Sending money through the mail in small denominations wedged in between papers,
letters has worked.  Please remember that Hungarian customs will open
packages--
standard procedure and they will even charge the recipient a small forint
fee for the opening charge.  Letters are usually safe.

Hungarian Archive under threat.

As a result of budget cuts outlined in Hungary's Supplementary Budget
this summer, the archive of the Hungarian Trade Union Council (SZOT) is
facing closure.  If the archive does close the sources will be
nationalised and relegated to a warehouse, not open to public view.  Not
only would this closure to the public have serious consequences for
researchers, warehousing the collection would have the attendant danger
of the collection being separated, of documents being lost and
destroyed.

This collection is indispensable resource for researchers working on the
social history of the socialist period Hungary.  It includes:
1) all the records of the works councils (uzemi bizottsagok) from their
foundation after World War II up until 1948;
2) the records of the debates within the SZOT leadership from 1945 up
until the formation of the MSZOSZ in 1988;
3) the records of all the branch level trade unions operating in the
country during this period;
4) the most complete information on wages and unofficial industrial
action in the socialist period;
5) the most detailed information on the organisation of labour
competition after World War II;
6) very good information on official attempts to maintain work
discipline during the period; and
7) comprehensive information on Hungarian social policy.

The sources in the archive do not only include industry.  There is also
extensive information on agriculture and the circumstances of white
collar workers.

It would be a tragedy if this information were lost to researchers.

The suspicion is that this archive has been singled out as a soft target
by the Ministry of Education and Culture because of a perceived lack of
interest by researchers.  Please convince them that this perception is
wrong.  Use whatever influence you might have with either the Hungarian
government, Hungarian or international Trade Unions and any other
appropriate bodies to help save this archive.  If you have no special
contacts, please send a letter the Cultural Attache at your local
Hungarian Embassy expressing concern about the fate of this collection
and stating that it should not be dispersed and should remain open to
the public.  For UK readers the Cultural Attache at the Hungarian
Embassy in London is Mr Gabor Turi, Embassy of the Hungarian Republic,
35 Eaton Place, London SW1.



--
Nigel Swain: 
Tel: +44 (0)151 794 2422; Fax: +44 (0)151 794 2423
Centre for Central and Eastern European Studies, University of Liverpool
11 Abercromby Square, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

I would like to add to this is a small way.  Unfortunately, I would
have to agree--having spent the last two years in Hungary--that
the country is incredibly intolerant regarding minorities.

Eger, the scene of one of the attacks, is a beautiful city which just
happens to be one of the skinhead capitals of that country.  I love
Hungary, but there are obviously some problems with attitude (from
my western perspective) there.

I agree.  I have spent the last two years of my life in Hungary and there
were definitely some things about the attitudes of the people there that
were discouraging and would dissuade me from staying there in definitely.

But now that I am in the States, I find myself missing things about
Hungary.  And I do love it in a way.

I do tend to agree that although on a personal level there are many great
and good Hungarian people, as a group--they are one of the most racist,
sexist, anti-semitic, nationalistic groups period.  Unfortunately, I think
there are a lot of -isms going on in that part of the world and hence
some of the reasons for WWI and WWII and even the current situation in
the former Yugoslavia for example.

 writes:

> ...I have spent the last two years of my life in Hungary...

> ...they are one of the most racist,
> sexist, anti-semitic, nationalistic groups period.

Just to put your opinion in perspective, other than the USA
(I assume) and Hungary, in what other countries have you spent two
years of your adult life?

--Greg

I received this reference question, does somebody know?
"would like to know the location, somewhere in the
United States, of the Hungarian Mercantile Building.  It was built
in 1894.  Not much information to go by, but I would certainly appreciate
any help in finding out the building's location"
Thank you very much.  Elizabeth

I missed the original message to which "atjyl" agrees, but I take
umbrage to the remarks about Hungarians as a group being the most
racist, sexist, etc. etc.
Generalizations such as these are a bit simplistic to be given for
explanations for World Wars.
I could agree that Hungarians can be cantankerous and judgemental,
especially in a group..., and yes, I have met some sexist ones.  But
having lived in:  DP camps in Germany, South America and the United States
(the South, the Midwest, and the East), travelled around Europe, South
and North America (no, I am not bragging, just footnoting my expertise
before it gets questiond by somebody...) I would be hard pressed
to declare which "group" is the most racist, etc.  So far I have been
lucky to have met only "individuals" with negative characteristics not
"groups".

 writes:

> ...But
> having lived in:  DP camps in Germany, South America and the United States
> (the South, the Midwest, and the East)...

Now this'd be a topic!

I assume a Hungarian DP's experience is a legitimate topic
(if not genial Joe Pannon will let us know); and
personally, I would be very interested in your story.  I didn't
even know there were DP camps in the USA, but then again I was surprised
when I learned there were POW camps here during WWII.

Whatever you are willing to post would be much appreciated.

--Greg

Does anyone know of comercially available machine translation software from
Hungarian to English? Any leads would be greatly appreciated.

Daniel Radzinski  Tovna Translation Machines  Jerusalem, Israel  

I'd like to know what kind of people i find on the net.

Students, Commercials, Adminitrations, Scientifics or what ??

Is anybody knows that or have statistical results ?


What are YOU doing in life ?

I am a system administrator.


