Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:19:59 PST
From:         Joe Pannon <pannon@BCSFSE.BOEING.COM>
Subject:      Roots of the Slovak-Hungarian Conflict

Dear Marian:

> I hope you would not mind some of my next comments.

Not at all.

> First of all I think you missed the point I had in mind. All the
> issues I stated are understood by lot of Slovaks as Hungarian's
> effort to annect southern Slovakia when the situation will be
> appropriare for such action. I can not help myself but all those
> issues I wrote about, are meant to create the kind of situation when
> hungarian interference into slovak internal affairs will be excused.

I cannot help what Slovaks want to understand about anything.
I think this again is a case of projection, inspired how they were
thinking before THEY wanted to carve out Upper Hungary for themselves.
Ever since that, they must be having national nightmares that Hungary
might do the same thing to them.

I would suggest to look at other parts of Europe where large numbers of
nationals of one country live in neighboring countries.  Take the
Swedish minority in Finland, for instance.  Why don't we hear about the
Swedes of Finland wanting to join their mother country?  Because Finland
treats them right.

Somebody also mentioned the case of South Tirol which is no longer the
flashpoint it used to be, since the Italians granted them the ethnic
rights they demanded.  Closer to home is the Hungarian minority in
Slovenia, which also enjoys similar autonomy in its affairs.  The
Ukrainians have been also very accomodating to the Hungarians in
Ruthenia.  Why can't Slovakia approach her Hungarian minority issue the
same way?

> Don't forget that the treaty about G says that borders remains into
> original Main shipping channel and not in the new one. This is the
> place where Hungary indirectly recognized the borders. There is no
> other document where Hungary recognizes it's borders with Slovakia.

No, I did not know that.  On the other hand, Variant C wasn't in that
treaty, so ... ?  I also wonder how that treaty between Hungary and CS
could apply automatically to one between Hungary and Slovakia after Jan.
1.  One of the parties to the treaty will no longer exist.

> The treaty about Gabcikovo is still valid.

Yes, and the Earth is flat, too.  But even if it was still valid, that
treaty did not authorize Variant C, did it?

>   For most of Slovaks that statement has to be taken literally.
> Because of precedences in the past. May be Horthy also wished not to
> be quiet when the human and ethnic rights of fellow Hungarians were
> "violated".

Well, again, if the Slovaks want to take that symbolic Antall statement
literally, that's their prerogative, but it takes a great deal of
imagination how Antall could REALLY be prime minister of Hungarians not
under his jurisdiction.  I guess, I don't have that kind of imagination
myself.

As to historical precedence, I have already answered that in another
message.  I don't think Hungarians wanted more from Slovakia, than the
Slovaks wanted from Czechs.  Knowing how much cozier Tiso was with
Hitler than Horthy, I wouldn't hold the Vienna Awards too much against
the Hungarians if I was a Slovak.  Remember also, which of the two
leaders was executed as a war criminal after the war.

> Don't you think that there are existing multilateral
> europian institutions to judge any violation of human rights? If Mr.
> Antall knows about any violation of human rights in Slovakia he would
> better inform such institution instead of claiming to be prime
> minister of slovak citizens.

Oh, please!  What are those European institutions doing for the former
Yugoslavia?

> >  Talk is cheap, and besides, it's a
> > free country.  I am sure there are some Slovaks who also talk about
> > things that contradict official policy there.  So what?
>
>   Yes some Slovaks have different oppinions. But not those Slovaks
> that  took part in Slovak goverment and those bound by responsibility.

Well, Meciar sounds like one of those people, but HE IS the government!
BTW, what was Meciar during the communist era?  Wasn't he also some kind
of communist official?

> > What's wrong talking about the ethnic suppression, anyway?
>
>  Just the same as to tell lies. Or do you know about any kind of
> ethnic supression in Slovakia?

Oh brother (or sister)!  Don't you hear enough of that from Duray?  Or
are his statements not allowed in the Slovak media?  For starters, wasn't
there enough protest against approval of certain clauses in the new
Slovak constitution?

If I was a Hungarian in Slovakia, for me probably the most
objectionable thing would be to be forced to study the official Slovak
history putting down Hungarians, having to "learn" about historical
figures of Upper Hungary that they were really Slovak heroes and noble
men whose names one could hardly recognize any more because of their
Slovakization by latter day baptizers in Bratislava.  The same way all
Hungarian city and town names, even of those with overwhelmingly
Hungarian populations.

> > Why is it wrong for ethnic Hungarians ask similar things for
> > themselves vis a vis the Slovaks, as the Slovaks wanted for themselves
> > vis a vis the Czech (minus the separate state, of course)?  As they say
> > around here: What's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
>
>   Can you specify it closely. I don't understand what you exactly have
>   in mind.

Autonomy within the Slovak state where Hungarians are in majority and
the Hungarian language also accepted as official language.  We are
talking about people inhabiting that area for over a 1000 years and
Slovakia can't look at them the way the US looks at her immigrants.

Regards,
Joe Pannon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU