“Encounter, remembrance, understanding” – these were the words most frequently heard during the panel on memory cultures at the Polish-German Forum in Berlin. And yet, in the background, another, more difficult question kept returning: can one speak with a single voice about a history that everyone remembers differently?

After a seven-year hiatus, the Polish-German Forum returned in 2025 under the motto “Community for Difficult Times”. One of the conference panels was devoted to Polish and German memory cultures. Despite the “Treaty on Good Neighbourliness” and many years of joint events and projects, World War II continues to divide both nations. The panel aimed to create a space for discussing how both nations remember the past, how they attempt to commemorate the victims of the war, and how these are often two entirely different perspectives on a painful past. Although during the meeting it was repeatedly stated that the guiding theme was “encounter, remembrance and understanding”, in practice alongside these words, perhaps even more strongly, mutual misunderstanding also resonated.

The panel featured distinguished researchers from Poland and Germany: Prof. Frank Bösch, Prof. Violetta Julkowska, Prof. Eckhardt Fuchs, Prof. Peter Oliver Loew, Prof. Igor Kąkolewski, Prof. Krzysztof Ruchniewicz, Prof. Robert Traba, Dr Marcin Wiatr, Prof. Rafał Wnuk and Prof. Stephanie Zloch. It was precisely their voices, representing different experiences and perspectives, that showed how differently Poles and Germans perceive the past. Professor Traba from the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences noted that German historical memory largely focuses on relations with Israel and France, and that there is a lack of space in it for genuine reconciliation with Poland. In turn, Professor Bösch from the Leibniz Centre for Contemporary History observed that the war in Ukraine is currently diverting the attention of German historians away from Poland and shifting interest in the victims of war further to the East. And Poland, as he emphasised, is not at the centre of German historical research.

On the other hand, as Professor Traba noted, Poles are in their own way “self-absorbed”, convinced of the uniqueness of their own suffering and often unwilling to acknowledge victims other than their own. This dissonance – “who is the victim and who is the perpetrator?” – returned several times during the discussion, revealing how difficult shared commemoration is. One example cited was the dispute over the name of a display panel at the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk. According to Prof. Wnuk, the current director of the Museum of the Second World War, his predecessor, and now president-elect, Karol Nawrocki, opposed recognising German civilians killed in Allied bombing raids as victims of the war. He considered them part of the aggressor nation. As a result, the museum panel received the title “War Losses”, which separates their fate from the narrative of suffering. But then how does one speak of people who died “on the other side”? What place (if any) should they occupy in the narrative of suffering and memory?

These differences in approaches to historical memory translate into disputes over the form of commemoration, as in the case of the planned memorial in Berlin dedicated to the victims of World War II and the German occupation on the territory of the Polish Republic. A temporary memorial in the form of a boulder will be unveiled on 16 June 2025 at the site of the former Kroll Opera House near the Reichstag. In the future, a Polish-German House will operate there, a place whose aim will be to make Germans aware of the scale of Nazi crimes committed in occupied Poland. In the discussion about the memorial, the question of who is a victim once again returned, in the context of the inscription beneath the temporary memorial. Should the inscription on the plaque commemorate exclusively “Polish victims of Nazism”, or rather “citizens of the Second Polish Republic”? Ultimately, as Peter Oliver Loew from the German Institute for Polish Affairs explained, Poles and Germans jointly worked out a formula intended not to divide but to unite. Beneath the memorial, the following inscription will be placed: “To the Polish victims of Nazism and the victims of German occupation and terror in Poland 1939–1945”. The definition of victims was broadened beyond ethnic Poles to include all citizens of the Second Polish Republic – people of different nationalities, languages and religions who at that time shared the fate of this land.

Are Poles and Germans destined for (mis)understanding? The panel showed that although in theory there are also examples of “encounter, shared commemoration and understanding”, their breaking through into the mainstream is very difficult. One example is the history textbook “Europe. Our History” (in German, “Europa – Unsere Geschichte”). This four-volume textbook was meant to be a symbol of Polish-German reconciliation and proof that it is possible to tell history together. However, despite years of work by historians from both countries, the textbook still remains outside the mainstream of education. According to Professor Traba, the joint textbook is “an illusion and a political defeat”, because in Poland the textbook was “pushed” to the margins by decisions of Minister Przemysław Czarnek, and in Germany by “political opportunism”.

A similar sense of contradiction and hope accompanied the entire panel. The room was full, and questions from the audience showed that the topic arouses emotions in both countries. Although, in my opinion, at times there was a lack of genuine discussion, rather than just experts posing questions to experts. The organisers attributed the small number of questions to time constraints, but in my view this reduced the meeting to a lecture rather than the needed debate. This shows that we still have a long way ahead – not only towards understanding history, but also towards creating tools that will make it alive and important for future generations, because when the last witnesses of World War II pass away, it will be up to younger people to nurture memory, but also to maintain reconciliation and solidarity.

