Little correction of George Anthony's posting. Germany did not reoccupied
Sudetans but occupied it as the Sudetans was always part of Czech, Bohman,
Bohemia whatever you want to call it, which never before 1938 belonged to
Germany. It did belong to Austria-Hungary, to Hungary, to the Holy Roman
Empire etc, but not Germany.


                                                        Attila the belagana

Zoli!

Your theory on how the war was lost by Hitler is interesting but rather
misguided.

Just couple of points. You were right. Hitler did fight GB with rather a
rather passive attitude. First it became obvious at Dunkan(Spelling??),
France. The British could not understand, how come Hitler let them
evacuate their troops while the German air superiority could have denied
evacuation procedures. The reason was; secret negotiation was going on
between the Germans and the U.S. and also between the Germans and GB and
Hitler did not want to burn all bridges.

However, it is not true that the Allies were not equal on the Western
Front since the very beginning. Both the French and the British
equipments were superior that of the Germans. So it that respect, the
strategy "Blitzkrieg" was responsible which included also the new
military organizational structure introduced by Germany, which became the
model for the Allies after World War II, and later for the rest of the
world's militaries, such as combined air - panzer attack with mounted
infantry.

Stalin did offer Hitler when Germany entered Smolensk, the Baltic States,
the Kola , Belorussia and the Ukraine. Hitler said "NO".

By October of 1941, the Germans had control over 35% of the Soviet
population, 25% of the Soviet resources and about 30% of the Soviet
industry.

You said Germany's production could not match the Allies production, well
once again consider. Germany did not start wartime production until
after the battle of Kursk, which was in July of 1943. Why not?? Hitler
was afraid that the German people do not like the Nazi's and he would be
deposed of power by the German people.

Germany could have won over Soviet Union even if all other historical
events would have remained that same if;
        1. Germany was welcomed at the first as liberators. If Germany
would have promise Ukraines at least cultural independence lost of people
would have joined the Germans against Stalin. Even like that the Axis
recruited over 1,5 million (I was shocked when I got that information)
people to fight against Stalin.
        2. Germany would have started wartime production.
        3. Germany had at that time 9,5 million troops only 2,5-3,5
million served on the Eastern Front.
        4. Hitler should have conducted strategic bombing of cities (The
only reason the Germans entered Stalingrad to destroy the T-35 tank
factory - look what happened - could have been just bombed.
        5. The wastly superior Germany Navy could have bombed cities,
destroy the Soviet Navy, sitting in ports.
        6. Germans could have taken Leningrad in September 1941, on Hitler's
order they did not.
        7. Germans could have taken Moscow in the Summer of 1942, they took
Stalingrad.

ETC.....ETC....ETC.....


                                                        Attila the Hun

On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Andras Kornai wrote:

> I don't think so. First, back in the twenties and thirties it was clear that
> the US, having been instrumental to securing a particular balance of power
> in Europe, at considerable cost in American lives, will not abandon that
> structure. So even at that point the idea that the US will somehow remain
> neutral while Germany rapes the rest of Europe was just wishful thinking.

Of course this is absolutely contrary to every thing that is written on
the era. (Not being alive at that time, I am forced to read about it).
Exactly because of the considerable cost in American lives why Wilson did
declare that the U.S. will go back to it's isolationist policy and even
in November of 1941, Roosevelt still was clearly saying it is not our
war, it is Europe's war.

But to make sure how uncertain was the situation about the U.S. foreign
policy let me quote for you a letter that in May of 1940 the U.S. Chief
of Naval Operation wrote; "Suppose the Japs do go into the East? What are
we going to do about it? My answer is, I don't know and I think there is
nobody on God's green earth who can tell you."

So may be you know now in 1994, but in in 1930's, well it was different.

Eva Durant writes:
> The impartiality of the press, and for that matter, History, is a myth.
> At least I was taught as much under Kadar. I was told (lots of times):
> this is the Marxist point of view, I was also told I admit, that it was
> supposed to be the best (point of view to have.) However, history
teaching
> and the press in general claims to be neutral in the West, and in fact
rep-
> resents the establishment, the conservative/liberal and anti-change view.
> Eva Durant

Gee, maybe I should move to the UK. Here I have run into more marxist,
leftists in academia than proportionally anywhere else. Lately, I thought
that the US became the last foothold for the left. (It is still so easy to
fool people when they were not exposed to its benefits). But I see the
consideration discussed by Andras, apparently the left is still upset with
the liberals, even if now they come as "conservative/liberals".

Regards,Jeliko.

Wolverine writes:

> Eva et al...
>   Yes, in fact Dr. Nagy (the source) mentions that the vast majority
> planned to return to Hungary but many were trapped by WWI or were married
> in the U.S. and decided to stay. It would be interesting to learn more
> about those who returned and how they fared.

I am somewhat familiar with both those who satyed and those who have left.
My wife is a third generation Hungarian and about a century ago (it seem
like it) when  I was young had a neighbor for a while who was a returend
miner from the US. He and his wife were not the friendliest folks, they had
no children, to young troublemakers. They came back just before WW I,
bought a house with a large garden in Szoreg, were considered very smart by
the neighbors, because they kept their money in USD and could live on it
well.
I only recall my father telling once that in spite of their comfortable
life, they never forgave themselves, that they returned. I have lost track
of them after the war.

I'll try to survey my wife's relatives about their stories and will post it
sometime. They were from Sarospatak, Szeretfalva, Gyor  and the
Palocfold area.

Regards,Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:

> I learned the definition of Socialism in school (see the authors Marx,
>  Lenin) and so it was quite easy to see, that the "existing socialism"
had
> not a lot common with it. It proves in fact, that if socialism is not
deve-
> loped democratically from grassroots, but forced on by a
burocratic/police

Well, one of the major fallacies of Marx was that in his time the working
class was small and its exploitation was not cusing market upsets. In a
society, where the majority of the people are workers, thir exploitation
leads to the collapse of the system. So they are not exploited. If I do not
pay enough to my workers, they can not afford to buy my customers products.

> state it cannot work.
> As far as I know, Danmark and Sweden has larger
> chunks of private (not state owned) property, than average.
>Anyway - as
> in UK, if nationalised property is not democratically controlled, it is
> just part of the old system.
Nationalised property is not controlled anywhere democratically and I doubt
if it can be with human beings as they are. Yhe first step toward
inefficiency, in any organization, is to give bureaucrats control to it.

> >
> >
> > The environmental war was a miserable loss also for the socialist
regimes.
> > The worst robber capitalist (Taiwan, S. Korea, Thailand) favoring
regimes
> > paid at least an order of magnitude more attention to the environment
then
> > Russia, the ex - satellites or China. In those countries, even the
issue of
> > environmental awareness was born after the deviation from socialism was
> > initiated.>

> See above my opinion about "socialist regimes".
> Can Taiwan etc. be trusted to look after the environment in the future?
In fact one of the booming markets currently in Taiwan is pollution
control. There is feedback in non-government dictated societies, that is
putting pressure on all segments of society to mend its ways, when these
pressures are hijacked by political groups for their advantage, is when the
issues get derailed.


> > Please give me a specific example that you consider preferrable that
works to
> > the benefit to the largest segment of the population. I am not willing
to
> > compare existing conditions with utopian theories.
> >
> > By the way, the Merlot is only $3.00/ bottle here, but of course we are
more
> > capitalistic than the UK. :-). In Russia wine was less than $1.00 and
there
> > is "no unemployment" but I would much more prefer even the UK to that
life.
> >
> > Regards,Jeliko.

> I have to think about the (near) future. Show me an existing country as
> a model to follow, where there is no chance of a stockmarket crash, mass
> unemployment, inflation, and there is a paid for strategy for saving the
en-
> vironment. If there isn't one, I think we have to have an idea what to
> work towards to.
Sorry, I asked the question first. :-). The "chance" is not an event, there
probably no 100% chance of any event, or it's opposit. I am convinced, that
a stockmarket crush in the US is a very, very small possibility. There is
no mass unemployment in the US. You can drive around and see many signs for
"Help wanted" and read the employment offers. There are a lot of people who
plain do not want to work. There is a problem also of Universities creating
"professions" for which there is no market. Why they are doing it? Because
they get very well paid for doing it, and the "market", i.e. the students
who were trained in non - needed jobs have only a limited feedback
capability, because most universities are in fact government controlled.

