Peter I. Hidas writes about the events of 1848-49:

> During the civil war many Hungarians were killed. Kilings followed
> killings. Gorgey ordered the execution of a couple of Magyar aristocrats
> who sided with Windisch-Gratz. Hungarian revolutionary tribunals had 154
> suspects executed. In the Pest District alone 123 persons had been shot
> without benefit of trial. Kossuth's Transylvanian courts sentenced 478
> individuals to death and an additional 4,834 were massacred by his
> supporters. From the fall of 1848 to the summer of 1849 military courts
> active near the Southern Front ordred the execution of 467 persons, mainly
> Serbs. On 22 March 1849 the Hungarian General Mor Perczel's firing squads
> shot 45 Serbs. In Transylvania the murderous civil war was stopped only
> when General Bem took charge of the area.
> For a complete list of the executed and murdered and related data see
> Hungarian National Archives (Orszagos Leveltar), General Papers (Altalanos
> Iratok), D 37/1850/8207.

S.J. Magyarody replies:

> You have not  given a strait answer, just disseminated some more
> anti-Hungarian propaganda.

The mind boggles.  Straight or not, how in God's name can a fact be
"anti-Hungarian"?  Facts may be inconvenient, or irrelevant, or
embarrassing, or obscure, even arcane sometimes, but "anti-Hungarian"?
How can a fact be anti-anything?  A fact is a fact is a fact, n'est-pas?
Next Mr. Magyarodi might tell us that Avogadro's number is also
"anti-Hungarian".  On second thought, maybe Avogadro's number *is*
anti-Hungarian.  It's way too big, for one thing...

-----
Gabor Fencsik

At 07:32 21/01/97 -0500, Joe ("I'm really a male chauvinist in disguise")
Szalai wrote:
>At 01:50 AM 1/21/97 GMT, Sam Stowe, in "Re: Soros anti-Capitaist?", wrote:
>
><snip>
>>This shows how out of it I am. Until Johanne wrote this, I'd never given a
>>thought to the connection between one's sexuality and one's economic
>>beliefs. And what the heck is wrong with my American brothers that they'd
>>pass up the opportunity to make time with la Tournier? I get married and
>>they turn into morons the minute my back is turned.
>
>There's more, Sam.  Have you ever noticed, and here I'm being theoretical,
>but have you noticed that most of the women who are opposed to abortion are
>women I wouldn't want to get pregnant anyway.  I'm saying this knowing that
>other men have also said the same thing.  There's more to sexual politics
>than meets the eye.

Sam, you're a sweetie, but, Joe, you should be embarrassed to make a comment
like that! (Besides, what does it have to do with the (non-Hungarian, I
admit) discussion at hand, anyway?)

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

At 05:54 PM 1/21/97 -0500, Eva Balogh, wrote:

<snip>
>In any case, it seems that the Munkaspart somehow would like to combine
>restrictions on the free market with direct democracy. I tried to
>explain to him that the two cannot be combined: there can be no
>democracy without economic freedom. And, I guess, in the long run, there
>can be no free market economy without political democracy.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.  Both of Eva Balogh's statements are
incorrect.  If her statements are true then it could be concluded that the
western nations are undemocratic (and here, but for different reasons, I'd
probably agree), and the eastern economic giants are awash in political
democracy.  We all know that they have a free market economy.  But
democracy?  I don't think so.

Eva Balogh's statement that "there can be no democracy without economic
freedom" could also be interpreted to be Marxist.  And in that case, yes, I
would agree.  If every individual would be economiclly free, there would be
a real and meaningful democracy.  However I suspect that Eva Balogh is
talking about economic freedom for those who own the means of production.

I find it interesting that many view "the economy" or "economics" as the
real superhighway of life.  I don't view it that way.  The economy, although
always there, and very important, is nothing more than the service road.
It's sad and unfortunate that the service road gets more attention than real
life.  Sad, but not surprising.

Joe Szalai

At 07:46 AM 1/22/97 -0400, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:

>At 07:32 21/01/97 -0500, Joe ("I'm really a male chauvinist in disguise")
>Szalai wrote:
>>At 01:50 AM 1/21/97 GMT, Sam Stowe, in "Re: Soros anti-Capitaist?", wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>This shows how out of it I am. Until Johanne wrote this, I'd never given a
>>>thought to the connection between one's sexuality and one's economic
>>>beliefs. And what the heck is wrong with my American brothers that they'd
>>>pass up the opportunity to make time with la Tournier? I get married and
>>>they turn into morons the minute my back is turned.
>>
>>There's more, Sam.  Have you ever noticed, and here I'm being theoretical,
>>but have you noticed that most of the women who are opposed to abortion are
>>women I wouldn't want to get pregnant anyway.  I'm saying this knowing that
>>other men have also said the same thing.  There's more to sexual politics
>>than meets the eye.
>
>Sam, you're a sweetie, but, Joe, you should be embarrassed to make a comment
>like that! (Besides, what does it have to do with the (non-Hungarian, I
>admit) discussion at hand, anyway?)

You're right.  My comments were uncalled for.  Sometimes, polemics gets the
best of me.

