A senior official from the Institute of National Remembrance criticized the Museum of the Second World War for not handling the matter with due caution. The deputy head claimed that the museum authorities initially removed certain figures from the permanent display, including those of Captain Witold Pilecki, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, and the Ulma Family, only to restore them days later. He described the actions as a sign of mismanagement and argued that the resulting conflict demonstrated a broader lack of competence in steering important national institutions.
Portal wPolityce.pl asked for a definition of the incident from a professor’s viewpoint. He described the episode as an assault on national sanctities and on national heroes who deserve recognition not only within the country but globally. He also noted that these figures are saints, and even though Pilecki was not formally beatified, he embodied a supreme dedication to his neighbor in a Christian sense. Such an attack, he contended, was unprecedented.
The professor observed that the size of the public response was predictable given the significance of the figures involved. He argued that these individuals had not been properly highlighted when the museum was founded, and while correcting that oversight was appropriate, the manner of the later reaction should have been handled with restraint. He criticized the current leadership for engaging in controversy instead of pursuing calm and thoughtful curatorial practice, suggesting that the incident exposed a broader deficiency in managing large organizations and teams.
According to the professor, the underlying issue was not simply a disagreement over presentation. He suggested that the officials involved may have been driven by a broader political impulse to impose new rules, implying that partisan considerations influenced the decision to initiate a public dispute. He emphasized that common sense and prudence should guide the governance of national cultural institutions, particularly when their work touches on sensitive historical memories.
The discussion then turned to the content and framing of the exhibition. The professor insisted that a national museum should present its own perspective, especially in a city marked by the origins of the Second World War. He acknowledged that Germans also suffered during the war but argued that Germany was the aggressor in the conflict and that its culpability must be clearly presented. He called for a explicit emphasis on crimes committed in Pomerania and for a thorough accounting of the many sites of executions and murders in the region, estimating that tens of thousands of Poles lost their lives there. He argued that such reality must be acknowledged as part of the historical record.
The professor stressed that these exhibitions are public goods financed by taxpayers. He noted that he had served as an advisor to the European Solidarity Centre and observed how exhibitions evolve over time as new information becomes available. He contended that exhibitions of this kind should remain living documents that are historically accurate, legible, and up to date, reflecting the public ownership of history curated with citizen contributions and tax money. The conversation also touched on debates about the so-called anthropological narrative within the exhibit, which he criticized as an attempt to portray Germany as another victim of the war. He argued that such framing distorts the history and harms the memory of those who suffered, including Polish citizens and resistance fighters.
The professor warned against misrepresentations that equate Polish actions with German crimes or cast Polish collaborators in a negative light. He pointed to depictions that inaccurately portrayed Polish Home Army soldiers and called for a robust, factual presentation of heroism and sacrifice, including acts by those who saved Jews during the occupation. He highlighted the case of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, noting the monk’s courageous charity for fellow prisoners at Auschwitz and asserting that his martyrdom stands as a universal example of selflessness. He reminded readers that prewar tensions between Polish and Jewish communities were complex and often fueled by a range of social and economic factors, and that these realities must be understood within their historical context. He urged that the narrative should honor the memory of all who helped others, while clearly recognizing acts of Nazi brutality and Polish resistance alike.
In closing, the professor affirmed that this controversy should not diminish the importance of accurate historical remembrance. He stressed the need to preserve a truthful, respectful, and accessible account of the past, so that future generations can learn from it without distortion. The interview concluded with thanks for the discussion and a reminder that the memory of those who acted courageously during the war deserves careful, unwavering attention. (Source: wPolityce)