Szegyeld hogy nem vagy az!

T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>
>So, instead of your last sentence:
>  "Hungary again sided with the losers in a major war."
>You should have written:
>  Hungary again was on the losers side at the end of a
>major war.

Right.  But it should also be noted that the Hungarian government made
several approaches to England from at least 1943, but it was constantly
rebuffed.  It was advised to deal with the Soviets instead.  This was
almost asking for the impossible from such an anti-Communist government.
Finally, when they did make the move, it was too late.

Joe Pannon

Josakam  ez mind igaz, egy kommunistaellenes kormanyzatnak nem volt konnyu 
a helyzete az angolok "utasitasara" az oroszokkal  probalni targyalni.
Az altalanos propagandat. falragaszokat ( orosz katona magyar gyermek 
nyakat csavarja ki ) sem szabad elfelejteni.
DE. 1./ Ketsegtelenul tudomasul kellett volna venni,. hogy ez a 
Szovetsegesek hatarozott megallapodasa ( ha nem tevedek mar Yalta elott is 
) es az alombaringatas a politikaban sokat enm hasznal. Hitler is azt 
hitte, hogy tud Angliaval targyalni- ez volt neki is a veszte- ha nem lett 
volna ilyen naiv es optimista akkor nem kezdte volna el a Barbarossa 
(oroszok megtamadasa) tervet sem.

2./ Az adott szo az szep es Horthy egy becsuletes gentry volt- megigerve 
(lasd memoarjat) Hitlernek, hogy idoben fog szolni, ha ki akar ugrani.
 Ez igen szep, de a romanok es a finnek elozetes  ertesites nelkul , 
szaraz tenyek ele allitottak a nemeteket ( es a finnekre nem lehet 
mondani, hogy egy becstelen aljas nep ) es kiugrottak- sikerrel.
Persze Horthy- es Magyarorszag eseteben a helyzet kicsit mas: a tisztikar 
egy resze nemetbarat volt es az utolso percig hajlando volt kitartani.
egyebkent egy inyencseg Finnorszaggal kapcsoaltban. Termeszetesen 
finnorszag is gyakorlatban meg volt szallva -es katonailag fuggott- 
Nemetorszagbol. ennek ellenere Mannerheim nem engedte a  zsidokat ( 
lehetett vagy 3 ezer ) deportalni, sot a  nemetek nagy bosszusagara a 
zsidovallasu finn tisztek megtartottak rnagjukat, szolgaltak vidaman, 
amiert a nemetek tobbszor megkerestek Mannerheimet, hogy az egy botranyos 
allapot, hogy egy nemet tiszt elore koszonjon egy esetleg magasabbrangi 
finn-zsido tisztnek- de Mannerheim hajthatatlan volt e kerdesben, 
akaarcsak XII Christian dan kirlay a csillagviselesben- amihez nem jarult 
hozza.
Udvozllek. 





 It was advised to deal with the Soviets instead.  This was
>almost asking for the impossible from such an anti-Communist government.
>Finally, when they did make the move, it was too late.
>
>

On Sun, 19 Nov 1995, Wally Keeler wrote:

> Vlad wrote:
> : >...The influence of the Roman civilisation also extends over the borders 
> : >of the province [of Dacia] to the groups of free Daces from Northern
> : >Transilvania, Central and Northern Moldova, Muntenia [or Wallachia]. 
> 
> Wally wrote:
> : It was a Roman Empire, lead by undemocratic leadershit, ie. ceasars,
> : monarchs, dictators...
> 
> Vlad wrote:
> |    Yes, Wally, the same Roman Empire that ruled over your ancestors.
> 
> I wouldn't call my ancestors "free" in the same instance.
> 
> Wally wrote:
> : Free Daces? Free? the shepherds, farmers, were not the subjects of any    
> : kind of monarchy? They were free to elect their rulers and did so?
> 
> Vlad wrote:
> |    They were just as free to elect a ruler as your ancestors were 
> |during the same time period.
> 
> Which means they were not free at all, just as I originally contended.
> 
	Waly, wait, wait WAIT ! This is the convention: they were/are 
called 'free' not because they were (who knows ?) in democracy, but in 
order to differentiate them from the OCCUPIED Daces, from the Daces under 
Roman occupation.

