At 04:53 PM 2/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Since when are borders that exist today considered sacred ?
>Who is to say that sensible people in the future will not decide that
>borders should be redrawn to more equitably reflect ethnicity? Perhaps
>some system of compensation would be welcomed by the Romanian govt in
>exchange for land.It is to the advantage of all parties involved to have
>an amicable settlement.
>
Is this settlement supposed to be on top of what they already took in goods,
money, etc. from Hungary proper--never mind Transylvania--when they invaded
and raided all the way to Budapest?  They were even ransacking the museums
when U.S. General Bandholz put a stop to some--but not all--of it.  The
French and the English were telling him to let the Romanians continue, "the
Hungarians had to learn their place in the world."  I think the Romanians
have stolen quite enough, and a really equitable settlement would involve
reparations going the other way.  Appeasement didn't work in the 1930's, nor
in the Balkans in the 1990's.  I doubt if it would work with Romanians--they
never seem to be satisfied either.

I'd rather see some money spent on mass communications cultural re-education
programs such as through international radio to get rid of the racist,
ethnocentric hatreds and genocidal tendencies in Romanians, first before
even trying to negotiate anything.  You can knock on a door all you want,
but if no one opens it, you can't get in...

Respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 01:44 AM 2/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 14:46:38 2/6/96 -0800, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>belligerents entered the war they entered it in a rather cavalier fashion.
>>No one really remembered a serious war on the continent and people, so to
>>speak, were itching to have a little war. This was the mood everywhere from
>>England to Russia. I have nice little quotations from writers and poets,
>>greeting the war with great enthusiasm. (By the way, I can also quote you a
>>few Hungarian writers, including people like Zsigmond Moricz!) In any case,
>>what people didn't realize in 1914 was that this new war was nothing like
>>the old-fashioned little wars of the nineteenth century.
>
>This is true, and I knew about it. But what this has to do with the US and
>her participation in the war?

Part of the answer lies in the "trench warfare."  Millions of French and
English were mowed down by German machine guns--more so than Germans by the
reverse.  Yet, despite the huge amounts of casualties, the Germans were
still in France and could not be pushed out, as a victory for the Triple
Entente demanded.  With Russia suddenly pulling out of the war, where else
but in pre-dominantly English-speaking U.S.--led by predominantly
non-Central European government officials would England and France turn to
obtain more cannon fodder that might turn the war?  The U.S. was aware
enough of the potential for American casualties due to stupid English and
French generals not to allow them full command over our forces, particularly
in certain geographic areas.  Pershing ended up with far more power than the
Triple Entente wanted him to have.

>
>>Technological advances made this war not only much more savage than before
>>but also that war was as much a war of economics as of military might. The
>>countries which were economically weak (Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and to
>>some extent Austria-Hungary) were also the weakest links in the military
> sense.>Germany was, of course, the continental "super power" and it was
Germany
>>which was proping up Austria-Hungary. Without German help, military and
>>economic, Austria-Hungary would have been unable to remain in the war until
>>1918.
>
>Yes, this is basically what I wrote in my last letter. If we mention Turkey
>beside Austria-Hungary as weak links of Central Powers, we see that Germany
>had at least as much or even more trouble with her allies than the Antante
>powers had with Russia (in economical sense).
>Furthermore, you pointed out that the war had begun in rush, so the bellin-
>gerents did not make any arrangements, they did not really expected long
>war. This was more destructive for the Central Powers as they were localized
>in Europe and surrounded by their enemies and on the see the Royal Navy had
>decisive superiority. For example, it would have been impossible for them to
>recieve any supply even if the US had decided to support them.

Difficult, but not impossible.  The English--and French--were already very
concerned about U.S. naval power since the Spanish American war.  (See
Barbara Tuchman's, _The Proud Tower_, 1966)  Singly neither the German nor
the U.S. navy was probably superior to England, but together, probably
England was the inferior.  There are some good statistics, and a little
analysis about this in a book by a couple of renegades from the Rand
Corporation, James F. Dunnigan and William Martel.  The book is _How to Stop
a War_, hardbound edition, 1987, Doubleday, New York.  Just a couple of exerpts
:

"The large German fleet began to alarm the British who had stayed aloof from
continental rivalries.  No two nations in Europe could match Germany
militarily."
>
>>Until then the struggle between France and England on the one hand and German
y
>>on the other was a stalemate. But Russia out of the war might have changed al
l
> >this. It was at this point that the United States entered the war. With the
>>American entry into the war the economic/military stalemate was broken. So,
>>it wasn't so much the number of soldiers or how good they were on the
>>battlefild what made the difference but it was the economic power of the
>>United States which helped to bring the war to an end.

It was more than the economic power, also the human.  See Dunnigan &
Martel's book, and Col. Dupuy's book.  Barbara Tuchman also mentions this in
_The Zimmerman Telegram_.
>
>I did a short search on this subject in the literature. I found something
>that might be interesting:
>
>Antony Livesey: Great Battles of World War I. (1989)
>MacMillan Publishing Co.,New York
>page 188,
>
>" The United States Army
>
>        The American Army in 1914 consisted only of a small regular
>volunteer army of 127,588 men and a National Guard of 181,620. This
>force was inadequate to play significant role on the Western Front,
>so in May 1917 conscription was introduced and the strength of the
>army rose more than 3.5 million.
>        As propaganda move, the 1st US infantry division, the advance
>guard of the Expeditionary Force, was sent to France in July 1917. By
>Armistice, more than 2 million men reached France, although they did not
>assume a combat role until the last 200 days of the war. Nevertheless,
>the AEF held 100 mls of the front, 29 of the 42 divisions went into battle,
>and almost 1.5 million American soldier saw combat. Although Foch and Haig
>had envisaged American troops serving as replacements for losses in the
>British and French armies Pershing insisted on keeping US formations 'as
>separate and distinct component of the combined forces'. However, individual
>units did serve with their Allies' armies on occasion.
>        America had supplied the British and French with small arms for years,
>but the factories were not tooled up to produce larger weapons. Thus
>America had to rely on her allies for most of her aircraft and all her
>artillery, tanks and machine-guns. In addition, all ranks wore British
>and French pattern steel helmets in action. The rifle carried was usually
>a Lee-Enfield of slightly smaller calibre than the British version, or
>the Garand 1903 pattern, with M1905 pattern bayonet."
>
>According the last paragraph, rather the British and French had to supply
>heavy weapons to the Americans than vica versa. This slightly contradicts
>your opinion about the end of WWI. Beside if your version is true, what
>goods the allies could not get from America before 1917 and got after
>the US entrance into the war? I guess they could get almost everything
>if they were able to pay.
>
See Doug Hormann's response for the guns, and watch out for whatever remains
of the Winchester family.  The proliferation of their weapons is still
something of a sore point with them, considering the Winchester House in San
Jose. And sorry, but I don't think shells and guns are very effective
without gunpowder.  The finest in the world was often believed to be
Dupont's--of Delaware, New Jersey, etc..  But if you think otherwise, please
argue with the docents at the Dupont Brandywine Estate in Wilmington,
Delaware, please, not me.


Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Andras;

At 03:31 PM 2/12/96 -0700, you wrote:

(
>>> Has the Hungarian nation ceased all efforts to regain lands which are
>>> rightfully theirs. Every other nation is experiencing a reunification
>>> of their traditional ethnic lands except Hungary.
>
>>Yeah, like the Serbs in ex Yugoslavia, with the wonderful results that you
>>might have heard about.  Is this what you want ?  (For there is no other way.
)
>
>>Do try to think, occasionally.
>
>>George Antony
>
>George Antony certainly has the right to cease all efforts to feel
compassionate
>to his fellow-Hungarians (?) but must understand that they despise and reject
>such traitors of the Hungarian nation. Especially if they combine their
>betrayal
>of nationhood with the obvious and characteristic liberal arrogance.
>

Please don't be so hard on George.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think he
is not feeling uncompassionate--but a sense of bitter futility.  Many of us
would probably like to see at least autonomy, if not some restoration of
territories--if the  occupying nations continue to misbehave as they have,
but the reality is, it isn't likely to happen just because it's morally
right, and we say it should, or request it.  The reality of history is quite
different--and can usually be interpreted to predict a likelihood of further
bloodshed, one way or another.  Real compassion, does not wish bloodshed for
anyone.  Thus the dilemna which causes a sense of bitter futility and
depression is that without bloodshed, autonomy or restoration are not
likely, and continued occupation by the current holders of the territories
is also likely to cause further bloodshed.  We are damned if we do, and
damned if we don't--caught between a rock and a hard place.  Where is the
hope and optimism in that?  Where is there a "more compassionate view?"

Thanks for your consideration of this message.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Bruce Burger wrote:

> When I was in Hungary last year, we had some superb cold fruit soups --
> most made with cherries. If anyone can send me a recipe, I would
> appreciate it very much.

Below is my version of it, modified to be lighter and to include more
interesting fruits to suit the hotter climate in Australia.  It is also
quicker to make than the genuine article, but obviously less substantial.

I use tinned morello cherries (Hungarian, Croatian, Macedonian are all OK,
but the Hungarian one tends to be sweeter), fresh pinapple and rambutans or
lychees (fresh is better but tinned is OK).

Drain off the juice of the morello cherries, water down 1 to 1, pour into
a pot, add a stick of cinnamon, a dozen cloves and a dozen black peppercorns
(the latter is optional, it will give a slightly hotter flavour).  Add
a teaspoon of brown sugar, the rind of half an orange (peeled off with a potato
peeler), and a squeeze of lime.  Simmer on low heat for a 5 minutes, strain
and chill.

Clean the pineapple, and cut to bits as big as the chopped tinned stuff (I
usually end up using only 1/4 to 1/3 of a pineapple to half a jar of cherries),
clean around ten rambutans and cut them into quarters.  Chill chopped fruit
separately from the cherries as the latter would stain everything else.

Just before serving, combine the liquid with 200-250 ml light cream, put in the
fruit, top up with chilled water to achieve the fruit/liquid balance desired,
sweeten further if required.

This will give around four servings.   Variations are endless: recently we
could not get morello cherries and used tinned black cherries instead, plus
fresh passionfruit for tartness, for a good balance of fruit flavours, sweet-
ness and acidity is the key to a tasty fruit soup.  At one time we left out
cherries altogether and used tinned mandarins instead, but I still prefer the
morello cherry base.

George Antony

At 01:53 PM 2/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>To: hungary @ glue.umd.edu (Hungarian American List) @ Internet
>cc:  (bcc: John Czifra/SHI)
>From: lukag @ NCR.DISA.MIL ("Gabor Luka") @ Internet @ WORLDCOM
>Date: 02/12/96 07:18:37 AM CST
>Subject: Hungarian's in Slovakia and Romania
>
>        To anyone that can help me.  All I get is bits and pieces of
information
>which makes it difficult for me to gain a full understanding into the present
>state of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania.
>
>        Has the Hungarian nation ceased all efforts to regain lands which are
>rightfully theirs.  Every other nation is experiencing a reunification of thei
r
>traditional ethnic lands except Hungary.
>
Hungary doesn't dare apply for even autonomy of minorities in other
countries, much less reunification until she can be certain of support and
friendship of those who really took her lands in the first
place--particularly the current residual great powers of that decision,
England and the U.S..  From the situation in Bosnia, the Hungarian
government cannot feel any optimism.  Hungary was, and still is, a
non-European intruder to too many West Europeans, as much as the Muslim
Bosnians, and a defeated enemy of both World War I and II.  Clinton and
Majors have made their feelings about Hungary--and Hungarians--very clear,
many times, and the feelings are not warm and cozy.

>
>        And as for the article below, what kind of crap is this, is Slovakia
>going to apologize for occupation of Hungarian lands since WWI.
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: == OMRI Daily Digest == Feb/9/96 ==
>Author:  Hungarian American List > at smtp
>Date:    2/9/96 2:39 PM
>
>
>
>SLOVAK DEPUTY: HUNGARY SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR OCCUPATION. Zora Lazarova on
>8 February asked Foreign Minister Juraj Schenk why he has not made the
>signing and ratification of the Slovak-Hungarian treaty conditional on
>receiving an apology from Hungary for the occupation of southern
>Slovakia during World War II, Narodna obroda reported. Lazorova is
>chairwoman of the Slovak Green Alternative, which ran on the ticket of
>the ruling Movement for a Democratic Slovakia in the last election. Also
>on 8 February, Ladislav Pittner of the opposition Christian Democratic
>Movement addressed several questions to Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar
>regarding the "illegal activities" of the Slovak Information Service.
>These include SIS chief Ivan Lexa's alleged efforts to transfer the
>protection of constitutional officials from the police to the SIS and
>his demand that violations of the law on the protection of the republic
>(which has not yet been approved) be investigated by the SIS. -- Sharon
>Fisher
>
>
Of course not!  They're among the TE's pets--and the winners of World War
I--manifest destiny, racial Darwinism and all that.  The superior and right
were the winners...  With our luck, the IMF will demand we apologize to each
and every nation of Europe for our continued occupation of European lands
before we get another loan--who knows perhaps even to the entire human race
for our continued unmerited existence.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to November, 1996...

Sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Group;

At 02:34 PM 2/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>       Hungarians thought that they would have a jumpstart in the
>changeover to market economy because of their earlier attempts at a somewhat
>mixed economy. They were wrong. As for the half and half: the best from this
>and the best from that--is truly naive. In fact, Poland which introduced the
>so-called shock therapy is much better off today than Hungary which tried to
>do it gradually.
>        Eva Balogh
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Uh, sorry, but this is not what I hear from Poles, Slovenes, and a lot of
people whom have visited these countries--and Hungary.  This group includes
businesspeople, a key adviser to Russia, Ukrainia and Poland whom is finally
getting some say (he's an economic zones expert with good U.S. political and
business connections), and groups trying to go through Slovenia to deliver
humanitarian assistance to parts of Croatia and Bosnia...  There are many
reasons why Hungary is still attracting more financial investment than
virtually all the rest of the East Central European nations put together.
And this adviser who's credibility has been rising for several years does
_not_ advocate the "shock therapy."  He thinks from what he's seen--first
hand, it's a disaster.  By the way, he regularly testifies to Congress and
the U.S. State Department as to what is really going on in East Central
Europe and Russia.

