In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

>
>And is good to know, why. He stayed in Pest-Buda (Budapest) to wait the
>Austrians. As far as I know he still believed he could arrange a
compromise
>between Kossuth and the King. Windisgraetz (the austrian general) did not
>bother
>himself and his Kaiser with Batthyany's ideas he simple ordered
Batthyany's
>execution. Funny, isn't it? We really need realist like Batthyany (at
least
>according S.Stowe).

You're damned right you do. Had he truly been in charge in 1848 rather
than Kossuth, things might have turned out very differently.

>I would not be surprised if our self-appointed Hungary-expert (S.Stowe)
>mixed Szechenyi and Batthyany. At least, to mention Deak and Szechenyi
>together would have made sense.

Mentioning Szechenyi, Batthyany and Deak all together makes just as much
sense, unless you have some anal-retentive compulsion to totally
compartmentalize historical eras. (Can you even do that with a straight
face when Deak served in Batthany's government?) And, for a bonus, I can
even spell "Windischgraetz" correctly, which seems to be beyond your
powers. Your orthography rivals your historical knowledge.
Sam Stowe

>
>J.Zs

 on Mon Jan 13 19:33:21 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #883:

>At 02:17 AM 12/15/96 -0500,Ferenc Novak wrote:
>
>>The above is an interesting case of somebody discussing a topic he knows
>>precious little about, and, again, trying to mask his ignorance by
attacking
>>his opponent, not the issue.  He [Sam Stowe] obviously has no clue as to
>>how the 1948 War
>>of Independence influenced the relations between Austria and Hungary,
finally
>>resulting in the Compromise of 1867, credited in large part to Deak.
>
>        Well, please, explain me how the comprimise of 1867 resulted from
>1848, except if we didn't have a bloody civil war we would have needed a
>compromise! But, for Pete's sake, Deak simply tried to make right what went
>wrong in 1848-1849. So, don't try to make it sound as if Kossuth was, even
>indirectly, responsible for the Compromise. In fact, he never accepted the
>compomise and refused to return to Hungary although he could have.
>
>        Eva Balogh

Gladly.  I appreciate the fact that 19th century Hungarian history is not
your field of specialization.  But I am still puzzled how someone, who claims
to have been educated in Hungary, can be so uninformed about the 1948-49 war
of independence.

First of all, as every elementary school student in Hungary knows, it was NOT
a civil war.  (Unless you consider the Austrians, and later, the Russians,
fellow citizens.)  The bloody civil war that occurred about a dozen years
later was in America, not in Hungary ;-)

Second, I don't recall saying that Kossuth was responsible for the 1967
Compromise.  He expressed his misgivings about it in his famous "Cassandra
letter" in which he foretold the sad consequences the Compromise might bring
for Hungary.

As for the Compromise itself, it was a consequence of 1948.  The Austrians,
having lost out to Prussia in the competition for hegemony over the German
lands, weakened and humiliated by a series of militarty defeats, decided to
salvage their big-power dreams by making peace with Hungary, whose leaders
had been locked in a state of "passive resistance" against them.  The
Hungarian side, led by Deak, was also ready for some kind of agreement with
Austria.  The result was an arrangement somewhere between the two parties'
ultimate aims back in 1848.  Hungary gave up its demand for total
independence in exchange for an enhanced role in the newly created dual
monarchy.

There are two schools of thought regarding the Compromise, and the debates
are still going on between them.  One side cites the tremendous economic
growth that followed; the other, the bond that tied the country to Austria,
resulting in Hungary being dragged into a war for Austrian interests,
resulting in what followed.
But there is little argument about it being the resolution of the conflict of
1848.

Ferenc

Gabor,
It was very interesting to read your observations about Kolozsvar/Cluj and
the "new" Romania.  I hope better days are coming.

On a lighter note, would you know the Hungarian words to the *old, old*
song: "Szep varos Kolozsvar, lalalala? a Marosnal ......"  ?

Does anyone know the words to this song?

Thanks,
Marina

In a message dated 97-01-14 15:53:51 EST,  (Istvan
Lippai) writes:
> My dear-dear friends,
>
Oh yuck .... gag ....

