On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Hugh Agnew wrote:
>
> Today while I was waking up I had the BBC world service on the radio
> and they featured a story on an article by George Soros in this month's
> _Atlantic Monthly_, in which, according to the reports, he states that
> the greatest threat to an open society in today's world is no longer
> socialism, but capitalism.  Does anybody have a subscription to this
> magazine, and could provide us with a more detailed synopsis of the
> article?

I did not read the article, but I am not surprised. Soros is a closet
philosopher, and he is not alone to see the danger signs. Today (Jan. 17)
"The Globe and Mail" published extensive excerpts from John Kenneth
Galbrait's lecture at the University of Toronto. The 88-years-old
distinguished economics professor from Harvard University was qouted to say
for example:

  "Let us also be fully aware of another circumstance: The survival and
acceptance of the modern market system was, in large measure, the
accomplishment of the socially concerned. It would not have so survived had
it not been for our successful civilizing efforts. Capitalism in its
original form was an insufferably cruel thing. Only with trade unions, the
protection of workers and workers' rights, pensions for the old,
compensation for the unemployed, public health care, lower-cost housing,
a safety net however imperfect for the unfortunate and the deprived, and
public action to mitigate capitalism's commitment to boom and slump, did
the market system become socially and politically acceptable"
 ...

   "In recent years there has been a current of thought (or what is so
described) which holds that all possible economic activity should be
returned to the market. The market system having been accepted, it must now
be universal; privatization is a public faith. This, needless to say, we
reject. The question of the private versus the public role is not to be
decided on abstract theoretical grounds; the decision depends on the merits
of the particular case. Conservatives need to be warned (as we must also
warn ourselves) that ideology can be a heavy blanket over thought. Our
commitment must always be to thought.

   THOUGHT must also guide action on the continuing flaws, inequities and
cruelties in the market system, and on the needed social action."

The one hour lecture was apparently very well received by the "socially
concerned" political elite, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau among
them.

Barna Bozoki

 on Jan 15 19:18:46 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #885:

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

Please, Eva, don't call me that.  People may hold against me any praise
coming from you ;-).

>
>>First of all, as every elementary school student in Hungary knows, it was
NOT
>>a civil war.  (Unless you consider the Austrians, and later, the Russians,
>>fellow citizens.)
>
>        I see now! That's your trouble. Your knowledge of Hungarian history
>was obtained in elementary school! Mine, on the other hand, in addition to
>my rather useless history classes in elementary school and high school, was
>drastically modified by some serious study of Hungarian history in graduate
>school. A bit of difference! Only elementary-school-level teaching could
>possibly be responsible for these sentences:
>
>        In case, your elementary-school teacher neglected to tell you: there
>was a civil war in Hungary. Practically all the important nationalities rose
>against the Hungarians: the Croats, the Romanians, the Slovaks, and the
>Serbs. There was a bloody civil war indeed within the countries of the Crown
>of St. Stephen.

I see.  And why don't you tell the people how that "civil war" came about?
 Surely not because Hungarians attacked the nationalities?  Or didn't the
Austrians' policy of inciting them against Hungarians had something to do
with their attacking the Hungarian government?  Besides, any "civil war"
aspects of the whole 1848-49 war were minuscule compared to the main conflict
between Hungarians and Austrians (and later the Russians).  By your line of
reasoning the American War of Independence was also a "bloody civil war"
because some indian tribes were fighting on the side of the British.  (Come
to think of it, a fair number of colonists did too, if my elementary school
teacher told me the truth.)

>>Second, I don't recall saying that Kossuth was responsible for the 1967
>>Compromise.
>
>        Neither do I. You must have misunderstood something.
>
No, Eva.  You forget that I addressed my initial response to our resident,
self-proclaimed expert of Hungarian history, Sam Stowe.  He said that.

