>
> I don't think that mentioning the Boer War or the Great War is appropriate
> here. The press was outright jingoist during the Boer War--in fact, the word
> jingoism comes from that time. (The press has changed a lot since then. Today
> it is difficult to imagine such jingoism of the press.)

Try the Brits, definitely big jingoisms during wars (Falklands, Gulf)
and any time (now). Eva Durant

There is a Hungarian Bookshop in London, run by Klara Adams.
Address: 87. Sewardstone Road, London E2 9HN
Telephone: 081 980 9096
Fax:              081 983 0633

She specialises in emigrant publications (in Europe) and also
has contact with publishers  in Hungary for anything you need,
including music and videos from Hungary, English and Hungarian.

Eva Durant  (Don't worry, she's not socialist at all.)

Zoli Fekete wrote:

>To begin with, I do not think "cheering" at a press conference is
>professional behavior. Of course, it would've been more interesting if
>you actually told us what happened. . .

OK. Here are the exact words of the report from HVG. "Egyebek kozott a magyar
sajto tobb kepviselojenek ki-kitoro demonstrativ ovacioja kozepette zajlott a
Magyar Szocialista Part (MSZP) vasarnap ejszakai sajtotajekoztatoja. . . .
Amennyira furcsa volt 'fuggetlen' sajtoemberek felkinalkozo orommamora, a
valasztasi eredmeny fenyeben annyira ertheto a szocialistak felszabadultnak
mutatkozo deruje." Without translating the whole passage the report talks
about outbursts of demonstrative ovation and "orommamor" can be translated as
"ecstasy" and "felkinalkozo" as "offering." So, it doesn't seem that it was
something like

>a courteous applause.

Then Zoli asks:

>How does it follow that a
>show of sympathy at the meeting would mean bias in reporting in
>general

The lack of distinction between straight reporting and editorializing is
pointed out by many outside observers, experts on the media. So, it is not
exactly an original with me. I simply brought this particular incident to the
attention of the list members as another example of the media problems.

Zoli claims that the passages he quoted are

>pretty much equivalent to the passage above.

Well, they are pretty stupid passages but there is one big difference. The
author talks about the electorate, chastising the voters for their choice of
party instead of making fun of religion and Hungarian history, intertwined. I
am not religious but for some people "the country of Virgin Mary" means
something, and I bet a lot of people believe that Hungary was the Christian
bastion of the west in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Eva Balogh

All of this discussion reminds me of the incident that embarrassed PBS on
their election night coverage--when Clinton went over the top, all the
staffers on the floor cheered.

Nihil novus sub solum est,

bill

Colin Woodard inquired about the future of higher education in Hungary a
couple of days ago. I am taking this opportunity to inquire about changes
introduced in the structure in education in general in the last four years. I
am a bit mixed up about the different gymnasiums, for example. Can anyone
tell us about educational reform in the last four years? Eva Balogh

Re: The German question $64K

>On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, JELIKO wrote:
>> Zoli writes:
>> >  Joe,
>> > > Seriously, the Germans seemed pretty invincible for a while, no?
>> > No, they did not...
>> > -- Zoli
>> They did.
>> Jeliko, PS. it is 2:1 now, if we are keeping score

You can add my vote: 3:1. Eva Balogh

Re: Maj. Gen. Bela Kiraly?

Hugh is right. He was member of parliament either as SZDSZ or independent.
But I was looking for his name in the different lists at election times and I
couldn't find it, at least not in Kaposva1r. As far as I know Be1la Kira1ly
was originally from Kaposva1r. At one point I heard him being interviewed on
shortwave radio--the topic was publishing. As you might know he was very
involved with publishing books on Eastern European history. I myself would
very much like to know what he is doing. Perhaps someone from Hungary could
answer this question. Eva Balogh

Andras mentioned the new HIX service of HUNGARY in digest form. I have been
getting HUNGARY in digest form ever since I signed up in January. I simply
requested it from  to send it to me thus. The digest
form has its pluses and its minuses. On the plus side: it gets here overnight
in one big chunk. On the minus side: you don't get the messages instantly,
and it is quite time-consuming to go through some 50 odd letters a day in one
sitting. Then, there are some of the mysteries of Internet or America On Line
or HUNGARY. At times my messages don't get posted for two or three days--like
right now. Eva Balogh

