In Poland, four memorials to the Red Army, which liberated Poland from fascism, are being demolished at once.

“I didn’t release,” they say.

The press secretary of our president commented: he said, they say, a monstrous lie.

And this, of course, is true.

(True, I still didn’t understand what kind of “Polish functionaries” these were, journalists in TASS could have clarified, but this is not so important - it is clear that the Polish elites think that way.)

So, despite the fact that Peskov is 100% right and nothing but disgust with indignation, both the demolition of monuments and such statements cannot cause, there is another nuance here.

If we assume that those same “Polish functionaries” are not idiots and are immanently, within themselves, sincere, there is a vile and terrible, but internal logic in such statements.

Here's the thing.

Poland is used to pretending to be a victim of the beginning of the Second World War: it seems like such peaceful, kind and good Poles were sitting there, they didn’t touch anyone, but then they were taken and divided again.

And this, of course, is a myth.

Poland was a victim of Nazi Germany, but she herself was not a bunny, which was eaten by an evil wolf.

She herself was exactly the same wolf, only weaker, which the other wolf grunted, only stronger and meaner.

In general, after all, fascism is not when everyone has a beautiful uniform and everyone throws ridges.

According to Dimitrov, this is "an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialist elements of finance capital."

And in Poland there was just such a dictatorship.

It was called there “Rehabilitation mode”.

"Sanation" ("cleansing" from Polish) is a party led by Pilsudski.

A sort of "black colonels", only Polish and long before the Greek ones.

The brutal suppression of any political opposition, the defeat of the labor movement, repression against the communists, the ruthless exploitation of their own population and even more ruthless - the non-titular population in the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (torn away from Russia as a result of the aggressive war of conquest in the early 1920s).

What else?

Wet imperialist dreams of restoring the great Commonwealth from sea to sea.

Including at the expense of Lithuania, the Soviet Union and other neighbors - according to the results of the coming war on the side of Germany.

Close cooperation with German capital and German political leadership.

How did it happen that when Germany attacked Poland in August 1939, Poland fell in two weeks, the government immediately fled to London, the army did not defend itself and the Polish people did not stand up for the fatherland?

This happened simply because the same regime of "Rehabilitation" so got its own people that literally no one wanted to defend it.

And in the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, Soviet troops were already met in 1939 as liberators from Polish oppression.

The situation with both the 1946 referendum and the 1947 elections is extremely dark and confusing, but even according to the studies of ardent anti-communists, it turns out that more than 50% of Poles voted for the Polish Workers' Party and the Polish Socialist Party.

And this is against the backdrop of incessant repressions by the Home Army and despite the fact that both parties were created even before the arrival of the Red Army and were not subordinate to the political leadership of the USSR.

In a word, for the Polish people, for the Polish workers, the entry of the Red Army liberated Poland from fascism.

But for the Polish fascists, for the Polish big business, for the Polish reactionary forces - well, of course, this was not a liberation, but quite the opposite.

And if the current Polish authorities and elites feel that they are the heirs of precisely these forces, then it is quite logical that for them the offensive of the Red Army was not liberation, but vice versa.

Everything is logical, there is nothing to be surprised.

The wolf, when the forester drives him out of the forest, does not think that the forester freed the forest from him, from the wolf.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.