Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 887
Copyright (C) HIX
1997-01-17
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: World War I (mind)  78 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: World War I (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: World War I (mind)  52 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: World War I (mind)  74 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: World War I (mind)  152 sor     (cikkei)
6 HL-Action: write vice president - URGENT (mind)  105 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: World War I (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: World War I (mind)  68 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: World War I (mind)  75 sor     (cikkei)
10 What is "Futurity" (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
11 Soros anti-Capitalist? (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: World War I (mind)  63 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: World War I (mind)  126 sor     (cikkei)
14 New York Roundtable (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
15 New York Roundtable (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
16 English version of Nepszabadsag on the Net (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: World War I (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Soros anti-Capitalist? (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

E.Balogh wrote:

>        Certainly not a constitutional monarchy because that wasn't in=
 the
>books before the second half of the nineteenth century. What I meant w=
as an
>arrangement by which the Hungarian nobility didn't insisted on some of=
 their
>prerogatives. Yes, it may have infringed on ancient rights and yes, it=
 may
>have made Hungary a more integral part of the empire--a la
>Bohemia-Moravia--but so what. In the long run the Czechs didn't disapp=
ear
>from the face of the earth as a nation, they still managed to develop =
a
>healthy middle class and middle-class values and became more
>democratically-minded than we did. What I am saying is that the "horri=
ble
>fate" the Czech nobility suffered in the seventeenth century *in the l=
ong
>run* [emphasis here] was to the advantage of the country. All the appa=
rent
>gains we made were most likely not to our advantage, again, in the lon=
g run.

It is good to remember where we started this whole debate. First S.Stow=
e,=20
our *Hungary-expert*, was blaming us (Hungarians) and/or our previous
dicision makers for their mistakes, and reminded us that action is foll=
owed
by its consequences. Then I protested and I tried to explain my opinion=
,
that rather the geopolitical circumstances caused our problems (at leas=
t
in the XXth century). Then came E.Balogh and said that is not quite tru=
e,
there were options that *may have* changed our fate. And finally, here=20
is the solution! The hungarian nobility should have voluntarilly (!!!)
commit political suicide in the late XVIIth century in order to prevent
Trianon in the XX century! Moreover, I should not complain here in XXth
century as we know *action is followed by its consequencies*!
I have only one suggestion now. If we are involved in the *action =3D>
consequences* equation, we should open a new debate about George=20
Washington's responsibility in the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour.
Surely, he should have done a couple of things differently to prevent
the attack!

>        As I said: there is no inevitability in history. It wouldn't h=
ave
>had happened then. It may have broken out later in some other way but =
not in
>August 1914. There were a couple of other scenarios which we may
>contemplate: (1) Austria-Hungary doesn't wait that long only not to ha=
ve
>proof of Serbi=E1s complicity and strike immediately after the assassi=
nation.
>World public opinion was very much in favor of Austria-Hungary because=
 of
>the assassination. Some historians proposed that such immediate strike=
 would
>have had a different outcome. (2) Let's say that Austria-Hungary waite=
d but
>didn't receive a blank check from Germany. The war could have been
>localized. (3) Let's assume that the Russian general staff had a more
>flexible military plan and could have initiated a partial mobilization=
 as
>opposed to their only plan which entailed full mobilization along the =
German
>border as well. Some historians claimed that such a strategy might hav=
e had
>a different reaction from Germany.=20
=20
Eva, you can try to have your private fire-work on the top of a gunpowd=
er=20
barrel, you can consider the possible scenarios, but as far as I am
concerned I would rather take cover.

J.Zs
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:33 AM 1/17/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

<snip>
>It is good to remember where we started this whole debate. First S.Stowe,
>our *Hungary-expert*, was blaming us (Hungarians) and/or our previous
>dicision makers for their mistakes, and reminded us that action is followed
>by its consequences. Then I protested and I tried to explain my opinion,
>that rather the geopolitical circumstances caused our problems (at least
>in the XXth century). Then came E.Balogh and said that is not quite true,
>there were options that *may have* changed our fate. And finally, here
>is the solution! The hungarian nobility should have voluntarilly (!!!)
>commit political suicide in the late XVIIth century in order to prevent
>Trianon in the XX century! Moreover, I should not complain here in XXth
>century as we know *action is followed by its consequencies*!
>I have only one suggestion now. If we are involved in the *action =>
>consequences* equation, we should open a new debate about George
>Washington's responsibility in the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour.
>Surely, he should have done a couple of things differently to prevent
>the attack!

Ok, Janos Zsargo.  You wrote.  Now, here is one consequence of your action.
I think your forte is fantasy, not history.

Joe Szalai

"Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history.
The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and
materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it."
            Simone Weil
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

What interests me in the exchanges between Janos Zsargo and Eva Balogh is
not what weird satirical byway they may go floating down next, but some
of the starting assumptions.

