The Spectator w Anglii - o Powstaniu... - Aquanet - Forum dyskusyjne

nasza_maggie cały artykuł Spectatora... 06.08.04, 14:24

It’s time to move on
Britain has no reason to apologise to Poland, says Simon Heffer: we could not
have helped the resistance fighters during the Warsaw uprising The Polish
Prime Minister, Marek Belka, has been busy these last few days commemorating
the 60th anniversary of the Warsaw uprising. As we have all just been reminded,
this was the action taken by organised Polish anti-communist and anti-Nazi
resistance fighters in their capital to drive out the invader and stave off
subsequent Sovietisation. It resulted in their wholesale slaughter and the
razing of Warsaw by the departing Germans. The Poles have long seen the event
as a betrayal of their brave people by the Allies. This theme has bubbled
through to the surface in recent days, assisted not least by Mr Belka.
In an interview with the BBC on Saturday, the Prime Minister said he was
looking forward to an admission by the British that they could have done more
to help the Poles at that time. He saw this admission as being a prelude to an
apology. On two counts, this implicit demand for British contrition is both
uncalled for and unhelpful.

Mr Belka’s particular gripe is that Britain could have sent Free Polish forces
under her protection back to Warsaw to assist in the uprising. Sadly, we
couldn’t. We had no means of getting them there. We had no planes with
sufficient range to get to Warsaw. Any such operation would have required the
transports to land on Russian-occupied territory. The Russians wouldn’t have
it, since they wanted to impose a Soviet state on Poland instead, and did not
want its capital liberated by tiresomely independent-minded Poles. That is why
they sat outside the city until satisfied that the resistance movement had been
smashed by the Germans, and they could go in and occupy the ruins and enslave
their demoralised and beaten inhabitants.

So it might be thought that if Mr Belka wants an apology from anyone, it might
be from the Russians, who behaved cynically and murderously, repeating the
wickedness demonstrated at Katyn earlier in the war when they killed a
substantial proportion of the Polish officer class. Perhaps since so many
current Polish politicians are ex-communists, or reds lite, they might still
have reservations about pinning the full blame on the country that once gave
them political inspiration. Belka might, of course, take issue with Britain for
having allied itself with Stalin, whom it would not upset at that stage. The
choice Churchill faced in August 1944 was to accept Stalin’s self-serving
strategy or to break off that pact at a stage in the war when Hitler was not
yet beaten and start freelance operations on behalf of the Poles. The second of
these options was simply not feasible. Because of the nature of the war the
Poles could be helped only by the Russians, which was no fault of Britain’s.

But the second, wider issue — and why Mr Belka’s complaint is so unhelpful to
him and his cause — is that this call for someone to apologise is simply not
doing Poland any good at this stage in its historical development. Nobody
disputes the immense suffering of that country between 1939 and 1945. It lost
six million of its people, half of them Jews (and the Soviet authorities, after
the war, launched a pogrom against the few who were left). Because of its
geographical position it was at the mercy first of the Germans, then of Stalin.
None of these facts can be disparaged or diminished; but now, 60 years later, a
modern country like Poland has to accept that the dogs have barked and the
caravan has moved on.

The West has no conscience to salve about Poland, whatever Mr Belka says. It
was, after all, Hitler’s invasion on 1 September 1939 that brought the Western
European powers into the war in the first place. In the decade leading up to
Poland’s liberation from the Soviet yoke Britain, in particular, gave moral and
practical support to Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement; that is why Mrs
Thatcher is still regarded there as a heroine. Poland is in Nato. Since 1 May
this year, it has been in the EU. It needs to remain wary of its Russian near-
neighbour, whose increasingly autocratic government actively dislikes the
success and way of life of its former satellites and will pass up no
opportunity to destabilise them. But dwelling on the past is pointless now. Mr
Belka seemed to admit as much in welcoming Gerhard Schröder, the German
Chancellor, to the Uprising commemorations. It is odd that Poland seems able to
bury the hatchet with a neighbour that within living memory all but destroyed
it, but wishes to pick a fight with another country whose sacrifices on its
behalf were considerable, and whose goodwill towards it has been unbroken.

