Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa (PRL)
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Political Foundations of theCommunistPoland 1944-1945

100%
Górski G.
Confrontation and Cooperation: 1000 Years of Polish-German-Russian Relations
|
2014
|
vol. 1
|
issue 1
5-11
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Polityka stosowania kary konfiskaty mienia w PRL

71%
Rzeplińska I.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1992
|
issue XVIII
147-167
EN
Fofeiture of property is the most severe of all penalties affecting property that have ever been  imposed in hisiory. It consists in the convicted offender’s property being taken over – wholly or in part – by the treasury. The paper deals with the history of this particular penalty in the criminal policy of Polish People’s Republic in the years 1944–1990. The penalty of forfeiture of property was not provided for in the 1932 penal code (which remained in force till December 31, 1969). It appeared in the legislation shortly before World War II, in the act of June 23, 1939 on special criminal responsibility for desertion to the enemy or abroad. Before the passing of the 1932 penal code, the codes of the partitioning powers had been in force in the Polish territories (as until the regaining of independence in 1918, Poland was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Germany). Also those codes did not provide for forfeiture of property. It was only the legislator of People’s Poland who introduced forfeiture of property as an additionar penalty and provided for its broad adjudication. The history of forfeiture of property in postwar Poland is analyzed divided into four stages which differ from one another due to significant changes in the  legislation. The changes reflected re-orientation of criminal policy in connection with a succession of political crises. The first such stage in the history of forfeiture of property were the years 1944–1958. The data discussed in the paper that concern this period are statistics of civilians convicted by military courts from the spring of l944 till April 30, 1955 (till which date in special cases provided for in statutes, civilians fell under the jurisdiction of military courts), and statistics of convictions by common courts till 1949. The second stage began with the passing of the act of June 18, 1959 on protection of social property. Stage three was initiated by the entering into force, on January 1, 1970, of the new penal code of April 19, 1969. The fourth and last stage began with the passing of the act of May 10, 1985 on special criminal  responsability and ended with the act of February 23, 1990 which derogated the penalty of forfeiture of property. The introduction of forfeiture of property as an additional penalty is characteristic of the earliest legislative acts of the new authorities of People’s Poland, imposed from without. Its broad application and obligatory character demonstrate the importance attached by those authorities to forfeiture as an element of political game against society. The first legal acts of the Polish Committee for National Liberaltion provided for that penalty: the decree of August 31, 1944 on statutory penalties for the Nazi was criminals, the decree of September 23, 1944 – Penal Code of the Polish Army, and the decree of October 30, 1944 on protection of State. One year later, the decree of November 11,1945 was passed on offences of particular danger in the period of reconstruction of State (which quashed the former wartime decree on protection of State). It was in turn replaced with a new one under the same title, passed on June 13, 1946. The Council of Ministers justified the new decree with the need for aggravation of penalties for all activities that disturbed internal peace, order, and safety, and impaired Poland’s international position. The decree piovided for particularly severe penalties for perpetration of, incitement to, and approval of fratricide; for membership of illegal organizations and terrorist groups; for distribution of illegal literature; for illegal possession of firearms; for helping the members of terrorist groups; and in some cases of failure to inform on an offence. (The decree was generally known as the small penal code – s.p.c.). As provided for in the decree, the additional penalty of forfeiture of property was obfigatory in two cases: sentence to death or to life imprisonment, and conviction for attempt with violence or membership of an armed union. It was optional in the case of sentence to a prison term (Art. 49 para 1 and 2 of the decree). The provisions of s.p.c. extended the application of forfeiture: the court could at ail times adjudicate forfeiture of the property not only of the convicted person himself but also of his spouse or familly members (this did not concern, though, the property such persons attained themselves, inherited, or acquired gift not donated by the convicted persons). Thus forfeiture could affect a very large group of actually innocent persons. Here the decree introduced group responsability for crime. In 1953, four decrees were passed; according to the people’s legislator, they aimed at protecting social property and the interests of buyers in commercial trade. Two of them, the decree of March 4, 1953 on protection of buyers in commercial trade and another one passed on that same date on increased protection of social property, provided for the possibility of forfeiture of the offender’s property wholly or in part. In that case, forfeiture was optional. Statistical data concerning the adjudication of forfeiture were gathered since 1949. Beginning from August 15, 1944, though, forfeiture of property was also adjudicated in cases of civilians convicted by military courts which had civilians in their jurisdiction by force of the decree of October 30, 1944 on protection of State. Military courts were competent to decide in cases of persons accused of offences specified in Art. Art. 85–88 and 101 – 103 of penal code of the Polish Army, in the decree on protection of State, and – the latter quashed – in s.p.c. The jurisdiction of military courts in cases of civilians was abolished in the act of April 5, 1955 on transfer to common courts of the former competence of military courts in cases of civilians, functionaries of public security agencies, the Civic Militaria and Prison Staff. Military courts retained their competence in cases of the specified categories of civilians accused of espionage (Art. 7 s.p.c.). The passing of that act was the first manifestation of a gradual abolition of the legal and judiciary terror. Convictions of civilians tried by military courts were two or three times more frequent than convictions of military service men. Starting from as early as the latter half of 1944, civilians were convicted