>        And this brings to mind something I just read in the Magyar Hirlap
>(January 11, 1997, Saturday) by Gyula Kurucz, a writer and translator. The
>title of his piece is: "Uj honfoglalas, avagy nekunk miert nem sikerul?"
>[New conquest, or why are we always unsuccessful?"
                                                ^^^^^^^
If you have to quote a *translator* to buttress your historical arguments, at
least you should translate him accurately.  The word "always" is not in the
original title.

>In it Kurucz is trying to
>analyze the national character and says something which I think is very
>true: we Hungarians are always after "truth," instead of "reality."
>... Surely, Kurucz is talking about 1848 and 1867 and our totally wrong
>national perception of these two events. Our suicidal tendency to do the
>wrong thing and belittle the important.
   ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Another translational problem?  Are you implying that "truth"="wrong thing"?


>>There are two schools of thought regarding the Compromise, and the debates
>>are still going on between them.  One side cites the tremendous economic
>>growth that followed; the other, the bond that tied the country to Austria,
>>resulting in Hungary being dragged into a war for Austrian interests,
>>resulting in what followed.
>
>        I am not quite sure where you got the idea that there is a
>historical school which claims that "the bond that tied the country to
>Austria resulting in Hungary being dragged into a war for Austrian
>interests, resulting in what followed." Because, you see, exactly the
>opposite is true. Hungary was threatened by Serbia not Austria!! Serbia's
>thriving for Greater Serbia could affect Hungary much more seriously than
>Austria. Austria without Hungary would have most likely never got involved
>in the affairs of the Balkans.
>
>        Eva Balogh

Now this is interesting!  Maybe my "elementary school teacher" was right and
Eva's marxist-leninist trainers wrong, after all!  I was taught that it was
Austria (and not Hungary) that "got involved in the affairs of the Balkans"
when it annexed Bosnia.  And that it was in Sarajevo (Bosnia) where that
fateful shot rang out.

Ferenc

Did he ever rule Transylvania or part of it?

Thank you.

At 05:57 PM 1/17/97 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

>Today while I was waking up I had the BBC world service on the radio
>and they featured a story on an article by George Soros in this month's
>_Atlantic Monthly_, in which, according to the reports, he states that
>the greatest threat to an open society in today's world is no longer
>socialism, but capitalism.  Does anybody have a subscription to this
>magazine, and could provide us with a more detailed synopsis of the
>article?

I havn't read the article but I will.  However, if the reports are correct
then Soros is merely coming to the same conclusions as Marx did 150 years
ago.

Personally, I can't wait for the last of the "existing socialist" states to
croak.  Then, and perhaps only then, an interest in the commonwealth will be
rekindled.

Joe Szalai

At 08:00 PM 1/17/97 -0500, Eva Balogh, responding to Hugh Agnew's comment
about George Soros, wrote:

<snip>
>        It is easy to hate capitalism after you became a billionaire.

Oh really?  How would Eva Balogh know?  Her comment is as insightful, and
deep, as the comment of any "true believer".  Her blind faith in the
capitalist, free market system doesn't allow her to see a world beyond
self-interest.

Joe Szalai

"A little group of wilful men reflecting no opinion but their own have
rendered the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible."
               Woodrow Wilson

Hali, Joe and Listmembers!

At 09:11 18/01/97 -0500, Joe wrote:
<snip Hugh's & the first part of Joe's comment>

  However, if the reports are correct
>then Soros is merely coming to the same conclusions as Marx did 150 years
>ago.

You may be right, but, if true, doesn't it seem just a teeny-weeny bit
hypocritical that he waits till he has made his billion out of that bad old
capitalist system, and then denounce it? I suspect, however, that since
Soros appears to be an intelligent man, there may be more to his comments
than we've got. It is safe to assume that these comments are taken out of
context.
>
>Personally, I can't wait for the last of the "existing socialist" states to
>croak.  Then, and perhaps only then, an interest in the commonwealth will be
>rekindled.

