------- continuation -----------------------------


   Simultaneously with the Hungarization of the schools was initiated
 the Hungarization of names. Eventhough Teleki's opinion was such,
 that the Hungarization of names should be the culmination and completion
 of the assimilation process [36], in reality the pressure (to assimilate)
 was equally forced through the intermediary of the employer as it was
 through the intermediary of the schools upon the parents of children
 enrolled in Hungarian schools, that they Hungarize their names.[37]
   The overfilling of Hungarian parallel schools by Slovak pupils had
 an unfavorable effect upon the overall standard of education of the Hu
 pupils, so that a correction was necessary. However when the school
 inspector from Nove Zamky ordered that some Sk pupils in Surany should be
 re-enrolled back in the Slovak school, the gendarmes intervened at once,
 prevented that transfer and confiscated the documents [38].
   The interventions of gendarmes, the military administration and of
 the commanders of  Levente upon the educational matters were daily.
 The municipal administration and united Hungarian party literally ignored
 the decrees of the Ministry of education and by irresponsible actions
 allowed the free development of extreme nationalistic violence [39].
   In several Slovak villages it happened that the gendarmes dispersed
 associations of parents, and the parents, who favored Slovak schools
 were beaten (by gendarmes). [40]. in Riskov and and in neigboring Balogd,
 the gendarmes arrested the parents, who were asking for a Slovak school,
 and kept them in the prison of the Kosice court for two-weeks. [41]
 Even later, upon gathering of signatures for a petition to establish
 a Slovak school, they were put under gendarmes control, e.g. as in
 the Byster village in JUNE 1943 [42]. If some teacher protested
 against the aggresion of the gendarmes they intervened against him[43].
 The gendarmes requested of the bishop Madarasz of Kosice, that he
 institute Hungarian as the langauge of instruction in the Slovak church
 schools, "because the children could already speak Hungarian';
 their entire knowledge of the Hungarian language consisted of being able
 to sing a hymn, which the teachers of Levente had literally hammered
 into their heads [44]. There were also protests against the teaching
 of religious lessons in the Slovak language, even in the Slovak schools,
 the prayers before and after instruction was subsituted by recital
 of "magyar Hiszekegy", which was supposed to inspire confidence
 in the revival of Great Hungary[45].
    In Trstene upon the Hornad on 27.8. 1939 the gendarme's watch confiscated
 school textbooks and teaching aids with Slovak text, and forced them to
 be thrown to the courtyard and be burnt. In Nizna Mysla the gendarme's watch
 challenged the school director to burn Slovak books.
 In Cana and Zdana all those books that were found were taken away on coaches.
 In FEB 1940 gendarmes challenged the priest in Nizna Mysla to remove Slovak
 inscriptions from the bows of flag in the church [46]. Hungarian liturgies
 were requested for the churches and the Slvoak youth had to compulsorily
 attend them as members of association of youth Levente [47].
 At the cemetery in Kosice, with the mute consent of the municipal organs
 the Hungarian ultranationalistic adventurers toppled gravestones which had
 Slovak inscriptions [48].
   The minister of the Interior F. Keresztes-Fischer sent a letter to major
 county-lords/ispans in MAY 1939 in which he blamed them that
 "on the regained territory in areas with Slovak population there are public
 organs which are very impatient in minority problems and without appropriate
 orientation, without consideration of the interests of higher politics,
 they are forcing the Hungarian language... It need not be explained, that
 in such a way they create hostile sentiment and hinder peacemaking policy.
 He very emphatically demanded that the application of language in schools
 and churches be refrained from and requested to most strictly re-arrange
 (the situation) with the subordinates and institutes" [49].
   What were the practical results of these rearrangements, is clearly seen
 from that, that the PM Teleki was neccesitated to reopen these questions
 in his speech in Kosice at 15.3. 1940 : "If I hear again as I have heard
 in several cases that e.g. Levente's instructors are gathering signatures
 for the establishment of Hungarian schools, I will be obliged to have such
 requests thrown in the wastebasket, because they are not the reflection
 of real people's will" [50]. But what effect such an admonition could have
 along with the threat of (throwing them in) the waste-basket for those who
 have a weapon in hand and an officer's cap upon their head or rooster plume?
 The public admonition was of no help. In Kavecany on 16.11. 1940 gendarmes
 were questioning the village-mayor: "There is still a Slovak school here?
 Is it still taught in Slovak? What for? Those children know Slovak anyway,
 they should be given a Hungarian school as in Kosicka Polianka.
 There the mayor and about 20 citizens went for an inspection and requested
 a Hungarian school. The inspector came, took away the Slovak textbooks and
 since then there's a Hungarian school there. It needs happen here too" [51].
 In such conditions it is comprehensible that in Kosicka Polianka, where
 amongst 304 Slovak chilren the school inspectorate took into evidence
 only 19 Hungarian children nonetheless school was taught in Hungarian [52].

