Lech Wałęsa was Communist spy, claims book.

This is an area of Polish history and current affairs that I am by no means qualified to comment upon but the headlines seem pretty straight forward and perhaps those who are more enlightened might be tempted to comment?

The Telegraph article comments on the book planned to be published by IPN (Institute of National Remembrance) that claims Wałęsa was a communist agent of the SB (Secret Service) and given the code name “Bolek”. One question I have is “Who was Lolek?”, because one has to assume there was one.

This is obviously shocking news to anyone not intimate with the rather bitter finger-pointing, outing and in-fighting that has been going on for quite a while now, largely, it seems to me, associated with the IPN. Should they re-name it the Institute for National Disruption, perhaps?

My, extremely simple, understanding is that the IPN exists to try and resolve issues associated with who was and who was not a “bad guy” in the old days. They hold many official records that are not generally available and there have been innumerable “leaks” pointing fingers at various well known figures. The most famous “leak” so far has been the Wildstein List, which names 240,000 people who allegedly worked for the communists in the same way as Wałęsa is now accused.

I’m really not sure what to make of all this but my gut reaction is that this IPN either needs to make everything they know fully public, open and transparent, or, they need to burn the lot and let bygones be bygones. The current status of the information being available to some but not to all is just going to be like rubbing a sore so often that it never heals properly.

Again as far as I can see, the people at the helm of the leak-machine seem to be the Kaczynski twins, President and ex-Prime Minister. It is pretty obvious when you look at the “incident time-line” that the Kaczynskis, or their cohorts, were and still are either on a saintly mission to cleanse the country or were determined to stick the knife into a few people they didn’t like. I’ve never really got good vibrations from either of these guys, a sneakier more underhand pair you’re not likely to find. It started for me when Jarosław, the ex-Prime Minister, (or was it the other one?) started pulling files from under his podium and waving them at his opponent during a public debate. A kind of ner-ner look what I’ve got! It didn’t get any better from there.

It seems that Lech the President and Lech the ex-President are not best friends, so who knows what’s going on backstage. I might be imagining things, but I’m sure I’ve seen pictures of all the main players here – Kaczynskis, Wałęsa, Michnik, et al, hugging each other and generally being the best of buddies back in the Solidarity days. Something here smells like a rotten fish-head and I wish we could just all be told the truth of what exactly went on back then!

Wałęsa has hit back at Kaczynski demanding that he is impeached and removed from office.

As for the whole concept of naming and shaming, I’ve had various conversations with Poles who have the benefit of having lived through it and there are at least three schools of thought. One says that these “communist sympathisers” have it coming to them and deserve everything they get. Another says the information is pretty unreliable anyway and this is just sneaky people trying to settle old scores. The last really doesn’t care about all this and wishes it would all just go away so everyone can concentrate on the future, not the past. The last group, it has to be said, are generally younger people.

As for Wałęsa, he, like all accused before him, vehemently denies the allegations. He’s being supported in this claim by Michnik (one of the Solidarity gang mentioned above) who is the head-honcho at Gazeta Wyborcza, who claim that the SB were used to forging documents.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. The book is apparently to be published on Monday with an initial print run of only 4,000 copies. Wałęsa has said he knows who the real “Bolek” is and will name him if the book is published as planned. Watch this space!

PS – in further google research I’m finding that associations between Wałęsa and agent “Bolek” are nothing new. Also an awful lot of references to Ciesław Kiszczak. I always wondered what a can of worms looked like!

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

42 thoughts on “Lech Wałęsa was Communist spy, claims book.

  1. Pawel says:

    Oh dear:)

    I think this is too complicated matter for me to try to explain ad hoc, but there are many misnderstandings, simplifications and things that I would like to clarify (starting from the phrase “communist spy”)- I’ll try my best although my capacity in this department is not great. Comment (or post) coming soon. Stay tuned.

  2. scatts says:

    Fire away, buddy!

  3. Jacek Wesołowski says:

    Are you feeling cold, Scatts? Because you’re in for some serious flame, soon. :->

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are neither a belief nor an ideological stance. They are a way of life. Neither logic nor philosophy applies. You cannot discuss it, you cannot appeal to someone’s reason or conscience, you just either buy it or tap your forehead at those loonies.

    By the way, this game is ages old. Even Piłsudski was being accused of being a Soviet agent, in spite of him winning a crucial battle against them, effectively stopping their advance into Europe in early 1920s.

  4. island1 says:

    Very interesting stuff.

    One point of view I think you missed in your ‘three schools of thought’ – a lot of people recall that becoming a communist sympathizer was rarely a matter of choice. If the security services hauled you in and ‘asked’ you to provide them with information on your co-workers, refusing was not a healthy option. By complying with an offer they couldn’t refuse these people got a file, and these are the files in the hands of the IPN today. Certainly some of the people were out-and-out bad guys, but most were unwilling. I suspect the main reason they don’t just release all the files is because a lot of people wouldn’t bother to make the distinction, and the reason they don’t just destroy them is because they still want to find the real bad guys.

  5. scatts says:

    I’m under no illusions that this issue is far bigger than my measly 722 words can do justice to (excuse the pun).

    Jamie, I actually raised your point with old-enough Poles at the time of the Wildstein list. Again I encountered split opinions. Some agreed with you that not cooperating was not really an option whilst others held firm that to be a “true Pole” (their sentiment, not mine) you needed to resist at all costs.

    I also raised another alternative with them that there must surely have been some people who were cooperating but only to be fighting from the inside. A kind of double-agent so to speak. The papers would suggest they were commie sympathisers but their actions may have been completely the opposite?

    I wanted to get this post out there – as did Pawel to be fair to him – but to try and cover all the angles would have taken from here to next week! Better get it out and get the ball rolling is what I thought.

    I’m off to buy some asbestos underpants.

    PS – I edited “definitely” to “at least”.
    PPS – credit to Jamie, this was his idea, he’s just too busy to write it! :)

  6. Jacek Wesołowski says:

    Island, it’s quite the countrary. During Kaczynski goverment there were many leaks about one person or another being a “sympathizer”, as you call it. Whenever some eager youngster laid their hands on some famous person’s files, there would be a new breaking news about people like Kapuściński (a famous reporter who specialized in African affairs) or Miodek (a linguist).

    They don’t release the files because it allows them to manipulate them. If they released everything, everybody would be able to read everything and make their own judgement. There would be hundreds of professional studies. As long as the archives are unavailable to most of the public, they can just leak what suits them, and put the rest under the carpet.

    The truth is that those were forced testimonies. People who travelled abroad were being routinely asked about what they did, who they met, what they talked about and so on. Refusing to answer meant not getting a passport ever again, so many people tried to give harmless testimonies, such as “I attended a conference, I talked to a lot of people, we talked about my work at the university, I don’t remember any details”. Those people are now being called traitors, because there is their signature on some document in the archives.

    The Wildstein list itself is a leak. He’s just a journalist. He just went to IPN, they just let him in, they just gave him access to the database, he just made a simple query, and now every person mentioned in SB archives is on the list, whether they were an agent, a dissident being followed, or a dissident’s brother’s wife’s cousin’s coworker who went to the same birthday party by coincidence. Heck, “Jacek Wesołowski” is on the list. Thrice. As far as people like Wildstein are concerned, this means I’m a traitor. Luckily, I was nine when communism collapsed.

  7. me says:

    The new Polish history is pretty easy.

    In the solidarity movement there were two blocks

    the left/liberal block with Adam Michnik ,Jacek Kuron ,Donald Tusk ,Lech Walesa, Mazowiecki ,Geremek…and of course many many milions of other people…

    and the conservative, patriotic block with Lech Kaczynski ,Jaroslaw kaczynski ,Jan Olszewski ,Antoni Macierewicz ,Andrzej Gwiazda ,Anna Walentynowicz and millions of other people…

    In the communist times these two blocks had one enemy ,it was the Wojciech Jaruzelski dictatorship and so they worked together. For example the extreme left atheists like Adam Michnik ,Jacek Kuron or Bronislaw Geremek even went to holy masses in those times…

    But after 1989 the two blocks went separate ways. The patriotic block wanted to get rid of all the communists (like in eastern germany) and the left/liberal block just wanted to make money ASAP (for example Michnik became a millionare with his Gazeta Wyborcza pretty soon) and former communist generals and agents were not a problem for them. The left block feared a catholic conservative Poland much more than a corrupt Poland ,full of former agents in the government…

    And so Michnik did his job with the Gazeta Wyborcza monopole and the 1st conservative president/prime minister combination came to Poland 2005 with the Kaczynski twins…Of course way too late, because after 16yrs all the (post-)communist crimes and all the not built autobahns can not get “repaired” like in a time machine…

  8. simon says:

    In the absence of any direct evidence, the question whether Wałęsa was a communist collaborator or not is a matter of belief, and as such impossible to prove or disprove conclusively. It can’t really be discussed rationally, because a believer will always find something to rationalize his/her belief, no matter how slim the evidence.
    My guess is that this mess will drag on for as long as more than one person remains interested in the subject, occasionally flaring up like it did over the past couple of weeks.

