Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 836
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-11-03
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: REQ: Do I need a visa? (mind)  43 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: 1100th Year Celebrations in Washington (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
4 SEARCH FOR BOHAR (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
5 1956, Memory, and History (mind)  78 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Taxonomy (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: only one explanation (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: 1100th Year Celebrations in Washington (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: 1956, Memory, and History (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: War Criminals (mind)  55 sor     (cikkei)
11 War Criminals (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: War Criminals (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: 1956, Memory, and History (mind)  89 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: War Criminals (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  44 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: War Criminals (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: 1100th Year Celebrations in Washington (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: War Criminals (mind)  65 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: 1956, Memory, and History (mind)  104 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: REQ: Do I need a visa? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  says...
>
>Hello folks,
>
>I've been a huge admirer of hungarian culture for a long time.
>I'm thinking to visit budapest this winter.
>I'll stay there for a week.
>I got a korean diplomat passport.
>
>Do I need a visa?
>My trip purpose is a simple jouney
>
>Thanks.
>--
>            __          _       _
>       __| |       |   /  \    |      |[] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- []
>   \__        | |       /      |   \   [] -*REMEMBER:Death is nature's
way[]
>         \              _        |\    [] -* to  tell you to slow down.
  []
>    _ ___/    |_    /        \  _    _|[] -*
  []
>
>     Stan 's web page : http://www.shef.ac.uk/students/pm/pma95ssk
>                ======= E-Mail : ======
>       __~@   __~@           __~@        Run                   -----
__~@
>    _-\__<,_-\__<,        _-\__<,     for your life...       -----
_-\__<,
>   (*)/' ((*)/' (*)      (*)/' (*)                          -----  (*)/'
(*)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
>* This sadness must go on -
>       From the late Van Gough's last word **
>
>
>I believe you should call the consulate.  I guess, we all only know
whether we, living in Canada, US, stb., need one or not (Canadians
don't).

Agnes
+ - Re: 1100th Year Celebrations in Washington (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 3:04 PM 11/1/96, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:
>On November the 12th: The 1100th anniversary of the Hungarian Republic
>will be celebrating in grand style at the Kennedy Center.  There is a
>concert with the NSO.  $25-$35. 7pm.  Details 202-467-4600.
>
>Submitted by Peter Soltesz

Republic? 1,100 years? You must be kidding...
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 3:29 PM 11/1/96, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

>        Held's book was written in 1985, Szakaly's in 1994, but it is
>unlikely that Szakaly used Held.
>        Eva Balogh

Szakaly and Held are good friends and are familiar with each other's works.
The three of us had a few beers together last year.

Peter I. Hidas
+ - SEARCH FOR BOHAR (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I am trying to locate family relatives in Budapest under the name of BOHAR.
I would appreciate any help!

My mother's name was Victoria Bencze (nee BOHAR) and moved to Canada in 1929.
Her Sister lives(lived) in Hungary, under the name of Margaret ZOLTAN (nee
BOHAR).
Margaret ZOLTAN has a son named Barnak ZOLTAN.

I am trying to locate him.

Any help is appreciated.

Mrs. Mary Campbell (nee BENCZE)
Brampton, Ontario, Canada

email  
+ - 1956, Memory, and History (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Between the Sunday before October 23 (when I caught a commemorative
program on the BBC World Service) and now I have been following what
I can find on the anniversary of the 1956 uprising and the reactions
to it both in Hungary and abroad, including on this list.  I think
the situation now is that 1956 has begun its journey from publically-
forbidden topic (discussed in private within families, among friends
who trusted each other, via foreign news and publications from abroad, and
in the latter years increasingly in public) through object of historical
research and discussion (including political polemic) accompanied by,
alas, increasing popular indifference, until it arrives at the status of
"national myth."

In other words, it's on a journey between (to grasp for inexact analogies)
the Gulf War and George Washington's cherry tree (with the signficant
difference that 1956 actually happened!).

What happens to the popular understanding of what went on in the
autumn of 1956 (now forty years ago -- what's the demographic profile of
the Hungarian population?  What percent of the whole was already, say, 6
years old then?  That's the only group that has first-hand memories of
it) depends a lot on things like teaching in the schools, popular
juvenile literature, the adaptation of it into the rituals of national
politics (commemorations, monuments, etc.), reflections in cinema, pop and
serious literature, etc.  That's an incomplete process right now, and a
lot of the disagreement (or worse) that we see about it has to do with
this process.  Every great historical earthquake has a similar experience,
I recall around the 1989 anniversary of the French Revolution several works
coming out suggesting by their titles that the revolution lasted for
most of the century following 1789, at least in the sense of arguments over
the "meaning" of the revolution, and the Civil War in the US may be an
example of something similar here.

