Angry in the Great White North

From the Wikipedia:

The Polish nation began to form into a recognisable unitary territorial entity around the middle of the 10th century under the Piast dynasty. In the 12th century Poland fragmented into several smaller states, which were later ravaged by the Mongol armies of the Golden Horde in 1241. Under the Jagiellon dynasty, Poland forged an alliance with its neighbor Lithuania. A golden age occurred in the 16th century during its union (Lublin Union) with Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The citizens of Poland took pride in their ancient freedoms and parliamentary system, though the Szlachta monopolised most of the benefits. Since that time Poles have regarded freedom as their most important value. Poles often call themselves the nation of the free people.

The Enlightenment in Poland fostered a growing national movement to repair the state, resulting in the first written constitution in Europe, in 1791 (May Constitution of Poland). The process of reforms ceased with the partitions of Poland between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772, 1793 and 1795 which ultimately dissolved the country. Poles resented their shrinking freedoms and several times rebelled against their oppressors.

Polish history, when it was not occupied of course, is not an unbroken string of democratic idealism. Between the wars, Józef Pilsudski ran a dictatorship, though even that was considered by most historians to have been a benevolent one, and certainly one concerned with both Poland's and Europe's welfare:

Three years later, in May 1926, he returned to power in a military coup d'etat (the May Coup), aided by socialist railwaymen who sidetracked government troop transports. He initiated Sanacja government (1926-1939) — conducted at times by authoritarian means — directed at restoring moral "health" to public life. Although till his death in 1935 he played a preponderant role in Poland's government, his formal offices — apart from two stints as prime minister in 1926-28 and 1930 — were for the most part limited to those of minister of defense and inspector-general of the armed forces. The adoption of a new Polish constitution in April 1935, tailored by Pilsudski's supporters to his specifications — providing for a strong presidency — came too late for Pilsudski to seek that office; but the April Constitution would serve Poland to the outbreak of World War II and would carry its Government in Exile through to the end of the war and beyond.

In defending Europe against those who would threaten freedom, Poland has not been well served by her allies:

Pilsudski, as de Gaulle was later to do in France, sought to maintain his country's independence on the international scene. When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in January 1933, Pilsudski sounded out Poland's ally, France, regarding the possibility of joint military action against Germany, which had been openly rearming in violation of the Versailles Treaty. When France declined, Pilsudski was compelled to sign a nonaggression pact with Germany in January 1934. (He had already done so with the Soviet Union in 1932.) He was acutely aware of the shakiness of the nonaggression pacts, remarking sarcastically: "The question remains, which of the stools will we fall off first." Ably assisted by his protege, Minister of Foreign Affairs Jozef Beck, he sought support for Poland in alliances with western powers--France and Britain--and with friendly, if less powerful, neighbors: Romania and Hungary.

Hitler repeatedly suggested a German-Polish alliance against the Soviets, but Pilsudski ignored the proposal. He sought time for Poland to prepare to fight when the necessity arose.

We all know Poland did not get that time. Imagine how history would have played out if the French had actually stood by Poland and they had taken out Hitler's Germany while it was still weak.

A lesson here about French dependability, and about preemptive war against dictators.

So where does that leave us today? Poland is free, a member of the EU and of NATO, and quite concerned with what is going on in neighbouring Belarus, Europe's last dictatorship. Poland is not going to sit back and wait to be attacked, even if no one helps this time.

A bitter row between Poland and Belarus over human rights, alleged espionage and democracy escalated yesterday when Belarussian police special forces stormed and seized a Polish community building near the country's border with Poland. The Polish government responded by withdrawing its ambassador from Minsk.

The dispute between the two countries pits the authoritarian regime of Belarus's president, Alexander Lukashenko - dubbed Europe's last dictator - against Nato and EU member Poland, which is crusading for greater democracy in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Mr Lukashenko - fearful of the pro-democracy tumult that unseated regimes in Ukraine and Georgia - claims Warsaw is spearheading a western plot to destabilise Belarus and foment a revolution to forestall his re-election next year.

The Polish president, Alexander Kwasniewski, dismisses the claims as absurd, and is calling for EU support to isolate Mr Lukashenko and aid the struggling opposition.

Kwasniewski's comments are amusing. He dismisses Lukashenko's claims that Poland is destabilizing Belarus, then calls for isolation of Lukashenko's regime and aid for the Belarus opposition, which would have a destabilizing effect.

But as Pilsudski learned in 1933, depending on "Old Europe" is likely to disappoint:

Describing the situation as "a severe crisis", the Polish foreign minister, Adam Rotfeld, yesterday attacked the Lukashenko regime and criticised EU policy towards it.

"Human rights abuses and repressions in Belarus ... are a problem that should find wider international interest," he told a press conference in Warsaw.

The disappointment is felt in Belarus as well, where democrats are looking to Warsaw, and not Paris, for leadership:

Democracy activists in Belarus regularly travel to Warsaw, Kiev and Vilnius for meetings, and keep their bank accounts in Warsaw.

"It's a great feeling here," said a Belarussian student, Anastasia, sitting in a Warsaw cafe. "We can say what we want. We see in Poland what we want our country to be like in the future."

In Minsk, Ales Mikhalevich, an opposition activist jailed for 10 days by the Lukashenko regime, said he often went to Warsaw for meetings with Polish and western democracy activists.

Opposition leaders in Minsk, frightened to be identified, said they thought of Warsaw as the capital of the "New Europe" and the main source of moral and financial support.

As a son of Polish immigrants, I have to say I feel a great deal of pride here. Poland's success in the aftermath of Nazi and Soviet Communist occupation is nothing less than stunning. Despite nearly 50 years of trying, Catholicism was never extinguished by the Communists, and with Pope John Paul's help, and support from Ronald Reagan, Poland was the first domino to fall in the Soviet Empire.

Poland's commitment to democracy and capitalism has earned in nothing but disdain from the core of Old Europe, Germany and France (which is a pity in the case of France, since historically Poland has always looked westward to France instead of eastward to Russia for cultural and political inspiration):

Poland chose Lockheed over two European competitors, the French Mirage and the British-Swedish Gripen. That led unnamed French officials to complain that Poland was not acting in the proper "European spirit" — and that was before the Iraq imbroglio. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently wondered aloud whether Washington was using Poland to divide and weaken the E.U., echoing German press comments that Warsaw was Washington's Trojan horse on the Continent, or as one columnist put it, "Trojan donkey."

Unlike the French, Poland seems to have learned its lesson from history. A neighbouring dictatorship like Lukashenko's in Belarus is a danger and must be eliminated. Others like Saddam in Iraq had global reach, and so Poland joined the Coalition of the Willing. The reward has been a growing recognition of a nation committed to the ideals of freedom, willing to take action instead of merely muttering platitudes. With that recognition comes a growing influence both near and abroad.

I wonder what the balance of power in Europe will look like in 20 years.

For nations like Canada, Germany, and France, who have made it clear that the only ideals they hold dear are those of near-sighted defence of parochial interests and of moral relativism that sees fighting for freedom to be as evil as a terrorist bombing, their influence is waning, and with that comes economic and political stagnation. By ignoring the lessons of history, they run the risk of being added to the growing ashbin of history.

[Hat tip to Captain's Quarters]