On Wed, 6 Jul 1994, Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq-to-be-updated wrote:

>  Dear Tibor,
>  Yes, I think it was *that* Gyula Fekete - I have not been following
> all his party affiliations, but he was a state secretary in charge of
> cultural affairs of the MDF government, then (if I recall correctly)
> he was the one taking over the late Antall's seat, and then run in the
> election as an MDF candidate with MIEP's support.
> -- Zoli, on leave from JATE :-) (no relation to Raffay, either ;-()

This is getting confusing. There were two 'Fekete's running for
individual seats in Budapest on the MDF list: Gyula Fekete (writer) and
(Dr.) Gyorgy Fekete. I tend to think, but maybe I am confused, that
Gyorgy Fekete was the heir to Aczel/Antall, no? In any case, the MIEP
supporter journalist at Magyar Forum (nothing to cheer about at election
night) is a different person altogether, I think.

Istvan (not from Mateszalka) Kertesz

Dear Tibor,

 Yes, I think it was *that* Gyula Fekete - I have not been following
all his party affiliations, but he was a state secretary in charge of
cultural affairs of the MDF government, then (if I recall correctly)
he was the one taking over the late Antall's seat, and then run in the
election as an MDF candidate with MIEP's support.

-- Zoli, on leave from JATE :-) (no relation to Raffay, either ;-()

In reply to your message of "Tue, 05 Jul 94 23: 40:29 EDT."
             >
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 09:15:31 -0700
From: 

Zoli Fekete writes:
> >As for what Horn did or didn't do--I don't think we actually know.
>  Actually we know we don't.

Is it worth knowing?

Do you want to know?

Do you think it reasonable that some in the electorate want to know?

And, to protect my stand, project your answers back/forward to during
an election campaign.  :-)

--Greg

On Wed, 6 Jul 1994, Walsh Bill wrote:

> All of this discussion reminds me of the incident that embarrassed PBS on
> their election night coverage--when Clinton went over the top, all the
> staffers on the floor cheered.
> Nihil novus sub solum est,
> bill


if they weren't socialists, then it's o.k.

Istvan Kertesz
fan of the true professionalism displayed by Pesti Hirlap.

I am interested in the email to Budapest. My family was from Budapest
and I find it extremely interesting to find out as much as I possibly
can concerning my heritage.  My email number is
 Thank you. Laura

Ok, Jeliko and I are now closer, in that we both agree that neither Great
Britain nor India were particularly democratic in our sense of the term in
the 19th century.  And we are also agreed in our fascination with Othere's
voyage to the Baltic in the 9th-10th (Iforget which) centuries.  I actually
read part of King Alfred's report on that voyage in Old English.  Othere
mentioned a people he traded with in the Eastern Baltic called the "Beormas,"
apparently a reference to the Permians, who, Othere insightfully noted,
spoke a language that sounded like the language of the "Finnas," or Finns.
It is tantalizing to speculate on whether he was in fact speaking of Lapps.

With regard to Othere's return voyage to England, there is apparently signi-
ficant scholarly confusion over whether he returned by way of Iceland or
Ireland, because of some typically vague descriptions of the direction he
was travelling in (lots of references to the "baekbord" or port side of
the ship, but no references to "east", "northeast", or the like).

A great pity none of Alfred's emissaries made it to the Carpathian basin
(or lived to tell about it)!

Regards,
Be'la Ba'tkay

Eva wrote:

> Andras mentioned the new HIX service of HUNGARY in digest form.

Oh, I noticed, too, the rather arbitrary editing in that HIX digest form
where I found the Hungarian version of my christian name in the heading
though I never use it that way in my posts to the list.

I guess it's an inheritence from the Hungarian language HIX service.

Joe Pannon

In the Hungarian Quarterly Tamas Stark has written an article called
"Hungarian Jewry at the time of the Holocaust and after the war (1941-1955).
I promised to send you the statistics given in the article.