The way I look at the "freedom-fight" versus "revolution" argument is to
see it as a part of this process.  On the one hand it may seem like a rather
tepidly relevant hairsplitting over semantics.  On the other hand, it is
a question that obviously arouses strong passions among some.  Unfortunately
for the disinterested pursuit of historical understanding, it has also been
made into a political touchstone, one of the many tools by which certain
forces within the Hungarian community work to monopolize the discourse
about what it is to be Hungarian, so that they can separate the precious
grain of the "real" Hungarians from the chaff of, say, "Hungary-bashers."

In this sense, the argument is hardly about 1956 at all; rather, it is
an argument about the present-day political agenda, and 1956 is used
as a weapon in the present debate.  (As the US election approaches,
we can see similar things going on here).

Personally, I think Csaba Zoltani has it about right: the use of the term
"szabadsagharc" will probably eventually become accepted as a term to be
used interchangeably with "forradalom" to describe the 1956 upheaval.  The
professional historians will continue to dig into newly-unearthed materials
such as those mentioned in the review in the New York Times Review of Books,
and the Cold War History Project is an important source of this information.
This may refine our understanding of the historical events, but their
"meaning" in the general sense will not be determined by this or even,
perhaps, significantly altered by the historians' conclusions.  In fact,
the general public may well continue to become ever more ignorant and
disinterested about it.

The day will probably come when, if you say "freedom fighter" to a young
Hungarian in the street, he will immediately think of Michael Jackson!:-(

None of this will take away from the fact that during those days of 1956
momentous events happened, people's lives were changed, and the world was
given a moving and inspiring example of a people's desire for something
better than political tyranny and dictatorial rule, economic exploitation
and cultural impoverishment.

Around us today we still see plenty of examples of such problems.

Pause for thought?

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Re: Taxonomy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:07 PM 10/31/96 EST, "Csaba Zoltani (CICC/CTD)" > wrote:

<snip>
>There are many indications that the use of "szabadsagharc" with respect
>to the events of '56 is in ascendancy. Two examples, out of many:

The only thing in ascendancy is this futile, bizarre attampt by right
wingers to rewrite Hungarian history.  Well, it won't work.  Csaba's "two
examples, out of many" is inconsequential compared to the thousands of
references to "revolution" when people discuss the events of 1956.  And
let's not forget the tens of millions of people around the world who call
the events of 1956 a "revolution".

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: only one explanation (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 04:01 PM 10/31/96 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

<snip>
>I stand corrected.  There is no evidence of your parents having  willingly
>served the Kadar regime.  But I am not aware of them publicly opposing it,
>either.  To be in a prominent academic position during the Kadar years
>usually required at least a tacit recognition of the authority and
>legitimacy of the communist regime.  Professing Marxist ideology was de
>rigeur until almost the end.  Hence the idea of serving, however indirectly
>or unwittingly, the communist cause.  Also, to be declared a traitor to
>Marxism, one would have to be a declared Marxist.
>
>Ferenc

Ferenc,

I see a lot of unfairness and inequality in our society.  I've yet to see
you oppose any of it.  Can I assume that your silence is tacit approval of
the way things are?

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: 1100th Year Celebrations in Washington (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:45 PM 11/1/96 -0400, Peter I. Hidas wrote:

>At 3:04 PM 11/1/96, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:

>>On November the 12th: The 1100th anniversary of the Hungarian Republic
>>will be celebrating in grand style at the Kennedy Center.  There is a
>>concert with the NSO.  $25-$35. 7pm.  Details 202-467-4600.
>>
>>Submitted by Peter Soltesz

>Republic? 1,100 years? You must be kidding...

Ah, come on, Peter.  Give the man a break.  It was probably written that
way.  And we know how Peter Soltesz relates to anything that is written.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: 1956, Memory, and History (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:44 AM 11/2/96 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

<snip>
>Personally, I think Csaba Zoltani has it about right: the use of the term
>"szabadsagharc" will probably eventually become accepted as a term to be
>used interchangeably with "forradalom" to describe the 1956 upheaval.

