||Re: Liberalism &c (long) (mind)
|| 11 sor
||Horn and Balogh, Greg, Jeliko, Gy. Fekete^n, Matyas, Be (mind)
|| 75 sor
||Re: The German question $64K (mind)
|| 46 sor
|+ - ||Re: Liberalism &c (long) (mind)
Eva Durant writes:
> Vague relevance, to do with workers/wages, Miklos Haraszti's book
> Workers in a Workers's State (70s, underground, published in England
> sorry, no idea by whom) - the fascinating aspect was the overbearing
> similarities of the piece-work system in England then and in Hungary.
> Eva Durant
With one big exception. At least in the UK it generated a profit.
|+ - ||Horn and Balogh, Greg, Jeliko, Gy. Fekete^n, Matyas, Be (mind)
For Marc, thanks for reminding of the '56 roots of the SZDSZ - it is
so well known back home, but worth repeating here. They have (at least)
two persons who were sentenced to death, several got long jail terms, and
Goncz, I think, got life imprisonment of which spent some 6 years before
amnesty. Their cabinet members are younger though, than to be of age
back then - Gabor Fodor is probably the youngest minister of all times.
For Eva, who "still agree[s] with Jeliko who didn't approve the
ridicule piled upon those people who are not happy ~with an ex-pufajkas
as a PM in Hungary.~" - I guess we better cool this thread, at least
till we're let know just exactly who and what is piling. In case you
were referring to things like the Magyas article, then you still don't
know what it is all about. The issue is not the raising of the
"pufajkas" question with respect to Horn, but the MUK-press' onslaught
on the electorate who brought on (or assisted in the very least)
tragedy worse than the Tatars, Turks, Austrians and Russians combined,
according to them.
>I don't like people putting words into my mouth and Zoli's latest on
>the Horn case is a perfect example of such practice. I searched
>through the files to see whether there was anything in my postings
>which would indicate that I
>>scorned the electorate and the media [...]
>I scorned nobody and wrote nothing which would lead you or anyone
>else to believe that I want the electorate to dwell more on that
>than they have. Nothing!
Scornfulness is in the eye of the beholder - when you wrote "Some
people have blinkers on" <Item number 4789, dated 94/07/02>, or "find
[the HU press] most irritating. A lot of bluster, long, unreadable
sentences, phoney intellectualism, melodrama, self-pity, leading
questions, four-letter words, and so on and so forth." <Item number
4866, dated 94/07/07> it definitely sounded like that to me. However I
consider "scorn" a judgemental rather than descriptive term, giving
my impression not putting words in your mouth. I answered because you
started this thread:
>I am unhappy because after four years the Hungarian population is
>returning to the successors of the MSZMP. Gyula Horn who according
>to one of the news item (it may have been the New York Times)
>served in the auxiliary police force in 1956
which I felt implied that you assumed the population either unaware of
his distant past or unenlightened to be so concerned about what you had
just learned as you are. But maybe mentioning your unhappiness, the
population's choice, and the "pufajkas" past together was a mere
coincidence without the meaning I thought conveyed... Then you continued
dwelling on Horn simultaneously with the press-bashing:
>I specifically asked that people who seem to be so touchy about the
>state of Hungarian media express one way or the way their opinion on
>some journalists cheering at the MSZP election victory. Needless to
>say that I didn't not get any answers from those who think that the
>media cannot do wrong. The few answers received didn't come from
>the people I hoped to hear from. The same is true about Horn's
and so on and so forth. If I misinterpreted this, and you did not
mean (as you are saying now you aren't) that the press and the people
ought to judge him from the same emotional standpoint you do, then the
discussion is over as far as I am concerned - with my apologies for
such long drawing out. Like I said the point was not excusing how he
had felt a long time ago, but to appreciate the contemporary
perspective of things.
And for Greg's private-turned-public request a closure:
>This doesn't mean the list won't get your opinion on the
>apology/expression-of-regret/is-it-an-issue question, does it?
I've elaborated on to what degree I think it is an issue. I think his
acts among those who pushed for turning the official evaluation of '56
around, and who told the Russians that it was time for them to pack up
and leave (back when the other bastions of the soon-to-be-late camp
still stood firm), must have involved more regret over the past doing
than what could be given in a Checkers-speech. I do not know what he
did, or ought to, say in terms of apology - but I do know that a major
tenet of the reform-communist/pre-socialist wing was expressing
|+ - ||Re: The German question $64K (mind)
>the older I get the more I have trouble even with hindsight.
>Particularly with others'.
Let's have a little foresight then, from April 14, 1941 - the spring
before the attack on Russia, in a TIME Magazine article titled "A
Dictator's Hour". Not that I believe in their prophetic (or even
hindsighting ;-() powers, but I think this shows pretty clearly that it
was not unthinkable to question the invincibility of the Germans.
If the campaigns Hitler launches this spring are as
successful as those he launched a year ago, he will almost
indisputably soon be master of at least half the world. If they
fail, the least that can be expected is that the tide of world
power will begin to run against him as the weight of U.S.
economic power begins to pour to the aid of Britain. For Hitler
this spring is destiny.
Losses Not Taken. But if his assets are up, Hitler has now
acquired a great many contingent liabilities that he did not
have when war began. His ally, Italy, is now a hollow shell. And
while he has grown in physical strength, his moral strength has
waned. This can cause him severe setbacks, and has already cost
him one. A tiny nation, Yugoslavia, had dared to defy him, with
the result that the plans for his spring campaign in the Balkans
had to be completely revised. Now his armies are committed to
crush Yugoslavia, from Hitler's standpoint a useless and costly
campaign -- costly at any rate in time.
Not only are his persecutions of minorities abhorred, but
all his overtures are distrusted. No longer has he the
advantage of being able to distract, divide and suborn his
opponents. All the world as yet unconquered is united in
distrust of him.
Victory depends among other things upon relative strength.
Although Hitler's legions are greater than ever before, the
strength of his enemies is now mounting rapidly. When the U.S.
-- perhaps the whole of the Western hemisphere to follow --
gave its aid to Britain, Hitler lost far more in relative
strength than all his victories since war began had gained him.