  9. […] Nobel Peace Prize, Poland, Polska, Solidarity, Solidarność, Teczki This is a follow up from Ian’s post just below. Read his post first, and then come back to […]

  10. Pawel says:

    I decided to go for a seperate post. Lets me go with my own narration…

  11. […] writes about allegations that Lech Wałęsa collaborated with the Communists. Posted by Veronica […]

  12. darthsida says:

    => Jacek, on conspiracy theories

    There is no “problem” with conspiracy theories. From a logical point of view, if a conspiracy theory is right, you will – by definition – never learn hard facts about it — a clandestine coven of the mighty few would be so concealed that the public can never learn if they are, who they are and how their schemes go. If a conspiracy theory is wrong, there is no conspiracy. I like substituting “there is Conspiracy” with “there is God” and rename ‘conspiracy theories’ to ‘religious beliefs’. It’s easy.

    => “by no means qualified to comment” Scatts

    Sentences like these “the Kaczynskis, or their cohorts, were and still are either on a saintly mission to cleanse the country or were determined to stick the knife into a few people they didn’t like” — are nothing that can lead you to truth. Because they give away emotions in lieu of (assessment of) steel cold facts.

    So, if they wanted to knife someone in and out, it’s criminal – report it to prosecutor’s office near you. If they were on a “saintly mission”, allow for the fact freedom of religion in Poland is contitutional and it’s not forbidden to pilgrimage. If you are just feeling poetic here, don’t. Emotions may lead you to some truth, Scatts, but it’s going to be a truth memed to you by emotion-shaping media. Stay cool. When you get cool, find out what Walesa, Michnik, Kaczynski(s), Tusk used to say about lustracja (vetting). For starters.

    “it seems to me”
    “my gut reaction is”
    “I’ve never really got good vibrations”
    “Something here smells like a rotten fish-head”
    “I might be imagining things”

    Your senses may misguide you, my Padawan. Don’t think you can trust the Force in you, seek facts instead. The book from IPN is a fact, Walesa’s counterwords are a fact, weigh these. For starters.

    Re “I’ve seen pictures”

    I’ve seen pictures too. Here or there.
    And?

  13. scatts says:

    Darth,

    There was some very good science fiction literature I read once (may have been Asimov’s Foundation Series? Jamie will know) where there was a concept of looking at a piece of communication and performing a pseudo-mathematical add/subtract exercise on it to see if there was anything left at the end. I always thought it to be a quite wonderful tool, particularly in modern business correspondence but blog comments may also work. It’s amazing how often one ends up with the answer “zero”. :-)

    “by no means qualified to comment” is a statement of fact. I’m not. I have to wonder though, in this case, who is? Anyway, lack of qualifications is never going to stop me having a personal opinion, feelings (gut or otherwise). I think I’ve made it quite clear where I stand – not qualified for serious comment (i.e. to state any facts of my own), but do hold some opinions and not frightened to state them no matter how stupid I look when it turns out that I have completely missed the point (because I know I will not be alone).

    You’d like me to stick to facts. Any idea where I might find some facts, ones that have a high percentage of being the undiluted non-spun truth?

    And so, here I am with my blog post. Not meant to be a scientific exploration of the evidence for the accused, the State, the accuser, whoever. Not a draft of an academic paper about to be submitted for publication in high-brow journals. Just a gentle, mildly observant, stroll through a can of worms. Others might be able to, but I cannot (perhaps will not) strip my posts of all personal feeling.

    My hope was that people who know an awful lot more about this than I do (i.e. everybody) would perhaps avoid the easy route of telling me what they don’t like about what I wrote and instead be more productive by telling us “what Walesa, Michnik, Kaczynski(s), Tusk used to say about lustracja (vetting)”, for example. If what they said about vetting is important to the understanding of what’s going on here.

    All the phrases you choose to strip out of my text are the ones that, were they not included, would simply have people accusing me of “trying to pass off lies and speculation as facts” and telling me just how badly mislead I have been. I’ve chosen to express my opinions and feelings, as well as report some “facts” as reported by others. If my opinions and feelings prove to be built on sandy ground then I’ll be more than happy to change them. If the facts as stated by others prove to be wrong, then that’s their problem.

    If we try to remove all speculation, opinion and feeling and simply report facts that are proven beyond doubt to be true, then we would not have a post about this on Polandian.