Joe Szalai

hey everyone, let's not revel in the loss of anyone!

being self-rightous can lead to worse circles of hell than what we're in today.

let's practice poli-sci 101 axion: Predatory democracy operates on "the
exclusion of the least, rather than the inclusion of the most!"

nudge aside, let a.h. have *their* day in the sun!

janos

EXHIBIT #1:
: >I wish to severe all my contacts from the HUNGARY mailing list (Hungarian
: >Discussion List).
why? are *we* being informed of this decision?


EXHIBIT #2:
: YEAH!!!
why celebrate this absence?

>Peter I. Hidas writes about the events of 1848-49:
>
>> During the civil war many Hungarians were killed. Kilings followed
>> killings. Gorgey ordered the execution of a couple of Magyar aristocrats
>> who sided with Windisch-Gratz. Hungarian revolutionary tribunals had 154
>> suspects executed. In the Pest District alone 123 persons had been shot
>> without benefit of trial. Kossuth's Transylvanian courts sentenced 478
>> individuals to death and an additional 4,834 were massacred by his
>> supporters. From the fall of 1848 to the summer of 1849 military courts
>> active near the Southern Front ordred the execution of 467 persons, mainly
>> Serbs. On 22 March 1849 the Hungarian General Mor Perczel's firing squads
>> shot 45 Serbs. In Transylvania the murderous civil war was stopped only
>> when General Bem took charge of the area.
>> For a complete list of the executed and murdered and related data see
>> Hungarian National Archives (Orszagos Leveltar), General Papers (Altalanos
>> Iratok), D 37/1850/8207.
>
>S.J. Magyarody replies:
>
>> You have not  given a strait answer, just disseminated some more
>> anti-Hungarian propaganda.
>
>The mind boggles.  Straight or not, how in God's name can a fact be
>"anti-Hungarian"?  Facts may be inconvenient, or irrelevant, or
>embarrassing, or obscure, even arcane sometimes, but "anti-Hungarian"?
>How can a fact be anti-anything?  A fact is a fact is a fact, n'est-pas?
>Next Mr. Magyarodi might tell us that Avogadro's number is also
>"anti-Hungarian".  On second thought, maybe Avogadro's number *is*
>anti-Hungarian.  It's way too big, for one thing...
>
>-----
>Gabor Fencsik




Dear Mr. Fencsik;

A fact (if it is a fact)  is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts  of
the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
In better historian circles  it is  classified as  propaganda.

Among experts, you may  present verbally your viewpoint, or opinion,
because  your  partners are well aware of the situation and data concerning
the topic.  You are on equal footing. However, most of the  active or
passive participants in this debate are not experts.
Mr Hidas was given an opportunity to disclose  the other side of the story.
He is obviously not interested in that. Instead he presented more
one-sided facts about the Hungarian misdeeds in present day Vojvodina, (I
will return to that later) and the  executions carried out under martial
law.

Gorgey's order to execute a couple of aristocrats: Again it is a
misrepresentation. Most of the aristocrats were siding with  the Austrians
(Habsburgs if you like), and they were not executed for it. These two
"svarcgelb" (Hungarian spelling, before you jump on it) gentlemen were
common spies. Mr.  Hidas knows it well.

The Romans used to say: Audiatur et altera pars!

By the way: I can not understand the reference to Avogadro. Are you
implying, that we are generating a lot of gas?  It's a gas...


Magyarody

Hi Eva D:
At 11:38 PM 21/01/97 +0000, you wrote:>
>I would be a little bit skeptical with such everyday media tirada, I
>wouldn't mind seeing some figures.
[...]
With pleasure!  If you dial  1(Canada) 902-426-5331 -Inquiries and Research
Stat Canada - Atlantic Office, for $50.00 Can, you can receive all the
stats regarding this, or just about anything you like.
>
>The trend is more and more wealth
>in fewer and fewer hands, I would doubt if Canada is any different in
>this repect.
[...]
I thought that we were discussing your concept of  "private business"
(Ownership) being a minority - not distribution of wealth.  To me, there is
a difference.
>
>Oh, downsizing, what a lovely word. Do you mean, sacking people and
>employing temporary contract people with worse working conditions?
You may call it what you like unfortunately it remains to be a fact of our
lives.  You neglect to mention, that the people  "sacked" as you put it,
generally receive very handsome severance packages.  Some, may choose to
invest it in a business for themselves - and it is conceivable that
consulting businesses would be  amongst them.   It is also conceivable, and
an intelligent move, that their ex employer the magnate would look to hire
an ex employee's consulting service and or company if or when such services
are needed.

>Look at any public survey, if people have to choose between
>job security and "self reliance", they go for the first, unless their
>daddy is a "magnate"
[...]
Bingo ... I assume you to be amongst them.  After all it is by far the
easiest way out to project displeasure, to critique, dream and want -
rather than take necessary risks to make it happen.
>
>Funny, you should mention Hungary, HVG statistics just stated, that
>the "mood for starting businesses" is sharply declining in Hungary,
>as people are worried about the clamping down on tax-evasion.
[...]
Being in the mood for something and actually doing it are two different
things.  I see a trend in Hungary, where more and more people are venturing
out on their own.  That is not to say, that they are in the mood for it.
It is to say that some likely don't have other choices or desires.  It is
also to say; that your statement of "private ownership" being a minority is
well outdated in it's accuracy.

