Jeliko1 writes:
>The only difference then is that socialists want to take away the production
>means also and liberals want to take away only the product, i.e. taxation.
No. The socialists don't want to do that, you are mistaking them for the
communists. In Hungary, the difference is betweem MSZP and Munka1spa1rt,
the former being a majority party and the latter being a fringe party with
something like 3-4% of the vote. This is actually one of the key issues
dividing them, so attributing the views of one to the other is not exactly
helpful. Just to emphasize the obvious: neither of these parties are liberal.

>A liberal (not neccesserily a socialist, although more often than not) does
>not have the money for his percieved "do gooding" and therefore has to take
>this money from those who know how to make it.
Frankly I don't see how your tax dollars or better or worse than mine. I am
making a certain amount (not stellar, but my effective tax rate is around
40%) and I assume you don't make a great deal more (or who knows, maybe
you do). But you assume the rhetorical position of "those who know how to
make it" which sounds like us wage slaves should learn something from you.
So tell us. I'm tired of Tom Wu's infomercials:-)

>Then by creating an additional layer or two of bureaucracy (one
>collecting and one disseminating the funds, plus the advisory boards, study
>groups, think tanks. etc. all of them otherwise totally unnecessary)
>disseminates a portion of the collected wealth solely to those who are for
>whatever reason are not generating those funds.
I tend to agree that the bureaucratic apparatus of the modern state is
overgrown. But I disagree that the money goes to those not generating
it: first of all a great deal flows back to the middle class e.g. in
terms of cushy jobs in the government apparatus, second of all the part
going to services (roads libraries etc) is used more by the middle class
than by the lower classes, third and most important if you think those
who don't generate taxes don't generate wealth you are totally mistaken.

>The actual input decision as to how the funds are being spent has only a
>minimal connection with what was originally promised and the cost of this
>redistribution is always kept quiet.
If you have a better method of controlling the spending than by electing
politicians who promise to spend it the way *you* like you should let us
know. And if you know a better system for unearthing the hidden costs
of redistribution than having freedom of information, you should also
let us know. Seems to me the US budget is pretty transparent, except
the details of military spending...

>the fourth generation welfare recepients are maintained in their lifestyle.
I guess this is at the heart of the matter: if you'd rather have them
die of hunger, you should vote that way. I'd rather they get welfare.
The "lifestyle" they are maintained in is not exactly the lifestyle of
the rich and famous -- if you begrudge them _that_, Mr. KnowHowToMakeMoney,
you really have a problem.

>The retirement benefits of those living on taxpayer funds greatly excceds
>that the taxpayers can themselves afford and the new class is created owing
>its allegience to the tax and spend "liberal" establishment.
Yup. And it's a significant fraction of the population too: in Holland
I've seen it estimated over 50%, in Scandinavia even higher. Strangely
enough, those people are people too.

>IMHO, any welfare program and most others, can be and should be properly
>maintained on a local level. If it was so, then the actual need for
>assistance can be judged by those who know whether it is needed or not.
I tend to agree. However, East Palo Alto cannot pay for its own support,
so Palo Alto must provide some. California could probably handle its own
needs, but I doubt that Alaska could.

>But when "grant writing" becomes a formal profession, to squeeze even more
>funds for some (always at the expense of others) then the results of
>liberalism are well demonstrated.
And when dogcatching becomes a formal profession, we see yet another
form of the division of labor. Funds are always provided at the
expense of others.

>Why do you think you can spend my money better than I do?
"Better", no I don't think I can spend it better. Certainly for many, if not
most, people there is no "better" way of spending their money than spending
it on #1, or perhaps on immediate family. I myself pay around 40% taxes and
I don't find it outrageous. The US tax system is not particularly
progressive so if you are paying at a noticably higher rate, say 50%, you
are left with so much more disposable income than I am that you can
certainly afford it.

>What right do you have to tell me how I should spend my money?
As much as you have to tell me how mine should be spent. One man, one vote.

>Why do you think that I would have less compassion to help my fellow man than
>you think you do?
Something about your approach to pregnant teenagers and the lifestyle of the
fourth-generation welfare class...

>But I have to pay to maintain the EEOC bureaucracy.
Sure. And OSHA too. Maybe your workers have perfect safety, but employers
trying to go around safety regulations are not unheard of. Maybe you provide
equal opportunity but not all employers do. These agencies exist as a
response to some real problems, just as the Fire Department of your town.

[complaints of how regulations and taxes kill business deleted] This is
probably true in Hungary, but definitely untrue in the US, where individual
vs. business taxation used to provide 25% vs. 75% of tax revenue before
WWII, but now businesses provide only 30% and individual income tax provides
70%. Never has the US seen so radically business-friendly tax code as we
have now.

>I do not need your or anybody else's ideas on how to run a business or my
>life.
Oh, but we do need yours. Tell us how to make more money.

