In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>I won't sneer at your answer, Sam.  I'm just puzzled that you're content
to
>accept a "partial" and "unsatisfying" answer.  The answer, your answer,
can
>be made full and satisfying.  It's up to you.  But rather than take your
>answer to heart, you continue, and I can only conclude that you prefer to
>continue, to fight phantoms.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>

And this would be, ta da! -- bullshit! For all your mouth, you haven't yet
come up with any concrete observations on how your own beliefs could be
effected on a widespread basis. You have to have all the answers; you
can't stand to admit that you don't. Ambiguity is your worst nightmare.
That and a wobbly-legged kitchen table.
Sam Stowe

"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar

J.Tournier wrote:

>Thus, I would say that though there may have been incidents which one could
>characterize as evidence of civil war, this is typical of a rebellion which
>still held the loyalty of a good portion of the Hungarian population
>(minority and majority alike). In this sense it can be compared to the
>American Revolution, which certainly had elements that one could
>characterize as *civil war*. What was the percentage of Tories, the American
>Loyalists who fled the U.S. for Canada, Britain, and other parts of the
>Empire? Seems to me that it was said to be about 1/3 of the total population
>in the U.S. Surely there were many incidents of these populations fighting
>against the revolutionaries, yet this war is not characterized as a *civil
>war.* Perhaps part of the difference is the fact that the revolutionaries in
>the U.S. won, and were thus able to write the history books. Just as the
>American Revolutionary War was fought *primarily* against the British, the
>1848-49 revolution was fought *primarily* against the Habsburgs.


I think Johanna is right. However unfortunate and tragic was the nationality
problem and the *civil war* aspect of 1848-49, it was NOT decisive. The Russian
intervention was what really crushed the Hungarian *rebellion*. Without it the
situation in Hungary was not promising for the Austrians despite the minority
 problem.

>xploitation of the minorities by the Habsburgs. Is there any evidence that
>the Kossuth faction, if it had succeeded, might have been more liberally
>inclined to the minorities? And is it possible that the Magyar nationalists
>developed the policies of magyarization at least partly as a reaction to the
>stirring up of the minorities in 1848-1849?


We can play with the "what if"-s. What would have happened if the War of
 Independence
had succeed? Nobody knows, everything beyond the question "what if" is
 speculation.
Everybody can have his/her opinion based on his/her reasoning, prejudices,
 hatress.
E.Balogh obviously find everything what is 'nemzeti' disgusting (like NFerenc
 dislikes the
homosexuality), so for her every idea of national state is a dead idea.
In fact, beside Kossuth and his fellows, we had Deak, Szechenyi, Batthyany and
 so on
who was more ready for compromise. Who knows what would have happened if the
Hungarian state had to face with the minorities only and no outer danger (i.e
if Austria had been forced to recognized the independent Hungary). Maybe she
 would
have tried to supress her minorities by force and succeed. Whatever disgusting
 this
is it cannot be excluded. The world was and is full with countries with double
 standards.
Also a resonable compromise would have been possible. Or the 'tortenelmi
 Magyarorszag'
(Historical Hungary) would have been disintegrated. So what, we could not have
 lost
more territory than at Trianon and at least we would have been responsible only
 for
our decissions.

J.Zs

Does anyone know when Austria had her first representative government and becom
e
constitutional Monarchy? I am not an expert of Austrian History, so all I have
 is
guesses. Certainly It could not be before 1848 and not after 1867. But the exac
t
date would be helpful to support or disclose the idea of Habsburg readiness for
compromise in 1848. If they granted the constitutional rights to their own
 people
only in 1867, I don't believe that they would accept anybodies' appeal for such
rights in 1848.

J.Zs

At 03:41 PM 26/01/97 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
><snip>
>Oh, come on, Aniko.  I'm not ready to accept that technological advancements
>and global competitiveness are outside human control.  If we want, we can
>control them.
You my well be right Joe, however between what "we want" and what is
already  happening lies another reality.  Consider some isolated examples;
an fairly small oil refinery (80,000barrels/day) has reduced manpower
requirement by 75% seven years ago, through  the introduction of an
automated controls system affecting one small production facility of the
plant.  Another, (150-200Kbarrels/day) likewise.   Imagine the consequences
of this type of a system being installed in several areas of that same
plant.  Similar type controls systems are utilized in the chemical, pulp
and paper, heavy water, pharmaceutical food processing, water and
wastewater treatment plants to name a few.  The seven year old systems'
technology, was deemed extinct four years ago.  As their technology
advances, the requirement for skilled manpower is reduced more and more
significantly.  Taking the example to the extreme opposite end, what once
took two humans three days to produce using traditional mills, lathes,
etc., CNC machines are accomplishing in minutes with the direction of "a"
human, who basically pushes a button, stands en guarde, and changes the
cooling fluid  occassionally.  From what I have witnessed during the last
many years, these technology are by no means regressing - rather advancing
at a phenomenal if not mind boggling rate.

