Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

1931 Polish census

The 1931 Polish census, formally the Second General of Population, was conducted on December 9, 1931, across the territory of the Second Polish Republic by the Central Statistical Office (Główny Urząd Statystyczny, GUS), providing a comprehensive enumeration of the , housing stock, and occupational structure. This census, the first since 1921, registered a total of 31,915,785 inhabitants, reflecting substantial growth driven by territorial expansions and natural increase following the re-establishment of Polish statehood after . Key findings highlighted the multi-ethnic character of the republic, with mother tongue data indicating Poles comprising 68.9% (21,993,444 individuals), 10.1% (3,221,975), 7.8% (2,489,034 speaking Yiddish), 3.1%, 2.3%, and smaller groups including and , underscoring linguistic diversity particularly in eastern and border regions. Religion was another primary metric, with Roman Catholics forming the majority alongside significant , , and Protestant minorities, informing policies on and amid interwar tensions. The census's , emphasizing self-reported and faith over direct queries, yielded detailed breakdowns by voivodship and major cities like and Lwów, but sparked debates over potential underreporting of non-Polish identities due to administrative pressures and bilingualism in contested areas. Preliminary results were released in 1932, enabling evidence-based planning for , , and in a state encompassing diverse former imperial territories.

Background and Historical Context

Interwar Poland's Demographic Challenges

The Second Polish Republic emerged in 1918 from territories partitioned among Russia, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary, with post-World War I recoveries integrating diverse populations and creating inherent ethnic tensions. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 awarded Poland the Polish Corridor—a land strip 20 to 70 miles wide granting Baltic Sea access—predominantly settled by Germans and Kashubs, severing East Prussia from the German Reich and fostering resentment over lost contiguity. In Upper Silesia, a 1921 plebiscite yielded a majority vote for Germany (approximately 60%), but subsequent Polish uprisings and League of Nations arbitration in 1922 granted Poland the eastern industrial district, home to mixed Polish, German, and smaller Czech communities, heightening border frictions. Eastern expansions via the 1921 Treaty of Riga, following the Polish-Soviet War, incorporated the Kresy regions with majority Ukrainian and Belarusian inhabitants east of the Curzon Line, amplifying irredentist pressures from Soviet-aligned nationalists. The 1921 census documented a total population of approximately 27 million, with Poles declared at over 69%, Ruthenians (primarily ) at 15%, at nearly 8%, at 4%, and at 3%, though nationality self-reporting often masked fluid identities influenced by imperial legacies and incentives. Belarusians and , for instance, frequently opted for Polish or Russian affiliations amid limited national consciousness or political , rendering and proxies imperfect for ethnic delineation and underscoring disputes over minority sizes. These compositions reflected causal disruptions from partitions, which had suppressed Polish majorities in some areas while entrenching German and Jewish urban enclaves, setting the stage for quantifying loyalty amid efforts. Wars from to 1921 induced massive displacements—millions of refugees across fronts, including Polish retreats and Soviet advances in 1920—disrupting settlements, inflating urban transients, and eroding traditional ethnic strongholds, particularly in the east where Ukrainian and Belarusian peasants faced land reforms favoring Polish colonists. Such instability, compounded by economic migrations and separatist agitation from German and Ukrainian nationalists, demanded precise demographic enumeration to evaluate integration viability against fragmentation risks, as unstable borders invited revisionist claims from neighbors.

Preparation and Legislative Framework

The Central Statistical Office (Główny Urząd Statystyczny), established on July 13, 1918, by decree of the Regency Council of the Kingdom of Poland, served as the primary administrative body responsible for planning and executing national statistical efforts, including the 1931 census. This institution, initially tasked with unifying fragmented statistical practices from the partitioned territories, built upon the experience of the 1921 census to address interwar Poland's demographic complexities amid territorial consolidation and ethnic diversity. The legislative framework for the census was formalized by an act of the Polish Parliament on October 14, 1931, which authorized a nationwide enumeration on December 9, 1931, and reaffirmed the decennial cycle for future population counts to ensure systematic data collection for policy and economic planning. This law delineated the scope to encompass civil population, dwellings, households, and occupational data, prioritizing comprehensive coverage while navigating budgetary limitations and the logistical challenges of a vast, multi-ethnic territory recently formed from former imperial partitions. Unlike the ad hoc conditions of the 1921 census, the 1931 preparations benefited from stabilized governance, enabling more structured organization despite ongoing fiscal pressures from economic recovery efforts. A key methodological adjustment in preparation involved replacing the 1921 census's direct inquiry into nationality with questions on mother tongue and religion, officially rationalized as capturing linguistic usage more reliably than self-declared ethnic affiliation, though critics have noted this indirect approach potentially understated assertive minority identities in politically sensitive regions. This shift reflected pragmatic considerations of administrative feasibility and reduced confrontation in enumerating Poland's diverse populace, where explicit nationality declarations had previously yielded ambiguous or contested results.

Methodology and Data Collection

Questionnaire Structure and Questions Asked

The questionnaire for the Second General Census of Poland, conducted on December 9, 1931, utilized Form A as the primary instrument for enumerating and individuals, structured into two main parts: one detailing the and the other listing present and absent residents. inquiries covered basic attributes such as the of the (e.g., or otherwise), the number of rooms and kitchens, and the total area of land and farmland under the 's control, though detailed farm-type classifications were limited compared to prior surveys due to the abandonment of a separate agricultural . Individual-level questions focused on core demographic and social metrics, including full name and , gender (male or female), date and (to derive age), , mother tongue (the spoken), and (with options such as Roman Catholic, , Greek Catholic, Jewish, or Protestant). Additional probes addressed (ability to read and write, newly added relative to the 1921 census), revealing significantly higher literacy rates in western regions formerly under German administration compared to eastern areas; level of , physical disabilities (e.g., blindness or ), and economic activity through main and secondary occupations or professions. Unlike the 1921 , which included an explicit question on or , the 1931 form omitted this direct self-identification, prioritizing mother tongue—categorized to include , Ukrainian/Ruthenian (covering dialects like Rusyn), , , Belarusian, and others—as the principal linguistic-ethnic indicator, alongside for inferring group affiliations. This design choice emphasized objective declarations of language use and faith over subjective , reflecting a methodological shift toward verifiable personal attributes amid interwar Poland's diverse population.