>When you have achieved the same thing, I will be willing to listen to your
>ideas about how you propose to spend your money, but please do not try to
>legislate your ideas on me.
Seems to me you are twenty years older than I am, and comparing two so
different stages in life, especially when it comes to earning power, is not
particularly helpful. Send me e-mail how much you were making at age 37,
I'll send you e-mail how much I'm making now, and we can take it from there.
And yes, I try to legislate my ideas on you, and I don't expect you to
refrain from voting for the kind of legislation you want in place.

>I am proud of my actions without being a "liberal".
And why not? Liberalism is a political philosophy that I happen to be
attracted to, but no great source of pride. I wasn't even persecuted
for my liberal views, unlike some of the people in SZDSZ, and it would
never occur to me to bask in their glory.

>In Oct 22 1956, I was willing to change the words of "Farkas Mihaly es
>bandaja" to "Rakosi Matyas es bandaja" (Muegyetem kozgyulese). I have fought
>in 56 at the Radio not just with words but with gun in hand, because it was
>for a cause I believed in. I am equally proud of preventing any lynching at
>the Radio and personally turning the surrendered AVH over to arriving
>Hungarian Army units because that was what I belived in.
Good for you. In fact, probably good for Hungary as a whole, so I owe you
there. Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything you say.

>That does not mean that I agree that there should be forgivness to those who
>committed atrocities on either side, but justice does not come at the end of
>a rope without trial or a trial as conducted by the ex-regime.
To some extent I am advocating forgiveness, but I don't consider this a
central issue. Certainly it is up to those who suffered to be (or not to
be) forgiving.

>I do not know what credentials you claim for liberality in your life, but I
>am pretty satisfied that what I did and what I am doing was and is OK.
Voted for liberal candidates when I could. Nothing heroic.

>And I certainly do not feel obligated to agree that your ideas for the world
>are any better than mine.
Well, that is best decided on the merit of the ideas in question, not on the
merit of those who propound them, wouldn't you agree? I never said you
should feel obliged to accept my ideas -- you are not even obliged to
consider them. The PgDn key is always there.

>> > I never met a liberal, who called himself that, and was one.
>> How did the liberals you met call themselves? Or could it be you never met
>> a genuine liberal, only people who called themselves liberal?
>Maybe we need a "liberal" scale that would determine if we are dealing with
>genuine or otherwise liberals.
I think you didn't answer the question. Have you met actual liberals, or is
there anybody in the public sphere you would consider a genuine liberal? For
example, I never met an actual nazi, or at least I don't think I did. But I
have some criteria (such as idolization of Adolf Hitler) that I would say
could distinguish real nazis from non-nazis, and I can point to public
figures like David Duke who I think are neonazis. Have you got some criteria
in mind? Would you say FDR was a liberal? (I would) Would you say Imre Nagy
was one? (I wouldn't) Is Bill Clinton a liberal? (I think he is) Is Gyula
Horn? (No way). It seems to me that the l-word is not a dirty word for you,
that you find it conceivable that at least some liberals some of the time
are respectable, perhaps even admirable figures. I never claimed all great
(positive, admirable, what have you) figures in history were liberals. Nor
do I claim exclusivity for my brand of liberalism, so perhaps there is some
commond ground here.

Andra1s Kornai

Susan Sweeney ) wrote:
: I am interested in learning how to e-mail Hungary.  Thank you
Susan, this organisation provides E mail accounts for a fee, that is they
will be like say netcom.com is USA - in time.

Further info could be had by writing to  or


Regards Peter Varga

Vague relevance, to do with workers/wages, Miklos Haraszti's book
Workers in a Workers's State (70s, underground, published in England
sorry, no idea by whom) - the fascinating aspect was the overbearing
similarities of the piece-work system in England then and in Hungary.
Eva Durant

Zoli wrote:

> Dear Eva, just a quick note before you make up more premises:

>>What I meant was that if his October days were on the other side of
>>the  barricades, and if his brother died in defense of that old
>>order [...]
> But he was not on the barricades, not even according to his accusers...

By now, I don't know whether it is a language problem or too literal
interpretation of things on your part, but "to be on the barricades" doesn't
necessarily mean to be on the barricades physically. Here I used the
expression indicating different political outlooks. And surely, if Gyula Horn
joined the paramilitary units created in December 1956 his heart (and mind)
was not at the same place as mine or 99 percent of the Hungarian
population's, including Jeliko's. Eva Balogh

>  Dear Greg, aren't we slipping into the trick question area ;-)?

No, "we" are trying to get out of it. The original question was that if in a
hypothetical case the individual would have been an admitted member of the
nyilas, would the same treatment be acceptable. Even if he would claim that
he was a kis nyilas. OK the nyilas killed more people than the Munkasorseg,
so lets modify it to the Pronay gang.

Regards,Jeliko.

Bela Batkay writes (most deleted):
> A great pity none of Alfred's emissaries made it to the Carpathian basin
> (or lived to tell about it)!

> Regards,
> Be'la Ba'tkay

Hmmm. I thought Tony did, but maybe not.:-).

Regards,Jeliko.

>  - if they did - the same belief uncritically, knowing little tidbits of
> information like the massive support given to Britain or say the ratio
> of the area of France to that of Russia?!
Well, at that time, very few people were aware of the claimed massive support
given to Britain. I think you are projecting into the past more than was
known at that time. There were also no two fronts in 1941. There was only one
the Russian.
If you count n. Africa, the going was not very good there either. As I stated
before, the actual example for Russia's capability was the Finnish war.


>  From Eva, at least, I'd expect something more on the objective side.
> What magic resource Germany had to win a war of attrition on two
> fronts, with Britain having the USA as a non-belligerent ally if not
> more?

> -- Zoli
That it was good business for the US to be economically participating is a
well known fact. Same for Sweden, Switzerland, without getting into it.
It was also considered the final success for all of the programs WPA, etc.,
until the final one that really worked, i.e. WAR. But the actual
participation came later.

Regards,Jeliko.

Zoli Fekete writes:   (parts deleted)

> that many readers prefer an editorial to having "just the fact
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is an opinion not a fact.

> reported" as in the old days (when "fact" was of course what the Party
> deemed such). But contrary to you I think the late Kadar years
> sharpened the senses of the audience rather than dumbing them down -
> I'm sure most of them can recognize a "not straight" report as well, if
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is an opinion not a fact.

> not better, as a media expert. So the question still is: how is that
> alleged all-infecting partiality in reporting manifested, and how a
> problem like a few journalist cheering is significant?

It shows they are not impartial.

>  I take "the country of Virgin Mary" to be the same in this context as
> Saint Stephen's legacy symbolized wih the Saint Crown: "[the voters]
> cancelled the legacy of Sainth Stephen, and now will not even object if
> its new owners [...] sell the Saint Crown, that means nothing to them."
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Zoli, to the best of my knowledge, you were not even one of the recently
elected. Why do you think you can speak for the electorate? Why don't you say
that it means nothing to you, that you can do with the confidence you
exhibit.

> For good measure the article went thru the whole of our history, all of
> which is somehow being undone now by those misguided voters according
> to this article. This is the kind of desecrating seizure of Hungarian
> history in the "national-populist" lingo that the article you picked
> satirized. Your sarcasm-digesting system must be defective if you
> seriously believed it was the historical concepts and not their abusers
> being poked fun at ;-(. Would you think the ubiquitous American
> cartoons of politicians wrapped in the flag are aimed at the latter not
> the former?!

> -- Zoli

IMHO, the electorate voted the way it did, because of their percieved effect
of the previous government on their pocketbook. Those who read all sorts of
idealogical issues into the results may have a big surprise coming to them.
This, I think is true for both sides. Anyone dancing jigs, may have to go to
Compiegne again. (I know it was only a camera trick).

Regards,Jeliko.

In reply to your message of "Fri, 08 Jul 94 02: 22:06 PDT."
             >
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 08:41:36 -0700
From: 

Andra1s Kornai writes:
> Jeliko1 writes:
> >The only difference then is that socialists want to take away the production
> >means also and liberals want to take away only the product, i.e. taxation.
> No. The socialists don't want to do that, you are mistaking them for the
> communists.
Are we drifting into murky semantic waters?  The Republican party may one day
support the King of Siam, does that mean they're no longer republicans?

The last time I looked, a standard tenet of socialism was the public ownership
of the means of production.  Whether a particular party with the word Socialist
in its name states this as a goal or not is a relatively minor point, don't you
think?  Or maybe I'm wrong, has the definition of socialism changed?

> >the fourth generation welfare recepients are maintained in their lifestyle.
> I guess this is at the heart of the matter: if you'd rather have them
> die of hunger, you should vote that way.
Rather fatalistic, if you'll pardon the pun.  I think the point was that public
money should go towards promoting productive lives, not warehousing--
generation after generation--a permanent underclass.

> >What right do you have to tell me how I should spend my money?
> As much as you have to tell me how mine should be spent. One man, one vote.
Well, not quite.  #1, he's got all that extra money around to spend to
influence elections,  #2 if he lives in say, Rhode Island, his vote for US
Senator carries a lot more weight than yours, (and mine) in California.  :-)

> >[complaints of how regulations and taxes kill business deleted]
> ...Never has the US seen so radically business-friendly tax code as we
> have now.
And how about the regulations?