  14. darthsida says:

    Scatts,

    1.
    I hope you know I did not mean too look too aggressive, my sincere apologies if you’d taken me as such. Given your description, my own approach to any things I am not qualified to comment seems to want to be different from yours: if I were you, I would like to think I can refrain from both positively and negatively marked words (‘cohorts and knives of the Kaczynskis’ be the examples of the latter).

    2.
    First though, you’d have to decide if to keep on going the serious path or the let’s-have-casual-blog-fun path (“Who was Lolek?” would matter only in the latter.)

    3.
    The authors of the book about Walesa said they’d gone through thousands of pages to make their publication, and it’s just one book about one man in a rather narrowed span of time, as I understand. So, to have a global view on generally everything what happened in Poland, Lech Walesa included, is sheerly impossible (for lack of space and time, then for lack of sources).

    – – – –

    That is why it’s better to “report facts” and stick to substance, leaving adjectives behind. An example of muddy waters:

    You say “It started for me when Jarosław, the ex-Prime Minister”

    But WHAT is the thing called IT that started?
    Indeed, I see Kaczynski as a minor voice in the recent heat of discussions. The major opponent of ‘pro-Walesans’ seems to be IPN now, whose two historians wrote that book about Walesa.
    =>
    In attempts to dismiss the opponent, it could be said that IPN is in its nature a pro-Kaczynski body. (Read the meme: Kaczynski(s) told some two young naive guys to write a false book against Walesa.)
    =>
    On the other hand, there is Maria Dmochowska IPN vicechairwoman expressing her profound regret, shame and anger that the book is out. (It doesn’t add up, the vicechair of pro-Kaczynski IPN taken by a pro-Walesan?)
    =>
    On the third hand, there are opponents of Maria Dmochowska who want to downplay her voice by saying “she is just a hematologist (a doctor) and no historian, so what can she know”.
    =>
    On the fourth hand, there are people who did not learn to properly spell the names the authors of the book but it doesn’t stop them from dowplaying importance, method or sources of the book. Often, without having read the book.
    =>
    On the fifth hand there can be (opinion:) loonies on the net who have easy pieces of proof that Walesa must be Bolek. E.g. Lech Walesa’s father’s name was Boleslaw (= Bolek) and it was quite Soviet / Communist to use a patronymic (“otchestvo”) for a codename.

    THIS IS SOME MAD PING-PONG.

    – – – –

    Now a few facts:

    Fact:
    There was a debate of Lech Walesa against Wojciech Jaruzelski (the martial law general) in 2005. I believe here is its correct record (in Polish, naturally). Understand or have all of it translated, or take this for a juicy excerpt:
    “Pomiędzy dyskutującymi Lechem Wałęsą i Wojciechem Jaruzelskim był jeden zgodny wątek. To była niechęć do braci Kaczyńskich.”

    Fact:
    It was over 3 years ago. And the Bolek thing did not start there. And it did not start with Kaczynski(s). It started with, well, Bolek in the deep of Communist Poland.
    Lech Walesa, IPN vicechairwoman and more people did not want the book published or some TV material on air. Muffling, threatening.
    Opinion: Nazi book- burning comes to my mind then. (Long live Godwin’s Law.)

    Fact:
    In 2008 as in 2005 Lech Walesa can speak his truth. The right his opponents can be denied at times (“why tarnish the icon of Solidarity”? “why believe Communist shits instead of Walesa-the-Myth”? “Secret Police papers are by definition false” and other [opinion here:] bull.)

    If you want more, you have to dive in the mud yourself. These principles will make it a lot easier, I think.
    1. You will never get to the truth, only closer to it.
    2. There are no things to be taken for granted. (And if the only reasonable answer is a conspiracy theory, then so be it.)
    3. Listen to both / all sides.
    4. Cui bono? [Here: who can benefit from a row over Walesa’s past? Hint: Walesa is a hardly important political figure today.]

    I take it in good faith that you want to explore in order to find yourself closer to some truth, whatever it may appear to become eventually. If you ask me to provide you with simple truths, I’m sorry, i cannot know them. (I could only give you my personal guesses). Be they guesses or facts, they would always have to be lengthy. So, when I send you to check up different people’s opinions on lustracja, it’s not that I’m shaking you off, it’s just it’s a lot of work to do — that I think any person interested should do personally.

  15. Pawel says:

    @ “Wałęsa can speak his truth”

    When you are accused of something and you didn’t do it, it’s always difficult to prove you’re not guilty. I’m not surprised Wałęsa is angry and wants people to stop defaming him.