I don't think so.

Last week I reminded several Canadian-Hungarians that it was the 40th
anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution.  Sadly, they had forgotten.  If, in
ten years, I were to remind them of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian
"Szabadsagharc" they would have no idea of what I was talking about.

A small group of people, with an esoteric historical interpretation, will
fail in their revisionism.  It's only a question of "when", not "if".

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: War Criminals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In a message dated 96-11-02 01:12:32 EST,  (Joe
Szalai) writes:
.........................
> I know many people who think that Canada should stop hunting for Nazi war
>  criminals.  They say that most of the suspects are very old and frail and
>  that most have lived a quiet, private life in Canada.  They say that
society
>  has nothing to gain by these trials and deportations.
>  I disagree.  I think that there should be no law of limitation on war
>  criminals.
>  What do you think?  Should there be limitations on hunting Nazi war
> criminals?
             >  Joe Szalai

There should be no time limit! At this point the key word really is "war
criminal".
All over the world horible things are done to innocent people by war
criminals
(it seems to be the order of the day) - and they get away with it!

ALUDJ  by Miklos Radnoti  (1937)
"Mindig gyilkolnak valahol,
lehunyt pillaju volgy
olen, furkeszo ormokon,
akarhol, s vigaszul
hiaba mondod, messzi az!
Sanghai, vagy Guernica
szivemhez eppen oly kozel,
mint rettego kezed,
vagy arra fent a Jupiter!
Ne nezz az egre most,
ne nezz a foldre sem, aludj!
a szikrazo Tejut
poraban a halal szalad
s ezusttel hinti be
az elbuko vad arnyakat"
****
and  from
ORIZZ ES VEDJ  (also written in 1937)
"...............................
De mindenunnen, Afrikabol is
borzalmas siras hallik; re'mito"
gyermeke't szoptatja nappal, ejjel
szederjes mellen dajkal az ido.

Mit er a szo ket haboru kozott,
s mit erek en, a ritka es nehez
szavak tudosa, hogyha ostoban
bombat szorongat minden kerge kez!
......................."

I regret that these poems are not available in English - my appologies to
those who do not read Hungarian.

Marina
+ - War Criminals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>>Joe Szalai asked.....

>.............. They say that most of the suspects are very old and frail and
>that most have lived a quiet, private life in Canada.  They say that society
>has nothing to gain by these trials and deportations.
>
>I disagree.  I think that there should be no law of limitation on war
>criminals.
>
>What do you think?  Should there be limitations on hunting Nazi war criminals?
>
>Joe Szalai

What about the deported, the gassed and the murdered? There were countless
old and frail among them, they had the least prospects of escape and hiding.
They had no mercy then why should we now? They should be brought to trial
and if convicted, then deported. But where to? Back to the old country?

Anna
+ - Re: War Criminals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:19 AM 11/2/96 -0800, Joe Szalai wrote:

>>.............. They say that most of the suspects are very old and frail and
>>that most have lived a quiet, private life in Canada.  They say that society
>>has nothing to gain by these trials and deportations.
>>
>>I disagree.  I think that there should be no law of limitation on war
>>criminals.
>>
>>What do you think?  Should there be limitations on hunting Nazi war criminals
?

There should be no limitation and no mercy either (imho).

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 06:43 PM 11/1/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        I really don't want to start a new controversy but there are a
>couple of things to keep in mind about Matthias. Matthias spoke several
>languages, but, if I recall properly, there is documentary evidence that he
>didn't speak Romanian, although, of course, he immediately recognized the
>Latin origin of the Romanian language, when some dignitaries arrived at his
>court from Wallachia. The great "national" king as soon as he occupied
>Vienna, moved, court and all, there, leaving good old Buda behind. So, what
>I am trying to say is that it is very, very hard to make "national" heroes
>out of these guys. They were just ambitious men who easily moved from one
>country to the next, depending on their fortunes. As far as the statue of
>Matthias in Cluj/Kolozsvar is concerned it would be nice if Romanians and
>Hungarian could come to the only sensible conclusion: he was neither
>Romanian nor Hungarian. He was a successful medieval king, a patron of arts,
>and a man who managed to get to several thrones simply through his talent
>and fortune and without the grace of God.