> >When you have achieved the same thing, I will be willing to listen to your
> >ideas about how you propose to spend your money, but please do not try to
> >legislate your ideas on me.
> Seems to me you are twenty years older than I am...
No, you miss the point.  This is a call for the re-introduction of property
qualifications for voters. ;-)




--Greg

Dear Eva, let me try to clarify this then quit the thread:

> > But he was not on the barricades, not even according to his accusers...
> By now, I don't know whether it is a language problem or too literal
> interpretation of things on your part, but "to be on the barricades"
doesn't
> necessarily mean to be on the barricades physically. Here I used the
> expression indicating different political outlooks. And surely, if Gyula
> Horn joined the paramilitary units created in December 1956 his heart (and
> mind) was not at the same place as mine or 99 percent of the Hungarian
> population's, including Jeliko's. Eva Balogh

 Call it my failing, but I do not like expressions whose literal
meaning is misleading ;-(. I noticed that you did not even say "on the
barricades" only "on the other side" (which in the very literal sense
may not even have to do with the barricade at all, but I'm not that
boneheaded to take it that way ;-)). What I'm trying to say is that
your way of putting it keeps pushing guilt by association, implications
that seem unquestionable to you but not so necesseraly obvious to others.
 Now if your evaluation of a politician rests on how he felt 37.5 yrs
ago (and then for quite some time, by his own admission) - I have no
problem with that, not even an argument. But you scorned the electorate
and the media for not chewing more on this, that's why I am pointing
out that there are justifiable other ways of looking at it. The
relevant questions to many of us: what is he going to do - that's the
overriding one; how does he feel now - that, of course, plays a role in
determining the answer to the previous question; and has he ever
committed anything unforgivably compromising - this is partly moral
question, but perhaps more importantly may influence our expectation of
what he really is going to do.
 There was no question that he felt the wrong way back in '56 - and if
you cannot forgive that it's perfectly understandable. But IMHO it does
not seem he *did* (as opposed to felt) something excluding the
possibility that he genuinely changed the way he appears to have been.

-- Zoli
 * Past: That part of Eternity with some small fraction of which we
 * have a slight and regrettable acquaintance.          Ambrose Bierce

Dear Jeliko,

> >  Dear Greg, aren't we slipping into the trick question area ;-)?
> No, "we" are trying to get out of it. The original question was that if
in a
> hypothetical case the individual would have been an admitted member of the
> nyilas, would the same treatment be acceptable. Even if he would claim that
> he was a kis nyilas. OK the nyilas killed more people than the Munkasorseg,
> so lets modify it to the Pronay gang.
 Pronay may have killed more people than the Workers' Guard, and
members of his gang were all active participants; besides their mentor
Gombos became PM in that nice era when only right-thinking people got
into government, so I am afraid losing the thread here...
 The "kis nyilas" model might work if we can agree on the definition of
that term (an unlikely condition ;-(). Although many if not most of the
arrowcross militiamen committed atrocities, the party rhetoric did
attract not so badly intentioned persons as well (remember, all they
were advocating was true hungarism, a laudably aim wouldn't you say
;-<). I certainly would not exclude people from political life forever
solely because of their wrong choice of party decades ago.

-- Zoli
 * Past: Old, unhappy, far-off things,
 *       And battles long ago.          William Wordsworth

DATE=7/8/94
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
NUMBER=2-161658
TITLE=HUNGARY MEDIA (S-ONLY)
BYLINE=STEFAN BOS
DATELINE=BUDAPEST
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO:  HUNGARIAN PRESIDENT ARPAD GONCZ HAS DISMISSED THE VICE
PRESIDENTS OF THE STATE-RUN RADIO AND TELEVISION.  STEFAN BOS IN
BUDAPEST REPORTS THE TWO OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE DISMISSAL OF AT LEAST 130 JOURNALISTS WHO WERE CRITICAL OF
THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT.

TEXT:  IT WAS ONLY AFTER HIS ELECTION DEFEAT THAT OUTGOING PRIME
MINISTER PETER BOROSS ASKED THE HUNGARIAN PRESIDENT TO FIRE THE
TWO BROADCAST EXECUTIVES.

MR. BOROSS SAYS HE ACTED ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF THE
SOCIALIST-LED GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO TAKE OFFICE THIS
MONTH.

THE SOCIALISTS, AMONG OTHERS, HAVE CHARGED THAT THE VICE
PRESIDENTS OF THE NATIONAL RADIO AND TELEVISION NETWORK FIRED 129
RADIO REPORTERS AND AT LEAST TWO TELEVISION JOURNALISTS BECAUSE
THEY WERE HIGHLY CRITICAL OF THE OUTGOING CENTER-RIGHT
GOVERNMENT.

THE JOURNALISTS WERE DISMISSED EARLIER THIS YEAR, SHORTLY BEFORE
THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN STARTED.

