Kornai is quite right in observing how hard it is to estimate
the exact size of a large crowd. Of course Mr. Andras Kornai, having
denied on Internet that 1956 was a "Freedom Fight" at all, is not the
most credible person to be taken seriously about anything that concerns
1956 or its commemoration.

        Perhaps the most trustworthy guestimate of the demo on Oct. 22
came from TV director Adam Horvath himself. He is no fan of 56 either,
but at the least he was right there to face the throng.

        A 3-men delegation hand-delivered the 12 demands to Adam Horvath
in the TV-Building. They requested that TV report on the demo in its
evening news and read the "12 demands". TV Director Adam Horvath, perhaps
taken aback slightly by the size of the crowd, reassured deputies on TV
coverage with these words: "it is not in the interest of the TV to ignore a
demonstration one hundred thousand strong". Indeed, evening news included
shots taken from rooftops. The immense crowd completely filling
Szabadsag square was in plain view. Demonstrators went from Szabadsag
square to the Parliament where *an additional* throng awaited them.
An about 100x200m rectangle was jammed solid, and at least 3 persons/sqm
yields the very minimum of 60,000. Adjoining streets were filled with
people who just could not get to Kossuth square at all. Thus, Adam
Horvath's 100,000 is a very realistic figure. (BTW, neither television
nor radio read the 12 demands, of course)

        At any rate, there is nobody who would deny that since 1990
this was by far the largest crowd that took to the streets. Also, it
was devastating and spine (?) chilling for liberal liars to see that
MIEP could not only call the largest crowd of all to take to the streets -
but could also peacefully send them home *this time*.

        For a comparison, Dr. Torgyan's 56 celebration on the 23rd
attracted about 5,000, and MDF-demo attracted about 3,000. Prime
Minister Horn, a former workers' militia-man, who fought *against*
Hungarian Freedom Fighters in 1956, led the "official" commemoration
in front of perhaps 200 who could stand such tragic national disgrace
without actually throwing up. (Blue TV provided live coverage of
the defamation, of course)

        One more thing. HVG, the "liberal weekly flagship" of "blue
media" appeared for the commemoration with the festive cover of a
Stalin-statue-like enormous "56" being pulled down from its piedestal
by ugly ropes. If you could stand such defamation and actually touched
and opened the magazine, you could see the "list of planned celebrations
of 1956" (also copied into liberal "Hirmondo" news-digest on the Internet),
where the last "innocent" item was the "commemoration of 1956 by the
society of earthworm-breeders". Gross defamation aside, HVG projected
900 earthworm-breeders, almost five times the crowd of 200 that cared to
show up, to document for the record, butcher Horn's crocodile tears
wept over the butchered.

        Mr. Kornai should have asked Mr. Horn directly with his questions
about celebrations of 1956. Would have made another nice SZDSZ-MSZP
coalition.

Great stuff... There should be open demand for the
resignation of most govts. (all?) as we well know,
that they do not deliver their promises - even in
the rare cases when they mean it...

Perhaps you should look into why demands for
decent standards of social provisions and
decent standards of profits are not compatable
anymore, if ever were...




>
> This is what democracy should be all about. People voice their demand.
> Elect a government to deliver on them (such as in 1994, to deliver on
> a "socially sensitive" transition to post-communism). If government
> betrays electors by turning on them 180 degrees, as it has clearly
> happened to Hungary since the 12 of March, people openly demand the
> resignation of the cheater government, that has lost therefore its
> public trust, i.e. its mandate.
>
> If 100,000 is not enough, there will be more - and the rest of the
> demands (all eleven of them) have already been formulated and none of
> them fails worldwidescrupulus.

Can anyone summarise (CORRECLTY !!!) the story of Suez Canal
  in 1956 in 20-40 lines ?
    Once again, correctly and not approximately in "pub style",
  in the latter style even Nancsi neni knows as well what has
  happened there.

Answers to some questions:


>Message-ID: >
>To: 
>Subject: American Influence in Hungary
>Sender: 
>Precedence: Bulk

>Nem tudom, hogy jo helyen probalkozom, de szeretnem segitsegeteket kerni.
>Dolgozatot irok a fenti temaban angolul, es szuksegem lenne barmi
>forrasmunkara
>(ujsagcikk, statisztikai adatok, barmi) (McDonald, Nike, filmek, elelmiszer
>stb.)
>Ha tudnatok tippeket adni, megkoszonnem,

>Edina - Chicago



You may want to consult the book:

        Geza Zarodszky: American Effects on Hungarian Imagination
        and Political Thought 1559-1848
        Columbia University Press, 1995
        (Atlantic Studies on Society in Change # 79)



>Date:         Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:09:00 -0500
>Reply-To:     Hungarian Discussion List >
>Sender:       Hungarian Discussion List >
>From:         Arpad Jaromy >
>Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
>Subject:      Seeking to contact Dr Kopits Istvan
>To:           Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY >

>I would like to contact Dr. Kopits Istvan of U.S.A. (New York area?).
>Does anyone has the address or phone number?
>Thank you for your help!
>Arpad


Dr Kopits is the Director of the International Center for Skeletal Dysplasia
at St. Joseph Hospital in Baltimore. He can be reached there at 410 337-1250.


CSABA K. ZOLTANI

Peter I. Hidas wrote:
>Your message is racist without you realizing it. People do not act as a
>group - most of the time. One could say that there are too many
>Afro-American playing basketball. Too few Jews. Discrimination! Or are
>there (at least used to be) too many Hungarians in Holywood.
>Discrimination! Should the diamond industry hire you if you are not a
> specialist just because there are too few Hungarians in the industry?

You seem to miss the relevant points.  The issue is control - who is the
gatekeeper.  Whites hire Afro-Americans to play basketball.  Few Jews
are on NBA teams since few Jews play college ball.  Afro-Americans
don't even control the NBA, though they make up almost all thje
players.  Discrimination in the NBA would be whites NOT
hiring Afro-Americans to play, though discrimination does exist in
front office hiring.  Jews control the diamond industry, and hire
mainly other Jews.  The control lies in their hands.  There may
have been many Hungarians in Hollywood, but they never controlled
it.

Again, let's not get away from the subject.  People do act in groups,
and the very fact that discrimination exists, and that these ethnic
lists exist is proof.  Frankly I cannot believe anyone would
dispute the point.  The goal should be to make a correction
when one group acquires enough power over another to harm the welfare
of the weaker group, and not the distruction of groups.  I, for one,
am very happy to be of Hungarian and European heritage, which is unique from
Asian and African heritage - nothing wrong with the other group,
but I'm satisfied to be part of my group.  I value these differences,
and believe multiculturalism should be defined on a worldwide basis, rather
than on a local, city-by-city basis as is the case today.  The purpose is
to maintain our differences, which provide different prospectives.  The only
way to get these differenet prospectives is to have groupos with different
experiences.  If everyplace was multicultural, the result would be a
single cultural and ethnic world - you must understand the consequences
of your actions, and the consequences of multiculturalism have not yet been
considered.

For example:
The latest rage in biology and genetics is the discovery of naturally
occuring medicines in the rainforests of the world.  These medicines
were discovered by the native peoples, who live a non-western culture.
If they had been assimilated into the western culture, their knowledge
would have been lost.  They have things to offer us, and we have
things to offer them, but to totally destroy either culture would
be a loss to the world (realistically, the west would absorb them, and
destroy their culture, as we did with the American Indians.  there would
be little danger of them absorbing us into their culture, short of
what we now call western-bashing multicultural).

Paul

During a November 1992 visit to Budapest, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
handed to Hungarian President Arpad Goncz a dossier of Soviet archival material
s
 related to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. The documents contained in the file,
 consisting of 299 pages, have now been published in Hungarian translation
in two volumes, and also made available in russian archives. Janos M. Rainer
published an article under the titel THE YELTSIN DOSSIER in the Bulletin of
the Woodrow Wilson International Cener for Scholars (Spring 1995).

1. Since the summer of 1956, as the enti-Stalinist opposition gained strength,
the Soviet leadership observed the Hungarian crisis with great worry. The say
 the solution to the crisis in leadership changes (Rakosi's dismissal) and
reserved forceful oppressive measures as a last resort only. In July 1956,
Soviet representative Mikoyan reported that "as a result of the Hungarian
situation there is an atmosphere of uneasiness prevailing in our Central
 Committee and in the ranks of the Socialist camp, which is due to the fact,
 that it cnnot be permitted for something unexpected, unpleasant to happen in
 Hungary.If the
Hungarian comrades need it, our Central Committee is ready to give them a
helping hand by giving advice or else, in order to put things right."

2. Although the Soviet leaders received serious signals about the further
exarcerbation of tensions in Hungary, they were distracted by crises in other
 lcoations (Poland, Suez).

3.On October 24, Khruschev informed the leaders of other Warsaw Pact allies
in Eastern Europe that there was a "total unity of
 opinion"{""""""""[[[[[[[[[[[[within the Hungarian leadership.

4.party leader Gero was dismissed by the Soviets, but the new government
list was compiled by the Nagy group, although Suslov and Mikoyan were present.

5. The Soviet documents suggest that October 26 was a turning point. On one
 handthis is when Imre Magy's policy of searching for a political solution was
 formulated.He decided that a new political, conciliatory line was needed. This
change was supported by Kadar with some reservation.

6. Mikoyan and Suslov recommended that the Presidium accpet the Imre Nagy line.
Instead of military measures, they thought that concessions were needed to
"win over the working masses" and ajproved reshuffling the government by
including "a certain number of petty bourgeois democrats".

8. The October 26-28 compromise did not directly contradict Moscow's
long range interests.

9. On October 29 and 30 the Soviet envoys saw a Hungarian party leadership
which appeared to be falling apart and losing control events. The outbreak
of the the suez war and the fact that the Americans gave clear signals on
 non-intervention (See telegram from State Department to U.S. Embassy in Moscow
,
29 October 1956, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-57,
vol.25, p.328) gave preparation of a second intervention an external green
light. On October 30 the Mikoyan group made its decision in Hungary.
The follwing day Mikoyan and Suslov returned to Moscow.

11.Four members of the Soviet secretariat began to draft and assemble the
necessary documents on October 31, most importantly, a declaration
of the new Hungarian government (of Kadar) (prepared in Moscow).

Marshal Konev went to Hungary on November 1 to pepare the second
intervention.

The above is a summary ofJanos M. Rainer's article (and interpretation.

Peter I. Hidas, Montreal

kristyan (?)  wrote:
> HUNGARY Suez Canal
>     Can anyone summarise (CORRECLTY !!!) the story of Suez Canal
>   in 1956 in 20-40 lines ?
>     Once again, correctly and not approximately in "pub style",
>   in the latter style even Nancsi neni knows as well what has
>   happened there.

Yes, I suppose there would be a few who could do that, even though this is
hardly relevant for the HUNGARY mailing list.

On the other hand, they may not be inclined to do so, given the arrogant
style of your demand.

So, why don't you find out where your local library is and look for some
material yourself.  While at it, do read up on etiquette as well.

George Antony

I wish to send my condolances to the people of Israel at the assacination of
Mr.Rabin.
My sympathy and sorrow to all Israelis
I hope you will follow in the footsteps of Mr.Rabin in your peace process.

Andy Kozma

Sandor Lengyel wrote:

>Saying that such a behaviour exists, does not make someone racist,
>only a realist. And those who practice such a behaviour are
>not racist either, just less than perfect humans.

Sandor, why less than perfect humans because of this?  There is nothing wrong
with, using your example, doing more for your church than some other group,
unless you do so while ignoring an emergency someplace else.  We are
obligated to help our fellow man when he needs it, but all things being
equal there is nothing wrong with helping your church rather than your
neighbors church.  So long as you don't interfere with selfhelp efforts of your
neighbors church you have done nothing wrong or selfishly.

Paul

Peter:

>Dear Joe,
>
>Try to locate Janos M. Rainer's article entitled THE YELTSIN DOSSIER:
>SOVIET DOCUMENTS ON HUNGARY in the Spring 1995 BULLETIN of the Woddrow
>Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washigton, D.C.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll try it.

>In a few days I will try to send you some interesting tid-bits.

Super!  You've made me curious already.

Thanks,
Joe

Normally very perceptive and coherent Gabor Fencsik lets his pique have
the better of him:

> I'm afraid I can't quite follow George Antony's reasoning about the
> "inevitability" of the Soviet invasion in 1956.  What was inevitable
> about it?

Just the very fact of it.

> And how does the fate of Czechoslovakia in 1968 prove the
> inevitability of the '56 invasion of Hungary?

Trying to be more understandable than I may have been before: the Brezhnev
Doctrine dictated Soviet attitudes towards the satellites (i.e., once a
satellite, always a satellite, if necessary to be kept as such by force).
However, while it is tied formally to Brezhnev, the same philosophy had
preceded him as part of the Soviet defence strategy after WWII.

It is all very well that the SU was an offensive and aggressive power, but
they were also conscious of their own country's security to the extent of
paranoia.  The lesson of WWII was learned the hard way, so this should not
come as a surprise even to those with limited information about Politburo
deliberations.

> How is it that the various
> power struggles unfolding in the Soviet Politburo, or the strength of
> Khruschev's position at the time, can ever prove the *inevitability* of
> the invasion?  These are themselves contingent facts.  Nothing inevitable
> can be derived from contingent facts.  This kind of reasoning cannot show
> the inevitability of anything.  Likelihood, yes, but inevitability, no.

Yawn.  Sophistry.

If it makes you feel happier, call it likelihood with probability approaching
100 per cent.

> If it was inevitable that the USSR is going to invade Hungary and
> Czechoslovakia, then was it also inevitable that they will fail to invade
> Poland in 1981?

Once Jaruselsky did their dirty work, there was no need for it.  Likelihood
with probability approaching zero.

> All through the cold war years, the Soviet Union has
> alternated between aggressive power grabs, compromise, and outright cave-in,
> depending on the situation of the moment.  They caved on Trieste; they let
> go of Greece when the price was raised;

Not very relevant examples.  Neither of these had implications for Soviet
national security.

> they acquiesced in the Austrian
> State Treaty;

Not really a loss from the point of view of Soviet national security: although
the Red Army had to leave Austria, so did the Allied Forces.  A neutral Austria
is arguably just as good a buffer as an Austria with Soviet and US forces
cheek by jowl.

> they folded at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.

That is the hairy-chested US opinion.  The other version is that what the
Soviets wanted not so much to prop up Castro, but to prevent US deployment of
nuclear missiles in Turkey.  They got it as a quid pro quo: hardly 'folding'.

> And
> that was before Gorbachev allowed the whole house of cards to come crashing
> down.  Nothing inevitable about that either.  The Empire could have lasted
> another generation, or it could have collapsed a generation earlier.  None
> of the thousands of expert Sovietologists predicted when it was going to
> happen.

Saying that it was inevitable that the Soviet Empire would fall has nothing
to do with correctly predicting the timing of it.  Long-term economic trends
have been negative enough for the prediction of the fact but not of the time,
partly because the latter depended on the capacity (or otherwise) of the system
to reform itself or keep the hungry hordes in check by force.

> It could have happened in 1956 just as easily.

This a heroic stand to take.  Care to justify it ?

> Nothing inevitable
> about these things.  Historical inevitability is a concept that is best
> left to devotees of dialectical materialism, and our hilarious conspiracy
> theorist friends along the fringes of the left and the right.

You are shadowboxing.

I am a Bayesian, and after the event we have 100 per cent probability ;-).

George Antony

Gabor Morocz wrote:

> All right, may be the term  public discussion  [of the nature of the
1956 uprising in Hungary]  was too excessive.  Of
> course, there was no public discussion about  56 in the national media.
> However, how about Gyorgy Moldova s book about  56 which was allowed to
> be published in the early seventies (Sorry I forgot the title).  That
> book started most sincere talk about  56.  How about, the history
> classes in general school (1968 - 1970) where teachers told us how
> Kadar did the right thing and his government was the only solution to
> the crisis.  How about, the annually changing  explanations  from the
> KISZ and Party agit.prop. personnel who was called in before every Oct.
> 23rd for brainwash meetings, and was told different lies about  56, and
> was also encouraged to spread that word to the masses in response to
> questions (1970 - 1984).  How about, university professors discussing
>  56 in history related classes (1975 -1980) and desperately trying to
> justify the legitimacy of the Kadar government in response to student s
> questions, and portraying Kadar and his party as the best thing that
> could happen to us.  (By the way, most of these professors appeared on
> the other side, after 1989, in different parties in high positions, in
> the government as cabinet members and advocated just the opposite.
> Disgusting!!!  Sorry, this is a different story.)
> What were these?

