Latest news with #MuseumoftheSecondWorldWar
The Journal
03-06-2025
- Business
- The Journal
Who is Karol Nawrocki, the Trump-inspired Polish president-elect?
NATIONALIST OPPOSITION CANDIDATE Karol Nawrocki narrowly secured a victory in Poland's presidential election. The 42-year-old nationalist was congratulated by US President Donald Trump following his win. 'TRUMP ALLY WINS IN POLAND, SHOCKING ALL IN EUROPE,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'Congratulations Poland, you picked a WINNER!' Nawrocki and his supporting party Law and Justice (PiS) have vowed to strengthen ties with Trump and the US. Nawrocki, a conservative politician, defeated the centrist Mayor of Warsaw Rafal Trzaskowski with a vote of 51% to his opponent's 49%. Trzaskowski ran with the support of the country's Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The Eurosceptic president-elect is likely to use his position to hinder the implementation of Tusk's liberal policies. Nawrocki is an outspoken critic of Tusk's agenda on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. Who is Karol Nawrocki? Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo Nawrocki is a historian with a PhD in the area of anticommunist opposition in Poland. He is an independent politician but is supported by PiS. PiS were in government for eight years – until the election 18 months ago that saw the party replaced by Tusk's centrist Civic Platform coalition. Advertisement Nawrocki is the head of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN). The IPN is an organisation tasked with investigating and prosecuting Nazi and communist crimes between 1917 and 1980. During the presidential campaign, Nawrocki's critics questioned his role at the IPN as he had unique access to state secrets. He also served as the director of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk from 2017 until 2021. Nawrocki supports the close relationship between the Catholic Church and state, and the criminalisation of abortion. He is opposed to the legalisation of same-sex marriage and Poland's adopting of the Euro as its currency. Identified as a right-wing populist and a vehement opposer of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Nawrocki will succeed incumbent Andrzej Duda, also from PiS. PiS leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski said that Sunday's election result was a 'red card' for the government. Nawrocki is a former boxer and has authored and co-authored numerous books. In 2018, an unknown author Tadeusz Batyr published a book documenting the life of a gangster from 1980s communist Poland. Appearing on TV to promote the book, wearing a hat with his face blurred, the author claimed he was 'really inspired' by historian Karol Nawrocki. It emerged during the presidential campaign that 'Tadeusz Batyr' was a pseudonym for Nawrocki, and he was praising himself. Facing ridicule, Nawrocki said that literary pseudonyms 'are nothing new' and that he was the only historian in Poland 'who had the courage to study organised crime'. Today, Tusk said a parliamentary confidence vote to demonstrate support for his pro-EU camp after its election loss will be held on 11 June. 'The vote of confidence in the government will take place on Wednesday, June 11,' Tusk told reporters before a cabinet meeting. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Factbox-Poland election: what you need to know
By Marta Maciag, Canan Sevgili and Julia Kotowska (Reuters) - Poland will hold the first round of a presidential election on May 18, setting the scene for a vote that will be crucial for the pro-European government's hopes of implementing its reformist agenda. The election pits liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, a senior member of the ruling Civic Platform party (PO), against historian Karol Nawrocki, who runs Poland's Institute of National Remembrance, and far-right Slawomir Mentzen. Here is a guide to the election, including candidate profiles and key issues: WHAT'S AT STAKE? Prime Minister Donald Tusk's coalition came to power in 2023, vowing to undo the previous Law and Justice (PiS) government's judicial reforms that critics said eroded the rule of law. However, its efforts have been hampered by former nationalist PiS government ally President Andrzej Duda, who has the power to veto legislation. HOW DOES THE ELECTION WORK? Voters will select the president for a five-year term