Apparently-To: <slovak-l%ubvm.bitnet@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:30:52 EST
From:         Joe Pannon <76317.2023@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject:      Slovaks vs. Hungarians

The Lubosh propoganda machine was turned into high gear again as he writes:

 >taking your word for it, you seem to say:
 >The Hungarians DO NOT NEED to learn SLovak, and if they have the attitude
 >to have everything in Hungarian, let them have it ! If you use the
 >example of your colleagues who have a non-English speaking background,
 >ask them - were you willing to learn English in order to work at Boeing ?
 >And do your Hungarian colleagues demand to have minutes of your meetings
 >printed Hungarian, or do they agree to use English as working language ?

Well, dear Lubosh!  I thought we were talking about Hungarians of Slovakia
not being as good in the Slovak language as ethnic Slovaks are.  Now you are
turning it into a black-and-white issue trying to tell us that Hungarians in
Slovakia don't know the Slovak language at all!  That's so much horse
feathers, and you know it!  I've known enough Hungarians from there to know
better!  If anything, I noticed many of those Hungarians speaking the
Hungarian language with noticeable accent, mixing many Slovak words in their
speech!  What you're talking about may apply to a few hill billies who never
move out of their Hungarian enclaves, but it's certainly not true for people
with high school education and above.  They all know Slovak well enough to
function in Slovakia, though an ethnic Slovak might notice their accents and
discriminate against them on that basis.

 >For various reasons your analogy to Canada is not quite right:
 >1. The Hungarians were not co-founders of Czecho-Slovakia as the French
 >were in Canada (the opposite - the Hungarians would probably favour to
 >keep their half of the Austro-Hungarian empire for good);

You're propogandizing here again!  You keep referring to Austro-Hungarian
Empire as if that was always how it was before Slovakia's independence.
In fact, that empire only existed for about 50 years before the current
territory of Slovakia was partitioned off from it.  Before that, for over a
1,000 years it was part of the Hungarian Kingdom, not of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire. It is true though, that since the liberation from the the Turkish
rule at the end of 17th century, Hungary was under the domination of the
Habsburgs of Austria, but except for the last 50 years, it was NOT the
Austro-Hungarian Empire!

The French were NOT co-founders of Canada: it was England alone that granted
independence to her former colony, but the English speaking dominated it
until the French-speaking Canadians started demanding their autonomy.

Claiming that Hungarians were not co-founders of Czecho-Slovakia is like
blaming the kidnap victim for his fate.  As to Hungarians favoring to keep
their half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire for themselves for good, that of
course was as true in 1920 as it's true today that the US also favors keeping
the American Southwest for itself.  That's only natural.  However, with the
ethnic changes in the last 70 years, I doubt it's true today for Hungary.
What would be the advantage to absorb all those Slovaks into Hungary?  I
think most Hungarians would only be interested -- if at all! -- in PEACEFUL
revisions of borders along ethnic dividing lines.  But that's not even on any
serious agenda!  If Hungarians in the successor states are allowed their
cultural autonomy then nobody cares where the borders are.

 >2. I don't see the Hungarians in Slovakia to have less rights than the
 >French speaking Canadians do have, but the French Canadians do not demand
 >to get under the French government, while many of Hungarian nationalists
 >demand an annexe to Hungary, not just an autonomy.

That's horse feathers again!  Where do you hear any responsible Hungarian
official or politician talking about such annexation?  As to others talking
about it, that hardly matters.  In a free country you can't prevent people
expressing their opinions.  Talking about something and DOING something about
it is not the same thing.  Besides, where did you get the idea that the last
people who could talk about border revisions were Masaryk and Benes?  Did we
REALLY reach the end of history?

 >Aboriginals claim to be discriminated in Australia. I think one can
 >become discriminated if one WANTS to, and then use it for a political
 >advantage. Fortunately enough the Hungarians are not pushing for "ethnic
 >cleansing" in the areas where they have majority...

I hope I wasn't the only one noticing this other jewel of your thinking.
It's bad enough that you dismiss claims of discrimination with such a
cavalier manner, you reached a new low by trying to attach the Serbian
concept of "ethnic cleansing" to Hungarians in a way that leaves you an
escape hatch from it.  So far, in that area, only Slavs have practiced ethnic
cleansing, you know.  So, it's primarily the Hungarians who have something to
worry about it, being such an alien ethnic group in a sea of Slavs.

But let's see your last pearl:

 >Well, I appreciate Horthy's soft approach to his neighbours, as he surely
 >showed it during his time of government. Surely his letter sent to Hitler
 >on March 13, 1939 proves all that:
 >"Your Excellency - my sincere thanks, I can hardly tell you how happy I
 >am because this (Danube) Head Water Region - I dislike using big words -
 >is of vital importance to the life of Hungary. In spite of the fact that
 >our recruits have only been serving five weeks, we are going into this
 >affair with eager enthusiasm. The dispositions have already been made. On
 >Thursday, the sixteenth of this month, a frontier incident will take
 >place which will be followed by a big blow on Saturday. I shall never
 >forget this proof of friendship, and Your Excellency may rely on my
 >unshakable gratitude at all times. Your devoted friend - Horthy"
 >No comments to this.

Well, I do have a comment on it. ... or rather a question:

Do you have any particular reason why you did not cite the source of that
alleged quote from Horthy?  I sure would like to check out its authenticity
and the context in which it was made, if at all.

Judging from the date (March 13, 1939), it would coincide with the time
Hitler invited Tiso to urge him to declare Slovakia's independence, promising
them immediate recognition and protection.  To provide further incentive to
the Slovaks, we know from western historians that Hitler tried to rush the
Slovaks by saying that Hungarians were ready to move into Slovakia.  So, I
wouldn't be surprised if the letter you quoted was one of the cleaver Nazi
forgeries shown to Tiso and his companions by Ribbentrop. Tell me it ain't
so!

 >But even though Horthy showed so much enthusiasm,
 >and his dispositions included a bombing of some cities (he probably
 >didn't realize that some of his fellow countrymen can be hurt), he
 >probably would get a good kick from Mr Duray for refusing Hitler's offer
 >mentioned above...

What bombing by Horthy are you referring to?  Are you referring to the 1941
bombing of Kassa/Kosice that served as Casus Belli for Hungary's declaration
of war on the Sovietunion?  You should really be clear about such things
instead of making these vague allegations from which anybody can make his or
her own conclusions.

 >I do not know if you have experienced the situation in Slovakia yourself.
 >Unfortunately the fellow Hungarians overthere do not share our views that
 >the diversity is beautiful. It is not just their sticking to their
 >culture and language (nothing against it), but their almost exclusive
 >resistance to know anything else.

If somebody believed that crap I have a bridge to sell them.  The next thing
you're going to tell us that Duray himself doesn't understand Slovakian?

Well, that's enough for today.

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