>"downsizing", do you really believe that we can
>downsize to greatness?  Has that been your experience?
Somebody obviously does for that too is happening all around us in
industries at large (due largely to the above) and within government, or if
you prefer public  entities.  It has not been my personal experience
although I am confronted with it's results on a daily basis therefore
ignoring it's existance would be foolish to say the least.  Just for the
record; personally, I still advocate and adore the human concept:-) nor can
I take the credit for the masterplan of downsizing.

>don't you beat all of us to greatness and get rid of everyone and rely only
>on yourself.
You seem to be confusing me with the masterplan's inventor.  But as far as
relying on myself - I have to do that regardless and you know it.  The
buck, unforfunately does stoppeth here:).  (Geez ... I can't be all *that
bad* at formulating my thoughts on this "machine"?  Where, did I ever
suggest that I advocate downsizing?  Or that I invented it)?

>Why do you balk at the suggestion?
Perhaps you can enlighten me on this one.  I must be denser than I realize
at times - you're loosing me.
>If what you say about
>downsizing is true, you'll be a winner.
You don't get it Joe.  This is not about winning or loosing.

><snip>
>>Any person serious about democratic conditions for change, with even a
>>minute sense of responsibility, would never begin to act on a theory,
>>without a clearly outlined blueprint of the proposed ideas.  That, to me is
>>the minimal requirement for any starting point.
>
>How about the bible as your blueprint?  I say that only half jokingly
>because as you know, or perhaps not, social democracy in Canada got it's
>birth from the social gospel.
Yeah.  I can picture this clearly.  Walking into the bank with the bible as
my blueprint of rationale for requesting a loan for whatever .... I am
sure, that it would be granted in an instant?  Good try Joe.  I still want
Eva's.  Her dream, her plan, her ideals.  Let me understand first and
foremost and firsthand.  Continue to stand my ground as above.

>Joe (downsize "this"!) Szalai
Joe .... you know, that you won't enjoy that:-)!

"See" ya!
Aniko

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

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
   According to a report from Friday, the Danube issue,
for the first time, made the "Issues of Concern" list of the Vice
President. Thanks to all of you who wrote. Yet, this is only the 
first step, much more is needed in the coming days/weeks, before we 
reach our goal and Al Gore speaks up for the Szigetkoz.

What to do:
  Please help to convince vice president Al Gore to make a statement 
in favour for Szigetkoz. Feel free to use the attached new form 
letter. Al Gore will only take notice if he receives thousands of letters. 
  Therefore please send at least one letter every day. Furthermore 
PLEASE MAKE A CHAIN LETTER OF THIS CALL FOR ACTION. Send it to 
everybody on your personal mailing list and ask them to forward it to 
their friends. PLEASE ACT!!

e-mail address of Al Gore:


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

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

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I want to congratulate you on this day of your inauguration for a
second term. I would also like to thank you for having spoken up for
the Danube River on August 21, 1993.

It seems to be time for you to speak up again, as mankind is
approaching an important precedent: The first international
environmental lawsuit is coming up in a few weeks at the International
Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the
destruction of its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz. (Szigetkoz,
loosely translated, means "The Region of a Thousand Islands," but
today there is not a single island left, as the water is gone.)

Still, the implications of this case go beyond the future of just one
river or just one wetland ecosystem. This lawsuit will set a precedent
for the whole planet and will decide on a much more basic question:
"Do national governments have the right to do as they please with the
ecosystem of this planet, or does mankind as a whole, have the right
to protect her natural treasures?"

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address

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

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
   According to a report from Friday, the Danube issue,
for the first time, made the "Issues of Concern" list of the Vice
President. Thanks to all of you who wrote. Yet, this is only the
first step, much more is needed in the coming days/weeks, before we
reach our goal and Al Gore speaks up for the Szigetkoz.

What to do:
  Please help to convince vice president Al Gore to make a statement
in favour for Szigetkoz. Feel free to use the attached new form
letter. Al Gore will only take notice if he receives thousands of letters.
  Therefore please send at least one letter every day. Furthermore
PLEASE MAKE A CHAIN LETTER OF THIS CALL FOR ACTION. Send it to
everybody on your personal mailing list and ask them to forward it to
their friends. PLEASE ACT!!

e-mail address of Al Gore:


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

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

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I want to congratulate you on this day of your inauguration for a
second term. I would also like to thank you for having spoken up for
the Danube River on August 21, 1993.

It seems to be time for you to speak up again, as mankind is
approaching an important precedent: The first international
environmental lawsuit is coming up in a few weeks at the International
Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the
destruction of its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz. (Szigetkoz,
loosely translated, means "The Region of a Thousand Islands," but
today there is not a single island left, as the water is gone.)

Still, the implications of this case go beyond the future of just one
river or just one wetland ecosystem. This lawsuit will set a precedent
for the whole planet and will decide on a much more basic question:
"Do national governments have the right to do as they please with the
ecosystem of this planet, or does mankind as a whole, have the right
to protect her natural treasures?"

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Janos Zsargo asks about "Austria" and representative and constitutional
government.  The answer can be given in simple or complex form--it depends
on what you understand by a lot of the terms.

Simple: constitutional and representative government was promised to all
the peoples of the monarchy by imperial manifesto in March, 1848, a draft
constitution for the non-Hungarian parts of the monarchy was produced in
April, provoked violent protest demonstrations and was later replaced
(after the court had fled to Innsbruck), and the revised constitution
formed the basis for elections held in June & July, the Constitutional
Reichsrat held its first session in August, 1848.

Complicated: there was no "Austria" and all the other lands, at least one
of them the equal of Hungary in history and tradition, if not in practical
strength to oppose the Habsburgs (the Kingdom of Bohemia), had their own
"constitutions" based on a mixture of precedent and legislation, and their
own "representative" institutions speaking in the name of the "nation."
Of course, these "constitutions" were documents enshrining the feudal,
estates order, and the "nation" that was represented in the political
institutions was the nobility.  But at what point in the March/April
legislation did the Hungarian noble diet extend the franchise, and to
whom was it extended? (relevant to the question of the representative
nature of the post April-1848 parliament in Hungary).

None of the liberal heroes of the mid-nineteenth century that I'm aware
of (and I don't claim to be familiar with all the cases) advocated what
contemporary democratic ideology would call truly "representative"
institutions, since it was assumed there would be some qualification
for the franchise.  Most liberal heroes also assumed that for a state
to suceed as a liberal, national state some basic requirement of size
and area had to apply (what Hobsbawm in a stimulating little book calls
the "threshold" principle) -- in other words, there were "nationalities"
who were _too small_ to be viable bearers of a "liberal, national" state,
and therefore were doomed or destined or privileged to be assimilated
into larger, more "viable" entities -- and this attitude was what many
of the equally liberal (ideologically) leaders of such "non-viable"
peoples reacted against, whether it was the Poles and Czechs against
the magnanimous German liberals in Frankfurt (who couldn't understand
why Poles and Czech who had been offered liberal civic freedoms and
a parliament wouldn't be happy becoming German culturally) or the (equally
liberal) Slovak or Romanian leaders (self-appointed, numerically small
groups, yes, but...) who didn't want to hear from their "liberal" friends
in Budapest that there was only one nation in Hungary...

And in the view of the liberals of large nations, states were to be
created on a liberal, _national_ basis: nobody seriously advocated a
liberal, _multi-national_ state or worked out what the necessary political
expressions of that multi-nationality would have to be.  Except for the
stillborn constitutional draft produced by the Reichsrat after it had
moved to Kremsier (Kromeriz) in Moravia and that died with it in March,
1849 with the octroi of the Stadion constitution.

There were many "causes" and factors involved in the violence that
unhappily marred the Hungarian liberal revolution and war for independence:
But I don't think that a Hungarian equivalent of "happy darkies" stirred
up to irrational discontent by the evil manipulations of an outside force
(in this case the "Camarilla") is the closest approximation to a satis-
factory picture of events...

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

Hugh Agnew:

>But at what point in the March/April
>legislation did the Hungarian noble diet extend the franchise, and to
>whom was it extended? (relevant to the question of the representative
>nature of the post April-1848 parliament in Hungary).

        First, I think we should correct the impression created that it was
a truly representative government. Of course, it wasn't. The Hungarian word
which is being used in connection with this new governmental structure is
"felelo"s korma'ny," that is, "responsible government" and not
representative government.

        As for the question posed here about the franchise. After
considerable search on my part I managed to get the information. (It is
amazing that the official 10-volume (still unfinished) history of Hungary
doesn't give such mundane (!) details. However, a monstrous
coffee-table-looking book entitled A magyarok kronikaja, has all the
necessary information.)

        Franchise was extended to all men over twenty who were not under
criminal investigation and who belonged to one of the established religions.
If they lived in town they had to own real estate worth at least 300
forints. If they lived in the countryside they had to own at least a quarter
lot (negyed telek). In addition, the franchise was extended to independent
merchants, craftsmen, and manufacturers who worked at least with one
assistant or at least had a yearly income of 100 forints. White-collar
workers (finished high school) could vote regardless of size of income or
property. The same was true about members of the Academy. Thus, in addition
to the 200,000 nobles, 600,000 people were enfranchised.

        During the summer (June) of 1848 elections were held based on this
franchise and as a result three-quarters of the parliamentary
representatives came from the ranks of the nobility. The radicals like
Petofi or Janos Arany, another poet and friend of Petofi, were unsuccessful.

        Eva Balogh

Let's move away from all these ifs for a bit. A few days ago, I was
talking about the Court's concern with the relationship between Hungary and
the rest of the Empire as opposed to some vague conservative ideology which
wanted to strangle the liberal ideas of the Hungarian opposition. At that
time I was simply relying on memory but as I was searching for the details
of the franchise I found an interesting little passage in volume VI/a of
Magyarorszag tortenete (pp. 97-98). Historians are not always judicious in
their handling of facts and Gyorgy Spira who wrote the chapter pulled an
interesting one in this paragraph. He begins the paragraph by saying that
Vienna ("circles near the court") didn't really accept the achievements of
the Hungarian revolution (Pozsony laws). A few days after the king's
signature on the document they tried to undo the laws concerning the
*freeing of the serfs and the details of Hungary's standing within the
empire.* Then comes a long elaboration of two documents sent by the court to
the Hungarian government, both dated on March 28. The Court had four demands
concerning the changing of the wording of these laws. (1) the palatine, in
the king's absence, should not have unlimited power as the Hungarians
proposed; or rather, only the current palatine should have that right
(Archduke Stephen); (2) In addition to the responsible Hungarian government
there should be still a Hungarian "kancellaria"; (3) Incomes hitherto
collected to cover common expenses should not be handled by the Hungarian
finance minister but should be handled by a common treasury; and (4)
military affairs should remain in the hands of the king.
        Not a word about anything concerning the freedom of the serfs. All
four demands concerned Hungary's standing within the empire. If you read
these four demands carefully--and keep in mind that these objecions were
registered at the end of March 1848--you will see the genesis of the
Compromise of 1867.

>E.Balogh obviously find everything what is 'nemzeti' disgusting (like NFerenc
> dislikes the
>homosexuality), so for her every idea of national state is a dead idea.

        No, E. Balogh doesn't consider the idea of a nation state a dead
idea  or disgusting (although increasingly inapplicable) if there is a
nation state. I.e., a state exclusively or overwhelmingly inhabited by
people belonging to the same nation. But surely, Hungary wasn't a nation
state in this sense although Kossuth and his liberal friends acted as if it
were. They received their inspiration from France which, by and large, was a
nation state, but, unfortunately, the French Revolution's message about the
"nation" was not applicable to Hungary.

        In Eastern Europe the carving out nation states--as the Paris Peace
Conference (1919) proved--was almost impossible. You, Janos, surely, cannot
approve of the Romanians wanting to have an exclusively Romanian nation
state in spite of a large Hungarian minority. Or Slovakia wanting to do the
same. Hungarians, on the whole, have a rather negative attitude toward a
nation state which they know is not "national" in the sense of exclusively
inhabited by one nation and in which Hungarians consist a minority. But
then, how can you, under the same breath, try to defend Hungary's efforts at
trying to govern the country in such a way as not to take into consideration
that the country was a multi-national state?

>Also a resonable compromise would have been possible.

        What you or Kossuth or most of the Hungarians found perfectly
reasonable might not be reasonable for Stur, Hodza, or Jelacic. The
Nationality Law of 1868 was perfectly reasonable even by European standards
but as far as the nationalities were concerned it was totally inadequate.

        Eva Balogh

Mark Humphreys asked me to forward this post.

Ferenc wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Please re-read my posts.  You will not find any that libels homosexuals.  As
> I have stated before, I have no hate or fear, or guilt towards non-natural
> (or "alternative"lifestiles.  I merely have an aversion to the idea, to which
> I believe I have a right.  By the way, I don't hate blind people either; I
> just don't think that theirs is a normal condition.
>
> Ferenc

>
Well:

If someone said:
"I don't mind Hungarians, but I think they are narrow-minded and
disgusting bunch. Also, if someone is Hungarian, I wish they would
keep it to themselves and not make me sick."

Would you say the above person was fair and favorable to Hungarians ????

It is difficult to see how you think you can try to make yourself seem balanced
and non-biased towards others. You called homosexuality disgusting, and now
you say it's non-natural. (Gee, that shows how *little* you possibly know about
 nature.)

Do you also think a belief in a god is not natural??? I mean, come on, how many
animals have you seen getting on their knees and praying to god??

You suggested a "don't ask; don't tell" policy" about the gay issue. Well, if
people would stop TELLing us their opinions, some others would not feel so
compelled to ASK why they feel that way.

It is fine to hear your opinions, but it is just strange to read how you try to
disguise them in different clothes. Sometimes, it sounds like someone saying:
I'm not racist. Some of my friends are Chinks and Darkies...   If people could
look at themselves and face themselves more honestly, maybe things would
actually look differently.

I have a great straight male friend, J. Zoltan, who said he is straight, and
so he doesn't care about men at all. If they are straight he is not interested
and if they are gay he is *equally* not interested. One of his closest friends
is a gay man in Budapest. Homosexuality isn't an issue for him. If he leaves
others alone and others leave him alone... he feels everyone has a right to be
happy.

Pls feel free to respond, however, I am having trouble getting back on the List
and I will be leaving for an extended trip to Europe in a few days, so I will
not be making an effort to get back on. No malice is intended in the above
message, so if you do respond, a calm, civil one would be appreciated. I enjoy
some of your contributions to this list. So disagreement with this one point
does not in any way mean I should want to dismiss you as a person. I do not
think you are paricularly gay-hating, but I just thought I would mention the
points above, while the topic was on the List.

