In Wrocław, during the renovation of Most Grunwaldzki, the heritage conservator approved the reconstruction of the original bas-reliefs featuring Prussian symbols—including the coat of arms of the Hohenzollern dynasty and the bridge’s historical German name: “Kaiser Brücke”. The decision sparked a heated debate: some residents believe it is a valuable element of local history, while others (particularly those associated with PiS) interpret it as an expression of the city’s “Germanization”.

In the local media, historians are arguing over the role of Emperor Wilhelm II Hohenzollern, and there have even been comparisons with the slogan “Danzig, Breslau und Stettin – sind deutsche Städte…”—that is, “Gdańsk, Wrocław and Szczecin are German cities”.

Bolesławiec: a calm example from a local perspective

In Bolesławiec, despite changing borders and governments—Prussian rule after 1740 (from 1871, it was part of unified Germany, though still within the borders of former Prussian Silesia) and Polish rule since 1945—elements of the German past have survived without shocking anyone. Examples include original plaques, such as the one commemorating the construction of the local viaduct under Frederick William IV, bearing German inscriptions.

A similar situation concerns the decoration of the basilica, where a double-headed eagle—the symbol of the Habsburg dynasty—is visible in the choir, in tribute to Emperor Leopold. It is a reminder of historical religious and political arrangements which, despite Bolesławiec never returning to Austrian rule, do not provoke controversy.

Another example is the monument to Mikhail Kutuzov, a Russian commander from the beginning of the 19th century, standing in the city’s planty park. Despite Kutuzov’s negative role in relation to the Duchy of Warsaw, the monument has been preserved as evidence of the region’s multi-ethnic history—with appropriate informational context.

History treated as a layer of memory, not a symbol of domination

While German inscriptions on a bridge in Wrocław raise concerns about revisionism, in Bolesławiec such elements are part of the everyday landscape. The local community accepts them as evidence of changing territorial and social affiliations, without assigning ideological subtexts.

The debate in Wrocław shows how differently we interpret the heritage of the past—where some residents see a history lesson, others perceive a potential threat to identity. Meanwhile, in smaller Bolesławiec, a different attitude is taking hold—the remnants of a former era provoke neither emotion nor scrutiny, serving mainly as an educational element of the local story.

Both cases demonstrate the complexity of our relationship with the past: places differ, and with them, the boundaries between historical respect and contemporary sensitivity.