Jewish population before the German occupation of Hungary x1000
           Buda-  Prov-  Total Present  Sub-Carpath.+N-Transylv.  TOTAL
           pest   inces  territ.        +North.+South.territories HUNGARY
.in 1941  240    240    480            110+150+45+15             800

Victims of the 1941 deportation and Killed in Action/POW casualties of
forced labour service:
            13     13     26            6+7+4+1                    44

Population before occupation:
           227    227    454            104+143+41+14             756

Deported in the summer of 1944:
            10    170    180            85+130+30+10              435

After the deportation:
           217     57    274            19+13+11+4                321

The hypothetical number of Hungarian Jews at liberation/in 1945-6 x 1000

Jewish population after the deportation:
             "      "      "                      "                 "

Labour service men lost as POW/Killed in Action, together with those
murdered or deported under Szalasi and with all emigrants:
            67     22     89                2+2+3+1                97

Population at liberation:
           150     35    185               17+17+8+3              224

Number of Jews returned in 1945/46:
                          85               18+30+7+1.5            141

Jewish population of wartime Hungary in 1946:
                         270               35+41+15+4.5           365
(Northern Territories: now in Slovakia; Southern Territories: Vojvodina)


Where did Tamas Stark get her figures from?


The figure of 800.000 Jews in the Hungary of 1941 ("including baptized
Jews") is "based on the 1941 census returns, and taking into consideration
the most recent analyses of the Central Bureau of Statistics"
 (Note nr.2: "A magyarorszagi zsidosag statisztikaja telepulesenkent" -
settlement statistics of the Hungarian Jewry/ Central Bureau of Statistics,
Budapest, 1993; "A kereszteny vallasu, de zsido szarmazasu nepesseg a
nepszamlalas szerint" - Census Figures of Jewish Converts to Christianity/
Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, 1944, No.4-5, pp.95-103.)

The number of 44.000 victims of the 1941 deportations/the forced labour
batallions was compiled from different sources.
"Decree no. 192/1941, issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 12th July,
suspended [the] liberal treatment. The police were directed to take foreign
Jews to the Subcarpathian village of Korosmezo and hand them over to the
military authorities. Approximately 18.000 were deported to Eastern
Galicia...; this is the figure recorded by the Central Authority for the
Control of Foreigners, the institution "supervising the organization of
deportations". German sources ... estimate the number of deportees at
11.000. (...) Ukrainian policemen rounded up the deportees in the second
half of August. The mass murder that followed was presumably carried out by
Einsatzgruppe C. (...)at least 2.000 deportees later fled back to Hungary"
   (Note no.3: "Az elso magyarorszagi deportalas" - The First Hungarian
Deportation/ Uj Elet Naptar - New Life Calendar, 1960-61, Budapest, 1960)

With "foreign Jews" probably those Jews that fled to Hungary from Poland,
Rumania and Slovakia are meant.

According to the article, the massacre at Novi Sad cost the life of 4.000,
of whom 1.000 Jews.

"...undisguised brutality on the part of the Hungarian Army" also killed
many Jews. "As a result of ill treatment, casualty rates among Jews in
forced labour service units exceeded combat casualties". "By the end of 1943,
the losses suffered by forced labour service units in the campaign against
the Soviet Union totalled 24.000 (13.000 recorded as Killed in Action,
11.000 as POWs). Of the forced labourers taken to Bor, in Serbia, 4.000 lost
their lives."  (Note no.4: Archives for Military History: HM Vkf. 1946 eln
299 cs.)

The number of 435.000 Jews deported between May 15th and July 8th of 1944
"appears in three unrelated contemporary sources": Laszlo Ferenczy, a
Lieutenant-Colonel of the Gendarmerie involved in implementing the
deportations, gave the figure 434.351; "the figure of 401.439 people,
registered by the Kassa railway station command, is also precise, as
approximately 20.000 to 30.000 persons were taken via routes that did not go
through Kassa. The National Jewish Executive Committee recorded 412.000
deportees. Reich Kommissar Edmund Veesenmayer estimated 430.000 Jews to have
been "transported to the territory of the Reich".