Thank you,
Mark


----- End Included Message -----

Aniko, in your previous correspondence you stated that the
tendency is toward small firms, with fewer employees.
What you are describing below, is the opposite, these
sort of technologies demand a very heavy investment -
on top of that it is a quickly dated.This requires very
big corporations, and government support these days,
don't you think? Also, it requires highly educated
workers, even if they only monitor things, they must know
what is happening exactly. Yes, I agree: less employees
at the final count, but I don't think it bring in the
larger profits, as these exercises supposed to.


> You my well be right Joe, however between what "we want" and what is
> already  happening lies another reality.  Consider some isolated examples;
> an fairly small oil refinery (80,000barrels/day) has reduced manpower
> requirement by 75% seven years ago, through  the introduction of an
> automated controls system affecting one small production facility of the
> plant.  Another, (150-200Kbarrels/day) likewise.   Imagine the consequences
> of this type of a system being installed in several areas of that same
> plant.  Similar type controls systems are utilized in the chemical, pulp
> and paper, heavy water, pharmaceutical food processing, water and
> wastewater treatment plants to name a few.  The seven year old systems'
> technology, was deemed extinct four years ago.  As their technology
> advances, the requirement for skilled manpower is reduced more and more
> significantly.  Taking the example to the extreme opposite end, what once
> took two humans three days to produce using traditional mills, lathes,
> etc., CNC machines are accomplishing in minutes with the direction of "a"
> human, who basically pushes a button, stands en guarde, and changes the
> cooling fluid  occassionally.  From what I have witnessed during the last
> many years, these technology are by no means regressing - rather advancing
> at a phenomenal if not mind boggling rate.
>

Hi Eva:  At 04:39 PM 27/01/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Aniko, in your previous correspondence you stated that the
>tendency is toward small firms, with fewer employees.
[...]
What I said previously was that continued giant leaps in technology and the
requirement for global competitiveness will continue to force downsizing by
the magnates.  Which in turn has and will continue to force growth within
private industry (private ownership).  In my reply to Joe below  I was
giving examples of technology induced downsizing, by some isolated magnates.

>What you are describing below, is the opposite,
>sort of technologies demand a very heavy investment -
>on top of that it is a quickly dated.
[...]
If you mean the opposite of private industry - than you're right. (see
above)   By magnates, I mean, the industrial sector as listed below, plus
financial institutions, communication institutions, government entities et
al.  '

>This requires very
>big corporations, and government support these days,
>don't you think?
[...]
Precisely.  That is, I believe the reason they are called "magnates".
Hope this clears it up for you Eva.
Regards,
Aniko
>
>Also, it requires highly educated
>workers, even if they only monitor things, they must know
>what is happening exactly. Yes, I agree: less employees
>at the final count, but I don't think it bring in the
>larger profits, as these exercises supposed to.
[Eva D]

>> You my well be right Joe, however between what "we want" and what is
>> already  happening lies another reality.  Consider some isolated examples;
>> an fairly small oil refinery (80,000barrels/day) has reduced manpower
>> requirement by 75% seven years ago, through  the introduction of an
>> automated controls system affecting one small production facility of the
>> plant.  Another, (150-200Kbarrels/day) likewise.   Imagine the consequences
>> of this type of a system being installed in several areas of that same
>> plant.  Similar type controls systems are utilized in the chemical, pulp
>> and paper, heavy water, pharmaceutical food processing, water and
>> wastewater treatment plants to name a few.  The seven year old systems'
>> technology, was deemed extinct four years ago.  As their technology
>> advances, the requirement for skilled manpower is reduced more and more
>> significantly.  Taking the example to the extreme opposite end, what once
>> took two humans three days to produce using traditional mills, lathes,
>> etc., CNC machines are accomplishing in minutes with the direction of "a"
>> human, who basically pushes a button, stands en guarde, and changes the
>> cooling fluid  occassionally.  From what I have witnessed during the last
>> many years, these technology are by no means regressing - rather advancing
>> at a phenomenal if not mind boggling rate.
>>
>
>
>

This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to  for more info.

--------------327053BA23E
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Content-ID: >



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:53:40 -0800
From: William B. Lurie >
To: 
Subject: HAL: [Fwd: ]

To interested readers of H. A. L.:

I am forwarding herewith a message just received from the Swiss
Government regarding "dormant Hungarian accounts" in Swiss banks.

See my recent note giving the e-mail address of the Hungarian Foreign
Minister. If anyone can suggest other addresses where we might ask to
see copies of the list, please let me know.
--

                         William B. Lurie
                       

--------------327053BA23E
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-ID: >

Received: from gatekeeper.admin.ch (gatekeeper.admin.ch [193.5.216.41]) by
 foo.icanect.net (8.8.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id LAA23968 for >
;
 Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:19:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wep.bb.admin.ch by gatekeeper.admin.ch;
 (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep95-1159AM)
        id AA09506; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:18:40 +0100
X400-Received: by mta wep.bb.admin.ch in /ADMD=admin/C=CH/; Relayed;
               Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:18:08 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=eda/ADMD=admin/C=ch/; Relayed;
               Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:17:30 +0000
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:17:30 +0000
X400-Originator: 
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=eda/ADMD=admin/C=ch/;970127151730]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: CSI NC V3.0
From: CUP Culek Petra >
Message-Id: >
To: "'William B. Lurie'" >
X-UIDL: ec44c8b7129d0ae5a41f578a4664440a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