through a two-round system. If no candidate scores more than 50% in the first round, a run-off will be held between the top two contenders on June 1. Presidents can serve a maximum of two terms. Duda's second term ends on August 6. Polls open at 7 a.m. (0500 GMT) and close at 9 p.m. on May 18. Around 29 million people are eligible to vote. Exit polls will be published shortly after voting ends. Partial results will trickle in throughout the evening on Sunday and on Monday. WHO ARE CANDIDATES? Rafal Trzaskowski The frontrunner, 53-year-old Trzaskowski has served as the mayor of Warsaw since 2018. He was narrowly defeated by Duda in the 2020 presidential vote. Trzaskowski's main proposals include increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP, liberalising abortion laws and developing Poland's arms and technology industry, as well as ensuring Poland has a strong position in the European Union. Karol Nawrocki A conservative historian, 42, Nawrocki is backed by the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, which lost power to Tusk in 2023. Between 2017-21, he ran the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, in northern Poland. He wants to see lower taxes, a withdrawal from the European Union's Migration Pact and Green Deal, and is critical of giving more rights to LGBT couples. Like Trzaskowski, he wants to allocate 5% of GDP to defence. He is currently polling in second place. Slawomir Mentzen Far-right candidate Slawomir Mentzen, 38, runs a tax advisory firm and is a vocal critic of government regulation. His key proposals include significant tax cuts, withdrawing from the European Green Deal and opposing more gay rights. He believes Poland should avoid taking on excessive military or financial responsibilities in the Ukraine-Russia war. He wants to prioritise Poland's sovereignty by ensuring its constitution overrides EU laws. He is currently polling in third place. Szymon Holownia The speaker of Poland's lower house of parliament, 48-year-old Holownia previously worked as a journalist and television presenter. He founded the political movement Polska 2050, a centrist grouping that is now part of the governing coalition. Holownia's key proposals include promoting regional development, improving public transport and increasing access to affordable housing. He wants to reduce bureaucracy, support Polish businesses, and develop Poland's domestic arms production capabilities. The left Three leftist candidates are also in the race, with 43-year-old Magdalena Biejat, Deputy Senate Speaker, having the highest support. She is one of the most vocal proponents of women's and minority rights, and wants to allow access to abortion after a near-total ban on the procedure was introduced under PiS. Biejat's proposals focus on reducing poverty, increasing public sector wages and making housing more affordable. Her programme is similar to that of 45-year-old Adrian Zandberg, head of the Razem (Together) party. The last leftist candidate is 76-year-old Joanna Senyszyn, an academic, lawmaker and former member of the Polish United Workers' Party which ran the country until the fall of Communism. Other candidates Also running in a 13-candidate field is the far-right's Grzegorz Braun, who in 2023 used a fire extinguisher to put out Hanukkah candles in the country's parliament, an incident that caused international outrage. Another candidate is 42-year-old Krzysztof Stanowski, a journalists and YouTuber, who has no political programme and says he wants to show people the campaign behind the scenes and raise money for charities.
Reuters
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Poland election: what you need to know
May 13 (Reuters) - Poland will hold the first round of a presidential election on May 18, setting the scene for a vote that will be crucial for the pro-European government's hopes of implementing its reformist agenda. The election pits liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, a senior member of the ruling Civic Platform party (PO), against historian Karol Nawrocki, who runs Poland's Institute of National Remembrance, and far-right Slawomir Mentzen. Here is a guide to the election, including candidate profiles and key issues: Prime Minister Donald Tusk's coalition came to power in 2023, vowing to undo the previous Law and Justice (PiS) government's judicial reforms that critics said eroded the rule of law. However, its