>They contribute to their own economic stability. They couldn't care
>less about the country.
[...]
May I remind you that "they" are the very  "private property" owners, whose
growth you not only advocate, but claim to be in a minority; and are
objecting to.  May I also remind you, that the "private owner's" economic
stability is the *one* essential requirement to keep his business alive,
therefore others employed.  So what are you saying here then?  First you
want them, now you don't?  In addition, I think that your last statement
above is outragous in it's assumption.  Furthermore, I replied to a comment
of yours that was suggesting that "private ownership" is a minority
especially under capitalism.  Obviously, you did not like my answer.  I
don't wish to engage in an argument over this.  Nor do I wish to enter a
discussion on global economy, environmental discussions, wars, all of which
is where you're pointing to in the rest of your reply.

What I would rather like to see, than you throwing out stats, statements,
and continuous complaints against capitalism, would be an exact, concrete
example of how you would attain your proposed state of progress with your
concept(s).  To realize this, I propose (with the blessings of Mr. Agnew
that is), that GWUHungary is a country; of which you are the sole known
leader.  You have total 100% power.  Tell us your title.  Give us a picture
of how you will develop the educational structure, political structure,
social programs, the economy, laws, whatever you want seen in your ideal
world.  You are given total free reign.  Then, when all are totally clear
of your vision as a whole, I foresee potentially interesting, if not better
discussions.
Regards,
Aniko

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   normal

Background:
   The start of the lawsuit at the at the International Court of
Justice has been delayed. This lawsuit, which will adjudicate on the
dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning the rerouting of the
Danube onto Slovak territory, will open in March. Now we have a few
weeks more to convince the court about the Compromise Plan proposed
by Bela Liptak and environmental organizations. This plan ensures the
survival of the Danube Wetlands.

What to do:
   Please send a letter to the President of the World Court  Mohammed
Bedjaoui. Ask him to rule for the environment, that is to consider
the Compromise Plan. Feel free to use the included sample letter.
   Unfortunately we do not have the e-mail address. Please do not
hesitate to send him a fax. EVERY FAX IS IMPORTANT!!! PLEASE ACT!!
ASK YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN YOUR REQUEST!!
   Fax from US: 011-31-70-3649-928
   Fax from Europe: 0031-70-3649-928

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Honorable Mohammed Bedjaoui
President of the International Court of Justice
Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ,
Den Haag
The Netherlands
FAX: 011-31-70-3649-928

Dear Mr. President,

    in February, for the first time in history, your Court will decide on
an environmental lawsuit, which effects all mankind. In ruling on the
future of the Danube in the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia, you
and your fellow judges, can make a precedent, by ruling that rivers,
forests and oceans are not the sole properties of nations, that
nations do not have the right to destroy unique ecosystems.

    The ecosystem of the Szigetkoz is dying due to the tragic drop in
ground-water level which is caused by the rerouting of the Danube.
This region, which was the oxygen supply of the Danube, has been
destroyed, because the lung of the river (the wetland region) has
been cut out. Shipping on the Danube has suffered, because of flimsy
construction and because the dam is not designed to handle ice. Most
importantly, the population of the region is in physical danger and
two thirds of the populations of Dobrohost, Vojka and Bodiky have
already fled.

    The Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment has submitted
to the Court a Compromise Plan to return the Danube into its natural
riverbed. I hope and trust that the Court will save the ecosystem of the
Szigetkoz by taking this Compromise Plan into consideration as it
makes its historic ruling.

Respectfully,

name, title, address

In article >,  (AND Books)
writes:

>
>hey everyone, let's not revel in the loss of anyone!
>
>being self-rightous can lead to worse circles of hell than what we're in
>today.
>
>let's practice poli-sci 101 axion: Predatory democracy operates on "the
>exclusion of the least, rather than the inclusion of the most!"
>
>nudge aside, let a.h. have *their* day in the sun!
>
>janos

No one excluded him. He waltzed in here and tried to exclude the rest of
us for not being sufficiently "Hungarian" for his taste. He eventually
made the decision on his own to leave this list. I have yet to see you
take him on for calling most of this list's regulars "garbage" and his
other exclusionary acts. Either you agree with him, you are not receiving
all of the messages posted through your server or you're one of those
goddamned Pollyanna types who wouldn't know real political discourse when
and if it jumps up and bites you on the ass. Stop lecturing the rest of us
for things we haven't done, you twit, and pay attention to what's really
going on.
Sam Stowe

"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

In article >, Durant the
> writes:

>
>Funny, you should mention Hungary, HVG statistics just stated, that
>the "mood for starting businesses" is sharply declining in Hungary,
>as people are worried about the clamping down on tax-evasion.
>There are some other revealing statistics, the public opinion
>reckons, that you can only make it in your business if you cheat.
>Three points for the wise people of Hungary.
>
>

And how does this compare with the "mood for starting businesses" when you
and Kadar were running the country? Are you really going to try to argue
that the Marxist-Leninists were more favorable to small business
development than the current government? And what about the practice of
holding down an extra job or two so you can make income "off the record"
and not report it to the government? That's a form of tax-cheating and it
became endemic under the Kadar regime.

Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any form of
organized life other than Marxism-Leninism wears no easier with constant
repetition. Communist regimes throughout eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
yet you never seem to get around to protesting those. Remember, folks --
Gabcikovo is as much a product of communist ideology as what passes for
Eva Durant's intellectual honesty.
Sam Stowe

"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

Szabolcs Magyarody:

>A fact (if it is a fact)  is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
>or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts  of
>the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
>In better historian circles  it is  classified as  propaganda.

