Poland and Historians:
If we don’t tell our own story, someone else will
Jan ŚLIWA
Is passionate about languages and culture. An IT specialist, he wites about data protection, medical research, ethics, and the social aspects of technology. Lives and works in Switzerland.
In popular discourse, Poland’s history during and immediately after World War II is reduced to two concepts: Jedwabne and Kielce. “We are dealing with a dirty propaganda war,” writes Jan Śliwa.
“Poland has no luck with historians.” For most, it is a marginal topic treated only in relation to their neighbors, who, as the main protagonists, enjoy the authors’ sympathy. Authors often repeat common opinions or are biased, especially since Poland represents values that aren’t necessarily valued in the modern world. Polish historians, on the other hand, do not publish much in world languages, and when they do, their works are not very visible.
Solid academic works are important, but perhaps more important are popular books available in every bookstore because they shape public opinion. In the current situation, public opinion is of strategic importance, and it is also more pleasant when people understand and like us.
Poland as seen by Western historians
While looking for new releases, I came across an interesting discussion with historian Eric Kurlander. I learned that he had just published a history of Germany with co-authors Douglas T. McGetchin and Bernd-Stefan Grewe. Modern Germany: A Global History. It is a true magnum opus at 907 pages. It’s a good opportunity to look at the matter from a broader perspective. As usual, I looked for information about the author to better understand his views and prejudices, as well as his connection to Poland. I had some doubts about a few points. Of course, this is the history of Germany, not Poland or Europe. Therefore, the author has the right to his own selection of topics and perspective. A history of Prussia written by a Polish author will not be identical to one written by a German author.
To what extent can I expect comprehensive coverage of Polish issues? There is much more information about France, but the relationship between Germany and France was much more intense. Our view is different. For us, Germany (like Russia) has been our nemesis for a thousand years. For them, however, Poland is a peripheral country. Upon closer reading, I saw that many issues, including potentially problematic ones, were reasonably addressed. Examples include Bismarck, Germanization, and the Kulturkampf. Then there’s the Intelligenzaktion, the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, deportations from Greater Poland, the Generalplan Ost, and slave labor. Hans Frank stated that after the war, he wanted to turn Poles, Ukrainians, and others into mincemeat. Then there is the role of Pope John Paul II and Solidarity in the transformations in Poland and Europe, as well as in the reunification of Germany.
All of these topics are fine. But there are some discrepancies. Is the issue of the partitions important? For us, it is an existential matter that has followed us to this day.
For them, much less so. It began with Prussia, which was economically and demographically exhausted after the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). The acquisition of additional territories as a result of the First Partition of Poland helped Prussia grow in power and influence. The subsequent partitions are mentioned but not given much attention. Just another neighboring country that disappeared. It happens.
The Holocaust plays a primary role in the description of World War II. It is good to have helpers for the Holocaust. Frank’s statement about minced meat is supplemented by the remark that the “divide and conquer” policy was possible thanks to Poles’ deeply rooted anti-Semitism based on religious hatred. After listing the Western volunteers of the Waffen SS, the authors write on page 622 that “even non-Jewish Poles, who were the main victims of the Nazis after the Jews, often had the task of managing camps and operating gas chambers and crematoria as kapos.” Next, there is Jedwabne, where Poles and Ukrainians waited for Jews to be murdered or deported so they could take over their property and homes. Then, there are reflections on why “so many Jews, Poles, and other victims went to their deaths almost voluntarily, without resistance.”
As for resistance, there are mentions of escapes from camps into the forest and the famous Bielski brothers’ unit. I don’t see any “non-Jewish Poles” here. Half a page is devoted to the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto uprising of 1943, with a note to not confuse it with the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Apart from these eleven words (including articles and prepositions), there is no further mention of this event. The Home Army? What army?
There is plenty of evidence on page 628 that “Polish nationalists and anti-Semites, themselves victims of Nazi occupation, nevertheless risked their lives to save Jews.” The source is Nechama Tec, author of the highly recommended book When Light Pierced the Darkness. Christian Rescue of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland.
So there is obligatory nationalism and anti-Semitism, all under the guise of surprise that they helped. I know this is about the Żegota organization, but that’s just my opinion. After reading about the good Poles, we read about the few good Ukrainians and Germans.
In contrast, we read a lengthy paragraph about the heroic Danes who transported several thousand Jews a few kilometers across the strait to neutral Sweden. While this is commendable, it has nothing to do with the problem of millions of unassimilated Jews in the middle of the continent. Poland does not have its own Sweden. The minor fact that Nordic Aryans had more freedom than Slavic subhumans is omitted. The second paragraph discusses Bulgaria, which, despite its alliance with Germany, did not succumb to pressure to deport Jews. This is an incomparable case as well, since Bulgaria was not occupied. The subchapter listing the victims includes Jews, followed by homosexuals, Roma, and Sinti. The photographs depict the shooting of Poles in Bochnia, the defense of Warsaw in 1939, forced laborers (mostly Poles) at the Agfa factory, and Poles hanged by Germans near Radom. We can also learn about German forms of resistance, such as the White Rose, the Edelweiss Pirates, and the Stauffenberg conspiracy.
Now, let’s move on to recent times. Germany’s intensified cooperation with Russia (including Nord Stream), combined with its growing role in Europe, has led to closer ties between Europe and Russia — and therefore with Putin. Ties with Putin are nothing to be proud of. At least for now—later, we’ll see.
The authors remain proud of Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to migrants in 2015. They accuse countries that did not participate in the relocation effort, Poland in particular, of xenophobia. They argue that Poland’s problems are Germany’s problems because Germany bears the burden of maintaining democracy in Europe and around the world. A similar concept from a century earlier was the “white man’s burden” — the difficult but honorable duty of civilizing savage peoples. Bulmer and Paterson describe Germany as a “reluctant hegemon,” while Minister Radek Sikorski calls it an “indispensable nation.” During Donald Trump’s presidency, Germany had to take the United States under its wing and became the leader of the free world in its own imagination. In Europe, Germany had to become a bulwark against right-wing populism. The overuse of the term “right-wing populism” suggests that the author is taking the easy way out by replacing analysis of facts with adjectives and labels. One of the most dangerous right-wing populist governments is Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) party, because they are in power. Angela Merkel bravely stood up to them, admonishing them on principle during her visit to Auschwitz in December 2019. She spoke about the rule of law, growing racism, hate crimes, attacks on the fundamental values of liberal democracy, and dangerous historical revisionism. These are standard comments about Poland, which is not surprising. However, in this case, it was akin to criticizing Israel’s policy toward Palestinians during a visit to Yad Vashem.
The book builds up to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. We learn that Germany is leading the way in supplying Ukraine with weapons. Germany may continue to advance toward global leadership in the future. Its dark past could motivate it to care about the environment, democracy, and human rights. Germany should embody these values at home and promote them in Europe and around the world. However, I’m not sure if this is a hopeful outlook or a warning.
Common, everyday opinions
In popular discourse, Poland’s history during and immediately after World War II is reduced to two concepts: Jedwabne and Kielce. The fact that the Jedwabne massacre was only one element of the Wehrmacht’s crimes is overlooked. The nearly two-year Soviet occupation preceding the Jedwabne massacre is also overlooked — as are the deportations, collaboration, and enrichment that occurred during this period. Similarly, the Soviet consummation of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements — the subjugation of Poland, which had been ongoing since 1944 — is not a topic of interest. In this sea of blood, only Kielce matters. What about the police bullets? They were Polish police, after all. The general expropriation of society by communists is the taking of Jewish property by Poles once again. The 1968 dispute between Communist party factions in Poland is another manifestation of Polish anti-Semitism, and Gomułka becomes a Polish nationalist. Beating and expelling students who demand freedom does not count. Similarly, the periodic shooting of workers does not count. The suppression of the Prague Spring in August 1968 was probably also an act of Polish aggression, although we said: All of Poland is waiting for its Dubček!
In stories about World War II, it is frustrating to see the constant distinction between Jews and Poles, with the subliminal (or overt) message that only Jewish lives matter. The desire to preserve one’s own life is considered selfish, while the lives of one’s spouse and children are considered unimportant. Prof. Jan Grabowski from the University of Ottawa specializes in this, traveling the world with stories of how well Poles lived under occupation and how they eagerly awaited the opportunity to seize Jewish property and collaborate with the Germans in killing Jews. He also criticizes Poland’s proposal to expand the program of school trips to Poland. While the inclusion of the Cursed Soldiers [Żołnierze Wyklęci] is problematic, his opinion that the Ulma Museum in Markowa should be “avoided at all costs” is scandalous.