Two categories escaped deportation: the Budapest Jews and those in forced
labour service. How many Jews were in forced labour batallions?
"Tables compiled by the Registrars Department of the Ministry of Defence
enable us to follow the number of Jews in forced labour service from the very
beginning right up to March 1944".
As for the numbers given as "labour service men lost as POWs/Killed in
Action" after this time, "The records kept by the Casualties Department of the
Ministry of Defence provide reliable data on the losses up to October 31st
1944".

The number of victims of the Arrowcross regime is based on "records kept by
neutral embassies and relevant authoritative sources" who mention 50.000
Jews as being handed over to the Germans. (Note no.15:"The Final Solution",
Gerald Reitlinger, London, 1953; "The Atlas of the Holocaust", Martin
Gilbert, New York, 1982; "October Fifteenth. History of Modern Hungary,
1927-1945", C.A.Macartney, Edinburgh, 1961)
"A further 15.000 fell victim to the terrorism perpetrated by Arrowcross
organizations and to increased wartime mortality" (Note no.16: Budapest
Statistical Yearbook, 1948).
"... almost 10.000 Jews managed to emigrate or escape in 1944" (Note no.17:
"A magyarorszagi zsidosag megsemmisitese" - The Destruction of Hungarian
Jewry. "1944-1945 MIOK Evkonyv" - 1944-45 MIOK Yearbook, 1984)

The estimate on the number of deported Jews who returned after the war is
based on several sources. The DEGOB (National Relief Committee for
Deportees), financed by the American Joint Distribution Committee, kept a
record of returning deportees,  (in May and June '45, 47.500 persons
returned, in July, August and September a further 29.157), but records break
off after September 1945. The Department for Social Security of Returning
Deportees in the Ministry of Public Welfare notes 5.000 deportees returning
in 1946. Before the setting up of the DEGOB also 4.000 to 5.000 deportees
had already returned, this number recorded by the Ministry of Welfare.

"There is only an aggregate figure available for those who returned to the
Sub-Carpathian territories, to Northern Transylvania, to the Northern... and
to the Southern Territories. The total for these regions, as recorded by the
Hungarian Section of the World Jewish Congress from an American Joint
Distribution Committee source, is 56.600." The division among these various
territories Tamas Stark has determined comparing census data.

A particular tragical case mentioned in the article is that of the 10.000
labour servicemen who fell into Russian captivity, together with their
former guard members, in 1943- no liberation: hardly any of them survived in
the POW camps of Marshansky and Davidovka.

All in all 365.000 Jews who lived in the wartime territory of Hungary:
may have survived the Holocaust, but many emigrated soon afterwards.
"Approximately 80.000 - 100.000 Jews had left the territory within the 1944
borders by the mid-fifties" of whom about 60.000 went to Israel.

Tamas Stark concludes her article noting:
"The emigrants found new homes; but the peoples living in the region
suffered an irreplaceable loss by losing a large percentage of their Jewish
population."

> ------------------------------------------------------------

Well, as I have so extensively quoted - without explicit permission - an
article from the journal, it seems only fair to let you know that in fact
the Hungarian Quarterly is a most interesting and sometimes enjoyable
journal about Hungarian politics, culture and history; annual subscrptions
are $24, add $6 postage per year for Europe, $10 for USA and Canada, $12 to
other destinations; sample or individual back numbers are $9 - the
above-extracted article is in the HQ 132 (Winter 93) -, send orders to The
Hungarian Quarterly, P.O.Box 3, Budapest H-1426, Hungary.

Joost van Beek

There was a big deal being made a few months ago over the firing/lay-off
of some 129 Hungarian Radio staffers many of whom were actually sent to
retirement.  The left-liberal opposition was claiming political reasons
for that action and I submit that most of it probably was.  I mean "most
of it" in the sense that it was clear that the staff's size was overdue
for some serious trimming for economic reasons, but those who were
chosen to be layed off were chosen mostly for political, partly for
professional reasons (lacking even the pretention of objectivity).

But if you thought 129 people was a large number, just watch what's
coming with the new administration.  Those of you who receive the
on-line Hungarian news digest "HIRMONDO", must have sensed the brewing
vendetta in the air.  Those staffers who before the election couldn't
wait to get rid off the acting chiefs at the Hungarian Radio and TV
are now objecting to their normal dismissal because that means they
would automatically get their handsome departing bonuses, while if they
stayed on till the new government gets in, they could be submitted to
disciplinary action (i.e., kangaroo courts) and thus denying those bonuses.
Now help me out somebody, please!  Did those 129 Radio employees get
their departing bonuses or not?  As I recall they did.