I hope I am not getting myself in trouble with all the pros (and amateurs)
of history with what follows here (especially that before getting onto the
Internet I did not spend a great amount of time studying history). My
recollection is that it was very common for European countries to import
monarchs, I assume because they wanted a "real" king. The Romanian monarchy
was based on imports, fact that does not stop King Michael (who is in exile,
I think in Switzerland) to consider himself Romanian. Can we say then, that
regardless of their ethnic origin a king is Hungarian if he is Hungary's
king (maybe except when he resides in Vienna, when he is Austro-Hungarian;-)?

By the way all these kings and queens from various countries seem to be
related to each other.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: 1956, Memory, and History (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 8:44 AM 11/2/96, Hugh Agnew wrote:
>Dear fellow-listmembers,
>
  I think
>the situation now is that 1956 has begun its journey from publically-
>forbidden topic (discussed in private within families, among friends
>who trusted each other, via foreign news and publications from abroad, and
>in the latter years increasingly in public) through object of historical
>research and discussion (including political polemic) accompanied by,
>alas, increasing popular indifference, until it arrives at the status of
>"national myth."

In Hungary the open discussion of 1956 began around 1988. HIstorians in the
West always wrote about the events of 1956 as an anti-totalitarian
revolution (Kecskemeti, Vali etc). Today we might speak of benign neglect
of the topic and such attitude seldom leads to national myth.

>What happens to the popular understanding of what went on in the
>autumn of 1956 (now forty years ago -- what's the demographic profile of
>the Hungarian population?  What percent of the whole was already, say, 6
>years old then?  That's the only group that has first-hand memories of
>it) depends a lot on things like teaching in the schools, popular
>juvenile literature, the adaptation of it into the rituals of national
>politics (commemorations, monuments, etc.), reflections in cinema, pop and
>serious literature, etc.  That's an incomplete process right now, and a
>lot of the disagreement (or worse) that we see about it has to do with
>this process.

This observation applies to all historical events; witnesses die out. From
this point of you there is nothing unique about the history of 1956. The
last verdict belongs to the historians as always.

>
>The way I look at the "freedom-fight" versus "revolution" argument is to
>see it as a part of this process.  On the one hand it may seem like a rather
>tepidly relevant hairsplitting over semantics.  On the other hand, it is
>a question that obviously arouses strong passions among some.  Unfortunately
>for the disinterested pursuit of historical understanding, it has also been
>made into a political touchstone, one of the many tools by which certain
>forces within the Hungarian community work to monopolize the discourse
>about what it is to be Hungarian, so that they can separate the precious
>grain of the "real" Hungarians from the chaff of, say, "Hungary-bashers."
>In this sense, the argument is hardly about 1956 at all; rather, it is
>an argument about the present-day political agenda, and 1956 is used
>as a weapon in the present debate.  (As the US election approaches,
>we can see similar things going on here).

Here I must agree. The misuse and abuse of history, however, seldom
contribute to our understanding of the past, in this case 1956.
>
>Personally, I think Csaba Zoltani has it about right: the use of the term
>"szabadsagharc" will probably eventually become accepted as a term to be
>used interchangeably with "forradalom" to describe the 1956 upheaval.

If szabadsagharc means anti-totalitarian struggle; fight against the
Stalinists, both Hungarian and Soviet, than I agree. 1956 was not 1848.
 The
>professional historians will continue to dig into newly-unearthed materials
>such as those mentioned in the review in the New York Times Review of Books,
>and the Cold War History Project is an important source of this information.
>This may refine our understanding of the historical events, but their
>"meaning" in the general sense will not be determined by this or even,
>perhaps, significantly altered by the historians' conclusions.  In fact,
>the general public may well continue to become ever more ignorant and
>disinterested about it.

As a historian, Hugh, should not denigrate our job to the digging for
facts. We seek to understand what happened and what was beind the happening
and in the minds of the actors.
>
>The day will probably come when, if you say "freedom fighter" to a young
>Hungarian in the street, he will immediately think of Michael Jackson!:-(

I believe the Hungarian educational system will do a better job. It did
with 1848.

>None of this will take away from the fact that during those days of 1956
>momentous events happened, people's lives were changed, and the world was
>given a moving and inspiring example of a people's desire for something
>better than political tyranny and dictatorial rule, economic exploitation
>and cultural impoverishment.

That is not enough. Change is constant. Desire for freedom is permanent. In
1956 we destroyed a myth, a faith, the movement of the fellow-travellers in
the west, the western belief that communism cannot be destroyed from
within. The Hungarian revolution was a precursor of what happened after
1989.