Of course, in acting in this way Poland is behaving like so many other
countries around the globe which see the arrival of good fortune as an excuse
not to come to terms with the past and move on, but to dredge up old enmities,
real or imagined. We have had this up to the back teeth with the Irish, for
some of whom the (misinterpreted) actions of Oliver Cromwell and King Billy
remain painful more than 300 years later. France’s entire pattern of behaviour,
which has by its arrogance disadvantaged so many of its partners in Europe, is
conditioned by the tripartite memory of 1870, 1914 and 1940. In Africa, the
butcher Mugabe hates the white man because he dared, more than 100 years ago,
to civilise his now profoundly uncivilised country. It is only their possession
of nuclear weapons that stop India and Pakistan from going to war over Kashmir,
and the effort to maintain that particular peace prevents both countries making
the economic progress that they should. And, closer to home, only this week the
Spanish were becoming hysterical — rather than behaving like the established
European partner of ours that they supposedly are — because of our provocative
determination to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the annexing of Gibraltar.

If Poles like Mr Belka are determined not merely to stay rooted in 1944, but to
discover new slights to his people in the events of that year, Poland will
never move on. Yes, it was ghastly. Yes, it was unjust. Yes, it was a tragedy.
But it cannot be undone now. What Poland does have is a chance to show — by
both its participation in Nato and its acceptance into the common European
home — that it can become a dynamic force in the world. But so long as it
clings to its victim mentality, and acts like some aggrieved and hard-done-by
trade unionist on the opportunist look out for compensation, it will instead
start to diminish itself among those whose favour and regard it so plainly
seeks.

Simon Heffer is a columnist for the Daily Mail

Drzewko
Od najstarszego
Od najnowszego

Gość: owca Re: The Spectator w Anglii - o Powstaniu... IP: 164.143.240.* 06.08.04, 13:24

w podobnym tonie guardian...
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1277481,00.html
- nasza_maggie cały artykuł Spectatora... 06.08.04, 14:24
  
  It’s time to move on
  Britain has no reason to apologise to Poland, says Simon Heffer: we could not
  have helped the resistance fighters during the Warsaw uprising The Polish
  Prime Minister, Marek Belka, has been busy these last few days commemorating
  the 60th anniversary of the Warsaw uprising. As we have all just been reminded,
  this was the action taken by organised Polish anti-communist and anti-Nazi
  resistance fighters in their capital to drive out the invader and stave off
  subsequent Sovietisation. It resulted in their wholesale slaughter and the
  razing of Warsaw by the departing Germans. The Poles have long seen the event
  as a betrayal of their brave people by the Allies. This theme has bubbled
  through to the surface in recent days, assisted not least by Mr Belka.
  In an interview with the BBC on Saturday, the Prime Minister said he was
  looking forward to an admission by the British that they could have done more
  to help the Poles at that time. He saw this admission as being a prelude to an
  apology. On two counts, this implicit demand for British contrition is both
  uncalled for and unhelpful.
  
  Mr Belka’s particular gripe is that Britain could have sent Free Polish forces
  under her protection back to Warsaw to assist in the uprising. Sadly, we
  couldn’t. We had no means of getting them there. We had no planes with
  sufficient range to get to Warsaw. Any such operation would have required the
  transports to land on Russian-occupied territory. The Russians wouldn’t have
  it, since they wanted to impose a Soviet state on Poland instead, and did not
  want its capital liberated by tiresomely independent-minded Poles. That is why
  they sat outside the city until satisfied that the resistance movement had been
  smashed by the Germans, and they could go in and occupy the ruins and enslave
  their demoralised and beaten inhabitants.
  
  So it might be thought that if Mr Belka wants an apology from anyone, it might
  be from the Russians, who behaved cynically and murderously, repeating the
  wickedness demonstrated at Katyn earlier in the war when they killed a
  substantial proportion of the Polish officer class. Perhaps since so many
  current Polish politicians are ex-communists, or reds lite, they might still
  have reservations about pinning the full blame on the country that once gave
  them political inspiration. Belka might, of course, take issue with Britain for
  having allied itself with Stalin, whom it would not upset at that stage. The
  choice Churchill faced in August 1944 was to accept Stalin’s self-serving
  strategy or to break off that pact at a stage in the war when Hitler was not
  yet beaten and start freelance operations on behalf of the Poles. The second of
  these options was simply not feasible. Because of the nature of the war the
  Poles could be helped only by the Russians, which was no fault of Britain’s.
  
  But the second, wider issue — and why Mr Belka’s complaint is so unhelpful to
  him and his cause — is that this call for someone to apologise is simply not
  doing Poland any good at this stage in its historical development. Nobody
  disputes the immense suffering of that country between 1939 and 1945. It lost
  six million of its people, half of them Jews (and the Soviet authorities, after
  the war, launched a pogrom against the few who were left). Because of its
  geographical position it was at the mercy first of the Germans, then of Stalin.
  None of these facts can be disparaged or diminished; but now, 60 years later, a
  modern country like Poland has to accept that the dogs have barked and the
  caravan has moved on.
  
  The West has no conscience to salve about Poland, whatever Mr Belka says. It
  was, after all, Hitler’s invasion on 1 September 1939 that brought the Western
  European powers into the war in the first place. In the decade leading up to
  Poland’s liberation from the Soviet yoke Britain, in particular, gave moral and
  practical support to Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement; that is why Mrs
  Thatcher is still regarded there as a heroine. Poland is in Nato. Since 1 May
  this year, it has been in the EU. It needs to remain wary of its Russian near-
  neighbour, whose increasingly autocratic government actively dislikes the
  success and way of life of its former satellites and will pass up no
  opportunity to destabilise them. But dwelling on the past is pointless now. Mr
  Belka seemed to admit as much in welcoming Gerhard Schröder, the German
  Chancellor, to the Uprising commemorations. It is odd that Poland seems able to
  bury the hatchet with a neighbour that within living memory all but destroyed
  it, but wishes to pick a fight with another country whose sacrifices on its
  behalf were considerable, and whose goodwill towards it has been unbroken.
  
  Of course, in acting in this way Poland is behaving like so many other
  countries around the globe which see the arrival of good fortune as an excuse
  not to come to terms with the past and move on, but to dredge up old enmities,
  real or imagined. We have had this up to the back teeth with the Irish, for
  some of whom the (misinterpreted) actions of Oliver Cromwell and King Billy
  remain painful more than 300 years later. France’s entire pattern of behaviour,
  which has by its arrogance disadvantaged so many of its partners in Europe, is
  conditioned by the tripartite memory of 1870, 1914 and 1940. In Africa, the
  butcher Mugabe hates the white man because he dared, more than 100 years ago,
  to civilise his now profoundly uncivilised country. It is only their possession
  of nuclear weapons that stop India and Pakistan from going to war over Kashmir,
  and the effort to maintain that particular peace prevents both countries making
  the economic progress that they should. And, closer to home, only this week the
  Spanish were becoming hysterical — rather than behaving like the established
  European partner of ours that they supposedly are — because of our provocative
  determination to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the annexing of Gibraltar.
  
  If Poles like Mr Belka are determined not merely to stay rooted in 1944, but to
  discover new slights to his people in the events of that year, Poland will
  never move on. Yes, it was ghastly. Yes, it was unjust. Yes, it was a tragedy.
  But it cannot be undone now. What Poland does have is a chance to show — by
  both its participation in Nato and its acceptance into the common European
  home — that it can become a dynamic force in the world. But so long as it
  clings to its victim mentality, and acts like some aggrieved and hard-done-by
  trade unionist on the opportunist look out for compensation, it will instead
  start to diminish itself among those whose favour and regard it so plainly
  seeks.
  
  Simon Heffer is a columnist for the Daily Mail

The Spectator w Anglii - o Powstaniu...

Najnowsze z forum Aquanet

Zaloguj się