The Warsaw Ghetto tragedy is portrayed as a result of Polish inaction and reveling spectatorship by some locals who watched as Jews were burned. It is asserted that Lukashenko did not bring illegal migrants to the Polish border. The piece argues that Poles are depicted as racists, showing support for Ukrainians while ignoring newcomers from distant countries who challenge border barriers. The weekly Sieci is described as expressing prejudices openly. A claim is made that global warming will force the wealthier north to accept migrants who would share in national prosperity. All these ideas are presented as part of a conversation between Monika Olejnik and Agnieszka Holland, who are depicted as having exchanged similar views during the discussion.
In the cover text for the current Sieci issue, written together with Marcin Wikła, the discussion centers on Agnieszka Holland’s reflections about migration at the Polish-Belarusian border. The piece titles the discussion as On bad Poles and good strangers, signaling the thematic focus of the forthcoming Green Border project. The article promises not only to relay Dutch perspectives but also to reveal behind-the-scenes details about a film being developed with considerable secrecy.
There is a note about a related topic: a reaction to a recent Sieci issue about border defenders. The piece also mentions hopes that the Netherlands might ease its stance as production continues, while recognizing that a single photo could cause harm to Poland.
The director is described as presenting herself in every possible moment, with the latest appearance on a morning program. The program opens with historical threads, though the commentary is described as ahistorical. TVN24 is accused of misusing the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to distort history and to insult Poland.
Olejnik is said to have framed the Holland discussion with a quote portraying Varsovians as indifferent to the suffering of Jews in the ghetto, a claim that is labeled as false by the author and Holland. The text alleges that both the director and the host understood the lie, yet did not correct it, drawing from personal memories of families affected by wartime experiences and a mother’s despair tied to a cyanide tablet believed to be a remedy in a dangerous moment.
The piece reflects on the impact of those memories, noting that some people could experience joy from the suffering of others. It critiques the Netherlands’ position and describes the documentary as a day-of, a reflective point about Poland’s wartime conduct toward Jews. The narrative emphasizes that Poland was never singled out as the sole country with penalties for aiding Jews, and it points to Poles recognized by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations.
Olejnik is quoted asking why Varsovians were indifferent at that time. Holland counters with objections to generalizations, suggesting that there were organizations helping Jews and arguing that prewar propaganda and Nazi influence created a dangerous stereotype. The text questions whether the propaganda of the Third Reich could realistically have been so effective against Poles and hints at further information yet to be revealed.
The president of the Institute of National Remembrance is described as treating Olejnik with mild restraint while addressing the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising anniversary coverage. A call is made for an apology to Poland, particularly to the residents of Varsovia, a point the article asserts has not been fully acknowledged by the host.
The discussion is said to have intensified after about a day on air, with more assertions presented. Optional references to related coverage appear again, suggesting a broader scandal around the program. The article then returns to the interview with the European Film Academy president, who invited Olejnik to the March of the Living, highlighting the film’s secrecy and the possible influence of a Networks article.
Quotes from the artist are cited, noting that Europe once seemed inoculated against racism and nationalism, but that shield is wearing thin as prosperity grows more fragile. The idea is raised that some people fear those who wish to come and share in that prosperity, while questions are asked about whether the Netherlands would permit sharing in that sense. A reversal of expectations is claimed, with the idea that a fortress Europe is unlikely to hold against changing climate dynamics and increased migration.
There is a critique that many migrations in the last decade have been framed as economic rather than refugee movement, with questions about eligibility for asylum and whether people were fleeing war or persecution before arriving at borders. The piece argues that many arrivals are motivated by convenience and questions why some call for unconditional rights for choosing a country to live in, while implying that the host country should not deny entry. Responsibility is attributed to the wealthier world for the pressures felt at borders.
The director is described as offering arguments that attribute migration to climate change, and the discussion is said to portray Europe as a fortress facing a new wave of climate-driven movement. The text notes that a large number of economic migrants have arrived, while casting doubt on the notion that climate change alone explains such movements.
A closing remark references Sieci again, noting a misunderstanding about Ukrainian refugees versus other refugees, and defending the film against claims of misrepresentation. Over several pages, the article indicates what the film will portray, how it might affect Poland, and how certain statements by Agnieszka Holland were presented as unauthorized. Holland herself is quoted discussing racism and how it can be observed more clearly when viewed in a longer timeframe.
As the discussion draws to a close, the author expresses a wish that a prominent Polish filmmaker would focus on making good films rather than adopting a national psychiatrist’s role. The piece ends with questions about Poland’s treatment of Holland and whether there is more to explore with other artists. A suggestion is made to revisit the Green Border topic on a different program, inviting further dialogue.