Tucker Carlson in Friday's conversation with Jacob Rees-Mogg felt that Britain should not have defended Poland in 1939, and repeated part of the Nazi justification for aggression. It is simply a historical falsity which blurs the work of Germany for attacking Poland and strikes the memory of its victims.
Carlson questions the point of the British decision
American publicist Tucker Carlson stated in an interview with erstwhile British minister Jacob Rees-Mogg that he did not realize why Britain had even joined planet War II. According to the WP News, the British defence of Poland against Nazi Germany was a mistake and Hitler's argument was partially justified.
In the published passages, Carlson argued that Britain had no connection with the dispute and paid for the war to lose the empire. He besides cited German territorial claims against Poland after the Treaty of Versailles. Sam said he didn't defend Hitler. However, the content of his speech leads precisely to the bleaching of the political pretext, which Nazi propaganda protected prepared aggression.
This is not the first case erstwhile a writer in the name of alleged realism loses the position of the peoples of Central Europe. We've written about how Tucker Carlson missed Poland's business in Russia's assessment. Conservative description does not give anyone the right to fake Polish experience.
Aggression was not an accidental reaction.
The facts are clear. Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939. The attack preceded the conclusion of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact with a secret protocol providing for the division of Central and east Europe between the 3rd Reich and the russian Union. On September 17, the Red Army struck from the east. Poland has become a victim of 2 totalitarianisms.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum describes German attack as unprovoked aggression. The institution recalls that the SS arranged a fake raid on a radio station in Gliwice to make a propaganda pretext for war. It's an crucial detail. Hitler was not forced to attack by Poland. He prepared the war, talked to Stalin, and utilized a lie.
The United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany on September 3, fulfilling their obligations towards the borders of Poland. You can and must be critical of the subsequent passiveness of allies that has passed into past as a unusual war. But what is different is the settlement of ineffective aid, and what is different is the claim that opposition to German aggression itself was a mistake.
Polish business requires historical truth
For Poland, the stakes are specific. If the aggressor can be presented after decades as a page rationally reaching its claims, each safety warrant is of lower value. tiny and medium-sized states are then left alone in front of a stronger neighbour and their borders become the subject of a power market.
National realism is not about surrendering before force. It is simply a sober assessment of the interests, alliances and intentions of the opponent. In 1939 Poland had the right to defend the state, and Britain had reason to argue the power that had previously occupied Austria, crashed Czechoslovakia and prepared further expansion. A later German attack on Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France exposed the illusion that concessions to the attack on Poland would supply peace for Europe.
Carlson has the right to justice the cost of British politics. However, there is no reason to present German claims as a justification for armed assault. For Poles, the limit is clear: the discussion about the errors of the Allies must not turn into rehabilitation of the aggressor's arguments. National memory without fact becomes defenseless.
Source: WP News
Source: WP News
