On television in Poland, Professor Andrzej Przyłębski, former Ambassador of the Republic of Poland in Berlin, expressed surprise at a mistake that seemed to contradict the general knowledge about German crimes in Poland. He noted that even among Poland’s elite, such an oversight suggested a surprising gap in understanding of historical facts that should have been clear and widely acknowledged.
In a video spot commemorating Holocaust victims, the European Commission initially described one of the victims as being murdered in a “Polish camp” – “Camp Auschwitz, Poland.” After substantial protests, the EU body corrected the wording to refer to the German Nazi death camp. The controversy, however, did not fade away completely.
READ MORE: Pressure prompts correction. The European Commission updated the text to state clearly: “Auschwitz, the German Nazi extermination camp.”
Some commentators argued that replacing Auschwitz with a non-specific name would have reduced confusion. They suggested that the phrase should instead indicate that the location was in occupied Poland, not to imply that the camp itself was situated in Poland. Such a clarification would have avoided the misinterpretation altogether.
That view was echoed by Jacek Karnowski in an interview on Telewizja wPolsce, who described the incident as a regrettable mistake and reflected on the broader tendency within historic policy in Germany to downplay national guilt for the Second World War and to diffuse responsibility onto a limited group of individuals. He cautioned that it would be risky to assume that prominent figures, including Mrs. von der Leyen, could be immune to such shifts in narrative. Yet, he left room for the possibility that such shifts might occur.
The discussion continued with the observation that Germany has sought to recalibrate the memory of the war by presenting denazification as a definitive end to wrongdoing, while asserting that a stable, democratic order reigned in the country afterward. Critics argued that this depiction did not align with the factual record, pointing to the persistence of problematic legal and diplomatic continuities from the Nazi era. There were claims that some judges and lawyers who served during the Third Reich remained influential, and that elements of an aristocratic heritage persisted within the diplomatic corps after the war. Such arguments were presented as part of a broader critique of German postwar policy.
In this context, the conversation turned to the person of Klaus Bachmann, described as a German-born publicist whose recent online publication on the website Gazeta Wyborcza caused strong reactions. The piece was viewed as encouraging actions by Polish authorities that critics perceived as illegal or excessive, prompting further debate about the limits of academic and public discourse in Poland and Germany alike.
Challenging Bachmann, the Polish professor emphasized that his approach reflected a broader sentiment that neither represents Polish institutions nor reflects the standards of Polish scholarship. The conversation also touched on Bachmann’s past, noting a time when he was a relatively modest journalist with friendly views toward Poland, a memory that some saw as offering a different context for his current stance.
Another strand of the discussion focused on the reaction within German diplomatic circles. Some observers believed that German officials had not adequately addressed the controversy, and that the involvement of various embassies in European politics suggested uncomfortable implications about how states perceive their role in guiding public opinion. The sentiment expressed was that diplomatic propriety should preclude interference in the internal politics of another country and that such involvement could undermine established norms of international diplomacy.
In summary, the debate highlighted the deep sensitivities surrounding historical memory, national guilt, and the responsibility of public figures and journalists in presenting accurate historical narratives. The participants stressed the importance of precise terminology when referring to historic sites and events, especially in cross-border contexts where misinterpretation can fuel tension between nations. The ongoing discussion remains a reminder of how history is interpreted and repurposed in contemporary political discourse, and of the need for careful, evidence-based communication when addressing such charged topics.
“What Bachmann is doing is a huge shame for Germany.”
The controversy intensified after Klaus Bachmann published a provocative commentary on the portal run by a major Polish newspaper, urging authorities in Poland to expand the scope of their actions in ways that critics deemed inappropriate or unlawful. The remarks sparked a broader debate about freedom of expression and the responsibilities of public intellectuals in a polarized political landscape.
The public commentator characterized Bachmann’s stance as a serious discredit not only to Germany but also to Polish higher education, specifically the university where he is associated. In response, Przyłębski reiterated his view that Bachmann’s approach undermined constructive dialogue between Poland and Germany and cast a shadow over the reputation of Polish academia in international perception.
The dialogue between the Polish envoy and others involved underscored the need for measured and responsible discourse, especially when discussing delicate topics that touch on national memory, identity, and ethics. The sense of astonishment at the lack of broader German commentary on the subject was acknowledged, alongside a candid admission that diplomatic sensitivities sometimes hinder frank engagement in public debates. The exchange illustrated the intricate balance between free speech and accountability in a climate where historical interpretation can influence contemporary policy and public sentiment.
READ ALSO: Scandal! Bachmann in “GW” encourages Tusk’s coalition toward greater lawlessness. “It’s definitely a disappointment. But it is effective.”
WATCH LIVE TV IN POLAND:
Olnk