Recently, he has taken up the fight against Wikipedia articles that he believes are too flattering to Poles. He claims these articles whitewash Poles, downplay their complicity in the Holocaust, exaggerate the scale of their aid to Jews, emphasize their own suffering by linking it to the Holocaust, and unnecessarily remind readers of Jewish collaboration with the Nazis and participation in Stalinist crimes. However, when it comes to correcting Wikipedia, I recently noticed that the process is going in the opposite direction. For example, the English version lists Chaim Rumkowski, president of the Łódź Judenrat, as Polish. One must be careful when correcting facts, as it has logical consequences. If Rumkowski was Polish, then all the inhabitants of the Łódź Ghetto and the victims of Auschwitz were Polish too. We probably don’t want to draw such conclusions. However, logic is not the basic criterion here. We are dealing with a propaganda war.
What should we write?
If we want our history to be understood from many perspectives and not just from the point of view of unfriendly foreign authors, we must write texts with foreign readers in mind—readers who are not yet familiar with our cultural codes. First, the reader must find the book. Second, they must pick it up. Third, they must know enough about why they are reading it to finish it—or almost finish it.
It’s not entirely true that no one will write our history for us. There are enthusiasts who have found a little-known source of fascinating stories in Polish history. One such enthusiast is Roger Moorhouse, author of The Devil’s Pact: Hitler and Stalin’s Alliance, a book about the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and Poland 1939: The First Against Hitler, a book about the September 1939 Campaign. His book The Forgers, which is about the activities of Ładoś’s group in Bern, will be published soon.
However, these are just exceptions. There are many other topics worth presenting, such as the magnificent Golden Age, the partitions, and the struggle to regain independence, preserve identity, and build a modern nation. It was a persistent struggle that was ultimately successful.
In books on German and European history, I usually unsuccessfully look for information on the Polish-Bolshevik War of 1920. We are convinced that we saved Europe from a Bolshevik invasion, yet no one west of the Oder River notices. Alternatively, the war is viewed as an example of Poland’s expansionist policies or as an opportunity for Germany to regain lost territories. As early as the 1920s, they were saved from gulags stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, yet no one there is aware of this. Presenting communism — not only its brutal form, with torture and shots to the back of the head, but also its everyday reality, where successive generations try to wait it out while living in internal exile — is a huge task. This explains why we do not miss communism and have no fondness for concepts such as progress, atheism, and the left. At least that is the case in my generation. Young people have already lost this resistance.
The barrier of mentality
For a potential reader to pick up the book, they must have a reasonably positive attitude toward the subject. As I wrote above, accusing Poland of everything is a pleasant and lucrative occupation for many. Anti-Polish sentiment is the last socially tolerated prejudice against a nation. New topics are added to the old ones, such as autocracy, violations of democracy and the rule of law, Catholic right-wing nationalism, and homophobia. Here, too, the authors value repeating mantras and expressing emotions more than conducting an in-depth analysis. After all, Poland is a special case with a centuries-long struggle for survival based on traditional values: God, Honor, Homeland, family, and the protection of life. These concepts provoke an allergic reaction in Old Europe. Added to this is an occupation unique in its brutality, unlike those experienced by France or Denmark. On top of that, there is the struggle against communism, which the West fortunately never encountered closely nor developed immunity to. The discussion about March 1968 is illustrative. To Westerners, the Polish United Workers’ Party [PZPR] is the Polish government; the Citizens’ Militia [MO] and the Motorized Reserves of the Citizens’ Militia [ZOMO] are the Polish police; and workers holding posters provided by the party organization express Polish public opinion, which is traditionally anti-Semitic and shaped by the Church. They cannot imagine that we worked for $30 a month and stood in long lines for butter. After emigrating, a year of work in the West easily restored our pre-departure financial status. Few people notice that the 1968 emigrants only then realized the inconveniences of communism, while the rest of society had painfully learned about them more than 20 years earlier. This illustrates how isolated they were, much like whites in South Africa with their “whites only” stores and other privileges.
This tradition defines the Polish mentality. It is not us who should cure ourselves of it; rather, it is others who should try to understand it. One might think that the era of uprisings is a closed chapter in history. Yet, today, I am reading about the Wagner Group’s preparations (for what kind of move?) in Belarus. History is unfolding before our eyes, but it is not felt within the continent. Poland’s task is to guard the limes and defend civilization from invasion.
