The opening of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City was at the end of the 1920s. Scholars often note that the 1920s was a progressive era, and the museum helped with it being progressive. The museum’s origins were diverse because it was hiring racial and gender minorities, which would be considered unheard of during that era. Women and people from different backgrounds working at the museum helped cause the museum’s success. The museum’s original collection had a decent amount of contemporary art that was donated to, or purchased by, the museum. Art enthusiasts considered these paintings as new and revolutionary compared to typical art styles at the time. The MoMA currently sits as one of the most popular museums in New York and for art in general due to its success during the 1920s.

The original idea for the MoMA was in 1928 by three important women: Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, Lillie P. Bliss, and Mary Quinn Sullivan, known collectively as “The Ladies”, who came up with the idea for the MoMA over lunch, as the story goes. On March 7, 1928, Lillie and Aldrich were at a social gathering in Jerusalem where apparently they came up with the idea.¹ They wanted a place where they could display the trendiest and newest art at that time, namely contemporary art. Abby Rockefeller wrote about why she wanted the museum in the first place, “I began to think of women whom I knew in New York City, who cared deeply for beauty and who bought pictures, women who would be willing, and had faith enough, to help start a museum of contemporary art.”² She wanted a place that she and other women would be able to experience and enjoy the arts. The Ladies were daughters and wives of some of America’s wealthiest families living in New York, with Abby being the daughter-in-law of John D. Rockefeller. “The Ladies” were able to pool together their resources along with inviting investors and succeeded in opening the MoMA on November 7, 1929. The founding director of the MoMA, Alfred H. Barr Jr. set a goal for the museum to be “the greatest museum of modern art in the world” by helping everyone, and not only art experts, to enjoy art by understanding it.³

The MoMA had a decently sized Board of Trustees that helped it during its first couple of years. Three major trustees who helped the MoMA during this time were A. Conger Goodyear, Paul J. Sachs, and Josephine Boardman Crane. A. Conger Goodyear was a railroad and lumber tycoonist who also was the MoMA’s first president. Goodyear had previous museum experience from working at the Buffalo Art Museum from 1912-1928. While working there at that time, he played fast and loose with the museum’s money to acquire artwork that the museum might not have acquired otherwise. His actions sparked some controversy among other trustees, which resulted in Conger being voted out of the Buffalo AKG Art Museum’s Board of Trustees.⁴ Aldrich Rockefeller wanted Conger to be president of MoMA due to his accomplishments at the Buffalo AKG Art Museum and his ability to acquire paintings that the MoMA probably could not. Paul J. Sachs was a professor at Harvard who helped finance the MoMA in its early years. As the Board was searching for a director of the museum, Sachs was the one to recommend one of his former students, Alfred H. Barr Jr. Sachs also donated to the museum some of his drawings from his early career. Josephine Boardman Crane helped the museum by donated her Russian art collection and also offered fiscal aid. Shortly before the grand opening of the MoMA, the Stock Market crash had just hit the world. But with the help of multiple trustees, the mere idea of the MoMA was not lost to the trash bin. Since all of the trustees came from rich families, they were able to provide help to the MoMA during this trying time.

The MoMA originally opened at a different location from where it currently stands. When the MoMA opened, it was located at the Heckscher Building on 730 Fifth Avenue, not on 11 West 53rd Street, which is two streets away from the Heckscher Building. The Heckscher Building was home to the MoMA for 3 years, until 1932 when they moved to a different building. The MoMA was located in the Heckscher Building for multiple reasons. The Heckscher Building was one of the very few skyscrapers (it would not be considered a skyscraper by today’s standards) in New York City and it had the reputation of being “The Tower of Trade.” Other famous establishments also were renting floors on the Heckscher Building, so the moniker had precedence. The fact that the Heckscher Building could be easily seen from anywhere in New York City, along with its prestigious reputation, made the location perfect for the MoMA.

The opening of the MoMA was not all sunshine and rainbows because John D. Rockefeller Jr. did not like Modern art. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the son of John D. Rockefeller and husband to Aldrich Rockefeller. Although John D. Rockefeller Jr. did like art and was an art collector who helped fund the Cloisters—a museum designed to collect Medieval Art—John D. Rockefeller Jr. simply disliked Modern Art. Even though Aldrich Rockefeller was the founder of MoMA and played a very important role in it, John D. Rockefeller Jr. chose not to support the MoMA in its initial years. Although John D. Rockefeller Jr. disliked Modern Art and avoided it the best he could, he did not try to prevent his wife from acquiring pieces of Modern Art and yet he never paid for them.⁵ John D. Rockefeller Jr. was a Baptist, and in the 1920s Baptists preferred not to deal with secular art like Modern Art of the era. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was a conservative, and conservatives often disliked Modern Art from that era because it was challenging traditional norms. Though John D. Rockefeller Jr. did donate to the MoMA, it was not until later in the 1940’s. And due to his funding, the MoMA was then moved to its modern location where it is still standing today.