HUNGARY'S FUTURE PRIME MINISTER, GYULA HORN, SAYS HE WANTS THOSE
FIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THEIR POSTS.

MEANWHILE, A COURT ORDERED TWO OTHER MEDIA OFFICIALS TO PAY ABOUT
SEVEN-THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FINES.  THE TWO MEN HAD ACCUSED TWO
TELEVISION JOURNALISTS OF DOCTORING A VIDEOTAPE TO SHOW PRESIDENT
GONCZ BEING HECKLED BY SKINHEADS.  THE TAPE WAS LATER DETERMINED
TO BE GENUINE.  (SIGNED)

NEB/SB/SKH/JWH

08-Jul-94 12:21 PM EDT (1621 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America




> ---------------------------------------------------------
Use of the NEB Wire

The contents of the NEB wire are not copyrighted.  However, if you publish or
rebroadcast any of these reports, please be certain to use the latest version
that was available at the time of publication or rebroadcast. VOA news
materials that are published or rebroadcast should be used in their entirety.
Please credit the Voice of America as the source in any subsequent
dissemination.

Jeliko,
>> [my opinion]
> It is an opinion not a fact.
 Yes ;-)!?
>> [my opinion]
> It is an opinion not a fact.
 Yes ;-(?!

>>So the question still is: how is that
>> alleged all-infecting partiality in reporting manifested, and how a
>> problem like a few journalist cheering is significant?

>It shows they are not impartial.
 No, it does not. It showed they displayed sympathy on one occasion -
since the event was not for their person but for their professional
capacity it was improper; but it's got precious little to say about how
do they report. Impartiality is an attribute to the act, not to the
individual: eg. to be impartial, a judge sitting on a murder case does
not have to demonstrate that s/he has no like/dislike of murderers, just
that her/his conduct in the proceeding is not affected by personal
feelings (IMHO, as usual, since I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one
:-)).

>> [Gyula Fekete quote:] "[the voters]
>> cancelled the legacy of Sainth Stephen, and now will not even object if
>> its new owners [...] sell the Saint Crown, that means nothing to them."

>Zoli, to the best of my knowledge, you were not even one of the recently
>elected. Why do you think you can speak for the electorate? Why don't you say
>that it means nothing to you, that you can do with the confidence you
>exhibit.
 What a cute twist - I guess we better continue after you figured out the
semantical significance of those funny little signs called 'quotation
mark' ;-(...

-- Zoli, lacking the confidence some others exhibit ;-).

Hi,
  I was just wondering whatever happened to the bit.listserv.hungary
newsgroup. I see, one can find the collection of the daily mails
under the "*** HUNGARY *** ##" subject in the soc.culture.magyar group,
though , for us, who actually does not want to be on the mailing list
(to avoid being flooded by mails ) but want to get the information at
its best (freshest) , this resolution certainly a big backstep from where
we were at before.

  Postings might loose their actuality ,also, browsing through the
uninteresting
information in the long string of text of "*** HUNGARY *** ##" can be
quite annoying, while most of the news reading programs pine, tin, xrn
etc., has plenty of advanced tools to make the reading of the news fast ,
comfortable and personalized - e.g. subject string following,
filtering out users, etc.

  My oppinion is , the "*** HUNGARY *** ##" postings in soc.culture.magyar
would be unnecessary, if the more convenient bit.listserv.hungary were revived,
though ,the "*** HUNGARY *** ##" could be sent to those HIX subscribers, who
cannot
reach computers w/USENET access .

  I am not sure who the administrator of the bit.listserv.hungary is, but
please,
if you read it, take the revival of the group into consideration or, up for a
vote.

Thanks,
Gotthard

Jeliko--

I've just now returned from Hungary and have an anecdote to relate regarding
this thread:

A couple from Sopron, friend of my wife's family, took us on an incredible tour
of the O"rseg region near the Slovenian border. Marvelous scenery aside, during
the ride I was subjected to a harangue by the couple (they are, as it turns out
part of Csurka's masses (1.5% was it?): only Csurka speaks the truth, the
Socialists won because they manipulated the media, what about the "doctored"
footage of Go"ncz and the skinheads, Soros tries to make Hungarians look like
gypsy-hating racists, the MDF was cheated of victory, etc. I asked them if they
believed in democrany & a free press. They replied that they didn't understand
the question. Ah, well.   Regards.     --Marc Nasdor

DATE=7/8/94
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
NUMBER=5-17658
TITLE=SLOVAK POLITICS
BYLINE=JOLYON NAEGELE
DATELINE=BRATISLAVA
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO:  WITH FEWER THAN THREE MONTHS TO GO BEFORE SLOVAKIA HOLDS
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, FORMER PRIME MINISTER VLADIMIR MECIAR
(MECH-EE-YAR), OUSTED BY A NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE IN MARCH, APPEARS
HEADED FOR A RETURN TO POWER.  V-O-A'S JOLYON NAEGELE SPOKE WITH
THE CONTROVERSIAL POLITICIAN IN BRATISLAVA AND SENDS THIS REPORT.

