The debate will be in English.

A new House of European History is scheduled to open in Brussels in 2014. The idea is to ‘promote an awareness of European identity’ and ‘to cultivate the memory of European history and European unification’. Perhaps surprisingly then, there has been no agreement between MEPs on just what history to include, which has led the House to start history with an EU ‘year zero’ of 1946. This certainly avoids some controversial issues: such as, for example, early planning documents that suggest Polish resistance in World War II was ‘snuffed out’ in 1939. But is it valid to ‘edit’ history in the service of political aims, even seemingly benign ones like European unity? In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the all-powerful Party declares ominously that, ‘Who controls the past controls the future’. Is the House of European History open to charges of distorting the past in the service of a desired future of European cultural and economic unity in diversity? After all, much European history is about conflict and discord. Are we at risk of forgetting that history, and ignoring any lessons we might draw from it?

In many European countries, history has become the focus of controversy. In Warsaw since 1989, some 80 streets and squares have been renamed to remove the names of Communist heroes like Róża Luksemburg and Konstantin Rokossovsky in favour of the likes of Pope John Paul II. In the UK, debates rage about the content of school history curricula: should children be taught key facts and figures, kings and queens? Or should history reveal ‘untold’ stories and ‘history from below’? When it comes to national history, many are critical of triumphalist or one-sided accounts, arguing we must we learn about the past in all its often shameful detail in order to avoid repeating our mistakes. The investigation by Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance into the Jedwabne pogrom accepted Polish participation in the murders, leading to a national apology but outrage among Jedwabne’s citizens. In fact, some see this apologetic approach as just as problematic as jingoistic history, only plundering the past for morality tales rather than heroic deeds.

Can we ever agree about the past? Can European history help us transcend national boundaries and rivalries and bring us together, or does it threaten to reopen old conflicts? Should we concentrate on the past at all, or look to a brighter future? Does history matter to us today?