How many of you are willing to guess whether the NY Times will write
this one also up as a threat to freedom of the press in HUngary?

Joe Pannon

OK, I mixed up the members of the Gy. Fekete legion ;-) - the article
was from Gyula, the writer, not to be confused with the outgoing
cultural commissar (dr.) Gyo2rgy Fekete (Jr.), so strike that phrase
from my post (by sheer coincidence just around the same time the latter
also insinuated that the loss of other MDF candidates was due to the
voters' stupidity, but this only explains not excuses my confusion ;-().

-- Zoli
PS and I did not know, honest, that Raffay was in the news again
PPS Istvan, what's wrong with Mateszalka? It's bigger city than
Fehergyarmat even!?

Dear Greg, aren't we slipping into the trick question area ;-)?

>> >As for what Horn did or didn't do--I don't think we actually know.
>>  Actually we know we don't.
>Is it worth knowing?

 Had he done something it would be worth to know. If he did not, that
does not say much. But my point was that since no reliable witness
showed up so far (and documents are hardly available on the individual
militiamen's doing), chances are extremely slim that we'll actually learn
something more then what he himself said - which of course counts
nothing unless contradicted.

>Do you want to know?
 Wanting something unattainable is not my style :-). As potentially one
of the electorate I'd not weight too much what memberships he had 37.5
year ago.

>Do you think it reasonable that some in the electorate want to know?
>And, to protect my stand, project your answers back/forward to
>during an election campaign.  :-)
 Well, I have this extremely liberal /;-)/ position that any voter has
the right to want any information, or even decide in the lack thereof,
campaign or not.

 Now as an aside, tying in this thread with the media, this situation
is not so much analogous to the "Where was George" question of the
October Surprise theory cultivated somewhat during the duller intervals
of the last USA presidential campaign, as to the one never raised in
the mainstream press about his war-hero status based largely on his own
testimony. You're dealing with events many decades past that were
unlikely to have unbiased wittnesses in the first place, and about
whose nothing was heard till the finish of the campaign. Then to start
speculating what might have been is not exactly the sign of responsible
journalism, as Eva appeared to be suggesting...

-- Zoli

As soon as I received my morning digest of Hungary I fired off an answer to
Zoli Fekete on the impartiality of the media. However, after mailing it, I
felt that I didn't answer him adequately in my previous note. So, here is a
second attempt:

Talking about flippancy mixed up with some inaccuracy:

>Of course, it would've been more interesting if
>you actually told us what happened - the broad term used could mean
>courteous applause like Reagan would've gotten, or heartfelt
>congratulation due for Clinton (according to Joe and you anyways), or
>wild hopping with possibly slipping into singing the Internationale if
>they threw away their veil too transparent for some ;-<...

I dislike flippancy as well as inaccuracy. The former usually entails making
fun of other people, and the latter is plain annoying. "Wild hopping with
possibly slipping into singing the Internationale if they threw away their
veil too transparent for some ;-<. . ." is a good example of the former while
"heartfelt congratulations due for Clinton (and according to Joe and you
anyways)" of the latter. "Anyways"     or no anyways, I said nothing about
journalists congratulating Clinton after his victory. As the matter of fact,
I said exactly the opposite. Surprise, surprise, Joe and I disagreed! In
addition, I had written one more note on American journalism, and that, in
passing. I said that I had read about a survey of American journalists and
their political affiliation and that the majority was registered as
Democrats. I wondered whether a survey similar to that was taken in Hungary.