> US has better living standard (though I've heard rumors about totally
> isolated pockets of 3d world poverty inside the US?)
Well, it depends what you mean by "isolated", if it does not include
watching the soaps on a color television while having babies at taxpayer
assistance (the more kids they have, the higher is the ADC (Aid to
Dependent Children)), and having a car, a dog for hunting, a rifle or two,
and from the ADC enough beer to drink, than it is almost non-existent. If
you include the above "benefits" purveyed by the well meaning liberals
without having the faintest idea of its results on the self esteem and self
reliance of the population, then there are such pockets. I own a farm in
the foothills of the Appalachians, I know many people down there. Their
basic characteristics are not too different from the average person,
however some of them much rather live in a place comfortable to them. With
enough money avavilable for the minimum needs, they have all of the
benefits you statde for the small Hungarian village under Kadar. There are
enough family members to watch the increasing number of kids, ther is food.
the school does not cost anything. They own some land and their
housetrailer or live in a taxpayer subsidized housing and they do whatever
they want to do, without having to work.


>because energy is far cheaper there - and use twice as much per head as in
>UK -
This is a misleading figure. The US also produces per capita much more than
most other countries and the main reason that energy is cheaper is because
energy generation is NOT in the hand of the government (except TVA and some
hydroplants out west) and the tax on energy is not as high as elsewhere.
At the same time there is significant improvement in energy efficiency and
alternate means of energy generation R & D. Anyway, today the cost of
energy generation is not too different, because generation technology is
international. It is the price that is different, and here it is controlled
by competition, while in most other places by governemnt price (tax)
gouging.

> again I have no statistics at my fingertips, please prove me wrong.

> I know about life in a small poorer than average Hungarian village
> 1983-1987, where there was a fulltime nursery for every family with
> at least one working adult, all retired people had food provided for
> there was relative peace and no particular fear of authority/war/
> joblessness/homelessness/crime.
Eva, there is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for everything or borrow
the money to pay for it. You just left the payback problems to those who
still live there.

> I am not listing the numerous negative aspects - I only want to
> show a different criteria to standard of living -
> not my ideal (as it wasn't democratic or socialist) but would be
> paradise for some inner city kids/families as it was.
> Eva Durant
It would have been a paradise for many inner city kids probably even there.
My concern is the belief that seems to pervade your argument that the
government (i.e. bureaucrats) know better than the people. We all have to
make improvements in our future, but it will not come through bureaucratic
interference, it will only come by stepwise - feed back based - personal
effort.

Regards,Jeliko.

Bela Batkay writes:

> Perhaps it would be as well to mention the others commonly identified by
> social science: class, culture ("life-style"--vide the Stonewall
Rebellion
> in the U.S.),

I do hope that ther is more to the "culture" category than "life style"
agenda.

language (many examples from India), residence (urban vs rural,
> north vs south), religion (European religious wars, India again),
ideology
> (France, Italy until recently) and type of political institutions, as
well
> as level of relative economic development.

> A central question, of course, is how all these factors interrelate to
pro-
> duce a peaceful history (Iceland) or a violently conflictual one (almost

I will repeat my original statement ,that it was a society built on an, up
to then, uninhabited island, by people who left another society (for
whatever reason). So far nobody came up yet with another attribute that
makes it unique. Aside; Did the Lapps ever attacked anybody?

> everywhere else).  I will still maintain, following the Dutch writer Ian
> Buruma, that political institutions play a central role, serving either
to
> moderate or dissipate conflict or to exacerbate or foment it (Switzerland
may
> be an example of the former, contemporary Russia of the latter).  What is
so
> interesting about Hungary at the present historical moment (which is
where this
> all started) is that it is on the threshhold of decision about the type
of
> governmental and party systems it will have for the near future, and that

OOPS. You mean that the "threshold decision" is changing
the type of governmental and party systems? Did the voters know that?

>  decision may be crucial for the type and extent of conflict Hungarian
society
>  will
> experience.  The real trick for the Hungarians, as for the rest of us,
will be
> to develop and refine political institutions and processes that will
channel
> conflict in non-destructive beds, while maintaining the type of moderate
con-
> flict that that seems to be the essence of democracy.

I think we have an excess of the "conflict" left, to bank on for the next
few hundred years.

> In this respect, the poster (Jeliko?) who attempted to relieve the
Hungarians
> of responsibility in this regard by comparing Vo2lgyes' pejorative
description
> of Horthy-era governmental institutions and ritual behaviors with those
of
> then-contemporary Great Britain missed the boat entirely--Hungary was
>  attemptingto go backward in the 1920's and 1930's, or least to tread
water, so
>  to speak;
> Great Britain was going, if fitfully, forward.

Wait a minute, besides not minding missing the boat (I do not prefer that
mode of transport), I did not make the comparisson with GB only, I was
claiming that no country, not even Iceland can be looked at singularly
without a comparative view. If anything, politically, the current
government of Hungary may be going backwards. At least that is the
indication by the ad infinitum reciting of the glories of the late Kadar
and Nemeth governments. What I was strenously objecting to, was the sole
discussion of a country (Hungary) as if the rest of the world did not
exist, on a measure against somebody's percieved absolute norm, with almost
complete disregard of the circumstances, the type of support and the type
of opposition for the ruling circles.

> Put another way, Horthy-era
> Hungary's political institutions did *not* contribute to the development
of
> peaceful channels of conflict-resolution within a genuinely democratic
frame-
> work, Great Britain's did (yes, despite the social and political
inequality
> visited on, among others, Welsh coal miners).
Which again can not be evaluated without the entire baggage of the
colonies, GB was probably democratic for the population residing in England
but that was a smaller segment of the masses ruled by the GB government,
than proportionally the segment who had a "democratic" life in Hungary
under Horthy.

> The result?  Great Britain remains in the forefront of economically
developed
> genuine democracies (yes, despite the cancer of Northern Ireland), and
Hungary
> continues to grope, although G.B. is a fully multi-ethnic/cultural
society, and
> Hungary is about as monoethnic/cultural as a continental European country
is
> likely to get.
I gather that you are a political scientist, so may I ask how many years
was GB an independent country, without one or another type of foreign
influence? Don't you think that the devlopment of a society structure is a
time consuming process? Don't you think that all societies were groping for
a better (or at times different) social structure than the one from which
they are emerging after many years of foreign influence?

> Clearly, the argument presented here is subject to falsification on many
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I sincerly hope that you do not mean that anyone who disagrees is
"falsifying" something.

fronts;
> all that I ask is that we not forget what Aristotle and Plato already
knew--
> namely, that politics can be an *independent* variable, and poltiical
>  arrange-ments influence the course of social development at least as
much as
>  the other
> way around.
Yeah, and where did it get the Greeks. :-)

> Ele'g!
> Be'la Ba'tkay

Regards,Jeliko.

Andras Kornai writes:   (most deleted)

> liberalism becoming a fringe movement, and whether this can be entirely
> attributed to "Jewish success" and the "self-defense" of Hungarians (as
the
> justifications of the Jewish Laws put it) is one dark side of the
Horthy-era
> that calls for further "oknyomoza1s".

Andras, I recommend again Ezra Mendelsohn's book, "The Jews of Esat Central
Europe between the World Wars." It is pretty good "oknyomozo", he is by the
way the Prof of Contemporay Jewry in Jerusalem. It covers many of the
issues discussed.

But I want to most emphatically
> divorce this question from the dominant dark aspect of the Horthy-era,
which
> was the tying of Hungary to Germany (a Germany that happened to be nazi,
and
> a nazism that happened to be anti-semitic -- but it would have been the
same
> ugly thing if they fixated more on homosexuals and less on Jews), to the
> loser of a previous war that was clearly inferior in military and
economic
> potential to the winners of WWI, and which, to nobody's surprise, came to
be
> a loser again.

I am not so sure that the implied "inferiority in military and economic
potential" was a widely held view in those days and with the exception of
the US it was not true for the rest of the group. Have you read Lukacs'
"The Duel", it is an interesting description of the first 100 days of the
actual war in the west. Please remeber that even in the US, there were
people who considered the Germans capable of winning the war before 1941.
One reason, while a carte blanche, military equipment transmittal did not
take place initially, was the percieved problem of it getting into German
hands.

