of which, with varying effects, attempts were made at uniting the representatives of national minorities with Poland, Polishness and the state.
The lands that became a part of the Second Republic of Poland were greatly diversified economically. High agricultural culture in the Prussian partition, several industrial centres located in Upper Silesia and in the former Congress Kingdom and Galicia stood out among other lands, characterised by low level of industrialisation and backwards agriculture. Furthermore, they included areas of exceptionally anachronistic economic and social structure, the largest of which was Polesie, forming a type of a cultural reserve. Infrastructure (communication) was a separate problem. The network of roads and railway lines had varying density and geographic location and was difficult to harmonise. In any case, it is still clear on the map of rail connections even today.
Yet another and quite significant difficulty resulted from the fact that the areas of three partitions were very weakly connected via economy. They simply functioned on the basis of three different markets, where the level of dependency on each of them, both in the export and import dimension, was very high. Thus, it was necessary to start the construction of one national market, common for all areas. This was another long-lasting process. Establishment of bases for uniform economic life was the beginning. Even today, they are made up of the monetary and tax system. The authorities handled the issues already at the beginning of the 1920s (W. Grabski's reform of 1924). A period of good economic situation followed, interrupted in 1929 by the great economic crisis. However, these few successful years allowed for the commencement of the first investments based primarily on meagre domestic funds. Another problem was selection of a general strategy of economic life. Here, throughout the inter-war period, two concepts were clashing: liberal and flexible with an advantage of the latter, in any case quite difficult to replace in a country deprived of private investment capital. This became manifest especially in the case of large-scale investments undertaken in the final years of the Second Republic.
The process of formation of the political scene of the Revived Poland was guided by its’ own logic. Its’ first element was the merger of parties with a similar profile and ideological programme, sometimes representing the same social classes (workers, peasants, landed gentry), deriving from three partitions. An example may be the Polish Socialist Party, which was established on account of such incentive in Kraków in 1919. Activists of peasant’s parties from the Congress Kingdom and Galicia, or Galicia and Wielkopolska conservatives, tried to unite in a similar manner, yet with less satisfying results. Nevertheless, the political map of Poland in the first period of the parliamentary and cabinet system which did not operate with full efficiency then, had the form of a multi-coloured mosaic made of numerous, predominantly small groups, parties and milieus. Moreover, this system changed quite often during subsequent elections. Individual regions of the Polish state retained their own political face until the outbreak of WWII. This was evidenced most clearly in the case of the former Prussian partition, incessantly remaining under the impact of national democracy and, partially, Christian Democratic Party.
At the end of the 1920s, an attempt at creating a new political party was made, not referring to the tradition of partitions. This was the Non-Partisan Bloc of Cooperation with the Government (Bezpartyjny Blok Współpracy z Rządem) constituting, in spite of its’ name, a typical representation of the ruling party, referring to the state ideology. It functioned as political back-up resources of the Sanation, which was governing Poland since the May Coup. After Piłsudski’s death, it was replaced by the Camp of National Unity (Obóz Zjednoczenia Narodowego) with a clearly modified ideological façade. The original plethora of parties and political groups characterising the first years of the Second Republic of Poland was gradually disappearing as a result of grassroots consolidation caused by an effort to increase efficiency of operation in more and more difficult conditions of progressing authoritarianism. At the end of 1930s, the political scene lost its’ original mosaic-like nature. The governing elite of Piłsudski’s followers was supported by the above-mentioned Camp of National Unity, whereas the opposition was represented by three parties: National, People’s and Labour and the Polish Socialist Party. It was, in many respects, a clear layout, offering certain hopes for its’ future stability. However, it should be remembered that apart from Polish parties, there were also parties of national minorities - Ukrainian, Belarusian, Jewish and German, representing also different ideological and programme conditions. In this case, the progress in consolidation of political parties was slight.
It is also necessary to mention culture. Artistic creativity, in combination with education, created a very strong base on which the modern Polish national identity was formed in the inter-war period. Culture was open to the new international currents, at that time still predominantly European, including the Eastern Europe. At the same time, it maintained significant regional separateness, which was carefully nourished and treated as a full-value ingredient of the cultural heritage uniting the present with the past. The evidence for the appreciation of the role of culture by the state authorities were prestigious institutions, e.g. the Academy of Literature, as well as organisation of competitions (e.g. Chopin’s music) or national and foreign exhibitions. In architecture, attention should be focused on the promotion of the so-called national style, both in residential construction (houses and villas referring to Old-Polish manor houses), as well as during erection of public utility buildings.
It is difficult to evaluate the general effect of the unification processes taking place in the Second Republic of Poland on account of their diversified nature. They encompassed various areas of collective life in the material and ideological sphere. Their progress was also different. In a number of cases, they did not end completely before the outbreak of WWII. Thus, e.g., legal provisions dating back to the partitions could still be found in the legal system of the Polish People’s Republic; potentially, some of their traces may be found even today. Nevertheless, it is important that “in the state policy, there were no district divisions,” as noted by Stanisław Thugutt (1873 - 1941), a prominent politician of the inter-war period.
 A. Mączak (ed.), Historia Europy, Ossolineum 1997, p. 640, 662, cf. also A. Chwalba, Historia powszechna. Wiek XIX, Warsaw 2008, p. 353, 360, 371.
 Cf. M. Tanty, Bałkany w XX wieku, Warsaw 2009, as well as W. Walkiewicz, Jugosławia. Państwa sukcesyjne, Warsaw 2009, p. 52 et seq.
 Cf. Z. Kurzowa, Ze studiów nad polszczyzną kresową, Kraków 2002.
 Poles under the partitions did not have such status then.
 T. Gąsowski, Polska wyobrażona. Dziewiętnastowieczne wizje terytorium Polski, [in:] Księga Pamiątkowa ku czci Profesor Jadwigi Hoff, Rzeszów (in print).
 Cf. Mączak, op. cit., p. 509 and 696; more cf. J. Osterhammel, Historia XIX wieku. Przeobrażenia świata, Poznań 2013, passim, also S. Salmonowicz, Prusy. Dzieje państwa i społeczeństwa, Warsaw 1998, p. 295 et seq.
 Cf. J. Pajewski, Budowa Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej 1918-1926, Kraków 1995, p. 20 et seq., and A. Chojnowski, Naród u progu wolności, [in:] Rok 1918: tradycje i oczekiwania, ed. A. Garlicki, Warsaw 1978, p. 128.
 J. Pajewski, Odbudowa państwa polskiego 1914-1918, Warsaw 1980, p. 202 et seq. More cf. W. Suleja, Próba budowy zrębów polskiej państwowości w okresie istnienia Tymczasowej Rady Stanu, Wrocław 1981, passim.
 T. Gąsowski, Ziemie polskie w latach wielkiej wojny, [in:], Historia Polski XIX wieku, ed. A Nowak, Historie polityczne, vol. 2, Warsaw 2013, p. 339.
 M. Wrzosek, Wojny o granice Polski Odrodzonej 1918-1921, Warsaw 1992, passim.
 T. Nałęcz, Armia in statu nascendi, [in:] Rok 1918, op. cit., p. 190.
 J. Cisek, Józef Piłsudski w Krakowie, Kraków 2003, p. 81 et seq.
 P. Stawecki, Generałowie polscy: zarys portretu zbiorowego 1776-1945, Warsaw 2010.
 Cz. Brzoza, A. L. Sowa, Historia Polski 1918-1939, Kraków 2006, p. 80 et seq.
 M. Kallas, Historia ustroju Polski X-XX w., 5th edition, Warsaw 2003, p. 306 et seq.
 “We, the Polish nation, grateful to the Providence for freeing us from a century-and-a-half long captivity, remembering with gratitude the bravery and the perseverance of the sacrificial struggle of generations that devoted their best efforts to the case of independence, making reference to the illustrious tradition of the immortal Constitution of the 3rd of May - bearing in mind the welfare of the entire united and independent Motherland, and striving to solidify its’ independent existence, power, safety and social order in immortal principles of law and freedom, we hereby adopt this Constitution Act at the Legislative Sejm of the Republic of Poland.” Powstanie II Rzeczypospolitej. Wybór dokumentów 1866-1925, ed. H. Janowska, T. Jędruszczak, Warsaw 1984, p. 622.
 A. Ajnenkiel, Ustrój i prawo Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Polska Odrodzona 1918-1939, ed. J. Tomicki, Warszawa 1982, p. 99 et seq.
 J. Pajewski, Budowa…, op. cit., p. 147 et seq.
 Cf. A. Tarnowska, Z dziejów unifikacji administracji II Rzeczypospolitej: rola przepisów pruskich, Toruń 2012.
 Cf. J. Mierzwa, Starostowie Polski międzywojennej: portret zbiorowy, Kraków 2012.
 M. Kallas, Historia…, op. cit., p. 338 et seq.
 Cf. A. Misiuk, Policja Państwowa 1919-1939, Warsaw 1996.
 S. Mauersberg, Oświata, [in:] Polska…, op. cit., p. 555.
 Cf. J. Tomaszewski, Z dziejów Polesia 1921-1939. Zarys stosunków społeczno-ekonomicznych, Warsaw 1963.
 Cf. A. Jezierski, C. Leszczyńska, Historia gospodarcza Polski, Warsaw 1998.
 M. M. Drozdowski, Gospodarka Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Polska…, op. cit., pp. 426 et seq.
 More about this issue, cf. J. Holzer, Mozaika polityczna Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej, Warsaw 1974.
 Both these parties have their own valuable monographic studies: A. Chojnowski, Piłsudczycy u władzy: dzieje Bezpartyjnego Bloku Współpracy z Rządem, Wrocław 1986 and J. Majchrowski, Silni-zwarci-gotowi: myśl polityczna Obozu Zjednoczenia Narodowego, Warsaw 1985.
 A. Wojciechowski, Próby integracji kultury plastycznej, [in:] Polska, op. cit., p. 618 also Cz. Brzoza, A. L. Sowa, Historia…, op. cit., p. 368.
 Quoted after: J. Pajewski, Budowa…, op. cit., p. 250.