 The chief officer of the Ministry of Culture Gyula Fleischmann saw
 in the background of the school policy "directed by municipal administrations
 with the assistance of the gendarmes" the nationalistic impatience of
 the "Hungarian middle class". "Such a social class is adherent to the violent
 assimilation and lives in the belief that the minorities can be assimilated
 by means of the elementary schools. Therefore it demands - and this request
 is heard more and more often fromt he counties
 - that there the Slovak education should be stopped and cross-over to Hun-
 garian education in all of the Slovak villages. Whoever does not share with
 this belief, must be considered an enemy of Hungarianism, friend of Slovaks
 and unreliable" [53].
  "A part of the teachers remained there from the time before regaining of
 the territory, the other part was transfered from the motherland/anyaorszag.
 The teachers feared being accused of favouring Slovaks - which can easily
 occurr in this area - and therefore against their better judgement they allow
 themselves to be carried with the stream teach in Hungarian language, indeed
 they know they are aware that it will not lead to success ...[54]
 The majority of teachers having just arrived from the mother land did not
 speak Slovak and therefore they attempt a so-called mixed educational system.
 Well, it is in fact instruction in the Hungarian language, because teachers
 cannot speak the Slovak" [55]. "Then the result is the worst. The children
 cannot speak neither Magyar nor Slovak. Written exams are terrible.
 Their knowledge is equals to nothing. What is going on there is complete
 stupidity ".
   Fleischmann, besides declaring a total fiasco in the educational matters
 considered the situation also from the national-political point of view,
 which was regarded in Slovak circles as considerable: "Indeed nobody
 concernes  themselves with that nation, nobody comes to it with under-
 standing and love, nobody tries to enlighten it, to win it over to the ideal
 of the Hungarian state. They only encounter hatetread and hostility against
 themselves and see that others want to take from them their language and
 to change their national feeling".
 Further he told : "If we want to Hungarize, we must start to realize it
 in the mother tongue of the child." In this spirit he urged the acceptance
 of a fundamental standpoint and its application by the "power manifestation"
 of governmental and the supervisory organs of the Interior and of national
 enlightenment [56].
   Against the nationalistic violences noone dared to express themselves
 neither in the Ministry of Education nor in Mininstry of the Interior,
 nor in the government's chairmanship, since even if they disagreed with
 the form, they agreed with the results. And whoever would have stood stronger
 against the forms of Magyarization, who would have wanted to be marked
 as unconscientious patriot ? Therefore even henceforth it remained merely
 with notices: the minister of Interior Keresztes-Fischer took the position
 against the gendarmes' blunders towards minorities in circular at 12.3. 1941
 [57]. Even later on, e.g. in APR 1942 and in JULY 1944 circulars of the Min.
 of Interior warned various organs of the Interior administration of
 interfering in educational matters, but to no avail [58].