Dear Mr. Lurie,

With reference to your E-Mail-messages of December 21 and December 25, 1996,
I take pleasure in informing you that the Hungarian Embassy in Berne today
received a list containing the names of 33 persons who had their legal
residence in Hungary in 1939 and whose ?dormant Swiss Bank accounts? were
registered with an Office called ?Meldestelle? specially set up after the
coming into force of a Federal Decree in 1962. In 1975, based on a bilateral
agreement signed in 1973, the Swiss Government paid an amount of 325,000
Swiss francs to the Hungarian Government. This amount represented the total
assets of all the  so-called ?dormant accounts? of residents of Hungary
registered with the ?Meldestelle?.

The Swiss Government was assured by the Government of the Republic of
Hungary that it will soon start procedures to look for surviving former
account-holders or their legal heirs.

In order to obtain a copy of the aforementioned list or to register as a
potential heir of one of the former account-holders, please address your
corresponding request directly to the Government of the Republic of Hungary.

Sincerely,

Claude Altermatt
TASK FORCE



--------------327053BA23E--

Several times, in the past, I was accused of a "baseless" anti-Habsburg
bias. Rather than getting into explanations of my opinions derived from
numerous sources, I am going to present some quotes from others who are
"known" historians with publications on the relevant field. These will be in
segments, so as not to overwhelm the subject. The first excerpts are from
Charles Ingrao "The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815" Cambridge University Press,
1994.

"After two centuries the monarchy had finally vanquished the Turks. Now it
remained to Leopold to subdue his own Hungarian subjects. By the spring of
1687 the progress of the reconquest had emboldened the emperor and his
Austrian and Bohemian counselors to institute constitutional changes that
would bring the kingdom more in line with the rest of the monarchy."

"When it convened in October at Pressburg, he reiterated his intention of
honoring the his oath to uphold the constitution and the kingdom's
liberties, including the the diets right to vote taxes, the nobility's
control over local government, and the people's religious freedom. In
exchange he sought only two constitutional changes. The diet readily agreed
to abolish formally its right to elect kings and to accept a hereditary
succession, an innovation that it confirmed by recognizing his son, Joseph
as heir and his coronation as king. The diet also agreed to repeal the jus
resistendi,
albeit with some reluctance and only after repeated promises of religious
freedom."

"Finally he confimred religious freedom for the principality's
(Transylvania) Catholics, Lutherans,Calvinists, and Unitarians - though not
for the Orthodox Romanian peasantry or the large Armenian refugee population
that had fled there from Turkish Wallachia in 1672. Indeed, over the next
decade Jesuit missionaries succeeded in convincing many of the Romanian and
Armenian clergy to adhere to the Uniate church, which recognized tha
authority of the papacy."

"A notorious example had already surfaced in the months prior to the
Pressburg diet, when Hungary's new military governor, Count Antonio Caraffa
interpreted idle gossip of some camp followers in the town of Eperjes as
evidence of another plot against Habsburg rule. Although Leopold instructed
Caraffa to abide by the kingdom's laws and a recently promulagetd amnesty,
he empowered him to establish a tribunal there to investigate and punish any
treasonous activity. Over a six months period seventeen prominent burghers,
and nobles were tortured into confessing groundless charges. In short order,
the unfortunate victims had their right arms cut off, were decapitated,
drawn and quartered, and finally had their remnants hanged from the city
gate. By August the Palatine Esterhazy and other magnates had prevailed on
Leopold to discontinue the so-called slaughterhouse of Eperjes and
eventually secured Caraffa's transfer to another position."

My note: Apparently just a little "electioneering" for the forthcoming diet.
No wonder they voted the party line.

"Moreover, in the aftermath of the Pressburg diet Leopold continued to rely
almost exclusively on his Austrian and Bohemian counsellors in making policy
for the kingdom.
Native Hungarians had virtually no voice in the country's reorganization, or
Einrichtungswerk, which was placed in the hand of a commission headed by
Leopold's grand chambarlein, Ferdinand Prince Dietrichstein. They were
totally excluded from the so called commission for Newly Acquired Lands, or
Comissio Neo Acquistica, a panel fromed by the Dietrichstein Commission to
ascertain ownership rights to recovered Hungarian lands. The Commission also
disposed of sparsly inhabited southern Hungary and Slavonia without
consulting the kingdom's authorities. Even the subsequent determination of
the country's borders at the peace of Carlowitz was concluded without the
participation of a single Hungarian negotiator."

My note: So it was not a Trianon first that this happened.

"This anti-Magyar bias was most evident in the policies that the new
government adopted in resettling the country. Before returning estates to
their former owners, the Commissio Neo Acquistica demanded proof of
ownership. Unfortunately, many of the deeds had been lost during the Ottoman
occupation. Even when the claimants could prove their claim, they had to pay
a fee that was set at 10 % of of the value of the land recovered...."

"The Dietrichstein Commission also decided to repopulate the much of the
Hungarian plain with non-Magyar colonists who, it felt, would demonstarte
greater loyalty to the monarchy. The area between the danube and the Tisza
rivers was in fact already inhabited principally by Serbs whose ancestors
have fled the Turkish advance over the past three centuries. By 1690 the
Dietrichstein commission strengthened their numbers by resettling the latest
surge of perhaps 40,000 Serb and other Balkan refugees there, granting them
religious freedom and large measures of local autonomy. It also accepted
Slovakian peasants who had run away from their estates in Upper Hungary. The
commission's preference was however for Germans; by 1699 it had attarcted
them is such large numbers from the Bohemian crownlands that their former
landlords persuaded Leopold to ban further emmigration...."

"and established two new districts in Slavonia and along the Tisza-Maros
river valleys in southern Hungary, both of which were administered
independently od Croatia and Hungary by the Inner Austrian offices of the
Hofkriegsrat and Hofkammer."

My note: and then came Kollonics

"At one point he is reputed to have predicted that he would "first render
Hungary obedient, then destitute, and finally Catholic"....."

In general, I recommend the book to all. It certainly points out the
failures on the side of Hungarian nobility also, but it is not a one sided
glorification of everything Habsburg in relation to the lands of the
Hungarian crown.

Regards,Jeliko
The non-historian.

Dear Jeliko, you wrote:

>Several times, in the past, I was accused of a "baseless" anti-Habsburg
>bias. Rather than getting into explanations of my opinions derived from
>numerous sources, I am going to present some quotes from others who are
>"known" historians with publications on the relevant field. These will be in
>segments, so as not to overwhelm the subject. The first excerpts are from
>Charles Ingrao "The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815" Cambridge University Press,
>1994.

        The problem with your quotes is that they are entirely one-sided.
You picked out a number of passages which show Leopold in a negative light.
Although you cavalierly mention that Ingrao is also critical of the
Hungarian nobility, we didn't have the opportunity to read those passages.

        I don't have the book but as soon as I do I will try to give a less
one-sided presentation of it. A few months ago Hugh Agnew forwarded a piece
by Charles Ingrao which led me to believe that Charles Ingrao, on the whole,
is rather sympathetic to the Habsburg attempt at creating a supranational
empire.

        However, here are a few observations on the basis of passages you
picked:

>"After two centuries the monarchy had finally vanquished the Turks. Now it
>remained to Leopold to subdue his own Hungarian subjects. By the spring of
>1687 the progress of the reconquest had emboldened the emperor and his
>Austrian and Bohemian counselors to institute constitutional changes that
>would bring the kingdom more in line with the rest of the monarchy."

        What is wrong from the point of view of a ruler to try to bring some
uniformity into his realm?

>"When it convened in October at Pressburg, he reiterated his intention of
>honoring the his oath to uphold the constitution and the kingdom's
>liberties, including the the diets right to vote taxes, the nobility's
>control over local government, and the people's religious freedom. In
>exchange he sought only two constitutional changes. The diet readily agreed
>to abolish formally its right to elect kings and to accept a hereditary
>succession, an innovation that it confirmed by recognizing his son, Joseph
>as heir and his coronation as king. The diet also agreed to repeal the jus
>resistendi,
>albeit with some reluctance and only after repeated promises of religious
>freedom."

        What is wrong with this? Do you think that the Hungarian
constitutional practice of election of the king was a good idea? Look what
happened to Poland!! And what is wrong with repeal of the jus resistendi
which basically meant that every time a bunch of nobles decided that the
king trampled on their privileges, they could take up arms and fight him. A
sure way of bringing chaos to the country and invite foreign intervention.
Again, see Poland!

>"Finally he confimred religious freedom for the principality's
>(Transylvania) Catholics, Lutherans,Calvinists, and Unitarians - though not
>for the Orthodox Romanian peasantry or the large Armenian refugee population
>that had fled there from Turkish Wallachia in 1672. Indeed, over the next
>decade Jesuit missionaries succeeded in convincing many of the Romanian and
>Armenian clergy to adhere to the Uniate church, which recognized tha
>authority of the papacy."

        The Orthodox church was not a recognized church either when it was
under Hungarian rule. And the Hungarian Catholic nobility of Transylvania
would have been the first one to agree with Leopold on that issue! The
Habsburgs were not the only ones who were in favor of the Uniate Church: the
Poles and the Hungarian Catholics were also eager to convert the
Ukrainians--in the Polish case--and the Romanians--in the Hungarian case--to
the Uniate church which basically retained the Slavic-language liturgy,
allowed the priests to marry but accepted the pope as the head of their church.