TEXT:  VLADIMIR MECIAR DOES  NOT  LIKE LOSING.  THE FORMER
AMATEUR BOXER WAS SO SHOCKED BY HIS FIRST DISMISSAL AS SLOVAK
PRIME MINISTER IN 1991 THAT HE SPENT TWO MONTHS IN A SANATORIUM
TO RECOVER.  BUT HE WENT ON TO FOUND THE "MOVEMENT FOR A
DEMOCRATIC SLOVAKIA," WHICH CARRIED HIM TO VICTORY THE FOLLOWING
YEAR AND GAVE HIM THE SUPPORT HE NEEDED TO BREAK UP THE
CZECHOSLOVAK FEDERATION.

HIS PARTY SUBSEQUENTLY SUFFERED A STRING OF DEFECTIONS BY LEADING
POLITICIANS WHO COMPLAINED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO WORK WITH
MR. MECIAR.  THE MOVEMENT'S ERODED STRENGTH AND QUESTIONABLE
POLICIES, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING PRIVATIZATION OF STATE
PROPERTY, LED PARLIAMENT IN MARCH TO APPROVE A NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE
IN THE MECIAR GOVERNMENT.

// OPT // MR. MECIAR COMPARES THE AFTERMATH OF HIS NO-CONFIDENCE
VOTE IN MARCH WITH JESUS CHRIST'S LAST SUPPER BEFORE BEING
CRUCIFIED.

                                 ///OPT///

                      //FIRST MECIAR ACT///

         JA SOM PO VYSLOVENI NEDOVERY VLADY POZVAL VLADY NA
         VECERU SO SLOVAMI ZE CHRISTUS SVOJIM UCENIKOM UMYVAL
         NOHY, PARLIAMENT NAM UMYL HLAVY, TAK POJDME ASPON NA
         VECERA NAPOSLEDY.

                          ///END ACT///

// OPT // AFTER THE GOVERNMENT LOST THE NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE, I
INVITED THE CABINET TO DINNER, MR. MECIAR RECOUNTS, ADDING THAT
CHRIST HAD WASHED THE FEET OF HIS DISCIPLES, PARLIAMENT HAD
SCRUBBED THE GOVERNMENT, SO WHY  NOT  HAVE ONE LAST SUPPER
TOGETHER.

// OPT // IN THE FOUR-AND-A-HALF MONTHS SINCE THEN, 52-YEAR-OLD
VLADIMIR MECIAR SAYS HE HAS LOST 25 KILOS, DUE, HE SAYS, TO A NEW
LIFESTYLE.  DURING A FIVE-HOUR DISCUSSION AND LUNCH IN BRATISLAVA
WITH A GROUP OF PRAGUE-BASED FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS, MR. MECIAR
AVOIDED ALCOHOL AND COFFEE BUT CONSUMED TWO POTS OF TEA.  HE
APPEARED SOMEWHAT GAUNT, EASY GOING AND UNUSUALLY CONCILIATORY.
// END OPT //

THE LATEST PUBLIC OPINION POLL SHOWS MR. MECIAR RETAINING HIS
POSITION AS SLOVAKIA'S MOST POPULAR POLITICIAN (WITH OVER 27%),
FAR AHEAD OF PRESIDENT MICHAL KOVAC AND PRIME MINISTER JOZEF
MORAVCIK (EACH OVER 14%).  SIMILARLY, THE POLL INDICATES THAT THE
LARGEST SHARE OF VOTES IN THE UPCOMING PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS,
SEPTEMBER 30TH AND OCTOBER FIRST, (27.6) WOULD GO TO MR. MECIAR'S
POPULIST, LEFT-OF-CENTER "MOVEMENT FOR A DEMOCRATIC SLOVAKIA,"
ALMOST TWICE AS MANY VOTES AS FOR THE NEXT LARGEST PARTY, THE
POST-COMMUNIST "PARTY OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEFT" (14.9).