> > the same time, the sons and daughters of those Jews who had made it and
had
> > become great Hungarian patriots with loyalty to the regime, turned
against
> > their fathers as well as against the establishment.
> A story often repeated by the "samizdat" opposition (again showing the
> usual mixture of Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals) though at that
point
> the turning against the fathers went in the other direction. Here "usual"
> means larger Jewish share than overall population statistics would imply,
it
> doesn't mean "dominated by", as some of our correspondents would
apparently
> have it.
You have no disagreement from me for the latter, what I was stating is,
that after WWI, the industry and commerce was dominated by the Jews in
Hungary and a large part of the middle class was also Jewish. I am not
blaming anybody for this either. The reason I brought it up is that the
Horthy regime in its early and mid to late years could not have been
supported by the right wing only and the bulk of the entire population
supported Trianon revision.

>Again the main point, and one that E1va makes quite clearly for the
> period she considers, is that the trajectory of the Jewish and non-Jewish
> intelligentsia didn't diverge. This holds true for all of modern history
at
> least from the Age of Reform, with the only break imposed by nazism. And
I
> should also add that 56, again a demonstration of national unity that
knew
> no racist exclusion, has basically healed the WWII wounds on both sides
(to
> the extent that the two artificially divided sides must be recognized as
> separate) and even the best efforts of Mr. Csurka and Co. accomplished
very

Is Csurka really that much of a factor? I feel the most publicity he gets
is the one against him. Who are the people he actually represents? I mean
by social strata.

> little in trying to reopen them. As a recent editorial in Magyar Narancs*
> put it, the only party still using the ne1pies/urba1nus conflict as its
> system of coordinates was Fidesz, who gave the right answer to the wrong
> question.

I always thought of FIDESZ as intellectuals who like blue jeans. But I
really do not know or care for current politics in Hungary, other than
trying to keep up with their economic policies, which are not encouraging.

Zoli Fekete writes:

> > you do not find it ironic to compare Hungary with England (via
Macartney)
> What I find ironic that you go to such great lenght to fight your straw
> man as if it was what I said ;-(. I had no comparision with anything -
> none, zilch, nada, nothing whatsoever (did I say no comparision yet
> ;-)?)!

Dear Zoli:

Where we disagree is more basic. I do not beleive that there is "absolute"
social history, IMHO there is only comparative social history. There is no
absolute standard set up for any society that is the considered standard.
Therefore, the evaluations you made have to be considered on a comparative
basis, i.e. under the geographical, political and social circumstances how
one society does compared to others. You keep objecting to compariaaon and
at the same time you are doing it also, when it benefits your beliefs.
See the Romania/Hungary issue in your reply.

At the same time there is no absolute impartialness in history either, we
are all victims of our experiences. For just about any historical event,
you can find exactly opposing views. The most difficult task of anyone
trying to unravel past events is to consider everything written and try to
peel off the prejudices involved BEFORE synthetizing a sensible picture.

If you think you are accomplishing that, at least based on what I have read
from your postings in the recent weeks, you are mistaken.

IMHO it is just as faulty to blame a single individual as a whole society
for an event. The truth most likely lies somewhere in between,
particularly if one adds in the spice of the circumstances.

>From your writing, I gather that you were not a participant in the events
discussed (from an age standpoint), so your discussion is on a derived
basis. I do not know either if you personally were faced with difficult
decisions, which involve the lives of people. Those are not not easy to be
made and only easy to judge from a retrospect.

I do not feel guilty for what Horthy did or what Rakosi did. I am at the
same time ashamed that more people did not stand up and did something, when
they could have in BOTH cases. We ALL have personal responsibilities for
our actions and responsibility for our fellow human beings. Flippant
armchair discussions are not a substitute for those responsibilites.
Several people on the newsgroup are ridiculing that others are not happy
with an ex-pufajkas as a PM in Hungary, because he was not really doing
what the rest of the Pufajkas were doing. I am sorry, that is like claiming
that someone who was a nyilas but because he did not personally bludgeon
people to death, and he was only wearing the uniform and later mended his
way, he is a jolly good fellow. To my knowledge, Horn never even apologized
to the nation for his earlier actions and affiliations and the same goes
for the rest of the troops who were involved. That is a farce.

Regards,Jeliko.

Dear Istvan:

Nobody should be left out whether they wash their salami or not.
As I was reading your second message, I realized that I responded to Zoli's
Dear Jeliko message by returning the favor and addressing him as Dear Zoli
and posting to the group. So before you nail me also with a missive, I
wanted to apologize for the oversight and assure that I do not get in
trouble with the EEOC.

Jeliko the fallen.

I will try to stear the group from getting stuck in Horthy gear, with
periodical diversionary tactics. To me the only diversion is reading, so it
is not going to be very surprising that it is a book again.
A description of life in a French concentration camp at the beginning of
WW II by Arthur Koestler "The Scum of the Earth". IMHO it is very, very
good, as are most things he wrote and it is useful even for historical
study. It is a vivid description of the knock on the door, the lies, the
beatings, the starvation, the deaths, by someone who was there. Sorry it
was in France starting in 1941. Apparently not all democracies were created
equal.

Regards,Jeliko.

Greg writes:

> Now this could be a merry chase!  Analytic, prescriptive, investigative,
> deductive?

> --Greg

I vote for "analytical history" vs "descriptive history"

Jeliko

Zoli writes:
>  Joe,

> > Seriously, the Germans seemed pretty invincible for a while, no?
> No, they did not...

> -- Zoli

They did.

Jeliko, PS. it is 2:1 now, if we are keeping score

On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, JELIKO wrote:
> Zoli writes:
> >  Joe,
> > > Seriously, the Germans seemed pretty invincible for a while, no?
> > No, they did not...
> > -- Zoli
> They did.
> Jeliko, PS. it is 2:1 now, if we are keeping score

It may change tomorrow after 1pm EDT.

Istvan Kertesz

Unsubscribe me from this news service.wq

Zoli Fekete writes:
>  Dear Greg - sorry about mixing up the names (this is definitely not my
> day ;-))

>  Obviously WWII was not a cakewalk, and would've became much more
> protracted had the USA not entered. But Germany had very long odds to
> begin with despite the appearences, and by the time Bardossy jumped in it
> had practically no chance against the three big IMHO. Why do I think so?

Zoli: I think you have some events mixed up. When Bardossy jumped in there
was no "big three", it was the UK and Russia and the experience to base
Russian strength was the Finnish war, not very promising for Russia
withstanding the German attack. France was not even a factor.
The US was sitting in America.
The UK was being pummeled in north Africa, the only front line between the
Germans and the Brits. The Brits were thrown out of Greece. The British
bombing was doing only minor damage to the German industrial strength.
Please check dates before firing keys.

Regards,Jeliko.

In reply to your message of "Wed, 29 Jun 94 18: 06:48 GMT."
             >
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 09:08:00 -0700
From: 

Jeliko writes:
> We ALL have personal responsibilities for
> our actions and responsibility for our fellow human beings.

Is a nation "ready" for democracy when enough people, in enough
places and social classes, believe the above (and in democracy) and
are ready to act on their belief, even to their own peril?

--Greg

JELIKO writes:
> Andras, I recommend again Ezra Mendelsohn's book, "The Jews of Esat Central
> Europe between the World Wars." It is pretty good "oknyomozo", he is by the
I'll check it out.

> I am not so sure that the implied "inferiority in military and economic
> potential" was a widely held view in those days and with the exception of
> the US it was not true for the rest of the group. Have you read Lukacs'
> "The Duel"
I've looked at it and I think the very concept of pitting Churchill against
Hitler puts too much emphasis on personalities. I don't think Germany had
the manpower to pacify and hold on to Europe (remember, it just goes out and
out till the Urals) much less to win it. And of course there is this caveat
about the US -- one of my main points (made to Greg who said he'll check it
out) was that there was no chance of the US staying out, and people knew
that everywhere in Europe, the US having been the main guarantor of the
peace Germany (and Hungary) wanted to rewrite. In the US there have been
a fair amount of isolationism before WWI and WWII, but when the chips were
down the US came in the first time and there was no reason whatsoever to
suppose it won't the second time.