There is nothing to prevent an interest in the commonwealth being revived
while the *existing socialist* states still survive. Thinking of China and
Cuba, I think most people in the West are pretty disillusioned anyway about
what they may have to offer.

What I would criticize in the West is not the capitalist system per se (as
you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool believer in capitalism - you know, me and
my good buddies Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater) but the fact that there seems
to be a failure of leadership in both the West and the East.

Nice to see the List back - bickering and all!

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka
>
>Joe Szalai

"This is the way the world ends - not with a bang but a whimper"
                                                                T.S. Eliot
                                                                "The Waste Land
"

>
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Ferenc Novak in connection with 1848 and the nationality question:

>I see.  And why don't you tell the people how that "civil war" came about?
> Surely not because Hungarians attacked the nationalities?

        No, but that wasn't necessary. The Hungarian government simply
refused to consider, already in April and May 1848, any of the rather
moderate demands of the nationalities. With the exception of Croatia, which
was a separate issue, the nationalities originally asked for such things as
the recognition of them as a "nation." They asked for such things as the use
of their language on the county level. The government in Pest refused.
Vienna, on the other hand, published a new constitution on April 25, 1848
which promised equality to the nationalities. Not surprisingly the
nationality leaders, initially sympathetic to the revolution, began turning
more and more toward Vienna.

>Or didn't the
>Austrians' policy of inciting them against Hungarians had something to do
>with their attacking the Hungarian government?

        This is really beside the point. Vienna simply took advantage of the
situation.

>Besides, any "civil war"
>aspects of the whole 1848-49 war were minuscule compared to the main conflict
>between Hungarians and Austrians (and later the Russians).

         Well, I don't know how minuscule. After all, the whole military
conflict began by the Croats attacking the Hungarians in September 1848. But
even before that (in May) the nationality leaders held meetings after
meetings, wrote petitions to the Hungarian government and to Vienna, formed
national councils. By July, in the south, Serb contingents were attacking
Hungarian and German villages and the Hungarian troops couldn't overpower
them. Tens of thousands of Romanians in addition to two complete regiments
of the border guards consisting Romanians went over to the Austrian side.
Jozef Bem, the Polish general, often had to fight the Romanians instead of
the Austrian regulars and therefore in March 1849 he offered to negotiate
with the Romanians. In early 1849 General Perczel, head of the Hungarian
army in the south fought almost exclusively Serb contingents. Eventually
even Kossuth had to realize that something must give and in July 28 the
Hungarian parliament voted on the nationality law. However, it was far too late
.
        As for Kossuth's initial reaction to the natioanlity question was as
follows (and I will not translate it because Ferenc is not satisfied with my
translations): "... En soha, de soha a magyar szent korona alatt mas
nemzetet es nemzetiseget, mint a magyart, elismerni nem fogok. Tudom, hogy
vannak emberek es nepfajok, akik mas nyelvet beszelnek, de egy nemzetnel
tobb itten nincsen." (Kossuth felszolalasa az orszaggyules alsotablajanak
1847. dec. 11-i ker. ulesen, Kossuth Lajos osszes munkai, vol. 11, p. 382.
Therefore, it is not surprising that after the revolution, the nationalities
turned to Vienna for protection.

>Now this is interesting! I was taught that it was
>Austria (and not Hungary) that "got involved in the affairs of the Balkans"
>when it annexed Bosnia.  And that it was in Sarajevo (Bosnia) where that
>fateful shot rang out.

        You are a bit behind in the discussion, otherwise it might have been
clearer to you who and under what circumstances got involved in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Think it through.

>  Maybe my "elementary school teacher" was right and
>Eva's marxist-leninist trainers wrong, after all!

        If you are interested in all those marxist-leninist history
professors of mine, please do get in touch with Carleton University, Ottawa,
and Yale University, New Haven. Maybe they can provide you with a list.(;))

        Eva Balogh

Powerful nations can make choices, not available to less powerful nations.

