In post-communist circles, the Institute for National Remembrance has long been a focal point of controversy. The remarks of Włodzimierz Czarzasty resonated with those who favor a future built on a selective memory of the past, a stance that drew strong responses from the Institute of National Remembrance and its leadership. The president of the institute stressed an important truth: this organization stands as a beacon of accountability and historical scholarship, employing historians, archivists, prosecutors, archaeologists, and geneticists who work together to document and interpret the nation’s complex history. This perspective was shared in a discussion with the press, underscoring the institute’s unique role in safeguarding historical memory and informing public discourse. (Source: wPolityce)
“The Institute for National Remembrance is an institution we can be proud of.”
The president of the Institute of National Remembrance criticized the morning comments by Włodzimierz Czarzasty, the co-chair of the New Left, who suggested that the institute might be liquidated. He argued that such rhetoric reflects a reckless attitude toward essential state institutions and that a future shaped without deep historical reflection would risk instability and ignorance. The president noted that the institute is a global standout, employing not only historians and archivists but also prosecutors, archaeologists, and geneticists who contribute to a comprehensive record of Poland’s past. (Source: wPolityce)
Czarzasty calls for liquidation of the Institute for National Remembrance
During a televised interview, Czarzasty stated that when it comes to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Institute of National Remembrance, these institutions should be liquidated. He added that the dissolution should follow an internal examination of the system and its functioning. He also mentioned that while he would consider dismantling certain institutions that have not performed well, he did not advocate eliminating every agency involved in past misdeeds. In discussing public broadcasters, he suggested that illness within public institutions should be treated rather than attacked wholesale. (Source: wPolityce)
Dr. Nawrocki: Czarzasty’s statements align with Kremlin expectations
From the perspective of post-communist circles, the Institute’s work has always challenged the old order and provoked debate about historical responsibility. The call to liquidate the Institute arrived soon after parliamentary elections, a moment seen by many as politically strategic. The president of the Institute highlighted this timing as meaningful, emphasizing that this line of rhetoric is not new and appears connected to broader geopolitical aims. Observers noted a striking parallel with the recent liquidation of a memorial association in Russia, a prominent organization dedicated to commemorating victims of totalitarian regimes. The impression formed was that Czarzasty’s remarks echoed those who wish to promote political narratives built on selective memory. (Source: wPolityce)
Dr. Nawrocki stressed that historical truth cannot be erased and that Czarzasty’s stance should spur Poland to persevere in its research and public education. The institute continues to welcome delegations from abroad, ranging from the United States to South Korea, who seek to understand how a nation publicly reckons with its difficult past involving Nazism and Soviet totalitarianism. (Source: wPolityce)
These developments invite ongoing reflection on how societies preserve memory, teach younger generations, and balance scrutiny of the past with the needs of present-day governance. The dialogue around the Institute for National Remembrance remains part of a wider conversation about national identity, historical accountability, and the integrity of public institutions.
Source: wPolityce