    —-> Criminal Code

    Art. 212. § 1. Kto pomawia inną osobę, grupę osób, instytucję, osobę prawną lub jednostkę organizacyjną nie mającą osobowości prawnej o takie postępowanie lub właściwości,które mogą poniżyć ją w opinii publicznej lub narazić na utratę zaufania potrzebnego dla danego stanowiska, zawodu lub rodzaju działalności,

    Art. 216. § 1. Kto znieważa inną osobę w jej obecności albo choćby pod jej nieobecność, lecz publicznie lub w zamiarze, aby zniewaga do osoby tej dotarła,

    podlega grzywnie albo karze ograniczenia wolności.

    § 2. Kto znieważa inną osobę za pomocą środków masowego komunikowania,

    podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do roku.

    Wałęsa is not an educated person, and I’m not surprised he doesn’t have much respect for democratic principles like the freedom of speech. This is Lech Wałęsa, the guy next door-come-politician.

  16. scatts says:

    Let me first of all share this from WBJ today:

    While, public opinion is divided. According to a survey by MillwardBrown SMG KRC, 43% of the public believe that Wałęsa was an agent, 34% that he was not. However, 60% believe that even if he was, this would not diminish his role in overthrowing communism.

    Interesting.

    Now. Darth.

    1. Yes. Me no aggressive neither. We are different, but that’s fine.

    2. Don’t agree. Lolek & Bolek both important characters and almost always together. If they had a Bolek there must have been a Lolek, of almost equal importance. No? I don’t think it’s a jokey comment at all. Kaczynski twins would be perfect candidates for those code names, don’t you think? Apart from the ”otchestvo” issue.

    3. Okay.

    As for the rest. Okay, but I’m having difficulty believing that Wałęsa would be seeking this kind of publicity just to boost his ratings! [Here: who can benefit from a row over Walesa’s past? Hint: Walesa is a hardly important political figure today.]

    Lastly. You said – You say “It started for me when Jarosław, the ex-Prime Minister” But WHAT is the thing called IT that started?

    It = bad vibrations and a feeling that Kaczynskis could well prove to be sneaky and underhand. In other words, the sentence immediately prior to what you cropped.

    Pawel. Interesting anecdote about your father.

    So far, I’m finding what “me” said to be very illuminating. It makes some sense of what’s going on, at least. Apart from the point of why Kaczynskis would be fighting their ex-friends in Solidarity. Presumably because they “lost the faith”, or proved to just be a bunch of greedy bastards and not really interested in cleansing the country? But from what little I know of Kuron et al, they are not exactly people who have sold out big time, are/were they? So maybe it doesn’t make sense after all!

    My head hurts.

  17. Jacek Wesołowski says:

    Scatts, you will need to define “sold out” first, otherwise it’s just a buzzword. I’m not going to sort it out for you, because I’m tired with arguments against people who know better (I don’t mean you). I’ve already used the word “loonies” and I stand by my opinion.

    You will need to be be very careful about distinguishing facts from interpretations. Also, pay attention to words. As I said in some previous comment, the best way to know a Pole’s heart is to watch their vocabulary.

    As for Kuron, he used to be, among other things, a minister of labour in early nineties, and one of his activities was giving weekly TV speeches in which he was basically telling people they wouldn’t be able to earn more money any time soon. Keeping this in mind, just go to Powązki on the next All Saints Day and visit his grave. It’s not far from the entrance, and you just need to look for the biggest bunch of lights in sight. One of those is from me.

  18. darthsida says:

    Scatts,
    some of my answer for you went over below Pawel’s post. Either the system outsmarted me or there was finally too much of a headache in me.

  19. scatts says:

    Headache probably, me too.

    Happy Jack, by “sold out” I mean, roughly, dropped any pretensions they may have had at the time of “hounding every last communist out of Poland” in the interests of self preservation/advancement/gain.

    In the context that I used it, this presumes that the Kaczynski twins have kept faith with the idea of “hounding every last communist out of Poland” and also that “hounding every last communist out of Poland” was something they all jointly agreed was important anyway. Clearly, the Kaczynski twins have not done too badly on the self preservation/advancement/gain front themselves.

    I won’t be doing much more defining of what I say, it’s just too boring! :)

  20. Jacek Wesołowski says:

    The point is, the part of opposition people like Kuroń or Mazowiecki represented was never set on “hounding every last communist out of Poland”. The goal was to change the system and get rid of Russians.

    And the whole idea of “hounding etc.” as something you can drop in the interests of self preservation/advancement/gain is moot, because hounding the communists does not involve any kind of sacrifice these days.