"....Hungarians were outnumbered ten to one by the Germans and twenty to one
by the Russians, and that Germany and Russia each regarded occupation of
Hungary as a pre-requisite to its own aggrandizement."
Nicholas Roosevelt, 1956

These were the "choices" available to Hungary at the start of WWII.  Since the
Russian Revolution of 1917, the atrocities committed by the communists against
their own people was known to all but the fools.  The brutalities of Nazi
Germany did not yet occur.  The first modern day genocide, the murder of 1-1/2
Armenians by the Turks between 1915-1920, went virtually unnoticed by the
"civilized world".  It is still denied by many "western scalars" whose
"scientific research" is founded by the Turkish lobby, which in turn funded by
$billions from the United States Congress.

To the average Hungarian, nazis and communists were equally distasteful.  It
would have been nice to sit this one out, but Hungary did not have that
privilege.  Anyone who is not blinded by hatred of Hungarians, can easily see
that.  (One of the gifts of living in the United States, the most powerful
nation today, is that my children will be forced to make these choices.)

We paid a terrible price for a choice that was forced upon us by the "great
powers".  Only Hungarian haters would rejoice over the destruction of our
country by the invading Russian hordes.  No Hungarian would tolerate these
insults from obscene fools who pretend to have a limited "book" knowledge of
our history.

Istvan Lippai

Istvan Lippai writes:

>Powerful nations can make choices, not available to less powerful nations.
>
>"....Hungarians were outnumbered ten to one by the Germans and twenty to one
>by the Russians, and that Germany and Russia each regarded occupation of
>Hungary as a pre-requisite to its own aggrandizement."
>Nicholas Roosevelt, 1956
>
>These were the "choices" available to Hungary at the start of WWII.  Since the
>Russian Revolution of 1917, the atrocities committed by the communists against
>their own people was known to all but the fools.  The brutalities of Nazi
>Germany did not yet occur.

The choice was not made on the basis of who was more brutal. The extant
documents
of events leading to the Hungarian actions do not show any such abstract
considerations. Please remember that at that time it was not solely Russia
that became the enemy but all others who at that time were fighting Germany
who cannot be accused of atrocities on the Russian or German scale. The
eventual faith of Hungary may not have been significantly different, than if
Hungary tried to be consistent in its initial action of staying out of the
Geramn-Polish war. That consistency was broken by the actions relating to
Yugoslavia. If Hyngary was really that upset with the Yugoslav behavior, why
sign a treaty just before deciding the attack. If I recall correctly, there
was no particular German pressure for Hungary to join in the war against Russia
.
As a matter of fact some of the consideration was that if the Romanians and
the Slovaks are fighting with the Germans how can we stay out of it.

Even small countries can make choices, and sometimes those choices have a
very significant impression on others whose opinion later affects major events.


>To the average Hungarian, nazis and communists were equally distasteful.  It
>would have been nice to sit this one out, but Hungary did not have that
>privilege.  Anyone who is not blinded by hatred of Hungarians, can easily see
>that.  (One of the gifts of living in the United States, the most powerful
>nation today, is that my children will be forced to make these choices.)

I am sorry, I am not blinded by any hatred toward anybody including the
Hungarians.
And I repeat, I am not aware of any realistic reason for Hungary's entry
into WW II
on anybody's side. It is true, that the continued neutrality may have led to
an earlier German occupation and an earlier Quisling government and eventual
entry on the German side, but the judgement of the world most likely would
have been very different.


>We paid a terrible price for a choice that was forced upon us by the "great
>powers".

I repeat, there was no specific force for the action when it took place. If
you are aware of any please give specifics.

>Only Hungarian haters would rejoice over the destruction of our
>country by the invading Russian hordes.

And Russiam haters over the the destruction of Russia, or Polish haters over
the destruction of Poland.....and so on. It is not a one sided event.

>No Hungarian would tolerate these
>insults from obscene fools who pretend to have a limited "book" knowledge of
>our history.

