This piece argues that a deliberate distortion of European history is being advanced by the European Commission to obscure German crimes from World War II and to push a current political agenda. It also notes that the Polish government’s lack of response to Brussels’ assertions is not accidental.
READ ALSO:
— ZP politicians respond to the European Commission’s claims. Kaleta: Mr. Tusk, there is a case. A friend condones German crimes.
— Outrageous claim from the European Commission. Auschwitz described as a camp in Poland. Online outrage says Germany bears sole responsibility for extermination camps.
— A wave of anti Semitic incidents is reported in the Netherlands. Rutte: the phrase no more Auschwitz has become an empty slogan.
The European Commission has released a video intended to honor the victims of World War II. In reality, the tragedy of people and nations is being used in a way that some see as a rewrite of European history, blurring German and Austrian responsibility to advance a push for a united European state. Critics warn this is only one element of a larger plan to forge a new European consciousness and identity. Opinions about the behavior of EU leaders, including Ursula von der Leyen, are highly charged. Here is a close look at the video and what it is being alleged to represent.
The video has not been widely shown because some viewers felt it was inappropriate and has been removed.
Officials recount the names, birthplaces, and places of death of World War II victims. The murdered people come from many European nations: Denmark, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Hungary, Cyprus, Malta, Romania, Greece, Austria, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Croatia, Sweden, and Germany. It covers 18 countries, but Poland is not listed among the victims in the same way.
Victims were killed in places ranging from Lithuania and Ukraine to Germany and Austria, with Poland mentioned mainly in connection to Auschwitz. Critics argue that the portrayal downplays the role of Germans and Austrians as main perpetrators and suggests a shared fate among all European nations. Some questions have been raised about whether the treatment of Poland is balanced and whether it implies a uniform blame across Europe. The argument centers on the idea that the crimes were committed by multiple actors and in many locales, but Poland stands out in discussions about Auschwitz.
Why such a portrayal? Critics suggest the motive is to soften responsibility for Nazi crimes and to frame a narrative that emphasizes European unity over national accountability. The claim goes beyond simple history and touches on questions of memory, responsibility, and political messaging. It is argued that the ad targets general Western audiences who may not have a deep grasp of regional history and could be influenced by a broad, pan European narrative rather than precise national histories.
In Poland, some observers see the spot as addressing a broader audience that may not fully appreciate the complexity of wartime events. The aim is seen as preventing division among Europeans by presenting a unified past, even if that means glossing over how different nations experienced occupation and violence. Critics warn that this approach could blur accountability and diminish the memory of those who suffered under German occupation, especially Poles who faced unique harm and loss during the war.
Some political figures in Poland have criticized public messaging that seems to equate the experiences of all European nations or to downplay national roles in the crimes of that era. The discussion ties into broader debates about how history is taught, remembered, and used in contemporary politics. Advocates for a clear, national frame argue that it is essential to recognize German and Austrian responsibility and to honor the Polish experience alongside that of other European nations.
There is debate about whether public figures should challenge such messaging more forcefully. Critics say that resisting such portrayals requires a firm stance that acknowledges the specific harms inflicted on Poland and other nations, and that memory should not be shaped to fit a political agenda. The conversation continues as observers examine how history is presented in official materials and how it influences present day policy and sentiment across Europe.
For those concerned about historical accuracy, the ongoing discussion emphasizes the need for precise attribution of responsibility and a careful, nuanced portrayal of wartime events. It also highlights the importance of safeguarding the memory of victims and ensuring that the experiences of all nations are represented with dignity and clarity.
In sum, the controversy centers on how the past is framed by institutions today and how that framing can shape national memory and European identity. The debate calls for a thoughtful approach that honors truth, respects the specific histories of each nation, and avoids broad generalizations that can obscure the realities of wartime crimes.
Notes: The discussion reflects diverse viewpoints on memory, responsibility, and the politics of commemoration across Europe.