>How do you sue someone for
>defamation of character, after you call that person garbage and maniac?  Did
>you ever hear of a counter-suit?
>
You flew on to the list on the tail of the word "garbage" and it has been
around ever since.  In fact you have introduced the word to our
dear-dear readers. We have used many-many words on this list
before you came, some of them quite naughty but *never* garbage.
It only sounds good when you call someone garbage in Hungarian.
Like  "szemet alak"  etc. In English when you hear the word garbage
you think more of debris, litter, refuse, junk etc.
So, so much for your "counter-suit".

Calling someone a maniac is not libelous, but what you have said
of Eva B. is defamatory.

Marina

At 03:29 PM 1/14/97 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

<snip>
>        Joe, as usual, goes overboard. A lo' ma'sik oldala'ra esik. By
>considering every state equally evil, he bagatalizes a brutal,
>terror-ridden, totalitarian regime which the early Kadar-regime was. Or,
>even worse equates Stalinist Russia in the late 1930s with, let's say the
>state of Canada.

Oh puhleez!  Once again, Eva Balogh overreacts to my comments.  Not all
states are equally evil.  However, they will defend themselves against
rebellions, revolutions and uprisings.  Just because I acknowledge this
doesn't mean that I necessarily support a states right to do this.  In fact,
my sentiments and support are almost always with those who want to oust
oppressive regimes.  A lo'vam a'll.

Joe Szalai

Eva Balogh quotes and writes:

>>Dear Eva:
>>The fact was/is that IF you had an n "A" average then most doors were in
>>fact open to those who wanted to continue with their education REGARDLESS
>>of their social status.
>
>        You don't know what you are talking about. In Rakosi's Hungary this
>was certainly not so. It wasn't even so in the earlier days of Kadar's
>Hungary. I am not sure the exact date, but it was sometime in the late 1960s
>that the quota system was abolished and students were admitted to
>university, more or less, on merit.

I beg to disagree, except for flagrantly obvious cases, if one had good
grades, there were generally folks who were willing to help one to get in. I
knew csendor orphans, and leventes who came back from the west after the war
who got into universities under the Rakosi regime. Please do not forget that
there was, an albeit subdued, passive resistance to following the party
rules. The good old Hungarian system of "connections"
were fervently utilized to help those who otherwise would not fit the kader
profile.
There were also official but in fact not actual divorces to improve "social
status".
Also the party profile was not enforced for Jewish students regardless of
the parents social status, becuse of the wartime treatment. Nothing is
always balck as it is rarely as white as it is presumed on the other side of
the horse.

Regards,Jeliko

Somebody has asked for information recently about job op-
portunities in Hungary. I don't remember who she was,  but I
hope she is reading this.  There is such  information avail-
able at:

           http://www.scala.hu/job-bank/

    Good luck,

                 Amos

In article >, Istvan Lippai
> writes:

>Stowe sent me a private e-mail in response to my private e-mail.  My
initial
>e-mail contained no obscenity.

Oh, no, your e-mail called me a draft-dodger, among other insults.

>The subject of his e-mail 'Fuck you, you
>Nazi!', was followed with a message of additional obscenities.

The "additional obscenities" amounted to a one- or two-line message
informing Lil' Stevie that I am a busy guy who doesn't have the time to
conduct a flame war by private e-mail with him. I did extend him an olive
branch by offering to continue to flame him publicly on the Hungary List
as the masochistic urge struck him. I also made it clear to him that this
would be the final private communication to occur between us. None of
this, mind you, included naughty words in English, Hungarian or Sumerian.
(Or is it Sumatran?)


>I do not wish
>to have intercourse with this Stowe guy, and suggested that he approach
his
>mother instead.

Yawn -- what a "limp" attempt at flaming. I am somewhat discomfited by
your homoerotic desires for me. I'm sure, however, the right guy is out
there for you somewhere. And I was serious when I told you that the final
private communication had passed between us. I have deleted every one of
your e-mailings to me since then. When I'm well-paid to read and respond
privately to the rantings of a sociopathic prevaricator, you'll hear from
me. I'm actually hoping that Eva Balogh will follow through on her threat
to keelhaul your sorry keister courtesy of the American justice system.
Hell, I'd skip "Seinfeld" to watch that trial on Court TV.


>
>The point I am trying to make is that Stowe and company pretend to be
>refined,
>but when pressed, become more offensive and obscene than any ruffian from
>Angyalfold.