// UNVOICED OPT //  OTHER PARTIES DID SURPRISINGLY WELL IN THE
POLL, INCLUDING JAN CARNOGURSKY'S CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT
(9.4), PRIME MINISTER MORAVCIK'S ALLIANCE OF CENTRISTS
(D-U/N-D-S: 8.8), THE RIGHT-WING RADICAL "SLOVAK NATIONAL PARTY
(8.8), A COALITION OF HUNGARIAN PARTIES (8.0) AND THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY (7.1).  BUT MR. MECIAR SAYS HE DOES  NOT  BELIEVE IN POLLS
AND PREDICTS FEW OF THESE PARTIES ARE GOING TO SURPASS THE
MINIMUM FIVE PERCENT OF THE VOTE REQUIRED TO CLAIM SEATS IN
PARLIAMENT.  // END OPT //

MR. MECIAR'S SPOKESMAN, DUSAN KLEIMAN, SAYS THAT AS LONG AS MR.
MECIAR IS IN THE MOVEMENT FOR A DEMOCRATIC SLOVAKIA,  NO  OTHER
POLITICAL PARTY OR ALLIANCE HAS A CHANCE OF GETTING A SIGNIFICANT
SHARE OF THE VOTE.  HE SAYS THAT VOTER SUPPORT WOULD BE MORE
EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE VARIOUS PARTIES IF MR. MECIAR WERE
TO LEAVE THE POLITICAL STAGE.

SOME MEMBERS OF THE FORMER COMMUNIST PARTY HAVE EXPRESSED A
WILLINGNESS TO FORM A COALITION WITH THE MOVEMENT FOR A
DEMOCRATIC SLOVAKIA IF IT EXCLUDES MR. MECIAR.  FOR HIS PART, MR.
MECIAR SAYS HE REMAINS AN INTEGRAL FACTOR WITHIN THE MOVEMENT.
HE ADDS THAT HE WILL  NOT  BE AN OBSTACLE TO COOPERATION WITH
OTHER PARTIES AND DOES NOT  HAVE TO BE PRIME MINISTER A THIRD
TIME.  BUT HE RULES OUT GOING INTO COALITION WITH THE PARTY OF
THE DEMOCRATIC LEFT, WHICH, HE NOTES, RETAINED THE STRUCTURE OF
THE FORMER COMMUNIST PARTY.  HE SAYS HE REFUSES TO FOLLOW THE NEW
POLISH AND HUNGARIAN MODELS OF POST-COMMUNIST PARTY-LED COALITION
GOVERNMENTS.

                              ///REST OPT///

HE SAYS JUST IMAGINE WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR MY FRIEND, KLAUS,
(CZECH PRIME MINISTER VACLAV KLAUS) A WESTERN-ORIENTED,
RIGHT-OF-CENTER POLITICIAN WITH WHOM HE NEGOTIATED THE BREAK-UP
OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA TWO YEARS AGO.  HE SAYS MR. KLAUS WOULD FIND
HIMSELF SQUEEZED BETWEEN GERMANY AND A PINK ZONE MADE UP OF
POLAND, SLOVAKIA AND HUNGARY.  AS MR. MECIAR PUTS IT, THAT COULD
MEAN THE END FOR PRIME MINISTER KLAUS.

MR. MECIAR SAYS THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN IS GETTING UNDERWAY AND HE
NOTES THE GOVERNMENT HAS INTRODUCED SEVERAL UNPOPULAR MEASURES
RECENTLY THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE UPCOMING VOTE.

THEY INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN ENERGY PRICES AND PLANS TO INCREASE
VALUE-ADDED TAX ON CONSUMER GOODS FROM SIX TO 25 PERCENT.  HE
PREDICTS THAT THE SLOVAK PARLIAMENT'S ADOPTION ON THURSDAY OF A
LAW ("TABULOVY ZAKON"), ALLOWING HUNGARIAN AS WELL AS SLOVAK
PLACENAMES TO BE USED ON SIGNPOSTS IN ETHNIC HUNGARIAN AREAS OF
SOUTHERN SLOVAKIA MAY PROVE UNPOPULAR WITH MANY SLOVAK VOTERS.
MOREOVER, HE NOTES, THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN SLOVAKIA IS  NOT
IMPROVING.  ALL OF THIS, HE SAYS, IS INFLUENCING THE CAMPAIGN SO
THAT AS HE PUTS IT, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.  IN
MR. MECIAR'S WORDS, IF WE DO NOTHING AND JUST SIT AND WAIT, WE
WILL STILL GET AT LEAST 26 PERCENT OF THE VOTE.

                        ///2ND MECIAR ACT///

         SU DVE PRICINY PRECO NAS VOLIA. JEDNI HOVORIA ZE S NAMI
         SUHLASIA A DRUHI HOVORIA ZE SME MENIEJ ZLI AKO TI DRUHI.

                           ///END ACT///

THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY THEY VOTE FOR US, MR. MECIAR SAYS.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THEY AGREE WITH US AND THOSE WHO SAY THAT
WE ARE  NOT  AS EVIL AS THE OTHERS.

REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE UPCOMING ELECTION, MR. MECIAR
SAYS THE SLOVAK POLITICAL STAGE WILL CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY.  BUT
HE WARNS THAT SLOVAKIA WILL FACE RENEWED POLITICAL CRISIS IF THE
VOTERS FAIL TO SHOW A MARKED PREFERENCE FOR ONE SIDE OR THE
OTHER.  IN HIS WORDS, SLOVAK SOCIETY IS SOCIALLY UNSTABLE, THE
COUNTRY'S POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE YET TO ACHIEVE STABILITY AND
POLITICAL CULTURE IS AT A LOW LEVEL.  (SIGNED)

NEB/JN/SKH/JS

08-Jul-94 2:54 PM EDT (1854 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America



> ---------------------------------------------------------
Use of the NEB Wire

The contents of the NEB wire are not copyrighted.  However, if you publish or
rebroadcast any of these reports, please be certain to use the latest version
that was available at the time of publication or rebroadcast. VOA news
materials that are published or rebroadcast should be used in their entirety.
Please credit the Voice of America as the source in any subsequent
dissemination.

Dear Jeliko,
>>information like the massive support given to Britain or say the ratio
>>of the area of France to that of Russia?!
>Well, at that time, very few people were aware of the claimed massive
>support given to Britain.

 The number in the know is really irrelevant, what counts whether those
who needed could find it out. Things like the lend-lease transports
were hardly secret. For example, as early as after FDR's re-election
in '40 the TIME magazine wrote (on November 18):
+ Roosevelt had received a more impressive electoral majority than
+ Wilson. His mandate for a strong foreign policy, upheld even by the
+ rival candidate, was also clearer than Wilson's. [...]
+      Biggest news of the day was his announcement that the
+ allocation of U.S. munitions to Britain would be on a "rule-of-
+ thumb" basis, roughly, half for England, half for the U.S.
+ [...]     -- On Armistice Day went to the Tomb of the Unknown
+ Soldier in Arlington, restating a theme on which he is often
+ eloquent: that democracy itself is the new order of
+ civilization; that in comparison, the dictatorial systems are
+ retreats to medieval darkness. "You and I who served in the
+ period of the World War have faced in later years unpatriotic
+ efforts by some of our own countrymen to make us believe that
+ the sacrifices made by our nation were wholly in vain. . . .
+ Historians will say rightly that the World War preserved the new
+ order of the ages for at least a whole generation. . . . If the
+ Axis of 1918 had been successful . . . resistance on behalf of
+ democracy in 1940 would have been wholly impossible. . . ."

 Call me aggrandizing, but I do claim half of the USA's munitions
to be massive support. And after his resounding election victory you
had to be really deluded (as Hitler certainly was) to believe that FDR
won't go all the way against letting the reborn Axis roll over the
USA's main European ally Britain.

>I think you are projecting into the past more than was known at that
>time. There were also no two fronts in 1941. There was only one the
>Russian.
>
>If you count n. Africa, the going was not very good there either. As I
>stated before, the actual example for Russia's capability was the
>Finnish war.

 No, I was not counting Africa - this being the Hungary list it's a bit
far continent ;-). But talking about projecting, it's you who have
projected forward the situation superseded by the events with Hitler's
western offensive - and now project backward. It was only Jan '42 when
Rommel went on his temporarily successful offensive. In '41 Africa was
yet another theater of war for spanking Mussolini.
 The Finnish war showed Russia's ineffectiveness at that moment for
offensive on difficult foreign terrain. It could not say much about
its defensive capacity on its own soil, nor the potential of
building up its forces against an attacking enemy in an all-out war.

>>What magic resource Germany had to win a war of attrition on two
>>fronts, with Britain having the USA as a non-belligerent ally if not
>>more?
>That it was good business for the US to be economically participating is
>a well known fact. Same for Sweden, Switzerland, without getting into it.
>It was also considered the final success for all of the programs WPA,
>etc., until the final one that really worked, i.e. WAR. But the actual
>participation came later.
 Are you conceding that it was not an unforeseeable act of God that the
USA (population in '38: 167M, national income $67B) would supply
Britain (47M, $24B) against Germany (68M, $33b)? Maybe we are getting
somewhere after all. The big difference from Sweden was of course, that
much of the payment to the USA was to be collectable only in the case
of allied victory.
 The USA did not even have to join as a belligerent to bring down
Germany. They could just keep cranking out tanks, planes and ships -
the British (and Canadians etc.) were quite capable of fighting
themselves. Then the Hitler would've had two choices: either let them
strangle the Germans with the enemy supplies pouring in, or intensify
the anti-merchant warfare on the Atlantic, likely to bring in the USA
fighting after all.

-- Zoli

The appearance of HIX HUNGARY in soc.culture.magyar is completely
independent from the function of bit.listserv.hungary.
It is not a step forward or backward, but to the side.

Most of HIX publications are relayed to the soc.culture.magyar group
purely to help people who prefer to read news at their will instead of
getting mails even once a day. HIX HUNGARY is not intended as a substitute
for those awaiting for the fully functional bit.listserv.hungary.

Jozsef /HIX/