“We have no luck with leaders”

The title phrase typically appears in the conversations of Poles, or more specifically those of them who have already realized the folly, incompetence or impeachment of our leaders. And not only present, but besides historical ones. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense, however, due to the fact that the fact that we have the “leaders of a nation” specified as we have is not a question of “luck” but a consequence of our lied past full of toxic myths. And besides cultures – including the artisticly large one, which these toxic myths petrify and poison the minds of subsequent generations.

The most crucial specified story – 1 can say “meta-mit” or the root of all myths – is the communicative of a good, innocent and pristine Polish nation oppressed by evil and vile Russians and Germans. The creation of this story was a intellectual necessity after the fall of the First Republic – it was much easier to explain the fall of the erstwhile powerful state by the vileness and demeanors of neighbours than to look into the face that it fell due to mediocre governance and wasted political opportunities. The latest incarnation of this story is, of course, the question of planet War II, which, depending on the power and the period after that war, is utilized to swing either the Germans Palmirs and Auschwitz or Russia Katyn and the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

Why is this a toxic myth?

Firstly, due to the fact that it completely ignores this fact, that the Second Republic ended up as a consequence – I repeat – of mediocre governance and wasted political chances. The large Leader Joseph Piłsudski was a large illustration of the fact that man rose to the level of his incompetence. Its worst feature was the fatal hand to the staff, resulting in a mediocrity much worse than himself after his departure at the helm of the state. These measures chose the worst possible option by condemning the country to any destruction.

Worse still, no of the papers discovered confirm that Joseph Beck or Edward Rydz-Smigły were conscious agents of Polish enemies, deliberately and consciously striving to destruct it. No, they were so limited and stupid (and besides brought up on a toxic story of “blood donation”) that they could not play a political role, yes! they revealed symptoms of failure of contact with reality in a way that among their contemporary politicians from another countries aroused surprise sometimes mixed with pity.

These fools broke up with Germany and rejected their proposal in the name of “being in decent company”, believing in British guarantees and having illusions about Gdańsk. And, let's add, the German proposal of 1938 was the only serious geopolitical proposal that Poland received then, while Adolf Hitler was the last crucial European politician who treated Poland personally and seriously. alternatively of, for example, organizing a "colour revolution", substituting any agents to overthrow the government, organizing any "non-governmental organizations" as Hitler now addressed the Polish government with a proposal and its rejection took seriously and drew consequences from it. It is truly worth reasoning about the fact that this was the last time Poland was taken seriously and its leaders as serious people.

That as a consequence the Germans crushed the Polish Army and then led a cruel business here? Of course. What was to be expected of them? That the Soviets took the chance to take any territory and take out dangerous elites in Katyn? Right. specified were the Nazis and the Soviets (with the difference that the Nazis treated their allies reasonably and felt even to aid them until they tried to reverse alliances and turn against them like Italians or Hungarians at the end of the war). But what the Soviets were were known in Poland much earlier (as we know Germany before 1939 with atrocities were alternatively restrained). Thus, it was known that we would be dealt with as badly as possible by both of them as we were the first to go to war.

This can be compared to a situation where individual weak at night goes to a shady black territory in fresh York City with a fat wallet loaded in cash sticking out of his back pocket, and then he resents being beaten and ripped off. Of course, these robbers did not behave nicely and nicely that they should not treat their neighbour so badly and so on. But what are we going to call individual who would do that if not a fool? And wouldn't we be knocking on the forehead if he was arrogant to show his wounds proudly saying "see how they beat me"? And that's precisely what we do!

Secondly, what sense does it make to be puffed up by what kind of Russians or Germans are terrible and bad? Is anything affirmative going to happen? Is there a chance that any ruler in the Kremlin would think so “actually, we were angry with these Poles, we invaded them and occupied them, yet this Katyn, it was unethical, we will now give them the East Edges and any gold for costs”? Is there any chance that if he had said that, he wouldn't have been sent to a psychiatrist by his surroundings?

All that whining about how good we were, and the another bad is reasoning about the victim, reasoning about the kid being persecuted at school, who goes to you to punish the bad guys. Without getting out of this thinking, there is no way to make political games in the present.

Neighborhood (and not only powers) exploit weaker players, subjugate them, deprive them of their subjectivity and control, exploit economically and sometimes decision towards the physical elimination of elites. This has been the case in human history, and it is, and it is likely to be. any regimes here are more cruel and others less, but there is no specified thing as the ruler of 1 nation leaning over the another and surrounded him with a tender but respectful care from sympathy or moral command. specified things are absurd, impossible. Meanwhile, the full communicative of the story about the "poor persecuted Polish nation" is begging for specified care.

Of course, it's worth remembering victims, murdered and taken out, and so on. But in politics they should be utilized instrumentally – to pull out erstwhile it is needed and hide erstwhile it interferes with the conclusion of any arrangement. This looks modeled, for example, on the Turkey-Russia line. For centuries, both nations have gathered a truly long list of battles and atrocities. A fewer years ago, the Turks shot down a Russian plane killing Russian airmen. What? And nothing, due to the fact that the arrangement of business is that both parties pay off for this minute of these things not to draw and not to talk besides loud about them. But we can't, we inactive anticipate bullies to hang out and apologize.

When we add to this the story of "blood dish" (if we give ourselves sufficiently picturesquely, spectacularly execution ourselves, God will pity us and give us the large Poland) and the story of "decent company" (how we will be French/European/American and forerunners we will do what they want from us, so that they will praise us and be pleased with us in Paris/Brussels/Washington) then we have a poisonous mix that causes that even if we have politicians of any honest, patriots they are honest in stupidity.

As a result, Poland is doing everything it can to get back on the incorrect side of history. The difference is that this time no 1 asked us any more questions or were not displeased by God’s authorities. If we get out of this and 1 day return to the game as a stand-alone subject, it will be a sign of God's grace, for humanly there is no chance.