I don't know that I've ever made any pretense at refinement, either
publicly or privately. And you need to get your story straight, Steve.
"More offensive and obscene than any ruffian from Angyalfold"? A month
ago, you claimed to be an Angyalfoldi and were bragging about how rough
and tough you are as a result. Now you're dissing your homeboys back in
the hood. This inconsistency is, ironically enough, consistent with the
other inconsistencies you have exhibited since appearing on this list,
such as your absolute ignorance of Hungarian history prior to 1956 and
your dismal grasp of the post-1956 era, as well as the curious fluctuation
of your command of the English language from fairly literate to almost
Zsargo-like incoherence. While I always defer to Bandi Rozsa on matters of
the head (Hey, I ain't treadin' on Superman's cape!), I do wonder in your
case if you are: a) Possessed of multiple personalities, b) Possessed by
demons, c) Bewitched, bewhildered and bothered, or d) A poor liar. And
your use of the phrase "szabadsagharc" to describe the "forradalom" of
1956 rears this ugly question -- have you ever been married to a circus
performer?

A short note on "refinement" while you're mincing around the parlor,
sipping tea with your pinkie extended. A pound of pig excrement tied up
with a pretty pink ribbon is still a pound of pig excrement tied up with a
pretty pink ribbon. It smells the same. You might want to keep this in
mind the next time you unload another pound of your particular brand of
pig excrement on this newsgroup. Now, Rusty the Bailiff has some documents
for you to sign...
Sam Stowe



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

In a message dated 97-01-14 04:04:02 EST,  (Eva
Durant) writes:

>  At 09:24 AM 1/8/97 -0500, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>  > >I agree with Mr. Hidas' comment that if one had good grades one could
get
>  > >into most Hungarian universities, refardless of social status.

>  I would comment, that at the present and for the last 20+
>  years you had to be a genius, and even than it was not
>  sure you get in to ELTE humanities/languages, law and
>  other popular courses, (such as mathmatician or physisist at TTK)
>  as there is oversubsciption - not enough
>  places.  Now there are "private universities" of uneven
>  quality for "choice" for those who can afford  and still
>  value higher education.
>
All of the above may have been true at some period of time, but definitely
*not* before and during 1956. Never mind the universities, - - to get into
a gimnazium was almost impossible for some of us. Like myself,
my "checkered" past included parents and ancestors who had
more than two nickels to rub together and were professionals.
Offcourse it did not help that my father was incarcerated at the
famed camp Kistarcsa.

Would you believe that I had a school
mate sitting next to me in class (I was 14) who was assigned to
"spy" on me - - she kept a journal on all my activities and also
made personal comments as to what she tought of me.... and I
knew this because I caught on to her, and once was able to read
some pages of her journal. All this happened during the darkest
period of communist rule in Hungary. I could go on and on - -
actually I allready have - - ha-ha. This was also the time when
the government incouraged young unmarried women to bear
children. The motto was: "Asszonynak szulni kotelesseg, lanynak
szulni dicsoseg" / "It is the duty of a married woman to bear children,
for an unmarried girl it is an honor."  This message was posted
all over Budapest. The other thing I remember from around that
time also relating to women; if you felt ill from your period, you had to
go to work, visit the clinic, show proof, than you could go back home.

I am just trying to make the point here that it is important to note what
time period you are refering to!!

Man, I love the US and Canada......I am grateful that I survived WW2
and Communism and have been able to live the last 40 years as
a human being. Thanks for listening!

Sincerely,
Marina



so I was branded a non-desirable.

E.Balogh wrote:

>        I don't understand what you don't understand. From the eighteenth
>century on the Hungarian nobility's (the political elite, using a modern
>term) refusal to pay taxes made Vienna to adopt an economic policy
>disadvantagous to Hungary. Thus, Hungary, behind the western parts of the
>empire already, became even more economically backward. With economic
>development natural assimilation becomes accelerated because there will be
>greater urbanization and building vital infrastructure. Thus, with an
>earlier "compromise" the number of non-Hungarian speakers would have been
>much smaller. Hungary would have still lost the war but her territorial
>losses would have been more likely smaller. Simple.