        Let's not quibble over how many were killed on this or on that side.
After all the original question was: was 1848-48 also a civil war? And it
certainly was. It was a civil war in some cases between Hungarian and
Hungarian and between Hungarian and Romanian, Hungarian and Serb, and
Hungarian and Croat. The least antagonistic nationality, the Slovak, was
relatively peaceful. The few attempts at military organization came from
outside of the country.

>Mr Hidas was given an opportunity to disclose  the other side of the story.
>He is obviously not interested in that. Instead he presented more
>one-sided facts about the Hungarian misdeeds in present day Vojvodina,

        If you recall I mentioned Serb attacks on German and Hungarian
villages in Bacska-Banat and Romanian attacks on Hungarian villages in
Transylvania. The fact is that there were atrocities committed on both
sides. And the clashes between these people were not miniscule either as
Ferenc Novak tried to depict them. That's all I, for one, tried to establish
as opposed to an unrealistic presentation of the negligent nature of the
nationality conflict in 1848. I dare say without these conflicts most likely
there wouldn't have been a "war of independence" only a revolution, more or
less successful.

        Eva Balogh


        Eva Balogh

At 11:48 AM -0500 1/22/97, S.J. Magyarody wrote:
>>Peter I. Hidas writes about the events of 1848-49:
>>
>>> During the civil war many Hungarians were killed. Kilings followed
>>> killings. Gorgey ordered the execution of a couple of Magyar aristocrats
>>> who sided with Windisch-Gratz. Hungarian revolutionary tribunals had 154
>>> suspects executed. In the Pest District alone 123 persons had been shot
>>> without benefit of trial. Kossuth's Transylvanian courts sentenced 478
>>> individuals to death and an additional 4,834 were massacred by his
>>> supporters. From the fall of 1848 to the summer of 1849 military courts
>>> active near the Southern Front ordred the execution of 467 persons, mainly
>>> Serbs. On 22 March 1849 the Hungarian General Mor Perczel's firing squads
>>> shot 45 Serbs. In Transylvania the murderous civil war was stopped only
>>> when General Bem took charge of the area.
>>> For a complete list of the executed and murdered and related data see
>>> Hungarian National Archives (Orszagos Leveltar), General Papers (Altalanos
>>> Iratok), D 37/1850/8207.
>>
>>S.J. Magyarody replies:
>>
>>> You have not  given a strait answer, just disseminated some more
>>> anti-Hungarian propaganda.
>>
>>The mind boggles.  Straight or not, how in God's name can a fact be
>>"anti-Hungarian"?  Facts may be inconvenient, or irrelevant, or
>>embarrassing, or obscure, even arcane sometimes, but "anti-Hungarian"?
>>How can a fact be anti-anything?  A fact is a fact is a fact, n'est-pas?
>>Next Mr. Magyarodi might tell us that Avogadro's number is also
>>"anti-Hungarian".  On second thought, maybe Avogadro's number *is*
>>anti-Hungarian.  It's way too big, for one thing...
>>
>>-----
>>Gabor Fencsik

>
>
>
>Dear Mr. Fencsik;
>
>A fact (if it is a fact)  is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
>or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts  of
>the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
>In better historian circles  it is  classified as  propaganda.
>
>Among experts, you may  present verbally your viewpoint, or opinion,
>because  your  partners are well aware of the situation and data concerning
>the topic.  You are on equal footing. However, most of the  active or
>passive participants in this debate are not experts.
>Mr Hidas was given an opportunity to disclose  the other side of the story.
>He is obviously not interested in that. Instead he presented more
>one-sided facts about the Hungarian misdeeds in present day Vojvodina, (I
>will return to that later) and the  executions carried out under martial
>law.
>
>Gorgey's order to execute a couple of aristocrats: Again it is a
>misrepresentation. Most of the aristocrats were siding with  the Austrians
>(Habsburgs if you like), and they were not executed for it. These two
>"svarcgelb" (Hungarian spelling, before you jump on it) gentlemen were
>common spies. Mr.  Hidas knows it well.
>
>The Romans used to say: Audiatur et altera pars!
>
>By the way: I can not understand the reference to Avogadro. Are you
>implying, that we are generating a lot of gas?  It's a gas...
>
>
>Magyarody

If you studied Hungarian history in Hungary, you know about the misdeeds of
the Serbs and the Romanian peasants. If you wish to present the details of
these misdeeds that occurred in 1848/49 you should do so. Let us know about
your sources. I did mention earlier that burnings and killings did take
place during the civil war in the Kingdom of Hungary of the late 1840s.
Racism and nationalism filled the hearts of both sides. Some were angry for
being considered second class subjects for centuries. Some were upset
because their religion was considered second class religion. Others wanted
to rule over the common folks. If you seek the truth, you will become a
better Hungarian, a better person. Propaganda? Hatemongering? You will not
find them in my communications.

Peter I. Hidas, Montreal

At 07:52 PM 1/19/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Balogh wrote:
>
>>Two small corrections though: (1) By invading Yugoslavia alongside the
>>Germans didn't mean war immediately with England. Only the severence of
>>diplomatic relations. But it certainly didn't gain brownie points either.
>
>As far as I know the Brits handed a diplomatic note (diplomaciai jegyzeket)
>to each of the Hungarian, Romanian and Bulgarian government, which warned thes
e
>contries that if they let the German army use their teritorry for attaking
>Yugoslavia the diplomatic relations would be severed and if they actively took
>part in the attack, they could consider themselves in war against
> Great-Brittain.