Enumeration Process and Logistics

The enumeration of the 1931 Polish census took place on December 9, 1931, as a count recording individuals physically present in households at midnight from December 8 to 9, pursuant to a decree dated September 2, 1931. Organized by the Główny Urząd Statystyczny (GUS), the process spanned the Second Polish Republic's 16 voivodeships, encompassing urban agglomerations such as and alongside expansive rural territories in eastern regions like Polesie and Wołyń voivodeships. This single-night snapshot minimized discrepancies from daily migration but required rapid, nationwide coordination to capture approximately 32 million residents across roughly 389,000 square kilometers. Enumerators, typically local administrators, teachers, and appointed civilians, conducted visits using pre-printed paper questionnaires to elicit responses directly from members. Completed forms were gathered locally, then transported to voivodeship-level offices for initial tabulation before centralized compilation in , a labor-intensive procedure reliant on clerical staff without mechanical aids. Post-enumeration checks followed to rectify omissions or errors identified during aggregation, particularly in transient urban settings. measures protected individual data, especially on and , through sealed processing protocols to avert unauthorized access amid interethnic tensions. Operational difficulties stemmed from Poland's infrastructural disparities, with poor roads and rail networks hindering enumerator access to remote villages, exacerbated by early winter weather including snow and low temperatures in . Shortages of qualified personnel in peripheral areas necessitated recruitment, risking inconsistencies in application, while mobile groups like seasonal laborers contributed to potential undercounts despite efforts. These factors underscored the logistical strain of universal coverage in a fragmented, post-partition , though GUS's centralized oversight enabled provisional results by April 1932.

Classification of Language and Religion

The 1931 Polish census employed mother tongue as the principal criterion for inferring ethnic composition, with respondents instructed to declare the "language most familiar to themselves" on the census form. This self-declaration approach treated language as a proxy for nationality, encompassing 12 primary groups such as Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Ruthenian, Belarusian, German, and "local speech" (tutejszy), without mechanisms for validating responses against objective linguistic proficiency or allowing for bilingual declarations. The absence of multilingual options compelled individuals in linguistically mixed regions—such as Belarusian speakers in the northeast—to select a single language, often resulting in classifications under Polish or Russian due to cultural assimilation pressures or enumerator interpretations, rather than reflecting fluid everyday usage. Dialectal variations further challenged the methodology's precision as an ethnic indicator; for instance, Kashubian, a Lechitic closely related to , was systematically aggregated within the Polish mother tongue category, as official classifiers viewed it as a regional dialect rather than a separate . This aggregation aligned with prevailing linguistic hierarchies in interwar , prioritizing standardized national languages over sub-ethnic distinctions in a society where mother tongue declarations could blur lines between core ethnic identities and peripheral ones. Empirical limitations arose from the equation of declared with fixed , overlooking sociolinguistic realities like or passive bilingualism prevalent among minorities, which the singular-choice format could not capture. Religious affiliation was classified independently via self-reported faith, with enumerated categories including (the majority), , Greek Catholicism, , (Lutheran and Reformed), and smaller denominations like or . Unlike , served as a more discrete marker, as it did not aggregate subgroups and directly identified communities such as by confession regardless of linguistic declaration—Yiddish or Hebrew speakers were thus tallied under even if some reported as mother tongue. Correlations between the two metrics were evident but not enforced; for example, adherents often aligned with Ruthenian or Belarusian languages, yet the separate tallies permitted analysis of overlaps without conflating them as causal determinants of identity. This dual framework highlighted methodological tensions in multilingual, multi-confessional , where self-reports risked underrepresenting hybrid identities absent cross-verification.

Key Results and Demographic Data

Total Population and Growth from Prior Census

The second general of , conducted on December 9, 1931, enumerated a total of 31,915,779 individuals. This figure excluded approximately 500,000 housed in , who were counted separately to align with demographic reporting standards. Compared to the 1921 census, which recorded a total population of 27,170,696 including military, the 1931 count reflected an overall growth of roughly 17-18%, or an absolute increase of over 4.7 million people. This expansion resulted primarily from natural demographic processes—birth rates exceeding death rates amid post-World War I recovery—and territorial adjustments, including annexations in eastern borderlands following the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921, which incorporated additional populations into the Second Polish Republic. Nationally, stood at approximately 84 persons per square kilometer, calculated over Poland's land area of about 389,000 square kilometers; densities were markedly higher in the industrialized western voivodeships, such as Śląskie and , exceeding 100 persons per square kilometer in some areas, while eastern regions like Polesie and Wołyń remained sparse, often below 50 persons per square kilometer due to agrarian and forested terrains. The census forms captured age distributions, highlighting a gradual aging in urban centers through elevated proportions of elderly residents relative to rural youth-heavy profiles, alongside comprehensive registration of infants to track early-life survivorship post-independence stabilization.

Breakdown by Mother Tongue

The 1931 Polish census recorded the mother tongue of the present population, totaling 31,915,779 individuals, as a key indicator of linguistic diversity within the Second . Polish was declared as the mother tongue by 21,993,444 persons, comprising 68.9% of the total. This plurality reflected the core ethnic population concentrated in central and western regions, while non-Polish languages accounted for the remaining 31.1%, highlighting substantial minority concentrations in borderlands and urban centers. The primary linguistic groups, based on self-reported declarations, are summarized below:
Mother TongueNumberPercentage
21,993,44468.9%
3,221,97510.1%
Ruthenian1,219,6473.8%
~2,048,000~6.5%
~989,000~3.1%
Belarusian989,8523.1%
138,7130.4%
Other/undeclared~1,314,000~4.3%
These figures derive from the official tabulations, where and Ruthenian were categorized distinctly despite linguistic overlaps, Yiddish represented the predominant Jewish vernacular, and smaller groups included Hebrew (~700,000 combined with Yiddish in some aggregates but separately tallied), Lithuanian, and Romani. Regionally, Polish speakers predominated in central voivodships such as (over 80%), , and , as well as western areas like (where Polish exceeded 90% amid German minorities) and Śląskie (Silesian) Voivodship. Ukrainian and Ruthenian speakers were concentrated in eastern voivodships, including Lwów (over 50% non-Polish), Stanisławów, Tarnopol, and Wołyń, comprising majorities in rural districts there. German speakers clustered in , Pomorski (Pomeranian), and Śląskie voivodships, often exceeding 20% locally due to pre-partition Prussian influences. Yiddish speakers, while dispersed, formed urban pockets in remnants of the former Russian . In urban areas, non-Polish languages showed elevated proportions compared to rural zones, underscoring ethnic stratification. For instance, in , Yiddish speakers approached 30% of the population, reflecting industrial Jewish communities, while and Lwów exhibited similar Yiddish and urban skews exceeding rural averages by factors of two or more.