If Western audiences have many prejudices against us, it would be good to break them down. But how? Perhaps by accomplishing something great? Winning the soccer championship or flying to the moon are out of the question for now. Whenever there’s a major forest fire in Greece, Polish firefighters go there. TVP shows it, and the locals see it — and that’s it. Actually, we recently did something great: we provided immediate aid to Ukraine without any cynical bargaining. But before that, we had — and still have — an influx of migrants from Lukashenko’s Belarus, against whose threat Poland has built a wall. For many, accepting masses of (white) refugees from Ukraine only proved our racism. It’s hard to please everyone.
Agreement — crisis and catharsis?
Reaching an agreement with the countries of the old EU is difficult. Their colonial tradition probably plays a role here. They are gradually becoming accustomed to cutting funds for the most trivial reasons. They treat the Polish legal system like a self-service store and the constitution of the “European Iroquois” as if it were worthless. In theory, we should discuss how to solve Europe’s problems and decide on a direction to move forward. However, discussing these issues with Brussels officials as equals is as unlikely as Montezuma advising the Spanish king. They may admit, “You were right for 20 years, but now keep quiet.”
A multilateral crisis in the West could bring about a change in thinking. Ideologically, it has long been in the making. Comparisons with China’s Great Leap Forward come to mind. However, a great famine quickly ensued in China, whereas it will take longer in Europe due to its greater reserves. I don’t know how many Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) can calculate whether the energy system will be able to cope with the shutdown of nuclear power plants and the simultaneous transition to electric vehicles. Those planning to bring European agriculture back to the state it was in during the time of Charlemagne are not naturalists. Immigration has long exceeded safe levels and continues to do so. The magnificent recovery fund will probably end in failure and widespread quarreling. I don’t wish anyone harm, but some people need a wake-up call to change their views. If Poland holds out and does not lose what remains of its common sense, it could transform from a scapegoat into a model for others. However, the road to this goal is long and bumpy. Remember that China has transformed itself from a manufacturer of poorly made underwear into a strategic opponent of America in our lifetime. This required enormous work and persevearance.
Poland has a wonderful history—not only in terms of heroism, but also reason and civic spirit. It has produced remarkable and original art, particularly in painting. During the Second Polish Republic, Poland was a powerhouse in mathematics and philosophy. Now, some say it is the scourge of the European Union, while others say it is a bastion of common sense. This gives us the potential to find people interested in learning what kind of country Poland actually is, how it differs from other countries, and why. At this point, however, you need materials to present. So, work—painstaking work at the grassroots level. Look for allies and new channels for spreading information. Not everyone wants to hear constant scare stories about right-wing populists, especially since the AfD is already in second place in Germany itself and no one knows where it’ll be next year.
It’s important for Europeans to realize that Putin doesn’t have to embody conservatism. One does not have to support either pornographic shows for children or the bombing of Mariupol. There is a normal country that is currently as isolated as Asterix’s Gaulish village. But it has good prospects.
We should note the project “We Tell the World About Poland,” run by journalists from the editorial office of “Wszystko co Najważniejsze” [Everything That Matters]. Its authors are Polish historians, intellectuals, and opinion leaders, including Professors Andrzej Nowak, Wojciech Roszkowski, Marek Kornat, Piotr Gliński, Karol Nawrocki, Mateusz Morawiecki, and Jan Rokita, among others. Their texts are reaching renowned media outlets in over 60 countries, including Le Figaro, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Sunday Express, Il Messaggero, La Repubblica, El Mundo, L’Opinion, and Der Standard. The problem is that for decades, the Polish voice has not been heard. History has been written by others, and in cases of doubt, Poles have been assigned the role of villains. Therefore, as soon as the Polish voice appears, Poles seem to be “rewriting history.” This challenges the established image, which is why it arouses resistance.
Sometimes it seems that all this is beyond our strength. But let us take an example from the great ones who came before us and showed great persistence. Professor Tatarkiewicz, fleeing the burning city of Warsaw after the 1944 uprising, was stopped by a German officer. “What are you carrying there?” “My academic work.” The German officer threw the manuscript into the gutter, saying, “There is no more Polish culture.” Tatarkiewicz dared to pull the manuscript, On Happiness, out of the gutter. Yes, we can do more than we think.
Jan Śliwa
Material protected by copyright. Further distribution only with the publisher’s consent. July 22, 2023
Photo: Maciej Figurski / Forum
History of Poland
The Polish language oryginal can be found here: https://wszystkoconajwazniejsze.pl/jan-sliwa-historia-polski/
