At the beginning of this year, a long-standing dispute between the Slavs, coinciding in time with the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Warsaw and Auschwitz, reached a very high degree, comparable only to the pre-war era. But the argument is a dispute, and something must be done in response to the Moscow historical counteroffensive. Indeed, for many years the Polish side set the tone in the debate, and Russia reluctantly fought back. Now that Russia is already setting the tone, Warsaw has developed a response plan.

Polish media report that a crisis team has been created in the office of the President of Poland with the participation of experts and historians who will be able to quickly respond to the statements of Vladimir Putin during the Holocaust Remembrance Forum in Israel. A series of paid publications is also being prepared in the American and Israeli media, which should present the Polish version of the events of the Second World War.

As the first swallow, an article was published by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Moravecki in the American publication Politico, where he reports: “The Soviet Union did not“ liberate ”Warsaw, as the Russian authorities now claim. The Red Army silently watched the agony of Warsaw. " And "although the Red Army subsequently truly liberated Auschwitz, the concentration camp could have been liberated six months earlier." Obviously, not only Warsaw, but also Krakow (60 km from which Auschwitz is located), Soviet troops detachedly watched for six months with binoculars. Then how could they have passed the victorious march from Lviv to the war, as to a parade. But they didn’t want to.

The creation of special structures for operational “detection of lies” (or for the spread of lies) is now in vogue. There is a hybrid war, a holy war. The European Commission has outsourced this matter to some Estonian structure, which, however, is driving wild trash, against which enemy voices of half a century ago amaze with conviction, but it’s a saving. You can pay real pennies, and you can’t take up acute ideological militancy among hot Estonian guys.

But Poland is another matter. They don’t save on ideology there. For example, the National Memorial Institute is funded more than the Internal Security Agency. It is still difficult to imagine that in the USSR KGB branches were financed much more poorly than the offices of the political party enlightenment.

Now, not content with this, they are announcing a Commonwealth destruction, that is, a military mobilization of ideologists, so that they immediately counterattack. There will be an attack by the winged hussars.

But in addition to the harsh rebuff of Russia, the pages of the American and Israeli press (readers in the Holy Land will probably be informed that the Pole and the Jew are brothers forever) are planning more conciliatory methods. Simultaneously with the announcement of the collapse of the Commonwealth in the presidential office, it was announced that Poland was ready to “resume cooperation between Polish and Russian historians and the work of the Group on complex issues. Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Sinkowski said that "this would be a good signal of a desire to speak honestly about the causes of the Second World War and in Warsaw they count on opening archives - this is always in the interests of the truth."

True, another deputy minister, Yablonsky, a few days ago called the publication by Russia of military archives “another attempt to distort history.” There is some contradiction here, for distorting history in the interests of truth is something very intricate.

Perhaps here the distribution of roles is a severe Yablonsky and softly creeping Shinkovsky. A reception with two investigators - evil and kind - has not been canceled.

Perhaps, when in Moscow they began to say in the style of “Pans coo cooler than pigeons - it’s not our fault, say, move, pans!”, This caused considerable confusion in the minds, and the pans began to say who was in the woods, who was for firewood. This also happens often.

However, in any case, why not talk about difficult issues. If such a proposal is not connected with unacceptable preconditions, such a conversation does not interfere with anything and does not harm anything.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.