Breakdown by Religion

The 1931 census enumerated religious affiliations through self-declaration, capturing professed faith without verification of practice or records, thus reflecting nominal rather than strictly observant adherence; no mechanisms tracked recent conversions or . Roman Catholics constituted the largest group at approximately 64.8% of the population, totaling around 20.67 million individuals, predominantly in central and western voivodeships like , , and where they exceeded 90% locally. Greek Catholics, at 10.5% or 3.34 million, were concentrated in southeastern regions such as Lwów, Stanisławów, and Tarnopol voivodeships, often overlapping with Ukrainian-speaking communities. Christians accounted for 11.8%, roughly 3.76 million, mainly in eastern areas including Wołyń, Polesie, and Nowogródek, comprising majorities in some rural powiats there. Jews formed 9.6% or about 3.07 million of the populace (with precise census figure of 3,113,900 or 9.8%), exhibiting high urbanization: over 75% resided in cities, with dense clusters in (over 350,000), Łódź (nearly 200,000), Lwów, and Wilno. Protestants totaled around 1.2%, including Lutherans in and , and smaller Reformed and other evangelical groups scattered in northern and western borderlands. Marginal faiths such as (Tatars in Wilno region), Karaites, and each numbered under 0.1%, with the remainder undeclared or other.
Religious GroupApproximate NumberPercentage
Roman Catholic20,670,00064.8%
3,760,00011.8%
Greek Catholic3,340,00010.5%
Jewish3,113,9009.8%
Protestant380,0001.2%
Other/Undeclared~650,0002.0%
![1931 Census of Poland, Table 10 Ludnosc-Population-pg.15][float-right] This distribution underscored religion's role as a proxy for ethnicity in interwar Poland, with Catholicism aligning closely with Polish identity in the heartland, while eastern minorities' faiths highlighted the multi-confessional character of annexed territories from the former Russian Empire. Urban-rural disparities were stark for Jews, who comprised up to 30% of many city populations but far less rurally.

Urban-Rural Distribution and Regional Variations

The 1931 census revealed a predominantly rural , with residents comprising 27.2% of the total , or roughly 8.7 million , while the rural accounted for the remaining 72.8%, exceeding 23 million individuals. This distribution underscored Poland's agrarian character, where areas were typically defined by municipal status and settlements exceeding certain thresholds, though precise boundaries varied by administrative classification. was uneven, reflecting historical, economic, and geographic factors; central and western voivodeships generally exhibited higher densities due to and administrative centers, whereas eastern regions remained overwhelmingly rural. The Warsaw Voivodeship displayed the highest urbanization rate, approaching 50%, propelled by the capital's concentration of over 1.1 million inhabitants amid a voivodeship total of about 2.5 million. In contrast, eastern voivodeships like Lwów (Galicia) featured lower urban proportions, with rural areas dominated by Ukrainian-speaking populations constituting around 45% of the region's demographic, highlighting persistent agrarian minority strongholds. Similarly, Wilno Voivodeship showed rural mixtures of Polish and Belarusian speakers, influenced by prior Lithuanian rule, where urban centers were limited and ethnic blending more pronounced in countryside powiats. Western Poznań Voivodeship, by comparison, maintained greater ethnic homogeneity between Polish and German speakers, with tempered by agricultural plains but supported by steady town growth. Urban-rural divides also accentuated minority concentrations: in cities such as , Jewish adherents by religion formed about 30% of residents, fostering distinct enclaves, whereas rural eastern powiats frequently registered majorities, as in parts of Polesie or Wołyń voivodeships, where non-Polish groups prevailed outside limited townships. These patterns illustrated regional disparities in , with rural east embodying ethnic amid low and western-central areas aligning more closely with Polish-majority expansion.

Interpretations and Ethnic Composition

Official Figures vs. Adjusted Estimates

The official 1931 Polish census reported a total population of 31,915,779, with 68.9% declaring as their mother tongue, equivalent to approximately 22 million individuals; (including those identifying as Ruthenian) accounted for 13.9%, for 3.1%, and for 8.6%. These language-based classifications have faced criticism for underestimating ethnic minorities, as the questionnaire's reliance on mother tongue—rather than explicit national self-identification—encouraged assimilationist declarations amid state pressures favoring identity, particularly in eastern regions. Historians such as Tadeusz Piotrowski have described the census as "unreliable" for ascertaining true ethnic composition, attributing distortions to the language proxy's failure to capture bilingualism, cultural shifts, and incentives for declaring Polish to avoid discrimination or gain socioeconomic advantages. Similarly, Norman Davies highlighted language as an imperfect indicator of nationality, noting that the figures reflected spoken primary languages but overlooked hybrid identities and historical migrations in multiethnic borderlands. Empirical adjustments, such as those proposed by Jerzy Tomaszewski incorporating cross-tabulations with religious affiliation (e.g., Orthodox and Uniate populations as proxies for Ukrainian and Belarusian self-identification), elevate estimated Ukrainian shares to 15-16% and Belarusian to 4-5% of the total population, aligning with broader scholarly consensus on minority undercounts of 1-4 percentage points. Contemporary minority advocacy further underscored potential discrepancies, with Ukrainian representatives petitioning for recognition of over 5 million co-nationals—far exceeding official tallies—based on ecclesiastical records and community surveys in and , though these claims lacked independent verification and served negotiating aims. Such revisions emphasize causal factors like enumerator bias and respondent caution, revealing the official data's limitations for of interwar ethnic dynamics without supplementary proxies like faith or settlement patterns.

Implications for National Identity

The 1931 census revealed that approximately 68.9% of Poland's population declared as their mother tongue, totaling 21,993,444 individuals out of 31,915,779, which empirically supported the feasibility of a -dominant while underscoring the demographic fragility of national cohesion in peripheral regions. In central and western voivodeships, speakers often exceeded 90%, forming a stable ethnic core that aligned with visions of a culturally unified ; however, eastern borderlands (), such as Wołyń and Polesie voivodeships, exhibited minority majorities— and comprising over 60% in some areas—exposing causal risks of and that could undermine integrity absent robust integration mechanisms. This distribution prompted interpretations favoring , wherein loyalty to the could transcend strict ethnic boundaries, over rigid ethnic exclusivity, as the data illustrated opportunities for incorporating hybrid populations through shared institutions rather than ties alone. A notable feature was the 707,000 respondents selecting "tutejszy" ("local" or "from here") as their language, concentrated in eastern rural areas like Polesie (where they formed up to 10% of locals), signaling national indifference and identity fluidity rather than fixed ethnic allegiance. This category, expanded from 39,000 in 1921, reflected populations resistant to imposed national labels, often overlapping with potential Belarusian or Ukrainian groups lacking crystallized self-identification, and was leveraged in debates to argue for assimilation via state-driven cultural incorporation over coercive ethnic reclassification. Such responses challenged pure ethnic-state paradigms by evidencing causal pathways where weak national consciousness enabled bidirectional cultural exchange, potentially bolstering Polish identity through gradual linguistic shift, though they also highlighted barriers to rapid homogenization in contested frontiers. The census's mother-tongue criterion, supplanting direct nationality queries from , ignited discussions on bilingualism's distorting effects: many in mixed regions spoke fluently yet declared minority tongues due to familial or habitual primacy, yielding culturally hybrid "Poles" whose identities blurred ethnic lines and complicated separatism's traction. This suggested assimilation's uneven progress, with data indicating that while core areas exhibited linguistic stability, borderland bilingualism fostered pragmatic state loyalty over separatist fervor, yet risked diluting ethnic purity models if not channeled toward civic unity. Demographic projections from the census further illuminated long-term identity pressures, as minority groups like Greek Catholics (predominantly ) displayed elevated fertility—contrasting lower rates among urban Poles and (total fertility rates around 2.5 for the latter)—portending relative declines in the Polish share absent accelerated . Rural eastern minorities' higher birth rates, tied to agrarian lifestyles and lower , signaled causal vulnerabilities: sustained differentials could amplify separatist potentials by the mid-century, compelling state-builders to prioritize fertility-aligned policies for demographic , though the data itself neutrally quantified these trends without prescribing outcomes.

Economic and Occupational Insights

The 1931 census revealed a predominantly agrarian , with approximately 61% of the gainfully employed engaged in , reflecting the rural character of the Polish ethnic majority and the eastern borderlands. This sector absorbed the bulk of the workforce, particularly in voivodeships like Polesie and Wołyń, where smallholder farming dominated and supplemental non-farm labor was common amid limited industrialization. In contrast, industrial and commercial occupations accounted for smaller shares, underscoring economic underdevelopment outside urban centers like and Łódź. Jewish respondents, comprising about 9.8% of the , showed stark occupational divergence, with only 4% employed in and 96% in non-agricultural roles, primarily as artisans, merchants, and in trade-related activities. This concentration in urban trades—often exceeding in and small —highlighted ethnic , with filling niches in , tailoring, and money-lending that Poles largely avoided due to cultural and historical factors. Such patterns contributed to inter-ethnic economic tensions, as Polish agrarian interests clashed with Jewish commercial dominance in towns. Literacy rates, assessed for individuals over age 10 as the ability to read and write, stood at roughly 77% overall, with significant demographic correlations: urban areas approached 90-95% literacy among Poles, while eastern regions with and Greek Catholic majorities hovered around 50% due to sparse schooling and rural isolation. Illiteracy was lowest among Protestants (9.9%) and (15.4%), intermediate for Roman Catholics (17.2%), and highest for Greek Catholics (38.5%) and (52.5%), tying educational attainment to religious-ethnic clusters and urban-rural divides. Occupational data hinted at emerging pressures, as the census captured only gainfully employed individuals amid the early , with non-agricultural sectors showing in crafts and services.

Political Utilization and Immediate Reactions

Role in Government Policies

The 1931 census data, revealing Poles as approximately 69% of the total population with concentrated minorities in border regions, informed the Polish government's approach to national security, particularly through the Prometheist doctrine initiated under . This strategy aimed to weaken the by fostering independence aspirations among non-Russian ethnic groups, such as and , both within and across its eastern borders; census mappings of mother-tongue distributions in voivodeships like Wołyń (where comprised 67% and Poles 16%) and Polesie (Ukrainians 64%, Poles 12%) enabled identification of potential anti-Soviet allies as buffers against Bolshevik expansion. In administrative and educational policies, the government selectively applied measures, prioritizing Polish-language instruction and bureaucracy in areas with Polish majorities or pluralities while nominally tolerating minority schools in dominant non-Polish zones, as delineated by the census's linguistic breakdowns; this facilitated assimilation in mixed regions like the Wilno Voivodeship (Poles 29%, Belarusians and Lithuanians combined ~50%) to enhance state cohesion without uniform coercion. Land reforms, enacted progressively from 1920 but accelerated post-census, targeted German-held estates in western provinces such as (Germans ~18%) and Pomorze, expropriating 68% of eligible German-owned land versus 11% from Polish estates to redistribute parcels to Polish settlers and smallholders, thereby reducing perceived disloyalty risks from the German minority. Budgetary decisions for infrastructure, including roads and railroads in eastern borderlands, drew on census insights into sparse to allocate resources for and loyalty-building projects, such as the Central initiated in 1936, which indirectly reinforced Polish demographic presence in under-Polishized areas like the .

Minority Community Responses

Ukrainian nationalists in contested the census results, arguing that the reliance on mother tongue declarations systematically undercounted their population by classifying bilingual individuals or those using transitional dialects as Polish speakers rather than . Official figures recorded approximately 4.4 million , but community leaders asserted higher numbers based on ethnic self-identification, decrying the methodology as a tool for Polish efforts. In response, some Ukrainian groups in engaged in partial non-cooperation, including calls to declare despite pressures, to challenge the perceived underrepresentation. Jewish communal organizations pointed to discrepancies between religious declarations and language responses, noting that while the census identified over 3.1 million individuals by Jewish faith, a significant portion—around 12% nationally—declared as their mother tongue, reducing Yiddish or Hebrew counts and obscuring ethnic cohesion. Leaders emphasized that religious affiliation better captured , estimating the effective Jewish population closer to 3.3 million when accounting for assimilated declarants and underreporting in urban centers. This mismatch fueled assertions that the census diluted minority visibility to favor Polish . German minority representatives in western voivodeships, particularly Poznań and Pomerania, complained that the census incorporated assimilated German-speakers into Polish categories through vague dialect classifications, such as treating Kashubian or Silesian variants as Polish rather than distinct Germanic tongues. With official German-language speakers tallied at about 740,000 (2.3% of the total), community petitions to the League of Nations highlighted how such aggregations masked ongoing cultural erosion and emigration pressures, estimating true German ethnicity at higher levels based on pre-census records.

International Perceptions

The German government and ethnic German organizations disputed the 1931 census figures for German speakers, particularly in the , where official data recorded around 90,000 individuals declaring as their mother tongue, a number viewed as an undercount influenced by efforts and administrative pressures following the 1921 plebiscite and partition. These claims aligned with broader German revisionist arguments in pre-WWII diplomacy, emphasizing discrepancies between the census and earlier German estimates or self-identifications to challenge Polish sovereignty over disputed border regions like . Soviet portrayed the census as evidence of suppression of and Belarusian identities in eastern voivodeships, alleging deliberate underreporting of "Ruthenian" languages and religious adherents to mask and justify territorial claims against the USSR. Such narratives, disseminated through Comintern channels and , highlighted the shift from explicit questions in the 1921 census to language-based inquiries in as a methodological ploy to inflate majorities, though Soviet critiques often served their own irredentist aims amid mutual tensions. The League of Nations, tasked with monitoring Poland's minority obligations under the 1919 , referenced census data in petitions and reports on ethnic protections but expressed no formal critique of its conduct, focusing instead on implementation gaps like and religious freedoms amid reported tensions. Western demographers and diplomats, including U.S. State Department analyses, treated the census as a conventional comparable to European standards of the era, while observing that language classifications amplified ethnic frictions without invalidating core demographic totals. These views informed pre-WWII negotiations, where census statistics bolstered Poland's defenses in disputes over (with ) and Teschen (with ), underscoring its role in legitimizing multi-ethnic state boundaries.

Criticisms, Controversies, and Accuracy Debates

Methodological Flaws in Language-Based Classification

The 1931 Polish census shifted from the 1921 census's direct inquiry into nationality to a question on mother tongue, positing language as a proxy for ethnic identity; however, this approach overlooked the inherent fluidity of linguistic self-identification, which does not reliably map to fixed ethnic affiliations. Unlike nationality declarations, which aimed to capture self-perceived ancestral or cultural belonging, mother tongue responses were influenced by historical assimilation processes, such as Russification in eastern regions, where Ukrainians exposed to Russian administrative dominance often declared Russian as their primary language despite underlying Ukrainian ethnic ties. This lack of equivalence arose because language acquisition can stem from education, intermarriage, or external pressures rather than innate ethnic causality, with no mechanisms for verification against birth records, family history, or consistent self-ethnic identification, rendering the data susceptible to inconsistencies. Enumerator practices exacerbated these issues, particularly in rural minority-heavy areas, where census takers—predominantly Polish-speaking officials—frequently guided or pressured respondents toward declarations aligning with Polish dominance or neutral categories, bypassing rigorous ethnic probing. Over 707,000 individuals selected "" (local) as their tongue, a vague option suggested by enumerators to those hesitant to specify , Belarusian, or other minority languages, effectively masking ethnic diversity under ambiguous linguistic labels. Such interventions distorted counts, as rural respondents, lacking urban anonymity, faced implicit incentives to conform, leading to underrepresentation of non-Polish groups compared to urban self-reports. In contrast, the 1921 census's explicit nationality question yielded roughly 30% non-Polish declarations across a population of about 26 million, providing a more direct gauge of ethnic self-conception without linguistic proxies that conflate fluency with identity. This methodological divergence highlights how mother tongue classification in 1931 failed to isolate stable ethnic markers, as bilingualism prevalent in interwar Poland—where minorities often spoke Polish alongside native tongues—allowed declarations skewed by daily usage rather than primordial ties, undermining the census's utility for causal demographic analysis.

Allegations of Political Manipulation

Accusations of direct data manipulation in the 1931 Polish census centered on claims that local officials altered respondents' declared languages in eastern regions to inflate the Polish-speaking population, particularly by reclassifying or Belarusian entries as Polish. Edward Szturm de Sztrem, former president of the Central Statistical Office (GUS), documented instances of such falsifications at the county () level, prompting GUS to request a recount in eastern Poland due to evident discrepancies between raw tallies and aggregated results. The Ministry of Interior rejected this demand, and detailed results were withheld at the gmin (municipality) level, which critics argued concealed evidence of tampering to avoid scrutiny. These allegations aligned with broader incentives under the regime, which emphasized national cohesion amid ethnic tensions and irredentist threats from neighboring states; lower reported minority percentages bolstered narratives of Polish demographic dominance, potentially justifying policies of assimilation or colonization in borderlands like and . No comprehensive proof of centralized fraud emerged, as census protocols emphasized raw data collection by enumerators, and independent audits were limited; however, the regime's authoritarian tendencies—evident in suppressed opposition and controlled media—created structural pressures for local officials to align results with state ideology. Historiographical interpretations diverge along ideological lines: scholars associated with progressive or minority-focused perspectives, such as Jerzy Tomaszewski, have adjusted official figures upward for (from 4.44 million to 5.11 million) to account for presumed suppression, viewing manipulations as tools of . In contrast, more conservative analysts, including Piotr Eberhardt, attribute discrepancies partly to voluntary declarations of Polish loyalty amid political stability post-1926 coup, framing any irregularities as pragmatic responses to separatist agitation rather than deliberate deceit. Empirical verification remains challenging, as primary records from contested areas are incomplete, underscoring the census's role in immediate political narratives over unvarnished demographic truth.

Post-Census Reassessments and Historiographical Disputes

During , both and the rejected the 1931 census results as artificially inflated for Poles, citing systematic undercounting of ethnic Germans, , and to support irredentist claims in annexed territories. Nazi authorities, in justifying the incorporation of Polish lands with German minorities, argued that the census obscured higher German populations through linguistic classification biases favoring Polish declarations. Soviet propaganda similarly portrayed the figures as manipulated to deny the Ukrainian and Belarusian majorities in the regions, aligning with Stalinist narratives of historical oppression under Polish rule. These dismissals prioritized geopolitical revisionism over empirical validation, often extrapolating from selective local data rather than the census's nationwide methodology. In postwar communist , official reframed the data to underscore a dominant ethnic core, downplaying minority shares to legitimize the regime's border shifts and population transfers that created a more homogeneous state. This reinterpretation aligned with Marxist-Leninist emphasis on over but conveniently minimized prewar , portraying interwar as inherently despite evidence of bilingualism inflating Polish-language returns. Academic works under state control often cross-referenced the with 1921 data to affirm reliability while suppressing analyses of pressures in eastern voivodeships, where Ruthenian and Belarusian speakers faced incentives to declare . Contemporary historiographical disputes center on the census's language-based approach, with scholars generally upholding the 68.9% mother-tongue figure as a conservative yet accurate proxy for , given consistent patterns across urban and rural enumerations. Critics from and Belarusian perspectives, however, contend it undercounted non-Poles by 5-10 points, attributing discrepancies to political and the absence of a direct question, leading to adjusted estimates placing ethnic Poles at 60-65% when factoring bilingual "dwoijazychność" in borderlands. These revisions draw on comparative Soviet censuses and eyewitness accounts but lack uniform empirical consensus, as they rely on subjective reallocations of ambiguous declarations like "Ruthenian." Balanced analyses prioritize the original data's methodological transparency—enumerators recorded self-reported tongues without quotas—over advocacy-driven corrections, though source biases in minority-nationalist scholarship warrant scrutiny.

Legacy and Long-Term Impact

Influence on Postwar Demographic Narratives

The 1931 census provided the primary empirical baseline for postwar calculations of Poland's population losses, recording a total of approximately 32 million inhabitants whose demographic structure—derived from declarations showing at 68.9%, at 13.9%, at 8.7%, and others forming the remainder—was extrapolated to estimate a population of around 35 million. By contrasting this with 1946 census data and accounting for border changes, births, and migrations, Polish demographers under both exile and communist governments arrived at figures of roughly 6 million deaths among prewar Polish citizens, encompassing ethnic , , and other minorities subjected to German and Soviet policies. This methodology underscored the scale of civilian and military attrition, with about 3 million ethnic and 3 million comprising the bulk, though communist-era analyses often aggregated losses to emphasize national rather than ethnic-specific suffering. Soviet demographic practices in the annexed eastern territories diverged sharply from the 1931 framework, as the 1939 Soviet census reclassified significant Polish-identifying populations as or Belarusian to align with irredentist claims, undercounting Poles relative to the prior Polish enumeration that had documented around 3 million ethnic Poles in the regions. Postwar Polish communist narratives, while invoking 1931 data to quantify total losses for against Germany, systematically downplayed the census's evidence of substantial Jewish (over 10% nationally) and (concentrated in the east) presences to retroactively justify the ethnic homogenization achieved through expulsions of Germans, against Ukrainians, and the exodus of surviving Jews. This selective interpretation portrayed the postwar state—where minorities fell to under 3%—as a restored ethnic , causal to policies resetting distributions and suppressing minority claims under the guise of socialist . In the context of repopulating the western territories (formerly lands east of the Oder-Neisse line), 1931 census insights into prewar settlement densities and occupational patterns informed communist planning for mass internal transfers, facilitating the relocation of over 5 million Poles from central and lost eastern areas to achieve demographic majorities and agricultural viability. These calculations linked prewar ethnic distributions to postwar security imperatives, debating continuity against historical dominance while enabling state-directed resets that prioritized influx over minority retention. Empirical reliance on 1931 figures thus extended to justifying the scale of resettlements, with debates centering on replicating interwar rural proportions to counterbalance legacies.

Contributions to Historical Research

The 1931 Polish census provides essential quantitative data for modeling interwar demographic trends, including and differentials across regions and ethnic groups. Historians and demographers have utilized its records on population distribution, occupational structures, and sizes to analyze urbanization rates, with urban dwellers rising from 24% in 1921 to about 29% by 1931, reflecting rural-to-urban shifts driven by industrial growth in areas like and . Similarly, fertility studies draw on the census's age-specific data, revealing regional variations such as higher rates in eastern voivodeships (e.g., over 40 births per 1,000 inhabitants in Polesie) compared to urban centers, which informed analyses of socioeconomic determinants like literacy and agricultural dependency. Digitization efforts since the early have enhanced its utility, enabling integration with geographic information systems (GIS) for mapping ethnic and linguistic distributions at levels. These reconstructions, based on the census's mother-tongue declarations, depict speakers at 68.9% nationally but with stark regional minorities—e.g., exceeding 50% in parts of Wołyń and Stanisławów voivodeships—allowing spatial modeling of settlement patterns and potential conflict zones. Such tools have supported research into pre-war , surpassing fragmented archival sources by providing standardized, georeferenced baselines for comparative studies with adjacent states' censuses. The census data counters anecdotal claims of ethnic homogeneity or dominance by quantifying Poland's multi-ethnic fragility, with non-Polish groups comprising about 31% of the 32.1 million total population, including 14% /Belarusian speakers and 8.6% /Hebrew users. This has informed causal analyses of how linguistic enclaves contributed to inter-communal tensions, facilitating partitions and collaborations during invasions, rather than relying on nationalist historiography that minimizes minority roles. While limitations like self-reported language biases exist, the census's scale and methodological consistency—enumerating over 32 million individuals via standardized forms—offer superior verifiability to qualitative accounts, underpinning rigorous, data-driven revisions of interwar stability.

