Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 818
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-10-16
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Genealogy (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
2 Language and Backwardness (mind)  44 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: the Right & abortion (mind)  68 sor     (cikkei)
4 The 1700s (mind)  75 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Church, moral, etc. (mind)  43 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Amazing America (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: The 1700s (mind)  167 sor     (cikkei)
8 The 1700s (mind)  55 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Suicide (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Amazing America (mind)  138 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Suicide in Hungary (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: The 1700s (mind)  144 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Language and Backwardness (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
14 40 years ago today: 15 October (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: The 1700s (mind)  77 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: The 1700s (mind)  44 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Amazing America (mind)  171 sor     (cikkei)
18 Tanacsi Lakas (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Genealogy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi all IM new to the list but if anyone can help me it would be great.
IM working on a line Jozef Hagymasi from Eger,
Jozef married Maria Toth she is from Tiszafured born 25 may 1912,=20
Maria Toth Father is Imre Toth born 26 mar 1886 Sirok, Married Maria =
Fust on 9 Jan 1909 Maria Fust born 29 Oct 1886 Eger She died on 27 Sep =
1958.

Can anyone help with these lines.
+ - Language and Backwardness (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh holds that backwardness in the 19th century led to gaps in
Hungarian vocabulary, which in turn were remedied by the language renewal
movement ("nyelvujitas"):

> On the language front, it wasn't the question of "expressiveness," but
> lack of certain vocabulary: technical, philosophical, economic, and so
> on. That's why the Hungarian intelligentsia in the first decades of the
> nineteenth century felt that it was necessary to get Hungarian equivalents
> of modern terms, missing from the language for the very reasons I outlined
> in my earlier postings.

The gaps in Hungarian vocabulary were largely imaginary.  Importing words
for imported concepts is perfectly normal, and has precious little to do
with "backwardness".  There is no rule that says linguistic borrowings must
flow from "advanced" societies toward "backward" ones.  The reverse also
happens quite often.  American English, for example, has borrowed many words
from many languages in "backward" areas ("shampoo" and "pundit" from Hindi,
"ketchup" from the Chinese, "stevedore" and "marijuana" from Spanish,
"potato" from Haitian Creole, "boondocks" from Tagalog, etc.).

There existed perfectly good (imported) Hungarian words for most of the
concepts that the linguistic inventors of the 19th century labored to find
"Hungarian equivalents" for.  As soon as there were locomotives in Hungary,
people had a word for them.  Inventing words like "mozdony", "higany", or
"melleny" really did not add much to the language that was not there already.
"Zongora" is not an improvement over "fortepiano" by any stretch of the
imagination.  These words were not "needed" in any objective sense.  The
"foreign" words to be replaced by the campaigners for linguistic purity
would have blended into the language over time, so after a few generations
they would no longer sound "foreign".  There are only a few hundred Finno-
Ugric words in the Hungarian vocabulary -- the rest is borrowed.  Borrowing
foreign words is the natural state of affairs.  The question is why those
19th century Hungarian intellectuals were so exercised over this, and why
did they go to such lengths to remedy the "problem".

Eva seems to say that backwardness was the disease, poverty of language was
the symptom, and the "nyelvujitas" was the cure.  I beg to differ.  The
vocabulary problem was largely imaginary.  The disease was not backwardness,
but nationalism.  And the symptom of the disease was the "nyelvujitas"
itself, which offered a solution to a non-existent problem.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

+ - Re: the Right & abortion (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 17:33 14/10/96 -0700, Gabor wrote:
>At 02:53 PM 10/14/96 -0300, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
>
>>BTW, if by definition, only men can leave their wives, it appears to me to
>>be an unrealistic proposition to state that "only men can leave their
>>wives."

I didn't phrase that part very well. What I meant was that by phrasing it
that way, one of course eliminates consideration of the possibility that
women might also leave their husbands.

<vag>
 but in my 11
>>years of practising law, I have seen many cases where the wives left the
>>husbands - and even left the kids with the husbands. And in *very* few of
>>those cases did I ever see the wives paying child support for the children.
<vag>
>
>I stand corrected. Although I know of a few cases when mothers abandoned
>their children (and husband), it was my impression that the motherly
>instinct is much stronger than that of a father and that most wives who
>leave their husbands do it to escape abuse.

There is a certain amount of truth in your statement. I would say that there
are relatively few cases where wives leave very young children with their
husbands. In most cases when they leave, they take the kids with them. The
causes for most of the break-ups that I see seem to be simply a matter of
growing apart or financial problems, or both, and when there is abuse, it
seems that there is usually alcohol abuse also. But, it should be noted that
in very few cases have I seen instances of abuse - but then that might
relate to the fact that I am in private practice, and the people who hire me
in most cases are fairly well off financially. It happens in my practice,
but I would say it is very unusual. BTW, I have seen a number of instances
of women who have left home once the kids are older, basically because they
got fed up with their lives and wanted a change. This appears to have
happened quite often with women who married very young. Also, I see more men
wanting and getting a say in how the children are raised by obtaining joint
custody, which I see as a positive development.

>I (and I think most people) agree with what you wrote about abortion. The
>problem is that most young people are either too inexperienced or too
>passionate to use birth control and the pregnancy happens. And I caution you
>to look at what happened in Romania, where Ceausescu prohibited all abortion
>by a decree in 1966. The horrible scenes you saw about orphanages full of
>AIDS-children were a result of that decree.

I agree that that is an unspeakable horror. But, in that case, part of the
problem appears to have been coercion by the State without the provision of
an adequate mechanism to deal with the resulting number of abandoned infants.
>
>As far as I know the rate of abortion in Hungary was very high in the past
>decades. My bet is that with the revival of the churches and with the
>decline of free medical care this rate is decreasing.

It would be interesting to hear more on this. I know that for years the
abortion rate in Russia has been very high. And I suspect that Hungary
followed suit. I would like to know if the rate of abortions in Hungary is
in fact decreasing.

Respectfully,

Johannne/Janka
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Until now I didn't consult any books during my discussion with
Jeliko on the question of the 1700s. I simply relied on my own general
understanding of the flow of Hungarian history and my memories of readings
of some time ago. However, I consider the topic too important to leave it
without trying to convince Jeliko--and I hope all those who share his
views--that this view of Hungarian history is just plain wrong. And as long
as we have illusions about our past we will have illusions concerning our
future. We will simply not understand ourselves and our actions especially
when it comes to viewing ourselves and the place of Hungary in the context
of Europe. It seems that a fair number of Hungarians simply refuse to
reconsider their nationalist view of the country's history. Jeliko, for one,
is sure that if the Rakoczi Rebellion succeeded Hungary's fortunes would
have risen way beyond to its fate within the Habsburg Empire. Time and again
he repeated that Hungary's problems were simply the result of the "Habsburg
domination." Without it, it would have been a paragon of economic, cultural,
social, and every other kinds of success. This is wrong: we don't know
exactly why, perhaps because of the discovery of America and the shifting of
trade routes, but Eastern Europe, already behind the west earlier, fell
further and further behind. Habsburgs or no Habsburgs.

        And here are a few details. Starting with Christianity, Northern and
Eastern Europe were late in adopting Christianity and abandoning their pagan
ways: Denmark, between 950-970, Sweden, 1015-30, Bohemia-Moravia, early 10th
century, Poland, late 10th century, Russia late 10th century, and, of
course, Hungary also the late 10th-early 11th centuries. In the West, all
this had happened at least two centuries earlier. By the eleventh century in
Western Europe textiles as export appeared; there was such thing as
international trade and the main trading routes went through Italy from
Alexandria and Constantinople. Large cities emerged, especially ports became
important. By the mid-eleventh century there was accelerated urbanization:
along the Rhein and also in France and Flanders.

        Twelfth-century western "tourists" mention the plenty Hungarian
lands produced and the beauty of the countryside, but at the same time
notice that there are hardly any buildings built of stone. Again, such
situation existed in Western Europe two hundred years before. They noticed
that the so-called cities were more like large villages. There were no forts
and no self-government, which by then was commonplace in Western Europe.
But, of course, there were the "hospeses," the invited western tradesmen who
settled in Hungary. Their towns looked more like cities of the West and
during the 12th-century many came and especially settled in Upper Hungary
and in Transylvania. First the French and Valoons came. Later the Germans.
As a result Esztergom and Szekesfehervar, settled by the hospeses, already
looked something like western towns in the second half of the twelfth century.

        As for literacy, it is only around 1200 that written documents
appear in greater numbers. As Pal Engel says in his *Beilleszkedes Europaba
a kezdetektol 1440-ig* (p. 180) about the establishment of the chancellery
under King Bela, "a reform eredmenyekent 1200 korul a szobeliseget felvaltja
az irasbeliseg idoszaka.... A magyar kiralysag ekkor kezd igazabol
betagolodni a kereszteny Europaba." [around 1200 there is a change from
orality to written documentation. This is time when Hungary really joins
Christian Europe.]

        Surely, this is enough to show that Hungary was approximately
100-200 years behind western Europe in the middle of the twelfth-beginning
of the thirteenth centuries.

        When it comes to the 11-13th centuries, the situation looks similar.
This is an age of the rise of the cities in western Europe, by the end of
the era there were "metropolises," for example, in Italy. Milan has 200
thousand inhabitants, more than 1,000 businesses, and twenty-five hospitals.
Most likely Venice, Genoa, Florence had more than 100,000 inhabitants. Paris
had about 100,000 people. London and Cologne, about 20,000. And this is the
time when universities are established in Padua, Paris, Oxford, Cambridge,
Naples, Toulouse, etc. In Hungary, no large cities, no universities.
Moreover, there is a further setback: the Mongol invasion of 1242.

        I don't want to write too long an answer and for the time being
let's leave things at the middle of the thirteenth century. More to come,
I'm afraid. However, I think it is quite clear from this comparison that as
early as the 13th century, Hungary cannot be compared to southern and
western Europe as far as economic development is concerned.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Church, moral, etc. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

See below for response:

>> Aniko Bunford:
>
> > Enjoy - feel the words - relate!
> >
> > Edgar A Quest - Sermons we See:
> >
> > "I'd rather see a sermon, than hear one any day
> > I'd rather one would walk with me, then merely show the way
> > The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear
> > Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear
> > And the best of all the preachers, are the men who live their creeds
> > For to see the good in action is what everybody needs
> > I can soon learn how to do it, if you'll let me see it done
> > I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run
> > And the lectures you deliver, may be very wise and true
> > But I'd rather get my lesson, by observing what you do
> > For I may misunderstand you and the high advice you give, but there's no
> > misunderstanding in how you act and how you live".
> >
> > Aniko
>
> I like the sermon, you quoted, Aniko. Thank you very much!
> I also like the idea of quoting sermons in this list.
> I promise, I try to keep up. Be patient, please, it's all
> I ask you for.
>                                                   Sz. Zoli
>
Yes, Zoli:

I enjoyed the quote above also. It is concise, is not offensive to anyone and
does not spew forth exaggerated facts and/or fears. It simply is asking people
to do more with their lives and less with their mouths.

It's good you also would like to quote such sermons. Your previous quotes of
others were so tiresome that I will have patience for you and hope that some
day you could find such a constructive quote as the one above... without your
even trying to be snide, rude or vindictive.

Yes, Aniko, I'd also like to thank you for the above message.

- Mark H
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>Many times the minds of the American people in a couple of
>questions look like a simple matter of social engeneering.
>
>                                                Sz. Zoli

How would you know? You're entirely ignorant on the subject of American
society, culture and history and bereft of the excuse that 4,000 miles of
distance would provide you.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Where do they hide you when the Math Dept. holds open houses for
prospective students?

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
+ - Re: The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh wrrites:

>        Until now I didn't consult any books during my discussion with
>Jeliko on the question of the 1700s. I simply relied on my own general
>understanding of the flow of Hungarian history and my memories of readings
>of some time ago. However, I consider the topic too important to leave it
>without trying to convince Jeliko--and I hope all those who share his
>views--that this view of Hungarian history is just plain wrong. And as long
>as we have illusions about our past we will have illusions concerning our
>future. We will simply not understand ourselves and our actions especially
>when it comes to viewing ourselves and the place of Hungary in the context
>of Europe. It seems that a fair number of Hungarians simply refuse to
>reconsider their nationalist view of the country's history. Jeliko, for one,
>is sure that if the Rakoczi Rebellion succeeded Hungary's fortunes would
>have risen way beyond to its fate within the Habsburg Empire.

No place I used the adjective of way beyond, I stated that Hungary would
have developed faster if Rakoczi won.

>Time and again
>he repeated that Hungary's problems were simply the result of the "Habsburg
>domination."

I have specifically stated that the Habsburgs were not the sole cause of the
slow development. Please be careful in rephrasing my postings, most of the
good readers have the capability to read what I write.

>Without it, it would have been a paragon of economic, cultural,
>social, and every other kinds of success.

After a while I get suspicious of anyone's impartiality who sees everything
solely as black and white. Again when did I use wording as you imply above?

>This is wrong: we don't know
>exactly why, perhaps because of the discovery of America and the shifting of
>trade routes, but Eastern Europe, already behind the west earlier, fell
>further and further behind. Habsburgs or no Habsburgs.
>
>        And here are a few details. Starting with Christianity, Northern and
>Eastern Europe were late in adopting Christianity and abandoning their pagan
>ways: Denmark, between 950-970, Sweden, 1015-30, Bohemia-Moravia, early 10th
>century, Poland, late 10th century, Russia late 10th century, and, of
>course, Hungary also the late 10th-early 11th centuries. In the West, all
>this had happened at least two centuries earlier. By the eleventh century in
>Western Europe textiles as export appeared; there was such thing as
>international trade and the main trading routes went through Italy from
>Alexandria and Constantinople. Large cities emerged, especially ports became
>important. By the mid-eleventh century there was accelerated urbanization:
>along the Rhein and also in France and Flanders.
>
The above is an example of the partiality of many western trained
historians, which if anything are western and christianity pivoted (except
for some newfangled revisionists who fall on the other side of the horse).
As far as trading is concerned it existed very much in the other side also.
Just look at the description of the Hungarian affairs by Arabic and Muslim
travelers and traders, I am not aware of a single western description of
Hungarians, in those days, from any western traders. Culturally speaking the
the Moors in Spain were not inferior to any western christian society. (If I
had a choice and lived at that time with what I know today, I would have
migrated to southern Spain.)
And some vagabond king actually understood the importance of seafaring
access also, are you not aware, as an example of Zara, and the manner that
it became "westernized". Do you believe that every material wealth that
existed in Hungary came in the form of loot and there was no trading?

>        Twelfth-century western "tourists" mention the plenty Hungarian
>lands produced and the beauty of the countryside, but at the same time
>notice that there are hardly any buildings built of stone.

This is interesting, would you please cite some specific source from the XII
century.

>Again, such
>situation existed in Western Europe two hundred years before. They noticed
>that the so-called cities were more like large villages. There were no forts
>and no self-government, which by then was commonplace in Western Europe.
>But, of course, there were the "hospeses," the invited western tradesmen who
>settled in Hungary. Their towns looked more like cities of the West and
>during the 12th-century many came and especially settled in Upper Hungary
>and in Transylvania. First the French and Valoons came. Later the Germans.
>As a result Esztergom and Szekesfehervar, settled by the hospeses, already
>looked something like western towns in the second half of the twelfth century.

I am sorry but the settlement of the hospeses was mostly in other areas than
Esztregom and Szekesfehervar, neither of which are in Upper Hungary or
Transylvania. As a matter of fact it appears from the extant records, that
most of the trading in Hungary in the early days was in the hands of
"Ismaelites" and "Israelites" who most likely came with the Hungarians from
the Khazar areas. There was a strong effort to oppress these trader folks by
the newfangled Christians. But even in the XI century, there are records
indicating the presence of "Hungarian" traders at the market in Prague.
Please also check the date for the establishment of the free royal cities,
versus many of those in the west which were fiefs of individual landlords.
That feudalism started in the west earlier than in Hungary is undoubtable.
But it has still little to do with the basic argument that started it. Forts
were generally built for protection. See the royal requirements to build
forts in Hungary after the Mongol invasion. Prior to that date, there was no
reason to have that type protection in Hungary while apparently in the west
it was a question of survival.


>        As for literacy, it is only around 1200 that written documents
>appear in greater numbers. As Pal Engel says in his *Beilleszkedes Europaba
>a kezdetektol 1440-ig* (p. 180) about the establishment of the chancellery
>under King Bela, "a reform eredmenyekent 1200 korul a szobeliseget felvaltja
>az irasbeliseg idoszaka.... A magyar kiralysag ekkor kezd igazabol
>betagolodni a kereszteny Europaba." [around 1200 there is a change from
>orality to written documentation. This is time when Hungary really joins
>Christian Europe.]

Well, I have copies of many written records of royal decrees, etc.,
preceeding whichever king Bela you are talking about.If anyone is
interested, I can list them or give references.

>        Surely, this is enough to show that Hungary was approximately
>100-200 years behind western Europe in the middle of the twelfth-beginning
>of the thirteenth centuries.

If one considers the western centric orientation as a basis, even then it is
not correct in its assumptions. This illustrates the problem of not working
with extant records but taking another person's opinion and developing on
that percieved theme.
Nowdays we have better access to the original data and it is not necessary
to expound solely someone elses interpretation of that from recent times. If
I was aware only as an example of the Homan-Szekfu interpretation
(everything good came from catholicism, the west and the Habsburghs) of
Hungarian history, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But if one looks
at the available documents, that interpretation becomes lame.


>        When it comes to the 11-13th centuries, the situation looks similar.
>This is an age of the rise of the cities in western Europe, by the end of
>the era there were "metropolises," for example, in Italy. Milan has 200
>thousand inhabitants, more than 1,000 businesses, and twenty-five hospitals.
>Most likely Venice, Genoa, Florence had more than 100,000 inhabitants. Paris
>had about 100,000 people. London and Cologne, about 20,000. And this is the
>time when universities are established in Padua, Paris, Oxford, Cambridge,
>Naples, Toulouse, etc. In Hungary, no large cities, no universities.
>Moreover, there is a further setback: the Mongol invasion of 1242.
>
Have you walked around in those cities, particularly those where the limits
of the city from those days is fairly well known and backcalculated to the
populations you have cited? Some of these numbers are somewhat inflated.
Which particular time are you claiming for these poulations, in the three
centuries you indicate. (Just on an aside, on the above basis London would
be today five times less developed than Venice, Genoa or Florence)


>        I don't want to write too long an answer and for the time being
>let's leave things at the middle of the thirteenth century. More to come,
>I'm afraid. However, I think it is quite clear from this comparison that as
>early as the 13th century, Hungary cannot be compared to southern and
>western Europe as far as economic development is concerned.

If I take the time after the Mongol invasion, it is a miracle that the
country still existed not that it was not a comparable level with anyone. Of
course, the developed west was very active in giving protection or
rebuilding assitance to the now prositelized fellow Christians.

There is a general problem with timespan based comparative development
extrapolations.
It all depends where one starts. If I compared the Etruscans, the
Carthagenians or Greeks and Romans, I certainly would not have got very far
by the extrapolation. Similarly the development and the rate of development
is greatly different in various countries or regions even in our lives.

Regards,Jeliko.
+ - The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I don't have all the relevant material on disc concerning Jeliko's
utterances on the Habsburgs, but here is just one:

>The rebuilding of Hungary
>>after the Turkish occupation and the more than a century of warfare was an
>>enermous task, which was not helped by the Habsburgh exploitation. In spite
>>of thatand almost surprisingly there was also cultural development.

        But to the best of my recollection there were several references in
which a connection was made between Hungary's relative backwardness and the
Austrian connection. And, conversely, if Hungary could have remained
entirely independent Hungary's economic future would have been better. I
think this was the argument.

        I am coming to the conclusion that it is not worth discussing this
topic much further. Any argument I put forth is ignored: for example,
nationality problems, general lack of capital, general lack of urbanization,
and general lack of a growing middle class. If I bring up examples of
foreign travelers, the answer is that Western travelers were biased. I
myself is biased because I studied abroad. If I bring up a quotation from a
Hungarian-educated scholar the meaning of his quotation is twisted around as
if Pal Engel said that before 1200 there was no "irasbeliseg/literacy" in
Hungary. This is not what he says. He says that it was only after 1200 that
literacy due to the establishment of the royal chancellery became
widespread. Prior to that date the number of documents are relatively few.
Sizes of towns during the period I was talking about are doubted: they are
overestimated, says Jeliko.

        In brief, he is convinced that I am wrong and I am convinced that he
is wrong. I am not impressed with his arguments, and he is not impressed
with mine. So, why continue?

        However, here are some answers. Otto, bishop of Freising, visited
Hungary in 1147. Between 1150 and 1153 Abu Hamid stayed in Hungary for a
while. The Arabic Idrisi, royal geographer of Roger II of Sicily, also has
quite a few things to say about Hungary from about the same period. So, we
are talking about the mid-12th century.

        Jeliko complains that I keep comparing Hungary to Western and
Southern Europe (including Spain, by the way). But why shouldn't I.
Hungarians themselves compared then and today their own country to Western
Europe. Hungary has always considered itself to be part of the European
community.

        As for Esztergom and Szekesfehervar, perhaps I abbreviated too much
from Engel's book on this subject. Although the hospeses settled mostly in
Upper Hungary and in Transylvania, Esztergom and Szekesfehervar were also
settled by hospeses, specifically Frenchmen and Wallons. These two cities,
by the way, were under the direct protection of the Hungarian king. Also
these two towns, sometime before 1200, received extensive privileges from
the king. "Ezek voltak Magyarorszagon a nyugati tipusu varosfejlodes elso
csirai," says Pal Engel. This is at the time when we have large towns in
Italy, France, Spain, England, and the Germanies.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Suicide (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Norma
Rudinsky > writes:

>Some of the fault lies in Herder's organic view of a nation as evolving
>toward some perfect expression of a people's soul, etc, which suggested
>that a nation had to be perfect, and which was the heart of much 19th
>century nationalism (and radical nationalism today too).  Therefore,
>"Magyarism (or Slovakhood) can't include any faults or
>mistakes."  More helpful, humane, and realistic is the view of the state
>as a contract to avoid problems and reduce the need to be perfect by
>checks and balances, etc.
>
>
>Norma Rudinsky
>
>

Interesting analysis as was Jeliko's reply. Norma, do you see this strain
of perfectionism in the public statements of Hungarian nationalist
politicians today?
Sam Stowe

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article
>, "Peter
A. Soltesz" > writes:

> I object! There was no babbling there and for you to
>characterize it at such shows your liberal perpectives. He has only
>stated what he has heard on national TV. If that is babbling for you then
>you cannot possibly be someone who can address issues with a clear mind!

It is, indeed, babbling. He couldn't provide any names, dates or details
about where this supposed indoctrination of children in suicide techniques
was occurring. He couldn't even tell us what television program he saw it
on. Your objection simply displays your own far-right fanaticism. Like it
was some kind of secret already.

>
>>
>>  My
>examples: > > > >1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and
Iraq
>> >   just before the Gulf War
>> >   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
>> >   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
>> >   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated...
>>
>> Invading a peaceful neighbor and threatening to use chemical and
>> biological agents on other neighbors is what's known as a sufficient
>> provocation for war, not hysteria. The only hysteria involved was the
>> hysteria to end the ground phase of the war in 100 hours. This
>> indefensible marketing gimmick left your role model still in charge in
>> Baghdad.
>>
><<<<<< While there is NO attempt on my part to defend nor suppor anything
>that Saddam has done to date, you are apparently overlooking the causes
>of why he actually invaded Kuwait. Namely, the disagreements over who
>owns certain key oil ricj island in ghte gulf.  I do agree however, that
>the issue of not kicking his butt out while one had the chance was dumb.

You attempt to put a respectable geopolitical veneer on Saddam's
aggression, ignoring the fact that his regime for years had claimed that
Kuwait was Iraq's "nineteenth" province.
>
> >
>> > >2. the public acceptance of the Waco flames by the
>American > >   people (in which flames many children were burnt to death)
>> >   as an appropriate solution "to save children from the
>> >   abuses of David Koresh"
>> >   (just for the record: I consider David Koresh a stupid
>> >   sectarian who distorted the teachings of the Christianity,
>> >   and represented the spiritual darkness of the Middle Ages
>> >   in the 20th century; but "saving" children from alleged
>> >   abuses by actually BURNING THEM is completely unacceptable
>> >   for me).
>>
>>
>> You'll need to take that up with Koresh and his adult minions, if you
can
>> reach them through a trance medium or a Ouija board. They set the fires
>> that killed those children.
>>
><<<<<<<< Here is another example Stonewrite: All he was trying to explain
>that the USA response was way too overbearing to a problem that should
>have been difused much earlier and better. Why did hte govt fail to
>arrest Koresh when he was freely walking about days before the tragedy?

Koresh was known to be heavily armed at all times. He had already been
implicated in at least one shooting of a dissident member of his sect.
While I expect my federal law enforcement agents to do their duty, I do
not expect them to do so in a suicidal manner. Once again, Waco is a
favorite topic for you far-right militia types, although you'd be
horrified if some thirtysomething Howard Stern lookalike was poking your
12 year-old daughter in the name of God. Then again, Peter, maybe you
wouldn't.


>
>> >> Religion may well be about God and Love, but churches appear to be
more
>> >> about power and control.
>> >Not in the United States!! No church is in monopolistic
>> >position here so that they could grab political power and
>> >control. It is a very healthy situation and prevents any
>> >church from being involved in high level political decisions.
>>
>> Yes, it is a very healthy situation. That may explain why Ralph Reed,
Pat
>> Robertson and the Christian Coalition are trying to reverse it. Once
Bob
>> Dole's political career has been interred with the corpse of moderate
>> Republicanism here in a few weeks, they'll control the Republican
Party.
>> We shall see then how likely it is that they'll refrain from "being
>> involved in high level political decisions." And, Zoltan? Any group of
>> people who advocate impeaching the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who
>> struck down Colorado's anti-homosexual law won't ever qualify as
moderate
>> in the United States.
><<<<<<<<< I am not sure about this one, but I am certain that it is NOT
>only for htose reasons that one may want to impeach them for. They seem
>to have mis-interpreted the basic tennts of the constitution that is why!

The Constitution says nothing about treating any group of people in this
country as second-class citizens. We've already fought one horrible,
bloody war on this issue. If you don't like this group of Supreme Court
justices, work at the ballot box to elect people who will put radical
right-wing judges on the court. This impeachment frenzy shows how
undemocratic the Christian Coalition and the rest of the radical right
actually are. They know full well that they'll never get what they want
through lawful democratic techniques. Question for you, Peter -- when was
the last time anyone tried to impeach a U.S. Supreme Court justice?

>>
>> Wow, what a complete citation! You would make a great homicide
detective
>> with your keen eye for detail.
><<<<<<<<Did you see the video Zoli is referring to??? If not that do not
>be so mean and sarcastic. If it is something that you oppose than at
>least have the courtesy to do some of your own research instead of just
>babbling -- where have I heard that one before???
>
>Peter

If Zoltan is going to make wild-eyed claims, he'd better be willing to
back them up with details so the rest of us can assess for ourselves the
validity of those claims. His refusal to do so shows that he knows full
well those claims won't withstand scrutiny. You're so bound up in your
radical right ideology that you don't want to scrutinize his claims in
order to assess their veracity. Please note that I am paying you a
compliment here -- I am assuming that you're smart enough to undertake
such an assessment, but so pathologically paranoid that you won't for fear
it might undermine your current world view.
Sam Stowe



"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
+ - Re: Suicide in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>At 02:46 PM 10/14/96 -0400, Andy Kozma wrote:
>
>>>        And what about the men who behave simply like "a bunch of noise
>>>men." And stupid men at that.
>>>
>>>        Eva Balogh
>>>
>>>Eva (I don't dare to call you "Dear".What is happening here all of a sudden?
>>The religious right brought up this abortion issue,and all of a sudden you
>>turn on men?Stupid too.
>
>        No, not because he brought up the abortion issue, but because anyone
>who talks about women as Zoli Szekely does must be stupid. I don't want to
>hear him talk about "noisy women," especially since these noisy women seem
>to have more brains in their little fingers than Zoli Szekely in his big
>head. This is outrageous attitude toward women and I have no intention of
>tolerating it without telling him exactly what I think.
>
>        As far as abortion is concerned, I agree with Johanne that it is a
>very poor way of birth control but unfortunately--whether it is in this
>country or in Hungary--it is being used as means of birth control. But
>abolishing it is not going to stop the practice. It will make it much more
>dangerous.
>
>        Eva Balogh
>
>Eva:you and msot of us realise what Zoli and Peter is all about.It is only
to have some discussions,since neither side will teach anytrhing new.
It is a discussion,but what I am wondering about why do any one have to
claim ssuperior intellect?OK.So I don't like what Peter or Zoli writes,I
won't educate them and they won't do it to me.In my quiet corner I have my
opinion,
and they have theres.Who cares?Stupid maybe,definitly not for the 21st century.
Maybe I msiunderstood you,but to put evry man under one hat?Well not me.And
I bet there are plenty more like me.
I agree that abortion isd not a birth control.But then why do so many
teenage girls have babys.Probably they don't even know who the father
is.Here,now you can pick on me,but that's how it is.Even the welfare payment
encouraged more babys morepay.Is that right?
Regards:Andy.
+ - Re: The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh writes:

>I don't have all the relevant material on disc concerning Jeliko's
>utterances on the Habsburgs, but here is just one:
>
>>The rebuilding of Hungary
>>>after the Turkish occupation and the more than a century of warfare was an
>>>enermous task, which was not helped by the Habsburgh exploitation. In spite
>>>of thatand almost surprisingly there was also cultural development.

I stand by what I have written. It states that the Habsurgh exploitation did
not help. If you construe that as the sole cause, you have difficulty with
word meanings.

>        But to the best of my recollection there were several references in
>which a connection was made between Hungary's relative backwardness and the
>Austrian connection. And, conversely, if Hungary could have remained
>entirely independent Hungary's economic future would have been better. I
>think this was the argument.

Yes, that is a reasonable restatemnet of the opinion I have expressed.

>        I am coming to the conclusion that it is not worth discussing this
>topic much further. Any argument I put forth is ignored: for example,
>nationality problems, general lack of capital, general lack of urbanization,
>and general lack of a growing middle class.

Until your use of the recent Pal Engel book, you have not given any
reference to any of your opinions. As far as I am concerned in discussing
history, there are only limited references which are relevant. I have seen
so many of them interpreted by later historians to fit their program, that I
much prefer to go back to original data and not what somebody else's opinion
is of the original source. It is like presidential speeches in the US, the
president speaks and then good folks explain what he said. Naturally
twisting it to fit their agenda.

If you still remember, as an example, of the long list of castles built in
Hungary in the time frame I have started the discussion, you would be aware
that capital was available. there was also capital available to build
printing presses which by the way mostly failed after the Habsburg sponsored
counterreformation. I have also gave long lists of formation of industrial
enterprises and commerce, which you keep forgetting.
BTW commerce was a significant subject of most royal and noble assembly
legislation from I Istvan on. When I showed that even the villages were
establishing selfgovernment, ther was no counter reference.

I am arguing about the issue in one particular time frame, and the
acceleration of the development in an independent Hungary has meager
connection with the diatribe I am getting in response. Where are your
specific original sources for the above in context of not permitting the
acceleration of development in the 1700s?

> If I bring up examples of
>foreign travelers, the answer is that Western travelers were biased.

No the answer was a request for source reference.