>
>Haliho,
>
>They did, but.......being Magyars, we can't agree on anything. So we're way
>behind the game. What else is new?? The Czechs and Slovenes have really got
>their shit together with the Poles coming in behind.

I have yet to see a really unified "anything."  I've lived through too many
fights among too many ethnicities to think that's a reality anywhere.  ;-)
Some day, Madeleine Allbright and I, and maybe Jean Kirpatrick, are going to
get together for tea and commiserate.  I promise that!  ;-)

However, I think we knock ourselves, as East Central Europeans, not just
Hungarians, too hard.  I've been in Spain, Mexico and Indonesia, too, and my
parents have been in a few dozen other places and shared their experiences.
I've also been in Hungary.  Trust me, there are many, many lots worse
countries than most in East Central Europe.  We've got a ways to go, but
compared with those still languishing, were making great strides, despite
the setbacks, every day.

Sincerly,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Frank;

At 07:13 AM 2/12/96 GMT, you wrote:
>Joe Szalai > wrote:
>
>>At 06:14 AM 2/7/96 -0500, Sam Stowe wrote:
>
>>>Hungarian content -- Still waiting on the inevitable rant about the
>>>perfidy of the U.S., France and Britain in the negotiations leading up to
>>>Trianon.
>
>>I can't get into a rant about Trianon.  It happened before I was born and
>>I've only known Trianon as history.  However it seems to have contributed to
>>Hungarian pride and folklore.  You'll often hear Hungarians boast about
>>Hungarian accomplisments in sports, the arts, medicine, etc.  And rightfully
>>so!  What I don't understand is the constant reference to the fact that
>>Hungary is a small country and yet it can accomplish such greatness.  I
>>guess the inference is that if Hungary would be large, pre-Trianonian, then
>>it would be the best nation in the world.  The sentimentalism of the Trianon
>>legent lends itself to a rather pessimistic nation.
>
>>Many Hungarians display pre-Trianon maps of Hungary.  No doubt their hope
>>and dream is to see Hungary as large as it once was.  Although their concern
>>for Hungarians in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia is real and justified, I
>>often get the feeling that they would be quite happy if those areas were
>>reunited to Hungary.
>
>>We've seen the results of the 'great Serbia' dream.  From an Hungarian
>>cultural perspective, I think the best that can be is to see thriving
>>Hungarian communities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia.  Leave the borders as
>>they are.
>
>>Joe Szalai
>
>
>I've been following this NG and this argument (debate?) and would
>humbly have to disagree with you on the matter of restoring Hungary's
>borders to that of pre-Trianon.  Hungary, im my view has a historic
>right to those lands which were unjustly carved from her after WWI.
>Hungarian blood flowed freely in those lands in order to protect the
>rest of Europe from the invasions of the Mongols and Turks.
>Hungarians fought, died, were buried and enslaved on those very lands
>which were stolen from her.  Yet,  the Great Powers during the
>aftermath of WWI turned their backs on her once again and allowed her
>to be dismembered.
>
>Joe, if you are American, how would you feel if two thirds of the
>United States had been ceeded to Canada after the War of 1812?
>Hell, Canadians kicked the crap out of the Yanks then. Or, if your
>Canadian, how would you feel if Quebec took the Maritimes and the
>North West Territories out of Confederation?
>
>I believe that Hungary should set into motion negotiations with
>Austria, Slovakia, the Ukrain, Romania and Croatia for the eventual
>restoration of the Trianon lands.  They are hers by right of blood.
>
>Frank
>

Unfortunately negotiations just between Hungary and those nations who hold
the formerly Hungarian lands is less likely to yield restoration of anything
than the negotiations between Mexico and the U.S. did for Mexico after 1848.
Just as the U.S. wanted the Mexican lands due west of itself, and not the
people, so do the current "owners" of the Hungarian lands.  Ultimately,
also, the current owners were not the powers in charge of writing the
treaty--and ultimately guaranteeing its implementation and maintenance.  The
treaty was written by the powers of the Triple Entente, and the
"nationalistic" "movements" who benefited from the TE's creativity were
likewise at least partly a TE creation.  As someone else previously noted in
this discussion, the Czech movement was so small and poor, it couldn't even
provide its own basic "survival" funds.  Well, they didn't need to have
their own money, the Crewe House group in England, and other groups in
France were only too willing to supply those who wanted to break up
Austria-Hungary with everything they needed to do it--everything.  See
Wilfred Fiest's _Peace or Partition_, 1978, as just one example.

The best hope of the Hungarians is two things: the continuing stupidity and
arrogance of Romanians, Slovaks and Serbians and their inevitable
consequence of further _massive_ atrocities and; the increasing development
of a strong Hungarian and more fairminded East Central European Americans
political movement here in the U.S..  The trick is to get the nadir of the
first to combine with the zenith of the second...  However, whatever Hungary
itself does, it had better not strike out without having the world deplore
some major incident indicative of widespread government backed genocide
against Hungarians in Transylvania, Slovakia and the Voivodina.  Dupuy's
right on one thing for certain; if Hungary strikes without clearly accepted
provocation, even should Hungary win the territories militarily, they will
be again forfeited--through the insistence of the Triple Entente--again, at
the negotiating table.  No one likes to admit he or she made a mistake, but
the greater a public situation, the harder it is to gain any admission.

Frankly, World War I and the Trianon were such colossal and so public
mistakes, that I think it more likely will literally take a decree by Christ
enforced by the archangels in the "Second Coming" before they are really
corrected.

Respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA



N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Eva and group;

At 12:43 PM 2/12/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Just to illustrate my answer to James D.
>
>Eva Durant
>
>Forwarded message:
>
>>
>>    Since Capitalist developments help prepare the way for the new society,
>> the expansion of credit card use, the use of computer monetary exchanges
>> (local & international) means that workers can easily adapt the technology t
o
>> a cashless  system of exchange.
>>
>>    We already accept and use credit cards throughout the world.
>> A Socialist Society could easily enter individual input hours into the socia
l
>> store on a credit card.  Then for withdrawals, deduct the output of products
>> and services based on average time of production.  To be valid, cards cannot
>> be transferred nor their exchange accumulated beyond a current period.

Whoa!  What about quality in this discussion.  There are people who produce
better products and services and poorer ones, and in more time, or less
time. Time by itself is no equivalent of valuable work.  There would need to
be a quality measurement somehow, at the least.
>>
>>    Every year, as we reduce the amount of labor time required to produce
>> things, this means we get more things for each hour of labor.  It provides a
>> built-in incentive for all workers to produce efficiently and all the sooner
>> arrive where we no longer need to measure individual labor.
>
Oh yes, we have mightily reduced the number of hours to produce many
things--like the food in the U.S..  However, the nutritive content of most
of said quickly produced food quite frankly, pun intended, stinks! And, the
consumer has to eat more to get less health.  By the time he or she consumes
enough vitamins and minerals, he or she is well on the road to heart disease
or cancer.  Not terribly efficient for the consumer is it?    Or compare
quickly produced plastic furniture with the durability and quality of wood.
How efficient is it to keep replacing plastic junk in the same span of time
a single wooden item lasts?  What about the recycling costs of extra food
packaging and broken plastic furniture?   How quickly something is produced
does not equal efficiency just as the number of hours spent in a place does
not equal work.
>
>>     As abundant world production is achieved, with hunger and privation
>> eliminated, products could be distributed without credit card measure becaus
e
>> there is enough for all.
>
Many experts would agree with this statement with the caveat--"if we wisely
manage and conserve all our resources."  Unfortunately, we humans haven't
thus far demonstrated much capability of that.
>
>>    Credit card  labor vouchers get us over the initial residue of greed
>>  which was spawned by Capitalism.
>>
There was such a system in the U.S.--it was called the "company store."  A
good description of how well that worked out is in an old coal-miner's
ballad sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford (among others) called, "16 Tons."  The
chorus went something like this:

        "16 Tons and what do I get?
        Another day older and deeper in debt!
        St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go--
        I owe my soul to the company store..."