References

  1. [1]
    90 years ago, on December 9, 1931, Statistics Poland conducted the ...
    Dec 8, 2021 · It contained data on the number of inhabitants of cities over 10,000 as compared to the data from the 1921 census. The basic study from the 1931 ...
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
    Polish Corridor | Danzig, Free City, WWI, & Map - Britannica
    Polish Corridor, strip of land, 20 to 70 miles (32 to 112 km) wide, that gave the newly reconstituted state of Poland access to the Baltic Sea after World War ...
  4. [4]
    Upper Silesia plebiscite | German–Polish history [1921] - Britannica
    Upper Silesia on March 20, 1921, an overall majority voted to remain with Germany. Therefore, Germany claimed that the whole area should remain German.
  5. [5]
    A Century Ago, The Treaty Of Riga Redrew The Map. It Still ...
    Mar 17, 2021 · "It ended the Soviet-Polish war, but left territories with a Ukrainian and Belarusian majority in Poland. It undermined the plans of the ...
  6. [6]
    population displacement in the baltic region in the twentieth century ...
    ... Soviet-Polish war, but a further one million were still 'waiting to return to their homes' (Jones 1929, p. 111). Between. 1918 and 1924 approximately 350,000 ...
  7. [7]
    The German Minority in Interwar Poland
    The German Minority in Interwar Poland analyzes what happened when Germans from three different empires – the Russian, Habsburg, and German – were forced to ...Missing: tensions separatism<|separator|>
  8. [8]
    100 lat GUS - Główny Urząd Statystyczny
    13 lipca 1918 roku Rada Regencyjna Królestwa Polskiego wydała Reskrypt o utworzeniu i organizacji Głównego Urzędu Statystycznego. Czytaj więcej. Pracownicy GUS ...Missing: założony | Show results with:założony
  9. [9]
    89 lat temu, 9 grudnia 1931 r., GUS przeprowadził Drugi ...
    Dec 8, 2020 · Spis przeprowadzono na podstawie ustawy z 14 października 1931 r. Ustawa ta określiła datę najbliższego spisu oraz potwierdziła, że spisy ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Historia spisów powszechnych w Polsce w XX i XXI wieku
    W grudniu 1931 r. GUS przeprowadził drugi powszechny spis ludności. Warunki polityczne i społeczne były wówczas o wiele bardziej sprzyjające niż w 1921 r.<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    (PDF) Polish Population Censuses in the 19th and 20th Centuries
    A fundamental feature of the censuses is a set of questions common to demographic and social issues. This makes it possible to carry out comparative analysis in ...
  12. [12]
    (PDF) National indifference, statistics and the constructivist ...
    Mar 9, 2019 · In the interwar Polish census of 1931, this linguistic category of Local Tongue and the corresponding national one of Tutejszy (Polish for a ...
  13. [13]
    Registration questionnaires of the First and Second General ...
    Feb 17, 2021 · Registration questionnaires of the First and Second General Censuses of Poland in 1921 and 1931. ... GUS, Warszawa 1931. Rajmund Buławski ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Were Jews in Interwar Poland More Educated?
    The 1921 census asked about nationality and religion, while the 1931 census asked about mother language and religion. The data on literacy were collected based ...Missing: breakdown | Show results with:breakdown
  15. [15]
    Powołanie GUS i spis ludności w 1931 roku
    Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z 2 września w sprawie przeprowadzenia drugiego powszechnego spisu ludności ustaliło jego termin na 9 grudnia 1931 roku. ...Missing: data | Show results with:data
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Drugi Spis Powszechny 1931 Seria C zeszyt 94a
    Ostateczne wyniki spisu mieszkań i gospo- darstw domowych, ludności i zawodów zostały opu- blikowane w szeregu tomów wydawnictwa objętego wspólnym tytułem ...Missing: enumerators | Show results with:enumerators
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Pytanie o język w spisach ludności NA ZIEMIACH POLSKICH (LATA ...
    Kolejny spis - pod nazwą „Drugi powszechny spis ludności. Page 3. Pytanie o język w spisach ludności na ziemiach polskich (lata 1789-2011). 181 z dn. 9 XII 1931 ...Missing: religia | Show results with:religia
  18. [18]
  19. [19]
    RG-18.01.12.01.01, Second General Census of Polish population ...
    This is the Second General Census of Polish population from December 1931, covering all of Poland, and is a short version.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] statistical atlas of poland
    Ta bies 6-1 O represent t he problems o f nationality and religion in Poland on the basis of the 1931 census. The mother tongue has been assumed to determine.
  21. [21]
    Interwar East European Census Data
    Population of Poland by Ethnicity, 1931. (Based on "Native Tongue"). Ethnic Group. Number. Percentage. Polish. 21,993,444. 68.9. Ukrainian. 3,221,975. 10.1.<|separator|>
  22. [22]
    The Population of Poland according to the Census of 1921 - jstor
    The number and distribution of districts showing an increase of Roman. Catholic population are an incontestable argument that these ethnic changes have been the ...Missing: breakdown | Show results with:breakdown
  23. [23]
    Ludność II RP. Mało znane dane i statystyki na temat mieszkańców ...
    Dec 19, 2020 · Do 1931 roku liczba ludności kraju zwiększyła się do 32,1 mln. Z kolei na dzień 31 sierpnia 1939 roku – ostatni przed wybuchem II wojny ...
  24. [24]
  25. [25]
    actual Jewish population of Poland in 1939 - Axis History Forum
    The Polish census showed about 3.1 million Jews in Poland in 1931. ... - 2 732 600 persons speaking Yiddish and Hebrew [census 1931] ... population of Poland ...
  26. [26]
    Half Of Polish Jews Doomed - History Unfolded
    There were 3,113,900 Jews, or 9.8 per cent of the total population, in Poland according to the 1931 census, but the Germans during more than three years of ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] LUDNOŚĆ POLSKI W 1931 R
    Udział ludności miejskiej w r. 1921 wynosił w państwie 24.6%, w 1931 r. zaś 27.2%.Missing: procent | Show results with:procent
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Poles - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
    According to the 1931 census by language, 69% of the population totalling 35 million inhabitants spoke Polish as their mother tongue. (Most of them were ...
  29. [29]
    World War II Casualties of Poland - Rescue in the Holocaust
    ... 1931 Polish census "unreliable", noting that it had underestimated the number of non-Poles[54] The official figures for nationality from the 1931 Polish census ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Poland and the Ukrainian Problem, 1921-1939
    Most Polish scholars agree that the correct figure would be somewhere between 32 and 35%, with the Ukrainians accounting for 15-16% and the Belorussians for 4- ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] The Construction of National Identity in post-1918 Poland - PEARL ...
    Through the analysis of population statistics according to the research of Piotr. Eberhardt (2001) and the National Population Census of 1931 it is possible to.
  32. [32]
    [Analysis of fertility levels in selected territories of Poland in 1931]