  21. scatts says:

    Absolutely! It’s more like a kind of sport, a bit like duck hunting. Bear-baiting is perhaps a better analogy.

  22. Pawel says:

    Scatts, so you propose to let everyone go free? Those fucking bastards who gave orders o torture people? Who gave orders to shoot at workers on stike, for instance in December 1970, June 1956, March 1968, June 1976? And other twisted communist criminals?

    Never! Criminals have to be punished!

  23. scatts says:

    Is there another scatts around here, because I keep getting these comments that don’t make any sense?

    Where did I say I propose to let everyone go free? I’ve actually been trying very hard to avoid saying anything about what I would do.

    But Pawel, you must realise that there are times – like every single war or time of turmoil known to man – where people who you might think should be punished, are not. I think it’s very commendable but also very naive to think that everyone who should be punished in this case, is going to be. In fact, I guarantee you that they will not. Primarily because of the difficulty in proving who should be punished and what that punishment should be. I also think that in trying to achieve your desired end you may just tear the country apart. The time to deal with all this baggage has passed and, although this is going to sound stupid, people didn’t let you join the EU and host Euro 2012 and all that stuff because they thought you were about to commit national suicide over who was a commie bastard and who wasn’t.

  24. x-bek says:

    The problem scatts is not who do u want to punish, but who do u want to name as a commies agent. Be honest – Walesa is a jerk – always “me, me, me” – “I’ve done this/that”, whatever. If he thinks he’s so great why doesn’t he want let people know what’s happend in ’70? If either him, or Tusk or even that most non-objective newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza heil Walesa for so call defeating communism then such an episod like collaborating with SB in earlier ’70 shouldn’t make any arm for him, should it?
    But at the end I should just mention about Magdalenka, where Walesa, Michnik, Kuron and some other “moral authorities” just have made a deal with old communists letting’em go free, and sometimes even by givin’em well paid position in the new Poland. And should i mention as well Michnik, who called General Kiszczak and Jaruzelki “people of Honor”? Wait, wait: does it sound crazy enough for you? Somebody who fought against them, suddenly, after that meeting in Magdalenka forgives everything? Somebody here is really pathetic, and why is it Walesa and Michnik?

  25. Pawel says:

    x-bek,

    maybe they thought it’s better to forget about the past and build a new Poland together? Ex-commies and ex-opposition… Maybe if commies weren’t given some safety, they would make more obstacles in giving away their power?

    Would it make sense to fight, in a moment in history when our country was going bankrupt, and a need for change was so apparent?

    I don’t know. Everyone will always see things on their way – and you of course have every right to think former opposition should never fraternise with ancien regime.

  26. x-bek says:

    Of course they shouldn’t have fraternised. But what i want to say is – why people like Michnik or Walesa are calling Kiszczak and Jaruzelski “men of honor”? Why do they defend all those people who ruled this country before ’89? Why Walesa attacs his former companions from Solidarnosc defending his former “enemies” (?)…
    Those are questions which I’d like to know the answer… Solorz, Michnik, Kiszczak, Walesa, Pawlak, Kwasniewski and many more – why don’t they admitt cooperation and signing a deal in Magdalenka, our second Targowica? How come, that people who brought this country to the ruins were pretending to rebuild it after ’89, when actually they reached huge fortunes in a new build country, where nobody else could do so? They have built new country, but instead of The Third RP we got, what some people used to say – the second PRL with this same people rulling us, but under a new name…

  27. ge'ez says:

    So kind of you, x-bek, for at least not including Kuron as having simply used the occasion to enrich himself.

    Of course, I must ask why you are not manning the barricades today to overthrow Tusk? I don’t imaging you are writing your notes from a jail cell, and having them smuggled out to be input into this blog. It seems to me that a person of integrity and honor would be in prison today given that a poseur like Tusk is in power. My goodness, I would have expected that you would have become a martyr under Kwasniewski. Why not?

  28. darthsida says:

    Ge’ez,
    fie, personal forays. Such always end just nasty.

    There’s something strange with the two questions:
    1. Why be angry at facts? [And “men of honor” as understood by Michnik, for instance, are facts.]
    2. Can virtue defend itself?
    — set against the fact that the line of defense around Walesa is “the man is the symbol”, “the man is the icon”, “the man is the Nobel prize winner”, “the man is untouchable” [“well, certainly not by this bullbook by the two petty histerians commissioned by Twins-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”].

    I mean: if Walesa is so great, why would we need keep asserting that?