The original MoMA gallery contained paintings by Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne, and Paul Gauguin. When the MoMA was created, it was not able to afford the purchase of any artwork; so instead, they received donations of artwork. Alfred H. Barr wanted the MoMA to display newer pieces instead of older, which was difficult since most of the MoMA’s collections were already over one hundred years old. Alfred H. Barr got rid of the older paintings by stating “a torpedo moving through time, its nose the ever advancing present, its tail the ever receding past of 50 to 100 years ago.”⁶ Alfred H. Barr was a Harvard professor who also loved contemporary art. During his time at Harvard, he helped to run the Harvard Society of Contemporary Art. In July, 1929, he was interviewed for the position of founding director, and on August 12, 1929, was accepted for the position.⁷ As its director, Barr sent Anson Goodyear—Anson being a member of the Board of Trustees—to travel to Europe to collect six paintings by van Gogh, Seurat, Cezanne and Gauguin, whose exhibition was very successful for both Barr and the MoMA.⁸

Themes of the 1920s

The 1920s was an era that challenged the old traditional norms from the previous era, the Victorian era. The Victorian era held strict social and gendered norms that favored traditionalism and did not like feminism. After the conclusion of the First World War, America challenged Victorian thought by consuming the works of modernist philosophers. It sparked such ideas as the New Women, a rise of secular culture, pluralism, and an expansion of new ways of thinking. The MoMA embodied the rise of modernism in America by connecting many of these themes to the MoMA in some way.

Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne and Paul Gauguin were deliberately chosen to be the MoMA’s first exhibit. The reason was because all four of these painters were impressionist painters who also helped revolutionize the art world. Impressionism as a form of art is described as capturing the sense of time passing by with the changing of lighting, where the subject is often something found in the modern world such as a building, a crowd of people, a pier, or a park. Impressionism came about from the rejection of a previous form of art, which was supposed to be the accepted standard for art: Neoclassicism and Romanticism. Both forms of art are very similar to each other, in that they are typically still images of important historical events and subjects. The difference between these two forms of art lie in their treatments of the subjects. Neoclassicism is a rigid form of art based on the Greco-Roman form of art and favors historical scenes. Romanticism is a similar form but focuses on nature and the subject’s emotions. Impressionism is a rejection of those forms, just as the 1920s was a rejection of the Victorian values and norms. These painters all influenced the discipline of impressionism. And because the MoMA chose to display these painters’ works as its first exhibits, it showed everyone that they were going to revolutionize the enjoyment of art and what a museum should display in their exhibits.

Abby Rockefeller was a very important component in the creation of the MoMA. Out of the three founding women, Abby Rockefeller created, actively participated in, and did the most amount of work for the MoMA. Unlike most other women during that era who may later step out of the spotlight after creating a museum or let go of that idea, Abby was different. Abby was a member of the Board of Trustees and also was the MoMA’s treasurer. Due to her work in the MoMA, she gained new titles and responsibilities throughout her years. When she worked at the MoMA, she was often a negotiator between Barr and Goodyear due to their disagreements. Elsewhere in Abby’s life, she was a women’s suffragist and helped women with their economic and social disadvantages.  She was a member and chairwoman of the Young Women’s Christian Association for twenty years, and donated large amounts of money to them.⁹ She used her privileged status to help underprivileged women to have better lives and advocated for women’s progress. These traits the Abby presented are similar to historian Lynn Dumenil’s interpretation of the New Women.¹⁰ The New Women challenges traditional gender norms established in the Victorian age. Common people who challenged these notions of normalcy were known as flappers and women suffragists. It is the same to say that Abby Rockefeller is associated with the New Women due to her challenging of traditional gender norms of the 1920s.

The MoMA did not just hire white people but was a diverse place of employment. Though technically hired in the early 30s, Soichi Sunami, a Japanese-American photographer, showed that the MoMA embraced the ideals of modernism and pluralism founded in the 1920s. Soichi Sunami was a photographer who was a member of the Seattle Art Club, participated in multiple exhibits, and studied under painter John Sloan.¹¹ Soichi Sunami was the living embodiment of the MoMA’s focus on diversity of the 1920s. In the 1920s, many groups of people experienced a cultural and economic boom. Japanese Americans were one of those groups, due to their tight-knit families, their focus on education, along with their support of each other out of poverty. Soichi was born in Japan but lived in New York City for a long time. His talent caused him to be recognized, with Aldrich Rockefeller asking him to work at the MoMA in 1930 due to his successful career.¹² This caused him to have a very successful forty-year long career working at the MoMA.

Conclusion

The MoMA was one of the last events that occurred at the end of the 1920s. It was a radical idea that came about due to the climate of the 20s. The MoMA’s existence challenged the traditional Victorian social norms by predominantly displaying impressionist art, by the founders of the MoMA being all women, and by hiring diverse people. These decisions caused the MoMA to be the embodiment of the themes of the 1920s. Since these themes were entrenched in the MoMA’s identity, they fueled the success of the MoMA in the late 1920s early 1930s and to become the very successful museum as we know it today.