> You have no disagreement from me for the latter, what I was stating is,
> that after WWI, the industry and commerce was dominated by the Jews in
> Hungary and a large part of the middle class was also Jewish.
No. It is true that people of Jewish origin played a large role in the
middle class, in industry, and in commerce (though to say they dominated I
think is an overstatement) but these people were not *Jewish* they were
*Hungarians*. Some of them (but not too many) had Jewish religion, but most of
them didn't. Some of them (but not too many) might have had Jewish
self-identification, but most of them identified themselves as Hungarians,
were in fact highly patriotic Hungarians who would under no circumstances
put loyality for some Jewish cause above loyality for the country.

I think this is a major point, well worth stressing. Assimilation was a very
significant process, and Jews in Hungary have taken full advantage of the
liberal laws of pre-WWI Hungary. To say that e.g. the von Neumann family
wasn't Hungarian is to project racial laws back to a time when such laws
were not in effect. Nazism aimed at reimposing racial criteria, but even
that required looking at the grandparents. By the interwar years there
practically nothing in the personal conduct of these people that could serve
as a reliable indicator of Jewishness: their mother tongue was usually
Hungarian, their religion often Christian, they served, often with
distinction, in the Hungarian army, they supported Hungarian patriotic
causes, they married Hungarians as often as not, and of course they said
they were Hungarians.

I can see even Professor Mendelsohn ignore this point, as it makes people
with strong Jewish patriotism very uncomfortable.  Counting "Jewish
influence" by re-defining these people as Jews is just so much simpler. Yet,
for the larger part, they weren't Jewish, not as far as anybody (except of
course Hitler) was concerned, including themselves.  I will read Mendelsohn,
you might want to check out William McCagg's "A History of Habsburg Jews,
1670-1918" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1989) as it deals with
this process of assimilation in quite some detail.

> the Horthy regime in its early and mid to late years could not have been
> supported by the right wing only and the bulk of the entire population
> supported Trianon revision.
I don't think the first part is correct: the system could, and did, survive
on right-wing support, but of course that right wing was the larger part of
the population that mattered (for how much the agrarian poor mattered is
quite unclear -- besides, there is no reason to believe they were uniformly
left-leaning). As for people supporting Trianon revision, I agree. But to
what extent the leadership needed to fuel this support as something they can
capitalize on (i.e. keep attention focussed on the outside enemy in
preference to dealing with domestic problems) and to what extent was this a
reasonable thing to support are entirely different matters.

> Is Csurka really that much of a factor? I feel the most publicity he gets
> is the one against him. Who are the people he actually represents? I mean
> by social strata.
No he isn't, he just appeared to be a factor earlier (and in politics,
appearances matter). He represents nobody in particular, except perhaps the
absolute losers of WWII (the committed nazi/nyilas types who often served
time or were otherwise persecuted, still nursing their grief, and looking
for revanche) that's why he's getting so few votes.

> I always thought of FIDESZ as intellectuals who like blue jeans.
I think that was fair enough when they started, though it no longer
describes them.  They put on suits and lost much of their appeal in the
process.

> trying to keep up with their economic policies, which are not encouraging.
You don't mean Fidesz, I hope. They have the most radical shock therapy
program all around, even better than my favorite SZDSZ, where reform-socialist
thinking is still a significant factor.

Andra1s Kornai

JELIKO writes:
> Zoli: I think you have some events mixed up. When Bardossy jumped in there
> was no "big three", it was the UK and Russia and the experience to base
> Russian strength was the Finnish war, not very promising for Russia
> withstanding the German attack. France was not even a factor.
> The US was sitting in America.
> The UK was being pummeled in north Africa, the only front line between the
> Germans and the Brits. The Brits were thrown out of Greece. The British
> bombing was doing only minor damage to the German industrial strength.

Yes, yes, the US was sitting in America. But it already had lend-lease with
the UK, and there wasn't the slightest doubt that all this pummeling of the
Brits will only speed up America's entry into the war. All they were waiting
for was a popular cause, and Pearl Harbor supplied it. But who could have
the slightest doubt they wanted to enter the war? It's been amply documented
that the US Govt was warned about the impending Pearl Harbor attack through
several independent channels, yet they did nothing. Why? Because they wanted
to enter the war, that's why.

Why did they want to enter the war? Because it was against US national
interest to stay neutral and let Germany rule the rest of Europe. Had Pearl
Harbor been averted, it would have been still been against American interest
to leave Europe alone, and the US would have used some other excuse to enter
the war. Remember, they already did it in WWI and imposed a peace to their
liking. Every day of waiting cost them in lost influence (and they did lose
Eastern Europe to the Soviets by waiting as long as they did) and do you
think they were unaware of this? It was only a matter of time, and I think
they would have even fabricated a *casus belli* if the Japanese haven't
conveniently supplied one. It's been done before, you know.

Andra1s Kornai

In reply to your message of "Fri, 01 Jul 94 12: 32:28 PDT."
             >
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 13:11:44 -0700
From: 

Andra1s Kornai writes:
[subject was Re: The Jewish question]
> ...one of my main points (made to Greg who said he'll check it
> out) was that there was no chance of the US staying out...
Sorry, there's been a misunderstanding.  My point is (merely) that
Germany "seemed pretty invincible for a while".  That's all I'm
working on documenting. (While we're on this point, I can ask if
"defeatism" qualifies as evidence on my side; and I'll have to plead
that I never meant "seemed to all people in all places".)

I'm just trying to show that, at times, and in places, things
appeared so.  Because, as we agree
> in politics, appearances matter


--Greg

Most of the posting is rather well know fact (not that it would take away
from it's significance). However, since you brought up Ferencz Erdei,
interestingly he had to be persuade not to join the MKP since as the head
of the pro-communist Peasant Party (The Communist answer to Smallholder
Party) he was the Minister of Interior (Which at that time could not be
held by communist, until Imre Nagy took over in 1946). This info is
confirmed by Zoltan Vas, Kallai and Marosan autobiography and the
hypothesis written about in Ferencz Nagy's autobiography.


                                                        Attila

Greg Grose writes:
> Sorry, there's been a misunderstanding.  My point is (merely) that
> Germany "seemed pretty invincible for a while".  That's all I'm
> working on documenting. (While we're on this point, I can ask if
> "defeatism" qualifies as evidence on my side; and I'll have to plead
> that I never meant "seemed to all people in all places".)
Defeatism definitely counts as evidence for your side (since you kindly let
me set the rules). Again, I'm not denying that Germany, relative to a
limited set of participants "seemed pretty invincible", you might as well
save yourself the time to go to the library. It's not inconceivable that,
left to their own, they could have actually succeeding in winning Europe. I
find this unlikely, but I agree that on that count there is serious room for
doubt, and that one cannot blame politicians for not knowing that much in
advance.

But there is a larger question, namely was there any reason to believe that
the US will turn a blind eye. German victory in Europe was agains the US
national interest, wouldn't you agree? If so, what made Germany think they
could get away with it? They were licked the first time, what was the point
of trying again? More importantly, what was the point of Hungary entering
the fray, having also been thoroughly beaten the first time?

The Brits did everything in their power to drag the US into the war, and I
claim it was highly predictable that they will do so. Especially with
Churchill as PM, and lend-lease already signed, there couldn't be any
serious doubt that the US will again let the warring parties bleed
themselves out, and will again enter victoriously. The question was when,
not whether.

It was a big mistake for Go2mbo2s to tie Hungary to Germany, knowing full
well that Germany was hankering for revanche but has no chances against the
US (besides, it was a totally repugnant system but hey, we are talking
hardball politics, and who is to say the SU was any better). Yes, Wilson
retreated in comfortable isolationism once WWI was won and Germany was
beaten. But this was predicated on Germany's having been comfortably beaten,
and meant nothing if they decided (as they did) to try it again.

Later it was not only a big mistake, it was absolute folly on Ba1rdossy's
part to enter a war in which eventual US participation, and US victory, was
predictable both from historical precedent and from any consideration of US
national interest.  When their fundamental intersts were threatened, the
Brits got rid of their appeasment-based policies and policymakers and took
out Sir Winston from the mothball closet. What did Ba1rdossy think this
meant? The writing was on the wall, in letters ten feet tall.