Peter I. Hidas
+ - Re: War Criminals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:02 AM 11/2/96, S or G Farkas wrote:

>There should be no limitation and no mercy either (imho).
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

No limitation on war crimes is a generally accepted concept. But no mercy?
We want to tell the world that nobody can get away with murder and we want
to teach the young about the crimes of the nazis and their collaborators
but our methods must be different from the evil ones.

Peter I. Hidas
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:19 AM 11/2/96, S or G Farkas wrote:
>At 06:43 PM 11/1/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>        I really don't want to start a new controversy but there are a
>>couple of things to keep in mind about Matthias. Matthias spoke several
>>languages, but, if I recall properly, there is documentary evidence that he
>>didn't speak Romanian, although, of course, he immediately recognized the
>>Latin origin of the Romanian language, when some dignitaries arrived at his
>>court from Wallachia. The great "national" king as soon as he occupied
>>Vienna, moved, court and all, there, leaving good old Buda behind. So, what
>>I am trying to say is that it is very, very hard to make "national" heroes
>>out of these guys. They were just ambitious men who easily moved from one
>>country to the next, depending on their fortunes. As far as the statue of
>>Matthias in Cluj/Kolozsvar is concerned it would be nice if Romanians and
>>Hungarian could come to the only sensible conclusion: he was neither
>>Romanian nor Hungarian. He was a successful medieval king, a patron of arts,
>>and a man who managed to get to several thrones simply through his talent
>>and fortune and without the grace of God.
>
>I hope I am not getting myself in trouble with all the pros (and amateurs)
>of history with what follows here (especially that before getting onto the
>Internet I did not spend a great amount of time studying history). My
>recollection is that it was very common for European countries to import
>monarchs, I assume because they wanted a "real" king. The Romanian monarchy
>was based on imports, fact that does not stop King Michael (who is in exile,
>I think in Switzerland) to consider himself Romanian. Can we say then, that
>regardless of their ethnic origin a king is Hungarian if he is Hungary's
>king (maybe except when he resides in Vienna, when he is Austro-Hungarian;-)?
>
>By the way all these kings and queens from various countries seem to be
>related to each other.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas


Matthias was the king of the Hungarians, the ruler of the Kingdom of
Hungary and, therefore we should accept him as a Hungarian. By ;the way, he
was not such a great king from the Hungarian point of view. His main
preoccupation was the establishment of  a family dynasty. He wasted all the
energies and resources of Hungary on westernly and northwesternly expansion
instead of building up Hungary's southern defences. A few nice books does
not compensate for 150 years of Turkish occupation.

Peter I. Hidas
+ - Re: War Criminals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:48 PM 11/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 10:02 AM 11/2/96, Peter I. Hidas  wrote:

>No limitation on war crimes is a generally accepted concept. But no mercy?
>We want to tell the world that nobody can get away with murder and we want
>to teach the young about the crimes of the nazis and their collaborators
>but our methods must be different from the evil ones.

Yes, I agree. Their property should not be confiscated. They should not be
hauled away from their homes in cattle cars. They should not be kept with no
food  and without warm clothes in the freezing winter. They should not be
killed in gas chambers, after they undressed to go to a shower. And their
bodies should not be burned in a crematorium (unless they so desire),
together with other bodies. Neither should the above happen to their
children, grandchildren and other relatives.

They should be tried according to the law and if proven guilty, they should
get the sentence that corresponds with their crimes.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:54 PM 11/2/96 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:

>Matthias was the king of the Hungarians, the ruler of the Kingdom of
>Hungary and, therefore we should accept him as a Hungarian.

        I think Peter's wording is a bit troublesome. He certainly was *not*
the king of *the Hungarians.*  Moreover, if you look at a map of Hungary
during Matthias's reign, it looked very different from what we think of when
we talk about Greater Hungary. A large chunk of the Dalmatian coast was part
of Crotia and thereby of the Hungarian Crown in addition to parts of Bosnia
and Serbia.

>By ;the way, he
>was not such a great king from the Hungarian point of view. His main
>preoccupation was the establishment of  a family dynasty. He wasted all the
>energies and resources of Hungary on westernly and northwesternly expansion
>instead of building up Hungary's southern defences. A few nice books does
>not compensate for 150 years of Turkish occupation.