1. Kate Walbert, “Lillie P. Bliss, ” in Inventing the Modern: Untold Stories of the Women Who Shaped The Museum of Modern Art, ed. Ann Temkin and Romy Sliver-Kohn, (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2024) 64 ︎
2. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, “MoMA through Time,” MoMA, accessed Apr 21, 2026, https://www.moma.org/interactives/moma_through_time/1920/three-women-have-a-vision/. ︎
3. “The Museum of Modern Art history,” MoMA, accessed April 21, 2026, https://www.moma.org/about/mission-statement/history#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201920s%2C%20three,Its%20founding%20director%2C%20Alfred%20H. ︎
4. “A. Conger Goodyear” Buffalo AKG Art Museum, accessed April 30, 2026, https://buffaloakg.org/person/conger-goodyear ︎
5. David Rockefeller, interviewed by Sharon Zane, transcript, January 17 1991, The Museum Of Modern Art Oral History Program. https://buffaloakg.org/person/conger-goodyear ︎
6. Alfred H. Barr Jr. “Time” MoMA, accessed on April 21, 2026, https://www.moma.org/interactives/moma_through_time/1920/starting-a-collection-from-scratch/ ︎
7. Sybil Gordon Kantor, Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the Intellectual Origins of the Museum of Modern Art, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002) 211. ︎
8. Kantor, Origins of MoMA 190-214. ︎
9. “Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 1874-1948,” Rockefeller Archive Center, accessed on March 31, 2026. https://rockarch.org/resources/about-the-rockefellers/abby-aldrich-rockefeller/
   ︎
10. Lynn Dumenil, Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 99. ︎
11. Kathy Muir, “Soichi Sunami,” Seattle Camera Club, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.seattlecameraclub.com/soichi_sunami.html ︎
12. Muir, “Soichi Sunami,” Seattle Camera Club, accessed April 30, 2026, ︎

Bibliography and Suggested Resources

“A. Conger Goodyear.” Buffalo AKG Art Museum. accessed April 30, 2026.

“Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 1874-1948.” Rockefeller Archive Center. accessed on March 31, 2026.

Barr, Alfred H. Jr. “MoMA through Time.” Museum of Modern Art . accessed on April 21, 2026.

Dumenil, Lynn. Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. (New York: Hill and Wang. 1995)

Kantor, Sybil Gordon. Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the Intellectual Origins of the Museum of Modern Art. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002)

Muir, Kathy. “Soichi Sunami.” Seattle Camera Club. accessed April 30, 2026.

Rockefeller, Abby Aldrich. “MoMA through Time.” Museum of Modern Art. accessed Apr 21, 2026.

Rockefeller, David. interviewed by Sharon Zane, transcript, January 17 1991, The Museum Of Modern Art Oral History Program.

“The Museum of Modern Art history.” Museum of Modern Art. accessed April 21, 2026.

Walbert, Kate. “Lillie P. Bliss. ” in Inventing the Modern: Untold Stories of the Women Who Shaped The Museum of Modern Art. ed. Ann Temkin and Romy Sliver-Kohn. (New York: The Museum of Modern Art. 2024)

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Rise of American Nation views the 1920s as a time of progress and advancement. The textbook Rise of American Nation‘s chapters 33 through 35 retell the events of the 1920s and is called The Golden Twenties. The textbook views the 1920s as an era of great social advancements, as both economic and scientific achievements were made during the era. The book talks about the Presidents, rural America, and the industrial growth. The Harlem Renaissance was mentioned as a wonderful piece of culture that was produced in the 1920s. The textbook also viewed African American history during this time as positive due to them finding new rights, and being equals to whites.¹ The textbook does not really mention other minorities. Mexico and Nicaragua where mentioned, but only as nations not the people living there. Overall the textbook describes the era as a relatively good time to live in.

On the contrary the textbook The American Journey views the 1920s differently. Chapter 24 of the American Journey textbook talks about the 1920s. The textbook mostly talks about the societal impacts that the era had, along with major events like the Red Scare during the 1920s. The textbook also examines the oppression of minorities during the 1920s. The book views the 1920s through a lens of social inequality. Unlike Rise of American Nation, The American Journey stated that African Americans did not have it good and they were struggling for self identity.² The textbook also mentions the economic boom, but also notes those that were left behind. These people were farmers, textile workers, railroad workers, and coal miners due to a lack of needs for them in the New American Society.³ The book mentions social changes and it’s impact on society. The book examines the conflicts of Prohibition, nativism, and the Scopes Trial. American Journey writes the event as neutral even though some of these things are pretty bad for American society. For the most part the book examines the 1920s through the lens of social changes.