Andra1s Kornai

Since it hasn't been announced on HUNGARY I think I should mention it here:
Jo1zsef Hollo1si's HIX now provides a daily summary of posts to the list.
Nothing is left out (the digestification is automatic) but instead of the
twenty+ messages arriving in your mailbox every day, there will be only one
(much longer) message. To subscribe, write to  (Subject
and body of message irrelevant) and write to  with
any Subject and "SET HUNGARY NOMAIL" in the body. I will switch to this new
system starting tomorrow, so I might be slower in responding from now on.

Andra1s Kornai

In reply to your message of "Fri, 01 Jul 94 14: 40:46 PDT."
             >
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 15:20:23 -0700
From: 

Andra1s Kornai writes:
> you might as well
> save yourself the time to go to the library.
Yay!  My weekend is saved!

> But there is a larger question, namely was there any reason to believe
> that the US will turn a blind eye.
Yes, much larger.

> German victory in Europe was agains the US
> national interest, wouldn't you agree?
Yes

> If so, what made Germany think they
> could get away with it?
I wish I knew...

> They were licked the first time, what was the point
> of trying again? More importantly, what was the point of Hungary entering
> the fray, having also been thoroughly beaten the first time?
same wish...

Since the questions are bigger, I've modified the subject: line.

--Greg

WARNING: this is an extraordinarily long report on Soros' activities in
Central Eastern Europe, with many references to Hungary. I found it
interesting and there is much to be discussed. However, if you don't have
the time, interest, or diskspace for it, hit DEL now!!!
- Istvan Kertesz, firing up his barbecue.
> ---------------------------------------------------------

      DATE=6/00/94
      TYPE=FOCUS
    NUMBER=4-07533
     TITLE=SOROS & THE NEW MARSHALL PLAN [PART #4]
    BYLINE=FRANCIS RONALDS
 TELEPHONE=619-3937
  DATELINE=WASHINGTON
    EDITOR=THOMAS SLINKARD

CONTENT=

         ACTUALITIES IN AUDIO SERVICES

ANNCR:   THE VOICE OF AMERICA PRESENTS FOCUS!

CART:    FOCUS THEME UP, ESTABLISH, UNDER

INTRO:   THE SUCCESS OF THE MARSHALL PLAN IN REVIVING THE
         DEVASTATED COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE AFTER WORLD WAR
         TWO HAS NOT BEEN REPLICATED BY EFFORTS TO SUCCOR THE
         LANDS WHICH, BEFORE 1989, WERE PARTS OF THE SOVIET
         EMPIRE.  THERE IS WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT A KEY TO THE
         MARSHALL PLAN'S SUCCESS WAS THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ONLY
         ONE AID DONOR -- THE UNITED STATES -- AND THE UNITED
         STATES REQUIRED THE RECIPIENT COUNTRIES TO COOPERATE IN
         DIVIDING UP THE AID, IN LOWERING TARIFFS AND IN
         ESTABLISHING CONVERTIBLE CURRENCIES.  SO FAR, THE RICH
         G-7 COUNTRIES OF THE WEST AND INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE
         INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE WORLD BANK HAVE BEEN
         UNABLE TO WORK OUT A SIMILAR COORDINATED STRATEGY.  AT
         THE SAME TIME, THE NATIONALIST FEELINGS SUPPRESSED SO
         LONG UNDER THE COMMUNIST YOKE NOW OFTEN STAND IN THE WAY
         OF EFFECTIVE COOPERATION AMONG THE NATIONS OF THE FORMER
         SOVIET BLOC.  BUT THERE IS ONE AID ORGANIZATION THAT
         HAS, ON A RELATIVELY MODEST SCALE, FOLLOWED THE
         PRINCIPLES OF THE MARSHALL PLAN.  THE SOROS FOUNDATION,
         WITH ITS REMARKABLE NETWORK OF 34 INSTITUTIONS IN 25
         NATIONS, HAS JUST ONE DONOR -- THE HUNGARIAN-BORN
         AMERICAN FINANCIER AND PHILANTHROPIST GEORGE SOROS.  MR.
         SOROS HAS ALREADY EARMARKED OVER ONE BILLION DOLLARS OF
         HIS OWN MONEY FOR BUILDING WHAT HE CALLS "OPEN
         SOCIETIES" IN EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA.  IN THIS
         FINAL PROGRAM IN OUR SERIES ON THE LESSONS OF THE
         MARSHALL PLAN, FRANK RONALDS DESCRIBES MR. SOROS'
         ACHIEVEMENTS AND HIS LONG-TERM GOALS.

HOST:    ACCORDING TO LORD ERIC ROLL, THE AMERICANS SHOWED VISION
         AND FORESIGHT WHEN, IN 1947, THEY SET THE CONDITIONS FOR
         MARSHALL PLAN.   DURING THE FOUR YEARS THE PLAN LASTED,
         ERIC ROLL WAS THE BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
         ORGANIZATION FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COOPERATION IN PARIS.
         HE IS NOW PRESIDENT OF S.G. WARBURG, THE LONDON
         INVESTMENT BANKING FIRM:

TAPE: CUT ONE -- ROLL

         "THE AMERICANS SAID, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, 'WE WILL
         ASK CONGRESS FOR X-MILLION DOLLARS AND YOU WILL DIVIDE
         IT AMONG YOURSELVES ACCORDING TO YOUR PROGRAM.  WE WILL
         NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DIVISION OF THE AID.'  THAT WAS
         AN EXTRAORDINARY DECISION.  IT WAS ABSOLUTELY
         FLABBERGASTING TO US, I CAN ASSURE YOU: WHEN WE WERE
         TOLD THAT THE AMERICANS EXPECTED US, SITTING IN PARIS,
         TO DIVIDE THE AID AMONG OURSELVES.  BUT WE DID.  AND IT
         WAS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT.  THEY WANTED NOT MERELY TO BE
         FREE FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEREFORE FROM ANY
         KIND OF BACKBITING THAT THEY FAVORED 'X' [COUNTRY]
         RATHER THAN 'Y' AND SO ON.  NOT ONLY FOR THAT REASON,
         WHICH IS A PRETTY OBVIOUS ONE.  BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE
         CONVINCED THAT IF WE WERE DRAWING UP THE RECOVERY
         PROGRAM, WE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO HAD TO DECIDE WHO WAS
         GOING TO GET WHAT.  AND THAT WAS A VERY FAR-SIGHTED
         THING.  A VERY REMARKABLE PIECE OF STATESMANSHIP."

HOST:    GEORGE SOROS, WHO HAS SHOWN SIMILAR FORESIGHT, IS
         CRITICAL OF CURRENT WESTERN AID EFFORTS.  DUE TO
         POLITICAL PRESSURES AT HOME, HE SAYS, THE TYPES OF AID
         OFFERED OFTEN REFLECT THE NEEDS OF THE DONORS MORE THAN
         THE RECIPIENTS.  FURTHERMORE, HE SAYS, THE AID IS ALL
         TOO LIKELY TO DISAPPEAR INTO THE MAW OF A CORRUPT
         GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY, THE LEGACY OF LONG YEARS OF
         COMMUNIST RULE.  HIS APPROACH IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE
         MARSHALL PLANNERS, EXCEPT THAT AID IS NOT TURNED OVER TO
         CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS:

TAPE: CUT TWO -- SOROS

         "THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE'RE GENUINELY CONCERNED
         ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHOM WE ARE HELPING.  WE
         LISTEN TO THEM.  IN EACH COUNTRY, WE HAVE A FOUNDATION
         WITH A BOARD OF LOCAL PEOPLE, REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS,
         AND A LOCAL ORGANIZATION.  AND WE DON'T DICTATE TO THEM
         HOW THEY SPEND THE MONEY.  THEY DECIDE HOW THEY SPEND
         THE MONEY.  WE OFFER THEM A MENU OF OPPORTUNITIES AND WE
         ALSO DEFINE GUIDELINES WITHIN WHICH THEY CAN ACT.  BUT
         IT'S REALLY THEIR DECISION WHERE THEIR PRIORITIES LIE
         AND HOW FAR THEY DEVELOP IN CERTAIN AREAS.  SO EACH
         FOUNDATION IS VERY DIFFERENT.  WE BUILD ON THE NEEDS OF
         THE COUNTRY AND ON THE ABILITIES OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
         EITHER INVOLVED IN THE FOUNDATION OR ARE SUPPORTED BY
         THE FOUNDATION.  WE ARE GUIDED BY THE DEMANDS AND THE
         POSSIBILITIES IN THE COUNTRIES THEMSELVES.  WE DON'T
         HAVE A STRATEGY THAT WE IMPOSE."

