Makowiec (mazurek) zaprosił konfokacapa Millera na godz.9:oo do studia Kanału Beton na proruskie interview.
Przypomnijmy gimbazie,gen Z i reszcie zainteresowanych kim był Makowiec->
@debski1992@oskardz30 Oj mylisz się, nawet nie wiesz jak często mi to kupon utrzymało przy życiu :p szczególnie w niższych ligach bąd�� bardziej peryferyjnych ( 2 eredivisie, Islandia, a nawet czasem dunska)
Abuse of power in Poland takes many forms. Using public office to rewrite history is one of them.
Nearly twenty years ago, historians Sławomir Cenckiewicz and Piotr Gontarczyk assembled evidence identifying Lech Wałęsa as “Bolek”, a secret informant for the communist Security Service at the Gdańsk Shipyard in 1970–1976. They reached their conclusions without access to the original informant’s dossier. That was an excellent work by two young, but outstanding historians! They also documented how files concerning Wałęsa were handed over to him during his presidency and returned with incriminating material missing - an episode they described as an effort to erase evidence of his past.
In 2016, after the death of former communist interior minister Czesław Kiszczak, the missing informant’s dossier emerged from his home. Its contents corroborated the historians’ earlier findings. In 2017, experts at the Jan Sehn Institute of Forensic Research attributed the handwritten pledge of cooperation, payment receipts and numerous reports to Wałęsa.
The SB’s (a communist secret service) fabrication of material against Wałęsa in the 1980s does not establish that the records of his earlier collaboration were also fabricated. These are distinct historical questions. His subsequent leadership of Solidarity does not erase his earlier record, either.
Prosecutors have now discontinued the false-testimony case, challenging the evidence and invoking his right to a defence. That decision must be assessed on its own merits. It does not, by itself, overturn decades of historical research.
Yet the Justice Minister and Prosecutor General in Donald Tusk’s government presents it as a victory of truth over historians supposedly rewriting the past. In my view, this is precisely the abuse: invoking the authority of public office to discredit scholarship and promote a politically convenient version of history.
Shameful. This, too, will become part of your historical record.