Thanks for the answers and sorry for my english .....



Bye


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|               Pierre DIDIERJEAN                                             |
|                                                                             |
|               Administrateur Systeme UNIX                                   |
|               Cisi, Aix-en-Provence                                         |
|               France                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       email :                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I should have known! Next time (if there is one) I promise to double
check in at least two sources of correct English usage.  What I meant
was: 1. DP camps in Germany.  2. Cities in South America.  3. Cities
(and now village) in the U.S.A.
And no, I do not want to talk about the camps.  Elizabeth

Elizabeth writes:

> Next time...I promise to double check...

Not at all, I'm afraid my enthusiasm led me astray.  My mother
and grandmother were both DPs; I was always fascinated by their
stories.  I'm taping a family history partly to get these events
down.


> And no, I do not want to talk about the camps.

I have a feeling that is our loss; and forgive me if I've dredged up
painful memories.

--Greg

>>George Antony writes:

>>[analyis deleted]

>>Great stuff.  Can we please tempt you into telling us your opinion on
>>what should be done now, and on the consequences of following or not
>>following your recommended policy?

>>--Greg

As a minimum, keep your words. If the west says that they will enforce
certain conditions, (Like safe heavens) enforce them. Every time I listen
to the news, I say: "Here comes some more hot air." Personally I feel, that
the west lost its oportunity. They Should have done something before the
russian foreign policy became more firm.

Sandor Lengyel

I am sorry about the belated response to Glen Camp's questions.  Just by
chance I read the compiled version of HUNGARY on the USENET, and realized
that neither Glen's post nor Joe Pannon's response to it have reached me
through the normal channel.  So, there may be some problems with distribution.

Glen Camp wrote:
>Point of information, George.  Are you suggesting that Hungary should
>become an appendage of the FRG?  Or did I misread your post?

No, I thought I was unambiguous enough on that.  Yes, Hungary should become
the economic appendage of the FRG just as Austria has.  This is the best
position that she can achieve, and a revitalization of the traditional
German orientation.  Given that Germany is the only country that still stands
up for others and puts her money (even if not her Pomeranian grenadiers, as
Andras Kornai puts it) where her mouth is, alliance with her is the best
proposition.  Economically, once the costs of unification are digested,
Germany will dominate Europe more than ever.  Hopefully, this will manifest
itself in an increasing political role too.

>I hope I misread it.  For the carnage in B-H which threatens to involve
>Hungary if the Serbs try to subjugate Voyvodina as they have subjugated
>Kosovo,

The carnage in Bosnia has nothing to do with the subjugation of Kosovo, as
the latter preceded the former by a couple of years.  And, in case you
missed it, Vojvodina has also been subjugated at the same time.  Done.

>was really initiated by a foolish German policy

I am in full agreement with Joe Pannon in that the carnage in Bosnia was
initiated by the foolish policies of the US, France and Britain in not
standing up to Serbian aggression earlier, i.e., in Croatia.  Also, the
US was party to the arms embargo that made both Croats and Bosnians fight
with one hand tied behind their backs.

>of premature recog-
>nition of Slovenia and Croatia (perhaps owing to 450,000 Croatian "Gastar-
>beiter" in the FRG)

I would have thought that there was a large number of Serbian Gastarbeitern
in Germany also, hence this is a non sequitur.  But I take your point that
German sympathies lie with Croatia.

>under then FRG-FM Hans Dietrich Genscher.  Then having
>started the tragedy, the Germans "wimped out" by pleading legal obstacles
>to sending military aid via their Basic Law.

I would have thought that a USAian who is presumably as proud of the US
constitution and political system as most of his compatriots appear to be
would be a little more respectful of other countries' consitutions and
democratic political processes.  (Especially that the German one was approved
by the governments of the occupying forces after WWII.)  The Germans had to
overcome substantial domestic resistance and a legal challenge by the
opposition before sending troops to a non-NATO country (Somalia) the first
 time.Since then, they sent navy ships to the Yugoslav coast and the German air
 force
is involved in the aid airlift into Croatia and Bosnia.

Also, if you believe that political sensitivities in the Balkans would allow
the deployment of German peacekeepers, let alone peacemakers, you need to
familiarize yourself with the region's realities a little more.

Or do you mean the US-supported UN arms embargo as the 'legal obstacle' that
the Germans were too wimpy to violate by sending military aid ?

>I expect
>Ameica to lead via "Lift and Strike"

I bet a bottle of sljivovica that the US is not going to do any such thing.
The "Lift" proposition will die in the Security Council, and Clinton is
going to say that he cannot do anything without and against the allies.

>because nobody in Europe or Russia
>is willing to lead

The Russians are leading all right, in the opposite direction.  Just as
Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev foreshadowed well over a year ago when he
urged the West to hurry up if they wanted to do something drastic to Serb
nationalists because domestic pressures in Russia were building to support
the Serb cause.  The Clinton administration let the warning pass and did
nothing for two years, despite Clinton's campaign rhetoric about supporting
the Bosnians, and moved now only when pressed by the US legislature.
But it is too late now for "Lift" and/or "Strike": neither would pass in the
Security Council.

>Only America can provide the moral and political and military
>authority to do the job.

Well, the US has the military authority but forfeited the moral and political
ones.  The Canadians have the moral authority and even contributed forces on
the ground, Latin America is untainted so far, but there are signs that the
Brazilians will vote against "Lift" in the Security Council.