        No, Gyorgy Barcza, Hungarian minister to the Court of St. James, was
instructed by his government to inquire what would happen if (1) Hungary
allowed Germany to attack Yugoslavia through her territory; and (2) if
Hungary itself took part in the attack. On April 2, 1941 Barcza received the
answer which basically said if Hungary allowed the Germans to march through
Hungary Great Britain would severe relations with Hungary. If Hungary also
participated in the occupation of Yugoslavia then "she may have to count on
possible war of declaration by Great Britain and her allies (Turkey and
perhaps in time the Soviet Union." (See details in C. A. Macartney, October
Fifteenth, vol. 1, p.470; Gyorgy Barcza, Diplomata-emlekeim, 1911-1945, p.
486.) However, that didn't materialize.

        Eva Balogh

>
> >I can't see what's wrong with  giving a thought to a society, where
> >everyone has the chance - without any need for luck - to make it.
> >And to make it doesn't just mean to have all the comforts of life,
> >but also a meaningful, creative, fulfilling life, that at present  is not
 even
> >had by a lot of those who had "made it".
>
> The only problem with the thought that it is a dream. There has never been
> such society and never will be. There will always be difference between
> peoples.
>
> J.Zs
>

Who said there were no differences between people? This is called a
"strawman argument".  Your attitude would mean, that we should put up
with the present grossly primitive system of social organisation.
Luckily, I happen to know, that society is a dynamic, always changing
entity, so we better think of/plan - prefebly democratically control
- the next stage.

I wrote:

That's all I, for one, tried to establish as opposed to an unrealistic
presentation of the negligent nature of the nationality conflict in 1848.

        Sorry! Not negligent but negligible nature of the nationality
conflict. It would help if I reread some of my messages written in a hurry.

        Eva Balogh

E.Balogh wrote:

>        No, Gyorgy Barcza, Hungarian minister to the Court of St. James, was

Is this supposed to mean Gyorgy Barcza was the Hungarian ambassador to
London? I have never heard this "minister to the Court of St. James"
expression.

>instructed by his government to inquire what would happen if (1) Hungary
>allowed Germany to attack Yugoslavia through her territory; and (2) if
>Hungary itself took part in the attack. On April 2, 1941 Barcza received the
>answer which basically said if Hungary allowed the Germans to march through
>Hungary Great Britain would severe relations with Hungary. If Hungary also
>participated in the occupation of Yugoslavia then "she may have to count on
>possible war of declaration by Great Britain and her allies (Turkey and
>perhaps in time the Soviet Union." (See details in C. A. Macartney, October
>Fifteenth, vol. 1, p.470; Gyorgy Barcza, Diplomata-emlekeim, 1911-1945, p.

This is almost the same what I told. Ok, maybe it was not a diplomatic note.
I do not know anyway what exactly is a diplomatic note. But the message was
clear despite these polite diplomatic "may"-s and "if"-s. Also, I am sure
the Romanian or Bulgarian Ambassador did get or would have got similar
answer.

>486.) However, that didn't materialize.

How do you mean that it didn't materialize. England did declare war.

J.Zs

First, I would like to ask everyone to use the correct date 1867 in the
subject line. It is stupid to see "Re: The Compromise of 1967".

E.Balogh wrote:

>nationality conflict in 1848. I dare say without these conflicts most likely
>there wouldn't have been a "war of independence" only a revolution, more or
>less successful.

Why do you neglect the responsibility of the Habsburg (austrian) side. Why
do you think that one of the most conservative system of the contemporary
Europe was ready to open and give autonomy to any part of its imperium?

J.Zs

Peter I. Hidas quoted some numbers (with references to primary sources)
about massacres and executions during 1848-49.  S.J. Magyarodi labeled
these facts "anti-Hungarian propaganda".  I chimed in, wondering how on
earth a fact -- any fact -- can be labeled anti-Hungarian, or anti-
anything for that matter.  Fact are facts are facts, I opined.
Here is Mr Magyarodi's reply:

> A fact (if it is a fact) is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
> or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts of
> the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
> In better historian circles it is classified as propaganda.

Forgive me, but this is a discussion forum.  You are the "other side".
I may be wrong about the genesis of this thread, but I thought the
point at issue was whether it is correct to call the events of 1848-49
a "civil war".  Mr Hidas thought the answer was yes, and gave examples
showing citizens being killed by citizens of the same state, which is
the very definition of the term "civil war".  If I understand
correctly, you are taking the opposite view, and upbraiding Mr Hidas
for not providing the supporting material for your side of the
argument.  It is your right to do this, but as a debating tactic it is
very unlikely to cause people to conclude that you are right and
Mr Hidas is wrong.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

In article >, Durant the
> writes:

