Moderator:

Professor Arne Ruth

Official Statements:

HE Mr Steffen Reiche, Minister for Education and Youth, Brandenburg 

HE Mr Marek Prawda, ’s Ambassador to 

HE Ms Ingrid Labucka, Minister of Justice,

HE Mr Justas Paleckis, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs,

Panel I:

Professor Janusz Reiter, President, Centre for International Studies, Warsaw

Professor Klaus Ziemer, German Historic Institute, Warsaw

Professor Leon Kieres, President, Institute of National Remembrance, Warsaw

Mr Thomas Lutz, Topography of Terror Foundation, Berlin

Dr Ks Piotr Mazurkiewicz, Warsaw Catholic University

Panel II:

Professor Dr Gesine Schwan, European University Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder

Professor Wlodzimierz Borodziej, Pro-Rector, Warsaw University

Professor Dr Wolfgang Höpken, Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, Braunschweig

Dr Dieter Bingen, Director Deutsches Polen-Institut, Darmstadt

Mr Adam Krzeminski, “Polytika”, Warsaw

Arne Ruth stated that the reconciliation process had been successful. One precondition had been that the issue of the drawing up of boundaries was solved. Like the following speakers,Mr Ruth referred to the significance that private initiative at grass roots level had had for the process. He also mentioned the Polish bishops’ appeal for forgiveness in 1965 and Willy Brandt’s gesture during his visit to Warsaw in 1970. Symbolic acts of this kind should not be underestimated. The work of the Textbook Commission since 1972 had also been of exceptional value.

Steffen Reiche reminded us that the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire had begun on 24 April 1915 and that the 87^th anniversary was to fall the following day. Referring to ’s large debt to , and the responsibility for the mass murder of the Jews, he pointed out that had accepted the truth because a society could not live indefinitely with untruths, and that they had been involved in a successful reconciliation process for 40 years. Reconciliation had been successful, something that must be classed as a miracle. He emphasised the successful work in many areas and referred to the material compensation to all those who had been subjected to forced labour in . He saw this as an expression of the German awareness of guilt and an attempt to remedy this guilt. Referring to the Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future Foundation, Mr Reiche pointed out that the process had not yet been completed and, in conclusion, he thanked for its willingness to reconcile.

Marek Prawda emphasised the complicated post-war relations between and . In , the Second World War was felt to be extremely humiliating and the war brought with it dual adversity: the Nazi occupation and the subsequent Soviet dominance. The Poles developed an ability to glorify the past and in the postwar era relations between and were characterised by two national monologues that were never to meet in a dialogue. It was the church and the young who were first ready to speak the language of reconciliation and open themselves to the other’s sorrow. Common interests and a clear-cut vision for the future were vital ingredients in the reconciliation. These common, purposeful efforts have led to there no longer being any scepticism towards today. Such scepticism would counteract economic and political cooperation and undermine the results of the improved relations between and .

According to Janusz Reiter, the reconciliation between and began among a small number of individuals, gradually coming to embrace two nations. ’s geopolitical position, the Nazi occupation, the redrawing of borders and the dividing of Europe all contributed to making a reconciliation difficult. It was primarily the intellectuals who had close links with the Catholic Church that wanted to pursue a dialogue and their significance for reconciliation cannot be overestimated. A reconciliation with also meant an opportunity to demonstrate independence in relation to Moscow . At the beginning of the 1980s, humanitarian assistance from led to increased solidarity between the peoples. ’s signing of the treaty confirming the borders was one of the enabling conditions for the reunification of . Mr Reiter was of the opinion that all amicable statements did not need to be linked to reconciliation nowadays and that Germans and Poles were more interested in developing close cooperation within areas of common interest instead.

Klaus Ziemer outlined the background to the relations between and that had existed for over 1 000 years, but emphasised that the discussion had been focused to far too great an extent on the period between 1939 and 1945. This had left a deep impression in the Polish consciousness. The fact that had begun to accept its own guilt was a precondition for the reconciliation process. The dialogue among the historians in the Textbook Commission was also crucial. It dealt with the truth about the past and led to successful cooperation. The politicians were only able to create a framework for reconciliation, but personal trust had to be created by the participants themselves. For the time being, the German-Polish dialogue was directed at a common future in the EU and NATO.

Leon Kieres stated that today’s generation had a responsibility for the past. Unpleasant truths from the nation’s history should also be emphasised. The Institute did not shirk the responsibility of pointing out and explaining these facts too. History could never be a supermarket in which you can freely pick and choose the products that suit you. The Institute had often been criticised for holding the view that attention should also be brought to crimes committed against other nationalities. Despite the criticism, since its origin the Institute has applied the same criteria in investigating crimes committed against people of Polish nationality and against people of other nationalities who had Polish citizenship. With this approach, the Institute is currently investigating the events in Jedwabne in 1941, where Poles were suspected of taking part in a massacre of the town’s Jewish inhabitants of Polish citizenship. It takes great courage for a nation to undertake self-examination. The fact that the Polish government founded an Institute of National Remembrance was an expression of such courage.

Thomas Lutz regarded the primary precondition for a reconciliation process as the victims being prepared to conduct a dialogue. He stressed the importance of personal contact for eliminating prejudice and that the victims’ experiences must be seen and heard. The work of non-governmental organisations in particular, organisations such as “Aktion Sühnezeichen” for example, has been highly successful in this context. “The culture of remembrance” which had emerged in both countries during previous decades was also of great significance. In this context, it came to be realised in that Auschwitz was a memorial to both Poles and Jews. Practical issues, not least those of a financial nature, were not to be underestimated and their solution was a precondition for success.

Piotr Mazurkiewicz described the Church’s significance for the reconciliation process. The exchange of letters between Polish bishops and German bishops that was initiated by with the famous words “we forgive and ask for forgiveness” had been a milestone. What was unique was that the Polish Church took an important peace initiative without intervention by the Polish authorities. The purpose of the letter was to establish religious and moral reconciliation. The bishops’ appeal for forgiveness was a mark of courage and recognition that violations had been committed by both sides. Despite the fact that the Poles were cruelly wronged in the wake of the criminal aggression perpetrated by National Socialist Germany, they were also guilty of misdeeds against the Germans, especially millions of refugees and displaced persons. It is in the nature of the mechanism of war that there are no people who are completely innocent. Reconciliation is not only a question of forgetting. To forget is an ordinary human phenomenon, but reconciliation is a religious act. Polish- German post-war history has shown that religion and the Church have the ability to change people’s hearts and, in the right format, to function as an instrument for peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. In the ensuing debate, the Turkish delegate

Pulat Tacer disputed that the persecution of the Armenians had been genocide and claimed that had also come to terms with the past. Mr Reiche expressed the hope that, at some stage, reconciliation between Armenians and Turks would have made as much progress as that between Germans and Poles. Further, possible agreement on anti-Semitism from German and Polish viewpoints respectively was discussed. Mr Ziemer referred, among other things, to a historians’ 

conference in Warsaw at which the threeparty relationship involving Poles, Germans and Jews had been discussed and he indicated that perhaps the matter was not yet ripe for public debate. 

Gesine Schwan pointed out that the word “reconciliation” contained three stages, namely an honest examination of one’s own behaviour, genuine remorse for this behaviour and attempts at redress. Reconciliation could only take place between individuals and not between collectives. She underlined the major significance of upbringing, both within the family and within the school system. We must also be aware that history can be seen in different ways from different starting points. With a common upbringing, she saw an opportunity to prevent stereotyping and prejudice. There must always be a willingness to win back the other person’s confidence.

Wlodzimierz Borodziej described the work of the Textbook Commission. Historiography had served politicians for almost a century between 1870 and 1970. The establishment of the Commission meant that historians no longer produced knowledge to suit those in power. The Commission, comprising researchers from both countries, discussed problem complexes in Polish-German history. The work led to schoolbook texts in both countries being revised and anti-Polish or anti-German references were removed. Professor Borodziej was however concerned that Polish knowledge of ’s history was still greater than the other way round. The confidence created among many researchers thanks to the work in the Textbook Commission was of additional significance.

Wolfgang Höpken also reminded us about the historical developments that had led to the Textbook Commission’s work and stressed that it had first been necessary to create the necessary political conditions for the joint efforts. Thoughts of reconciliation and the task involved had by now become of secondary importance. It was necessary to leave political principles to their fate, and the European context of the two countries’ bilateral relations had instead become increasingly important. Furthermore, it was necessary to deal with the asymmetry of thinking, i.e. that the Poles saw the Germans but the Germans did not see the Poles to the same extent in their textbooks. It was vital to create mental proximity to complement the geographical proximity. A particular focus therefore should be given to regional textbooks and teaching in the German-Polish border areas.

Adam Krzeminski pointed out that the recognition of the Oder-Neisse border took place in three stages. In 1950 the borders were recognised by the German Democratic Republic, in 1970 by the Federal Republic of Germany and finally by the united in 1990. For Mr Krzeminski, the improved neighbourly relations between and were one of the most important ingredients in 20th century European peace efforts. ’s support of during the 1990s in conjunction with NATO and EU negotiations had meant that the anti-German feeling that had previously existed began to fade. Prejudice and dark clouds still remained however. One important element in future relations between and was the Oder Union that was presented by the foreign ministers of the two countries in 1999. The intention was to create a region characterised by economic growth and common interests, but there were still major problems. Developments in the region could be decisive for Polish – German relations in the future.

Dieter Bingen stated that there were no longer any problems with minorities and that forced displacement and ethnic cleansing had been relegated to history. Happily, the Poles had begun work on German cultural heritage in . For the time being, the remaining problems were primarily of a mental and material nature. Conditions for the cooperation framework were positive. The countries had the same democratic systems, common political interests, good trade relations, and increasingly good regional cooperation. The problems that existed were related to the infrastructure, a lack of mutual awareness, and unemployment.

Discussions during the concluding debate included how support could be gained for the regional vision that had been mentioned so many times. Would it be possible to deconstruct the nations and recreate regions instead? Many wanted to forge a link with reality, to extend present cooperation and promote the writing of regional history. Political decisions were considered necessary in order to promote the region. It was pointed out that “the future lies in the neighbourhood”.

Two representatives from and expressed their agreement with the objectives of the seminar and the conference. They stressed that they wished to form good relations with their neighbours, safeguard the rights of minorities – particularly cultural rights – and come to terms with the past. They recognised the existence of problems like xenophobia and anti-Semitism and professed themselves supporters of Europe.

Rapporteurs: Tobias Axerup, Helmut Müssener