HOST:    MOST OF THE ORGANIZATIONS SET UP BY MR. SOROS IN
         FORMERLY COMMUNIST COUNTRIES ARE CALLED "OPEN SOCIETY
         FOUNDATIONS."  ALL OF THEM ARE INSPIRED BY THE SAME
         PHILOSOPHY, BASED ON HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS WELL
         AS STUDIES, PARTICULARLY WITH THE PHILOSOPHER, KARL
         POPPER, WHO COINED THE TERM "OPEN SOCIETY."  MR. SOROS
         EXPLAINS:

TAPE: CUT THREE -- SOROS

         "I GREW UP IN HUNGARY, WHERE I EXPERIENCED PERSECUTION
         FROM THE NAZIS AND THEN I HAD A TASTE OF THE COMMUNIST
         REGIME.  SO I LEARNED VERY EARLY IN MY LIFE HOW
         IMPORTANT IT IS WHAT KIND OF A SOCIETY YOU LIVE IN.  AND
         THIS EARLY EXPERIENCE LED ME TO EXPLORE THIS CONFLICT
         BETWEEN TWO KINDS OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION.  ON THE ONE
         HAND, LET'S SAY, THE NAZI AND THE COMMUNIST, WHICH ARE
         WHAT I CALL 'CLOSED SOCIETIES,' AND THE OTHER, WHICH IS
         NORMALLY DESCRIBED AS DEMOCRACY, WHICH I CALL 'OPEN.'  I
         WAS VERY MUCH INFLUENCED IN STUDYING KARL POPPER.  I
         REALIZED THAT THE KEY ISSUE IS THIS:  THAT IN A CLOSED
         SOCIETY, SOMEBODY STANDS UP AND SAYS, 'I KNOW THE
         ULTIMATE TRUTH, AND THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO DO THINGS,
         AND THAT'S MY WAY.'  THERE'S AN ULTIMATE TRUTH, WHICH
         EVERYBODY HAS TO LIVE WITH.  WHEREAS THIS OTHER, OPEN,
         SOCIETY RECOGNIZES THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE
         ULTIMATE ANSWER, THAT WE ALL OPERATE AS PARTICIPANTS
         WITH IMPERFECT UNDERSTANDING.  THAT LEADS YOU TO
         PLURALISM.  OPEN SOCIETY.  AND THE OTHER ONE, OF COURSE,
         IS THE CLOSED SOCIETY AND DOGMA."

HOST:    JUST AS DICTATORSHIPS ARE HIGHLY CENTRALIZED, DEMOCRACY
         CALLS FOR A DEVOLUTION OF DECISION-MAKING.  WITH THE
         COLLAPSE OF THE HIGHLY CENTRALIZED SOVIET SYSTEM, THERE
         IS A CRYING NEED FOR COMPETENT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS AT
         THE LOCAL LEVELS.  TO FOSTER THIS PROCESS OF
         DECENTRALIZATION, MR. SOROS ESTABLISHED THE INSTITUTE
         FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE, WHICH IS
         HEADQUARTERED IN BUDAPEST.  ZOLTAN SZIGETHY, EXECUTIVE
         DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE, WORKS WITH SOROS
         ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE AREA TO HELP CITIES AND
         UNIVERSITIES TRAIN ADMINISTRATORS TO TAKE ON NEW TASKS,
         OFTEN BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER ACROSS NATIONAL
         BOUNDARIES TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCES:

TAPE: CUT FOUR -- SZIGETHY

         "IN MANY RESPECTS, THESE COUNTRIES ARE STRUGGLING FOR
         THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL SURVIVAL AT THIS POINT, AND THEY
         FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COOPERATE AS NATIONS.  AS A
         CONSEQUENCE, WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND WHAT WE ARE
         PROMOTING, IS THAT INDIVIDUALS, SMALLER GROUPS,
         ASSOCIATIONS, WHO HAVE COMMON INTERESTS -- THAT THEY
         COME TOGETHER.  AND IN THE PROCESS, HOPEFULLY AND
         EVENTUALLY, THE NATION STATES WILL FOLLOW SUIT.  BUT THE
         MOMENTUM FOR THIS KIND OF SHARING IS NOT COMING FROM THE
         (TOP) GOVERNMENT LEVELS.  IT'S COMING FROM THE GRASS
         ROOTS LEVELS.  AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE PUTTING OUR
         CHIPS (MONEY) AND PROVIDING OUR SUPPORT."

HOST:    THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY, WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN AN
         ENDOWMENT OF 100-MILLION DOLLARS AND 30-MILLION DOLLARS
         IN CONSTRUCTION FUNDS BY GEORGE SOROS, HAS CAMPUSES IN
         BUDAPEST AND PRAGUE.  ITS PRESIDENT AND RECTOR IS
         PROFESSOR AL STEPAN, FORMER DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF
         INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
         IN NEW YORK:

TAPE: CUT FIVE -- STEPAN

         "WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN STRATEGIES TO TRANSCEND
         NATIONALISM AND POSITIVE STRATEGIES TO ENCOURAGE
         COOPERATION.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THAT'S REALLY
         THE CORE IDEA OF THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY.  IN
         THAT WAY, IT'S SIMILAR TO THE MARSHALL PLAN.

         LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF A VERY SPECIFIC AREA WHERE
         WE ARE TRYING TO HELP OVERCOME A MAJOR PROBLEM BY A FORM
         OF COLLECTIVE WORK.  THAT'S IN THE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT.
         WE HAVE ABOUT 60 STUDENTS IN OUR ENVIRONMENTAL STREAM
         (ENROLLED IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES).  THEY COME FROM
         ABOUT 25 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.  AT LEAST 40 PERCENT OF
         THEM, BY THE WAY, HAVE A PHD [DOCTORATE] IN SCIENCE.
         NOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH US IS TAKING A MASTER'S
         DEGREE IN THE POLICY ANALYSIS OF POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND
         ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.  AND THEY ARE WORKING TOGETHER ON
         PROJECTS THAT, IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, SAY, THE WORLD
         BANK DOING THEM, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO GET
         PHDS FROM 15 COUNTRIES IN THE FIELD, LIVING OUT IN TENTS
         OVERNIGHT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.  BUT A UNIVERSITY,
         WHICH DOESN'T REPRESENT GOVERNMENTS AS MUCH AS CIVIL
         SOCIETY, CAN ORGANIZE A PROJECT LIKE THIS.  (BEGIN OPT)
         AS YOU KNOW, MUCH OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IS
         INTENSELY POLLUTED, AND THERE ARE MORE THAN 25 DIFFERENT
         BORDERS.  THEREFORE, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK OF A
         COHERENT POLICY TO REVERSE THIS UNLESS ONE THINKS ABOUT
         COOPERATIVE INTERNATIONAL ACTION. (END OPT)"

HOST:    THE SOROS INITIATIVES DO NOT ENTIRELY BY-PASS
         GOVERNMENTS.  FOR EXAMPLE, GEORGE SOROS HAS GIVEN 100
         MILLION DOLLARS TO PROVIDE RESEARCH GRANTS TO MANY OF
         THE OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS IN RUSSIA, UKRAINE AND OTHER
         STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION, WHO PREVIOUSLY WERE
         EMPLOYED BY THE SOVIET MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.  THE
         INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION COOPERATES WITH THE
         RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF WHAT AND ALSO WITH MOSCOW STATE
         UNIVERSITY.  BUT GRANTS ARE AWARDED BY AN ADVISORY
         COMMITTEE MADE UP OF SCIENTISTS FROM MANY DIFFERENT
         COUNTRIES.  NO PARTY FUNCTIONARIES APPOINTED TO
         SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS BY FORMER COMMUNIST LEADERS
         NEED APPLY.