        I think nowadays historical thinking simply realizes that the
Ottoman Empire by then was so large and so powerful that not even Hungary
which was the largest and most powerful entity in the region could handle.
About thirty years ago, it was fashionable to look upon Matthias's western
expansions--Austrian provinces and Bohemia-Moravia--as an attempt on his
part to establish a large empire capable of expelling the Turks from the
Balkans. However, as many historians, I think rightly, pointed out even if
Matthias managed, for example, to get hold of the crown of St. Venceslav, or
the Polish crown, his rule would have been based on simple personal union
and he would have been quite unable to force his will on the unruly estates
of East-Central Europe. It is very unlikely that the estates of, let's say,
Bohemia, would have been willing to vote on large war expenditures to fight
the Turks, whom they considered to be at the other end of the world and no
direct threat to them. Ferenc Szakaly at least thinks that Matthias did the
only sensible thing when decided not to attack the Turks because such a move
most likely would have invited an invasion by the powerful Ottoman army
already in the second half of the fifteenth century instead in the middle of
the next.

        And, by the way, I think Peter is far too harsh on Matthias. He was
certainly an exceptional ruler and his reign is looked upon as Hungary's
"golden age." He was extremely adroit in handling the Hungarian nobility
which, without even noticing it, became quite subservient to central
authority. All that, without changing the basic way Hungarian kings ruled.

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

At 10:19 AM 11/2/96 -0800, Gabor Farkas wrote:
>Can we say then, that
>regardless of their ethnic origin a king is Hungarian if he is Hungary's
>king (maybe except when he resides in Vienna, when he is Austro-Hungarian;-)?

        Well, I am not sure. Matthias, as Hungarian king was also king of
Bosnia, for example. Or, in 1470 the Czech estates also elected him to be
king of Bohemia-Moravia. Or six years later Frederick of Habsburg "gave"
Bohemia-Moravia to him. And one could go on and on about the different
configurations. But admittedly, he was best known as a ruler crowned with
the Crown of St. Stephen and thus all the lands belonging to it which at
that point were quite substantial.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: 1100th Year Celebrations in Washington (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I agree Peter...It was taken directly from thier annoncement
it is called a republic now. Peter

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Peter I. Hidas wrote:

> At 3:04 PM 11/1/96, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:
> >On November the 12th: The 1100th anniversary of the Hungarian Republic
> >will be celebrating in grand style at the Kennedy Center.  There is a
> >concert with the NSO.  $25-$35. 7pm.  Details 202-467-4600.
> >
> >Submitted by Peter Soltesz
>
> Republic? 1,100 years? You must be kidding...
>
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva wrote:
>
>        Thank you very much for digging this up for us.

Don't mention it! Since I learned in high-school that the Hunyadis are
**our** national heros,  I wasn't ready to accept too easily your
unflattering portrayal of their legendary aura ;-)

>Homan doesn't mention about
>Cilli's threat about the "two balls," but he certainly makes clear that
>Cilli wanted to "ruin" the Hunyadi family and tried to blacken the name of
>Janos accusing him of misappropriation of funds.

Whatever the case, putting yourself in Hunyadi's 15th century shoes,
don't you think it is reasonable to accept that Laszlo's actions might
be very easily qualified as self-defence?

>        My guess is that all modern historians, dealing with this incident,
>consulted more or less the same sources. The question is emphasis: was
>Laszlo's behavior in Belgrade any better than Laszlo V's behavior in
>Temesvar or Buda. Laszlo V is normally portrayed as a weak young man--he was
>only 17 years old, Laszlo Hunyadi was around 24--who could be easily
>influenced. He is also portrayed as sly and insincere

Life expectancy was much shorter in those times and individuals,
generally,  reached maturity at a much younger age than today. Also,
let's not forget that contemporary chroniclers were not completely
unbiased. Thus, one shouldn't expect the chronicle of counts Cilli,
for example, to be extremely  flattering toward the Hunyadis.

>On November 23, 1457 Ladislas Posthumus died, not
>yet eighteen years old. According to rumors, he was poisoned.

I remember the rumor was put to rest in the late '80s, when analyses
on Ladislas's skeleton revealed that he died of leukemia.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

By stressing what doesn't, or does not necessarily, define a "national
hero," Janos Zsargo struggles to define what a "national hero" is:

>Look, a national hero does not have to feel Hungarian in my opinion
>>>Their ethnicity or their motivation is not that important.

Then he asks:

>Finally if you wan to talk about criterias, have you ever heard about the
>'necessary but not sufficient criterias'?