The blithe idea that an independent Hungary wouldn't have been aligned with
Germany, but with the Franco-English entente (including Russia??) is, well,
intriguing.  Is there any sound basis for what does, admittedly, have to
be speculation?  I would have thought that, both in 1848 and in 1866-67,
the relationship between Prussia/Germany and at least some elements of
Hungary's political leadership in potential, not to mention the equivalent
antipathy much more often shown and deeply rooted between the Hungarian
political class and Russia, might suggest otherwise, for all the sometimes
ostentatious Anglophile sentiment of elements of the nobility?

A second question: what relationship, if any, do you think there might be
between the adamant refusal, apparently shared by all segments of Hungary's
political class, to countenance any change in the shape of the Compromise
of 1867 -- most notably Andrassy's tipping the balance against what might
have been the most likely to succeed effort at reaching a resolution of
Czech-German rivalry in Bohemia -- and the sliding of Austria-Hungary into
the German embrace?  Most Czech political leaders through the 1860s and
afterwards were always arguing _against_ the pro-German orientation, and
frequently urging a reliance on France, and, admittedly, Russia--which
the Hungarian political class wouldn't have liked, but...

Do Andrassy's actions have consquences?  How much responsibility does he
bear for Austria's move into Bosnia-Hercegovina?  I know the German liberals
who then dominated the Cisleithanian government were vehemently against it,
so much so that Franz Joseph dumped them and handed the responsiblity for
forming a Cisleithanian government to Count Taafe.  After all, it was the
issue of B-H that became the apple of discord between Serbia and A-H.

In the end, to say categorically "this and this _caused_ the First World
War" is pretty difficult, it seems to me.  There were a host of circumstances
and tendencies leading to ever-heightening tension, all of which could be
described as "causes" in one way or another, and I don't think one can
entirely dismiss developments in the world economy as such a "cause" just
because one of the most vigorous expositions of that explanation comes from
Lenin.  But in the final analysis, the war started when and where it did
because Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and they _meant_ to do it!

And that decision was taken by Franz Joseph (of course there were many
who urged one thing or another, including Istvan Tisza, who eventually
stopped urging what he had been -- not to get into it -- and agreed with
the rest), largely to "protect the honor" of his house and its possessions.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:33 AM 1/17/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>It is good to remember where we started this whole debate. First S.Stowe,=
=20
>our *Hungary-expert*, was blaming us (Hungarians) and/or our previous
>dicision makers for their mistakes, and reminded us that action is followed
>by its consequences. Then I protested and I tried to explain my opinion,
>that rather the geopolitical circumstances caused our problems (at least
>in the XXth century). Then came E.Balogh and said that is not quite true,
>there were options that *may have* changed our fate. And finally, here=20
>is the solution! The hungarian nobility should have voluntarilly (!!!)
>commit political suicide in the late XVIIth century in order to prevent
>Trianon in the XX century! Moreover, I should not complain here in XXth
>century as we know *action is followed by its consequencies*!

        I'm afraid the above synopsis is highly misleading. Sam Stowe, in my
opinion correctly, pointed out that Hungary had her share of responsibility
for Trianon. Janos, like many, many others, likes to believe that his
country was totally innocent and that it was "fate"--which you may call
geopolitical circumstances--which was solely responsible for all of our
problems. It may feel good to be free of any guilt and blame "fate,"
"circumstances," "others" (like the Austrian military, the Crown, the Czechs
within the Monarchy and many other explanations which had been offered in
the past) but, first of all, it doesn't ring true, and second, it makes
other people suspicious of a nation which refuses to critically exam her own
past.
        In any case, it was at this point that I suggested that there is no
such thing as inevitability in history and that yes, there were several
other options which if they had been taken would have yielded different=
 results.
        As for Janos's last sentence in the above quoted passage simply
boggles the mind. It defies logic and it shows a certain contempt for the
mental powers of his opponent. In this case, me! Moreover, doesn't matter
how you slice it, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Istvan Tisza,
the prime minister of Hungary, knew what the stakes were if that war was
lost. The very likely disintegration of the country.

>>        As I said: there is no inevitability in history. It wouldn't have
>>had happened then. It may have broken out later in some other way but not=
 in
>>August 1914. There were a couple of other scenarios which we may
>>contemplate: (1) Austria-Hungary doesn't wait that long only not to have
>>proof of Serbi=E1s complicity and strike immediately after the=
 assassination.
>>World public opinion was very much in favor of Austria-Hungary because of
>>the assassination. Some historians proposed that such immediate strike=
 would
>>have had a different outcome. (2) Let's say that Austria-Hungary waited=
 but
>>didn't receive a blank check from Germany. The war could have been
>>localized. (3) Let's assume that the Russian general staff had a more
>>flexible military plan and could have initiated a partial mobilization as
>>opposed to their only plan which entailed full mobilization along the=
 German
>>border as well. Some historians claimed that such a strategy might have=
 had
>>a different reaction from Germany.=20
>=20
>Eva, you can try to have your private fire-work on the top of a gunpowder=
=20
>barrel, you can consider the possible scenarios, but as far as I am
>concerned I would rather take cover.

