Professions that carry real risk to life and health, such as soldiers, police officers, and firefighters, are widely honored for the sacrifices they make. In recent years the spectrum of high‑risk roles has broadened to include historians. A modern historian must also be prepared for scrutiny and, at times, hostile reactions from public discourse. A capable researcher of the past should be resilient and capable of enduring pressure, even when faced with misinformation or social ostracism. The core duty remains: to pursue truth with rigor and honesty, and to strive for objectivity—even if pure objectivity is an ideal not fully attainable in practice.
As Professor Wojciech Wrzesiński noted, the same historical question explored from identical sources by different scholars can yield divergent conclusions. Each researcher brings a personal framework of values, feelings, and biases to the work. Despite efforts to remain neutral, the historian’s interpretation inevitably reflects these subjective elements. The true science of history lies in acknowledging this tension while maintaining a professional standard of evidence and reasoning. The idea that objective historical work can exist freely of personal perspective was described as a germ of subjectivity within a robust methodological process.
Thus, a historian, while aiming for objectivity, is justified in grounding conclusions in a personal value system. Recent developments in historical education have included new volumes of a secondary school and technical college textbook series on History and Present (HiT), authored by Prof. Wojciech Roszkowski and covering the period from 1980 to 2015. The preceding volume, focusing on 1945 to 1979, had already faced intense critique. Critics argued about avenues of interpretation, including debates over the portrayal of Germany and the European Union’s policies. The central challenge remains: how should world events, including World War II and postwar Germany, be described in a way that is faithful yet comprehensible to students without appearing biased against any nation or policy framework? The truthful depiction of history must address difficult truths, even when they are controversial.
Roszkowski has been accused of aligning the textbook with particular ideological stances, especially in terms of religion, patriotism, family, and national culture. Yet supporters see his work as a principled defense of traditional values and clear moral perspectives. The author’s insistence on presenting what he regards as honest reflections of the past has drawn considerable debate, with some labeling the narratives as propaganda and others praising them as candid scholarship. The result of the critiques has been a mix of controversy and resilience: the textbook has faced blocks and bans but has also achieved substantial popularity, especially among families seeking a program of patriotic education for their children.
Subsequent critiques of the newly released second volume continued to focus on wording and evaluative judgments. Yet the work retained the strengths of the first installment: thoughtful, well‑written essays that tackle difficult questions without flinching, along with careful layout and strong visual materials. The broader conversation about objectivity returns to its core question: should a scholar’s own values drive the education of youths while still upholding the standards of academic honesty? It is reasonable to argue that young people deserve instruction rooted in moral seriousness, respect for others, and a sense of national culture alongside a commitment to truth and freedom. These elements, ideally, should coexist with openness to dialogue and critical inquiry.
Roszkowski’s approach is presented as a serious effort to engage young readers in meaningful discussion rather than to treat them as novices or to rely on clichés. His work invites thoughtful conversation and invites readers to examine the complexities of history with responsibility and courage. The enduring aim is not to promote a simplistic view of the past but to encourage a mature understanding of how history informs present choices. The result is a scholarly work that, despite controversy, offers a lasting contribution to the education of the next generation.
In sum, the discussion around objectivity in historical study emphasizes the balance between personal conviction and rigorous methodology. A historian’s value system can guide interpretation, but credibility rests on careful sourcing, transparent reasoning, and an openness to critique. The broader lesson is clear: serious historical work deserves thoughtful engagement, not knee‑jerk dismissal. A culture that respects truth, neighborliness, and heritage fosters dialogue that can enrich society rather than divide it. This perspective underpins the enduring value of careful, principled scholarship across generations.