    Then, a cat may comment on the queen (Walesa), but not vice versa, no. It’s ludicrous to imply that not being imprisoned reduces one’s right to comment on politics under the regime. Similarly, one does not have to be a soldier to talk about stupidity of wars. If we should insist that only professionals can talk about their profession, this would leave Walesa with the right to talk only about screwdrivers (and in uneducated Polish).

    Your comment is interesting in that you mention Tusk. The same Mr Tusk who partook in anti-Olszewski gathering of 1992, the one who fully recognised and shared Kaczynskis vision of the IV Republic, and the same who wanted lustracja so badly. So yes, another reason why the row is in the news is Tusk wants people talk about Walesa against Kaczynskis, not about Tusk against his vision of Poland-as-new-Ireland. Good that you saw the scheme through and brough the name up, Ge’ez.

  29. ge'ez says:

    “..personal forays. Such always end just nasty.”

    I agree SD, so why the unceasing, relentless personal forays against Walesa, Michnik, Kuron, et.al.? Are you really going to insist these tired, sad, overly repetitive attacks over 25 years are not personal? Fie, as you say.

    It’s not merely a matter of having a right to comment. Every idiot should have a right to comment on any matter they choose. What should matter, however, is what’s right. And it ain’t right for for folks who didn’t/don’t walk the walk at all to talk the talk (to borrow scatts’s terminology).

    Is it so wrong to expect at least a little bit of street cred, heh?

    Oh, and in reading a bit more closely x-bek’s earlier post, I notice that he did actually similarly criticize Kuron, essentially as being a self-aggrandizing money-grubbing opportunistic bird of the same feather.

    Finally, I didn’t realize that Tusk’s hegemony is so absolute that he functions as the complete and quitessential puppetmaster of everybody in Poland except a few true patriots who know that the real problem with Poland today is Walesa.

  30. darthsida says:

    Ge’ez

    1. When “every idiot” speaks or writes about Walesa (or Michnik or etc.) it’s not personal. It’s about a public figure. When you make comments on blog commenters here, it’s personal.

    2. It is not wrong to expect “a little bit of street cred”. It is wrong to expect “street cred” to be some legally enforceable requirement. So, till the law should change, people who did not walk the walk – can talk. Sue the Constitution.

    3. Leaving Kuron unable to defend himself:

    We know it’s human to change their mind. But then there can be no thing such as ‘walking the walk’, because ‘the walk’ is different, often in opposite directions.

    (A) Frasyniuk — who now says to slap IPN men in the face for Walesa — used to be darn strongly against Walesa in the 90s. What changed the route of his ‘walk’?

    (B) Past 1989 Michnik was against Walesa, then was for Walesa. Michnik fought against Commies before 1989, after 1989 he called the worst of them “men of honor”. Or he had Lesław Maleszka, a devout Secret Police informer ) in his camp. What changed the route of Michnik’s ‘walk’? How does it make Gazeta Wyborcze credible?

    (C) Donald Tusk was in the front set up by Walesa against Olszewski’s govt in 1992. Olszewski’s govt was strongly for lustracja. Apparently, Tusk was either against lustracja or was greedy for power. A few years ago, Tusk shared Kaczynski’ opinion on the need to break up with the shame of III RP (does the moniker “POPiS” ring any bell?). Further still, Tusk decides not to like POPiS (including support for lustracja) and today he is with Walesa again. What makes him change the route of his ‘walk’?

    (D) Post-1989 Kaczynskis were with Walesa, then against Walesa. What made them change the route of their walk? (I would like them to explain it to the public, yes.)

    I think that every ‘twist of route’ here boils down to the issue of lustracja. Simply because “lustracja => kick Commies butts out of Polish economy”, while “no lustracja => give Commies large pieces of economic cake”.

    Tusk is now PM in Poland. Supported by GW, a paper once a monopolist opinion maker, now less so but still important. Tusk is supported by many provisional allies (who think Kaczynski is a worse enemy than Tusk). If that’s “hegemony”, there, you have it. If it’s not, argue with yourself, ‘the hegemony’ is your expression.

    PS1 If you want to know more about ‘puppetmasters’, check sources of funds for Platforma Obywatelska election campaign. Or ask whence change of PO politicans’ opinions on Russia, esp. the Russian-German pipe.
    That of course if you share my belief there always are puppetmasters.

    PS2 Since minds change, it is advisable to apply dates or names. Eg. “Walesa” means vaguely a thing. “Walesa of Solidarity” is a fighter. “Walesa 1989-1995 is a rook. “Walesa of today” is a scapegoat (in the recent row) but also a muzzler of free speech.