I am sorry but the facts carry more clout than the getting into personal
attacks from any side by anyone.

Regards,Jeliko.

In article >, Ferenc Novak
> writes:

>I see.  And why don't you tell the people how that "civil war" came
about?
> Surely not because Hungarians attacked the nationalities?  Or didn't the
>Austrians' policy of inciting them against Hungarians had something to do
>with their attacking the Hungarian government?  Besides, any "civil war"
>aspects of the whole 1848-49 war were minuscule compared to the main
conflict
>between Hungarians and Austrians (and later the Russians).  By your line
of
>reasoning the American War of Independence was also a "bloody civil war"
>because some indian tribes were fighting on the side of the British.
(Come
>to think of it, a fair number of colonists did too, if my elementary
school
>teacher told me the truth.)

Your elementary school teacher did tell you the truth. The American War of
Independence was a particularly bloody civil war here in the Carolinas
with massacres being perpetrated by both sides. Between a third and a half
of North Carolina's pre-war population fled to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Ontario in the decade after the war. Strange how everyone outside our
region seems to have forgotten this aspect of the war. There's an
interesting parallel to this phenomenon in your own post, Frank. Wasn't
there a guy named Ban Jelacic who organized the South Serbs in 1848 and
unceremoniously chased the Hungarian rebels out of the crownlands south of
the Danube? And didn't the Hungarian rebels spend a lot of time and
available manpower sending armies into Erdely during 1848-49 (including
General Bem, I think, at some point) trying to keep the Romanian peasants
down? That doesn't sound miniscule to me. It sounds like it might have
drawn off enough manpower and resources to make it easier for the
Austrians and the Russians to move in.
Sam Stowe

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

Eva Balogh writes:

>>At the beginning of the paragraph you have started out that the event was
>>"internationally approved annexation" by the end of the same paragraph it
>>becomes
>>"the rest of the world didn't look upon the sudden annexation kindly". I
>>have no further comment on this, its clarity speaks for itself.
>
>        First of all, may I remind you that I was not talking about
>"annexation" being approved and disapproved in the same paragraph. Please
>read it again. In one paragraph I was talking about the events of 1878 and
>in the other about the events of 1908.

Please check your original posting. It was I in my reply whosplit the paragraph
.

>        I'm afraid when we talk about Bosnia-Herzegovina we can talk about
>"annexation" and we can talk about "occupation." We don't use the word
>"incorporation," but if someone did use the word "incorporation," I would
>take it to mean annexation. The "military occupation" of Bosnia-Herzegovina
>was approved by the Congress of Berlin. The "annexation" of
>Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 was a unilateral act on the part of the Monarchy.
>The great powers, I think rightly, felt that since the original status of
>Bosnia-Herzegovina was approved by international mediation any change in its
>status should also be so approved.

Well, I should have given a warning that the incorporation included all the
activities
consummated by the formal annexation. I do know what was approved in Berlin
and I was not mixing up which was unilateral and which was not.

>        But instead of quibbling over words, and number of paragraphs, I
>think the main problem with your view of Austro-Hungarian foreign policy is
>that you completely misinterpret the needs, intentions, interests of
>Hungary. Hungary was vitally interested in the Balkans for several reasons.
>And that very basic fact you hotly deny.

Here, we have disagreement. More on this later.

>By the way, there are several
>excellent books on that topic in Hungarian as well as in English. I
>especially recommend the works of Mr. Dioszegi. From his writings it is
>quite clear that it was not the Austrians who were really interested in the
>Balkans but the Hungarians.

There are many other books about the subject. I generally do not like to use
a single source or a single viewpoint for this type of discussion. I will
submit some quotes after returning from a short trip in a week.

>And after all, the First World War broke out because of the affairs of the
Balkans.

Yes, it was also a "shot heard around the world". At least, to my knowledge,
nobody claimed yet that the Hungarians were behind the assassination.

Regards,Jeliko.