efforts have been hampered by former nationalist PiS government ally President Andrzej Duda, who has the power to veto legislation. Voters will select the president for a five-year term through a two-round system. If no candidate scores more than 50% in the first round, a run-off will be held between the top two contenders on June 1. Presidents can serve a maximum of two terms. Duda's second term ends on August 6. Polls open at 7 a.m. (0500 GMT) and close at 9 p.m. on May 18. Around 29 million people are eligible to vote. Exit polls will be published shortly after voting ends. Partial results will trickle in throughout the evening on Sunday and on Monday. Rafal Trzaskowski The frontrunner, 53-year-old Trzaskowski has served as the mayor of Warsaw since 2018. He was narrowly defeated by Duda in the 2020 presidential vote. Trzaskowski's main proposals include increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP, liberalising abortion laws and developing Poland's arms and technology industry, as well as ensuring Poland has a strong position in the European Union. Karol Nawrocki A conservative historian, 42, Nawrocki is backed by the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, which lost power to Tusk in 2023. Between 2017-21, he ran the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, in northern Poland. He wants to see lower taxes, a withdrawal from the European Union's Migration Pact and Green Deal, and is critical of giving more rights to LGBT couples. Like Trzaskowski, he wants to allocate 5% of GDP to defence. He is currently polling in second place. Slawomir Mentzen Far-right candidate Slawomir Mentzen, 38, runs a tax advisory firm and is a vocal critic of government regulation. His key proposals include significant tax cuts, withdrawing from the European Green Deal and opposing more gay rights. He believes Poland should avoid taking on excessive military or financial responsibilities in the Ukraine-Russia war. He wants to prioritise Poland's sovereignty by ensuring its constitution overrides EU laws. He is currently polling in third place. Szymon Holownia The speaker of Poland's lower house of parliament, 48-year-old Holownia previously worked as a journalist and television presenter. He founded the political movement Polska 2050, a centrist grouping that is now part of the governing coalition. Holownia's key proposals include promoting regional development, improving public transport and increasing access to affordable housing. He wants to reduce bureaucracy, support Polish businesses, and develop Poland's domestic arms production capabilities. The left Three leftist candidates are also in the race, with 43-year-old Magdalena Biejat, Deputy Senate Speaker, having the highest support. She is one of the most vocal proponents of women's and minority rights, and wants to allow access to abortion after a near-total ban on the procedure was introduced under PiS. Biejat's proposals focus on reducing poverty, increasing public sector wages and making housing more affordable. Her programme is similar to that of 45-year-old Adrian Zandberg, head of the Razem (Together) party. The last leftist candidate is 76-year-old Joanna Senyszyn, an academic, lawmaker and former member of the Polish United Workers' Party which ran the country until the fall of Communism. Other candidates Also running in a 13-candidate field is the far-right's Grzegorz Braun, opens new tab, who in 2023 used a fire extinguisher to put out Hanukkah candles in the country's parliament, an incident that caused international outrage. Another candidate is 42-year-old Krzysztof Stanowski, a journalists and YouTuber, who has no political programme and says he wants to show people the campaign behind the scenes and raise money for charities.
The Advertiser
08-05-2025
- The Advertiser
Keys to Europe's unsung cities: skip the crowds in these amazing destinations
Paris has the Champs-Elysees, New York has Fifth Avenue. Gdansk has the Long Mile, a simply spectacular collection of ornate centuries-old buildings such as the Artus Court and the grand Neptune Fountain. The splendour of the Long Mile is a reminder that this Polish port city was once one of the richest in Europe, and you will find yourself walking along it over and over again, in between visiting other sights such as the glorious town hall, the charming Mariacka Street, the Museum of the Second World War and the world's largest brick church.