        Janos, it just shows that you are not terribly familiar with the
literature on the causes of the First World War because the scenarios I
outlined here are part and parcel of that literature. They are being
discussed in seminars on the causes of the war in most decent universities.
If I were you I would do a bit of research on that subject. Or, of course,
you can go on and on, saying that Hungary was a totally blameless victim of
horrid enemies, called France, England, and the United States, in addition
to the Romanians, the Czechs, the Serbs, and eventually even the Austrians.

        Eva Balogh
       =20
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hugh Agnew writes:


>The blithe idea that an independent Hungary wouldn't have been aligned with
>Germany, but with the Franco-English entente (including Russia??) is, well,
>intriguing.  Is there any sound basis for what does, admittedly, have to
>be speculation?  I would have thought that, both in 1848 and in 1866-67,
>the relationship between Prussia/Germany and at least some elements of
>Hungary's political leadership in potential, not to mention the equivalent
>antipathy much more often shown and deeply rooted between the Hungarian
>political class and Russia, might suggest otherwise, for all the sometimes
>ostentatious Anglophile sentiment of elements of the nobility?

The problem with "what ifs" is that even more analysis is required than for the
actual events. I think the first issue we have to face is that none of the
various groups being blamed were in fact cohesive groups. As an example,
some of the Hungarian nobility was stupid some were not. There was no such
thing as a  single united nobility
opinion in Hungary (or for that matter elsewhere). Some of the nobility was
pro-Prussian (more of the lower strata than the upper), some of the nobility
was pro British (in my opinion they never could clearly describe why) some
were pro Habsburgh, most of them, in good part based on the 1849
intervention anti Russian, at least I am not aware of any being pro Russian.
I am not aware that any significant part of the nobility was pro French (the
francophiles were generally not the nobles). Most of the nobility had an
aversion to increasing the Slavic population of the Monarchy. Only a small
fraction of the nobility proposed true independence. Even the anti-Ausglich
fractions were promoting a "personal" union instead of the "duality". Add to
this the
developing conflict between Ferdinand and all of the Hungarian nobles and
the developing Panslavic ideology so expediently used by Russia. But I
think, that even if the only commonality between Cisleithenia and Hungary
would have been the ruler, Hungary still could have been involved in WW I,
if the emperor of Cisleithenia and the king of Hungary declared war on
Serbia. There were also geopolitical factors. The major powers were all
trying to increase their holdings and it lead to other prior conflicts that
also could have lead to larger conflicts. France vs. Germany over Marocco
(Agadir), Italy vs France over Tunis and so on. The vacillation of Austrian
circles in their Russian policy was also a factor. It appears that the
Habsburgh gratitude for saving their ass in 1849 was continuously
diminishing as the years went by and as the geopolitical interests got
overlapped in the Balkans. (To me it is fascinating how after hundreds of
years of death/life struggle with the Turks, the Habsburghs ended up with a
pro Turkish policy at the end.) There was also a new  "commercial" interest
developing in protecting the meager sea access of the Monarchy and the
hinterland of that access. This interest cannot be ascribed solely to the
nobility, it was the interest of the developing commercial/industrial strata.

It is also unlikely that the Hungarian ruling classes, and at this point I
do not mean only the nobility, would have supported the Bohemian efforts for
more independence.
By the early XX century the feeling on the Hungarian side was a "them or
us", as it related to any Slavic group within the empire. With all these
consideration, actions solely by the Hungarians (with the above
considerations in mind) probably would not have prevented the outbreak of
the war, stupid as that war was from a global standpoint. I do not think
that there is a single Hungarian political strata that can be blamed for
"causing" the outbreak of the war.

>A second question: what relationship, if any, do you think there might be
>between the adamant refusal, apparently shared by all segments of Hungary's
>political class, to countenance any change in the shape of the Compromise
>of 1867 -- most notably Andrassy's tipping the balance against what might
>have been the most likely to succeed effort at reaching a resolution of
>Czech-German rivalry in Bohemia -- and the sliding of Austria-Hungary into
>the German embrace?  Most Czech political leaders through the 1860s and
>afterwards were always arguing _against_ the pro-German orientation, and
>frequently urging a reliance on France, and, admittedly, Russia--which
>the Hungarian political class wouldn't have liked, but...

Well this is also equally complicated. Lets presume that the Czech-German
rivalry in Bohemia would have been resolved by obtaing more independence for
Bohemia, would such action have driven the rest of the Monarchy into a
German embrace? Or would it have resulted in an earlier disintegration of
the Monarchy into national parts, with the Germans siding with Germany and
the others fending for themsleves? If yes, what would have been the
territorial area involved in such Czech "dominated" area? Probably much
smaller than it is currently. If they succeeded in staying integrated in the
Monarchy, what would have happened to this newly oriented partially
"federalized" Monarchy?

The Habsburghs did not get much help from anyone in their wars after 1849
what would have been the assistance they could have got, and from whom,
under the new orientation? It is possible that any additional war,
regardless on which side, would have resulted in a loss by the Monarchy and
result also in the disintegration of it.