This is a nonsense (at least in my opinion). There could have been a compromise
20-30 years earlier at most. Would this extra time have changed anything?
Beside, there were pure hungarian regions taken away from Hungary at Trianon.
Nobody was really interested in the ethnic maps, when the new borders were
created.

>>This is funny. If 1848 had succeed and a relativly strong Hungary
>>had been kept together by Kossuth till the outbreak of an all-out
>>conflict between Germany and France/England, this Hungary would have
>>been on the Anglo-French side and hence a victor at the end.
>
>        You just happen to forget about one *small* problem. The non-Magyar
>speakers didn't want to live in a country which Kossuth and his fellow
>Hungarians envisaged. They rose against it.

No, I did not forget about this *small* problem. What do you think "If 1848
had succeed and a relativly strong Hungary had been kept together" suppose
to mean. The world is full with countries with unsatisfied minorities
(sometimes even majorities). Some of these countries can survive some cannot.

>>Eva, please, don't use such cheap shots. You are not S.Stowe who believes
>>WWI was fought for archdukes and moral issues. That conflict was inevitable
>>by that time and Austro-Hungary was tied to Germany by military trieties. It
>>is just a couriosity that the actual cause for WWI was related to Austro-
>>Hungary.
>
>        Sam Stowe already answered that.

As I would like to maintain an intellectual level, I do not want to write
down what I think about his *answer* and *ideas*.

>Indeed, the way you put it here gives the impression that poor
>Austria-Hungary was dragged into the war by Germany. It was the
>other way around.

Sorry, if I was confusing. My point was that a large-scale conflict in
Europe was inevitable and Austro-Hungary would have been an ally of
Germany no matter where and how the conflict had been initiated.

>didn't oblige Germany to come to Austria-Hungary's aid. Doesn't matter how
>to slice it, Austria-Hungary started the First World War by attacking Serbia.

True, but it's irrelevant if we discuss what happened with Hungary in
this century and why it happened.

J.Zs

Steven C. Scheer ) wrote:
: Dear Listers:

: Why are some people so sensitive or easily offended?
cuz they're bored

: Why are
: some people so ready to attribute vile and evil motives to
: others they probably don't even know?
cuz they're bored!

: Why are they so arrogant
: in assuming that others are fascists or anti-Semites or
: dirty communists?
cuz they're bored AND stoopid!

: I should think that few who read this list
: regularly would fit into any of those categories. Yet the
: insults people seem to hurl at each other for no good reason
: seem so utterly acrimonious that it's quite shocking at times.
long word: "acrimonius", gotta look it up, that in itself iz shocking indeed!

: Do people do this because they are "talking" to a computer
: screen rather than to actual human beings?
me, i'm tapping away at a screen... what about you?

: It seems to me that unless someone has specific and legally
: verifiable information about the "evil" that someone else is
: doing or has done in the past, it would be behoove us to be kind
: and polite and pleasant to each other.
like a hot knife on butter, i like that paradigm! being "kind and polite"
is something an "uri ember" would practice...

: Life is not only short for
: unjustified anger, it is made to at least seem rather pointlessly
: nasty . . .
an old mgy expression: "aki du:ho:s, nincs igaza!" (he who is angry is wrong)

: In terms of those now famous words "Can't we all get along?"
: (And please do not attribute some sort of nonsensical ideological
: stance to me just because I have quoted that phrase . . . )
so, Rodney King got beat up, it IS a good response!

: Sincerely wishing everyone well,
: Steven C. Scheer

nice post steve! i agree with you... that and $2.25 will get you a burger and
fries at McDonalds!



--

Hi, Joe!

At 07:31 09/01/97 -0500, you wrote:
<snippety>
>I don't know about his autobiography, but three of the books [by Arminius
Vambery] I mentioned are
>in English.  ILL (inter-library loan) is probably your best bet if you want
>to get his books.  We have the four books I mentioned and we'd be happy to
>lend them to you.  Request them from your local library and they'll get in
>touch with us.
>
>Joe Szalai

Thanks again! Your library will be hearing from my library! Is it a fair
assumption that the University of Waterloo has an especially extensive
Hungarian collection? Does it offer courses in Hungarian and other Central
and East European studies?