	Hope this helps.

> Vlad wrote:
> : >...After the retreat of the Roman army and administration by Emperor
> : >Aurelian (271 A.D.), the aco-Roman population continues, uninterrupted,  
> : >on the same lands, in difficult conditions, its agricultural and         
> : >shepherd life. 
> 
> Wally wrote: 
> : Ruled over once again by freely elected Emperors.So now there's no longer
> : the Daco population -- there is the Daco-Roman population. Those Roman
> : occupiers were fertile. So Romanians are half-breeds, not as pure as the
> : Romans themselves who returned to Italy to build a Group-of-7 state. And
> : don't forget it was the Romans who had walked out on the Dacians like the 
> : studs they were and became deadbeat dads to Romanian society. This is why 
> : so much of the rest of Europe has been calling the Romanians bastards?
> 
> Vlad wrote:
> |    Yes, Wally, your ancestors are just as bastards and impure and 
> |half-breeds, because the Romans retired from your ancestors' land, too. 
> |Your ancestors also suffered the influence of those fertile Roman
> |occupants.
> 
> I agree. Unlike your ancestors, my ancestors learned from the Roman Empire
> and went out to establish an empire of their own that was bigger and better
> and far more influential than the Roman empire.

	And they became, just like the Romans, to quote you, "[It was a
Roman Empire, lead by] undemocratic leadershit, ie. [ceasars, ]monarchs, 
dictators...

	Well, you may argue about the dictators, but the monarchy is 
STILL there. So, mr. subject of Queen Elisabeth II ... ;-)

	Regards, Vlad.

--

Vlad Romascanu                                      
         '
_[E_O_Msg]_____________________________________________________________________

In article > , 
writes:
>I think you meant "descendants", Tamas, not "ancestors" above.  
>Ancestor means o"s in Hungarian, descendant "utod".

Uh, yes. Thanks for correcting me.

Tamas

 (Dan Pop) wrote:

>It's far easier for them to compile English history books than 
>Romanian history books.  And I have all the reasons to believe they
>would prefer British authors to Romanian ones.

>But if you can prove that they used Romanian sources...

You can consider that a proved fact. However, all things considered,
almost without exception any Romanian history textbook should have on
the first page, as a reminder, the following quote from Cioran:

"...the myths of a nation are its vital truths. They might not
coincide with the truth; this is of no importance. The supreme
sincerity of a nation towards itself manifests itself in the rejection
of self-criticism, in vitalization through its own illusions. And,
does a nation seek the truth? A nation seeks power."

Liviu Iordache

Szegyeld hogy nem vagy az!

In article >, Frank J. Straka > wrote:
> I will always
>be proud of my Hungarian heritage, even though I'm not a pure blooded
>Magyar ( I'm part Magyar, part Moravian). At any rate enough said.
>Any one else have any comments??
>
Right on, Frankie!  Attaboy! ;-)

Joe

T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>our old tribe leaders thought that they were the ancestors
>of Attila. Well, they also thought that they were the ances-
>tor a predatory bird called turul....

I think you meant "descendants", Tamas, not "ancestors" above.  
Ancestor means o"s in Hungarian, descendant "utod".

Joe Pannon

T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>
>ifj. Kohn odaall az apja ele:
>- apam, megnosulnek !
>- es kit akarsz elvenni, fiam ?
>- a Belat.
>- de hisz' a Bela nem is zsido (goj) !!!!!

Erdekes, ezt a viccet en epp az iment roman vicckent hallottam.
Csak abban a valtozatban a Kohn valami roman nevet viselt.
S a problema az volt, hogy a Bela nem is volt roman.

Hmmm ...

Jozsi

In article >,  says...

>The Hungarian population in 1940 was 9,316,074. Due to the border 
>corrections this increased to 11,140,000  (no official census is available) 
>. According to Robert Kann's extended studies (History of the Habsburg 
>Empire, 1526 - 1918;  University of California Press 1974) in 1910 the 
>percentile of the Jews in the Hungarian part of the monarchy was 4.5 percent 
>of the total population. (p. 606). This means that the less than 2,000,000 
>total population increase, increase the number of Jews to no more than 
>600,000, during the time of Holocaust. How can this data to be reconciled 
>with the claimed 600,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims.

  It's easy. The definition of Jews changed 3 times, between 1910 and
1945. The last definition ( cause for deportation ) was if someone had at
least one jew in his ancestors. No statistics mirror the truth, if you change
the definitions between the tables. The latines said: "Ex falso quod libet"
which means about: from false grounds you can make any conclusions, even
without having any faults in your logic.

>book of Facts)  The total number of the victims of the Stalinism is 
>estimated as 20,000,000. 60 - 70 % of the KGB leadership, who executed this 
>abominable crimes were Jewish origin. Some of us may be remeber a Jew, 

  Jewish origin on what ground? Just like the above ? Where did you find this
figures to your statements? ( I mean the procentage of the KGB people ) What
connections you try to prove between the jewish origin and the killings ???
20.000.000 -- this figure I read of Soljenitsin, INCLUDING the victimes
of the WWII. ( Blaming on Stalins incompetence and cynic offering of large
numbers of soldiers on the frontiers.) How do you blame this on the jews ?

  In the first part of your message you name your sources, and that is OK,
the methods of the statistic can be discussed, but the numbers are probably rig
ht.
The second part seems to be without any ground, until you can prove it. And it
can be difficult to do so, since a tremendouse number of jews will be found
on the victims side too.

  The communist leadership in some countries: Yes, there were a lot with jewish
origin, by the definition above. On the other hand, they were also overrepresen
ted
on the opposit side, quite simply, a lot of them were politically active. It ha
s
it's reasons but irrelevant in this context. If you just speak about the
communist jews, forgetting the active ones in opposition, can you claim speakin
g
the truth?  Don't you degrade your statements to some cheap propaganda ?

  And at the very and you must even prove what way the jewish communists were
influenced by their origin to do all those cruelities. If you can't, if you onl
y
try to suggest the jews bestiality, may I call you an antisemite ?


//Laszlo

"eur.co" > wrote:

>Who cares how jews suffered,or didn't suffer in Hungary in ww2 
>or whenever.Sick of this whining.Maybe they should move to 
>their own country if we are so "antisemitic".Preferbly sooner 
>than later.

  I think a lot of  hungarians - honest peoply- cares about Holocaust-
But  You are exceptionel unhonest. I do not think that all jews
thinking that Israel is their "own" country. Are You really
"cultur-hungarian"- or  born outside of Hungary ?

In article >,  
says...
>

>Take care...
>
>Charles Vamossy

    you too.   and, if you get down to it, check the size of slovakia
    with that of the united states.   you may be surprised by the 
    result...

In article >,  
says...
>
>Jan Gajdos > wrote:
>>CHARLES VAMOSSY writes:
">So far it has been mainly Hungarians who have spoken out against this 
">law, both here on the Internet and in the press.  But I see more and 
"more 
">people of other ethnic origin express their outrage.
">
">Take care...
">
">Charles Vamossy

      i think that hans christian andersen was the greatest writer
      of all times.   if we only got that little boy, soon, to dispel
      those masses.

From: Uzulo >
Subject: Listeto de universitatoj
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 19:17:38 +0300
Organization: Centre Scientifique d'Information Legislative
Message-ID: >
Reply-To: 

 Cxu iu  el  vi  povas  helpi al mi konekse kun la sekva?

 Mi bezonas  (malgrandan)  listeton,  30-50  eroj,  de  universitatoj kun
 fakultatoj pri komputil-scienco/inform(ad)iko,  en Euxropo,  Ameriko,  kaj
 Sud-Afriko; la   posxtaj,  ret-posxtaj  kaj  kutimaj  adresoj,  ankaux  la
 faks-numeroj estus sxatataj.

 Bedauxrinde, mi ne havas surlinian aliron ("on-line  access"),  tial  mi
 Mi petas sendi la   listeton al mia ret-posxt-adreso (sube).

 Tychon Galatonov >