The problem is who manages the voucher system.  It's not likely to be
ordinary employees...

You have some interesting thoughts, here, though.  There are similar
discussions of credit systems in a lot of other places than just this
internet group--including among politicians, financial and business people,
labor unions, etc..  Part of this situation is being driven by increasing
violence in the U.S. particularly involving robbery and burglary, even at
ATM machines.  The "moneyless" society is considered a possible answer, only
no one's figured out how to make it work fairly.  Then there is also the
problem of "white collar" crime --computer theft and fraud in a moneyless
system.  So, I don't think it's likely to happen very soon, probably not in
our lifetimes.

Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Group;

At 08:35 AM 2/13/96 +1000, you wrote:
>Frank (?) wrote:
>
>> I've been following this NG and this argument (debate?) and would
>> humbly have to disagree with you on the matter of restoring Hungary's
>> borders to that of pre-Trianon.  Hungary, im my view has a historic
>> right to those lands which were unjustly carved from her after WWI.
>> Hungarian blood flowed freely in those lands in order to protect the
>> rest of Europe from the invasions of the Mongols and Turks.
>
>By the same token, the Slavs have equally strong historic rights to
>the same piece of land, for having defended the rest of Europe from
>the invasion of the Magyars.  You see, it cuts both ways.

Hmmm, does this mean an entire shelf-full and a half of my books by various
archeologists and historians is wrong?  I could cite more than a dozen
writers who describe the history of the Danube basin from roughly a few
hundred years BCE to the present as follows: Celtics and Dacians (who ended
up contributing to the present Romanian stock as much as the Celts to
Hungarian), Romans and whatever remained of the first two, then Huns, Avars,
finally Magyars.  Some Slavs moved into the Avar "state" after its defeat by
Charlemagne, but apparently not many lived there before.  Also,
linguistically both the Slavic and Germanic languages appear to "descend"
from the Celtic language.  There are many unmistakeable elements of both
groups in Gaelic, yet, the Celtic peoples, dominated most of Europe for
centuries before the emergence of recognizeable Germanic or Slavic peoples.
Perhaps the only people we need really apologize to are the Celts! ;-)

Also, last I looked, while the Bohemians, and a few miscellaneous Slavic
bands were in on the fight, it was principally the Franks, Burgundians,
Lombards, and Germans who clobbered us near Rheims, and then again at
Augsburg.  Did rather take a lot of them together, didn't it?  And are you
sure they were altruistic chivalrous gentlemen doing the majority of
non-Magyar European citizenry a favor?  There's a funny anecdote about that
involving the king of Asturias, the Moors and Charlemagne that Professor
Bachrach used to tell his classes at the U of MN.  It seems the king of
Asturias was bracing himself to be the next in the front line with the Moors
when Charlemagne sent him a letter offering to send Frankish forces to help
defend this Christian kingdom.  The king replied, "thanks, but no thanks,
we'd like to keep our treasury and cities intact before the Moors get into
Asturias..." ;-)

However, if you consider Noam Chomsky's work, and the Sorbonne's Society of
Sumerologists (world-wide organization of archeologists) and what they have
to say about the Sumerian (first known history Eurasian empire) and the
evidence that proto-Sumerians originated north of the Tigris Euphrates--in
the Balkans, Danube Basin, and around the perimeter of the Black Sea, and
that Hungarian is the only still existing linguistic descendant of Sumerian,
etc., etc.--then perhaps everyone in Europe owes us an apology or two for
trying to wipe out, boot out, whatever, the mother people of all their
cultures and nations!  ;-)

However, if anyone believes the existing nations, and their elites, and
governments of Europe, is going to really accept and do the "nice thing"
with all this, then, you're consuming stronger substances than what my
doctor prescribed for my knee.  I think we can expect a second coming of
Christ, first...  ;-)



>
>> I believe that Hungary should set into motion negotiations with
>> Austria, Slovakia, the Ukrain, Romania and Croatia for the eventual
>> restoration of the Trianon lands.  They are hers by right of blood.
>
>If you believe that this would lead to anything better than a slanging
>match, your sense of reality is seriously skewed.  Austrians, Slovaks,
>Ukrainians, Romanians and Croatians of the same mindset as you will be
>just as uncompromising, and they are in occupation.

Agreed!
>
>I note that you left out Slovenia and Serbia.  The latter I can under-
>stand, too hard a nut, but surely the former would be a pushover.
>Also for your information, Croatia has always been recognized as a
>separate country within the united kingdom of Hungary and Croatia, so
>your historical claims are rather shaky there.

Agreed, again!

Sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 06:43 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>The problem is that those filthy rich capitalists are the ones who generate
>economic growth. They are the ones who have business sense; who have the
>vision; who have the drive. It isn't you Joe or even me! You sit in your
>library and I would gladly sit at the desk going over documents--you and I
>don't make money. They do. And thanks to them we manage to live quite well.
>So, you have to bear with them.

I don't think it's Eva Durant's comments that land you in Wonderland.

The 'filthy rich capitalists' may indeed generate economic growth, have
business sense, vision, and drive.  And the tax laws may show that they pay
a greater percentage of tax than the poor.  But don't smoke any more from
that hookah, Eva, and you'll soon discover, that in reality, the rich don't
pay any tax.  The middle class and the working class pay tax.

Perception is everything.  You say that because we manage to live quite
well, we should just bear with the rich.  You think that I can just sit in
my library and that I don't make money.

For your information, I have never made a posting to this or any other
newsgroup, from work.  I just wouldn't have the time.  But if you must
perpetuate the myth that public sector workers are lazy and 'sit', then go
ahead.  I've been making a lot of postings to this newsgroup since early
December from home.  What else should I do during the long Canadian winter?

And what do mean that you and I don't make money.  Have you not heard of the
'value added' economic theory?  We add value to that piece of paper that the
graduates walk away with.

Joe Szalai

At 09:46 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Farkas D. Gabor wrote:

>1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.

That's one way of doing it but there are others.

>This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.

Did I miss something?  Revolutions can indeed be peaceful.  Except for
Romania, and several smaller acts of violence, the revolutions in Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union were peaceful.

>Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).

The French or the American revolutions wouldn't be good examples, would they?

>2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed
>by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.

Agreed.  So is your problem with social programmes and services, such as
medicare, or is it with un-democratic political systems?

Joe Szalai

To E. Balogh:

>>Furthermore, you pointed out that the war had begun in rush, so the bellin-
>>gerents did not make any arrangements, they did not really expected long
>>war.
>        No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the war began with great
>enthusiasm. After all, the alliances, on both sides, have been in place for
>decades, and there was increasing militarization and military competition
>among the Great Powers, especially between England and Germany.

Maybe I misunderstood your expression 'cavaliery fashion'. There were a lots
of preparation, but probably not much in the economy, as nobody expected long
war. Probably, they (the bellingerents) did not even know, how to arrange their
economy to a long lasting war. This was done experimentally during the war. In
this the Central powers were more restricted. By the way, what about Italy was
she in her place for decades?

To everyone who responded to WWI subject:

>The United States, even when neutral, was supplying the Allies with everything
>under the sun.

>While of British design, many of the rifles carried by British troops were
>produced in American factories for direct export to Britain.  As far as I
>know, the Lee Enfield was never offered for sale in America, but was
>produced, prior to 1917, under contract to the British armed forces.

This rises the question why? I mean why the US helped the triple-antante?
Can this be called neutrality? And why was the unrestricted submarine
war so barbarian act from the German, in this case?
Of course I have some idea about these, but I would rather wait the responses.

>With Russia suddenly pulling out of the war, where else
>but in pre-dominantly English-speaking U.S.--led by predominantly
>non-Central European government officials would England and France turn to
>obtain more cannon fodder that might turn the war?  The U.S. was aware
>enough of the potential for American casualties due to stupid English and
>French generals not to allow them full command over our forces, particularly
>in certain geographic areas.  Pershing ended up with far more power than the
>Triple Entente wanted him to have.

And because of this sympathy for their English-speaking fellows these
'predominantly non-Central European government officials' sent 2.5 million
men in a war where millions have died already. And you call the English and
French generals stupid ?! By the way I wonder what else Pershing could do
than sending the troops before the German maxims?

>Difficult, but not impossible.  The English--and French--were already very
>concerned about U.S. naval power since the Spanish American war.  (See
>Barbara Tuchman's, _The Proud Tower_, 1966)  Singly neither the German nor
>the U.S. navy was probably superior to England, but together, probably
>England was the inferior.

Well, when we talk about History, the question 'What could have happened if..'
has no sense. What I know for sure there could not be such 'sympathy' or
interest in Europe for what the US would have confronted the Royal Navy. Such
confrontation would have been so costly to the US, what rules out the
possibility of such decission.

To Doug:

>America had supplied the British and French with small arms for years,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>but the factories were not tooled up to produce larger weapons.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>According the last paragraph, rather the British and French had to supply
>heavy weapons to the Americans than vica versa.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I guess the 1917 Enfield is rather considered small arm, then heavy weapon.
You told the same thing as it was told in my cited paraghraphs.

Janos

to be continued...

> Felado :  [United Kingdom]
>
> Well, thank you Mr Kornai for lumping me with the
> fascist elements. I'd like to remind you, that I
> have no ambicions to lead anybody anywhere, and that
> I have never pronounced Hungarians or anybody else greedy.
> Please, get your facts right before you are dragging me into
> unwelcome company.
E1va,

I'm sorry -- nobody deserves to be dragged into that company. I just couldn't
resist the opportunity to poke fun at a kind of missionary zeal (if only
people ceased thinking the way they do, and started thinking the way they
should!) coupled with a strong resistance to the evidence that you both
display. Mr. Solte1sz is just as unable and unwilling to recognize that
irredentism has been tried, and ended up a spectacular failure, as you are
unable and unwilling to recognize that socialism has been tried and that it
failed. But in the final analysis fascism went out with a bang and socialism
went out with a whimper, definitely a point in favor of the latter.

In a situation that leaves no alternative but these two I would follow the
example of the Western democracies in WWII and ally myself with socialism for
the simple reason that the ultimate logic of fascism dictates the enemy to be
thrown in a death camp, while the ultimate logic of socialism merely dictates
the enemy to be thrown in a "reeducation" camp. Fortunately, the world is a
better place now than it was on the eve of WWII, and there _are_ alternatives.
At any rate, I apologize both to you and to Joe Szalai for what was intended
as a light-hearted joke.

Andra1s Kornai

PS. You didn't particularly say Hungarians were greedy, only that everybody
engaged in building capital was. Since Hungary is largely distinguished from
the other "post-socialist" countries by a true enterpreneurial spirit, I
imagine your disapproval is very strong.

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>Joe's case amply demonstrated. So why'd you think people
>would recreate the same un-democratic structure if they
>had a democratic choice for an alternative non-capitalist
>system?
>
>Eva Durant
>
>

Here she sits, folks, still on her high horse. Several weeks ago, I asked
Elvtars Durant to give us an accounting of Marxism-Leninism in action,
particularly for its insistence on ideological conformity by every member
of society and its moral corrosiveness. She proceeded to bulldoze on to
her favorite rhetorical trick like a Russian tank down the Ulloi ut. in
November, 1956 -- attack capitalism in order to draw attention away from
the failures of her own preferred brand of voodoo. Come, Elvtars Durant.
Enough of this whacking away at straw men. I've waited at least two or
three weeks. Have you no answer to my questions? Do I need to repost them
again in detail to jog your memory?
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- The title of this thread speaks of a burden being on you. Someone
must have heard you braying like an ass on here and realized you were
capable of carrying a big load.

> Felado :  [Canada]
>
> Your 'need' for an alternative explanation comes form the fact that you are
> a true believer of Hayek's magnum opus.  Have you also fallen for Ayn Rand?
Never got a chance to read Rand, but from the synopses I've seen I wouldn't
fit the "objectivist" mold. But in general, the need from an alternative
explanation is common to all scientific undertakings -- you don't throw out
the old model until you have a better one.

> Certainly the mathematics component of economics is a
> natural science but the 'needs', 'goals', and 'directions' of the economy
> are subjective factors.  So, should society meet the needs of the 'free'
> market, or should the market meet societies needs?
I've noticed this animism in your thinking earlier, but here it is more
explicit than elsewhere. The market is, to be sure, a force to be reckoned
with, but it has no "needs", just as gravity has no needs. Society, however,
better not try to ignore the laws of either.

> Why do I suspect that you're going to tell me about the 'trickle down'
> theory of social enrichment?
I have no idea. I don't think in modern society wealth "trickles down" from
the rich to any significant extent, though in societies with a static pool of
wealth largely controlled by the very rich (e.g. in feudalism) this might
appear to be the case "when the kings build, the cart-drivers have work" or so
said Hegel.  Anyway, the lecture you have coming is the one about the non-zero
sum game, how everybody can be better off if productivity goes up, etc. etc.
I assume you are familiar with it, or shall I go into detail?