for membership of illegal or delegalized organizations (mainly the former Home Army) and for illegal possession of firearms (70 per cent of all convictions). Aftcr 1952, the number of persons convicted for the latter went down; instead, more persons were convicted for banditry and failure to inform on an offence. Forfeiture of property was adjudicated in about 40 to 50 per cent of cases of civilians; it  accompanied sentences to long prison terms or to death, as well as another additional penalty: deprivation of public rights. It was imposed first of all on those who opposed the newly introduced political system, but also on chance perpetrators of what was called anti-State propagande. Common courts adjudicated forfeiture of property mainly for offences specified in two decrees: the one of August 31, 1944 on statutory penalties for Nazi war criminals, and the decree of June 28,1946 on criminal responsability for repudiation of Polish nationality during the 1939-1945 war. Over 90 per cent of all forfeiture were adjudicated in such cases. During the 1959–1969 decade, the additional penalty of forfeiture of property was imposed basing on special statutes. Two statutes were passed as a novelty which provided for forfeiture while aiming at special protection of the social property. They were: the act of January 21, 1958 on increased protection of social property, and the act of June 18, 1959 on criminal responsability for offences against social property. Nearly all forfeitures in that period were adjudicated for offences specified in the act of June 18, 1959, and the actual offence concerned was appropriation of social property in practically all cases. Convictions for the offences specified in the discussed statut constituted one-fifth of all convictions; most cases, however, concerned petty or not too serious offences where forfeiture was optional only. This is why that penalty was imposed rather seldom; there were realatively few acts for which it was obligatory. Forfeiture was also most seldom adjudicated by force of ther statutes. It amounted to 1,5–2,2 per cent of all additional penalties imposed. The new penal code passed on April 19, 1969 introduced forfeiture of property to its catalogue of additional penalties. Forfeiture of the whole or part of property was obligatory on the case of conviction for the following crimes: 1) against the basic political or economic interests of Polish People’s Republic: betrayal  of the fatherland, conspiracy against Polish People’s Republic, espionage, terrorism, sabotage, abuse of confidence in foreign relations, misinformation, participation in organized crime against the economy or foreign currency regulations; and 2) appropriation of social property of considerable value. Besides, the court could adjudicate forfeiture of property wholly or in part in the case of conviction of another crime committed for material profit. The code’s regulation of application of forfeiture was clearly copied from the earlier legislation: the s.p.c. and the acts that increased the protection of social property. During the fifteen years 1970–1984, forfeiture of property was among the least frequently imposed penalties and constituted from 1,2 to 3,3 per cent of all additional penalties. It accompagnied nearly exlusively the convictions for two types of offences: appropriation of social property of considerable value, and that same offence committed by a person who availed himself of the activity of a unit of socialized economy, and acted in conspiracy with others to the detriment of that unit, its customers or contractors. Convictions for these offences constituted about 1 per cent of all convictions for offences against property. The fourth and last period discussed are the years 1985–1990 when forfeiture was again adjudicated very often, as in the 1940’s – 1950’s, to be abolished completely in the end. The entire five-year period was characterized by changes in penal law, one completely opposing another: from extension of penalization and increase of repressiveness introduced by the acts of 1985 to liberalization in 1990. Two acts were passed bearing the same date – may 10, 1985: on changing some provisions of penal law and the law on transgressions, and on special criminal responsability (the so-called provisional act in force till June 30, 1988). They introduced significant changes in the range of application of forfeiture of property, making its adjudication possible, and for some time even obligatory, for common offences. In the discussed period, that penalty was imposed mainly for offences against property. Nearly a half of them were burglaries, and the victims were usually – in two-thirds of cases – natural persons. In the period of particular intensity of convictions – 1986–1987 – forfeiture accompanied 11–12 per cent of ail convictions, the proportion going down to a mere 0,1 per cent in 1989. The imposition of that penalty was extremely broad: consequently, forfeiture  was adjudicated in cases of quite petty offences where it was inappropriate and out of all proportion to the seriousness of the act and the guilt of the offender. This made the execution of forfeiture actually ineffective as it usually proved objectless in the case of petty common offenders. Forfeiture of property evolved in a way from was practically non-existence to emergence in special statutes and then in the penal code, to its special use in the criminal policy of the eighties when grounds well known from the past were given for its broader imposition: the need for severe penal repression towards offenders against property, to a complete abolition of that penalty in 1990. Forfeiture was extensively applied in the years 1949–1958 (when common courts adjudicated 1044, and military courts – 1538 forfeitures a year on the average). The next two periods were similar as to the number of forfeitures (503 and 513 respectively). The use of forfeiture was the broadest under the provisional statute (10,345 cases a year on the average). Forfeiture is no doubt one of the most severe penalties affecting property, or penalties in general, which is why it should have been adjudicated in exceptional cases only. Its use under the provisional statute in cases of ,,ordinary” offenders violated the principle of just punishment. On the other hand, forfeiture can hardly be called a just penalty anyway as it always affects not only the offender himself but also his family. The political changes in Poland made it possible to liberalize penal law and to remove the most unjust solutions it contained, the penalty of forfeiture of property included.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Biskupi czasów przedrozbiorowych w świetle propagandy antykościelnej prowadzonej przez władze polityczne Polskiej Rzeczpospolitej Ludowej w latach 1944–1989