Though the messages of these two books are different, they have some similar thoughts of the 1920s. Both books examined the New Women that arise due to events in the 1920s. Technology, like radio, was mentioned in both books as a good advancement. Both talked about how the economic boom occurred and how beneficial it was for those who were effected by it. The books also talked about how industries evolved in the 1920s. It is interesting that the book from 2009 talked less about African Americans compared to the book from 1977. One would think that these be flipped. Though there are few similarities they do not share a lot in common

The article that I compared these two textbooks to was Mae Ngai’s “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethnoracial Remapping of America in the 1920s”. Ngai focused her research on immigration and nationalism in America during the 1920s. Neither textbook mention immigration a lot throughout their chapter, though some of the themes present in Ngai’s work is found in the textbooks. She talks about how during the 1920s and 1930s that there were multiple laws that restricted immigrants based on ethnicity. The Rise of American Nation briefly mentions Mexican immigration, with the view that they were poorly educated and disrespected due to them crossing the border based on Mexico’s economic situation.⁴ Her ideas have similar themes of American Journey due to how both works view the era through social change. The American Journey talks about the rise of nativism, which revived the Ku Klux Klan, and where the reason why the quota system was ineffective.⁵ Ultimately Ngail views the immigration policy during the 1920s in a negative light, which The American Journey also agree with.

Though the American Journey came out in 2009, I trust it less than Rise of American Nation which came out in 1977. American Journey feels like the book was for a younger audience than for high schoolers. The book cover, pages, and images look like it would attract young kids rather than high schoolers. The textbook either has simple retelling of events or are neutral about certain events. Rise of American Nation has a clear theme, that the era was great. It is honest about what the themes are about and does not distort information to fit its themes. Though the thesis is a little outdated, the information in the textbook is still valuable and could still be used in the classroom. These textbooks are still valuable for the retelling of the historiography of the 1920s.

1. Lewis Paul Todd and Merle Curti, Rise of American Nation, (Harcourt, 1977), 579-580. ︎
2. Joyce Appleby, Alan Brinkley, James M. McPherson, The American Journey, (National Geographic Society, 2009), 747. ︎
3. Appleby, Brinkley, McPherson, The American Journey, 757. ︎
4. Todd and Curti, Rise of American Nation, 549. ︎
5. Appleby, Brinkley, McPherson, The American Journey, 762. ︎

Bibliography

Appleby, Joyce. Alan Brinkley, James M. McPherson. The American Journey. National Geographic Society, 2009

Ngai, Mae M. “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethnoracial Remapping of America in the 1920S.” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (2007): 11–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162123.

Todd, Lewis Paul, Merle Curti. Rise of American Nation Harcourt, 1977.

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

The Museum was the idea of three women: Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, Lillie P. Bliss, and Mary Quinn Sullivan, who were known as “The Ladies”. These women were daughters and wives of some of America’s famous and powerful families. They had a passion for the arts and were avid art collectors. The idea of the Museum began in 1928, when The Ladies gathered together over lunch to come up with a museum that could house contemporary art.¹ The Ladies pooled their incomes and also raised money from wealthy businessmen to open the Museum. The Ladies invited Alfred H. Barr, Jr to be the Museum’s first director and appointed Anson Conger Goodyear, Paul Sachs, Frank Crowninshield, and Josephine Boardman Crane as board of trustees when the Museum opened on November 7, 1929.²

Perspectives about to role of women changed during the 1920s. As women became more economically independent, they would forego the traditional gender norms and dressed differently from prior generations. One Historian, Lynn Dumenil, called this change the change of the “New Woman”.³ Though all three of the founders would fall under the same notion of the New Woman, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller best encapsulated the New Woman and expanded upon it. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller was the Museum’s Treasurer, and over the years gained other job titles like First Vice President, and First Vice Chairman. These positions were typically not given to women during this era. She also advocated for women’s rights. She gave money to the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) and served as chairwomen of the organization for 20 years.⁴ The organization aimed to help advance all women and offer them economic protection. Her appearance also challenged social norms. She wore her hair short, similar to a man’s hair, and Flappers.

The Museum helped reinforce the modernity of the 1920s. Due to the increase of educated people, culture began to flourish all over the country. Historian Lynn Dumenil believed that American modernity began when the European idea to challenge old Victorian ideals also began to spread in America.⁵ The Museum’s original exhibit were of three European painters: Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat and Paul Gauguin. These painter’s works were often considered to have pushed and challenged the norms of the Art World. People in the 1920’s also tried seeking guidance for their problems from the secular world.⁶ Museums like the Museum of Modern Art housed collections of secular art that could bring this comfort, or caused people to changed their perspective on things. During American Modernity, states in the North tried celebrating pluralism and embracing other people’s cultures.⁷ The Museum did it best by embracing pluralism. In 1930, the Museum of Modern Art hired a famous Japanese-American photographer named Soichi Sunami who stayed there for almost 40 years .⁸ Though Soichi was hired in the 30’s, his being hired and work being appreciated was due to the ideas of modernity and pluralism from the 20’s.

The Museum of Modern Art was shaped by the culture of American during the 1920’s. The Museum challenged the traditional role of women, since the Museum’s founders were all women and the huge role they played after its founding. The Museum embraced the ideas of American Modernity, by embracing foreign cultures and being a place of secular enjoyment of art. Thus, the Museum of Modern Art both challenged and embraced the norms of the 1920s.