The Czechs at that time had only a limited interest in Slovakia, what would
have been the effect of a northern (Non-Orthodox) Slavic focus on the rest
of the Slavs in the remnant area? At that time, the major markets of Czech
products were within the Monarchy, how economically survivable would have
been the more independent Czech region without some sort of an integration
with the Monarchy? Unfortunately, and even today, most nationalists (and
almost all ultranationalists) have minimum understanding of economics. I
think, that the Czech orientation of the times was also dual. The
industrial/commercial/intelligencia class had a French orientation (as that
class had in Hungary also) while some of the nationalists had a Russian
orientation. How this duality would have been resolved if the Czech views
became more accepted? I have a great deal of trouble with the
indutrial/commercial Czech strata enjoying Russian influence in any domain.
To my knowledge, there was no cooperation between any Czech and Hungarian
groups to exploit their majority compared with the German population of the
Monarchy. To the Czechs, the Ausgleich only added the Hungarians to Germans
for their political rivalry with others.

>Do Andrassy's actions have consquences?  How much responsibility does he
>bear for Austria's move into Bosnia-Hercegovina?  I know the German liberals
>who then dominated the Cisleithanian government were vehemently against it,
>so much so that Franz Joseph dumped them and handed the responsiblity for
>forming a Cisleithanian government to Count Taafe.  After all, it was the
>issue of B-H that became the apple of discord between Serbia and A-H.

My information is that Andrassy was at first hesitant in the incorporation
of B-H
into the empire. One of the major problems of the incorporation issue is
that it was
a continuous wanting it and backpedaling on it. It was rarely, if ever
clearly, stated that the Monarchy really wants to incorporate B-H. It was
almost as if the major reason was to keep it out of
Russian/Serbian/Montenegrine (i.e. Slavic) hands, rather than really wanting
it. At the same time, I think it is incorrect to speak solely of a Serbian
policy in regard to B-H or any Serbian activity in the Balkans, most of the
time, there was also a Russian undercurrent involved in everything that
happaned in that area at that time. Perhaps, if their was some cooperation
between the Hungarians and the Cisleithenians in opposing the B-H fiasco,
the war - for the particular reason that it broke out and at that time - may
have been prevented. But those two groups were rarely for the same thing, if
one promoted an idea, the other opposed it almost on principle. But in
conclusion, I think it is incorrect to blame solely Andrassy for the B-H
incorporation into the Monarchy.

>In the end, to say categorically "this and this _caused_ the First World
>War" is pretty difficult, it seems to me.  There were a host of circumstances
>and tendencies leading to ever-heightening tension, all of which could be
>described as "causes" in one way or another, and I don't think one can
>entirely dismiss developments in the world economy as such a "cause" just
>because one of the most vigorous expositions of that explanation comes from
>Lenin.  But in the final analysis, the war started when and where it did
>because Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and they _meant_ to do it!

I fully agree!

>And that decision was taken by Franz Joseph (of course there were many
>who urged one thing or another, including Istvan Tisza, who eventually
>stopped urging what he had been -- not to get into it -- and agreed with
>the rest), largely to "protect the honor" of his house and its possessions.

Yes, I think from there on it is "history".

Thank you for a thoughtful contribution.

Regards,Jeliko.
+ - HL-Action: write vice president - URGENT (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
    The start of the Danube lawsuit  at the International Court in
The Hague has been delayed to March 1997. This lawsuit will
adjudicate on the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning the
rerouting of the Danube onto Slovak territory.
    It is essential that we gain publicity to the lawsuit and the
support of world public opinion.

What to do:
  Please help to convince vice president Al Gore to make a statement
in favour for the Danube. Feel free to use the attached form letters. Al
Gore will only take notice if he receives thousands of letters.
  Therefore please make a chain letter of this call for action. Send
the it to at least 5 of your friends. PLEASE ACT!!

e-mail address of Al Gore:


*************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #1 (written by B. Liptak):
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
(e-mail: )

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

  Mankind is approaching an important precedent: The first international
environmental lawsuit is coming up in a few weeks at the International
Court of Justice in The Hague.

  The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the
destruction of its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz. (Szigetkoz
means "Thousand Islands," but today there is not a single island left,
as the water is gone.) Still, the implications of this case go beyond
the future of just one river or just one wetland ecosystem. This
lawsuit will set a precedent for the whole planet and will decide on a
much more basic question, which is: "Do national governments have the
right to do as they please with the ecosystem of this planet, or does
mankind have the right to protect the natural treasures of the
planet?"

  In 1995, nine international environmental NGOs have submitted a
"Memorial" to the Court, which its president, the Honorable Mohammed
Bedjaoui has accepted. Also submitted to the ICJ was a Compromise
Plan, which would guarantee the restoration of this ancient wetland
region tougether with fulfilling the water supply, energy and
shipping needs of the region. For details of this plan and for other
aspects of the lawsuit, please visit the web-site at:
http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm

  Dear Mr. Vice President. It is important that the first international
environmental lawsuit be given the attention it deserves. A statement
by you, can guarantee that attention. Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #2 (written by A. Vadasz):
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
(e-mail: )

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

  The first international environmental lawsuit is before the
International Court of Justice in The Hague.