63%
Jaworski P.
Tarnowskie Studia Teologiczne
|
2016
|
vol. 35
|
issue 2
EN
One of the fundamental ideological goals of communists coming into power in Poland after the end of the World War II was the fight against religion. The goal resulted in the marxist-leninist ideology (based on dialectical and historical materialism) which rejected the existence of God. No wonder that the contemporaneous political authorities supported by the ideology mentioned above towards wide spread devotion of the society treated the Church as the opponent which can make them less powerful. Hence, the People’s Republic of Poland (PRP) authorities used in a different intensity the policy of repression and condemnation against the Church in years 1944–1989. Anti-church propaganda became the crucial element of the government’s policy. The propaganda covered various aspects of life and functioning of the Church.The present article highlights the political propaganda of the PRP and what was carefully underlined was the fact how the propaganda presented particular bishops from old Polish times showing at the same time, based on certain examples, manipulation, lies, and lack of reliability and objectivity of the contemporaneous propaganda.
PL
Jednym z podstawowych ideologicznych celów przejmujących władzę komunistów w Polsce po zakończeniu II była walka z religią. Cel ten wynikał z przyjętej ideologii marksistowsko-leninowskiej (opartej na materializmie dialektycznym i historycznym) odrzucającej istnienie Boga. Nic więc dziwnego, że ówczesne władze polityczne na powyższej podbudowie ideologicznej wobec powszechnie występującej religijności społeczeństwa traktowały Kościół jako konkurenta, który mógłby osłabić jej autorytet. Z tego powodu władze Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej (PRL) w latach 1944–1989 z różnym nasileniem stosowały wobec Kościoła politykę represji i deprecjonowania. Istotnym elementem prowadzonej polityki stała się antykościelna propaganda obejmująca różnorodne aspekty życia i funkcjonowania Kościoła.W niniejszym artykule zwrócono uwagę na propagandę polityczną PRL, a konkretnie próbowano ukazać, w jakim świetle ta propaganda przedstawiała poszczególnych biskupów z czasów staropolskich, ukazując przy tym, w oparciu o poszczególne przykłady, manipulację, kłamstwa, brak rzetelności i obiektywizmu ówczesnej propagandy.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Pamięć o socjalizmie i zabytki socjalizmu. Ochrona zabytków PRL w Tychach

63%
Sugawara S.
Studia Krytyczne/ Critical Studies
|
2019
|
issue 8
158-168
PL
Celem artykułu jest zarysowanie zagadnienia pamięci o socjalizmie na przykładzie kwestii ochrony zabytków Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej (PRL) w Tychach. Rozpoczyna się on od analizy „pragnienia muzeologicznego”, pojęcia ukutego przez Masahiro Ogino. Następnie zarysowuje się fazy przekształcenia przestrzeni publicznej w krajach postsocjalistycznych po roku 1989. Kolejne części tekstu skupiają się na Tychach, które były typowym „miastem socjalistycznym” i ich zmiennym wizerunku po przejściu do kapitalizmu. W ostatnim rozdziale autor ukazuje sposób ochrony dziedzictwa PRL na przykładach dwóch tyskich pomników.
EN
The aim of this article is to outline issue memory of socialism by a prism of the protection of the monuments from the age of People’s Republic Of Poland in the Tychy city. It starts with the analysis of the „museological desire”, a term coined by the Masahiro Ogino. Then it presents phases of the reshaping public space in post-socialist countries after 1989. Next parts of the article are focused on Tychy, which were typical „socialist city”, and its changing image after transition to capitalism. Last chapter is devoted to the protection of the PRL’s heritage – using examples of two monuments in Tychy.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Trauma czy raj utracony? Reminiscencje okresu PRL w powieści Ono Doroty Terakowskiej

51%
Pielorz D.
Rana. Literatura - Doświadczenie - Tożsamość
|
2020
|
issue 1
125-148
EN
This article is an attempt to describe the ways in which the past – the especially Polish People’s Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa – PRL) – performs in the memory of the protagonists of Dorota Terakowska’s novel Ono. Teresa, Jan and Irena vary in both perceiving those realities and passing these memories on to their descendants. After discussing different types of the memory of PRL and describing them using the concept of trauma the author focuses on Ewa – the main protagonist of the book in question. She has to deal with her own trauma, which is a consequence of rape. Shedding light on this motif enables one to see that Terakowska used fictional situations to voice some serious observations concerning the real problem of sexual assault and its social perception. Those remarks are supplemented with autobiographicalelement provided by parallel reading of Ono and Guma do żucia (Terakowska’s autobiographical quasi­‍‑political text).
PL
Artykuł stanowi próbę opisania sposobów funkcjonowania przeszłości w pamięci bohaterów powieści Ono Doroty Terakowskiej, zwłaszcza postrzegania przez nich czasów Polskiej Rzeczpospolitej Ludowej. Wydarzenia z tego okresu pozostały głęboko zakorzenione w ich świadomości, jednak Teresa, Jan oraz Irena diametralnie różnią się sposobem zarówno postrzegania ówczesnej rzeczywistości, jak i przekazywania swych wspomnień innym. Po scharakteryzowaniu właściwych tym postaciom typów pamięci PRL oraz omówieniu ich przy użyciu kategorii traumy uwaga zostaje przeniesiona na Ewę – główną bohaterkę książki, która musi mierzyć się ze swoją własną traumą, jaką stanowi gwałt. Interpretacja tego wątku pozwala m.in. pokazać, że fikcyjne wydarzenia pisarka wykorzystała, by wypowiedzieć ważne prawdy dotyczące przemocy o charakterze seksualnym, a szczególnie jej społecznego postrzegania. Rozważania dotyczące (traumatycznej) przeszłości zostają uzupełnione o wątek autobiograficzny, co umożliwia paralelna lektura Ono oraz quasi‑politycznego, autobiograficznego utworu Terakowskiej, zatytułowanegoGuma do żucia.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Maoizm nad Wisłą? Działalność Komunistycznej Partii Polski Kazimierza Mijala

51%
Gasztold P.
Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość
|
2018
|
issue 32
290-318
PL
Komuniści, którzy krytykowali politykę kierownictwa PZPR z pozycji pryncypialnych, w grudniu 1965 r. założyli nielegalną organizację pod nazwą Komunistyczna Partia Polski. Niekwestionowanym liderem tej grupy został Kazimierz Mijal, który w 1966 r. uciekł do Albanii i stamtąd nadzorował działalność KPP. Organizacja ta nielegalnie drukowała i kolportowała tysiące ulotek oraz broszur, w których potępiano „rewizjonistyczną” politykę Gomułki oraz Gierka, za wzór stawiając albańskie oraz chińskie rozwiązania doktrynalne. Infiltracja środowiska polskich maoistów przez aparat bezpieczeństwa PRL w latach siedemdziesiątych doprowadziła do marginalizacji tej struktury. Artykuł na podstawie dokumentów zgromadzonych m.in. w Archiwum IPN i Archiwum Akt Nowych przybliża kulisy powstania KKP, jej naj ważniejszych liderów, program polityczny i tajną współpracę z albańskimi dyplomatami, podsumowuje także działalność Kazimierza Mijala na tle rozdźwięku w obozie komunistycznym w latach sześćdziesiątych, wśród wielu przyczyn porażek polskich „maoistów” wskazuje na dogmatyczny program polityczny, który nie zyskał szerszej akceptacji w społeczeństwie.
EN
The communists who criticized the policy of the PUWP’s leadership from the principled positions in December 1965 established an illegal organisation called the Communist Party of Poland (CCP). The unquestionable leader of this group was Kazimierz Mijal who in 1966 fled to Albania and supervised the activity of the CPP from there. This organisation illegally printed and distributed thousands of leaflets and brochures in which the “revisionist” policies of Gomułka and Gierek were condemned, holding the Albanian and Chinese doctrinal solutions as a model. The infiltration of the Polish Maoist circles by the security apparatus of the PPR in the seventies led to the marginalisation of this structure. The article, based on documents collected, among others, in the Archives of the Institute of National Remembrance and the Central Archives of Modern Records, presents the inside story of the founding of the CPP, its major leaders, political programme and secret cooperation with Albanian diplomats, and summarises the activity of Kazimierz Mijal in the background of the discord in the communist camp in the 60s, indicating among many reasons for the failures of Polish “Maoists” a dogmatic political programme which did not gained wider acceptance in society.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