Second, there is something very wrong, I think, with your analysis of the
whole situation. On the one hand, you say "To begin with, I do not think
"cheering" at a press conference is professional behavior." So far, so good.
But then, you continue: " How do you gauge the significance of those cheering
(whom you said did not include even all of those present at the conference,
so it must have been a small fraction of all journalists) for judging the
whole media? How does it follow that a show of sympathy at the meeting would
mean bias in reporting in general - and how different would it be if they hid
it? Or are we to expect having no journalist whatsoever to feel somewhat for
a major political force in the country?" First of all, I don't think that I
said anywhere that all Hungarian journalists are biased. But I certainly say
that the vast majority doesn't even try to be objective and their political
affiliation is worn on their sleeves, so to speak. In the West, there is
certainly an attempt to sound objective. I don't believe that that is the
case in Hungary. Moreover, in the final analysis you don't think that there
is anything wrong with for a journalist "to feel somewhat for a major
political force in the country." So, you basically negated your first
sentence with what followed.

And finally,

> Now on to this other thread that don't want to die:
>>Horn was twenty-six years old in 1956; so he was not a
>>child who didn't know what he was doing. He was an adult.
> So what exactly was he doing - other than joining an organization of
>whose later acts he may not have foreseen?

I am sorry but I don't quite understand this. What does it mean "whose later
acts he may not have foreseen?" Do you want to tell us that a person of
26-years of age didn't know what these paramilitary organizations were all
about in December 1956? Oh, my God! The lines were drawn very sharply all
through.

>>To me, who lived through the revolutionary events at an extremely
>>exposed spot (corner of Rakoczi ut and Kiskorut) it is unimaginable
>>that a decent person could be on the other side.
> Apparently he got a different kind of exposure - but if could he'd
>probably trade your corner for having his brother killed ;-<...

Apparently he did. And now I come to the question of emotion on this
question. Both Greg and George felt that we should just bury the hatchet and
go on. Yes, intellectually I know that that is what we should do. However, it
is very, very difficult to do so as a former participant. Just as I get misty
eyed talking about those days I am sure Horn does too, but from another
perspective, mourning for his dead brother, who, I assume, fought on the
other side. Eva Balogh

In reply to your message of "Wed, 06 Jul 94 18: 02:36 EDT."
             >
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 15:51:37 -0700
From: 

Zoli Fekete writes:
>  Dear Greg, aren't we slipping into the trick question area ;-)?
Oh, never! And then only to counter the trick answers.  :-)

> >> >As for what Horn did or didn't do--I don't think we actually know.
> >>  Actually we know we don't.
> >Is it worth knowing?
>
>  Had he done something it would be worth to know.
That's a Yes.

It's been asserted on this list that Horn hasn't apologized
for his actions/inactions in '56.  Has he or hasn't he, by
spoken/written word?  If not, what is YHO on whether he should or not,
and whether this is a legitimate issue?

--Greg

For those who wish to know more about the current activities of Be'la Ki-
ra'ly, his colleague at my university might be the best-placed to answer.
I do not know if he has access to Email, but you could address snail-mail
to him at:
Peter Pastor, PhD
Department of History
Montclair State University
Upper Montclair, NJ 07043

Good luck,
Be'la Ba'tkay

GREG> Seriously, the Germans seemed pretty invincible for a while, no?
ZOLI> No, they did not...
JELIKO> They did.
JELIKO> Jeliko, PS. it is 2:1 now, if we are keeping score
EVA> You can add my vote: 3:1. Eva Balogh
 I'm beginning to feel grateful that this thing was actually fought out
rather than left to your vote ;-)...
 Seriously, seems like all of you ought to first define the meaning of
"seemed" - Greg already did that to come down on the subjective side.
If you mean that many (just don't get me started with "all" ;-() in the
common crowd believed that the Germans's early successes told anything
about the chances against more formidable opponents, that's fine. But
then explain to me why was it OK for the leaders of Hungary to accept
 - if they did - the same belief uncritically, knowing little tidbits of
information like the massive support given to Britain or say the ratio
of the area of France to that of Russia?!
 From Eva, at least, I'd expect something more on the objective side.
What magic resource Germany had to win a war of attrition on two
fronts, with Britain having the USA as a non-belligerent ally if not
more?

-- Zoli

In reply to your message of "Wed, 06 Jul 94 18: 40:01 EDT."
             >
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 16:01:23 -0700
From: 

Eva Balogh writes:
> Both Greg and George felt that we should just bury the hatchet and
> go on.
Yes and no.  I say: bury it, but only until the next election.

--Greg

On Wed, 6 Jul 1994, Greg Grose wrote:

> It's been asserted on this list that Horn hasn't apologized
> for his actions/inactions in '56.  Has he or hasn't he, by
> spoken/written word?  If not, what is YHO on whether he should or not,
> and whether this is a legitimate issue?
>
> --Greg

Before I think about the answer to your question, could you tell me what
actions/inactions we are talking about?

Istvan Kertesz

In reply to your message of "Wed, 06 Jul 94 18: 38:16 EDT."
             >
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 16:13:40 -0700
From: 

Zoli Fekete writes:
> If you mean that many (just don't get me started with "all" ;-()
> in the
> common crowd believed that the Germans's early successes told anything
> about the chances against more formidable opponents, that's fine.

You mean you can accept the "popular mandate" of German victory,
but not of the Horthy government(s)?

It Zincredible, Zoli. :-) :-)

--Greg

I am looking for ambitious bilingual people to help execute a business project
into Hunagry, Czeck Republic, Slovakia and Poland.
I am also expanding into other foreign countries and other languages are
desirous.
Only people willing to learn and having a desire for business need reply.
Please complete and reply back.

full name:
languages/ dialects spoken:
telephone number:
best time to call
City / State

Regards,
Stephen Callender
please send reply to my email address: 

Dear Eva,

thanks for the fuller description of those ecstatically offering
no-goodniks. Like I said, I granted in advance that some may have been
doing just that!

>>How does it follow that a show of sympathy at the meeting would mean
>>bias in reporting in general
> The lack of distinction between straight reporting and
>editorializing is pointed out by many outside observers, experts on
>the media. So, it is not exactly an original with me. I simply
>brought this particular incident to the attention of the list
>members as another example of the media problems.
 I did notice you haven't answered the question ;-(. I did not argue
that problems with too much editorializing exist - my guess would be
that many readers prefer an editorial to having "just the fact
reported" as in the old days (when "fact" was of course what the Party
deemed such). But contrary to you I think the late Kadar years
sharpened the senses of the audience rather than dumbing them down -
I'm sure most of them can recognize a "not straight" report as well, if
not better, as a media expert. So the question still is: how is that
alleged all-infecting partiality in reporting manifested, and how a
problem like a few journalist cheering is significant?

>Zoli claims that the passages he quoted are
>>pretty much equivalent to the passage above.
>Well, they are pretty stupid passages but there is one big
>difference. The author talks about the electorate, chastising the
>voters for their choice of party instead of making fun of religion
>and Hungarian history, intertwined. I am not religious but for some
>people "the country of Virgin Mary" means something, and I bet a lot
>of people believe that Hungary was the Christian bastion of the west
>in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Eva Balogh
 I take "the country of Virgin Mary" to be the same in this context as
Saint Stephen's legacy symbolized wih the Saint Crown: "[the voters]
cancelled the legacy of Sainth Stephen, and now will not even object if
its new owners [...] sell the Saint Crown, that means nothing to them."
For good measure the article went thru the whole of our history, all of
which is somehow being undone now by those misguided voters according
to this article. This is the kind of desecrating seizure of Hungarian
history in the "national-populist" lingo that the article you picked
satirized. Your sarcasm-digesting system must be defective if you
seriously believed it was the historical concepts and not their abusers
being poked fun at ;-(. Would you think the ubiquitous American
cartoons of politicians wrapped in the flag are aimed at the latter not
the former?!

-- Zoli

In reply to your message of "Wed, 06 Jul 94 19: 05:57 EDT."
             >
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 16:43:59 -0700
From: 

Istvan Kertesz writes:
> could you tell me what actions/inactions we are talking about?

(This, of course, is part of the brew here.  As ZF says, what he
did/didn't do may be "unknowable".)


If we start with VOA:
"Horn had been a member of the pro-Soviet militia that helped to
defeat the uprising and restore communism in Hungary."

Then I suppose the (in)action is his role in the militia.

And I at least accept "an expression of regret" as the functional
equivalent of an apology, so if he's done that, there's a quick
answer.



--Greg

Can you tell me how to connect to HIX.  I am from Spokane, Wa. and I am
interested in onnecting to an address that has Hungarian stock exchange
quotes. I know how to connect to Internet.