As a general concept, yes. Nevertheless, I'm ready to learn from you
which are those sufficient criteria that qualifies a 15th century
individual as a national hero. And since I'm already using a 12-point
size screen font, please refrain yourself form using the "Caps Lock"
key.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: War Criminals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
 says...
>
>In a message dated 96-11-02 01:12:32 EST, 
(Joe
>Szalai) writes:
>.........................
>> I know many people who think that Canada should stop hunting for Nazi
war
>>  criminals.  They say that most of the suspects are very old and frail
and
>>  that most have lived a quiet, private life in Canada.  They say that
>society
>>  has nothing to gain by these trials and deportations.
>>  I disagree.  I think that there should be no law of limitation on war
>>  criminals.
>>  What do you think?  Should there be limitations on hunting Nazi war
>> criminals?
>             >  Joe Szalai
>
>There should be no time limit! At this point the key word really is "war
>criminal".
>All over the world horible things are done to innocent people by war
>criminals
>(it seems to be the order of the day) - and they get away with it!
>

These are beautiful poems, Marina, and I agree with you 100%!   Agnes

>ALUDJ  by Miklos Radnoti  (1937)
>"Mindig gyilkolnak valahol,
>lehunyt pillaju volgy
>olen, furkeszo ormokon,
>akarhol, s vigaszul
>hiaba mondod, messzi az!
>Sanghai, vagy Guernica
>szivemhez eppen oly kozel,
>mint rettego kezed,
>vagy arra fent a Jupiter!
>Ne nezz az egre most,
>ne nezz a foldre sem, aludj!
>a szikrazo Tejut
>poraban a halal szalad
>s ezusttel hinti be
>az elbuko vad arnyakat"
>****
>and  from
>ORIZZ ES VEDJ  (also written in 1937)
>"...............................
>De mindenunnen, Afrikabol is
>borzalmas siras hallik; re'mito"
>gyermeke't szoptatja nappal, ejjel
>szederjes mellen dajkal az ido.
>
>Mit er a szo ket haboru kozott,
>s mit erek en, a ritka es nehez
>szavak tudosa, hogyha ostoban
>bombat szorongat minden kerge kez!
>......................."
>
>I regret that these poems are not available in English - my appologies
to
>those who do not read Hungarian.
>
>Marina
+ - Re: 1956, Memory, and History (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
 says...
>
>Dear fellow-listmembers,
>
>Between the Sunday before October 23 (when I caught a commemorative
>program on the BBC World Service) and now I have been following what
>I can find on the anniversary of the 1956 uprising and the reactions
>to it both in Hungary and abroad, including on this list.  I think
>the situation now is that 1956 has begun its journey from publically-
>forbidden topic (discussed in private within families, among friends
>who trusted each other, via foreign news and publications from abroad,
and
>in the latter years increasingly in public) through object of historical
>research and discussion (including political polemic) accompanied by,
>alas, increasing popular indifference, until it arrives at the status of
>"national myth."
>
>In other words, it's on a journey between (to grasp for inexact
analogies)
>the Gulf War and George Washington's cherry tree (with the signficant
>difference that 1956 actually happened!).
>
>What happens to the popular understanding of what went on in the
>autumn of 1956 (now forty years ago -- what's the demographic profile of
>the Hungarian population?  What percent of the whole was already, say, 6
>years old then?  That's the only group that has first-hand memories of
>it) depends a lot on things like teaching in the schools, popular
>juvenile literature, the adaptation of it into the rituals of national
>politics (commemorations, monuments, etc.), reflections in cinema, pop
and
>serious literature, etc.  That's an incomplete process right now, and a
>lot of the disagreement (or worse) that we see about it has to do with
>this process.  Every great historical earthquake has a similar
experience,
>I recall around the 1989 anniversary of the French Revolution several
works
>coming out suggesting by their titles that the revolution lasted for
>most of the century following 1789, at least in the sense of arguments
over
>the "meaning" of the revolution, and the Civil War in the US may be an
>example of something similar here.
>
>The way I look at the "freedom-fight" versus "revolution" argument is to
>see it as a part of this process.  On the one hand it may seem like a
rather
>tepidly relevant hairsplitting over semantics.  On the other hand, it is
>a question that obviously arouses strong passions among some.
Unfortunately
>for the disinterested pursuit of historical understanding, it has also
been
>made into a political touchstone, one of the many tools by which certain
>forces within the Hungarian community work to monopolize the discourse
>about what it is to be Hungarian, so that they can separate the precious
>grain of the "real" Hungarians from the chaff of, say,
"Hungary-bashers."
>
>In this sense, the argument is hardly about 1956 at all; rather, it is
>an argument about the present-day political agenda, and 1956 is used
>as a weapon in the present debate.  (As the US election approaches,
>we can see similar things going on here).
>
>Personally, I think Csaba Zoltani has it about right: the use of the
term
>"szabadsagharc" will probably eventually become accepted as a term to be
>used interchangeably with "forradalom" to describe the 1956 upheaval.
The
>professional historians will continue to dig into newly-unearthed
materials
>such as those mentioned in the review in the New York Times Review of
Books,
>and the Cold War History Project is an important source of this
information.
>This may refine our understanding of the historical events, but their
>"meaning" in the general sense will not be determined by this or even,
>perhaps, significantly altered by the historians' conclusions.  In fact,
>the general public may well continue to become ever more ignorant and
>disinterested about it.
>
>The day will probably come when, if you say "freedom fighter" to a young
>Hungarian in the street, he will immediately think of Michael
Jackson!:-(
>
>None of this will take away from the fact that during those days of 1956
>momentous events happened, people's lives were changed, and the world
was
>given a moving and inspiring example of a people's desire for something
>better than political tyranny and dictatorial rule, economic
exploitation
>and cultural impoverishment.
>
>Around us today we still see plenty of examples of such problems.
>
>Pause for thought?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Hugh Agnew