„Jesteśmy komunistami i przyjaciółmi”. Kontakty pomiędzy Polską Zjednoczoną Partią Robotniczą a Partią Pracy Korei w latach osiemdziesiątych

51%
Szyc S.
Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość
|
2018
|
issue 32
346-369
PL
W latach osiemdziesiątych XX w. stosunki pomiędzy Polską Rzeczpospolitą Ludową oraz Koreańską Republiką Ludowo-Demokratyczną uległy wyraźnej dynamizacji. Jedną z widocznych płaszczyzn tej intensyfikacji stały się relacje międzypartyjne. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest omówienie charakteru i głównych obszarów, w ramach których w latach 1980–1989 Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza i Partia Pracy Korei utrzymywały kontakt i organizowały wyzyty w swoich państwach.
EN
In the nineties of the 20th century, the relations between the Polish People’s Republic and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were visibly intensifying. One of the evident levels of this intensification were inter-party relations. The objective of this article is to discuss the nature and main areas in which the Polish United Workers’ Party and the Workers’ Party of Korea maintained contact and organised visits in their countries in 1980–1989.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

PZPR w Pruszczu Gdańskim na zakrętach historii PRL (1956, 1970, 1980–1981)

45%
Brzeziński P.
Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość
|
2018
|
issue 32
319-345
PL
Artykuł opisuje sytuację panującą wewnątrz powiatowej i miejskiej struktury PZPR w Pruszczu Gdańskim w trzech przełomowych momentach historii PRL: Październiku ’56, Grudniu ’70 i Sierpniu ’80. Stanowi też próbę znalezienia cech wspólnych dla reakcji lokalnych władz partyjnych na kolejne wybuchy społecznego niezadowolenia i w mikroskali ukazuje przebieg tzw. polskich miesięcy w niewielkim mieście powiatowym, funkcjonującym w cieniu trójmiejskiej aglomeracji. Z racji bliskości Trójmiasta mieszkańcy Pruszcza Gdańskiego byli często świadkami rozgrywającej się tu wielkiej historii. Wielu z nich pracowało w trójmiejskich zakładach lub uczyło się w tamtejszych szkołach i uczelniach. Tym samym toczące się w Trójmieście dramatyczne wydarzenia historyczne bezpośrednio rzutowały na ich życie. Artykuł oparty jest na fragmentach wydanej w końcu 2016 r. książki Pruszcz Gdański w latach 1945–1990. Partia, bezpieka, „Solidarność”, której autorami są Piotr Brzeziński, Arkadiusz Kazański i Marcin Węgliński.
EN
The article describes the situation within the county and urban structures of the Party in Pruszcz Gdański at the three turning points of the history of the Polish People’s Republic: October ’56, December ’70, and August ’80. It is also an attempt at finding common traits within the local Party authorities’ responses to the subsequent outbreaks of social dissent and on a small scale, the course of the so-called Polish Months in a small provincial town living in the shadow of the Tri-City Agglomeration. Due to the proximity of the Tri-City, the residents of Pruszcz Gdański often witnessed the grand history that happened there. Many of them worked in factories or attended schools or universities that were located in Gdańsk, Gdynia, or Sopot. Thus, the dramatic historical events that took place in the Tri-City directly affected their lives. The article is based on fragments of Pruszcz Gdański w latach 1945–1990. Partia, bezpieka, „Solidarność” by Piotr Brzeziński, Arkadiusz Kazański, Marcin Węgliński, which was published in late 2016.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.