>I
>myself is biased because I studied abroad. If I bring up a quotation from a
>Hungarian-educated scholar the meaning of his quotation is twisted around as
>if Pal Engel said that before 1200 there was no "irasbeliseg/literacy" in
>Hungary. This is not what he says. He says that it was only after 1200 that
>literacy due to the establishment of the royal chancellery became
>widespread. Prior to that date the number of documents are relatively few.
>Sizes of towns during the period I was talking about are doubted: they are
>overestimated, says Jeliko.

I just asked a simple question about the geographic area and the claimed
population and then continued that size in aprticular time period has little
to do with others.

What I stated was that the royal chancellery under whatever name was in
existence before. It is entirely not rare that an office is formally
referenced long after its de facto existence. I gravle doubt that the good
kings before Bela were penning the documents by themselves. Thus the
reference from Engel was misused by you. If it used in the context that the
report of the formation of the chancellery indicates that the probable
increase in the royal correspondance justified its formation as a royal
office, I would fully agree. Using it in a context that it indicates
"initiation" and there was nothing before it is not. It is also a question
how "widespread" is interpreted compared to other locations.

>        In brief, he is convinced that I am wrong and I am convinced that he
>is wrong. I am not impressed with his arguments, and he is not impressed
>with mine. So, why continue?
>
>        However, here are some answers. Otto, bishop of Freising, visited
>Hungary in 1147. Between 1150 and 1153 Abu Hamid stayed in Hungary for a
>while. The Arabic Idrisi, royal geographer of Roger II of Sicily, also has
>quite a few things to say about Hungary from about the same period. So, we
>are talking about the mid-12th century.

I surmise all of your "quotes" related above are collated from Engel. What
specific comments these folks had based on their visit to Hungary and what
did they say about other places they have visited. What is the specific
source for their (not Engel's) statement. (just a comparative aside, I
expect one day some historian will be quoting Zoltan Szekely's opinion on
the US). However, I will check these particular references and will post
them in the near future.

>        Jeliko complains that I keep comparing Hungary to Western and
>Southern Europe (including Spain, by the way). But why shouldn't I.
>Hungarians themselves compared then and today their own country to Western
>Europe. Hungary has always considered itself to be part of the European
>community.

I am complaining because I do not see how the comparative tenet disproves
the proposed acceleration of development in an independent Hungary from the
1700s on.

>        As for Esztergom and Szekesfehervar, perhaps I abbreviated too much
>from Engel's book on this subject. Although the hospeses settled mostly in
>Upper Hungary and in Transylvania, Esztergom and Szekesfehervar were also
>settled by hospeses, specifically Frenchmen and Wallons. These two cities,
>by the way, were under the direct protection of the Hungarian king.

Naturally, they were the royal residences, one for the king, one for the queen.

> Also
>these two towns, sometime before 1200, received extensive privileges from
>the king. "Ezek voltak Magyarorszagon a nyugati tipusu varosfejlodes elso
>csirai," says Pal Engel. This is at the time when we have large towns in
>Italy, France, Spain, England, and the Germanies.

There were even bigger towns in China and India and Cairo was still a large
town. I am not comprehending what this has to do with acceleration of the
development in the  early XVIII century.

In general, I have difficulty with "generalist" histories of any country
regardless of who wrote it. There are obvious mistakes in Gibbon and
Toynbe's prejudices show through
in his tomes and both of them are much more detailed in their respective
works than Engel's history, but that is another subject.

Except for the promised specifics of the commentary of the visitors to
Hungary, which I will post. I am willing to leave the discussion that we
disagree on the interpretation of avilable data. It is always fun to revisit
the old historical sources. I always find
info which escaped my memory and recently there is an extensive
republication of the old Hungarian records, which often disagree with the
generalized interpretations of generic history books, but permits the review
of what opinions were formed by others.

Regards,Jeliko.
+ - Re: Language and Backwardness (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:30 AM 10/15/96 PDT, Gabor Fencsik wrote in connection with the
linquistic reform of the late eighteenth-early nineteenth centuries:

>The gaps in Hungarian vocabulary were largely imaginary.  Importing words
>for imported concepts is perfectly normal, and has precious little to do
>with "backwardness".

        I am ready to strike a compromise, basing it on the relevant
chapters of the History of Hungarian Literature (published in six volumes by
the Hungarian Academy of Sciences). According to Andor Tarnai (who wrote the
relevant chapter in the volume covering the period between 1772 and 1848),
linguistic reforms may want to enlarge the vocabulary, weed out and replace
foreign elements, or beautify the language. Certainly the magyarization of
the vocabulary--what Gabor is talking about--originated with nationalism;
whether the linguistic reform beautified the language or not is debatable.
However, according to Andor Tarnai (who wrote the relevant chapter in the
series): "Celja [a magyar nyelvujitasnak] az volt, hogy a fejlodesben
elmaradt orszagban a magyar nyelvet gyorsan alkalmassa tegye a modern
tudomany muvelesere, az irodalom stilusat az uj polgari izleshez idomitsa,
es a korabbi latin (nemet) hivatalos nyelvet a magyarral helyettesitse." [In
English in abbreviated form: The goal was to make the language suitable for
the study and cultivation of modern sciences in an underdeveloped country;
adapt the literary style to the new bourgeois taste, and replace the earlier
official Latin (German) language with Hungarian.]


        Thus, I am ready for a compromise. The goal was both to magyarize
the vocabulary and to make it suitable for the cultivation of modern
sciences in an underdeveloped country.

        Eva Balogh
+ - 40 years ago today: 15 October (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

15 October 1956

A communist party and government delegation arrives to Belgrade. The
members of the Hungarian delegation are Erno Gero, Antal Apro, Andras
Hegedus, Janos Kadar and Istvan Kovacs. Tito receives them in the company
of A. Rankovic and other leading Yugoslav communists.

In Budapest at the Fine Art College during the meeting of the local DISZ,
Association of Young Students, the members demand March 15 to be declared a
national holiday.

Where were you on that day?
+ - Re: The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 04:03 PM 10/15/96 -0400, Jeliko wrote:
>It is always fun to revisit
>the old historical sources. I always find
>info which escaped my memory and recently there is an extensive
>republication of the old Hungarian records, which often disagree with the
>generalized interpretations of generic history books, but permits the review
>of what opinions were formed by others.

