On Fri, 4 Aug 1995, paul wrote:
> >> Rumanians are always looking for reason to spit on the Hungarians as the
>
> >Who spits at who is childish, and history has proven that
> >this sort of childishness has lethal consequences.
>
> If this 'childishness has lethal consequences', it can hardly be called
> childishness.

The spitting is childish, the consequences are not.

> Throughout recent history it always seems to be the ones
> who have the most to lose who try to downplay the justice of  righting
> ancient wrongs.  It is easy for a thief and his supporters to argue that
> it is not worth dragging out an unpleasant situation to determine justice
> in a difficult conflict.  Hll say, "this conflict is silly.  Let's just
> forget the whole thing, and be better neighbors in the future".  Ofcourse,
> however, he gets to keep what he has stolen, so that we can put the
> situation behind us and start over.  Well, the Isrealis didn't feel
> obliged to forget about the Nazis after the war, and as a result they hunted
> them for 50 years, and are still doing it today.  Who gets to decide which
> justice is worth finding and which is better to surrender.  I'll be very happ
y
> to agree that we should not bother finding justice when you have been wronged
,
> if that is what you want, but do not take it upon yourself to decide for
> me whether I should seek justice when I have been wronged.  I am the only one
> who can decide that.  You ofcourse do not have to help me if you chose not to
.

Individually, yes. If you have been wronged by an individual, then seek
out the individual to obtain justice, not the nation, not the peoples.
The Jews, by and large, did no dirt as a people to the Germans as a
people. Justice would seem to be clear cut in this instance.

I do not argue that a significant proportion of Romanians, as a people,
have not done dirt to its Hungarian community. Justice would be clear cut
in this instance. However, the Romanian community, has had dirt done to
it by the Hungarian community when Hungary had administrative control
over Transylvania. Now we come to the case of two thieves who have stolen
from each other. You contend that you have the right to obtain justice
because you are Hungarian and they, the Romanians, did it. Vice versa for
the Romanians. This is Solomon's nightmare.

As far as I am concerned, both the Hungarians and Romanians, are on
parole and should remain so. If you are so concerned with justice in that
neighbourhood, you might want to include the injustices against the
Gypsies that both the Romanians and Hungarians perpetrate.

> I'll be happy to forget that someone has stolen $20 from me, if you give
> me $20 to make up for what I have lost.  Until then, I'll keep demanding
> the return of my $20 from the thief.  If what I have lost is so very minor,
> then you can offer to absorb the loss.  If you do not, then you have no
> business telling me that I should forget about my loss.

And you have no business telling the Romanian people that they should
forget about their loss. The Romanians have a case against the Hungarians
as much as the Hungarians have a case against the Romanains. You have an
ethnic bias and it shows in your arguements because you, the agrieved
Hungarian, refer to the Romanians as thieves, as the criminals, and you,
the Hungarian, are an innocent victim. I am neither, so ethnic bias has
no part in my perceptions of this quarrel.

> Bill Cosby was right when he said about fights among siblings, that "parents
> are not interested in justice.  They are interested in quiet".  The same
> is true about the international community, and we can see it in the treaties
> they backed in Bosnia.  The international community was happy to let the
> Serbs have a full 50% of Bosnia in order to end the war.  Nevermind about
> justice - let's just have some quiet.  Therefore, agreements approved by
> the international community are meaningless, till they try to achieve
> justice.
> Paul Gelencser

This is idiocy. The Serbs claim the 50% as belonging to them -- history
proves it, they claim. They are only trying to achieve justice they
claim. Europe has gifted the world with the bloodiest wars in human
history because one tribe of people was only trying to seek justice from
the wrongs committed by another tribe of people. History has proven how
unsuccessful the Europeans have been in obtaining justice in the manner
that you have delineated.

Wally Keeler                                    Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency                    is
Peoples Republic of Poetry                      Poetency

The following article came to my hand. It was written around half a year ago on
 this mailing list.


Written by Eva Balogh:

I am glad that Jeliko wrote such an extensive piece on Seton-Watson because
some of the members of this list may not be familiar with him. Jeliko, among
other things, wrote:

>Mr R. Seaton-Watson certainly can not be counted as an unprejudiced
>individual in regard to the events he so nicely modified by his prejudicies
>and other motives.

Seton-Watson was a nationalist Scotsman who began his career as an aspiring
historian of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (especially its Hungarian half)
and ended up to be a propagandist for the "New Europe." His Scottish
nationalism, according to his own son, Hugh Seton-Watson (a much better
historian than his father), became entangled with the championship of
"oppressed nations" in the Monarchy. He became especially friendly with
Masaryk and Czech politicians in general, and most of his information came
from these circles. Every graduate student, in the United States and England
at least, read Seton-Watson's books but not as a serious source of historical
information but rather as a part of history itself. In late 1914, when
Masaryk traveled to the neutral Netherlands to begin his wartime propaganda
activities on behalf of Czechoslovakia, he arranged a meeting with
Seton-Watson who became the most important emissary between the Czechs
emigres and the British Foreign Office. During the war years, he edited a
monthly periodical, called *New Europe.* (It folded nicely once the new
Europe was achieved! There was no more need for it.) After the war, he wrote
a series of books on the successor states: Czechoslovakia, Romania and
Yugoslavia. They were anything but objective.

I haven't read Mr. Seton-Watson since I was a graduate student, yet, I
remember vividly one trick he employed. Instead of saying, X, Y, and Z
received A, B, C year/months of jail term for treason, he said something like
that: between years such and such 350 people spent 2,000 months in jail.
(Please, don't calculate, these figures are just examples, not the true
ones.) However, if you took the trouble of recalculating his figures, it came
to, let's say, two months per person, on the average, and very few per each
year.

As for the antisemitism of Street and Wickham Steed at least (I don't know
about Seton-Watson himself) there is no question. Also, Czech politicians of
the era were not exactly free of this particular disease, democrats or no
democrats. If anyone is interested in original sources, he/she should take a
look at the British documents on the peace conference. There are many
examples, cited in diplomatic dispatches from Prague to London. The passages
usually refer to Hungarian Jews, of course. Eva


My notes:
        Eva Balogh is a professional historian, was/is working as a historian i
n
  the
 USA. I find
him in history impartial, and a moderate who is againt nationalism, which she
 deplores.

 This does not mean, that the romanians cannot have grievances, but it means
 that Seton-Watson
is not an unprejudiced source, and could be looked at as propaganda.


Sandor

: Europe has gifted the world with the bloodiest wars in human
: history because one tribe of people was only trying to seek justice from
: the wrongs committed by another tribe of people. History has proven how
: unsuccessful the Europeans have been in obtaining justice in the manner
: that you have delineated.

So speaks he of no ethnic bias.

--Greg Grose

Sandor Lengyel x2495 > quotes Mme Eva Balogh:

>Seton-Watson was a nationalist Scotsman who began his career as an aspiring
>historian of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (especially its Hungarian half)
>and ended up to be a propagandist for the "New Europe."
<irrelevant stuff deleted>

Typical hungarian defensive, that is, would it be more trustworthy would it not
be written by a hungarian. The scientific credentials of Seton-Watson
are strong enough, so Mme Balogh or whoever wrote this could _safely_
assume he was a high rank and well respected historian. The fact that
he indeed took a _strong stand_ against the austro-hungarian propaganda
before the first World War is translated (normally, isn't it :) by the
hungarian intelligentsia by `he was a propagandist' Against the `good'
old unjust status quo?...Against the continuous lies exported to the West?...
_This_ should be added in proof by Mme Balogh, and then I would agree that he
was
indeed a propagandist, and that is OK for me. The hungarian intelligentsia
can find hard to accept that a great historian can take a strong stand against
social and national unjustice. That was the case of Seton-Watson, guys.
I hoped you had some more valid arguments that trying to discreditate him.
The fact that his son was also a great historian is irrelevant. The
fact that he was friend with Masaryk is irrelevant also. Maybe the following
are irrelevant for the author: S-W was Fellow of British Academy
since 1932, President of the Royal Historical Society since 1945,
Founding Editor of the well respected journal `Slavonic Review',
distinguised lecturer at the Universities
of London, Notthingham, Oxford. Doctor Honoris Causa at Prague (1919),
Zagreb (1920), Bratislava (1928), Belgrade (1928), Cluj (1930)
Birmingham (1946). Also, first Professor of Czechoslovak studies at Oxford.
Keep trying again. Sure, I have nothing to argue against your
_feelings_ against Seton-Watson, but that's nothing in fact. When you
try to replace a scientific criticism by such sentimental-nationalist
explosions, all you manage to produce is junk. Maybe it would not be
a bad idea for Madame Eva Balogh to learn a little bit more about the
meaning of scientific professionalism.


