State celebrations, anniversaries of important historical events and their observance are one of the main channels of communication between ruling elite and society that shape the state symbolic space. In addition to establish­ ing memorial sites, erecting monuments, founding institutions focused on remembrance, they are the most important way to create a narrative of the state’s past. In Poland - regardless of time and political system - special attention was paid to creating a calendar of holidays and anniversaries, and the manner they were celebrated. These festivities were and are still considered to be fundamental tools used in Polish politics of history, both at state­wide and local level. Their importance in the regions can - depending on how the local elites exercise their powers - vary from much larger in relation to the central state level to entirely negligible. The aim of this study is to present mechanisms and tools used by local authorities in building an appropriate historical narrative using just those tools.

This paper focuses on preserving, translating and analyzing pieces of information on the 2015–2018 Ukrainian- Polish Forum of Historians, allowing for knowledge of this event to be spread beyond Ukraine and Poland. Through this article the author wishes to show that to the governments of Central and Eastern Europe, such as Ukraine and the Republic of Poland, history became a consideration in state policy, due to massive shifts of views on how to approach history between the era of totalitarian Soviet domination and the development of current democratic governments. Although it is something that would be considered outside of state purview in the West, possibly even called “undemocratic”, the government’s interest in how history is told to the population must be viewed in the context of both information warfare, and in how the countries of Central and Eastern Europe approach international relations. Because of this, the Ukrainian-Polish Forum of Historians, organized by Polish and Ukrainian Institutes of National Remembrance (differential in their approaches to what can be considered “shared history”) is of interest as an example of how joint discussions of history, attempts to find a common position, or a compromise, were considered relevant and needed for policy makers in Poland and Ukraine. Analyzing the prerequisites of the events, the topics discussed at the Forum (largely concerning mid-20th century history of Poland and Ukraine), and its results we conclude that, although the differences on how Ukrainian and Polish governments viewed their countries’ history eventually led to the Forum stopping, the initiative led to new actions from independent actors trying to support the idea of shared forgiveness and modern Polish-Ukrainian unity despite different views on various historical events. That shows that politics of memory affect Ukrainian and Polish policymaking, allowing an alternative perspective on the theory of international relations, one that considers not simply realist expectations, but emotional attachments to a country’s past and wishes to see that past respected, or at least not actively opposed, by other nations.

Polish Politics Of History In The Assessment Of The Contemporary National Movement

The aim of this article is to analyse the political thought of the contemporary National Movement in terms of politics of history. The main research hypothesis assumes that the National Movement promotes its own vision of politics of history. The properly shaped politics of history is primarily intended to shape national identity and facilitate the definition of boundaries of the national community. The actions taken by other political entities operating in Poland were assessed from this perspective. They were often accused of conducting anti-national activities. Liberals were criticised for ignoring history and accepting its critical form, while conservatives were accused of lacking organisational capacity and being submissive to competing models of the politics of history shaped by other nations. Hence the offensive character and the justification for using the language of disfavour or even hostility and hatred. The national interest, remaining the main category of political thought, often became an argument that made polemic or discussion impossible. Attempts to pass over uncomfortable historical events or to shift meanings were not avoided either. The differentiation of national groups facilitated discussion within the milieu, but it practically did not play an independent role within Polish political thought, reinforcing the message associated with the conservative model of politics of history and, in the political sphere, often supporting the activities of Law and Justice. Recognising the usefulness of politics of history, however, it was emphasised that it is not a shortterm political event-type activity but a long-term political work.