Paweł Machcewicz: Spory o historię 2000–2011. Kraków: Znak, 2012. 268 S. ISBN: 978-83-240-1887-1

Paweł Machcewicz: Spory o historię 2000–2011. Kraków: Znak, 2012. 268 S. ISBN: 978-83-240-1887-1.

Paweł Machcewicz describes his newest book as an attempt to present the increase of the political importance of history and the deepening ideological divisions in present-day Poland. Machcewicz, in dealing with the most disputable issues of the politics of memory, tries to answer questions about the causes of the increasing social interest in Polish contemporary historiography and the results of the usage of narrations about the Past as a substantiation of political decisions.

The very author guarantees reliability and cognitive value of the book. Machcewicz used to be a respected researcher, characterized by a broad output, experience and analytical brilliancy; he also used to be one of the founders of contemporary Polish politics of memory and participated in the formation of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN). His book seems to be interesting also because in Poland his opinions were criticized by both the Post-Communist Left and the Nationalist Right. Despite of criticism Machcewicz still is one of the most influential and inspiring Polish historians and his academic output proves methodological and analytical proficiency.

However, while his previous works were just historical studies, “Spory o historię” (eng. “Disputes about the History”) are rather appertains to political or social sciences. It considers ongoing social processes and phenomena which are quite different from those which Machcewicz used to analyze earlier. Moreover, the book cannot be recognized as fully academic; even though the author includes chapters containing the results of research projects the book is more of a commentary, sometimes a quite personal one, to the debate about Polish politics of memory. Machcewicz takes a specific side in an ideological dispute, so the most adequate description of the book is the one made by the publisher, who calls the book “a testimony of the most important discussions and disputes about the History”.

The book is not a research work and does not include a deepened analysis of social processes. The title may be seen as somewhat delusive. On the whole, the book is not a record of Polish debates but a personal testimony of a witness of the processes. The personal character of the work accounts for its cognitive value – in spite of the lack of deepened analysis; and though Machcewicz does not answer all questions he introduces into one of the most influential visions of Polish politics of memory. It is the vision which currently dominates in the domestic public discourse and which is supported by the author, now acting as director of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk. “Spory o historię” is a high-ranking source to understand the mainstream of Polish politics of memory and absorbingly corresponds with the prior book by Antoni Dudek, another prominent Polish historian. (A. Dudek Instytut. Osobista historia IPN [The Institute. A Personal history of the IPN]. Warszawa 2011.)

The most interesting part of the book is the expanded introduction, in which Machcewicz tries to answer the question about the causes of the deep differences in assessing contemporary Polish history. But he does not include here witty analyzes or deepened considerations, which he used to include in his previous works. Machcewicz’s schema of social divisions is unusually simplified, closer to journalistic then academic writing. The author is too personal and too committed to a specific vision to be able give a comprehensive explanation. Moreover, Machcewicz seems to underestimate some aspects of narrating the Past, e.g. its influence as a motivation to act. Also, it is surprising how excessively Machcewicz differentiates between the political and the social. This is noticeable when he overestimates the debate about Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War, initiated by Jan T. Gross’s “Neighbors”. (J. T. Gross Neighbors. The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001 [in Polish published in 2000].)

Machcewicz’s book is divided into five thematic parts and includes thirty-two chapters which are revised texts of articles published between 2000 and 2011 in the most influential Polish newspapers and magazines. The disadvantage thereof is lack of information about the original publication. Although Machcewicz in his introduction partly describes the context of each one of them it would be much more useful for the reader to know the specific connotations of each chapter. This would be the easiest way to understand Polish debates about the Past, which – as book’s title suggests – is the main goal of the work.

The first part of the book includes twelve chapters considering issues related to dealing with the communist past and its remembrance. Considering Machcewicz’s academic output and research interests, this part seems to be quite interesting; the author often refers to his own research and to his experience as a leading historian of the IPN. The next part supplements the previous one, but it only considers questions about the assessment of the leader of the Solidarity Trade Union Lech Wałęsa. In three chapters Machcewicz objects the very selective approach by Sławomir Cenckiewicz and Piotr Gontarczyk criticizing their opinions as presented in their book about Wałęsa’s relations with the Polish communist security service (S. Cenckiewicz / P. Gontarczyk: SB a Lech Wałęsa. Przyczynek do biografii [SB and Lech Wałęsa. A Contribution to a biography]. Gdańsk: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, 2008.)

The third part is especially interesting for readers who want to understand the basic tenets of the Polish mainstream vision of politics of memory. From among five chapters, the opening one – “I Westerplatte, i Jedwabne” – is the most important. The author is arguing there against the conservative historian Andrzej Nowak, as well as he explains his own perspective on the relation between the Past and politics. The fourth chapter may be recognized as Machcewicz’s contribution to the debate about Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War. He also tries to argue with Gross’s opinions, which is interesting considering Machcewicz’s role in Polish investigations of the crime in Jedwabne. The author’s standpoint seems to be well balanced and supported by reliable sources; Machcewicz is subtly stating his opinions and aware of controversies around the issue in the Polish public discourse.

In the last part Machcewicz considers the issue of reconciliation in East and Central Europe. He criticizes the usage of martyrdom narrations as an instrument of political competition and argues against both the Polish conservatives’ vision of politics of memory and the propositions of the German “Bund der Vertriebenen”. The author’s middle-of-the-road standpoints about remembrance of the Second World War are a splendid punchline of the book, which seems to be just a middle-of-the-road voice in the Polish debate on politics of memory, a voice which states that sore experiences should unite, not divide.

In summing up „Spory o historię“ is valuable and interesting book. However, Machcewicz’s work is a personal commentary, not an academic study; his considerations are useful to understand dilemmas of Polish politics of memory. Even if he does not avoid simplifications and finally does not answer his main question, Machcewicz with his book enables us to understand the mainstream vision of Polish politics of memory and the political context of its foundation.

Patryk Wawrzyński, Toruń