Also, I am particularly interested in obtaining some books on Hungarian
immigration into North America in the early 1900's that would discuss the
problems the immigrants faced, especially discrimination from "middle
Americans". Would you have anything like that in your library? And can you
tell me if it might be possible for me (and other Netizens) to search the
Library's catalog on-line? I know some university libraries are on line, but
their catalogs (Univ. of Pennsylvania, for example) are only open to
registered students.

Your help, as they say, is greatly appreciated!

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka


Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

 on Mon Jan 13 18:58:16 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #883:

>In article >,
>Janos Zsargo > writes:
>
>>Eva, please, don't use such cheap shots. You are not S.Stowe who believes
>>WWI was fought for archdukes and moral issues. That conflict was
>>inevitable
>>by that time and Austro-Hungary was tied to Germany by military trieties.
>>It
>>is just a couriosity that the actual cause for WWI was related to Austro-
>>Hungary.
>>
>>J.Zs

>This is an outright perversion of the historical record. Janos is implying
>that Kaiser Bill started the war and dragged poor, meek, little
>Austria-Hungary into it. The Habsburg politicans and generals, the Magyars
>among them, were absolutely delighted at the prospect of war in the
>Balkans. It's not a curiousity that World War I broke out as a direct
>result of Austro-Hungarian belligerence which couldn't be matched by
>military performance in the field. It's a tragedy brought on by a gross
>miscalculation of the Habsburg society's and economy's structural
>abilities to withstand the kind of broad regional conflict the leadership
>deliberately ignited.
>Sam Stowe

Here he goes again.  Sam, please read some history books about the era before
sounding off.  The war broke out for very complex reasons, and your
"Austro-Hungarian belligerence" was not the primary one.  Your
Marxist-sounding analysis betrays a crying need for additional information on
your part.

Ferenc

At 06:43 PM 1/14/97 -0500, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>Eva Balogh sugests that I do not know what I am talking about.
>Well when I was in Hungary till end of 1956, I had known many peopel
>who were non-communists, poor and still managed to attend higher
>exuducation because they had outstanding grades.

        I am now maintaining that you cannot even read. I wasn't talking
about communists versus non-communists. I am talking about "social origin."
There were quotas based on social origin. I already gave the percentages, so
I won't repeat them here. But believe me that if your father was not a
blue-color worker or a peasant, your chances of getting into university were
slim. Ten in one and, of course, the children of intellectuals or
white-collar workers were more likely to apply to college than let's say
children of working-class parents. In addition, if the regime considered
your father to be "an enemy of the people" you may not have been able to
attend even high school. One of my classmates in elementary school was a
certain Countess Zichy. Neither her nor her brother could attend even high
school. The young Count Zichy was driving a cart and a horse, delivering
firewood from house to house.

        Eva Balogh

At 03:29 PM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:29 AM 1/14/97 -0500, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>>On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>>
>>> At 09:24 AM 1/8/97 -0500, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>>> >I agree with Mr. Hidas' comment that if one had good grades one could get
>>> >into most Hungarian universities, refardless of social status.
>>>
>>>         Hmm, hmm, this is somewhat misleading. This was definitely not the
>>> case. I almost didn't get into gymnasium because of my social origin.
>><SNIP>
>>Dear Eva:
>>The fact was/is that IF you had an n "A" average then most doors were in
>>fact open to those who wanted to continue with their education REGARDLESS
>>of their social status.
>
>        You don't know what you are talking about. In Rakosi's Hungary this
>was certainly not so. It wasn't even so in the earlier days of Kadar's
>Hungary. I am not sure the exact date, but it was sometime in the late 1960s
>that the quota system was abolished and students were admitted to
>university, more or less, on merit.
>
>        Eva Balogh
>
>

It was also hard to attend a University -- or even a Gimnazium -- if you
were one of those who was deported (kitelepitett) to Eastern Hungary's
countryside. As just one example, one of my uncles was in his last year of
Gimnazium when he, along with my grandparents were given the dreaded pink
slip at 2 AM, were given 24 hours to sell, give away or abandon a lifetime
of collected artifacts and property and then taken to a "tanya" near the
Romanian border.  He was not allowed to finish Gimnazium  and obviously
could not apply to the University.  His only lucky card dealt by fate was
that he was drafted to serve in the Army 3 months before Imre Nagy stopped
the deportations and allowed the deportees to leave their restricted
residences.  Of course, being a deportee, he was not allowed to serve in a
regular unit in the Hungarian Army, but rather a work  (muszos --
munkaszolgalatos) unit.