>I do believe that ground troops will *NOT*
>be needed since every time the West has seriously moved the Serbs (both
>in Belgrade *and* Pale have drawn back.

Absolutely.  This is the saddest part of it all: a couple of NATO warplanes
triggering sonic booms over the shelled Hungarian villages in Eastern
Slavonia in 1991 could have prevented the whole thing.
>I would be interested in responses on this thread.

There you have it.

George Antony

Sandor Lengyel x5786 ) wrote:
: >>was really initiated by a foolish German policy of premature recog-
: >>nition of Slovenia and Croatia (perhaps owing to 450,000 Croatian "Gastar-
: >>beiter" in the FRG) under then FRG-FM Hans Dietrich Genscher.
: In principal I agree with Gencher. Every nation has a right for
: selfdetermenation. Croatia was a nation, when the hungarians arrived.
: With more than a 1000 year history, they have a right for independence.
: (Note: I am hungarian, and historicaly ( the year of 1848 ) I cannot say
: that I am prejudiced for the croats).
: It is true that europe behaved shamefully.

this opens pandora's box, for from what i have read, the difference between
the serbs, croats and bosnians is essentially religion. as far as i
understand matters, the common language is serbo-croatian, with the
principal difference being whether one uses a cyrillic or roman alphabet.
as far as i recall from my readings, catholicism was introduced by
the invading hungarians centuries ago, and the long period of turkish
rule resulted in many conversions to the muslin religion. as far as i
recall from my readings, the serbo-croats form are of the same ethnic group,
distinct from, say, the slovenes and montenegrans.

if what i recall reading is correct, then it is "merely" a religious
difference which divides an ethnic group. if you are proposing that
different religious groups within the one ethnic population and geographic
region should form different nation states, then you are indeed supporting
a complete break-up of europe as we know it.
to some extent these religious differences have resulted in political
separation of one ethnic group: in switzerland the canton of appenzell,
for example, is divided into two half-cantons along religious lines

even if not. even if you are only proposing that different ethnic groups
live in different autonomous nation states, then it would be difficult
to justify the continued existence of a unified spain, france, italy,
switzerland, belgium, germany, .....

perhaps a greater number of smaller and less powerful nation-states
would be of benefit, but are you sure that is what you have in mind?

d.a.

Now that the Horn government has been in office for 100 days, perhaps it is
time to move from Hobbs to Hungary and try to evaluate the effectiveness of
the socialist-liberal government. Although the two parties lost some
percentage points in popularity, the Hungarian population doesn't seem to be
tired of them yet. According to predictions, the MSZP and the SZDSZ, will be
also the winners of the municipal elections to be held on December 11.

Although the the MSZP-SZDSZ coalition still has the trust of those who voted
for the two parties, I wonder how long will the honeymoon last. Admittedly, I
may not be the most impartial observer, because I was not an MSZP supporter,
but I am disappointed in the government's performance. I thought that the
MSZP and the SZDSZ promised faster privatization, an immediate media law,
private radio and TV, reduction of subsidies to failing companies, higher
prices for energy, reform and privatization of banks, and general
belt-tightening inside and outside of government. Nothing from the above
materialized. Privatization, in fact, slowed; the media law promised for this
year is nowhere and when it comes it will contain provisions for *two* TV
channels and *three* radio frequencies! (Other countries, like Great Britain
or Canada, are happy only with one channel--but rich Hungary needs two!).
Subsidies were extended to the Ozd steel mill in spite of heavy losses in the
past and the general hopelessness of a still industry in Hungary. One doesn't
see any sign of general belt-tightening either; in fact, Hungary's
indebtedness further increased since this government took office. The
International Monetary Fund is threatening not to extend any long-term loans
to Hungary. Meanwhile, energy prices which were supposed to go up by 30
percent remained the same. There is now talk about price-hikes of 60-70
percent next year. Nothing is happening on the bank front either; moreover,
Soros withdrew is offer of buying into the OTP. I am sure some of you could
come up with several other examples.

One may add to this list a general feeling that the old nomenclature is
creeping back to public office. For example, the new Hungarian ambassador to
Washington is the former personal interpreter of Janos Kadar! No wonder that
the U.S. government took its sweet time to accept him. Andras Kornai called
our attention to the foot-dragging on the post-1956 terror trials as well as
foot-dragging on the implimentation of the lustration law.

So all in all, it is not a pretty picture. I am curious what you think.

Eva Balogh

Glen Camp writes:
> We Americans just should start acting like the Superpower we still claim
> to be!

I am smiling again. Let's cut the defense spending to bare bones and start
mongering. A police action perhaps? Those tend to be so successful.:-)
Of course, now that we made Haiti "safe for democracy" we are on roll.
Your son or my son?

Regards,Jeliko.

Tibor Benke writes:


> Now I don't know much about science, I barely passed my (american)
> highschool physics and chemistry courses and that was more then thirty
> years ago,

Now we are even, if I remember correctly I did not do well in Anarchy 101 or
Syndicalism 102 either.

>and I have struggled through a few books about the philosophy of
> science, namely  Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_
> and Karl Popper's _Logic of Scientific Discovery_.

Science is like sex, some philosophize about it, while others practice it.