>
>Funny, you should mention Hungary, HVG statistics just stated, that
>the "mood for starting businesses" is sharply declining in Hungary,
>as people are worried about the clamping down on tax-evasion.
>There are some other revealing statistics, the public opinion
>reckons, that you can only make it in your business if you cheat.
>Three points for the wise people of Hungary.
>
>
And how does this compare with the "mood for starting businesses" when you
and Kadar were running the country? Are you really going to try to argue
that the Marxist-Leninists were more favorable to small business
development than the current government?
FUNNY...DID I QUITE UNDERSTAND THIS? YOU MEANT THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WAS  N O 
T
A MARXIST ONE? BY THE WAY HAVING JUST INTRODUCED MEASURES RESULTING IN DRASTICA
L
REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF VERY SMALL "ENTERPRISES.
And what about the practice of holding down an extra job or two so you can make
income "off the record" and not report it to the government? That's a form of
tax-cheating and it became endemic under the Kadar regime
( MUCH EARLIER. BETWEEN 1849 AND 1867 )
Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any form of
organized life other than Marxism-Leninism wears no easier with constant
repetition. Communist regimes throughout eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
yet you never seem to get around to protesting those. Remember, folks --
Gabcikovo is as much a product of communist ideology as what passes for
Eva Durant's intellectual honesty.
Sam Stowe

"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

At 03:30 PM 1/22/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Balogh wrote:
>
>>        No, Gyorgy Barcza, Hungarian minister to the Court of St. James, was
>
>Is this supposed to mean Gyorgy Barcza was the Hungarian ambassador to
>London? I have never heard this "minister to the Court of St. James"
>expression.

        This is the official title of any minister or ambassador to London.
Barcza was a minister (in Hungarian: ko:vet) and not an ambassador (in
Hungarian: nagyko:vet) to the Court of St. James. Because, officially, the
ministers and ambassadors are sent not to the government but to His Majesty
the King or the Queen.

>This is almost the same what I told. Ok, maybe it was not a diplomatic note.
>I do not know anyway what exactly is a diplomatic note. But the message was
>clear despite these polite diplomatic "may"-s and "if"-s. Also, I am sure
>the Romanian or Bulgarian Ambassador did get or would have got similar
>answer.

        One has to be precise in language when it comes to diplomacy.
"Almost" is not good enough. First of all, there was no written note.
Anthony Eden simply told that to Barcza who had been instructed to inquire.
Huge difference between a "note" and a simple verbal announcement during a
meeting. The former is a very, very important act. The latter is certainly
not that important. Especially not important when it is so formulated that
it includes phrases such as "may  involve such and such." As opposed to "it
shall involve such and such."

>>486.) However, that [declaration of war on Hungary] didn't materialize.
>
>How do you mean that it didn't materialize. England did declare war.

        But not because Hungary invaded Yugoslavia. In fact, England didn't
declare war on Hungary until December 7, 1941; that is, three months after
Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union. One cannot be so cavalier with
nuances in diplomacy. Diplomats are noted for their very careful formulation
of their intentions. A badly stated policy statement can have very serious
consequences.

        Eva Balogh

At 03:47 PM 1/22/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>E.Balogh wrote:
>
>>nationality conflict in 1848. I dare say without these conflicts most likely
>>there wouldn't have been a "war of independence" only a revolution, more or
>>less successful.
>
>Why do you neglect the responsibility of the Habsburg (austrian) side. Why
>do you think that one of the most conservative system of the contemporary
>Europe was ready to open and give autonomy to any part of its imperium?

        Let's assume that Hungary, including Croatia, was inhabited solidly
by Hungarians. Therefore there was no "nationality issue" to exploit. The
court, by and large, accepted the Hungarian demands for a representative
government. Admittedly, Vienna was somewhat under the gun and most likely
once it regained its bearing it would have demanded certain changes in the
April Laws. Most likely it would have wished to clarify such issues as
common foreign policy and the common army. As for foreign policy the April
Laws were simply murky. As far as a common army was concerned the Laws
didn't specify any. I am sure that Vienna would have insisted on
clarification of these issues because from its point of view these
provisions, or rather their lack of, were unacceptable. But if there was no
Jelacic and no dissatisfied Croatia, no petitions to the court from the
non-Hungarian subjects, it is very unlikely that a war would have broken
out. Sure, they were conservative politicians but their main concern wasn't
ideology but the cohesion of the realm. Therefore, their most urgent concern
was the actual relationship between Pest-Buda and Vienna. It is most likely
that Hungary would have had to make some compromises--just as they did in
1867--but I doubt that it would have involved the destruction of
representative government as long as that government was ready to bend a
little. And without the complicating factors of Croatia, for example, the
bending might have been a little easier. But, of course, some bending was
necessary on the constitutional issues governing Hungary's relationship to
the rest of the mpire in order to retain self- and representative government
at home. The Hungarian government between April and September showed some
willingness to compromise on certain issues but the attack by Jelacic was
certainly a factor of utmost importance.

        Eva Balogh

Dear EXPERIENCED Subscribers of THE LIST,

A shattered newcomer is asking for sisterly/brotherly help :
My eleventh Command used to be that of a well organized housewife :
if nothing helps, read the instructions ( don4t call my male chauvinist ).
Now my world collapsed : when subscribing to the list, I recieved a nice
message of four pages from  telling me, I was suscribed
to the HUNGARY list and giving me INSTRUCTIONS how to handle THE LIST with
COMMANDS. And now, this darned crypto-communist, -nazi etc, etc...( must I
always use these expressions when writing to the list? ) is stobbornly returnin
g
my attempts like SET HUNGARY REPRO etc. Must I tell4m PLEASE?

Getting unusable instructions from an other place than Japan - believe
me, I am absolutely free of prejudices - upsets, jeopardizes my delicate
emotional and mental balance. So please help me get back to the path of TRUTH,
as only proper for a subscriber of the list.

Humbly yours
Miklos Hoffmann, somewhere on the latitude of Goose Bay, but in Germany...

Asks Gabor Fencsik in the thread about the Compromise of 1867. I changed
the subject because I don't want to get involved with historical debates,
but I can not resist to respond to his question:

> The mind boggles.  Straight or not, how in God's name can a fact be
> "anti-Hungarian"?  Facts may be inconvenient, or irrelevant, or
> embarrassing, or obscure, even arcane sometimes, but "anti-Hungarian"?
> How can a fact be anti-anything?

The mind boggles how an intelligent, Berzsenyi graduate can miss the point
about the significance of how certain facts are quoted. Let me give you a
couple of examples.

If someone refers to Rakosi or Kun Bela by quoting their previous Jewish
sounding names, would not you suspect the individual is anti-Sematic? The
FACT that these people were Jewish is nothing to do with anti_Semitism, but
quoting these facts can be an indicatation of it.

There are examples everywhere for the use of facts for propaganda. I saw
someone using statistical FACTS to suggest that smoking is not harmful.
Every crusader of causes uses FACTS to support their cause. So please do
not try to ridicule the idea that certain facts can be construed as
anti-Hungarain propaganda. It all depends on how the issue is raised and
why.

Barna Bozoki

 on Tue Jan 21 10:12:29 EST 1997 in SZABAD #2241:

>...Mig sajat "szelsoseges, becsuletben vagy emberi meltosagban
>serto" leveleik--hogy Hollosi Jozsit idezzem--oregbitik Magyarorszag
>hirnevet (;)).
>
>        Amikor egy amerikai ismerosomnek elmeseltem, hogy a Forum egyik
>becses tagja "eliminalni" ohajtja az enfajtamat, tagranyitott szemmel nezett
>ram es megkerdezte: "And in what way is he planning to kill them?" Talan
>tole kellene megkerdezni. Ga'zzal, injekcioval, akasztofaval, vagy pedig
>egyszeruen csak puskatussal?
>
>        Balogh Eva

Ugy latszik, Balogh Eva ugyancsak igyekszik azzal az "oregbitessel".  A
legerdekesebb az, hogy meltatlankodik ha egyesek felhanytorgatjak, hogy
angolnyelvu kozegben pocskondiazza a FORUMOT (most mar SZABADOT).  A
meltanyos (es tisztesseges) eljaras az lett volna, ha az illetorol mint
egyenrol, nem pedig mint a FORUM tagjarol nyilatkozott volna.  Kulonben sem
tul intelligens dolog kivulallok elott elitelni egy olyan kozosseget,
amelynek maga is tagja.

Ferenc

At 11:59 AM 1/21/97 GMT, Sam Stowe wrote:

<snip>
>In other words, you can't answer my critique cogently, but it sticks in
>your craw so badly that you cannot let it go. You must have spent a long,
>long December fuming over this one.
>Sam Stowe

Not really, Sam.  I was surprised that you didn't refute my comment that one
of your responses was anti-democratic.  As for your unsolicited "critique",
I can tell you that I share most of your sentiments.  What I don't care for
is the political paralysis that seems to accompany that particular analysis.
It's too myopic for my liking.

Because you didn't refute my comment I'm thinking that you don't know what I
mean by "anti-democratic".  The next time you espouse anti-democratic ideas
I'll explain why I think it's anti-democratic.  The wait won't be too long.

Joe Szalai

>Szabolcs Magyarody:
>
>>A fact (if it is a fact)  is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
>>or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts  of
>>the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
>>In better historian circles  it is  classified as  propaganda.
>
>        Let's not quibble over how many were killed on this or on that side.
>After all the original question was: was 1848-48 also a civil war? And it
>certainly was. It was a civil war in some cases between Hungarian and
>Hungarian and between Hungarian and Romanian, Hungarian and Serb, and
>Hungarian and Croat. The least antagonistic nationality, the Slovak, was
>relatively peaceful. The few attempts at military organization came from
>outside of the country.
>
>>Mr Hidas was given an opportunity to disclose  the other side of the story.
>>He is obviously not interested in that. Instead he presented more
>>one-sided facts about the Hungarian misdeeds in present day Vojvodina,
>
>        If you recall I mentioned Serb attacks on German and Hungarian
>villages in Bacska-Banat and Romanian attacks on Hungarian villages in
>Transylvania. The fact is that there were atrocities committed on both
>sides. And the clashes between these people were not miniscule either as
>Ferenc Novak tried to depict them. That's all I, for one, tried to establish
>as opposed to an unrealistic presentation of the negligent nature of the
>nationality conflict in 1848. I dare say without these conflicts most likely
>there wouldn't have been a "war of independence" only a revolution, more or
>less successful.
>
>        Eva Balogh


Dear Eva Balogh;

The argument is not  with you, your statements and comments are fair enough
in this case.  As a mater  of fact I do not argue with anyone, as  long as
the facts are presented in an even-handed way.   I do not like the numbers
game either, but if one is prominently displayed, the numbers on the other
side should be   displayed in the same fashion.  It would be fair.

During the heydays of Erik Molnar and  Erzsebet Andics, there was a
requirement to emphasize and exaggerate  our faults, mistakes, and crimes.
The wrongdoings of our enemies of the wars recent and past, and present
adversaries were  never mentioned. Generations grew up in Hungary, who were
ashamed to be Hungarians, because  the feeling of collective guilt was
pounded into them during an impressionable young age.
Some professors even today are unable to look at  history in an objective way.
The case in point is the history section of "Hungary, Essential Facts,
Figures and Pictures. (MTI 1994).  In a  couple of hours I have found 12
objectionable points,  comrade Andics would have been proud of.  When  I
presented my objections in writing  to the composer of this opus in his
office (MTA, Tortenelmtudomanyi  Intezet, Uri utca),  he could not offer an
argument.

A lot of younger people are reading this pages. I am  in the fray for them.
I would like them to look at  history as is, not how  some people see it
from the perspective of a frog, or a special interest group. They should
have access to any point of view, as long as it is fair and objective.

Kezcsokkal,

Magyarody Szabolcs

I am not sure what Ferenc Novak is planning to do with this
Hungarian-language letter on the HUNGARY list but I am quite ready to answer
him in English.

        I have friends and family members with whom I discuss the comings
and goings of the internet lists related to Hungary. Yes, on daily basis. It
is entirely up to me what I decide to do with the information I receive from
these lists, or the opinions I form on the basis of their contents. If
Ferenc Novak doesn't like "others," meaning non-Hungarians, to hear that one
of the illustrious members of the nation threatened "to eliminate" those
people who disagree with him and who in his opinion do great harm to the
Hungary, then perhaps both Ferenc Novak and his illustrious friend should
think twice before they speak or write, and don't write things which reflect
badly on the Hungarian nation. But as long as they do and their utterances
reflect badly on Hungary, I cannot report otherwise.

        Eva Balogh

>Peter I. Hidas quoted some numbers (with references to primary sources)
>about massacres and executions during 1848-49.  S.J. Magyarodi labeled
>these facts "anti-Hungarian propaganda".  I chimed in, wondering how on
>earth a fact -- any fact -- can be labeled anti-Hungarian, or anti-
>anything for that matter.  Fact are facts are facts, I opined.
>Here is Mr Magyarodi's reply:
>
>> A fact (if it is a fact) is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
>> or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts of
>> the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
>> In better historian circles it is classified as propaganda.
>
>Forgive me, but this is a discussion forum.  You are the "other side".
>I may be wrong about the genesis of this thread, but I thought the
>point at issue was whether it is correct to call the events of 1848-49
>a "civil war".  Mr Hidas thought the answer was yes, and gave examples
>showing citizens being killed by citizens of the same state, which is
>the very definition of the term "civil war".  If I understand
>correctly, you are taking the opposite view, and upbraiding Mr Hidas
>for not providing the supporting material for your side of the
>argument.  It is your right to do this, but as a debating tactic it is
>very unlikely to cause people to conclude that you are right and
>Mr Hidas is wrong.
>
>-----
>Gabor Fencsik


First of all, Mr. Fencsik, I do not care, if it was a civil war, war of
independence, or a war of freedom. Today it is totally irrelevant. What I
object to is the  one-sided use of numbers.

I am not on the "other side". It is not a  war. If you want numbers, look
them up.

But, to give you a bit of insight, here is a few excerpts from a
forthcomming book:
  Nagyenyed: Axente Sever roman prefectnek parancsara, januar 8-an (1949),
Prodan tribun vezetesevel  a roman nepdal szerint "..cu opt mii si noua
sute..."
 nyolcezerkilencszaz  fonyi roman csapat vette korul a varost. Tobb ponton
felgyujtotta es elpusztitotta.  Ennek a rettegett, a vandalt is felulmulo
pusztitasnak  vagy 700 magyar  ember esett aldozataul. Ennyit szamoltak ossze!
 A szornyu tuzben es rombolasban elpusztult a reformatus puspokseg
leveltara, osszes muemleke, gyujtemenyei,  messzefoldon hires collegiuma,
ennek ertekes, potolhatatlan konyvtara es muzeuma, szamtalan es ugyszinten
potolhatatlan tortenelmi ereklyeje.  A var fobejaratatol jobbra a Bethlen
Collegium oldalszarnyaval szemben, egy falban levo jelentektelen kis tabla
lathato. Felirata: 1849, jan. 8.  Ennek a tablanak a toveben van a 700
nagyenyedi lakos tomegsirja."

There is  also a good description of the situation in:

Friedenfels: Iosep Bedens von Scharberg. II book and

Orban, Balazs: Torda varos es konyeke.  I. kotet. Europa Konyvkiado. Bp. 1986.

You could also look up in your university library:

Sakmyster, Thomas L.: Hungary, the Great Powers and the Danubian Crisis
ISBN 0-8203-0469-7, The Univewrsity of Georgia Press.
Although Dr. Sakmyster is no friend of ours, his work  is a lot more
understanding and objective, than many a Hungarian book, and some of you
debaters, for that matter,   about our situation between the great powers.

Cadzow-Elteto-Ludanyi: Transylvania  -  The Roots of Ethnic Conflict.
ISBN0-87338-283-8. Kent State University Press.

For good measure, I can send you a list of about 34 Romanian books in
English, French, German, Italian, which are  distributed by the thousands
all over the World, free of charge.  These are all openly or subtly
anti-Hungarian.(Yes there is such as "anti"). For proof, read any of
these..)

Magyarody