Perhaps it is precisely here – in this delicate balance of “encounter, remembrance and (mis)understanding” – that the true meaning of the Forum’s motto lies: “Community for Difficult Times”. Because community is not agreement at any cost, but the courage to stand together, even if each of us remembers differently. It is also a space in which different voices can resonate together – sometimes in harmony, sometimes in resistance, but always in dialogue. And history needs not only monuments, but people.

Author:
Teresa Kulej

The European Union faces a range of challenges that
will define the future of its member states. In the face of Russian aggression,
ensuring security and taking a pragmatic approach
to strengthening cooperation between countries have become particularly important. The dangers
that the Union faces today and how to respond to them effectively
were discussed during the plenary debate of the Polish-German Forum in Berlin.

The closing plenary debate of the
Polish-German Forum was attended by four specialists in
political studies: Sylvie Kauffmann, a journalist from the French daily “Le
Monde”, Ljudmila Melnyk, Programme Director for Ukraine at the Berlin-based Institute for
European Politics, Daniela Schwarzer from the Bertelsmann Foundation, and Monika
Sus, a political scientist working at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of
Sciences and at the Hertie School in Berlin. The discussion was moderated by Christoph von
Marschall, a German journalist representing “Der Tagesspiegel”, and Jacek
Stawiski from TVN24.

During the debate, the panellists
discussed four key topics concerning not only Polish-German relations, but also issues affecting the broader European and
global perspective. Topics addressed included the developing
cooperation between Poland and Germany and the broadly understood cultural
heritage, but the most prominent place in the debate was occupied by discussions on the
European security perspective and community, and the threats posed by
China and Russia. The debate was an attempt to summarise the conclusions drawn from
the discussion panels held as part of the Forum, focusing on
economic, geopolitical and social topics and presenting no less important cultural perspectives.

The recurring topic of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
dominated the discussions, resonating in
almost every part of the debate. At the same time, it served as a starting point for reflections
on the relationship between the European Union and the USA, as well as the values that Europe,
as a community, should defend against Russian propaganda, and the assurance of
security on our continent. The panellists agreed on the central
role of security in the ongoing debates about the future of the European Union.
They also noted the emerging challenges behind strengthening the defence of
the continent. Daniela Schwarzer pointed to a specific obstacle in the pursuit of
this goal, namely the need to confront the progressive
disintegration of the European security architecture. Hitherto effective,
it has proven insufficient in the context of a conflict with Russia, as confirmed by
repeated cyberattacks, spreading disinformation, and attacks on
critical infrastructure. In the face of a transnational threat, the solution
seems to be strengthening societal and democratic resilience, as well as incorporating
into defence thinking the eastern states seeking accession to the European
Union. Above all, however, as Ljudmila Melnyk pointed out,
Ukraine must also be included in the defence concept, and thought must be given to how
and to what extent Ukraine contributes to the development of security in
Europe. Voices of doubt also emerged among the panellists. Can Europe
afford to cover the costs of building a new defence architecture, and is it not
already too late?

In contrast to questions about the financial
and organisational capacities of the European Union, the thesis about
the key role of cooperation between Poland and Germany and its significance in
the context of Russian aggression raised no doubts. Despite the difficulties accompanying the partnership
of two neighbouring states and the concerns about its future that emerged after
the election of the new President of Poland, Polish-German relations are viewed with
optimism. Close relations are being maintained thanks to well-developed
economic ties and strong engagement in expanding
local cooperation. In the face of the war in Ukraine, however, according to
Daniela Schwarzer, it is important to define joint Polish-German actions,
to set shared goals and a direction that both countries will follow in
the long term. Equally important is that Poland continues its role
as a translator, a bridge between Ukraine and Western Europe, and that the Polish-German relationship
positively influences the situation in Ukraine.

During the debate, in addition to Russia,
two other world powers were also mentioned – China and the USA. The discussion
proceeded in an atmosphere full of anxiety and doubt regarding the future of the European
Union in light of the actions of both powers. The question of what
awaits the Union – for instance, in the event of a US withdrawal from NATO – resonated strongly.
The inevitable consequences of such a move would be felt in every member state. A US
withdrawal would entail, among other things, the undermining of security and
the deterioration of internal markets, for which, in the panellists’ view, Europe
is not prepared. The role of the United States would have to be assumed by the state with
the greatest resources and capabilities. The discussion about China, although clearly
marked in the structure of the conversation, took place somewhat on the margins of
reflections on Russian actions. The panellists noted the real threat
posed by Europe’s excessive economic dependence on China.

The debate highlighted numerous problems
currently facing the European Union, and the participants succeeded in
outlining a broad perspective of realistic solutions and possible ways out of
the emerging crises. The key to effective action remains strong,
transnational cooperation, which was powerfully demonstrated during the
Polish-German Forum in Berlin.

The debate took place on 5 June
2025 as part of the Polish-German Forum “Community for Difficult Times”,
organised by the Foundation for Polish-German Cooperation on behalf of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland and the Federal Foreign Office
of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Weronika Kamieńska