Mihai Caragiu


         ==================================
        | Dr. Mihai Caragiu                |
        | Institute of Mathematics         |
        | Romanian Academy of Sciences     |
        | e-mail:  |
         ==================================

This should have been, in fact, contained within the
posting "The former Hungary, in its splendor (VI)".
I missed it so, here it goes, some more _plain facts_

Mihai Caragiu



                       During [and after] the Trial
                     ================================



One Budapest newspaper even went so far in its
comments on the trial, as to regret that the good
old practice of affixing the heads of the
traitors to the city gates had fallen into disguise [...]

With sudden candour the public prosecutor, Jeszenszky, as he left the court,
had greeted one of the accused with the words

"_You_ are the condemned but _we_ are the vanquished"[...]


The intervention of Sturdza and Kalnoky in no way
allayed the Magyarising tendencies, and indeed chauvinism
grew still more extreme under the premiership of Baron Bannfy
(Jan 1895-Feb 1899). His awowed aim was to create
the "Unitary Magyar State", and to create it at top speed:
and the remarkable Millenary Exhibition of 1896 was from
one aspect an attempt to convince Europe that
the experiment was succeeding, and of course relegated all the
non-Magyars entirely to the background. The ardent demonstrations to which
the exhibition gave rise and the crop of the controversial literature on
Magyar claims, not unnaturally provoked counter-demonstrations in neighbouring
countries.

The use of the heraldic symbols of Hungarian medieval suzeranity aroused the
resentment of Balkan chauvinists, and the Hungarian tricolour was burnt first
on
the streets of Belgrade and then, in imitation, by the students of Bucharest
before the statue of Michael the Brave[...]

Bannfy pursued his racial policy quite unabashed.
The campaign for the wholesale
Magyarisation of family-names was conducted
from the ministry of the interior
itself[...]

Mihai Caragiu wrote:

: When you
: try to replace a scientific criticism by such sentimental-nationalist
: explosions, all you manage to produce is junk. Maybe it would not be
: a bad idea for Madame Eva Balogh to learn a little bit more about the
: meaning of scientific professionalism.

In your experience, is history taught in the science department?  (Barring
history of science, that is.)


--Greg

In article >,
Mihai Caragiu > wrote:

> Maybe it would not be
>a bad idea for Madame Eva Balogh to learn a little bit more about the
>meaning of scientific professionalism.

Maybe it would also be a good idea if Bucharest mathematicians practiced
a little bit more restraint and modesty in lecturing Yale historians
about historical subjects.  Especially so soon after the demise of
that great Romanian academician, Elena!

It's almost funny seeing your arrogance about not your own field so soon
after seeing something similar from a Bratislava mathematician.
This is not to say that one has to be a trained historian to be credible
in historical subjects, but let's not confuse amateurs with
professionals, for Pete's sake!

Joe

 () writes

>In article >,
>Mihai Caragiu > wrote:

>> Maybe it would not be
>>a bad idea for Madame Eva Balogh to learn a little bit more about the
>>meaning of scientific professionalism.

>Maybe it would also be a good idea if Bucharest mathematicians [...]
>        <snip>

Other good stuff coming fron () . Jeez, you are playing so bad in defensive.
Is this the help you expected (you seem soo disappointed) ?

Let me kindly ask your permission to add this to my collection
of Joe Pannon's `hot ones'. There is nothing wrong with Seton-Watson, nothing
wrong with Keith Hitchins, nothing wrong with anyone who _describes_ the
reality.
It is pretty clear that these simple descriptions seem to disturb so badly the
minds of real propagandists, that they appeal to either one of the following
two:



1. Trying to discreditate the author

<<<
Mihai Caragiu wrote:

: When you
: try to replace a scientific criticism by such sentimental-nationalist
: explosions, all you manage to produce is junk. Maybe it would not be
: a bad idea for Madame Eva Balogh to learn a little bit more about the
: meaning of scientific professionalism.

In your experience, is history taught in the science department?  (Barring
history of science, that is.)
>>>

It is hard to believe () is doing better
than others, but it seems this is true ;-)
Everything is so predictable, and especially
that buzzing around, within the `circular'
world of a `meta' - `meta' theory... Can't you
allow the `center', guys ? I see it hurts...
Sooner or later you will set up the

       n-th theory about the
         {n-1}-th theory about the
           {n-2}-th theory about the
             {n-3}-th theory about the
               {n-4}-th theory about the
                 {n-5}-th theory about the
                         ........

                      second theory about the
                         meta-theory about the
                           0-th theory which you _never_ discussed


HAVE FUN!!!! BIG!









Mihai Caragiu