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What's Driving Trump's Attack on Museums
When Paweł Machcewicz read President Donald Trump's recent executive order calling for 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' to be removed from exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution, his first reaction was 'a very strong feeling of déjà vu.' Machcewicz, a historian at the Polish Academy of Sciences, had seen this playbook before. He helped design and operate the Museum of the Second World War in Poland, where as its director he sought to shed light on civilian suffering in wartime and document the heavy losses suffered by both Poles and their allies during World War II. As construction of the museum got underway, however, the government changed. The right-wing Law and Justice Party took a majority in Parliament, and as part of its nationalist rhetoric, its leaders objected to Machcewicz's approach to history as unpatriotic. For the next eight years, until Law and Justice was voted out in 2023, his museum in Gdańsk became a central battlefield in a highly charged struggle over the politics of memory in Poland — with Machcewicz ultimately being removed from his post shortly after the museum opened to the public in 2017. Machcewicz sees something similar beginning in the United States now. He believes Trump's executive order signals an ominous intention to control the country's historical narrative that mirrors some of the rhetoric used against museums in Poland. With Poland's right-wing government now out of power, Machcewicz shared his thoughts on what leaders at the Smithsonian could learn from the struggle to control Poland's historical narrative — and why museums have become a top target for populist parties. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You helped design the Polish Museum of the Second World War starting when it was first announced in 2008, and ran it until you were ousted by the country's right-wing government in 2017. Tell me what happened. It was the biggest historical museum in Poland under construction at the time. We wanted to show the experience not only of the Polish nation in the war, but also of other nations. And we focused not on the military accomplishments of Polish soldiers, but on the perspective of civilians, mostly the suffering of civilians. The concept of the museum was attacked from the very beginning by the Law and Justice Party, who at the time was in opposition. They accused the concept of being not patriotic enough, not Polish enough, too pacifistic, too European and multinational. What are the different methods that Law and Justice used to go after you? First of all, there were administrative obstacles: Cutting our budget, sending various audit crews who attempted to find some proof of financial irregularities or legal irregularities. And of course, we were attacked by the public TV controlled by the government, smeared by right-wing media close to the government. I was accused of not being patriotic enough, of serving foreign interests. So, all possible methods. But the most important attempt was to formally liquidate the museum by merging it with another museum — a fake museum created only on paper — before it was even open to the public, which I managed to suspend thanks to the courts. Then the very strange part began: I tried to complete the construction, production and installation of the exhibition in the building against my own government. Long story short, I managed to open the museum to the public in 2017 — but just two weeks after the opening, the government managed to push through this concept of merging two museums and our museum was liquidated. Usually a slide towards the authoritarian regime doesn't happen overnight, unless it's a military coup. It's going step by step, piecemeal and it's possible to slow down this process if the courts are still independent or semi-independent. That's why the courts are such an important battlefield — and why every authoritarian regime or party attempts to influence courts to be able to impose various political and administrative decisions. President Trump released an executive order in late March calling for the removal of 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' from public museums. What did you think when you heard about that? When I was reading this executive order, I had a very strong feeling of déjà vu. For eight years, I lived under a government that used the same language, the same rhetoric. You could even joke that perhaps an adviser from Law and Justice helped to write this executive order, because the resemblance was so striking. Law and Justice accused people like me of creating something they called a 'history of shame,' or the pedagogics of shame: Denigrating Polish history, focusing on Polish antisemitism, on various dark sides of Polish history. And you see the same accusations in this executive order. Another striking resemblance is that museums are so important. This executive order mentions mostly museums and institutions who promote this attitude toward history which should be correct. This is not by accident, because, as we all know, fewer and fewer people read books written by historians, but hundreds of thousands or even millions of people visit historical museums or museums that somehow deal with the past. That's why I'm not surprised that museums are on the front lines. You say that Law and Justice accused you of promoting a 'history of shame.' What's your response to that? Is shame the emotion you were trying to evoke in museum-goers? It was an entirely baseless accusation. The exhibit presented the whole variety of the attitudes of Poles during the war. Mostly heroism and sufferings inflicted by the German and Soviet occupiers. It included antisemitism and the pogrom of Jews in Jedwabne committed by Poles in 1941, but these topics by no means dominated the message of the museum. Certainly, I was trying to evoke neither shame nor pride, but mostly critical reflection on the past. What