  The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the
destruction of its valuable wetlands along th Hungarian-Slovak border.
Due to diversion of the river, a large area honeycombed with natural
canals is on its way to extinction as a haven to valuable fauna.The
watertable has plummeted and vegetation is on its way to irreparable
harm. Since Nature tends to be "international", it seems that
ecological preservation efforts should reflect this. This lawsuit will
set a precedent in answering the question,"do individual governments
have the right to harm another country's environment ?"

  International environmental organizations have submitted a "memorial"
to the Court, accepted by its President.

  I would like to ask you to lend your voice to the importance of this
case and to suggest that the affected jurisdictions respect the
judgment of the Court.

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

E.Balogh wrote:

>        I'm afraid the above synopsis is highly misleading. Sam Stowe, in my
>opinion correctly, pointed out that Hungary had her share of responsibility
>for Trianon.

Trianon was only one thing that he was talkink about. He also blamed us
for series of bad decissions, always being an ally of the loser in wars,
 etc. Yet, he failed to name any specific action/decission which may have
seriously alter our history if it had been done differently and not just
earned some *moral* credit, or whatever he calls it. As a matter of fact,
you failed to show such decessions, too. All you could provide was some
foggy general responsibility for mistreating the minorities and having
an arrogant nobility back in the XVIIth century.

B.E wrote about me:

>Janos, like many, many others, likes to believe that his
>country was totally innocent and that it was "fate"--which you may call
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>geopolitical circumstances--which was solely responsible for all of our
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>problems.

I wrote earlier:

>>by its consequences. Then I protested and I tried to explain my opinion,
>>that rather the geopolitical circumstances caused our problems (at least
       ^^^^^^                                                    ^^^^^^^^^
>>in the XXth century).
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Eva, do you think these two queted passage have the same meaning?
I am sure you know very well that I am not that simple minded.

J.Zs
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:08 AM 1/17/97 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

>What interests me in the exchanges between Janos Zsargo and Eva Balogh is
>not what weird satirical byway they may go floating down next, but some
>of the starting assumptions.
>
>The blithe idea that an independent Hungary wouldn't have been aligned with
>Germany, but with the Franco-English entente (including Russia??) is, well,
>intriguing.

        Flight of fancy. I taught a junior seminar for years entitled "World
War I: Causes and Consequences," so, I have some knowledge of the topic, but
I find these speculations so fantastic that I simply don't know what to do
with them.

        Some people can go to incredible length to prove that Hungary had no
responsibility whatsoever. It was all Austria's fault. If Hungary had been
independent she would have been allied with the later Entente countries. But
Hungary's interests lay elsewhere, and her needs dictated a different course
of action. Quite independently from the personal sentiments of the high
nobility. The Hungarian political leaders--quite independently from
Austria--perceived the German alliance as serving the country's interests.

        Between the two world wars it was often heard from politicians that
"after all, Hungary didn't have an independent foreign policy" and therefore
was unwittingly dragged into a course of action which was only good for
Austria. Quite a statement in the light of what happened to Austria after
the lost war! But the architect of the Dual Alliance (later Triple) was none
other than Gyula Andrassy. Andrassy is considered to be an outstanding
foreign minister by Hungarian historians and his moves were often dictated
by Hungarian interests. And indeed, the Serbian threat in the Balkans,
Russia's role in Balkan politics all dictated an anti-Russian and
anti-Serbian policy as far as Hungary was concerned. But, of course, the
existence of the Triple Alliance didn't necessarily have to lead to the
outbreak of the war in the summer of 1914.

>Is there any sound basis for what does, admittedly, have to
>be speculation?

        In my humble opinion, no, there is no basis for it whatsoever. That
was the reason I chose not to continue the discussion because I can't really
contribute anything rational to a discussion based on such assumptions.

>Do Andrassy's actions have consquences?  How much responsibility does he
>bear for Austria's move into Bosnia-Hercegovina?  I know the German liberals
>who then dominated the Cisleithanian government were vehemently against it,
>so much so that Franz Joseph dumped them and handed the responsiblity for
>forming a Cisleithanian government to Count Taafe.  After all, it was the
>issue of B-H that became the apple of discord between Serbia and A-H.

        These are issues some people don't like to think about. It is easier
to simply say that Hungary had no interests in the Balkans.

>But in the final analysis, the war started when and where it did
>because Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and they _meant_ to do it!

        This fact, unfortunately for those who would like to see it
otherwise, cannot be sidestepped.

        Eva Balogh

P.S. And please, let's spell Habsburg properly. There is no "h" at the end
of Habsburg. There is a variant spelling of Habsburg in English: Hapsburg.
However, it is somewhat old fashioned. Otto von Hasburg spells it that way,
after all. And, by the way, Otto's son, Go:rgy Habsburg, was just appointed
ambassador extraordinary to the European Union by Prime Minister Gyula Horn
of Hungary. He will represent the country, of which he is citizen, like his
father, in Brussels.
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko's answer to Hugh has so many misstatements about
Austria-Hungary's diplomacy or rather about the whole European diplomatic
scene in the late nineteenth-century that I must correct them.

>(To me it is fascinating how after hundreds of
>years of death/life struggle with the Turks, the Habsburghs ended up with a
>pro Turkish policy at the end.)

        First of all, not only the Habsburgs were pro-Turkish. The whole
Hungarian public opinion was also. So was England. Diplomatic strategy has
nothing to do with sentiments. The fact was that the Sick Man of Europe
(that is Turkey) was slowly but surely losing its grip on its empire
resulting in continuous unrest. Revolt followed revolt and in a few cases
small, so-called national states emerged which were too weak to stand
against Russia and Russian influence. Or they became outright the pawns of
Russian ambitions in the Balkans. It was neither Austria-Hungary's nor in
England's interest to have a full-fledged Balkanic chaos and therefore both
countries worked hand in hand in propping up Turkey and convince its
leadership to affect reforms. Alas, in vain.

>The
>industrial/commercial/intelligencia class had a French orientation (as that
>class had in Hungary also) while some of the nationalists had a Russian
>orientation.

        I am sorry, Hugh, that I am poking my nose into your field of
expertise but as far as I know it wasn't just "some of the nationalists" who
were pro-Russian. The Czechs were the only nation in the Empire who were
pretty solidly pro-Russian.

>My information is that Andrassy was at first hesitant in the incorporation
>of B-H
>into the empire.

        Well, first of all, Austria-Hungary didn't incorporate/annex
Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878. May I remind all of you that there was a
great-power gathering in Berlin called the Congress of Berlin at which
Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Turkey, Russia, and England together
decided the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina. May I also remind everybody that all
the great power representatives at Berlin opted for the annexation of
Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Monarchy, with the exception of Gorchakov,
Russia's foreign minister. Thus, on Disraeli's suggestion the Monarchy was
empowered only to occupy the area which just managed to free itself from
Turkish domination. Andrassy wasn't against the occupation but the Hungarian
opposition and the population was. Reason: they were against the increase of
the number of Slavs within the Monarchy.

>One of the major problems of the incorporation issue is
>that it was
>a continuous wanting it and backpedaling on it. It was rarely, if ever
>clearly, stated that the Monarchy really wants to incorporate B-H.

        As I mentioned earlier the original, internationally approved, idea
was annexation. That annexation materialized only much later, in 1908. The
idea came from Foreign Minister Aehrenthal with the active encouragement of
Baron Istvan Burian, the monarchy's common finance minister in charge of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Burian argued that sooner or later constitutional
government must be introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that move can be
made only if the province officially belongs to the monarchy. Aeranthal, on
the other hand, was toying with the idea of a possible trialist solution to
the constitutional makeup of the monarchy: besides the Germans and the
Hungarians, the third component would be the Slavs and this move, at least
in Aeranthal's thinking, would have also moved the center of South Slav
politics inside the Monarchy. As we know very well the rest of the world
didn't look upon the sudden annexation kindly and didn't see the Monarchy's
unilateral action as stemming from good intentions.

>But in
>conclusion, I think it is incorrect to blame solely Andrassy for the B-H
>incorporation into the Monarchy.

        Indeed it is because Andrassy had been dead for 18 years by the time
of the annexation.

        Eva Balogh
+ - What is "Futurity" (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Several people wanted to know what the word "Futurity" means on the
picture of Brevis Stanford's win-picture on the webpage of the Basset Hound
Club of America.
        Without going into the intricacies of rules and regulations
governing dogs shows laid down by the American Kennel Club, an extremely
conservative and sluggish organization, I will try to explain briefly what
"Futurity" and "Best of Opposite Sex" means. At ordinary all-breed dog shows
there are only so-called regular classes. Each breed is judged separately
and within each breed, dogs and bitches are also judged separately. (Dogs in
dog language means "males," and females are affectionately known as
"bitches.") However, there are so-called "specialty shows," sponsored by
either a national or a local breed club. These "specialty shows" are either
held separately or within an all-breed show. At "specialty shows" so-called
non-regular classes can be also held. For example, brood bitch classes, and
stud dog classes, veteran classes, and so on. In addition, parallel with the
regular judging one can have "sweepstakes" and or "futurity." Both are
designed for puppies. The oldest dog/bitch who can be entered must be under
eighteen-months. While regular classes are judged by AKC-licensed judges,
sweepstakes and futurity classes are normally judged by fellow breeders.
Dogs entered at sweepstakes must also be entered in regular classes. In
sweepstakes a certain percentage of the monies received through entries is
being distributed among the winners: depending on the number of sweepstakes
entries these wins amount to no more than three or four dollars. Futurity is
different. In futurity the breeder enters a "future litter," one which
he/she knows it is on the way but not yet born. Normally, the "secretary of
futurity" sets the amount you "bet" on your litter at $10.00. After the
birth of the puppies, you put down another $10.00. Then at the time the
puppies are two or three months old, the breeder puts down another small
amount. Thus, when there are let's say fifty breeders put in $30.00 each,
the "pot" is quite large and if your dog wins the win might amount to a few
hundred dollars.
        If the winner of any competition is a male, the best of opposite sex
is a female. And vica versa. Thus, Stanford actually won almost three
hundred dollars! My next great "win" was more than 10 years ago: eighteen
dollars at a sweepstakes at the yearly specialty show of the Basset Hound
Club of America! So, this was a big one.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Soros anti-Capitalist? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

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?

This doesn't seem to fit with Soros's popular image in the west, at
least...

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hugh Agnew wrote:

>The blithe idea that an independent Hungary wouldn't have been aligned with
>Germany, but with the Franco-English entente (including Russia??) is, well,
>intriguing.  Is there any sound basis for what does, admittedly, have to
>be speculation?

I think it is almost impossible to tell what would have happened if an
independent Hungary had been created in 1848-49. Not just because the
hungarian intetions were (or would have been) unclear, but also the
surrounding countries/powers, Prussia (later Germany), Russia, Turkey
might have acted differently in the case of an early disintegration of
the Habsburg empire. Austria might have ended up in the
unified Germany. Who knows what effect this would have on the Hungarian-
German relation! Also, it would be an open question how France and
England would have approached the independent Hungary. Unclear how
Serbia, Romania would have oriented their policy if they had faced with
Hungary only and not Austria-Hungary.
I thought, however, that an independent Hungary had more chance to be
on the Anglo-French side than Austria-Hungary had. Of course I am not
sure about it.

>I would have thought that, both in 1848 and in 1866-67,
>the relationship between Prussia/Germany and at least some elements of
>Hungary's political leadership in potential, not to mention the equivalent
>antipathy much more often shown and deeply rooted between the Hungarian
>political class and Russia, might suggest otherwise, for all the sometimes
>ostentatious Anglophile sentiment of elements of the nobility?

Sentiments can change within short time (in fact, not sentiment but interests,
as Churchill said later 'England has no friends, only allies'). In the early
XIXth century France and England were enemies and by the end of the century
they were allies. Also, Prussia and Russia were allies and became enemies at
the end.
Also I do not know any deeply rooted antipathy between the Hungarian political
class and Russia prior to 1848. Hungary and Russia had not much interference
before 1848. I doubt they had any kind of sympathy or antipathy toward each
other, let alone any deeply rooted feelings.

>In the end, to say categorically "this and this _caused_ the First World
>War" is pretty difficult, it seems to me.  There were a host of circumstances
>and tendencies leading to ever-heightening tension, all of which could be
>described as "causes" in one way or another, and I don't think one can
>entirely dismiss developments in the world economy as such a "cause" just
>because one of the most vigorous expositions of that explanation comes from

I agree with the above. The only thing what I tried to add to this approach
is that by 1914 the tension was so great that sooner or later the war would
have broken out. If not in 1914 than in 1915 or even later and the configuratio
n
of the bilingerents would not have been much different than it actually was.
This is what I ment by "the war was inevitable by that time....." expression.

>Lenin.  But in the final analysis, the war started when and where it did
>because Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and they _meant_ to do it!

This is true. But what importance it has? I oppose the presentation of
this fact as a serious mistake which had serious consequences and seriously
affected the afterward. Serious mistake, maybe, but do you know any condition
in the Trianon triety which was solely because Austria-Hungary initiated the
War? Maybe there is just I don't know it.

J.Zs
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva balogh writes:


>        Jeliko's answer to Hugh has so many misstatements about
>Austria-Hungary's diplomacy or rather about the whole European diplomatic
>scene in the late nineteenth-century that I must correct them.
>
>>(To me it is fascinating how after hundreds of
>>years of death/life struggle with the Turks, the Habsburghs ended up with a
>>pro Turkish policy at the end.)
>
OK. Lets start. Is the fact that the Habsburg's ended up pro-Turkish
counterindicated by that the Brits and most of the time the French were also
pro-Turkish (although more often than not such was done to be anti-Russian also
.


>        First of all, not only the Habsburgs were pro-Turkish. The whole
>Hungarian public opinion was also. So was England. Diplomatic strategy has
>nothing to do with sentiments. The fact was that the Sick Man of Europe
>(that is Turkey) was slowly but surely losing its grip on its empire
>resulting in continuous unrest. Revolt followed revolt and in a few cases
>small, so-called national states emerged which were too weak to stand
>against Russia and Russian influence. Or they became outright the pawns of
>Russian ambitions in the Balkans. It was neither Austria-Hungary's nor in
>England's interest to have a full-fledged Balkanic chaos and therefore both
>countries worked hand in hand in propping up Turkey and convince its
>leadership to affect reforms. Alas, in vain.
>
What of the above indicates any misstatement. Most of the Balkan revolts
were in fact instigated by the Russians and it was Russian influence that
resulted in the creation of these national states and with the possible
exception of Romania they were
outright pawns of Russia from the beginning and did not "become" such later
on. I have difficulty with British aversion to chaos in the Balkan divorced
from its desire to prevent Russian influence in the area and to keep Russia
away from the Mediterrenean access.