> >> Leave the military budget alone!  It's an excellent way for capitalist
> >> societies to waste resources.
> >It is also an excellent way for communist systems to waste resources.
> I guess it really dosen't matter how often I say that 'communist' systems
> never existed, and more than likely, never will.  But if you can't fight a
> phantom you might be relegate yourself to watching PBS all your life.
Well any time I use the word "socialism" E1va is up in arms because, you see,
it never existed. Now you're telling me communism never existed. There was
this disgusting system I remember quite well, which was called "socialism" in
the East and "communism" in the West. This is the one I have in mind, in all
of its varieties ranging from hard Stalinism to soft Ka1da1rism. And frankly,
I'm tired of the Orwellian implication that I can't use the name used by its
friends, nor can I use the name used by its enemies, to talk about it. BTW I
don't watch PBS, I listen to it on the radio.

> You give up too easy!  Human and natural resources are finite.  To waste it,
> because we, as a species, cannot be creative enough not to be wasteful, is
> to endorse our march toward extinction.  Given that, why do you care which
> road we take?
The slower one (toward extinction, if that's what it must be). Not the fast
one. Pretty please?

> So you think I goofed because I'm not willing to quote you chapter and
> verse.  Do you think I'm so goofy as to believe that if I did, you would
> change your mind?  Don't forget we're discussing a subjective social science.
Your _willingness_ to quote chapter and verse is quite irrelevant -- it was
your _ability_ to do so that I called into question. You goofed inasmuch as
you attributed views to Marx that he never held, views that are in fact quite
contrary to his line of thought.  Theology is an even more slippery field than
social science, but still, if you claim Erasmus believed in predestination
whereas Calvin preached tolerance don't be surprised if you get called on it.

Andra1s Kornai

>
> >What I cannot understand is, that the people who are so much
> >against teenage pregnancies are also the ones who would
> >ban sex-education in schools and abortion on demand/free.
> >
> >Eva Durant
>
> WHAT IS THERE NOT TO UNDERSTAND!!     Eva, this is precisely why your
> utopian, everybody of one mind working together, socialist theory won't
> work.


You didn't get my point. I did not complain about different
opinions here, but demonstrated  their contradiction.
If you download stuff, might as well read it carefully,
and than you'll understand, that the democratic and non-
capitalist system I think would work better than the one we have now,
would actually develop the individuality better.

Eva Durant

On 14 Feb Andras Kornai > writes:

> Mr. Solte1sz is just as unable and unwilling to recognize that
>irredentism has been tried, and ended up a spectacular failure, as you are
>unable and unwilling to recognize that socialism has been tried and that it
>failed. But in the final analysis fascism went out with a bang and socialism
>went out with a whimper, definitely a point in favor of the latter.

Of course, irredentism, per Webster "a policy directed toward the
incorporation of irredentas (a territory historically or ethnically
related to one political unit but presently subject to another)
within the boundaries of their historically or ethnically related
political unit, has nothing to do with fascism.

Irredentism is alive and well. And rightly so. It is unlikely to
disappear as long as people are deprived of their homelands. Witness
the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years. 


CSABA K ZOLTANI

>
> Doug understands the inherent emptiness of life.  Capitalist angst, anyone?
>
> Pssst!  Doug?
>
> Let's change the discussion.
>
> Are you interested in channeling or crystals?  If your into crystals, I've
> got a real good Hungarian crystal that's reputed to cure just about anything
> you may suffer from.  It's worked wonders for me!
>
> By the way, whats your sign?
>
> Joe Szalai
>
Darren would like in on thsi crystal business. Scorpio is my sing. What
can it cure, anything for grad students that don't sleep?

Darren

The book the Beckers mention is the exact book I was given. Thank you for
the cite. Interesting book in my humble opinion.

Darren

>
> The problem is that those filthy rich capitalists are the ones who generate
> economic growth. They are the ones who have business sense; who have the
> vision; who have the drive. It isn't you Joe or even me! You sit in your
> library and I would gladly sit at the desk going over documents--you and I
> don't make money. They do. And thanks to them we manage to live quite well.
> So, you have to bear with them.
>

I think you have the burden to prove this now. I can only
see  very few individuals amongst the beautiful people,
who are creative in a socially useful sense.

This argument, that the rich needs incentives to be creative,
while everybody else gets idle if they are adequatly
rewarded, is somewhat lacking.

>
> From the above it is quite clear that taxing the enterpreneurs to death and
> give it to the poor will actually do our economic life in.
>

Even if you could get away with that, it would do no good, if you
leave the structure of capitalism intact.  We have to own the
wealth productive forces and capabilities together and
democratically.

Eva Durant

>
> 1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.
> This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.


If it is a democratic decision, than the undemocretic side
starts the fighting. If the majority in favour is overhelming,
local democratic militias are good enough to help to put
in practice that decision.  If it happens most places,
there will be no help for the undemocratic element.
But if thet see, that nobody is taking their house and
their luxury items from them, only the things that are
socially useful/wealthproducing, than they propably
decide, that they could live with the new system.

And  -if Eva Balogh says - they are bursting from creative
ideas, that I'm sure they will be proud to prove, that
that creativity is there without the pile of money
to substansciate it.

> Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).
> 2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed
> by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.
> Farkas D. Gabor

seems to me, that if a vast majority of people are taking
part actively, with the large majority also aware of what they want,
there is a chance for peaceful change.  (Velvet revolutions, most
initial steps of revolutions.)  The problem is to be also
conscious to keep up this activity until and after the
new structures are built.  The difference is now, that everyone
will be able to get all the information necessary to make decisions,
the technology exists and it is easy to make everybody always
part of the decisionmaking.
In your old system, the less people know and the further
away from decisionmaking they are, the better - that is
the thinking of the establishment, well learned in the
ways of mass manipulation and publicity of anything but
real information.

Eva Durant

Anecdotal and sensationalist media evidence is
not what it used to be.  As for doubling the
figures of applicants for disabiliry pensions -
it is probably something to do with the appearance
of unemployment by 1991, don't you think?

Hungarians work as hard as other nationalities
I worked with.  They just swallow (so far) better
the propaganda, that if you work hard and your living standard
is going down or nowhere, that is only your fault, and
nothing to do with the layer tha is getting richer and richer.

I don't buy it anymore, and you have more and more difficulty
selling it.

Eva Durant

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>You didn't get my point. I did not complain about different
>opinions here, but demonstrated  their contradiction.
>If you download stuff, might as well read it carefully,
>and than you'll understand, that the democratic and non-
>capitalist system I think would work better than the one we have now,
>would actually develop the individuality better.
>
>Eva Durant
>
>
>

Yeah, well the "democratic and non-capitalist system" for which you are a
relentless toady dedicated an incredible amount of resources to stifling
individual thought and expression and did it in a distinctly undemocratic
manner. Do you really believe this tripe you ladle out or is this some
strange kind of performance art?
Sam Stowe

Hali mindenkinek,

AmberSass wrote:
**************************************************
This leads us to solution #3. Current thinking is that NATO membership will
force the Slovak and Rumanian governments to do away with anti-Hungarian
policies, resulting in more harmonious relations and more cultural freedoms
for Hungarians. Within the European Community free travel and cultural flow
is a reality. The fly in the ointment is the response of Russia to moving
NATO to Russia's border. I have already written about this and predicted that
Russia would respond negatively to the idea. She did. So, the US and Western
Europe have second thaughts about moving NATO's borders. As they should. To
simply tell the Russians that Europe cares nothing about their feelings would
be folly. This puts us back to square one.  The ideal solution would be to
build a Central European Union, similar to the EU, but no one but me seems
interested. So, the only other course open is to put as much pressure on
Slovakia and Rumania as we can. Sooner or later the Western powers must
realize the maltreatment of Hungarians in Slovakia and Rumania destabilizes
Central Europe with potentially serious concequences. Let us start at the
beginning; let us pray that God will grant us the wisdom to know what to do,
the courege to start and the perseverance to finish.
****************************************************
Amen brother, but this is beyond GOD.

Irregardless of whether or not Hungary, Slovakia, & Romania make it into the EU
& NATO, there will still be this problem. It makes me sick to think that people
on this list and the other list are sold on the idea the EU won't allow these
things to happen. They already are. You didn't hear of any uproar caused by the
Slovak "language" law. The High Commisioner For Minorities for the EU went to
both countries and found nothing wrong, though he said he sees where there
might be problems. This is the carte blanche that Slovakia & Romania needs.
Certainly those bastards in the Parliment haven't a clue as to what's going on.
They'd rather bend over and take it up where the sun don't shine without lube,
no less.

Read the OMRI Digest, yet??

Romania is ready to do the same thing. Look:
> ==========================================
ROMANIA, HUNGARY TO RESUME BASIC TREATY TALKS. Romania and Hungary on 13
February agreed to resume talks on a basic treaty at the beginning of
March and on Romanian President Ion Iliescu's reconciliation initiative
later this month, Romanian and international media reported. Romanian
Deputy Foreign Minister Marcel Dinu told his visiting Hungarian
counterpart, Ferenc Somogyi, that Romania's 1996 presidential and
parliamentary elections will not influence the talks. Somogyi said
Iliescu's proposed meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Horn in
March could result in the signing of the basic treaty. He added,
however, that it was not necessary for the two countries to join NATO at
the same time and that Hungary's earlier admission would not have a
destabilizing effect on the region. US Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Holbrooke, in Bucharest on 13 February, urged the two countries
to sign the treaty if they wanted to be admitted into NATO. -- Matyas
Szabo
> ==========================================
But, while Hungary's getting it good: Here's the behind the scenes action at
what really goes on behind closed doors.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ROMANIA'S HUNGARIAN MINORITY CONCERNED ABOUT DRAFT LAW ON POLITICAL
PARTIES. A spokesman for the Hungarian Democratic Federation of Romania
(UDMR) told OMRI on 14 February that the draft law on political parties,
currently being debated in the Senate, is causing concern within the
UDMR. Anton Niculescu said this was due to provisions requiring
political parties to have branches in at least 21 of the 41
administrative counties and allowing minority ethnics to set up their
own organizations or become members of political parties but forbidding
them to set up ethnic political formations. The UDMR--defined as an
umbrella organization of political, cultural, and professional
organizations of the Hungarian minority open to all nationalities--would
not be prevented from running in the elections under the new law.
Nonetheless, Niculescu said, the new regulations pose a potential
danger. -- Michael Shafir
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Does the EU know?? Of course they do. But they do nothing because Hungary does
nothing!!!! The Parliment does nothing!!! The "I wanna be like George Soros
Club" does nothing!!! The Magyar Vilagszovetseg does nothing!!! WE HERE, ON
THESE LISTS DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Why?? Because we don't want to offend
Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, or any of those bastards who took the
liberty of carving up Hungary in 1920. Even the Austrians got a slice. What in
the hell did we do to Austria, so they could get a piece, anyway?? Doesn't it
seem ridiculous to any of you??

It's near impossible to restore the former Hungary. There'd have to be a war
for it to happen and despite what any CIA journal or book you've read I know
you are not get a Hungarian kid to fight a war against anybody and come out the
victor. No fucking way!!! The average Hungarian youth is not worried about some
ethnic Hungarian getting his head kicked in Romania, Slovakia, and anywhere
else, let alone even know about it. They are indifferent because they don't
live it. They are the Sky Channel, Eurosport, & MTV (not Magyar) generation.

Youths of Hungarian ancestry (1st & 2nd generation), elsewhere, are a different
story. I'm not saying we're better, but we know. We haven't lived it, but it
has been drilled in our heads that what these countries did to Hungary in 1920
and what they've been doing to the ethnic Hungarian population is FLAT OUT
WRONG!! At least, that's how I've been brought up. I went to just about every
demonstration I could against Ceaucescu and the 1988 one in Washington, DC
forever changed my view of the Hungarian community in the United States. I
don't even think there were 1000 people in Washington, but that same day there
were 100,000 in Budapest. It's not like that the thing wasn't well publicized,
either. We had a one bus contingent from New Brunswick, NJ and I was the
youngest one on the bus, at 18. I missed gradutation to do what I felt had to
be done. From then on, I lost total respect for the Hungarian community.

Another joke in New Brunswick is the so called Hungarian Festival held every
summer. It gets more and more pathetic every year. I could care less what
nationalities show up, but when they outnumber you 5 to 1, then your community
has a problem. You just might as well take away the Hungarian from Hungarian
Festival and just hold a Festival. There's more...much more. The same speeches
are done every year about how great our Magyar community in New Brunswick is
and how Debrecen is our sister city and all this other happy horse shit.
Occasionally you'll get a mention about those in Erdely, but it's all fluff on
how we should pray for them. HA!!

The Hungarian community is very good at promoting division within itself,
that's for sure. Let's start at the community level. I'm sure this the same
everywhere. You have your upper crust Hungarians who just go to the Balls, The
New Year's Eve party, & show up to a bemutato of stars from Hungary.Then you
have the average Hungarian, who goes to some upper crust events and also goes
to more of the accessible Hungarian functions, such as the Hungarian Festival
and the occassional Hungarian political leader that shows up. You never see
these upper crust "I've got the good life now and I've forgotten how life was
in Hungary, so screw you" types ever at any other of these functions or let
alone associate with anyone else, do you??

That same attitude is instilled in the Hungarian youth of New Brunswick as
well. If you're not part of the Cserkesz, been a part of the Ball experience,
joined the HAAC (Hungarian American Athlethic Club), or have been a part of a
folk dance troupe, then you're shunned and your "Hungarianess" is even
questioned. I was never a part of this because my dad, in my youth, couldn't
take me to those things, because he was busy working his ass off putting food
on the table. I would've loved to have done those things, but I couldn't. Does
that make me any less of a Hungarian than the next person?? I think not, even
being half Hungarian. I ask the question to those pompous ass youth and to
those armchair Hunyadi's: Where were you back in 1988 when there was only 1 bus
load of folks from New Brunswick and I was representing the Hungarian youth??

The other example is these lists on the Internet. I'm only just talking about
your everyday talk list like this one. I'm subscribed to the  and
the  and I've seen one list bash the other numerous times. It's
stupid. Each list happens to be discussing the same topic, currently, so I took
it upon myself to forward messages back and forth so we could all talk about it
together. It's only way to move ahead as Hungarians, which goes against current
Hungarian principles. But we must start somewhere, because I don't see that
solid bond, that other ethnic groups have, here on this list or out in the
community.

See what I mean. There's information coming in about Cseresznyes Pal from
Amnesty International and these selfish Hungarian's don't want to share, but
Czifra Jancsi will.