Obviously, I know that this dark period of Hungarian history was fortunately
rather short and that later on things got a bit more humane, but it can not
be denied or forgotten, just like the Holocaust is written indelibly in our
annals.

Charlie Vamossy

Read the obscene ramblings of Sam Stowe again.  That is obviously what some of
you prefer.

----------
From:  Hungarian Discussion List on behalf of Sam Stowe
Sent:  Tuesday, January 14, 1997 3:57 PM
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: Good conduct is in the eyes of the beholder?

In article >, Istvan Lippai
> writes:

>Stowe sent me a private e-mail in response to my private e-mail.  My
initial
>e-mail contained no obscenity.

Oh, no, your e-mail called me a draft-dodger, among other insults.

>The subject of his e-mail 'Fuck you, you
>Nazi!', was followed with a message of additional obscenities.

The "additional obscenities" amounted to a one- or two-line message
informing Lil' Stevie that I am a busy guy who doesn't have the time to
conduct a flame war by private e-mail with him. I did extend him an olive
branch by offering to continue to flame him publicly on the Hungary List
as the masochistic urge struck him. I also made it clear to him that this
would be the final private communication to occur between us. None of
this, mind you, included naughty words in English, Hungarian or Sumerian.
(Or is it Sumatran?)


>I do not wish
>to have intercourse with this Stowe guy, and suggested that he approach
his
>mother instead.

Yawn -- what a "limp" attempt at flaming. I am somewhat discomfited by
your homoerotic desires for me. I'm sure, however, the right guy is out
there for you somewhere. And I was serious when I told you that the final
private communication had passed between us. I have deleted every one of
your e-mailings to me since then. When I'm well-paid to read and respond
privately to the rantings of a sociopathic prevaricator, you'll hear from
me. I'm actually hoping that Eva Balogh will follow through on her threat
to keelhaul your sorry keister courtesy of the American justice system.
Hell, I'd skip "Seinfeld" to watch that trial on Court TV.


>
>The point I am trying to make is that Stowe and company pretend to be
>refined,
>but when pressed, become more offensive and obscene than any ruffian from
>Angyalfold.

I don't know that I've ever made any pretense at refinement, either
publicly or privately. And you need to get your story straight, Steve.
"More offensive and obscene than any ruffian from Angyalfold"? A month
ago, you claimed to be an Angyalfoldi and were bragging about how rough
and tough you are as a result. Now you're dissing your homeboys back in
the hood. This inconsistency is, ironically enough, consistent with the
other inconsistencies you have exhibited since appearing on this list,
such as your absolute ignorance of Hungarian history prior to 1956 and
your dismal grasp of the post-1956 era, as well as the curious fluctuation
of your command of the English language from fairly literate to almost
Zsargo-like incoherence. While I always defer to Bandi Rozsa on matters of
the head (Hey, I ain't treadin' on Superman's cape!), I do wonder in your
case if you are: a) Possessed of multiple personalities, b) Possessed by
demons, c) Bewitched, bewhildered and bothered, or d) A poor liar. And
your use of the phrase "szabadsagharc" to describe the "forradalom" of
1956 rears this ugly question -- have you ever been married to a circus
performer?

A short note on "refinement" while you're mincing around the parlor,
sipping tea with your pinkie extended. A pound of pig excrement tied up
with a pretty pink ribbon is still a pound of pig excrement tied up with a
pretty pink ribbon. It smells the same. You might want to keep this in
mind the next time you unload another pound of your particular brand of
pig excrement on this newsgroup. Now, Rusty the Bailiff has some documents
for you to sign...
Sam Stowe



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

Eva Balogh must be a bit edgy lately. She acuses me of not being able to
read.
I beleivet hat waht ytou described in your last note may have occured but
that the general public WAS able to attend any school IF they had good
grades! Period. Sorry for the typos...
Regards,
Peter

At 08:25 PM 1/14/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak, the infallible historian, wrote:

>First of all, as every elementary school student in Hungary knows, it was NOT
>a civil war.  (Unless you consider the Austrians, and later, the Russians,
>fellow citizens.)

