i think that both paul and dr. hidas have very good points and perhaps
if one looks closely you can see that their views are not entirely
different--they just explain themselves differently.

If i am correct, Paul is arguing that often people are too quick to
accuse other of racism, anti-semitism stb. even if someone has only
criticized a single action or viewpoint (especiaaly those viewpoints
that are loaded like the isreali-palestinean conflict) so, in other
words, it is unfair to accuse someone of discriminating against a group
if that person has only attacked a viewpoint that is percieved to be held
by the group. and peter hidas argues that use of labels such as "all
jews" are wrong since people do not think and act alike and should not be
charaterized as doing so. both peter and paul (sounds like a
music group i know) would  then probably agree that to
criticise a particular action or viewpoint would not necessarily be
racist. but as peter correctly pointed out, if one attributes an action
or viewpoint to a group as a whole that IS racist and wrong.Although i
 am hungarian, i
might have a completely different view of the minority question in
romania then lets say csurka. however,  paul is correct in that too
often people use the label racist irresponsibly to serve their own
ends. like in the case of those people who criticise Isreal for
various actions againt the palestinians.(and i might add, the
palestinians are also a semitic people) It is wrong to accuse them
 of being racist just because they criticise Isreal (in fact many jews
do) as long as the person who is critical does
not associate "isreal" with "all jews". anyways,
i am now babbling more than i should be, i hope i made my point clear.
dini metro-roland

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

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?  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; they acquiesced in the Austrian
State Treaty; they folded at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.  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.  It could have happened in 1956 just as easily.  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.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

These demands are all very well, but who will be the group of "angels" that
are going to implement them and be the watchdog. It only needs one rotten
apple. And also, do you happen to have a century to spare.

1. Yes, and who would replace them. "Honest" business men, accountants,
   Hungarians maybe a good idea.

2. Where are going to get the investment from then if not from the banks. Ok,
   you could always sell the government`s Mercs! And taking a bank to court
   could prove to be very expensive.

3. Fraudulent transactions be made null and void? That could take years and
   more money, and by that time the companies would have been sold on and the
   culprits left the country.

4. O.k. I`ll give you this one.

5. In your dreams! It`s always the poor bloke on the bottom of the heap that
   get`s the boot.

6. Name me one country that has these. Ok, maybe Japan, but most of them are
   stinking rich; and so is the government. No, only if every businessman in
   Hungary is selfless and honest - a selfless businessman, what ever next!

7. That`s for the whole nation to demand.

8. Possible. It only takes money.

9. If the state cannot afford it, it`s going to fall into private (probably
   foreign) hands, and thats not good.

10. Military law? A proper honest (which comes from being well paid) police
    force will take a helluva lot of money - may be recruiting from the armed
    forces, and a lot of support from German/British police.
        12 months military service should be again made complusory - there
    are currently too many lazy spoilt brats driving around in the their VW`s
    that daddy bought for them.

11. Yes. Fine. But that will need equal co-operation from foreign governments
    (such as Slovakia, Romania) - are you going to have them ousted as well?


12. Ditto. Only in an ideal world.......or Britain!



Karcsi

A footnote to a very interesting discussion between George Antony and Peter
Hidas. I personally always thought that Imre Nagy's announcement of leaving
the Warsaw Pact was the last straw as far as Moscow was concerned. Of course,
this was not based on anything else but simply being around at the time. What
do you think?

Eva Balogh

Here is the promised review of an article about U.S. foreign policy toward
Hungary, which appeared in Tortenelmi Szemle very recently.

The author of the article is Laszlo Borhi who spent some time in the United
States studying some of the documents pertaining to the Hungarian events.
Without going into all the details I will just point out some of the
interesting points, which were new, or partly new, to me.

(1) On July 27 the National Security Council analyzed the Hungarian situation
and came to the conclusion that an open rebellion was absolutely out of the
question in Hungary.

(2) The telephone contact between Washington and the American embassy was
severed in the first days of the revolution and wasn't restored until October
27. Telex was very slow.

(3) There was a new ambassador but he didn't arrive until the very end of
October.

(4) Eisenhower asked the State Department to work out a strategy as a result
of the outbreak of the Hungarian revolution. That paper was finished only on
 October 31. This time the foreign policy makers could envisage the
establishment of "national communist governments." The authors of the paper
could foresee the following options: (a) pressure on the Soviet Union via the
United Nations; (b) secret armed help to the leaders of the uprising; (c)
direct conversation with the Russians concerning the pulling back the Red
Army from Hungary and the establishment of a neutral Hungary.

(5) According to Borhi the Americans kept repeating to the Russians that the
West doesn't want to use the Hungarian developments its its own advantage.
               The Americans thought that if they recognize the Soviet
Union's "legitimate security interests" perhaps one can avoid Soviet military
interference.

(6) Charles Bohlen, American ambassador in Moscow, reported home that Zhukov
had told him on October 30 that his army received orders to withdraw from
Budapest. Bohlen further informed Washington tha according to Bulganin "the
Soviets are not preparing for direct armed action."

(7) American foreign policy makers didn't trust Imre Nagy. So, for example,
the new ambassador was told not to take up formal relations with Nagy's
government. Dulles told the ambassador over the telephone, that they don't
want to have anything to do with "that government."

These are the man points.

Eva Balogh

Peter I. Hidas wrote in reply to Paul`s comments about there being a
suspiciously large number of Jews in the diamond business etc.

================

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?

================

        Is someone racist just because they made an observation. They may well
be an extraordinary amount of Jews in the diamond business, but in a family
business there is an extraordinary number of people who are related working
there - because if there are two people who are equally qualified and one
is a blood relative (or hungarian) you obviously choice him/her, that`s a fact
of life; you could call it peer pressure (fear of embarassment etc if you
don`t). The same could reasoning could be applied to the diamond industry.
Because Jews have always been discriminated against, and have thus been the
minority, they have stuck together in a tight community. And as that community
has grown, so have their business. And so after more than 50 years of being
in America who`s going to deny them the right to run the diamond industry if
they want to - it`s only because the industry has been managed well enough
to push out the opposition.
        Also there may well be a lot of Afro-Americans that are professional
athletes, but that`s only because of the environment they were brought up
in (economical mainly) and so that was mainly their only ticket out. It`s
highly hypocritical for those racist americans to be also the same people who
boast about the idea that they rule the world in sports.


        Another fact: One third of businesses in America are run by the
Irish. I here no Americans moaning about that! I wonder why ;-)



Karcsi

What I forgot to write earlier was, why do you Peter Hidas keep on writing
the statement "...you are being racist/anti-semetic without realising it."
Aren`t you just being discrimatory against people give some honest (usually)
critism that you cannot agree with?


Karcsi

re Gabor Fencsik's remarks:

Here,here!  I wish I'd said that!

Tom Wukitsch

Who was that for? Anyway I agree about that LP and I am an LGT
fan. I like the second and the 4th songs but probably willing to part
with the CD if someone is interested. E-mail me.

Since you are in Toronto, do you know Kiss Robert?      LH

Zork G. Hun ) wrote:
: Where are you?


: I'm in Toronto and I have seen a copy at a local store recently. I also
: have one myself but I'm not particularly crazy about it.


: --

: Zork (the) Hun
:     X
:    X X
:  /_____

Karcsi has made a number of good comments in his note headed:

>Peter I. Hidas wrote in reply to Paul`s comments about there being a
>suspiciously large number of Jews in the diamond business etc.
>
>================
>
>Your message is racist without you realizing it. People do not act as a
>group - most of the time.

I very much share their rejection of anti-semitism but the beauty of the
Jewish community is of course that they are capable of acting as a group most
of the time. And they do. What on earth is wrong with that?

The diamond trade requires an enormous amount of trust. Even the simplest
messanger boy is vested with fiduciary reponsibilities. Trust flourishes when
people can depend on their community for harsh punishment of each and every
violation of trust.

Our legal systems catch probably less than 1% of white collar criminals and
the punishments are mild. The diamond trade could not have flourished under
conditions of such laxity.

The Jewish community is tight, vigilant and the punishment is ostracism.
Perfectly suited for this trade (and some others as well).

Is that unfair? Nonsense!

Does it invite envy? You bet! Even if one is smart enough not to be envious
of the glitter of diamonds, one can be hardly blamed for being envious, at
times, of their communities' high standards as such.

Do they individually pay a price for having such exacting standards? Would
you and I be willing to pay that price?

Ah, you see....


-------------------------------------
Name: tiha von ghyczy
E-mail: 
Date: 11/03/95
Charlottesville, Va.
-------------------------------------

>>>Peopl do act in and think as groups - Jews, Hungarians, Italians, etc.
>>>
>>>Paul

>Your message is racist without you realizing it.

Let us not throw around the racist adjective so easily. Am I racist if I tend
to do more for my church group. That I feel closer to them and I am sure that
I am somewhat prejudiced toward them. Groups exist, whether they are
family groups, church groups, associations or ethnic groups. And I am sure
it effects the behaviour of the people, even if it should not. 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

>re Gabor Fencsik's remarks:
>
>Here,here!  I wish I'd said that!
>
>Tom Wukitsch

Where? Where? I wish I'd heard where.

-------------------------------------
Name: tiha von ghyczy
E-mail: 
Date: 11/03/95
Charlottesville, Va.
-------------------------------------

Dear Colleagues,

I called up the Dayton Daily News to find out if they received any Fax-es
concerning the peace conference. They told me that they received a very large
number world-wide and most is suggesting to broaden the scope of the
conference to resolve the problems of Central Europe. Because of this, they
are preparing an editorial to recommend just that.

Thanks to all of you who participated in this. If you have not yet, the fax
number is 513-225-2088.. During the next 2-3 days, our fax-es could also
emphasize the autonomy model of Tyrol.

Simultaneously with the above, we are contacting all Senators and Congressman
asking for the broadening of the scope of the conference. Thanks to Szabolcs
Petrovay, now we have an ASCII text file of the names, telephone, fax and
E-Mail numbers of all Congressman and Senators. If you want to participate in
this effort, I will send you the list.

Best Regards: Bela Liptak

Joe Pannon writes:

>I am surprised nobody critiqued the content of Petrovics-Ofner's "Brown
>shoes ..." essay yet, even though references were made to it.
>Haven't most of you read it?  Or you found it not worth to discuss?

Of course we all read it.  Most of us probably reacted the same way I did,
with astonishment and disbelief.  It would not have surprised anyone to read
such poisonous, false and libelous drivel in Kadar's Hungary, where it was
the officially accepted communist version of the events of 1956.  But here
and now?  Since this can't be the honest opinion of any halfway intelligent
person, I suspect most of us just shrugged it off as so much garbage.

Ferenc

Hello All,

as for me, if neither the Jewish people nor the other nations don't talk
about anti-semitism, would NOT be so much problems with this question.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't think that anti-semitism would be a very
hard problem in Hungary. Many peolpe just talking about it, without any
facts. Csurka's MIEP is NOT so strong as it said to be.

Bye, Martin