Those who are trying to point out the difference between a historical and a bad agreement, could come up even, in the notion of the historical mistake.
That sort of a mistake is certainly both historical and bad.
Some may have forgotten that the usage of the term historical, does not insinuate something good or at least something positive.
We reserve the right to consider this notion literally.
The written account within history creates something historic, but that does not function as an implication of something positive, if there is no clarification existing.
It is additionally weird and worth taking into account, that some who ideologically believe that history is dead, want opportunistically to make good use of the term historical.
If that isn’t a lack of coherence of thought, what is.
But how could thought exist, when there is only a political party directive, which does not allow any critical thinking.
In any case, an occurrence of a misstatement is more easily corrected than a bad agreement.
However, this too can be overthrown, through the process of re-foundation following its reconstruction.