        I see now! That's your trouble. Your knowledge of Hungarian history
was obtained in elementary school! Mine, on the other hand, in addition to
my rather useless history classes in elementary school and high school, was
drastically modified by some serious study of Hungarian history in graduate
school. A bit of difference! Only elementary-school-level teaching could
possibly be responsible for these sentences:

>But I am still puzzled how someone, who claims
>to have been educated in Hungary, can be so uninformed about the 1948-49 war
>of independence.
>
>The bloody civil war that occurred about a dozen years
>later was in America, not in Hungary ;-)

        In case, your elementary-school teacher neglected to tell you: there
was a civil war in Hungary. Practically all the important nationalities rose
against the Hungarians: the Croats, the Romanians, the Slovaks, and the
Serbs. There was a bloody civil war indeed within the countries of the Crown
of St. Stephen.

>Second, I don't recall saying that Kossuth was responsible for the 1967
>Compromise.

        Neither do I. You must have misunderstood something.

>He expressed his misgivings about it in his famous "Cassandra
>letter" in which he foretold the sad consequences the Compromise might bring
>for Hungary.

        Indeed, the "Cassandra Letter." According to all modern historians
inside and outside of Hungary Kossuth did a terrible disservice to his
country by condemning a very advantageous compromise with the Crown.
        And this brings to mind something I just read in the Magyar Hirlap
(January 11, 1997, Saturday) by Gyula Kurucz, a writer and translator. The
title of his piece is: "Uj honfoglalas, avagy nekunk miert nem sikerul?"
[New conquest, or why are we always unsuccessful?" In it Kurucz is trying to
analyze the national character and says something which I think is very
true: we Hungarians are always after "truth," instead of "reality." And then
he adds, "Meg a--mara teljesen kihalo--`magyar virtus' is ellenunk fordult
az utolso evszazadokban: mindig olyankor `eltunk vele,' amikor karunk
szarmazott belole, amikor az eszervek ellen cselekedtunk. Ugyanakkor
kozgondolkodasunkban semmi dicsfeny nem ovezi a Monarchia otven bekes evet,
amikor valoban fejlodott es elore haladt az orszag, amikor a lakossag
tobbsege kezdett folemelkedni. Igen valoszinunek tunik, hogy az also es
kozepretegekben azok az evtizedek tuntek aranykornak, a vagyak
mertekegysegenek--mikozben a kiegyezest a nemzeti fuggetlenseg feladasakent
beallito kep pusztan utolagos erelmezes termeke." [In freely translated
English: Even the by now completely dead "Hungarian bravado" has turned
against us in the last few centuries: we always resorted to it when it was
not to our advantage, when we acted against reason. At the same time in our
common consciousness there is no glory surrounding our peaceful fifty-years
of the Monarchy, when indeed the country moved rapidly forward, when the
majority of the population felt that their star was rising. It is most
likely that for the lower and middle-classes those decades seemed like a
golden age, the measure of our desires while the picture depicting the
Ausgleich as the abandonment of our national independence was a later
construct.]
        Surely, Kurucz is talking about 1848 and 1867 and our totally wrong
national perception of these two events. Our suicidal tendency to do the
wrong thing and belittle the important.


>There are two schools of thought regarding the Compromise, and the debates
>are still going on between them.  One side cites the tremendous economic
>growth that followed; the other, the bond that tied the country to Austria,
>resulting in Hungary being dragged into a war for Austrian interests,
>resulting in what followed.

        I am not quite sure where you got the idea that there is a
historical school which claims that "the bond that tied the country to
Austria resulting in Hungary being dragged into a war for Austrian
interests, resulting in what followed." Because, you see, exactly the
opposite is true. Hungary was threatened by Serbia not Austria!! Serbia's
thriving for Greater Serbia could affect Hungary much more seriously than
Austria. Austria without Hungary would have most likely never got involved
in the affairs of the Balkans.

        Eva Balogh

At 01:57 AM 1/15/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>This is a nonsense (at least in my opinion). There could have been a compromis
e
>20-30 years earlier at most. Would this extra time have changed anything?

        Twenty-thirty years earlier? That would have put things to 1837 or
1847. Neither date makes any sense. Moreover, I wasn't talking about twenty
or thirty years earlier. More like two centuries. Moreover, since when you
are so sure that "there could have been a compromise 20-30 years earlier *at
most.*" Pray, why, "at most"? We could have done differently already at the
end of the seventeenth-century.