  [36] OL, ME, Nemzetsegi o., box. 74, H 18561/1940. Teleki's letter to vitez
       Ge'za Igmandy-Hegyessy, lieutenant-general, 21.6. 1940: "It is total
       absurd in my opinion because there could not speak Hungarian in
       returned territories even. They are slowly learning."
  [37] State archives, Nitra, Deputy county-lord/ispan's of Tekov-Hont county
       documents, 4405/1939 - major county-lord Koczor's decree from 4.7. 1939:
       "For heads of civil administration, offices, schools in matter
       of Hungarization of names... I demand municipal and district notars
       to pay attention to this action in the way of municipal councils
       and to unfold this movement so most consistently."
  [38] OL, ME, Nemzetsegi o., box 88, B 16439/1941, Ja'nos Angyal's -
       school inspector of Nitra-Bratislava county - report from 17.11. 1940.
  [39] Ibid, box. 66, P 20213/1939, Ka'lma'n Ko's' - head of department
       on Ministry of culture and education- letter to state secretary
       T. Pataky, 16.11. 1939: " ... our official minority policy is not
       in fit with his practical realization. Lower offices of civil
       administration often adopt such measures which are in direct contrary
       with principles given from above... in these matters everybody claims
       interference and there is unceasingly diminished autority of our men,
       who are the best experts to solve these problems."
  [40] OL, ME, Ta'jekoztata'si o., box. 3, B 35c/572 - record from 28.3. 1940.
  [41] OL, Kum, Bekeelokeszito o., XXVI-2, dr. G. Fleischmann's report from
       14.6. 1940.
  [42] OL, Kum, Pol, box. 436, pol. 65, c. 241/1943. Blaskovich's report,
       Bratislava, 14.12. 1943.
  [43] There was started criminal proceedings against dr. Margita
       Ere'nyi - school director - in 1940, they say her educational
       methodics is bad, pedagogue's activity is irresponsibly, she
       neglected duties towards school administration, her behaviour is not
       dignified for teacher. Real reason: "she talks gendarmerie is
       stupid and brutal", she dictates complaints against gendarmes
       e.g. in case when gendarmes stinged to back an invalid in Dvorniky
       na Ostrove. She was liberated for lack of evidence in 1942.
       (State archives, Nitra, Komarno country documents - mainly intimate
       documents - 109/1942).
  [44] OL, Kozma iratok, box 11, Adatgyu"jteme'ny, 1940, II. - intimate
       report from  20.3. 1940.
  [45] OL, ME, Nemzetsegi o., bal. 134, P 15027/1942.
  [46] Ibid, box. 94, G 17490/1941 and Madara'sz bishop letter from 26.2. 1940
       to B. Ho'man; Ibid, box. 93, G 15626/1941.
  [47] Ibid, box. 84, P 16898/1940. Flachbart's records from 8.4. 1940.
  [48] OL, Kozma iratok, bal. 11. Adatgyujtemeny, 1940, II. - intimate
       report from 28.3. 1940.
  [49] OL, ME, Nemzetsegi o., box. 76, L 16022/1940.
  [50] Ibid, box. 73, b/G 19845/1940.
  [51] Ibid, box.88, B 16888/1941. Ba'lint Chovanec's - chairman of the
       Roman-Catholic schools - report to Kosice's bishop from 21.11. 1940.
  [52] Ibid, box. 144, P 18454/1942.  G. Fleischmann's confidentail report
       about situation of Slovak school in Abov county and in Kosice, Budapest
       2.12. 1940.
  [53] E.g. the Bishop from Kosice Madarasz was a constant target of the
       attacks, because he took the position that "the most righteous method
       is patient, tolerant behaviour toward the Slovaks, only in such form
       will it be possible to win them over for Hungarain state idea".
       In the church relations he did not permit the application of extreme
       attitudes against Slovaks. He was accused of having talked Slovak with
       his believers on his confirmation circular way, that he bore that
       religion was being taught in the Slovak language, that he allowed
       Slovak religious folksongs in churches; that he protested against
       the violent force to sing the Hungarian anthem after liturgies
       (gendarmes blocked up temple exit); That he was not willing to close
       Kosice's Slovak Catholic circle, that he did not transfer Slovak
       priests to Hungarian villages, etc.
       (Fleischmann's letter to J. Eszterhazy, Budapest 14.7. 1942 and
        Eszterhazy's letter to PM Kallay, Bratislava 25.7. 1942. OL, ME,
        Nemzetsegi o., box. 120, without pol. (1942, 23638) ).
       Fleischmann also was accused of "friendship to Slovaks" (Totbarat),
       owing to which he had problems in school inspections in the annexed
       territory. (Ibid)
  [54] He presented as an example experiences gained in schools in Kosicka
       Nova Ves and in T~ahanovce.
  [55] In Kosice's school (in Barcianska street) the lady teacher in Slovak
       class teaches Hunagarian because she does not know Slovak. In Buzinka
       there is taught Hungarian in spite of there was found only one child
       who could speak Hu.; lady teacher did not speak Slovak and thus she
       could not explain lessons to children in their mother tongue.
  [56] OL, ME, Nemzetsegi o., box. 144, P 18454/1942. G. Fleischmann's
       confidential report concerning the situation in schools in Abov county
       and in Kosice, Budapest 2.12. 1940.
  [57] Ibid, box. 94, G 17490/1941.
  [58] State archives, Nitra, Major county documents of Tekov-Hont county,
       494/1944.