Sam Stowe writes
>. There's an
>interesting parallel to this phenomenon in your own post, Frank. Wasn't
>there a guy named Ban Jelacic who organized the South Serbs in 1848 and
>unceremoniously chased the Hungarian rebels out of the crownlands south of
>the Danube?

Sam you are getting into a little deep. Jelacic was a Ban of the Croats. He
was leading the first invasion army against the then legal Hungarian
government. He was rather badly beaten and decided rather hurriedly to go
back to Croatia. (There still is a mounted statue of him in the main square
in Zagreb, erected after 1919, with his sword pointed toward Budapest. May
all armies, would have been as successful as his, against Hungary or the
Hungarians. In that case, I am sure even the Hungarians would also erect
statues to the leaders of those armies in their homelands.)

At that time, there were also large Habsburg oriented garrisons in many
areas both in Hungary proper and in the so called Border Areas, which did
not have allegience to the Hungarian governments. The Serbs were active in
the area of what is now Voyvodina.

And didn't the Hungarian rebels spend a lot of time and
>available manpower sending armies into Erdely during 1848-49 (including
>General Bem, I think, at some point) trying to keep the Romanian peasants
>down?

Again the major battles by Bem were against the remnant Habsburg oriented
armies and against the Saxons who also stayed loyal to the Habsburgs. There
was a Romanian
peasant uprising, somewhat successful, but it was in the central
Transylavnian area. Bem was not particularly involved with those folks.

Then of coursee Bem also spent a fair time against the Russians. Except for
that central Transylvanian region, and at one time in the Voyvodina area, in
most cases regular Habsburg troops were involved. Of course, I am sure they
were happy to arm and get help from anyone. But it was much more complex
than you indicate. Please remember
that there were imperial garrisons in many places in the geographic area
that was considered Hungary at that time.

That doesn't sound miniscule to me. It sounds like it might have
>drawn off enough manpower and resources to make it easier for the
>Austrians and the Russians to move in.

Naturally, the Habsburg enticed and armed folks were a problem and took up
resources.
But, those were not the major efforts in that war. It was when the Russians
got involved that the Fat Lady was singing the imperial anthem.

Regards,Jeliko.

(Janka:)
--
>
> You may be right, but, if true, doesn't it seem just a teeny-weeny bit
> hypocritical that he waits till he has made his billion out of that bad old
> capitalist system, and then denounce it? I suspect, however, that since
> Soros appears to be an intelligent man, there may be more to his comments
> than we've got. It is safe to assume that these comments are taken out of
> context.
>

He definitely managed to work out the system.
He is one of the few, who has some social conscience and dares
to be critical. Who would listen anyway, if he wasn't megarich.

> What I would criticize in the West is not the capitalist system per se (as
> you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool believer in capitalism - you know, me and
> my good buddies Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater) but the fact that there seems
> to be a failure of leadership in both the West and the East.
>

The problem is that all (known) options for capitalism have been tried.
You can only give leadership, if you
1. Have some ideas
2. Have power to realize your ideas.

1 or 2 or both  are missing in the West and the East.

Jeliko, and taking about last resorts (;)):

>Yes, it was also a "shot heard around the world". At least, to my knowledge,
>nobody claimed yet that the Hungarians were behind the assassination.