did your reaction, and the public's reaction, to your removal look like? Is there anything American scholars and museum directors can learn from that? My strategy was quite risky in a way, but eventually it was quite efficient because I managed to open the museum to the public. And I managed to do it because I appealed to the courts and the courts gave me this additional year to conclude the process [of opening the museum]. The second strategy, which I employed in a very conscious and consistent way, was appealing to public opinion. I gave hundreds of interviews to the Polish media and international media, and I think it created pressure upon the government: At least they were not able to strangle us in silence. People came to the building of the museum and demonstrated in front of the building with banners: 'Freedom of History,' 'Freedom of Museums,' and so on. Sooner or later I knew I would be removed from my position, but I wanted to make it as difficult for the government as possible. It was also a unique situation, because I knew my goal was simply to open the museum to the public. I didn't really care what happened to me after that, because it was my life mission. I should also say that I was at the time a professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences, I had tenure, so in a way, my situation was secure. I was sure I would not be unemployed, I could go back to my academic position, which I did. So I don't want to criticize anyone who chooses a more cautious strategy. Why is it that governments like Law and Justice, like the Trump administration, want to exert control over museums? Museums are becoming more and more popular: Every year, the attendance in museums is growing. They're also more vulnerable than universities, at least more vulnerable than private universities. Usually museums are funded publicly, that's why they're more dependent on the government or on the local authorities than universities. And in the case of universities, there are usually safeguards, academic freedoms are very well-established — although the Trump administration is trying to do away with that, too. Also, it's a more visible field. The government can more easily — and in a shorter period of time — impose its ideas. It's possible to prepare a new exhibition in a year, an exhibition that could reflect the views of the Trump administration on some vital aspects of history, and it's easy for them to point to it and say, 'This is what we achieved.' In completely different ways, both Poland and the United States have complicated relationships with their own history: Poland with antisemitism during World War II, and the U.S. with our history of slavery. How did you navigate the complications of Polish history when you were putting together the exhibits in the museum? We used to look at our history exclusively in terms of heroism and martyrdom. And to a great extent it was justified, because Polish history in the last century was very difficult. The Second World War was a time of unprecedented suffering from the German and Soviet occupiers, and of a great resistance movement, and so on. But more or less 25 years ago, a new current emerged. It started with the publication of a book by Jan Gross, Neighbors, about the massacre of Jews committed by their Polish neighbors near Jedwabne, a small town in northern Poland, in July 1941. Jedwabne was not unique: There were many other pogroms like it. And after some years, after new research from historians, it turned out that under the German occupation, Poles killed many Jews and denounced them to the Germans. So it was a great shock for public opinion. From the beginning, the Law and Justice Party exploited the reaction of conservative segments of Polish society who didn't want to accept this new knowledge about our history. Law and Justice created a narrative that this is all either lies or some marginal instances promoted by leftists and liberals who are not Polish enough, who wanted to denigrate their own nation. It's very similar to what the Trump people say now, who think the discussion about slavery and racism is one-sided and its aim is to denigrate or smear American history. Why do parties like Law and Justice want to control the national historical narrative? Law and Justice, like many other nationalistic populist movements, is very keen on using identity politics. Its key element is history, which is weaponized in order to mobilize the conservative constituency of this party, foment fears about alleged attempts to smear the historical reputation of the Polish nation and to ostracize political opponents who are presented as 'not Polish enough,' serving the interests of eternal enemies of Poland like Germany and Russia. This politics of history has been intensely and to a considerable extent successfully exploited to gain and consolidate political power. And how do you think we might want to be thinking about some of those questions as we have these discussions about American history? Our histories, American history and Polish history, are completely different — but in a way, some developments in terms of research and memorialization in the last 20 years produced similar effects. I would call it the rejection of these new revelations that question these one-sided visions of history and of the nation. It's always a question of balance. I'm absolutely against the Law and Justice Party's one-sided politics of history that focuses only on the so-called glorious parts of Polish history. But I'm also against the hyper-leftist approach that says we should reject all previous approaches to Polish history and nothing counts except for Polish antisemitism and we should do nothing else but reckon with Polish antisemitism and wrongdoings. What could or should that balance look like in the United States? There are some red lines that never should be crossed in a democratic country: the autonomy of research and also the autonomy of museums. What was so dangerous in the politics of history of Law and Justice was this