>I got the impression
> from these books that science was *never* just common sense, but always a
> careful double checking of sensory evidence, preferably, by more than one
> means, so that theories can be validated.  The disputes among various
> philosophers of science  seem to concern issues like how strictly and how
> long things need to be double checked before a theory can be declared a
> law. Is that not so?

Nothing is just "common sense" but it sure helps. A finding that can not be
validated is of course not a fact. There is a lot of science and technology
that works well in spite of the theory not being debated. I am sure the first
fire was not scientifically set by humans but by observation and common
sense. Also apples fell long before someone had time to sit under the apple
tree. (Did he have a government job?)

> >Sorry, if I am mistaken but I thought "history" was in retrospect.

> I think there is a misunderstanding here.  When I spoke of 'retrospect', I
> was speaking in the context of an analytical definition of 'illusion', that
> is to say, when a subject is under the influence of an illusion she/he
> cannot distinguish reality from not reality.
In engineering circles you can be arrested for being under the influence of
"illusion" when you do not distuinguish it from reality. :-)

>  According to Thomas Kuhn, a
> science as a whole experiences what he calls "Paradigm Shifts" , when the
> way the world was formerly described is completely owerthrown and past
> scientific knowledge is relegated to the status of illusion.  Examples of
> this are the conversion from Aristotalian physics to Newtonian physics (In
> the former it was well known that objects were static unless they were
> given 'impetus')

You have to correct your thinking, naturally the power of observability
changed through the times. As an example knowledge that fire is hot and it
gives light and warmth does not need to be preceded by knowledge of oxidation
or knowing of the elements or by most current knowledge of reaction kinetics.
Many of the scientific observations are still correct, the reason for their
exact occurance is what is much better known today.

>and the rise of plate techtonics in geology (Formerly
> only crackpots  like Churchward ( author of _The Lost Continent of Mu_)
> believed that continents might move after the '50s it was geological
> concensus that all the continents once formed a supercontinent)..

While, I am not an expert in plate tectonics, I have cut up my brothers map
of the world and fitted together the parts sometimes in the mid-forties and I
am not a crackpot (?).


> The exponents of the school of historical research known as 'historicism'
> pointed out  a number of  problems unique to the  G.  Some of these are:

On <soc.culture.history>, the moderated version had a long running argument
earlier this year on "What is history?" You may want to retrieve it.

> >I presume you are responding on a community computer. :-)


   (BTW, I heard a rumour that a Hungarian
> won the Nobel Prize for applying game theory to economics, is this true?)

Yes, it is, but he had other's to share with, so it couldn't have been
solitair that he used as an example.

> PS Does the fact that 'to explain' in Hungarian is 'magyarazni' (literally,
> hungarianize) say something about our culture and national identity?

Considering that at the time of the Hungarian language reform, most written
information was in Latin or Greek, I would not jump to culture and identity
conclusions in the derivation of the word.

I think we can agree that we disagree. With the flack we are getting I think
the subject is not exciting the audience.

Regards,Jeliko.

George Antony wrote a very erudite posting relating to the Balkan
issue. I
agree with most of it.
As far as the George Bush regime is concerned, lets not forget
the erstwhile
Secretary of State's (Eagelburger) involvement in the ill fated
(but to him
supposedly profitable) Yugo franchise in the US. In his
experience, as an
ammbassador in Belgrade, many Serbophile contacts were also made.
In my
opinion, the whole Bush government was hoodwinked. That much for
US foreign
policy.

Regards,Jeliko.

If anyone thinkgs they can help (live around there?) please mail me.

 makes here some sweeping charges:

>I do tend to agree that although on a personal level there are many great
>and good Hungarian people, as a group--they are one of the most racist,
>sexist, anti-semitic, nationalistic groups period.

    What's the matter, fella'? You haven't got laid there? That sure can
make the grapes taste sauer!
                                                       Matt

Jeliko writes:

> Your son or my son?

AFAIK, the Bosnians are only asking for arms; what's more
they'd probably be happy just to be able to buy them from
us.

--Greg

There is plenty of blame to go around, George.  Bush referred to the
Yugoslav situation as a "hiccup"!  Some hiccup w/ 200,000 dead and perhaps
1.2 million refugees.  Clinton did not lead vigorously because to do so would
violate his pledge to "concentrate on domestic issues like a laser beam", a
pledge he has fortunately violated in returning to Madelaine Albright's
earlier sensible policy of "active multilateralism."
        But it began with an effort by the Germans to throw their weight
around since they were tired of being "Muesterschueler" of Washington.  In
terms of Brandt's "Ostpolitik" (Eastern Policy) it worked well and Washington
followed.
        But in terms of the break-up of Yugoslavia German policy failed mis-
erably--and it's no justification of it to suggest that the rest of the
West failed to lead at all.  A bad policy is not justified by others' failure
to do their part.
        Still, you comments about Bush & Co.'s failure to stop the tragedy
when it could have seem valid.  Washington could have halted the Belgrade
juggernaut at Dubrovnik by the use of Sixth Fleet naval gunfire without
using ground troops.
        And our foolish insistence upon a blanket arms embargo was really
a pro-Serbian move since only Belgrade could employ arms via the JNA.  I
feel there is a strong probability (though in the nature of things it can't
be proved) that the West (particularly the Germans, Brits, and French) just
wanted the war over quickly and that meant helping the Serbs since they were
the strongest party and the Muslims the weakest.
        Finally, there were (to their credit) enough people in Washington
who did not want to support this cynical policy because they couldn't
swallow "ethnic cleansing" and they knew what thugs Milosevic and Karadzic
were so we Americans temporized refusing to get our hands dirty on the
ground in B-H.
        What we should have done is told our allies to go along with us
with a "Lift & Strike" policy thus avoid ground deployments in B-H.  If the
allies wanted to w/draw their UNPROFOR contingents, so be it.  We'd supply
the Muslims (and Croats) by air since the Muslims alone outnumber the Serbs
in B-H and w/ the Croats joined to their quondam enemies (the
Mustlims--don't forget Mostar) and with Pale isolated by skilful diplomacy
the Pale Serbs could be forced into accepting a decent settlement.  But 51-
49% is a disgrace and rewards ethnic cleansing.  A better division would be
a Muslim-Croat duumvirate equal roughly to the prewar Muslim-Croat percentage
of B-H.  And the US should have insisted that B-H remain a multi-ethnic
state with those Serbs who fought for B-H or who were willing to join the
state welcomed!
        But that would have requeired Clinton to get involved in a very nasty
war and overcome the built-in bias of the American people for non-isolation-
ism--and that neither Clinton nor Bush were willing to do.
        Anyone study Ethiopia (Hoare-Laval) or Munich (Chamberlain)??? Or
Spain (1936-37)?  Very instructive for what happened in B-H!
--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

Greg Grose gives me a hard task:
>Can we please tempt you into telling us your opinion on
>what should be done now [i.e., in the Western Powers' Bosnia policy], and
>on the consequences of following or not following your recommended policy?

The strategic objective should be the restoration of something as close to
the old multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Bosnia as possible.  Given the
animosities built up over the last years, the same thing cannot be restored,
unforunately.

For that, the Serb nationalists must be made to appreciate that Greater Serbia
is not on, and the pre-war boundaries of provinces/states/whatevertheywerecalle
d
of xYugoslavia will be the political boundaries in the future.

For that, the Bosnian Serbs must be made to realize that they may lose the war
unless they settle peacefully.  This means that the Bosnian Muslims and Croats
plus federally-minded Serbs must be supported as much as possible.  Since the
UN Security Council will throw out the US proposal to selectively lift the arms
embargo, overt arms supplies to the Bosnian Government are out.  (International
rules must stand, however stupid they are, and Yeltsin's position would become
untenable vis-a-vis Bosnia and the Serbs if the US went her own way.)

The US action should be:

1.  Keep up pressure on Tudjman to maintain the Croat-Muslim alliance in Bosnia
and to talk to the Krajina Serbs, offering the latter meaningful minority
rights.

2.  Keep up pressure on Milosevic to maintain the embargo on the Bosnian and
Croatian Serbs even if they are losing militarily.  Offer him some concessions
in the embargo on Serbia-Montenegro if he recognizes Croatia and Bosnia.  Offer
him aid for after the war and promise assistance in ensuring Serb minority
rights in Croatia and Serbia, so that he can claim to have achieved something
peacefully.  Link the situation of Serbian minorities in Croatia and Bosnia to
that of Albanians, Sanjak Muslims and Hungarians in Serbia: declare that
whatever level of autonomy minority Serbs have outside of Serbia should apply
to minorities within Serbia.

3.  Keep the Russians sweet by trying to do overtly things that Serbofile
Russians would find objectionable.  Talk about Serb minority rights a lot and
propose conference for eventual settlement of the region with Russian co-
chairmanship.  Talk is cheap and Clinton is good in that.

4.  Pressure Izetbegovic to start formal talks with Bosnian Serbs about local
autonomy.  Only a minority will be interested to talk to him in the first place
,
but this would show to the deceived masses that there may be another way from
that of Karadzic.

5.  Help the Bosnian government economically and militarily as much as
 possible.Economic aid is straightforward, it is only a matter of money and
 logistics.
Military aid comes in various forms.  Intelligence information about the Serb
nationalist forces (satellite pictures, etc.) is not banned under the UN
arms embargo, and there is much borderline non-lethal hardware that can be
shipped for the government forces.  Also, raw materials for the government
arms factories (of which there are plenty) are almost as good as giving built-
up arms.  Bosnian factories can apparently turn out even artillery pieces, but
probably not tanks and specialist weapons.  Hence, a covert operation through
friendly Muslim countries would be in order to buy anti-aircraft and anti-tank
weapons in the international arms bazaar and take them to the government.
At the same time, tell Izetbegovic that he cannot overrun the Serbs even if the
capacity will be there to do that and that he has to settle with them,
preferably in a federation.

6.  Try to nudge the French and British into standing up to Karadzic.

Please gentlemen, your discussion is recondite enough and escha-
logical enough without mistranslations like "ghostly wisdom" for the
German "Geisteswissenschaft"! -;).  Try "science of the intellect" and
it works a lot better!

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

Thank you for your thoughtful colloquy gentlemen.  You taught me
a lot about Hungary which is why I joined the list!

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

Greg asking E. G.:
>
> I assume a Hungarian DP's experience is a legitimate topic
> (if not genial Joe Pannon will let us know);

Huh?

Joe

Can anybody tell me what's wrong with this question?

> I'd like to know what kind of people i find on the net.
> Students, Commercials, Adminitrations, Scientifics or what ??

I can't put my finger on it.

Joe

The problem with excluding "groups" entirely is that it is then
impossible to make any valid judgments about societies considered as
collectivities!
        Thus we must steer through Scylla and Charybdis!  May I suggest that
you consider "political culture" as a way out of your intellectual
cul-de-sac?  Bib. upon request (in English yet)!

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 3 Nov 1994  wrote:

> I missed the original message to which "atjyl" agrees, but I take
> umbrage to the remarks about Hungarians as a group being the most
> racist, sexist, etc. etc.
> Generalizations such as these are a bit simplistic to be given for
> explanations for World Wars.
> I could agree that Hungarians can be cantankerous and judgemental,
> especially in a group..., and yes, I have met some sexist ones.  But
> having lived in:  DP camps in Germany, South America and the United States
> (the South, the Midwest, and the East), travelled around Europe, South
> and North America (no, I am not bragging, just footnoting my expertise
> before it gets questiond by somebody...) I would be hard pressed
> to declare which "group" is the most racist, etc.  So far I have been
> lucky to have met only "individuals" with negative characteristics not
> "groups".
>

I know we had POW camps for Axis prisoners in the South; I also know
we had "relocation centers" for Japanese persons (US citizens and their re-
lations because my best friend was a 4th generation Japanese boy who was sent
to one of these camps from San Francisco where I grew up.
        Finally I know we have INS holding facilities for persons who may be
deported for violating US immigration laws.
        I have never heard of DP (Displaced Persons) camps in the US.

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 3 Nov 1994  wrote:

>  writes:
>
> > ...But
> > having lived in:  DP camps in Germany, South America and the United States
> > (the South, the Midwest, and the East)...
>
> Now this'd be a topic!
>
> I assume a Hungarian DP's experience is a legitimate topic
> (if not genial Joe Pannon will let us know); and
> personally, I would be very interested in your story.  I didn't
> even know there were DP camps in the USA, but then again I was surprised
> when I learned there were POW camps here during WWII.
>
> Whatever you are willing to post would be much appreciated.
>
> --Greg
>

In article >,  (IMRE BOKOR)
writes:
> ....
> does this mean that there was no racialism directed against the blacks
> of mississipi, for example, because its black population (quite large
> by southern standards) would have emigrated in hordes. this obviously did
> not happen.

Ere or after the Civvil War?  When slaverie was the law, fleeind slaves were
vigorouslie chased, and oftenest were caught.  Nonethless, manie left.  After
slaverie was abolishd, blacks in large numbers left the south--but
sharecropping, a form of debt-slaverie, a practice known also in the north, and
in West Virginia, held manie.

As for Jews, between the wars, when the laws encouraged them to go, in hordes
thei left.  Teller and Neuman were but twain out of manie

All--alas--very true!  But we might paraphrase Lenin and ask
"Sto delat'" or WHAT IS TO BE DONE (now!)?
        We seem to be entering the end game of the Bosnian chess marathon
and the US *can* help lessen the carnage which its own (together with its
EU allies and the Russians) have together helped exacerbate.  I think its
time to exploit Charles Redman's et al. diplomacy by *really* carrying out
a "lift and strike" policy so graduated that it will aid the diplomatic
effort to isolate further Karadzich, Radic & Co.   Then demand that the
"Contact Group" revise its rejected 51-49% B-H split toward something more
more in lie with the pre-war ethnic split, say 36% Serb and the remainder
Croat+Muslim in a joint federation open to all Bosnian Serbs who wish to
join too and split away from Pale!
        Commentary would be appreciated since I'm doing a paper on the
B-H war.
--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 3 Nov 1994, Sandor Lengyel x5786 wrote:

> >>George Antony writes:
>
> >>[analyis deleted]
>
> >>Great stuff.  Can we please tempt you into telling us your opinion on
> >>what should be done now, and on the consequences of following or not
> >>following your recommended policy?
>
> >>--Greg
>
> As a minimum, keep your words. If the west says that they will enforce
> certain conditions, (Like safe heavens) enforce them. Every time I listen
> to the news, I say: "Here comes some more hot air." Personally I feel, that
> the west lost its oportunity. They Should have done something before the
> russian foreign policy became more firm.
>
> Sandor Lengyel
>

Glen Camp wrote:
>Clinton did not lead vigorously [on Bosnia] because to do so would
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>violate his pledge to "concentrate on domestic issues like a laser beam"

That is a neat euphemism for not doing anything for two years.

>        But it began with an effort by the Germans to throw their weight
>around [...]
>        But in terms of the break-up of Yugoslavia German policy failed mis-
>erably--

I am still at loss to see for what exactly you blame the Germans.  You
were mentioning 'premature recognition of Slovenia and Croatia' earlier, so
let's see what the alternative to that would have been.

The Slovenes and Croats were determined to secede anyway.  Not recognizing them
would have meant that the world gave x-Yugoslavia its blessing and the JNA
a blank cheque.  Carnage would have followed all the same, but it would have
been called 'civil war'.  As such, being blamed for not intervening would not
have weighed on the sensitive Western leaders who could have much more easily
washed their hands of the whole thing.  There is no guarantee that the number
of victims would have been any smaller than even as it is going to be now, afte
r
the botched US-UK-French intervention.  There would have been a good chance tha
t
the JNA would have restored the old Yugoslavia.  This would have meant the
continuation of Serb domination, and the whole country within the Russian spher
e
of influence.

Is this what you would have preferred ?

What in the end is going to happen now is different.  The best that we can hope
for now is that the conflict will be restricted to Bosnia and Serbia can be
discouraged to intervene.  This will mean a firmly Western-oriented Slovenia an
d
Croatia (that is, if you can accept German orientation as such), Russian-
oriented Serbia-Montenegro, an uncertain Macedonia (just another example of the
West not standing up to bullies, this time the Greeks), and an uncertain Bosnia
(probably Western if the government gains the upper hand).

If the West keeps dithering, the conflict may spread via the involvement of
Serbia and Croatia, perhaps ALbania if the Serbs try to sort out Kosovo at the
same time, and possibly with the Greeks trying to finish off the troublesome
Macedons on the side.  I think the Turks are now wiser than to get involved.

Whatever happens, Slovenia will stay out of the fray, firmly German oriented.
Croatia is too far for the Serb army now, and will retain its statehood even
not all of its territory, also German oriented.  The Germans will have gained
two friendly countries: hardly a policy failure.

>and it's no justification of it to suggest that the rest of the
>West failed to lead at all.  A bad policy is not justified by others' failure
>to do their part.

I contend that the Germans were right from the beginning, and the failure of th
e
US, UK and France to do their bit caused the situation to slide into a war.

>Washington could have halted the Belgrade
>juggernaut at Dubrovnik by the use of Sixth Fleet naval gunfire without
>using ground troops.

I reckon that much earlier it could have been done without firing a shot.

>the Pale Serbs could be forced into accepting a decent settlement.  But 51-
>49% is a disgrace and rewards ethnic cleansing.

Absolutely, even the old Vance-Owen plan was better than that.  Karadzic
actually signed that, but the Bosnian Serb assembly rejected it after Owen
ruled out using force against them if they do not sign.  Those bloody
enervated British aristocrats should have been kept out of it all.

>        But that would have requeired Clinton to get involved in a very nasty
>war and overcome the built-in bias of the American people for non-isolation-
>ism--

I think you mean bias for *isolationism*.


George Antony

George your long and thoughtful post deserves a fuller response than
I can give it just now; I'll return to it when I've had more time to think
it over.
        First, maybe our different views on German statecraft arise in part
from our different experiences.  My wife fought in the Greek nationalist
underground under German Nazi occupation and I opposed the rise of Hitler
in Spain before WWII began.  I understand well that "Bonn ist nicht Weimar"
and as a long-time resident and student of Germany and German culture I am
delighted.
        But that "Germany is the only country that still stands up for
others" is a bit hyperbolic don't you think?  Where was Germany in the
Gulf War?  She helped *arm* Saddam but cited "constitutional prohibitions"
in opposing him in the Gulf War.  Thus I find German policy even *worse*
than my own country's!  For at least six US foreign service officers re-
signed rather than support the Bush B-H policy.
        As to Hungary's linking itself to Germany I am really suprised here.
Haven't the Hungarians learned about the lady and the tiger?
        "There once was a lady from Niger
        Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.
        They came back from the ride, with the lady inside
        And the smile on the face of the tiger!

        What needs to be done to harness German genius, German industry,
German "Drang nach Osten" is to anchor the FRG into the EU so that she
can never break loose via a revival of her prewar "Schaukelpolitik."  Thus
if you wish to *join* the FRG in the EU as Austria is doing, then wonderful.
        But your post seems to talk of economic "appendage," and how is that
to be congruent with Hungarian sovereignty?  I never want to hear "Die
Fahne hoch" again--certainly not in E. Europe.  Maybe I'm just unable to
shake my concern about Schoenhueber & his neo-Nazi Republikaner--after all
Hitler was a nobody in 1924.  I want Germany prosperous, democratic, and
free as all Americans do.  But I fear her overweening control of East
Europe and that's why I believe she must be anchored tightly into the EU
with France and the UK able to watch her.
        Churchill said it best: "The trouble with the Germans is they're
either at your feet--or at your throat!"

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

Unfortunately, our sytem crashed when I was putting together my response
to Greg's questions and an earlier version was sent to HUNGARY warts
and all.  Among others I wrote:

>3. Keep the Russians sweet by trying to do overtly things that Serbofile
>Russians would find objectionable.

This should be:

3. Keep the Russians sweet by trying to avoid doing overtly things that
Serbophile Russians would find objectionable.

I had more on this point, suggesting the declaration of
the cores of the main Serb population centres as safe areas, provided
they are demilitarized.  This measure would go some distance in
satisfying Russian demands for action following the Bosnian government
offensive and ensure the Serbs that the government will not be allowed
to wipe them out.

As another point, I suggested US cooperation with Islamic nations in
delivering non-military aid to Bosnia and Croatia, in a well-publicized
manner that may wash away old animosities and allow the US to gain some
political capital.

George Antony

"Those who fail to learn from history (like the lady inside the
tiger) are condemned to repeat its mistakes."  Lift and strike does *not*
require ground troops or police action.  The Bosnian Govt. (RB&H) have
specifically stated they do not want nor need ground troops.  What they
need are weapons to defend themselves which we (Americans) and the Europeans
have refused them.  Why is that something to smile about?  I should think
a more lachrymose response to be in order. "'S'st leider Krieg, 'S'st
leider Kreig, und ich begehre nicht schuld daran zu sein!"

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 3 Nov 1994, JELIKO wrote:

> Glen Camp writes:
> > We Americans just should start acting like the Superpower we still claim
> > to be!
>
> I am smiling again. Let's cut the defense spending to bare bones and start
> mongering. A police action perhaps? Those tend to be so successful.:-)
> Of course, now that we made Haiti "safe for democracy" we are on roll.
> Your son or my son?
>
> Regards,Jeliko.
>

How is that possible, Jelliko?  Eagleburger speaks fluent Serbo-
Croatian and personally knows all of the main actors including Milosevic,
Karadzic, Itzetbegovic, Tudjman Mlatko Radic, Matte Boban, etc.
        It was lack of *will* and a clear understanding of "Realpolitik"
which motivated both the Bush and the Clinton administrations in not get-
ting involved.  The US people also are in a very neo-isolationist mood
and would not have supported a ground deployment.  The tragedy is that
they might well have supported a "Lift & Strike" policy as Congress almost
imposed upon Clinton. Rabina Samet argues that NATO could have stopped the
carnage when the JNA attacked Dubrovnik or Vukovar.
        But it was easier to let Europe die in B-H as the protesters said
in Berlin, "Europa stirbt in Sarajewo" (Europe is dying in Sarajevo).


--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 3 Nov 1994, JELIKO wrote:

> George Antony wrote a very erudite posting relating to the Balkan
> issue. I
> agree with most of it.
> As far as the George Bush regime is concerned, lets not forget
> the erstwhile
> Secretary of State's (Eagelburger) involvement in the ill fated
> (but to him
> supposedly profitable) Yugo franchise in the US. In his
> experience, as an
> ammbassador in Belgrade, many Serbophile contacts were also made.
> In my
> opinion, the whole Bush government was hoodwinked. That much for
> US foreign
> policy.
>
> Regards,Jeliko.
>

Glen Camp wrote:

>But that "Germany is the only country that still stands up for
>others" is a bit hyperbolic don't you think?

Not at all, in the European context.  The Germans have been bankrolling
Russia while the US was promising billions and delivering millions. The
Germans are trying the get the Central-European countries into the
European Union whereas the French are only interested in North Africa and
the Brits haven't yet decided if they want to be in in the first place.
The Germans have been paying attention to the Ukraine while the US was
only trying to strip her of the only defence that she has against
potential Russian expansionism, her nuclear weapons.  The assertion of
German influence has been to the benefit of Central-Eastern Europe in
general and Hungary in particular:  Germany filled a policy void that nobody
else wanted to know about and gave very generously.

>Where was Germany in the
>Gulf War?  She helped *arm* Saddam but cited "constitutional prohibitions"
>in opposing him in the Gulf War.

I thought I already addressed this point: there was a legal challenge by
the German opposition against taking German troops abroad at all.  Germany
had warplanes in Turkey, a (perhaps) threatened NATO country, but could not
do anything else while the matter was sub judice.  And I think Germany was
no worse than the US, Britain or France in arming Saddam.

>Thus I find German policy even *worse*
>than my own country's!  For at least six US foreign service officers re-
>signed rather than support the Bush B-H policy.
>        As to Hungary's linking itself to Germany I am really suprised here.
>Haven't the Hungarians learned about the lady and the tiger?
>        "There once was a lady from Niger
>        Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.
>        They came back from the ride, with the lady inside
>        And the smile on the face of the tiger!
>
>        What needs to be done to harness German genius, German industry,
>German "Drang nach Osten" is to anchor the FRG into the EU so that she
>can never break loose via a revival of her prewar "Schaukelpolitik."  Thus
>if you wish to *join* the FRG in the EU as Austria is doing, then wonderful.
>        But your post seems to talk of economic "appendage," and how is that
>to be congruent with Hungarian sovereignty?

There is no really sovereign country nowadays, given the ever tighter economic
and political links between countries.  Besides, as I already pointed out,
Hungary needs to become important for medium-size European powers to be given
any attention and help if she needs it.  This means forging alliances which
means giving up some parts of sovereignity.  The US does not need to
ingratiate herself to anyone, Hungary cannot afford not to.


>I never want to hear "Die
>Fahne hoch" again--certainly not in E. Europe.  Maybe I'm just unable to
>shake my concern about Schoenhueber & his neo-Nazi Republikaner--after all
>Hitler was a nobody in 1924.  I want Germany prosperous, democratic, and
>free as all Americans do.  But I fear her overweening control of East
>Europe and that's why I believe she must be anchored tightly into the EU
>with France and the UK able to watch her.

I think especially the French need to be watched, not the Germans, given the
amount of economic havoc the former have been wreaking around the world, and
given the greater concern of the Brits and French about German nazi danger
(negligible, I contend) than Serb fascism (demonstrated every day).

>        Churchill said it best: "The trouble with the Germans is they're
>either at your feet--or at your throat!"

With due respect for age and experience, Glen, I still perceive some
petrified reflexes (if you excuse this oxymoron) in your attitude towards
Germany.  Churchill is as dead as the Germany he was talking about.

George Antony