Not at the Godollo agricultural university.  The ideological courses we
had to take did not deal with 1956.

> Truisms do not get created in a vacuum.  Where did you live?  Did not
> you notice that hordes of reliable party members wrote countless
>  hangulatjelentes  about the state of the mind of the masses.  In
> response to these reports, Party and KISZ theoreticians created counter
> propaganda, trained the personnel to have ready response to common
> questions from the people.  These people then commingled with the rest
> of us and very effectively spread the party supported propaganda that
> obviously did not have the appearance of propaganda.  They were
> packaged as friendly discussions and advice from the senior class to
> our young generation who did not, could not know all the facts.  Didn t
> you notice it?.  Wasn t that propaganda?  It was present everywhere, in
> the schools and in the workplace.

Strange.  By the middle of my high-school years everybody in the class
knew where those declaring an opinion on political matters stood.  Those
reflecting the official line were automatically discounted by those who
had an opposite opinion.  Those not interested in political matters did not
bother much by either side: if they had to they regurgitated the party line
with no conviction.  University and the workplace was no different.

> G.A. wrote:
> >If life in Hungary was better than in other Eastern-Bloc countries
> >that must imply some competence on part of the leadership.
>
> Competence in what?  Taking away the wealth and redistributing it in a
> way that bankrupted the Country so deeply that She cannot escape from
> that situation until today?  Is it competence to pour money -- the hard
> earned money of all of us -- into consumer consumption, or social
> programs,

Actually, it was borrowed money.  That is the problem.

> and neglecting to capitalize and modernize the industry and
> the agriculture?

I had a fairly good knowledge of agriculture, and it was modernized very
thoroughly.  The problem is that it was modernized with the objective of
achieveing technical, rather than economic, efficiency.

> I hardly believe such a remark from someone living in
> a capitalist country.

You will get used to it: you can hear even unreconstructed communist views
from people living in a capitalist country.

> G.A. wrote:
> >I get mad every time I read this red herring of some people not having
> >other reliable sources of information.  Everybody I knew knew of Radio
> >Free Europe and owned a radio receiver that was suitable to listen to
> >it.  There were plenty of alternative sources of information ...
>
> It is obvious that you were a member of the highly educated part of
> society and you had the sense, the interest, and the encouragement from
> your piers to listen to other sources.  I was, too.  However, the
> masses at the end of the lower education hardly listened to Radio Free
> Europe or any other Western source.

When I was working as a truck driver for the Budapest Bakery Co in the 70s,
I met many people of primary education, if that.  Still, the average driver or
storeman and packer was not ignorant of what was going on.  They approached
the official line on anything with a strong dose of cynicism, and did not take
the party bricks too seriously.

It is a mistake to believe that
> the majority of people listened to them.  Time to time when a very
> important news hit the media and sounded fishy (for example the shot
> down of the Korean airliner by the Russians) then people tuned to these
> sources for explanation and thruth spread rapidly.  Otherwise these
> western sources did not have too much effect on the majority of people.

I agree that it was mainly the intelligentsia that listened to RFE regularly.
However, there was enough discussion of politics among other social strata
too to disseminate information from alternative sources.  I also agree that
it was mainly the big events that triggered interest.  However, the average
bloke still had a general notion that the "West" is better off than us, while
most of our fellow socialist brothers are worse off than us.  In particular,
the better range of goods in Czechoslovak shops was known just as much as the
fact that one has much less to lose in Hungary when sending the party hacks
to a warmer climate than in Czechoslovakia, and nobody was envious of the
poor devils inhabiting Romania.

George Antony