>Beside, there were pure hungarian regions taken away from Hungary at Trianon.
>Nobody was really interested in the ethnic maps, when the new borders were
>created.

        This is not true. The Americans were very much interested in ethnic
composition of the areas and if it depended on them the borders would have
been a great deal more advantageous than they became. (And please, don't
start arguing with me because I read through all the unpublished minutes of
the sessions of the border commissions--in the original.) The basis of the
settlement was supposed to be ethnic with "modifications." Like, railroad
lines, defense considerations, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, there
were the neighbors who were sitting right in Paris and lobbying with the
members of the border commission. Hungary, of course, wasn't represented.
Not only that but the different border commissions worked separately and
until all three submitted their recommendations they had no idea what the
shape of future Hungary would be. They themselves were surrised how "small"
it became but, as Harold Nicolson says in his book/diary that they kept
repeating to themselves that after all these are not "final," they are just
"recommendations." At the end, it turned out that these "recommendations"
were not submitted to further scrutiny. They became "final."

>Sorry, if I was confusing. My point was that a large-scale conflict in
>Europe was inevitable and Austro-Hungary would have been an ally of
>Germany no matter where and how the conflict had been initiated.

        There is no such thing as inevitability in history. World War I
wasn't inevitable either.

>True, but it's irrelevant if we discuss what happened with Hungary in
>this century and why it happened.

        Irrelevant? The Pete's sake, how can it be irrelevant. And by the
way, the second half of the sentence doesn't make the slightest sense to me.

        Eva Balogh

When was the 50 golden years of the Monarchy?
I was told (on this list, and by you Eva B) that
the millions of landless and starving peasants left
Hungary at the beginning of this century for America.




>         Indeed, the "Cassandra Letter." According to all modern historians
> inside and outside of Hungary Kossuth did a terrible disservice to his
> country by condemning a very advantageous compromise with the Crown.
>         And this brings to mind something I just read in the Magyar Hirlap
> (January 11, 1997, Saturday) by Gyula Kurucz, a writer and translator. The
> title of his piece is: "Uj honfoglalas, avagy nekunk miert nem sikerul?"
> [New conquest, or why are we always unsuccessful?" In it Kurucz is trying to
> analyze the national character and says something which I think is very
> true: we Hungarians are always after "truth," instead of "reality." And then
> he adds, "Meg a--mara teljesen kihalo--`magyar virtus' is ellenunk fordult
> az utolso evszazadokban: mindig olyankor `eltunk vele,' amikor karunk
> szarmazott belole, amikor az eszervek ellen cselekedtunk. Ugyanakkor
> kozgondolkodasunkban semmi dicsfeny nem ovezi a Monarchia otven bekes evet,
> amikor valoban fejlodott es elore haladt az orszag, amikor a lakossag
> tobbsege kezdett folemelkedni. Igen valoszinunek tunik, hogy az also es
> kozepretegekben azok az evtizedek tuntek aranykornak, a vagyak
> mertekegysegenek--mikozben a kiegyezest a nemzeti fuggetlenseg feladasakent
> beallito kep pusztan utolagos erelmezes termeke." [In freely translated
> English: Even the by now completely dead "Hungarian bravado" has turned
> against us in the last few centuries: we always resorted to it when it was
> not to our advantage, when we acted against reason. At the same time in our
> common consciousness there is no glory surrounding our peaceful fifty-years
> of the Monarchy, when indeed the country moved rapidly forward, when the
> majority of the population felt that their star was rising. It is most
> likely that for the lower and middle-classes those decades seemed like a
> golden age, the measure of our desires while the picture depicting the
> Ausgleich as the abandonment of our national independence was a later
> construct.]
>         Surely, Kurucz is talking about 1848 and 1867 and our totally wrong
> national perception of these two events. Our suicidal tendency to do the
> wrong thing and belittle the important.
>
>
> >There are two schools of thought regarding the Compromise, and the debates
> >are still going on between them.  One side cites the tremendous economic
> >growth that followed; the other, the bond that tied the country to Austria,
> >resulting in Hungary being dragged into a war for Austrian interests,
> >resulting in what followed.
>
>