direct interference by the government into museums. And also the criticism of the politicians: Leading politicians, including the leaders of the Law and Justice Party and also our prime minister, were attacking historians, accusing some historians by name, saying they're not real Poles. I was treated in the same way, but the attacks were also directed at the historians who did this new research on the attitudes of Poles toward Jews during the war. And that's why this language from [Trump's] executive order is so dangerous, so aggressive vis-a-vis museums. At least the names of people aren't mentioned, but some institutions [like the Smithsonian] are. I don't think it's the job of any government to interfere so deeply in the realm of research, academia and museums, and this executive order for me crosses the red line, or at least suggests that the government is ready to cross the red line and jeopardize the freedom of museums. How did the museum in Gdańsk change after you were ousted? Immediately after I was removed from the museum, I publicly declared that I would defend the integrity of the exhibition in all possible legal ways, and that if the government and the new director tried to change the exhibition, I would sue them on the grounds of copyright. It was effective in a way, because the government and the new director hesitated for more or less six months before they started changing the exhibition. And this copyright trial lasted for a few years and slowed them down and reduced the scope of the changes they introduced. So hundreds of thousands of people were still able to see the exhibition in its original shape, even after I had been fired. They removed some elements of the exhibition that were for them too international, not Polish enough, and they introduced some new elements reflecting this politics of history of the Law and Justice Party. For example, they changed the statistics of losses suffered by various nations in the war, and presented them in such a manipulative way that it gave visitors the impression the Polish losses were the greatest. They also introduced some new elements about the martyrdom of Polish Catholic priests, because it was also their obsession in a way they were trying to re-Catholicize the exhibition. And one of the most important changes: They introduced a new section about Poles saving Jews. Of course, in the original shape of the exhibition, Poles saving Jews were presented — but alongside Poles who denounced Jews or who killed Jews, and there was a section about Jedwabne. And now they introduced a new section that suggested that the prevalent attitude of Poles was helping and saving Jews. What happened with the copyright case? The court finally issued a ruling that was sort of a compromise: They decided the most striking change — a video that was presented at the end of exhibition — should be removed. It showed footage of original archival films and photographs about conflicts, about violence after the Second World War until nowadays. They said it was too international, too pacifistic and anti-war, and they replaced it with a cartoon animation only about Polish history, about Polish soldiers and Polish heroes. And the court decided that it was such a clear violation of the central message of the exhibition, that it should be removed. But the court evaded and said the other changes were minor and not visible to an average visitor. So it was sort of a middle way. But this copyright trial lasted for a few years, and it ended in the last year of the Law and Justice Party's rule. After Poland's 2023 parliamentary elections, the Law and Justice Party was ousted and former Prime Minister Donald Tusk returned to lead the new government. What's happened with the museum since then? After the new government [under Tusk] took over in December 2023, very soon the director nominated by the Law and Justice Party was removed and I got an offer to go back to my position as director. I did not accept it, because it would have been difficult to come back after so many years. But I'm now the chairman of the board of the museum. One of the historians who co-created this museum with me was nominated to the position of director. We removed all the changes introduced by Law and Justice, and we reintroduced the original shape of the exhibition. The Law and Justice Party mobilized their supporters and organized a demonstration in front of the museum. So it's still a very emotional and political issue. But I have now the great satisfaction of saying that all these political changes that were introduced into the exhibition, which are emblematic of Law and Justice, don't exist anymore. What advice would you give to people concerned about the Trump administration's actions? The experience of eight years under Law and Justice shows it's possible to take over museums and hire new directors, but it's still a long way off from imposing one narrative about history in a democratic society. As long as there are independent universities and independent media, the government can't control the whole narrative. In Poland, this politics of history was one of the priorities of the Law and Justice government. They created new institutions that employed historians with research following the lines imposed by the government — but still they weren't able to control the universities. In the case of museums it was easier: They controlled most of the museums. But they lost power after eight years, and it turns out that we still live in a free country with a variety of approaches to history. Eight years was not enough in Poland, and I don't think four years will be enough in the U.S. Many people in the U.S. probably have the feeling that this offensive by the Trump administration is overwhelming, that you can't stop it — it's so aggressive, the language is so aggressive. But there are always some ways of slowing it down, of gaining time. And with determination from people who want to defend democracy and the autonomy of museums, there are always ways to do something.