I would like to point out here that 1948 events are also called both,
forradalom and szabadsagharc.

Agnes
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:05 PM 11/2/96 GMT, Liviu wrote:
>Eva wrote:
>>
>>        Thank you very much for digging this up for us.
>
>Don't mention it! Since I learned in high-school that the Hunyadis are
>**our** national heros,  I wasn't ready to accept too easily your
>unflattering portrayal of their legendary aura ;-)

        Funny, funny! I hope your "national pride" is more flattered by my
kind words of Matthias's reign ;-)

>Whatever the case, putting yourself in Hunyadi's 15th century shoes,
>don't you think it is reasonable to accept that Laszlo's actions might
>be very easily qualified as self-defence?

        Well, if they hadn't disarmed the king's whole entourage and locked
the gates of Begrade...but somehow if I had been in the king's shoes during
those nights I would have trembled somewhat.

>Life expectancy was much shorter in those times and individuals,
>generally,  reached maturity at a much younger age than today.

        Certainly a good point. Most of these noble "children" were sent off
to be pages at someone else's court by the age of twelve. It seems that we
are not sure of Laszlo Hunyadi's birthdate but they guess that he was 24.
Apparently in 1457 Matthias was either 16 or 18. In any case, the following
year, Matthias's uncle, the unsavory Mihaly Szilagyi became his guardian
after he was elected king. But Matthias got rid of him in no time. If Laszlo
Hunyadi was 24 he was considered to be a grown-up. By the way, was he
married? By the age of 24 he should have been.

>Also,
>let's not forget that contemporary chroniclers were not completely
>unbiased. Thus, one shouldn't expect the chronicle of counts Cilli,
>for example, to be extremely  flattering toward the Hunyadis.

        I thought that I had made some reference to the possibility of
biased contemporary accounts--happens all the time.

>I remember the rumor was put to rest in the late '80s, when analyses
>on Ladislas's skeleton revealed that he died of leukemia.

        Very interesting. Leukemia sounds right given his age. Although I
read in one of the secondary sources that he became the victim of the
bubonic plague. That should be fairly easy to check: was there bubonic
plague epidemic in Prague in 1457?

        Best regards, Eva
+ - Re: Laszlo Hunyadi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:52 PM 11/1/96 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:
>At 3:29 PM 11/1/96, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>
>>        Held's book was written in 1985, Szakaly's in 1994, but it is
>>unlikely that Szakaly used Held.
>>        Eva Balogh
>
>Szakaly and Held are good friends and are familiar with each other's works.
>The three of us had a few beers together last year.


        They may be drinking together but I still maintain that Szakaly
didn't use Held's book. It is very possible that he didn't agree with the
interpretation. Szakaly surely gives a different story from the one which
was given by Joseph Held almost ten years earlier.

        Eva Balogh

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