1. “MoMA Through Time,” MoMA, The Museum of Modern Art, accessed on March 31, 2026. ︎
2. “The Museum of Modern Art History,” MoMA, The Museum of Modern Arts, accessed on March 30, 2026. ︎
3. Lynn Dumenil. Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 99. ︎
4. “Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 1874-1948,” Rockefeller Archive Center, accessed on March 31, 2026. ︎
5. Dumenil. Modern Temper,146. ︎
6. Dumenil. Modern Temper, 151. ︎
7. Dumenil. Modern Temper, 149. ︎
8. “Soichi Sunami,” Getty, The Getty Museum, accessed on March 31, 2026. ︎

Bibliography

“Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 1874-1948.” Rockefeller Archive Center. accessed on March 31, 2026.

Dumenil, Lynn. Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. (New York: Hill and Wang. 1995).

MoMA Through Time.” MoMA. The Museum of Modern Art. accessed on March 31.

“Soichi Sunami.” Getty. The Getty Museum. accessed on March 31, 2026.

“The Museum of Modern Art History.” MoMA. The Museum of Modern Arts. accessed on March 30, 2026.

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

The Battle was a part of the Soviet-Polish war. The war began in 1919 and ended in 1921. Poland before 1918 was occupied by the Russians, the Germans, and Austria Hungry for over a hundred years. At the end of World War Ⅰ, the Poles were able to gain their independence from Germany on November 11, 1918.¹ During this time, the Russian were going through a Civil War, between the Bolshevik communist and anti-communist front of the Monarchists, Republicans, and other leftist movements. The Communists won the war, to then form the Soviet Union. The leader of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, wanted a more Communist Europe and wanted Germany as a Communist ally. Poland was the roadblock that stopped them.

The Soviets saw Germany as a potential ally. Germany was a very industrialized county, which would be a perfect communist ally. Lenin did not want to make an ally with the Imperialist Monarchy of Germany, but rather the working class who could overthrow their government. Lenin stated that a Communist Revolution is almost certain in Germany and if they don’t see it coming then they are fools who deserve to be overthrown.² But this was not the only reason why the Soviets wanted Germany. Lenin believed that Germany was the key to the survival of Communism.³ Communism could only work in a society that was industrialized, and Germany was Lenin’s solution for prolonging Communism’s existence. Poland was the only thing that stood in the way of a potential German ally. In July of 1920, the Soviet General Mikhail  Tukhachevsky gave the order to march into Poland. The order read,

“The time of reckoning has come. In the blood of the defeated Polish army we will drown the criminal government of Pilsudski. Turn your eyes to the West. In the West, the fate of World Revolution is being decided. Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to World Conflagration. On our bayonets we will bring happiness and peace to the toiling masses of mankind. The hour of attack has struck! Westwards! On to Wilno, Minsk, Warsaw-Forwards!”⁴

He rallied his men to reclaim old Russian land and march westward to spread communism. He ordered the march of Soviets troops into the region he referred to as the “gates of Smoolensk,” which was the city of Vitebsk in modern day Belarus.⁵ This march began the Soviet’s advance into Poland, and is the reason for the start of the war in the view of some historians.

Some Historians like Adam Zamoyski state the war started in 1919 due to small skirmishes. With the withdrawal of the German army, Lenin created the Army of the West to reclaim Russian land on January 5th of 1919.⁶ The army would go west and clash with Polish irregulars for land. Due to the fact that there was no Declaration of War and that the Soviets were not facing the Army of Poland, historians did not believe the War started in 1919. Over the following years, multiple skirmishes occurred in regions like Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. On April 20th, 1919, Poland sent an army to liberate Belarus from Soviet occupation.⁷ They were led by Józef Piłsudski, the so-called George Washington of Poland. They were successful and routed all Soviets present in the area. Afterward, other small skirmishes happened on the border of Poland and the Soviet Union. These events helped lead to the Soviet’s invasion of Poland.

In the beginning, the condition for the Polish army was not good. The Polish army had just recently begun retreating back into Poland and their spirits were not high. One report from a soldier who was a part of the Poland’s 37th Leczycz Infantry contained the following comment about the retreat: “The heat, the lack of water, the stench of rotting corpses and the forest fires are turning it into a sort of hellish torture.”⁸ Testimonies from Polish soldiers showed that the army’s morale while entering into battle was not high. The public, on the other hand, had not a care in the world about the impending Soviet advancement. Lord D’Abernon, a British ambassador to Poland, who witnessed the battle first hand, wrote in his diary about how amazed he was by seeing the people of Warsaw so detached from the War and them acting like the war was not happening.⁹ Though this did not mean the city was not prepared for the upcoming battle. Poland saw a surge of volunteers shortly before the battle began, and the Polish Socialist Party formed militias to help defend the city.¹⁰ Though not everyone was preparing for the upcoming battle, there were small groups that ensured that the battle would have been a clear Soviet victory. The military also took measures to increase its discipline; repeat offenders of desertion were executed, along with increased surveillance for spies or rats among the army.¹¹ Poland was gearing up for battle, and tried their best to ensure they would not lose.

Days before the battle started, both sides were acting on their own assumptions rather than any real data of enemy movements. Polish aviation could not spot the Soviet army, and the Soviet aviation did not reach the front. Both Polish General Piłsudski and Soviet General Tukhachevsky needed to make major decisions for their armies before the battle began. Piłsudski assumed that Tukhachevsky would send his troops straight to Warsaw. This was not true because Tukhachevsky sent his soldiers more northwest rather than just west. Tukhachevsky had accidentally obtained Piłsudski’s plans due to finding a dead soldier still in possession of his orders, but Tukhachevsky believed it was a trick and chose to ignore it.¹² It actually had everything about Piłsudski’s movements. Tukachevsky decided to head more northward to avoid meeting a massive Polish resistance in Warsaw. Piłsudski decided to plan for a counterattack in the middle right of his flank. He chose the center right flank for the counterattack due it being the only army group not to be outmaneuvered or too far away from the battle to aid.¹³ This single decision would be Poland’s savoir.

The battle was fought in four separate areas: the Vistula Bridgehead, The Wkra, the Wieprz, and the Prussian Frontier. The Vistula was the river right next to Poland. The Wkra line was just above Warsaw. The Wieprz line was southeast. The Prussian Frontier was also in the north. The Vistula bridgehead was commanded by General Franciszek Latinik who led the First Army. The Wkra line was commanded by General Waldyslaw Sikorski who led the 5th army. The Wieprz line was commanded by General Józef Piłsudski who led the 4th army. Lastly, the Prussian Frontier was commanded by Generals Józef Halle and Sikorski. The Prussian Frontier was a joint line with multiple generals giving orders for the line. The Vistula Bridge position was well defended; it had 46,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry, 730 machine guns, 192 artillery guns, along with a few tanks.¹⁴ The worst front to be in was the Wkra’s front. Polish General Waldyslaw Sikorski had the least amount of time to prepare for his operations because his HQ was established in Moldlin on August 10, only two days before the battle. ¹⁵

Men were not the only ones who served in the Polish Army. During the War, Poland opened its policy about volunteers from accepting only men to accepting both men and women. The volunteers were known as Ochotnicza Legia Kobiet (OLK), which translates to Voluntary Legion of Women. They consisted of women who did not want to be hospital nurses, but rathered to be soldiers defending their country.¹⁶ The OLK challenged traditional gender norms of the 1920s. Most women prior to the 1920s were seen as caretakers, pure, and motherly. The OLK were the opposite of that idea. They were a front line infantry unit who fought alongside men for the defense of Poland against Communism. They were similar to Lynn Dumenil’s views of the New Women. The New Women challenged the old ideas regarding the roles and behavior of a woman.¹⁷ The OLK wore short hair, fought alongside men in the defense of Warsaw and helped fight in other battles.¹⁸ These women helped redefine traditional notions of what it meant to be a woman in the 1920s.

The battle began on August 12 as the Soviet soldiers attacked the city of Radzymin. The Soviet’s III army 21st division invaded the city by night. Polish general Haller left the city, which caused the Radzymin to be taken by the Soviets due to fears of fighting a larger army. In the following days, Polish soldiers under Haller made multiple counterattacks to retake the city. They were aided by tanks and fought tooth and nail to reclaim their city. On August 15, the city was retaken; and on August 18 the front was cleared of Soviet presence.¹⁹ This started the beginning of the Polish counterattack.

Sikorski received orders from Haller to make a counterattack. He was ordered to head northeast, crossing the Wkra river, to conduct raids on August 14. During one of Sikorski raids,he captured the city of Ciechanow, which caused the Soviet officers to destroy their own radios. The city was also important to Polish history because it was home to princes, a castle, war with the old Teutonic order, and was the inspiration of some books.²⁰ The morale of the Polish army was greatly boosted by reclaiming this city that was very important to its people. Sikorski also made contact with the center of the Soviet line, revealing the Soviet’s plan to take the Northeast rather than just the city. The Sikorski raid surprised the Soviet generals who then thought more raids would occur. This caused multiple flanks to be thinned out in order to support the Soviet defense against Sikorski’s raids. This distraction ultimately caused Pilsudski’s great counter attack.

Pilsudski’s attack was a huge gamble that changed the tide of the battle, and also the War. On August 16, Pilsudski advanced northwards from the Vistula; and by August 18, he encircled the Soviet Northern army.²¹ If Pilsudski had failed, the front would have been lost and Warsaw could have fallen. If they had succeeded, then the Battle would be won and the Soviets would lose many men. Sikorski also aided Pilsudski during this time by conducting his own attacks. Their goal was to ensure that enough of the Soviet’s attention was on the Prussian front, and to cause them to focus less on Warsaw.²² Pilsudski completed his goal on the 25th by marching his soldiers up north to the East Prussian Frontier, which divided the Soviet army in two, and many were taken as prisoners. The forward momentum of the Soviet Union was lost in a matter of days due to a risky gambit that determined the fate of Poland. Pilsudski’s risky maneuver was the reason why the battle is known as the “Miracle of the Vistula.”

A reason why the Soviets did so poorly was because they did not react in time to the Polish strategies. The Soviets attacked Polish northern cities instead of dealing with the forces pressuring the center front or the Wiepz River. Sergey Kamenev, another Soviet general, warned Tukhachevsky about the Polish not retreating to Modlin but to Warsaw, and that his attacking would endanger the southern front.²³ If the Polish made a maneuver that would attack the undefended south, then the Soviet’s forces would be endangered. With the south front in danger, the entire army could be encircled and be destroyed just as Pilsudski did during his counterattack. Tukhachevsky argued back that Joseph Stalin would handle the southern flank and Sergey was overly reacting to the situation.²⁴ Stalin did not join the Southern flank, but instead went to Crimea by order of Lenin.²⁵ This miscommunication between leaders and generals caused no one to truly know where the Soviet positions were during the conflict. Only after the battle finished and records of the generals surfaced did the reality emerge that the Soviets had mishandled the situation.

The battle was not the final nail in the coffin for the war. The war would continue for another six months after the battle. But this battle was a much needed achievement for the Polish. The battle saw huge casualties for the Soviet side. Tukhachevsky reported that he lost over 100,000 men during the battle. Tukhachevsky had tremendous difficulty trying to replace his officers that he lost.²⁶ Due to those heavy casualties, the Polish army was able to advance into Soviet-controlled Belarus. Belarus would be incorporated into Poland after the war. The war showed that Poland was able to stand for itself and showed the imperialist nature of the Soviets. Due to the communists taking over Russia, some assumed that they would not be imperialist like the Tsarist Russia. But the war showed the world that they were wrong, and that the Soviets were imperialist like their former leaders.²⁷ The battle also showed that communism could be defeated.

During the 1920, multiple countries such as America, Britain, and other Western countries experienced “Red Scares”. This Red Scare was a basic fear that communism would infect their politics and a communist uprising would occur from within. The Red Scare was sparked by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and by the united efforts of the White army, and that foreign aid could not defeat them. The United States’ first Red Scare was directed toward reformers. They were criticized as being communist because their ideas challenged or hindered Capitalism.²⁸ It did not matter if the reformers were actually communist or not; they were labeled as such just to hurt their ideas and reforms. During the war, the Polish Catholic Church was adamant to denounce communism and rally the masses for war.²⁹ Beside the foreign threat of communism, there was internal pressure to save the country from communism. Most countries who had Red Scares also had these internal pressures, whether it be politicians, newspapers journalists, or the church that put pressure on communism. The battle, on the other hand, showed these countries that their fears about Communism should be tamed. Poland proved to the world that communism could not defeat a united people.

The “Miracle of the Vistula” battle was a big source of national pride. Poland proved to themselves and the World that it could defeat a powerful country like the Soviets. The battle tackled the 1920s themes of gender and Communism. The Battle determined the fate of Poland, with Pilsudski shifting the battle in favor of Poland. Due to a lack of cooperation and a large amount of infighting, the Soviets failed to achieve their goal to win the battle. Poland would rise high by beating the number one rival country in East Europe in a war, until World War Ⅱ.

1. Norman Davies, White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20, (London: MacDonalds, 1972) 19. ︎
2. Vladimir Lenin, “War and Revolution”(May 14, 1917) In Lenin Collection Works (Moscow: 1964), 398-421, accessed on March 16, 2026. On Marxists.com ︎
3. Adam Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920: Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe, (London: HarperCollins, 2008), 7. ︎
4. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 53 ︎
5. Richard M. Watts, Bitter Glory : Poland and its Fate, 1918 to 1939 (New York : Simon and Schuster, 1979), 126 ︎
6. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920. 8. ︎
7. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920. 9. ︎
8. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 67. ︎
9. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 188. ︎
10. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 193. ︎
11. Davies, White Eagle Red Star ,193. ︎
12. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 197. ︎
13. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 197. ︎
14. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 200. ︎
15. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 201. ︎
16. Robert M Ponichtera, “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers: Women in the Fight for Polish Independence.” The International History Review 19, no. 1 (1997): 25 JSTOR ︎
17. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 98. ︎
18. Ponichtera . “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers”, 25. ︎
19. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 201. ︎
20. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 203. ︎
21. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 203. ︎
22. Davies, White Eagle Red Star, 205. ︎
23. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 80. ︎
24. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 81. ︎
25. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 81. ︎
26. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 110. ︎
27. Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920, 110. ︎
28. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper, 22. ︎
29. Zamoyski. Warsaw 1920, 74. ︎

Bibliography and Suggested Readings

“Battle For Warsaw Ends with Retreat of Two Soviet Units Cut Off” The Republican. Mon, Aug 23, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Battle For Warsaw Started” The Idabel News. Thu, Aug 19, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Davies, Norman. White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20. (London: MacDonalds, 1972).

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995).