> how inexpensive everything is compared to the Hungarian ABC. (Wages are
> slightly lower). It's true the Czechs don't have the same debt load, but the
> relatively competent management of the economy seems to be a very important
> variable.

surely paying something like 40% (?) of nat. income for debts/interest
must make the biggest difference? (any comparable statistics anyone?)

 writes:

> However, if I may play the devil's advocate...  Why is it that the Czech
> privatisation has managed to keep many strategic areas of the economy in
> Czech hands without the same reaction that we've seen in Hungary?
Because of the coupon-based privatization scheme that Hungary, IMHO very
wisely, did not adopt. What makes privatization attractive is the appearance
of an *owner*, a person who actually has a great deal invested in the
proper running of the enterprise. To replace one distant owner, the state,
by other distant owners (coupon holders) contributes nothing to making the
enterprise more efficient -- chances are it will be run by the same managers
who used to run it for the state, and they are not motivated by the proper
greed and fear that only true ownership seems capable of generating.

> For one thing, the Czech government has an excellent reputation as being
> solidly liberal and market-orientated.  Hungary, which has already sold much
> more to foreigners, seems to be very vulnerable to charges of going back on
> privatisation (both during the Antall and Horn governments).
What the Czech government has perfected is liberal rhetoric without
significant liberalization. Unemployment is kept artificially low by keeping
all the loss-making state-owned industrial dinosurs operating. What little
privatization (besides shuffling paper) actually took place was the result
of a few large deals, such as the Volkswagen-Skoda deal, which were (and
still are) micromanaged by the government. The only exception is real
estate, where Hungary had a crazy quilt of coupon schemes (with mostly
disastrous results) while the Czechs did the hard thing. Now that Gyula Horn
has succeeded in reinstating a similar level of government meddling, Hungary
has nothing to be proud of, but the fact that Vaclav Klaus has this great
pro-market-forces patter doesn't make the Czech Republic an attractive place
for the serious investor.

> Perhaps the Hungarian economic situation wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't
> have the Czech economy to compare it to.
I'd take the Hungarian economy over the Czech any time. There is more
enterprising, both in services and production, in district XIII alone than
in all of Prague. With 50,000 american college kids in town, there is still
not one enterpreneur in Prague who could wrangle a permit and run a cafe or
disco for profit -- all entertaining takes place in private homes, just like
in Budapest back in the sixties. Stores close at six, and the imported goods
they sell are seldom useful. You can easily get Taiwanese coconut liqueur or
Italian mineral water, but it's unclear who would ever want anything like
that.

> The Czechs worry about when to REvaluate, not when to devaluate.
For the sake of keeping social unrest at bay, the Czechs maintain an
artificially high exchange rate (something that the Antall government also
did for a while -- at least in this respect Horn knows better). The black
market rates of Forint vs. USD is pretty much the same as the official
rate, while nobody in their right mind buys Koronas at the official rate.

> Unemployment is still relatively low, and inflation is under control.
Yes, but these would be signs of a healthy economy only if it had a
reasonably competitive product mix. The steady heartbeat of a catatonic
patient is not something his doctor should be proud of.

> This might not be the most objective measure of a country's economic
> success, but just go into a Czech food store and notice how inexpensive
> everything is compared to the Hungarian ABC. (Wages are slightly lower).
Absolutely true, it is (a) cheaper (b) not at all a good measure of economic
success. If anything, low prices are a reflection of low presence of
expensive high-tech equipment in the production process and of the
prevailing low wages. Wages are not slightly lower -- they are considerably
lower if you consider that most Hungarians get extra income from the
private/grey economy, while their Czech counterparts don't. Comparing the
average Hungarian ABC to the average Czech store is also a sobering
experience in terms of what is on sale -- outside the tourist spots it is
hard to find anything occupying shelf space in a Hungarian store that has no
obvious buyers. You might find the lack of Syrian mint liqeuer regrettable,
but to me it is the sign of a store owner who actually understands the
basics of her business.

> It's true the Czechs don't have the same debt load, but the relatively
> competent management of the economy seems to be a very important variable.
It is a country roughly the size of Bavaria. It has perhaps one tenths of
the gross domestic product and one hundredths the international
competitiveness of Bavaria -- all this with a workforce that is still
acknowledged to be the most steeped in protestant work ethics in all of
Eastern Europe. Do you think this is a sign of competent management?

Andras Kornai

> > > the arriow's theorem is presented in any elementary textbook on welfare
> > > economics or anything else that has to do with choice theory. please
> > > notice that if you can reach me there obviously is an email address in my

i looked up arrow's theorem, and it is mathematically sound, but
 paradox of voting systems do not annul the necessity for
striving for a system with the least number of unhappy people...
The voting system is not necessarily the main determinant, you can vote
for presidents who haven't really got the power for bringing the
changes they were voted in for; the power lies with unelected bodies,
believe it or not...

I am writing a thesis about this subject.  Can anyone help me gather info
on this topic.  Both English and Hungarian responses are welcome.  I am
new to the newsgroup so I would like to welcome you to it.  it's is a
great way to keep in touch.

Andras Kornai wrote:

Many interesting points, as usual, but

: Wages are not slightly lower -- they are considerably
: lower if you consider that most Hungarians get extra income from
the
: private/grey economy, while their Czech counterparts don't.

Is this a proper comparison?  Aren't you discussing "incomes"?  It
was my impression that "wages" measured pay per unit of production or
labor. Or have I misunderstood and you are suggesting that p/g market
wages are higher and just not tabulated or reported?


--Greg

To Joe Pannon:

        Sorry for the Josephus Pannonius, it was meant to be a joke. But it
does sound good, doesn't it?

        As for the rest, I think I can agree with everything you said last
time. I would be very excited myself if somebody happened to find Attila's
grave (have you read Gardonyi's "Lathatatlan Ember" as well?), as it is
supposed to be in the bed of the Tisza. As far as I know, many archeologists
were trying to find it, but with no success, which is a real pity.


        To Fred Sabato:

        I must admit that I never heard of any Western scholars who took the
Sumerian-Hungarian connection seriously. I would be very interested in any
names and works you can come up with. Otherwise, you may consider me dogmatic
(which I think I'm not in general) but I think the fact that both the
Hungarian and Sumerian are languages which have no close relatives is not
enough to suppose any relation between them. Apart from that, I don't know
about any argument in support of that theory which would stand close
scrutiny. Apart from that, the sheer distance in time (some 3000 (!) years
between the last traces of the Sumers and the first reliable information on
the Hungarians) makes me entirely sceptical about the whole idea.

        By the way, you are wrong when you suppose that there is no research
in Sumerian done in Hungary: in fact, ELTE University in Budapest has a world-
famous professor in Mesopotamian studies called Geza Komoroczy, who can be
chased out of the world with the Sumer relation idea. He published many
articles to refute these theories.

