During World War II, a frank debate emerged about how Poles are portrayed in the popular memory of the period. Deputy foreign minister Paweł Jabłoński insisted that the majority of Poles were not passive actors. His comment came in response to Gazeta Wyborcza columnist Dominika Wielowieyska, who argued that PiS has framed Poland as a nation of heroes who saved Jews, while insinuating that most Poles stood by passively. The exchange followed questions raised by Piotr Zaremba in his article, which sparked the discussion.
It is worth remembering that on the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Deputy Prime Minister Piotr Gliński delivered a report on Polish losses in World War II to the German President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. The gesture drew criticism from Gazeta Wyborcza. Zaremba acknowledged that while he viewed the gesture as perhaps exaggerated, he wouldn’t call it profane.
To those Polish elites who lament what they call insensitivity and passivity among Poles during the ghetto uprising, many who faced terror felt fear was a rational response. The question to pose at the end is simple: would the average person have taken greater risks under mass terror? Consider the weight of fear over breakfast or during a quiet afternoon break, and reflect on the human limits people faced.
— noted Piotr Zaremba.
READ ALSO:
— Deputy Prime Minister Gliński submitted a report on Polish war losses to the German President, with hopes of fostering dialogue. — Behind the scenes of Gliński’s meeting with the German president and his cautious diplomatic stance on reparations. — An article in Gazeta Wyborcza about the ghetto uprising being called a desecration, and a counterpoint stressing that Germans must be reminded until it resonates.
“Wyborcza” journalist on PiS
Dominika Wielowieyska argued, in a public post, that many Poles were passive and that Jews received help from only a small number of people. She intertwined political fault lines with historical narrative, a move that did not sit well with supporters of Law and Justice, who saw it as a political maneuver.
The core claim is that PiS casts Poland as a nation of heroes who aided Jews. Critics say this is not an accurate reflection. Some Poles did oppose or harm Jews, extortion occurred, and a small but significant number helped Jews under extreme danger. Most were constrained by terror, fear, and the brutal realities of occupation. It is important to avoid myth-making about the past.
Wielowieyska maintained that the portrayal should be nuanced, not romanticized, and that a handful of acts of aid should be recognized alongside the broader, often grim, context of the era.
— Wielowieyska’s view was clear: a critical examination of history is essential, and simplifications do not serve the truth.
Falsification of history
Paweł Jabłoński, Deputy Foreign Minister, challenged Wielowieyska’s arguments, arguing that Poles were not simply passive figures and accusing the journalist of distorting history. He emphasized that a large portion of Poles faced German and Soviet crimes, with millions affected through murder, torture, imprisonment, and forced labor. He warned against a discourse that erases these facts, labeling it a falsification of history and a stain on collective memory.
According to this view, the narrative that completely exonerates or demonizes an entire population ignores the complexity of lived experiences during the war and should be rejected in favor of a nuanced, evidence-based account.
— underlines Deputy Minister Jabłoński in defense of a more precise historical record.
Online discussion
Other voices on social networks weighed in, underscoring that Polish help to Jews was substantial. The debate centered on correcting a perceived misrepresentation that Poles participated in the Holocaust on a mass scale, while acknowledging the dangers and the moral choices made by many during a dangerous period.
Critics argued against portraying Poland as a nation that willingly collaborated in extermination, while recognizing episodes of anti-Semitism and instances of rescue. The broader point was that fear and coercion shaped decisions, and overlooking the real risks faced by ordinary people misses the human dimension of the era.
The discussion continued with arguments that the dominant memory should reflect both the bravery shown by rescuers and the complexities of those who lived through occupation. The aim is to present a balanced historical narrative that avoids oversimplification or demonization.
In this light, questions about national memory and historical accountability remain vital. The conversation emphasizes that a truthful, nuanced history serves modern readers in North America and beyond, helping to inform discussions about liberty, responsibility, and the shadows of totalitarianism.
WK/TT