>"A notorious example had already surfaced in the months prior to the
>Pressburg diet, when Hungary's new military governor, Count Antonio Caraffa
>interpreted idle gossip of some camp followers in the town of Eperjes as
>evidence of another plot against Habsburg rule. Although Leopold instructed
>Caraffa to abide by the kingdom's laws and a recently promulagetd amnesty,
>he empowered him to establish a tribunal there to investigate and punish any
>treasonous activity. Over a six months period seventeen prominent burghers,
>and nobles were tortured into confessing groundless charges. In short order,
>the unfortunate victims had their right arms cut off, were decapitated,
>drawn and quartered, and finally had their remnants hanged from the city
>gate. By August the Palatine Esterhazy and other magnates had prevailed on
>Leopold to discontinue the so-called slaughterhouse of Eperjes and
>eventually secured Caraffa's transfer to another position."

        I am not quite sure what to do this. These kinds of atrocities have
occurred right and left everywhere to our day.

>My note: Apparently just a little "electioneering" for the forthcoming diet.
>No wonder they voted the party line.

        The problem with this remark is that the Diet was composed of
noblemen and the fate of the burghers of Eperjes couldn't have made a great
impression on them.

>"The Dietrichstein Commission also decided to repopulate the much of the
>Hungarian plain with non-Magyar colonists who, it felt, would demonstarte
>greater loyalty to the monarchy.

        With all due respect to Mr. Ingrao, where do you think the crown was
supposed to get Hungarian colonists?

>"At one point he [Leopold] is reputed to have predicted that he would
"first render
>Hungary obedient, then destitute, and finally Catholic"....."

        Nobody is questioning the Habsburgs' Catholicism. Whether Leopold
wanted the Hungarian nobles to be obedient, I am sure he did. He was an
absolute monarch and he wanted absolute obedience. Whether he wanted one of
his realms to be destitute, I very much doubt it.

        Eva Balogh

 on Jan 26 12:55:11 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #896:

>        If you live in the United States, judgment is spelled without an
>"e."

I thank you.  In return, let me remind you that in the US "pastime" is not
spelled "passtime".  In Canada, perhaps?

>Normally I don't correct people's English...

Funny, I have a different  recollection.

> but considering that you told
>the audience of FORUM, most of whom are unable to verify it, that I make
>griveous errors (o:ko:rhiba'k) in English, I decided to make an exception.

How on earth did you come up with this word.  "o:ko:rhiba'k"?  There is no
such word in the Hungarian language.  "Szarvashibak", yes.  You must try to
quote accurately.

>... of course, it is always possible that
>you are really and truly stupid.

You are truly generous.

> Given that possibility, I am willing to
>give you a few hints.

Now, this is the "polite, civilized tone" Eva extols when reporting, in
Hungarian, on the refined ambiance permeating the Hungary list, as opposed to
the ruffian atmosphere one encounters on the SZABAD (nee FORUM).  Never mind
the fact that on that list not even she would attempt to use the kind of
language and ad hominem attacks she so artfully displays here.

>The person's favorite passtime is to make personal
>attacks on others, especially women and especially me. The one who said that
>those who think differently from him should be "eliminated." The one who
>said that the HUNGARY list is anti-Hungarian and its existence shouldn't be
>tolerated. The one whose writing about the anti-Hungarian nature of HUNGARY
>you liked so much that you immediately wrote a letter supporting everything
>he said, including that the HUNGARY list is anti-Hungarian.

Eva, you must control yourself.  I challenge you to quote where I said that.
 You are hereby authorized to translate my post.  Of course, I reserve the
right to correct any inaccuracies.

> The one who was
>so delighted that he found a kindred soul in you that he wrote:
>
>>Az,hogy Novak Ferenc a mai Forumban mas szavakkal
>>de lenyegeben ugyanazokat emlitette kirivosagok gya-
>>nant a Balogh fele megallapitasokkal kapcsolatban,
>>ami az egyre szakszerubbe valo FORUM es a letopron-
>>gyosodo HUNGARYT illeti igen kellemesen lepett meg.
>
>In greatly simplified English, given the flowery nature of the person's
>Hungarian: [I was delighted to see that Ferenc Novak in today's FORUM
>mentioned, in essence, the same flagrancies in the Balogh-like statements
>concerning the FORUM, which is getting to be more and more professional and
>the ever increasingly tattered HUNGARY.]
>
Where is there any reference to my wanting to "eliminate" anyone?  I merely
commented on your tendency of vilifying your opponents using off-the-point,
ad hominem tactics on this list.  Thanks for providing a fine illustration.

>        So, I do hope now you know whom I am talking about!!

Eva, do you remember when, not so long ago, someone on this list accused you
of being a "pathological liar"?  A lot of people spoke up in your defense,
including myself.  Now I must wonder: did I speak in haste?
>
>>but I find your ravings rather pathetic.
>
>        I will be kind enough to let that pass!
>
Thanks!

>        Eva Balogh

Ferenc

P.S.  Isn't it pathetic that all of this started because of a misaddressed
posting that Eva lost no time attacking me for?  I apologize for both of us
for importing a basically Hungarian-language exchange to this list.
 Cross-posting is not only wasteful, it also tends to be unfair to readers
who can't follow the entire debate.  I promise to be more careful about using
the correct address in the future.