        As for the Huns, I consider the Hun theory a typical example of
romantic 19th century "historicism", the main aim of which was to come up
with the most glorious past possible. The Daco-Rumanian continuity is another
classic example of this: the difference is that Hungarian historical research
has overcome this period by a hundred years whereas the Rumanians still cling
to it as part of their (false) national identity. I don't want to get into
the Hun-theory just now, but again, I'm yet to hear any strong argument in
favour of it. The usual things are: the similar descriptions of the Huns and
the Hungarians by Western sources, the similarity of the names and the same
area of settlement. Now, the similar descriptions and the similar names can
obviously attributed to the fact (mentioned earlier), that for city-dwelling
nations all nomad intruders looked exactly the same (lifestyle, behaviour,
appearance, fighting tactiques, etc.) and they even applied earlier extant
descriptions to later nomads because, from their point of view, they were all
alike. Actually, there WAS a strong similarity between nomads but that was
due to their lifestyle, not their ethnic connections. If you read Roman
descriptions of marauding Germanic tribes and Huns, and later Byzantine
sources about the Bulgarians, the Avars, the Hungarians, etc., you can hardly
distinguish between them on the basis of the descriptions alone. But on that
basis, all nomadic nations can be supposed to be related.

                Looking forward to your answer,

                                Best wishes,
                                                Charlie

Hi everybody,

I would like to make contact with big companies distributing
a wide range of CD-/ROMs
(with E-mail address if possible)
Please, send the answers to my address:


Thanks,
       Vincent

Recital by Csaba Onczay (violincello) and Gabor Fuchs (piano)

Friday, 24th of February , 7pm

Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
2950 Spring of Freedom Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Program-
Music by Haydn, Brahms, Schumann, Faure and Popper

Suggested donations -  $10 students
                       $12 HACA members
                       $15 general audience

RSVP (202)-362-6730

Gotthard Saghi-Szabo wrote:


:                        $12 HACA members


Could you please tell (remind?) us what HACA is?

--Greg

Charlie Pinter writes:

>        Sorry for the Josephus Pannonius, it was meant to be a joke. But it
>does sound good, doesn't it?

Actually, Janus sounds even better. ;-)
But I did not take it as a joke because in the recent past I was even
accused of using a phony name to hide my identity.

>I would be very excited myself if somebody happened to find Attila's
>grave (have you read Gardonyi's "Lathatatlan Ember" as well?), as it is
>supposed to be in the bed of the Tisza. As far as I know, many archeologists
>were trying to find it, but with no success, which is a real pity.

What red-blooded Hungarian teenager hasn't read it?  At least at the
time I grew up.  It may have changed since then.
>
>        As for the Huns, I consider the Hun theory a typical example of
>romantic 19th century "historicism", the main aim of which was to come up
>with the most glorious past possible. The Daco-Rumanian continuity is another
>classic example of this: the difference is that Hungarian historical research
>has overcome this period by a hundred years whereas the Rumanians still cling
>to it as part of their (false) national identity.

I'm glad you mentioned that as a periodic heated debate about that very
subject is just winding down on the Romanian news group of Usenet.
To my surprise, the winning arguments AGAINST the Daco-Roman continuity
theory were presented by a Romanian of all people!  His well documented
and argued presentation was better than anything I read from Hungarian
sources.  His conclusion is that available evidence points to the
central Balkan mountaineous region of the Nis-Sophia-Skopje area as the
birth place of Vlachs/Romanians from which they gradually spread out,
with the main migration route reaching the Danube in the 10th century.

> I don't want to get into
>the Hun-theory just now, but again, I'm yet to hear any strong argument in
>favour of it. The usual things are: the similar descriptions of the Huns and
>the Hungarians by Western sources, the similarity of the names and the same
>area of settlement. Now, the similar descriptions and the similar names can
>obviously attributed to the fact (mentioned earlier), that for city-dwelling
>nations all nomad intruders looked exactly the same (lifestyle, behaviour,
>appearance, fighting tactiques, etc.) and they even applied earlier extant
>descriptions to later nomads because, from their point of view, they were all
>alike.

I guess this is why Constantin Porphyrogenitos called Hungarians
"Turks".

OK, now what do you thing the possibility of Avar-Hungarian kinship?
Do you subscribe to Gyula Laszlo's "Dual Conquest" theory?

Joe