  31. ge'ez says:

    1.) Public figures are human beings. They are persons. People, whatever their level of knowledge, making criticisms of public figures are bringing their own personalities into any discussion or rant. To differentiate between bloggers and public figures in this instance is strange to me, especially when an anonymous blogger is prone to making rather one-sided personal attacks against individuals who are not “here” or even alive to defend themselves.

    2.) Yes, even anonymous bloggers can talk the talk, but don’t expect them to get off scot-free without any countertalk. I don’t think I have called for the imprisonment of folks like x-bek. Indeed, I really doubt that he has ever done anything in his life that resulted in the authorities locking him up, much less not feeding him, not giving him required health care, torturing him… get my point, again?

    3a) My guess is that Frasyniuk has realized that the IPN is starting to act a lot like the old commie secret police used to work.

    3b) Michnik is certainly open to criticism for the “men of honor” remark. Even really smart guys say dumb things sometimes. Has he ever responded to questions about that remark? But to dismiss him totally as a money-grubbing opportunist and fellow traveller is obnoxious in the extreme. Oh well, at least you didn’t go farther back in the past to whack Michnik.

    3c) I guess my sense of the term “walk the walk” is more dramatic and implies standing up for one’s beliefs to the point of facing death, imprisonment, harrassment etc. The political positions of these guys making alliances here, abandoning alliances there doesn’t strike me as a matter of walking much of any walk. Just run-of-the-mill political gamesmanship.

    3d) I think you are oversimplifying the lustracja equation. And my use of hegemonic in this instance was sarcastic. I don’t know your age but I’m guessing you didn’t live through the communist times. So it’s rather strange for me to hear Polish folks of various political persuasions today comparing the hegemony of the communist apparatus to Tusk, Walesa or even the likes of the K-twins.

    PS1) I don’t believe there are always puppetmasters.

    PS2) I don’t believe that Walesa is a muzzler of free speech. All he can do is object to someone else’s speech as criminal and attempt to have the courts declare it so. Again, you’re making him sound like a commie of days of old.

  32. ge'ez says:

    Thanks for that bit o’news, mr. scatts.

    Y’think Walesa might use those pages (and more) to discredit his discreditors? Imagine the IPN being “fearful” of that after they let those guys put out that book essentially under their auspices!

    Makes the IPN/publisher/historians’ decision to put the book out without 2000 pages of essential information a bit chancey (sp?), no?

  33. darthsida says:

    Yea, Scatts, be wary of spreading false news, which is iniquitous

    Michael Farris has prophesized “the Oldest Trick in the Book is accusing your enemy of something you yourself have done”? So we see that it is IPN that stole the documents — and did so to accuse Walesa of its own wrongdoing.

    No, no. wait, since IPN stole the documents — IPN historians had access to the documents. They just pretend they didn’t.

    All that in a galaxy where no book should be written without “essential information”. Just to think some suckers write books about cosmic physics though their knowledge about black holes or quanta or multidimensions is not full. And doctors write medical articles full of conjectures, for has anyone learned how the brain really works? Shame on them.

  34. ge'ez says:

    The guys who wrote/published the book about Walesa ain’t no brain surgeons, thank God. And comparing any conjecture into the workings of the mind and doings of Lech Walesa to an exploration of quantum physics is a bit of a stretch, no? Laughable, actually.

  35. Pawel says:

    darth sida,

    what’s actually a shame is that although PRL is no more, there still are hate weeks…

  36. ge'ez says:

    Hate weeks??? What’s that?

    Another foray, though…. We have a good handle on the knowledge that the evidence exists vis-a-vis Bolek and more and that Walesa probably has in his hip pocket.

    We’re exploring quantum physics on a much different basis, sort of like walking through a blinding snowstorm, not knowing which direction is which and what’s where.

    Finally, the object of the study of quantum physics does not consider, much less slight, any particular human being – although personalities of scientists can have a subjective impact upon how and why (even when and where) it is studied…

  37. darthsida says:

    Paweł,
    would you really expect it to be otherwise? Hate is a universal thing, it does not marry any particular political system, epoch or land.

  38. Anonymous says:

    By the way, did you know that Walesa father’s name is BOLEK, WHAT A COINCIDENCE?

  39. ge'ez says:

    1984, OK, but hate weeks in Poland today?

  40. Henryk says:

    Hmmmmm, very interesting reading. Alas, I do not have the advanage of being up to date with the political goings on in Poland, I do know that people who seemingly do or initiate good things for their country, will eventually get treated like dirt whilst these people enjoy the fruits of the criticised’s labour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s