“Expert French Soldiers Assisting Polish Cause” The Saginaw News. Wed, Aug 18, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Lenin Vladimir. “War and Revolution”(May 14, 1917) In Lenin Collection Works (Moscow: 1964), 398-421, accessed on March 16, 2026. On Marxists.com 

“Peace Parley in on at Minsk; Battle Rages” Buffalo Courier Express. Tue, Aug 17, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Poles Plan the Recapture of Bret-Litovsk; Battle of Warsaw Polish Victory, Not French” The Miami News. Fri, Aug 20, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Polish Capital Gets Prepared For Siege; City in Panic’s Grip” The Buffalo Enquirer. Mon, Aug 16, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Ponichtera, Robert M. “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers: Women in the Fight for Polish Independence.” The International History Review 19, no. 1 (1997). JSTOR

“Russians Only 21 Miles From Warsaw” The Caledonian-Record. Sat, Aug 14, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Soviet Cavalry Retreat After Armies Are Divided By New Attacks of Enemy” The Oklahoman. Wed, Aug 25, 1920. From Newspaper.com

“Third Stage In Battle for Warsaw and Poland Is Begun by Red Army” Atlantic City Sunday Press the Sunday Gazette. Sun, Aug 22, 1920. From Newspaper.com

Watts, Richard M. Bitter Glory : Poland and its Fate, 1918 to 1939. (New York : Simon and Schuster, 1979)

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Chapter 1 of The Modern Temper talks about the event leading up to the 1920s and WW1’s affect on the era. One thing that the chapter mentioned was the Red Scare. Historian Lynn states “The optimism of the immediate postwar period did not last long. The Red Scare, with its insistence that Bolshevism posted serious threat to American institution, painted most reform with a radical pigment, and reformers knew early on that they would have to struggle odds to implement their goals”.¹ American reformers had to face a uphill battle against being labeled a communist and having their voice squashed. Poland faced a similar issue, but instead of the Bolshevik threat being a political threat, it was an actual military threat. The threat of communism was a danger for both societies, and they both needed to overcome communism in their own way to prevail in their ideas. Poland wanted to govern their own country since the past 100 years someone else ruled the Poles, but the Soviets wanted Poland for their own goals. Poland needed to fight back against the Soviets, not just to preserve their government, but also to be able to have the opportunity to make their own decisions on how their government should run.

The theme of the New Woman is somewhat connected to the Battle of Warsaw. During the war a new special unit was created known as the Ochotnicza Legia Kobiet(Voluntary legion of Women) or OLK for short. The legion was made up of Polish and Ukrainian women who served as infantry soldiers during the Soviet-Polish War. They helped defend the city of Warsaw during the battle of Warsaw.² In the Modern Temper, women’s identity changed during the 1920’s. In America, women were redefining how a woman should be, act, and look. Due to World War 1, many women joined male dominated fields like factory workers. After the war, though many women were content going back to normalcy, though some wanted to continue working, and with immigration it was harder to deny women from working in factories.³ In Poland, women were allowed to fight which is different from most of Europe and the United States. Prior to the wars in the 1920’s women were not allowed to fight, but due to the conflict, women were able to fight for their country. Though this battle did not start the era of the New Woman in Poland, without the OLK’s help it would have been a more difficult fight for Poland.

Though Modern Temper mostly discusses the themes that America’s 1920 had, Poland shared some of those changes. Both the United States and Poland faced adversities due to a communist presence. The United States had a new age of feminism, with women being more involved in politics and work, while women in Poland were voluntarily joining the war to defend Poland, just like the men. These few connections brought to light the fact that the 1920’s had greater themes that connected to different countries, even if the themes were slightly different for each country.

1. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper, (new York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 22. ︎
2. Robert M Ponichtera . “Feminists, Nationalists, and Soldiers: Women in the Fight for Polish Independence.” The International History Review 19, no. 1 (1997): 25. ︎
3. Dumenil. The Modern Temper, 112-113. ︎

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

The biggest influence for why I think like this is pop culture and prior classes. A big pop culture movie that helped influence my thoughts of this decade was Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris. The movie presented the 1920s as an era were famous and influential individuals would spend their time at pubs discussing philosophy, current politics, and new cultural trends. Though the movie took place in Paris and not in the United States, it helped build the foundation of what it was like in the 1920s from a pop culture standpoint. From what I was taught, the reason why everyone was so happy was the end of the First World War and the economic boom that came from the war. This boom caused a rise of people to challenge cultural norms, like the flappers, along with giving rise to new culture, like Jazz. I also learned about gangsters and Prohibition. But for me, I can only imagine gangsters in New York City, due to movies like The Godfather, and Prohibition only felt as if it lasted barely a year due to how quickly it was reverted.

When searching for the term “the 1920s” on Google, images of flappers and jazz flood the website. This reinforced my thoughts of what the 1920s looked like. Dancing is very popular, with almost every photo on Google depicting someone (usually women) or a couple dancing on a stage, in a bar, or at a party. Another popular type of photo that Google presented were photos of protest. The Feminist Movement and Prohibition were the most common protest in the photos. Another common type of photo was people with new technology. Many photos that I saw were people standing around a radio, similar to how we stand around the TV, and having a family photo in or by the family car.

This is a little striking for me, because I always had the impression that the 1920s was the age of economic boom and partying, not one of protest and technological obsession. I knew there were protests, due to Prohibition and the Feminist Movement, but those movements felt like they were in a different era like the 1910’s or 1930’s. The photos showed me a new light of the 1920’s that I never really consider before.

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.