>>The
>>industrial/commercial/intelligencia class had a French orientation (as that
>>class had in Hungary also) while some of the nationalists had a Russian
>>orientation.
>
>        I am sorry, Hugh, that I am poking my nose into your field of
>expertise but as far as I know it wasn't just "some of the nationalists" who
>were pro-Russian. The Czechs were the only nation in the Empire who were
>pretty solidly pro-Russian.
>
>>My information is that Andrassy was at first hesitant in the incorporation
>>of B-H
>>into the empire.
>
>        Well, first of all, Austria-Hungary didn't incorporate/annex
>Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878. May I remind all of you that there was a
>great-power gathering in Berlin called the Congress of Berlin at which
>Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Turkey, Russia, and England together
>decided the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina. May I also remind everybody that all
>the great power representatives at Berlin opted for the annexation of
>Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Monarchy, with the exception of Gorchakov,
>Russia's foreign minister. Thus, on Disraeli's suggestion the Monarchy was
>empowered only to occupy the area which just managed to free itself from
>Turkish domination. Andrassy wasn't against the occupation but the Hungarian
>opposition and the population was. Reason: they were against the increase of
>the number of Slavs within the Monarchy.

I have deliberately used incorporation rather than the formal act of
"annexation".
The ideas and discussions about B-H started long before the Berlin congress.
I stand by the statement that Andrassy was first not as enthusiastic about
it as indicated by his later actions.

>>One of the major problems of the incorporation issue is
>>that it was
>>a continuous wanting it and backpedaling on it. It was rarely, if ever
>>clearly, stated that the Monarchy really wants to incorporate B-H.
>
>        As I mentioned earlier the original, internationally approved, idea
>was annexation.

I think the more correct term is that the occupation was an internationally
approved idea. The annexation itself was a separate step.

> That annexation materialized only much later, in 1908. The
>idea came from Foreign Minister Aehrenthal with the active encouragement of
>Baron Istvan Burian, the monarchy's common finance minister in charge of
>Bosnia-Herzegovina. Burian argued that sooner or later constitutional
>government must be introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that move can be
>made only if the province officially belongs to the monarchy. Aeranthal, on
>the other hand, was toying with the idea of a possible trialist solution to
>the constitutional makeup of the monarchy: besides the Germans and the
>Hungarians, the third component would be the Slavs and this move, at least
>in Aeranthal's thinking, would have also moved the center of South Slav
>politics inside the Monarchy.

> As we know very well the rest of the world
>didn't look upon the sudden annexation kindly and didn't see the Monarchy's
>unilateral action as stemming from good intentions.

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.

But again, what is the relationship of the above to the claimed "misstatements"
By the way, a lot of other folks were toying with trialism besides Aehrenthal.
>
>>But in
>>conclusion, I think it is incorrect to blame solely Andrassy for the B-H
>>incorporation into the Monarchy.
>
>        Indeed it is because Andrassy had been dead for 18 years by the time
>of the annexation.
>
Are you implying that he had nothing to do with the initiation and path of
the incorporation. Again I stress, that I have deliberately did not use the
strictly formal
"annexation" term because it was only the last step of incorporation, even
though that last step really created a Russian furor.

Now as far as "misstatments" are concerned:

"Annexation" of B-H by the Monarchy at the Berlin congress by international
approval is a misstatement.

Regards, Jeliko.
+ - New York Roundtable (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Colleagues,

The leaders of Hungarian organizations, churches and other institutions from
the New York tri-state area will hold a roundtable discussion in the
afternoon of the 26th of January.

Several joint actions have already been recommended for discussion and
approval by the group.

In order to get the most value out of this unique opportunity, (where it
seems, that all active groups will be represented), we would like to benefit
from the advice of all.  Therefore, if you would like to suggest a specific
action to be considered at the roundtable, please describe it in an e-mail
note.

Best regards: Bela Liptak
+ - New York Roundtable (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Colleagues,

The leaders of Hungarian organizations, churches and other institutions from
the New York tri-state area will hold a roundtable discussion in the
afternoon of the 26th of January.

Several joint actions have already been recommended for discussion and
approval by the group.

In order to get the most value out of this unique opportunity, (where it
seems, that all active groups will be represented), we would like to benefit
from the advice of all.  Therefore, if you would like to suggest a specific
action to be considered at the roundtable, please describe it in an e-mail
note.

Best regards: Bela Liptak
+ - English version of Nepszabadsag on the Net (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I almost forgot to mention it. Nepszabadsag which is the leading
Budapest daily began an English-language supplement "Hungary Around the
Clock." You can find it at

        http://www.nepszabadsag.hu

        At the moment 103 Hungarian papers are available on the Net. For
easy reference see

        http://www.hungary.net/stand

        Through the "stand" you can also access A.M. radio broadcasts live.

        Good reading and good listening, Eva Balogh
+ - Re: World War I (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko:

>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.

        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.

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

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Soros anti-Capitalist? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:57 PM 1/17/97 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:
>Dear fellow-listmembers,
>
>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?
>
>This doesn't seem to fit with Soros's popular image in the west, at
>least...

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

        Eva Balogh

>
>Sincerely,
>
>Hugh Agnew

>
>

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