********************************************************
Dear Magyar Lobby!

This is the fax I received from Amnesty International from London today in
response to my --and I suppose to yours too-- inquiry about Pal Cseresznyes.

> =========================================

to: Mihaly Tapolyai -
     Mayo Clinic Jackosnville
From: HHBRAKEN
Date: 14 February 1996


Dear Mr. Tapolyai,

Thank you for your fax of 6 February. As far as we know, Pal Cseresznyes is
still serving his prison sentence. However there have been several reports in
the Romanian press lately that his release might be imminent since he might
be considered for a Presidential pardon. This is all the information we have
on him.

Yours sincerely,

Heleen Habraken
Central Europe Team
***************************************************************

I've been fed up with all the bullshit that the Hungarian community and this
list has been spewing out, since I've joined. I'm not about to call you
traitors to the Hungarian nation because I despise the people running the show
there anyway and so do most people. Traitors to the Hungarian spirit, legacy,
and heritage?? Yes. I'm one, too, so don't start blasting me, yet, if you
haven't already. The only time Hungarians are doing something in "common", is
when the Himnusz plays and somehow someway a tear wells up the eye. That's all.
That's the only time we Hungarians ever "got it together". Other than that, we
don't and that's the saddest thing.

So think about it next time you're ready to lay into somebody on this list.

Koszi szepen!!

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

"Ne hagyd elveszni Erdelyt Istenunk!!"

At 21:09 13/02/96 -0800, Celia Fa'bos-Becker wrote:
>
>Hungary doesn't dare apply for even autonomy of minorities in other
>countries, much less reunification until she can be certain of support and
>friendship of those who really took her lands in the first
>place--particularly the current residual great powers of that decision,
>England and the U.S..  From the situation in Bosnia, the Hungarian
>government cannot feel any optimism.  Hungary was, and still is, a
>non-European intruder to too many West Europeans, as much as the Muslim
>Bosnians, and a defeated enemy of both World War I and II.  Clinton and
>Majors have made their feelings about Hungary--and Hungarians--very clear,
>many times, and the feelings are not warm and cozy.
>
Dear Celia -

It's great to have you back. I spent quite a bit of time in the last week or
so wondering if there were unexpected complications from the surgery, or if
you had just run out of things to say, or if your husband had pulled the
plug on the computer, or what. I am pleased to see that the answer to those
questions is "none of the above."  8>)

Now, I know that you don't bear particular love for the English and,
frankly, since I know diddly-squat about the Crewe House or pre- or post-WWI
hanky-panky by the British, I cannot express any opinion at this point on
those matters. But, I would be interested to know specifically what
statements Bill Clinton and John Majors have made to indicate that their
feelings about Hungary and Hungarians are not "warm and cosy." As Allan
Fotheringham would say, "Please fuzzify the muddification."

>Frankly, I'm looking forward to November, 1996...

Well, so am I, but I am afraid that if the Republicans don't get their act
together, Bill Clinton's going to end up winning the election by default. 8>(

Yours,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
>

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:53:12 -0500
> From:    Joe Szalai >
> Subject: Re: The burden's on Szalai
>
>
> In, 'The Counter-Revolution of Science',  Friedrich Von Hayek states that
> the best way to describe the difference between the natural and the social
> sciences is to call the former 'objective' and the latter 'subjective'.  He
> correctly goes on to say that the 'facts' of the social sciences are also
> opinions.  My difficulty with Hayek is that he concludes that economics is a
> natural science.  Certainly the mathematics component of economics is a
> natural science but the 'needs', 'goals', and 'directions' of the economy
> are subjective factors.  So, should society meet the needs of the 'free'
> market, or should the market meet societies needs?   Why do I suspect that
> you're going to tell me about the 'trickle down' theory of social
> enrichment?  (And please don't assume that I'm thinking of you having wet
> dreams.)

I suggest you go back and read the Hayek article again, because you
certainly have misunderstood him the first time!  Let me rewrite what
you've said so that it accurately reflects what Hayek says.

Friedrich von Hayek states that the best way to describe the difference
between the natural and social sciences is to call the former a science
of 'objective' phenomena, and the latter of 'subjective' phenomena.

[note:  according to Hayek, all sciences should attempt to be
objective.  What they study, however may be objective or subjective
phenomena]

He correctly goes on to say that the 'facts' of the social sciences are
the actions of individuals based on their subjective assessment of data
which they know or believe to exist.

For Hayek, economics is a social science; it is one of the sciences of
human action.  Therefore, according to Hayek, mathematics is of little
use in economics, because it cannot accurately reflect the complexities
of human action.  The 'needs' of the economy cannot be determined by
government, since these needs are subjective.  The 'goals' and
'directions' of the economy should not be determined by government,
because the because government has no way of knowing what the goals or
directions should be.

The market is not some sort of artificial structure which is 'used' by
society, but a competitive process, in which entrepreneurs seek to
discover ways to make a profit (in the narrow sense).  Prices act as
signals that indicate preferences, possibilities for profit-making, and
inform producers when to economise on some materials or use
substitutes.

Please read Hayek a little more carefully in the future before telling
us what he says.

jim.


\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

James D. Doepp
Department of Economic Theory
University of Miskolc

I must find a truth that is true
for me... the idea for which I
can live or die.
-Soren Kierkegaard

\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

=C9va Durant wrote:

>=20
> All those government handouts to those farmers are making them
> so benefit-dependent! Someone should stop this rot!

So at last, =C9va (Durant) and I have found something we agree upon!

jim


\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_=20

James D. Doepp
Department of Economic Theory
University of Miskolc

I must find a truth that is true
for me... the idea for which I=20
can live or die.
-Soren Kierkegaard

\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

Andras,

I must take issue with a previous comment you made about poverty in the
American cities.  You mentioned that the urban plight was a result of
government policy to keep petrol (gas) prices low.

A few comments:

1.  The petrol prices are not low because of government policy, but
because of the supply and demand conditions on the international oil
market.  In fact, gas is taxed at a special high rate (along with
cigarettes and alcohol), making it government policy to raise the price
rather than lower it.  Just because they do not tax it in the US at the
confiscatory rate which they do here and in the rest of Europe, does
not mean they "keep the price low".

2.  If the price of gas were high you would probably be talking about
the plight of the rural poor.  These are the people that are really
hurt by high gas prices.  Here the villages not on the train line
are dying out.  It is hard for farmers to operate their machinery, or
to drive their goods to market.

3.  If you wanted to be more accurate, instead of mentioning the price
of petrol you would say the American love affair with the automobile, which
makes it politically impossible to place European-style taxes on gas.

4.  The American love affair with the auto, or high taxes on petrol is
only one of many reasons middle class people are leaving (or have left)
the cities.  One reason is because the rise in the crime rates in the
cities.  Another is the high taxes and poor services.  Of course this
is self-perpetuating:  there is a rise in crime rates, taxes, etc,
and as a result the middle class and wealth leave the cities, which means
there is a lower tax base, and taxes are raised and services further
deteriorate (including police services)...

5.  The deterioration of the situation in the cities is not only
because of the emigration of the middle and upper class.  It also has
to do with the welfare mentality, poor housing policy, bloated city
bureaucracies.