         ANOTHER MAJOR PROGRAM IS DEVOTED TO EDUCATIONAL REFORM.
         OVER THE LONG RUN, MR. SOROS BELIEVES, NOTHING COULD BE
         MORE IMPORTANT:

TAPE: CUT SIX -- SOROS

         "WE HAVE A PROJECT IN RUSSIA, WHICH STARTED IN RUSSIA,
         WHICH IS A TRANSFORMATION OF HUMANITIES EDUCATION IN THE
         HIGH SCHOOLS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS) AND UNIVERSITIES OF
         RUSSIA.  IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
         AND THE MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, WE HAVE A TASK
         FORCE, BASICALLY, TO REPLACE MARXISM-LENINISM IN THE
         SCHOOLS, AND REPLACE A DOGMATIC WAY OF TEACHING WITH A
         CRITICAL WAY OF THINKING.  WE STARTED 18 MONTHS AGO OR
         SO.  WE ADVERTISED FOR PROJECTS.  WE HAD AN
         INTERNATIONAL JURY.  WE HAD A COUPLE OF THOUSAND
         APPLICATIONS AND WE HAD SEVERAL HUNDRED PROJECTS WE
         AUTHORIZED.  THE FIRST TEXTBOOKS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.
         THEY ARE BEING DISTRIBUTED.  THERE ARE WORKSHOPS HELD,
         TEACHERS TRAINED, PRINCIPALS TRAINED.  THE IMPACT, I
         THINK, IS TREMENDOUS, AND THE SPEED WITH WHICH THIS
         WHOLE PROGRAM HAS EVOLVED IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE.  THE
         FIRST TEXTBOOKS ARE IN THE CLASSROOMS.  WE EXPECT TO
         SPEND 250-MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS."

HOST:    THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
         THIS EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION.  ANNE LONESDALE, A FORMER
         PROFESSOR OF CHINESE LITERATURE AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND
         THE CURRENT CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR UNIVERSITY
         ADMINISTRATORS IN GREAT BRITAIN, IS NOW C-E- U.
         SECRETARY GENERAL.  SHE SAYS THAT THE C-E-U, WHICH
         OFFERED ITS FIRST CLASSES IN THE FALL OF 1990, IS THE
         FIRST UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD TO BEGIN OPERATIONS IN
         CLOSE COOPERATION WITH MANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
         LEARNING, MAKING EXTENSIVE USE OF COMPUTERS FOR ARCHIVAL
         RETRIEVAL AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS:

TAPE: CUT SEVEN -- LONESDALE

         "WHAT EXCITED ME ABOUT THE JOB OF SECRETARY GENERAL AT
         THE C-E-U WAS THAT IT'S DOING SOMETHING WHICH I THINK IS
         VERY IMPORTANT, IN BOTH PRAGUE AND BUDAPEST; AND WE HAVE
         NOW OPENED A NEW DEPARTMENT IN WARSAW.  THAT'S KEEPING
         THE FRONTIERS OPEN FOR A UNIVERSITY OF AN ENTIRELY NEW
         TYPE.  A UNIVERSITY WHICH IS A NETWORK, RIGHT FROM THE
         BEGINNING.  I THINK THAT IN THE UNITED STATES, CERTAINLY
         IN WESTERN EUROPE, YOU'LL FIND THAT UNIVERSITIES ARE
         FORMING NETWORKS.  BUT TO START BY BEING A NETWORK IS
         PERHAPS A REVOLUTIONARY STEP.  WE WILL BE LOOKING HARD
         AT THE USE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY TO LINK OUR CAMPUSES AND TO
         HELP THE REGION BY DEMONSTRATING NEW METHODS OF
         TEACHING, NEW METHODS OF COMMUNICATING, WHICH MAY HELP
         OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO FOLLOW SUIT."

HOST:    THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY HAS BECOME A CLEARING
         HOUSE FOR INFORMATION ON PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS
         THROUGHOUT THE FORMER SOVIET BLOC.  (BEGIN OPT) THE
         FIRST BOOK PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS ANALYZED
         THE VARYING APPROACHES TO PRIVATIZING INDUSTRY AND
         AGRICULTURE TAKEN IN CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE BALTIC
         STATES; THE SECOND DEALT WITH PRIVATIZATION IN THE
         NATIONS OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.  (END OPT)  SEVERAL
         SOROS ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONAL
         MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE IN KIEV, PROVIDE BOTH STUDENTS AND
         PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH INSTRUCTION ON THE OPERATION OF
         FREE MARKETS.  AMONG WESTERN GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED IN THE
         AID EFFORT, THERE IS A DEBATE ON THE EFFICACY OF SENDING
         WESTERN EXPERTS TO THE EAST, AS OPPOSED TO INVITING
         EXECUTIVES AND MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS TO VISIT OR WORK IN
         AMERICAN OR WESTERN EUROPEAN COMPANIES.  ZOLTAN SZIGETHY
         SAYS THAT THE SOROS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT
         EMPHASIS:

TAPE: CUT EIGHT -- SZIGETHY

         "IT IS FAR MORE USEFUL FOR SOMEONE FROM THE EAST TO FIND
         OUT HOW SOMEBODY ELSE FROM THE EAST IS DOING THINGS, IF
         THEY HAVE FIGURED OUT A SOLUTION ON HOW TO DO SOMETHING.
         I'LL GIVE YOU A CASE IN POINT.  THE PUBLIC
         ADMINISTRATION MASTERS, GRADUATES OF SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC
         ADMINISTRATION, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN INTERNSHIP,
         FOR A POST-GRADUATION INTERNSHIP, SOMEWHERE ELSE.  MANY
         OF THEM, OF COURSE, WANT TO GO TO THE WEST, AND DO.  AND
         SO YOU SEND A GRADUATE STUDENT TO NEW YORK, TO LONDON,
         OR WHATEVER.  WHAT THAT STUDENT SEES THERE, AND LEARNS
         THERE, WILL INDEED BE USEFUL FOR HIM OR HER.  FRANKLY,
         IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE USEFUL FOR THE STUDENT TO GO
         TO PRAGUE OR BUDAPEST OR WARSAW, PERHAPS, AND SEE HOW A
         COUNTRY THAT IS MUCH CLOSER TO THEIR CULTURE, THEIR
         EXPERIENCE, TO THE KIND OF PLACE THAT THEY'RE GOING BACK
         TO, HOW THEY SOLVED THE PROBLEMS, HOW THEY ARE DEALING
         WITH THE PROBLEMS."

HOST:    AT THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY, ABOUT HALF OF THE
         PROFESSORS COME FROM THE WEST, AND HALF FROM THE EAST,
         INCLUDING THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA.  THE
         STUDENT BODY OF 480 HAS AN EQUAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM
         THE 25 COUNTRIES IN THE FORMER COMMUNIST BLOC, WITH A
         SPRINKLING OF STUDENTS FROM THE WEST.  ALL COME ON FULL
         SCHOLARSHIPS; AT PRESENT, STANDARDS ARE SO HIGH THAT
         ONLY ONE OUT OF TEN APPLICANTS CAN BE ACCEPTED.  MASTERS
         DEGREES ARE OFFERED IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, SOCIOLOGY,
         ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES HISTORY, AND MEDIEVAL
         STUDIES, WITH A JOURNALISM SCHOOL PLANNED FOR THE NEXT
         ACADEMIC YEAR.  PRESIDENT AL STEPAN SAYS THAT THERE IS A
         STRONG EMPHASIS ON RESPECT FOR MINORITY RIGHTS, WHICH
         ARE ESSENTIAL TO ANY DEMOCRACY:

TAPE: CUT NINE -- STEPAN

         "THE WHOLE IDEA OF DEMOCRACY IS BOTH A PROTECTION OF
         MINORITY RIGHTS, AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, BUT ALSO
         CONSTITUTIONALISM.  BY CONSTITUTIONALISM, I MEAN THAT
         THE NEW ELECTED MAJORITIES THEMSELVES RESPECT THE LARGER
         LAW OF THE LAND, WHICH IS ENSHRINED IN A CONSTITUTION
         WHICH, OF COURSE, PROTECTS MINORITIES AGAINST
         MAJORITIES.  THAT'S A CONCEPT THAT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD IN
         THE COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE.  IT'S INCREASINGLY
         UNDER DISCUSSION IN CENTRAL EUROPE, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE
         MUCH OF A HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE OR LEGAL CULTURE
         BEHIND IT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN RUSSIA AT THE MOMENT.  AND
         THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, INTELLECTUALLY,
         AS WE HOPE THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE FROM RUSSIA WHO
         PARTICIPATE IN, SAY, OUR LEGAL STUDIES PROGRAM, AND
         BEGIN TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN DISTINCTIVE TRADITION OF
         LEGAL CULTURE."

HOST:    TALKING WITH THE STUDENTS AT CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY
         IS AN EDUCATION IN THE MINORITY PROBLEMS EXISTING
         THROUGHOUT THE AREA.  FOR EXAMPLE, ANDREY URASOV IS AN
         ETHNIC RUSSIAN WHO COMES FROM KISHINYEV
         (KEESH-EEN-YOV'), CAPITAL OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF
         MOLDOVA:

TAPE: CUT TEN -- URASOV  (IN ENGLISH BUT RUSSIAN ALSO AVAILABLE)

         "THERE ARE A LOT OF STUDENTS FROM THE FORMER SOVIET
         UNION.  FOR EXAMPLE, FROM SUCH COUNTRIES AS LITHUANIA,
         UKRAINE, GEORGIA, UZBEKISTAN AND RUSSIA.  AND I AM FROM
         MODOVA, AS YOU KNOW.  ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS HERE IN THE
         UNIVERSITY IS FROM GEORGIA.  HE IS ARMENIAN, BUT HE IS
         FROM GEORGIA.  AND ANOTHER FRIEND OF MINE IS FROM
         UZBEKISTAN.  THERE ARE SOME STUDENTS FROM RUMANIA AND I
         HAVE VERY GOOD RELATIONS WITH THEM.  I SPEAK RUMANIAN,
         AND I SPEAK WITH THEM IN THIS LANGUAGE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW
         THAT RUMANIAN IS THE LANGUAGE OF MOLDOVANS.  I HAVE
         FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH OTHER STUDENTS AND I HAVEN'T
         FOUND ANY ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELINGS."

HOST:    ANNE LONESDALE, C-E-U SECRETARY GENERAL, RECALLS ONE
         INCIDENT WHICH, SHE SAYS, CHARACTERIZES THE RELATIONS
         BETWEEN THE STUDENTS OF VARIOUS NATIONALITIES:

TAPE: CUT ELEVEN -- LONESDALE

         "THEY DO ALL SEEM TO GET ON.  WE HAD A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE
         OF THAT ON OUR ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMER PROGRAM, WHEN WE
         TOOK THEM ON A FIELD TRIP AND WE FOUND THAT THE BOSNIANS
         AND THE MACEDONIANS, THE SERBIANS AND CROATIANS, ALL GOT
         TOGETHER AND SHARED A HUT, AND PUT A BIG NOTICE OUTSIDE
         SAYING 'THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.'"

HOST:    THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK IN MUCH OF THE REGION
         IS ANYTHING BUT REASSURING.  NEVERTHELESS, GEORGE SOROS
         BELIEVES THAT HIS EFFORTS WILL BEAR FRUIT OVER THE LONG
         RUN.  HE ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE IDEAS HE HAS BEEN
         PREACHING FOR SEVERAL YEARS ARE BEGINNING TO HAVE AN
         IMPACT ON THE POLICIES OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS, AS WELL:

TAPE: CUT TWELVE -- SOROS

         "I'M DOING IT BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, I BELIEVE DEEPLY IN
         THIS CONCEPT OF AN OPEN SOCIETY, WHICH IS JUST A BROADER
         VISION OF DEMOCRACY, TOLERANCE FOR MINORITIES AND SO ON.
         AND SECONDLY, I HAVE THE MEANS.  AND WHILE I TAKE A
         PRETTY PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF THE FUTURE FOR THE REGION --
         I MEAN, I SEE A VALE OF TEARS AHEAD -- AT THE SAME TIME,
         I FEEL THAT WE ARE DOING SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT AND
         VERY POSITIVE. I SEEM TO BE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO
         ACTUALLY IMPACTING [AFFECTING] THE COURSE OF EVENTS
         BECAUSE I HAVE A SENSE THAT MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE
         ACTUALLY TAKING MY IDEAS SERIOUSLY.  AND AT THE SAME
         TIME, IN MY OWN PERSONAL WAY, I'VE BEEN GOING AHEAD AND
         I CAN CLAIM SOME REAL SUCCESSES."

VOICE:   THIS HAS BEEN "FOCUS" ON THE VOICE OF AMERICA.  THIS
         PROGRAM, THE LAST IN A SERIES ON THE LESSONS OF THE
         MARSHALL PLAN, HAS DEALT WITH THE REMARKABLE NETWORK OF
         ORGANIZATIONS SET UP BY THE BILLIONAIRE GEORGE SOROS TO
         HELP BUILD DEMOCRACY AND FREE MARKETS IN EAST-CENTRAL
         EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.  WRITTEN AND
         NARRATED BY FRANK RONALDS, THE PROGRAM WAS PRODUCED BY
         _______________ AND THE DIRECTOR WAS ______________ .
         THIS SERIES ON THE MARSHALL PLAN WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY A
         GRANT FROM THE RIAS FOUNDATION.

NEB / FR / TLS







01-Jul-94 5:08 PM EDT (2108 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America



> ---------------------------------------------------------
Use of the NEB Wire

The contents of the NEB wire are not copyrighted.  However, if you publish or
rebroadcast any of these reports, please be certain to use the latest version
that was available at the time of publication or rebroadcast. VOA news
materials that are published or rebroadcast should be used in their entirety.
Please credit the Voice of America as the source in any subsequent
dissemination.

Dear Jeliko,

Obviously, with respect to the USA "jumping in" meant declaring war on
them, which Bardossy did on Dec 12, 1941 (or about half a year Before
Midway would I say without disabling my hindsight ;-)). How much chance
was then for the USA sitting in America?

-- Zoli

In reply to your message of "Fri, 01 Jul 94 20: 34:28 EDT."
             >
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 18:21:14 -0700
From: 

>  Dear Jeliko,
>
> Obviously, with respect to the USA "jumping in" meant declaring war on
> them, which Bardossy did on Dec 12, 1941 (or about half a year Before
> Midway would I say without disabling my hindsight ;-)). How much chance
> was then for the USA sitting in America?
>
> -- Zoli


The relevance of Midway?  Pearl Harbor was Dec 7th, 1941.

--Greg

Dear Greg,

> The relevance of Midway?  Pearl Harbor was Dec 7th, 1941.
 The relevance of Midway in this context IMHO that it showed that the
USA lacked neither the strength nor the readiness to enter the war with
resolute force.
 That the Pearl Harbor shock came just 5 days before Bardossy's jumping
on the bandwagon must have diminished any amusement the Americans might
have felt under different circumstances over Hungary's valiant
declaration.

 -- Zoli

One of our superconfident pastcasters writes:

> I will switch to this new
> system starting tomorrow, so I might be slower in responding from now on.

It can't be slow enough.  So just take your time to finish reading
"Alice in Wonderland."

Joe Pannon

P.S.: What is a "pastcaster"?  Well, it's a person who can predict the
past, of course.

In reply to your message of "Fri, 01 Jul 94 18: 21:16 PDT."
             >
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 19:16:40 -0700
From: 

Also, pointed-question-wise, I'm curious as to why the
inevitability of German defeat by the entry of US
is not questioned by those who would transpose the letters,
and say the outcome was determined by the SU.

And by the way, I say it was an Allied effort.  :-)

--Greg
PS Happy 4th
Vivat Kossuth!  <== closest Ic'n come to joint hero

>From the Nit-Picking department:

A couple of times in the thread about whether anyone should have or could
have expected the US to enter WWII, even without the Japanese casus belli,
there have been references to "Wilson retreating into isolationism" after
WWI.

For the record, he didn't.  He killed himself (almost literally) trying
to get the Versailles Treaty accepted by the US senate, which would have
included US joining the League of Nations, etc.  It was the US Senate,
supported probably by a significant portion of the electorate, that did
the retreating.

Just thought I should mention it...

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

Does anybody have an informed opinion on how higher education policy
will change under the new government, especially as regards the
*universitas* plan, student enrollment, and budget allocations. As
you probably know, Gabor Fodor (SZDSZ) holds the ministry.

Colin.

Joe Pannon wrote:
> BTW, coincidentally, that Promontorvin RT must be the old "Budafoki
> Boripari Vallalat" next to which my highschool was located.  Well,

Yes, it is, but the old was "Budafoki Szeszipari Vallalat", not
Boripari (a lot of brandies are made there).

Imre Va'go', Debrecen