    In the whole area, Jewish women had a low fertility level: TFRs of 2.48 in the central provinces, 2.67 in Cracow province, and 2.89 in Lvov province. The Greek ...Missing: minority | Show results with:minority
  33. [33]
    Polish Jewry Between the Wars - My Jewish Learning
    While a majority of ethnic Poles were employed in agriculture, in 1931 about 96 percent of Polish Jews worked in non-farm occupations, mainly as artisans, ...Missing: commerce | Show results with:commerce
  34. [34]
    90 years ago, on December 9, 1931, Statistics Poland conducted the ...
    Dec 8, 2021 · It contained data on the number of inhabitants of cities over 10,000 as compared to the data from the 1921 census.
  35. [35]
    Prometheism: A Polish Covert Action Program
    May 27, 2025 · Shortly after his coup in August 1926, Piłsudski changed Poland's national minorities policy to “draw them into the Polish state system.
  36. [36]
    [PDF] THE NATIONAL MINORITIES IN THE POLISH POLITICS. THE ... - DOI
    In formulating its minority policy the Polish government was ... use of the statistical data, particularly information obtained from the census reports.
  37. [37]
    The German Minority in Inter-War Poland and German Foreign Policy
    provinces, and had no access to farms created under a land reform programme which took 68 per cent of the eligible land of German estate owners but only 11 ...
  38. [38]
    poles and jews under german and soviet - jstor
    The official Polish census of 1931 undercounted the Ukrainians. 2 According to the Polish- Jewish periodical, Nasz Przeglqd [Our Review], in the early 1930s ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Uprooted: How post-WWII Population Transfers Remade Europe
    Apr 1, 2022 · 4According to the 1931 Census, which undercounted ethnic minorities in the east of the country, only 68.9% of the population was Polish ...
  40. [40]
    Chronology of the Holocaust and Rescue in Poland - Part 1
    According to the 1931 Polish National Census there were 3,130,581 Polish Jews measured by the declaration of religion. ... As a result, according to the 1931 ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] http://rcin.org.pl
    14. Striving to win the good will of the Jewish minority, the Left of the ruling camp inspired the proclamation on 13 March 1931 of a law on the expiration of ...
  42. [42]
    Citizenship Polish / German in the interwar period in Upper Silesia
    The census 1931 year 90 thousand people declared themselves as users of the German language as their mother tongue, and who know the language, although ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] The problem of Upper Silesia - UMK
    German population in Polish Silesia was wealthy, had extensive ... RESULTS OF THE CENSUS IN POLISH UPPER SILESIA, DECEMBER 9, 1931*. District.
  44. [44]
    [PDF] the case of Upper Silesia after the plebiscite in 1921 - UCL Discovery
    The Polish and German governments both tried to assert the transformation of the nationality of the population and the standardisation of its identity on the ...
  45. [45]
    ISSUES OF LANGUAGE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE ... - jstor
    Instead, one had to state the particular nation, whether Polish,. German or Ukrainian, of which one claimed membership. In the 1931 general census, on the other ...Missing: legislative framework<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    Poland's Christian Minorities 1919–1939 | Nationalities Papers
    Nov 20, 2018 · 4 League of Nations, Protection of Linguistic, Racial, and Religious Minorities ... The 1931 census recorded the following illiteracy rates ...<|separator|>
  47. [47]
    THE EASTERN PROVINCES OF POLAND | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
    The Jews represented a fairly large national group in Eastern Poland (about 900,000 in 1931). ... League of Nations 25 years later), Poland insisted on its ...
  48. [48]
    Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    According to the census of May 1939 it had a population of 2,496,017 persons. According to the census of 1925—the latest moderately reliable index of linguistic ...<|separator|>
  49. [49]
    Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire - jstor
    Aug 9, 2011 · The knowledge of. Polish as an additional language, on the other hand, was reduced, in particular among. Ukrainian and Belorussian elites and ...
  50. [50]
    (PDF) Spisy powszechne w Polsce w latach 1921–2011
    Aug 7, 2025 · W artykule podjęto próbę odpowiedzi na pytania, na ile metody przeprowadzenia spisów powszechnych, sformułowania tzw. pytań etnicznych oraz ...Missing: spisujących enumerators
  51. [51]
    Lemko-Rusyns and the Minority Question in the Second Polish ...
    However, the results of the 1931 census tend to be considered controversial and their results, especially when it comes to the Ukrainian population, falsified.
  52. [52]
    [PDF] soviet rule in eastern poland, 1939-1941 - OhioLINK ETD Center
    The Soviets handed over 43,000 prisoners to the Germans, mostly men born in the German-occupied zone of Poland. The Germans in turn gave the Soviets about ...
  53. [53]
    Poland's Minorities in the Transition from Soviet-Dominated Ethnic ...
    Interwar Poland was a multiethnic state despite the official rhetoric promoting its image to be that of a monoethnic nation-state. According to the 1931 census ...
  54. [54]
    The National Minorities of Poland During World War II
    Nov 20, 2018 · Official Polish government census statistics on “nationality” are notoriously unreliable. Therefore, using “religion” (as listed in the 1931 ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] The Consequences of the Second World War and the Stalinist ...
    By comparing the population counted in the 1931 Census with the estimated population for 1939, we obtained – for all the Polish voivodeships that did not.<|separator|>
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Forced Migration and Human Capital: Evidence from Post-WWII ...
    Inter-War Polish Censuses: 1921 and 1931 – We use two censuses conducted in the Second. Polish Republic. The census closest to WWII was conducted in 1931; it ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Forced Migration and Human Capital: Evidence from Post-WWII ...
    In all three Soviet republics, pressure on the urban Polish population to leave was high. We exploit the urban vs. rural and Ukraine vs. rest-of-Kresy variation ...
  58. [58]
    Demographic problems of Poland - UNESCO Digital Library
    Percentage distribution of population according to main source of income. 1931 1950 census census Industry & handi- crafts 12.8 20.9 Building 1-3 4.8 ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Fertility in the Interwar Poland and its Determinants. - epc2016
    The dependent variable used in each model is General Fertility Rate in 1931, understood as the number of livebirths per 1000 women in reproductive age (15-49).
  60. [60]
    Historical GIS datafiles - Census Mosaic
    Providing information on the administrative division of Polish-Lithuania ... 1931, 1970 and 1978 at varying geographic details. Citation information is ...
  61. [61]
    Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    Poland's Demographic Needs. The census of 1931 fixed the number of the population at 32,348.000. The Poles numbered 21,993.000 or 68/9%. In 1939 the population ...Missing: budget training