        It might be fun to revisit the original sources but they are not
enough to make generalizations about the history of a period. Moreover,
published original sources doesn't permit to "review of what opinions were
formed by others." Historians'--I am talking about good ones--opinions have
been formed by taking into consideration all sorts of things (economic data,
demographic data, legal history, institutional history, social history, and
so on and so forth) in addition to original sources which had been
published. Vast archives are full of documents which have never been and
never will be published but which are full of information otherwise not
available. The author of a scholarly book on a subject (especially articles)
rely heavily on original research to which the reader is not privy. One must
be able to rely on these secondary sources. And most of the time one is able
to rely on them. Very rarely did I find that the footnote references simply
lied: the author's opinion allegedly based on documentary evidence on page
such and such simply wasn't there. But most of the time, one can rely at
least on the facts. And one must. Otherwise, one will be unable to have
meaningful appreciation of a period.

        Yes, I relied on Pal Engel's book for two reasons. It is new which
means that he incorporated the results of latest research in his findings.
Also, Pal Engel is a well known medievalist. The designated author of the
volume was supposed to be Jeno Szucs (of great historical fame) but due to
his sudden death, it was Pal Engel who replaced him. Also, Engel's book is
the first volume in a four-volume series (only two appeared up to now) with
the title: "Magyarok Europaban" which pays special attention to Hungary's
place in Europe. Let me quote from the Preface by Ferenc Glatz, historian,
the new president of the Hungarian Academy:

        "A sorozat a magyar tortenelmet az eddigi osszefoglaloknal nagyobb
kitekintesu europai beagyazottsaggal adja elo. (Nem titkolt celja is a
szerkesztonek, szerzoknek, hogy a magyar tarsadalom napi, jelenrol
gondolkodasaban az egyetemes osszefuggesekre az eddigieknel nagyobb
figyelmet kell forditani.)" [The series presents Hungarian history in
greater European context than its predecessors. (It is not a secret that the
editor and the authors believe that today's Hungarian society, in its
thinking about the present, should pay greater attention to Hungarian
history's universial connections than it did before.)]

        I think this speaks for itself. The editor and the authors believe
that Hungarian history was presented until recently out of its natural
context, European history, and therefore its presentation was distorted.
Only if we put side by side "world history" and "Hungarian history" we can
have a true appreciation of where Hungary stood when. Thus, Engels' book,
for example, spends 70-odd pages on general European history before he
introduces, on p. 88, "The people of the steppe and the Hungarian
`honfoglalas' (500-900)."  After devoting another chapter to "Kalandozasok
es allamallapitas (900-1038)," he again returns to general European history
("Europa felviragzasa (1000-1200)." And there he goes until 1440.

        It is certainly worth quoting from his epilogue (pp. 350-51) in
which he summarizes the main thrust of his thesis.

        "Visszaterve mindarra, amirol az utolso fejezetekben szo esett,
talan kitunt, hogy nemcsak az ujkorban jelzik eles kontrasztok a
kelet-kozep-europai zona es benne Magyarorszag helyet az europai civilizacio
terkepen. Mar korabban is, sot kezdettol fogva lenyeges minosegi es
mennyisegi kulonbsegek egesz sora veheto szamba mind a tarsadalom
szerkezete, mind a gazdasagi fejlodes iranya, mind a kultura barmely
szferaja tekinteteben. E kulonbsegek felismerese igen fontos ahhoz, hogy
megertsuk a regio tovabbi sajatos, a nyugatitol sokban eltero fejlodeset."

        After this paragraph Engel tells us that Hungary, although not the
same, was still familiar to the western traveler during the period he
covers, but after a few miles east or south of  "Brasso, Nagyszeben,
Temesvar vagy Pecs the world became strange, everything looked different,
and people were thinking entirely differently. Thus the traveler could truly
notice that he arrived to the edge of `Europa Occidens'"

        Greetings, Eva Balogh
+ - Re: The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:39 AM 10/15/96, jeliko wrote:

>>        Twelfth-century western "tourists" mention the plenty Hungarian
>>lands produced and the beauty of the countryside, but at the same time
>>notice that there are hardly any buildings built of stone.
>
>This is interesting, would you please cite some specific source from the XII
>century.

Actually, "tourism" started during the reign of St Stephen. The first king
of Hungary encouraged pilgrims to travel through Hungary to the Holy Land.
He made travelling safe and provided rest "stations" in the monasteries.

... that
>most of the trading in Hungary in the early days was in the hands of
>"Ismaelites" and "Israelites" who most likely came with the Hungarians from
>the Khazar areas. There was a strong effort to oppress these trader folks by
>the newfangled Christians. But even in the XI century, there are records
>indicating the presence of "Hungarian" traders at the market in Prague.

The traders were mostly Jewish and Muslim. The Jews were of German origin.
There is no evidence of Khazar-Jews surviving in Hungary after the late 9th
c.
The traders who went to Prague were Jews and Muslim traders who had their
bases in Hungary.
The first kings of Hungary generally protected their Jewish traders from
papal delegates and German citizens. Hungary provided safe haven for these
merchants and financiers while the Crusaders butchered the Jews in the
Germanies.

>Please also check the date for the establishment of the free royal cities,
>versus many of those in the west which were fiefs of individual landlords.
>That feudalism started in the west earlier than in Hungary is undoubtable.
>But it has still little to do with the basic argument that started it. Forts
>were generally built for protection. See the royal requirements to build
>forts in Hungary after the Mongol invasion. Prior to that date, there was no
>reason to have that type protection in Hungary while apparently in the west
>it was a question of survival.

Royal fortification were built in Hungary from the 11th c. The king sent
ispans with armed support (castle-jobbagys)to control the neighbourhood.
There was never a feudal-system in Hungary in the  Western sense.

Peter I. Hidas
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi, Janka!

In article >, "Johanne L. Tournier"
> writes:

>Could I remind you that the Gulf War was not conducted solely by the
U.S.,
>but was the result of a resolution passed in the United Nations?

Uh huh. And tell me, Jo, who did the lion's share of the planning for said
war and who directed its implementation? Who assumed overt leadership for
the prosecution of the war? Boutros Boutros Ghali?


>The goal
>was (mainly) to get Saddam out of Kuwait, which was done, but was *not*
to
>necessarily depose or kill him - though if that had happened everybody
would
>have been happy. In any case, the war was already won when the Allies
were
>massacring the Republican Guard on the road out of Kuwait City and that
was
>very much protested at the time. The fact is that in order to get rid of
>Saddam thousands more innocent Iraquis would have had to die, and there
just
>was not the will to pursue that, plus it would have been contrary to the
>U.N. resolution.