I am interested in learning how to e-mail Hungary.  Thank you

Dear Eva,

I plea no contest to the flippancy charge (toward to cheering journalists
toward whom the note was directed, that is), but no guilty to the
inaccuracy:

> > "heartfelt congratulations due for Clinton (and according to Joe and
> > you anyways)"

> "Anyways" or no anyways, I said nothing about journalists
> congratulating Clinton after his victory. As the matter of fact, I said
> exactly the opposite. Surprise, surprise, Joe and I disagreed! In
> addition, I had written one more note on American journalism, and that,
> in passing. I said that I had read about a survey of American
> journalists and their political affiliation and that the majority was
> registered as Democrats. I wondered whether a survey similar to that
> was taken in Hungary.

 Unless I got lost in the tortorous workings of the English language
again, I said nothing about journalists congratulating Clinton after
his victory ;-). I was talking about the possibility of some of the
Hungarians expressing feelings they may have toward Horn - feelings
like their American conterparts have toward Clinton according to Joe,
and as reiterated above according to you as well. Incidentally, didn't
that USA survey found the majority of those registered, rather than the
majority of all, to be Democrats? In Hungary, it seems that most
journalists (the known ones at least) are not party members. Even those
who run in the election were typically non-members for what that's worth.

> I certainly say that the vast majority doesn't even try to be objective
> and their political affiliation is worn on their sleeves, so to speak.
> In the West, there is certainly an attempt to sound objective. I don't
> believe that that is the case in Hungary.
 I think one can try to be objective even if has some political
affiliation - and of course you haven't started showing that the vast
majority would have any. I find the home press sounding less bland,
perhaps more sincere then the West, as a rule, but that may be just me...

> Moreover, in the final analysis you don't think that there is anything
> wrong with for a journalist "to feel somewhat for a major political
> force in the country."
 That you put it this way shows the principial difference between us in
looking at the situation, for I was saying there's nothing necesseraly
wrong for *some* jornalist to have some feelings for one party or
another. You on the other hand treat *the media* as consisting of
uniform pieces - if one found compromised, the whole batch is flawed, if
*a* journalist feels one way then the whole press is tilted that way...

> > Now on to this other thread that don't want to die: [Horn]
> > So what exactly was he doing - other than joining an organization of
> >whose later acts he may not have foreseen?
>
> I am sorry but I don't quite understand this. What does it mean "whose later
> acts he may not have foreseen?" Do you want to tell us that a person of
> 26-years of age didn't know what these paramilitary organizations were all
> about in December 1956? Oh, my God! The lines were drawn very sharply all
> through.
 Sharply enough if seen from your corner, far enough from places where
innocent conscript "kiskatonak" were killed if happened to have the
wrong color shoes etc. What I read seems rather blurred in many places,
what with Kadar first welcoming the glorious revolution of our people
and so one. I do not imagine the lines getting much clearer after the
fight was over, when Horn joined.

 What I meant was that just because the militia became infamous for the
Stalinist crackdown on the remnants of the revolution, it was not at
all necessery for everyone to have this in mind when joining. After
all, some public order had to be restored as well.

> Just as I get misty eyed talking about those days I am sure Horn does
> too, but from another perspective, mourning for his dead brother, who,
> I assume, fought on the other side.
 It's nice to be so sure about someone else's assumed perspective. You
are implying that he was, and in heart remained a hard-line
Rakosist/Munnichist/Kadarist. However this totally contradicts with his
acts of late. Since I had talked with some real holdovers in the
eighties it seems inconceivable to me that anyone of that mold would
appear the reform politician Horn had. But then of course it could not
be disproved if his eyes mist just the way and for the reason you're
suspecting...

-- Zoli

Fekete Zoli wrote:


much equivalent to the passage above. Or thus spake the outgoing
cultural commissar Gyula Fekete (no relation ;-(), May 19 Magyar Forum:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Dear Zoli!

Who is that outgoing cultural comissar?
I know a certain Gyula Fekete a writer and probably member of MIEP.
(In 1990 he was the leader of the small party called : Magyar Neppart.)
I think it was this Fekete who writes regularly in the Magyar Forum.

  Tibor Asztalos SZEGED