        The Monarchy, at least from the turn of the century (the Pig War)
had taken a consistently anti-Serb stand because, I think rightly, they were
certain about Serbia's intentions of creating a Greater Serbia, and that
Greater Serbia most likely, in their minds, also included Croatian
territories. Serb nationalism and its striving toward the establishment of
an enlarged Serbian state, first and foremost, threatened Hungary: the
Serbian-inhabited areas in the Banat-Bacska area (Vojvodina today),
Croatia-Slovenia, the Port of Fiume in addition to the commonly held
territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Dalmatia belonging to the Austrian
half. It is clear that the Hungarians had at least as much to lose by any
Serbian move backed by Russia, as did the Austrians. Most likely more. It is
sophistry and blatant disregard of history to claim that Hungary was not
vitally interested in the Balkans and then, on top of all that, to claim
that the *only* reason for the outbreak of World War I was that a crazed
Serbian nationalist, Gavril Princip, happened to assassinate the
Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne. This assassination was simply the last
straw which broke the camel's back. The Austro-Hungarian government most
likely hoped for a quick and easy victory against Serbia. And, by the way,
public opinion was solidly behind the government. There was a very strong
anti-Serbian feeling in Hungary. Please, read some contemporary writings on
that topic. Most educational. (I wrote a whole article about the enthusiasm
about entering the war and how practically all the Hungarian writers and
poets were supporting it.) Sure, the Hungarians were not crazy about Franz
Ferdinand (there was very little to like about him), but, let's face it,
Austria, if it didn't have Hungary it most likely would have never gotten
involved in the Balkans. And then there would have been no assassination
either. Because if the Hungarian revolution had succeeded in 1848 then it is
most likely that Austria would have joined the other German states to form a
German nation state.

        Eva Balogh

 on Jan 17 11:07:00 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #887:

>Istvan Tisza,
>the prime minister of Hungary, knew what the stakes were if that war was
>lost. The very likely disintegration of the country.

Is there any documentation to support this or is this just your opinion?

Ferenc

At 10:54 AM 1/18/97 -0400, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:

<snip>
>You may be right, but, if true, doesn't it seem just a teeny-weeny bit
>hypocritical that he waits till he has made his billion out of that bad old
>capitalist system, and then denounce it?

Hypocritical, perhaps.  However when was the last time you, or government,
or anyone for that matter, listen to, and believe, someone who's poor?

>I suspect, however, that since
>Soros appears to be an intelligent man, there may be more to his comments
>than we've got. It is safe to assume that these comments are taken out of
>context.

And what if they're not?  How eager are you to change your mind?

<snip>
>What I would criticize in the West is not the capitalist system per se (as
>you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool believer in capitalism - you know, me and
>my good buddies Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater) but the fact that there seems
>to be a failure of leadership in both the West and the East.

Leadership is neither here nor there.  It offers nothing in and of itself,
per se.  Many, all too many, people have been "led" into incredible
disasters by "leaders".  If I had to wager my money, I'd put it into
education and not "leadership".  An educated, smart, intelligent people
don't need leaders.  They don't need to be followers.

You've expressed your love for Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater before.  With
such heros did you manage to get dates when you were younger?

Joe Szalai

At 04:42 PM 1/18/97 UT, Istvan Lippai wrote:

<snip>
>We paid a terrible price for a choice that was forced upon us by the "great
>powers".  Only Hungarian haters would rejoice over the destruction of our
>country by the invading Russian hordes.  No Hungarian would tolerate these
>insults from obscene fools who pretend to have a limited "book" knowledge
>of our history.

Where on earth do you get this "Hungarian haters" nonsense from.  I have
never, ever, met a "Hungarian hater".  Perhaps in your limited circle of
right-wing nuts you meet people who hate others based on their nationality.
Or, perhaps because you hate people because of their nationality, you
project and conclude that there are those who hate Hungarians.

Just for your information, Mr. Lippai, informed criticism is not hatred.

Joe Szalai

At 06:43 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:
 on Jan 17 11:07:00 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #887:
>
>>Istvan Tisza,
>>the prime minister of Hungary, knew what the stakes were if that war was
>>lost. The very likely disintegration of the country.
>
>Is there any documentation to support this or is this just your opinion?

        Yes, there is. Tisza held out for two weeks, but at the end he gave
in under pressure. It is a well known and often repeated fact. And by the
way, you didn't have to be a genius to figure that one out. Hungarians
consisted barely 50 percent of the population. And while we are at Tisza. He
was also the one who in parliament in the last days of the war openly
admitted that "we had lost the war." He was an extremely bright man.

        Eva Balogh