Jo, thousands of innocent Iraqis did die in the days immediately following
the cessation of the ground war -- Kurds and marsh Arabs who dared to rise
up against the regime. The "massacre" on the road out of Kuwait City is
debatable, by the way, in both scope and severity. Immediately after the
war, the Pentagon kept revising downwards the number of casualties
actually inflicted in the aerial attacks on the highways leading toward
the Iraqi border. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Republican
Guards units comprised the majority or even a significant percentage of
what casualties there were.

>
>The fact is that the Gulf War was the most competently-run and managed

Perhaps from a tactical standpoint. From a strategic standpoint, Powell
and the brain trust in cammies screwed the pooch.

> and
>probably the most justified war in which the U.S. will ever get involved,

You mean "justifiable" don't you? "Justified" speaks to the fruits of an
action, while "justifiable" speaks to the nature of the action itself.
And, yes, no argument from me -- Saddam was a dirtbag who deserved the
beating he received and the war was justifiable. But justified? It's an
adjective tinged with overtones of defensiveness and perhaps appropriate
for the less-than-resounding denouement which followed the brilliant
prosecution of the ground war.

>and I don't think Schwartzkopf or Powell should be subject to adverse
>criticism for their performance. It's a case of 20-20 hindsight, but the
>fact is that they were very much criticized for carrying it too far at
the
>time.

A ha! Here's the root of the problem -- you and I live in alternate
universes. In my space-time continuum, the two generals in question were
hailed as heroes in the aftermath of the war by the majority of Americans
and the U.S. media. No one much beyond the editors of "The Nation" and
"Mother Jones" criticized them for carrying "it" (I assume you mean the
prosecution of the war) too far. Most of the dissenters believed they
didn't go far enough.

>
>>When Norman Schwarzkopf made a public criticism of the
>>>decision not to take Baghdad when the Allies could have just walked
>>>in and installed a friendly and sane government of Iraqi exiles, he
>>>was told to shut up...and did.
>>
>>And has turned into a reliable mouthpiece for those responsible for
>>throwing away any positive results from the Gulf War. Two months after
the
>>war ended, I spent some time in a local U.S. Army Reserve Center
chatting
>>with the colonel who commanded a supply company for an armored unit
during
>>the ground war.<snip> "We'll have
>>to do it all over again in five or six years because we didn't finish
the
>>job," he told me. I think he was right.
>
>He may be right - but, as I said, it was a war with limited aims. It was
>justified, because it was an invasion of one country by another. Actually
>getting rid of Saddam is another kettle of fish - and potentially has
>consequences which have not been given due consideration - such as the
>resultant strengthening of Iran in the area. Is that really something we
>want to do?

How successful would you have judged the Allied effort in World War II in
Europe if it had been prosecuted along the same line of reasoning? What if
we had just destroyed enough of the Wehrmacht to render it relatively
harmless on a worldwide scale for a few years while leaving Hitler and
crew in power? Ironically, this is exactly what the Nazis themselves were
dreaming of during the last few weeks of the war, Himmler in particular.
They couldn't understand why the Americans, Canadians and British didn't
effect a cease fire and join them in repelling the communist Russians
(playing the role of the Iranians in tonight's production) along the Oder.
Methinks Churchill, Ike, Truman and even Roosevelt at room temperature had
more of a grasp of strategic realities than the Bush administration and
its servitors in the Pentagon.
>
>>The Hungarian aspect of this whole issue? Perhaps it can serve as a
>>precautionary warning -- even the best and the brightest can learn the
>>wrong lessons from national history. And if Hungary ever decides to
>>participate in U.N. peace-keeping missions, much less sign on as a
member
>>of NATO, it ought to constantly re-assess the goals of its participation
>>and whether they are being met. (There, Hugh, how's that?)
>
>The lesson that was learned from Viet Nam, as you are saying, is to avoid
>getting entangled in a morass without the will to carry through the task
at
>hand. And the men who were fighting it were forced to fight with one hand
>behind their backs. But, the question really is whether they should have
>been there at all. Perhaps the lesson for Hungary - which is unlikely
ever
>to find itself in the position of the U.S. as a super-power making such
>decisions on intervention - may be rather that if your national struggle
can
>be couched in the right terms, you may succeed in winning U.S. help - but
>are they really the kind of fast friend that you would want to depend on
in
>a pinch? Let's see what happens in Bosnia . . .

How can this last question proceed from the argument you've made earlier?
"What a successful, masterful resolution to a conflict...but I'm not sure
I'd trust 'em in a pinch"? Hell, you argue with me, then turn around and
adopt my position at the end. You'd think we were married.
>
>That is the problem with national policy today, I feel. Without the focus
of
>the Cold War, the U.S.'s foreign policy seems to be more and more the
>politics of expediency.
>
>My two fillers worth . . .
>
>U:dvo:zlettel,
>
>Johanne/Janka
>
>p.s. I'm back again! Let's see if it continues this time! (My problems
>always seem to recur when I post a message).

I hope you're back for good!
>
>>Sam Stowe
>>
>>
>>
>>"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
>>Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
>>-- Groucho Marx
>>
>>
>Johanne L. Tournier
>e-mail - 

Sam Stowe

P.S. -- I love you, man!

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
+ - Tanacsi Lakas (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tanacsot kerek!

Ha valaki lenne olyan szives kisegiteni egy-ket jo tanccsal.
Nyolcvan-harom eves nagymamam nem tudja magat megfeleloen ellatni es ezert
ugy dontott, hogy hajlando bekoltozni csalad tagokkal.  A tanacsi lakast
amiben az utobbi 45 evet toltotte el szeretne nevlegesen elcsrelni.
Termesztesen penz cserere van szuksege. Sajnos mar nincs olyan helyzetben,
hogy ezeket a dolgokat sajat maga el tudja intezni es engem kert meg
segitsegert.

Mivel nem Magyarorszagon lakom nem vagyok tisztaban mi a leg megfelelob
modszer egy ilyen lakast at adni.  Az informaciot amit meg szeretnek
szerezni eloszor az, hogy milyen keppen a leg biztonsagosabb es a leg
eredmenyesebb meghirdetni egy nevleges cseret.  Masodszor, meg azt
szeretnem megtudni, hogyan lehet egy tanacsi lakasnak az ereteket
megallapitani.

Gondolom ennel mas es fontosabb informaciokra is van szuksegem amivel nem
vagyok tisztaban.

Minden segitseget elore is es nagyon koszonok.

Karcsi

Legyenek oly szivesek es kuldjek valaszukat az e-mail
) dobozomba is mert nics mindig alkalmam, hogy a
news-groupokat at nezzem.

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS