Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has expressed his opinion that a Fidesz electoral victory in April would lead to strained relations between Hungary and Slovakia, mno.hu reports, unlike the status quo which is just peachy. Fico stated that if Fidesz were to act upon what they’ve said in opposition, it would mean a turn for the worse. This coming from the man who with coalition partners the Slovak National Party has made vilifying Slovakia’s Hungarian minority official policy for all intents and purposes.
Slovak PM expresses concerns over losing “special relationship” with Hungary
- Tweet
-
- Comment [63]
Quotable: Sándor Fazekas on the agricultural land leasing controversy
Amnesty International slams Hungary for restricting free speech, religion in 2012 report [1]
Wallenberg statue vandalized in Budapest; officials condemn “desecration” [4]
European journalist organization urges Hungary to respect law on radio licensing
Comments
The All Hungary Media Group is firmly committed to freedom of expression and therefore applies a mostly "hands off" approach to comment moderation. Comments left by readers represent their own views and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of the staff, editors or owner of the All Hungary Media Group, who nonetheless reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic or which moderators consider to constitute "hate speech." Also note that in order to prevent spam we generally close entries off to comments several days after publication.
You’re talking as if Slovakia was a client state. Sorry, the Austro-
Hungarian Empire is no more; you lost territory because you were
on the wrong side. You then backed the wrong side again and lost
more territory. Now you’re in a European Union but you’re still
looking for trouble. As a regular Canadian visitor to your parts,
including the Hungarian-speaking parts of southern Slovakia, I can
assure you that ethnic Hungarians not only have a better quality of
life than their Slovak counterparts in Hungary, but they are happy
to tell me so. My suggestion? Stop prodding the Hungarian minority
in Slovakia. For as Slovakia and Romania get stronger, they might
start remembering the nasty things you did to them during the
Hungarian Empire days and the Nazi period. And when your
national pride makes your chest expand, remember what you did
with your own minorities in Hungary.
Oh and one more thing: Slovaks tell me they forgive you for driving
tanks and armoured vehicles into Slovakia on Russian orders in
1968 to crush Alexander Dubcek’s Prague Spring. But I don’t! For a
country that took pride in 1956, what you did in 1968 was
shameful. And don’t blame it on the Russians — after all,
Ceaucescu told the Russians where to go and refused to invade
what was then Czechoslovakia.
Nationalism is a brain disease on both sides. The
borders do not change. Lets try to get as rich as
the Austrians rather than as aggressive as people in
less intelligent parts of this world.
@ George;
As a Hungarian Canadian, I would like to “tweak” your post just a teensy weensy bit.
I liked your suggestion that Hungary/Hungarians refocus their energy to:
” Become as rich as the Austrians, rather than as aggressive as people”…
You see, it’s what comes after “people” that I would like see changed. So, if I may be so bold as to make few alternate statement endings…
a) “Rather than as aggressive as people…such as Francis Wilson, who are shockingly ignorant of Central European History
b) “Rather than as aggressive as people…such as Francis Wilson, who do not know that they have been manipulated by propaganda
c) “Rather than as aggressive as people…such as Francis Wilson who obviously has a boyfriend/girlfriend who is either Slovakian or has some attachment to Hungary, oops, I meant Slovakia.
Sorry, that was a Freudian slip on my part:))
Canada, is not normally known as being a “less intelligent parts of this World” The USA yes…but, not Canada.
Canada, is not normally known as being a “less intelligent parts of this World” The USA yes…but, not Canada.
justasking at February 24, 2010 8:24 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations – not a “historical” fact, but neither is it anonymous nor without references.
“less intelligent parts of this world”
George at February 24, 2010 7:05 AM
@George – As you said, “Nationalism is a brain disease”
rgds
Curious George (no relation)
Maybe IQ-level is related to the possibility to get proper nutrition to the mother and child?
In addition that the mother and child, even as unborn, grows up in an environment that is as free from drugs and other sources of pollution as possible.
A bit of:
* What comes first – the chicken or the egg?
-
That is why social problems, like with the Roma, cannot be solved before the environmental conditions for their living (remember the earlier discussion about hurting their babies) has been improved. More police in the ghettos will not ‘solve’ the problem, maybe contain it, or move it to another area
Wouldn’t the US be top of that list if IQ is related to “nutrition”
?
#1 Hong-Kong – Must be all those tiger penises.
Wouldn’t the US be top of that list if IQ is related to “nutrition”
?
#1 Hong-Kong – Must be all those tiger penises.
Anonymous at February 24, 2010 10:48 AM
—-
I have no idea of the nutrition value of a tiger dick, but do expecting mothers eat those?
I think we should look at the bigger difference in IQ-values and rich/poor country, than just between a few nominal IQ-values
-
But thinking on the US as a ‘rich’ country is a bit misguided then Feeding America is annually providing food to 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. This is an increase of 46 percent over 2006, when they were feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children, each year
This means one in eight Americans (12.5%) now rely on Feeding America for food and groceries
-
http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010/hunger-report-2010.aspx
-
No wonder they have a lot of violent crimes
Slovak PM expresses concerns over losing “special relationship” with Hungary
V. Orban is a politician who has been longer in Hungarian opposition than his country has been in EU. His words seem sometimes more detached from reality that what members of Fidesz filial Jobbik party let out of their mounths. V. Orban said that when he comes to power, relationships with Slovakia and other countries will have to be lay down on completely other basis based on freedom, mutual understanding and european values. But what understanding shall that be when it was during Orban’s governing years in 2001 when Slovak-Hungarian relations fell at the sole basement and since then never recovered? Hungarian politicians have never had a good word for Slovakia even in times when ethnical Hungarian party was part of Slovak government. It’s just and only Orban’s great shame and picture that he knows so little about the neighbouring coutry despite of the fact that he was for 5 year Hungarian Prime Minister.
Its a wonder this character named francis wilson even knows
how to use a computer, let alone make an attempt to give some
knowledge about history, let’s make one thing clear , out of all
the countries that were in the soviet sphere Hungary was the
only one that had guts, when the soviets invaded
Czechoslovakia there was no resistance so that wasn’t really any
more an invasion than the Russian moving around troops, they
all laid down and kissed the soviets ass, Hungary was the only
country with enough guts to challenge the soviets militarily.
your talking about slovakia and romania getting stronger, come
on who you kidding neither country know how to fight, romania
took land in 1918 after the hungarian army disarmed and so did
the czechs, while hungary was armed to countries combined
couldn’t do nothing.
The reason minorities were treated bad was because after 1848
when they all decided to become willing slaves of Austria and for
a 1000 years who protected the slovak people , Hungary
protected them , its because of Hungary there language still
exist today, if it wasn’t for Hungary they’d be speaking czech or
russian or Ukrainian, Francis Wilson needs to educate himself
more, because you sound ignorant as hell, and as for the
Romanian revolution in 1989 it was a Hungarian priest who got
it started.
‘Slovakia’ is a joke. There was a Slovakia once
back in WWII under the leadership of Tiso’s
fascists government. They deported Jews from day
one. Yet, the Western media and this forum does
not care about that. They only bash Hungary and
Hungarians calling them a ‘guilty’ nation. While
Slovakia can raise walls to separate their gypsies
in their cities from the rest of the population,
if any Hungarian local government dares to do the
same, the ‘Hungarian’ English speaking media and
their Western counterparts would scream bloody
murder. Interestingly, the Slovakians use the
exact same argument for segregating their gypsies
as the Israeli government uses. Slovakia has the
right to defend itself they say. Sounds familiar?
In the meantime members of the ‘guilty’ nation (ie
Hungarians) suffer the consequences of the
Slovakian language law which is similar to the
fascist Tiso government anti Jew policies. I am
sure that if some Jews in Slovakia decided to
speak Hebrew and they would be fined under the
Slovak language law, the Slovak langage law would
be under the toughest scrutiny in the European
Parliament on the next day. But nobody cares when
the ‘guilty nation’ suffers. This will change when
Jobbik gets into the Parliament. They will keep an
eye on Fidesz to make sure that the Hungarian-
Slovak relationship would indeed change and
Hungarian government and media would stand up for
Hungary and Hungarian interests, not for some
other countries. The better should win. Gyozzon a
Jobbik
@ Francis Wilson
That was a truly offensive post from a Canadian with a WASP name whose only connection to Hungary appears to be a “regular visitor” (skunk at a garden party comes to mind)
Not sure what part of Canada you are from, but where I was raised (Toronto) it’s not cool to make spurious claims, attack a foreign country and rewrite its history according to subjective interpretation.
How on earth did you have the gall to write that stuff? (stuff is the most polite word I could think of) 3 examples should suffice.
“Hungarians are happy in Slovakia” ” The Austro-Hungarian Empire is no more” – ” you lost territory because…”
Concerning your unasked for advice: “Stop prodding the Hungarian minority in Slovakia.” ???
Do you tell members of the First Nation in Canada who champion Native rights to “stop prodding” their own? – I suspect the answer may be “of course”
Too bad you didn’t limit your posting to a couple of sentences that would at least make sense to some people on this website who care about fairness.
Something like: “While feeling justifiable outraged about the plight of Hungarian minorities in Slovakia, Hungarians should also consider the feelings of those minorities presently living within its own borders”
You could also have mentioned appreciation for those who are “foreigners” but make their home in Hungary, have families and support its economy.
For a country that took pride in 1956, what you did in 1968 was shameful. And don’t blame it on the Russians — after all, Ceaucescu told the Russians where to go and refused to invade what was then Czechoslovakia.
Francis Wilson at February 24, 2010 1:19 AM
====
out of all the countries that were in the soviet sphere Hungary was the only one that had guts, when the soviets invaded Czechoslovakia there was no resistance so that wasn’t really any more an invasion than the Russian moving around troops, they all laid down and kissed the soviets ass, Hungary was the only country with enough guts to challenge the soviets militarily
Alex at February 24, 2010 11:46 PM
====
Wiki claims:
On the night of August 20 – August 21, 1968, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary and Poland invaded the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
…
The first country to react against the invasion was Albania, which withdrew from the Warsaw Pact.
…
A more pronounced effect took place in Communist Romania who did not take part in the invasion. Nicolae Ceauşescu, already a staunch opponent of Soviet influences and one to have declared himself on Dubček’s side, held a public speech in Bucharest on the day of the invasion, depicting Soviet policies in harsh terms
—-
Cont Invasion
Cont Invasion
—-
Given the facts I am inclined to agree with ‘Francis Wilson’
Add to this that Tito and his Yugoslavia had already withdrawn from the Warsaw Pact, there were several other East European States that, at that time in August 1968, made much better decisions than Hungary
I think we can see a parallel here with the Hungarian President Solymon’s ‘private’ trip to Slovakia to speak officially at an inauguration ceremony for a Hungarian monument in Slovakia on August 21, 2009
It was the 21st Memorial Day of the invasion, where Hungarian troops were active
Like Hungarian troops were active is the cancelled invasion of Yugoslavia in 1948, when both Soviet and Hungarian tanks massed on the border to that time Yugoslavia to do a 1968-type of invasion
-
‘Alex’ is also wrong about the Czech resistance:
“n the operation, codenamed Danube, varying estimates of between 175,000 and 500,000 troops[2] attacked Czechoslovakia; approximately 500 Czechoslovaks were wounded and 108 killed in the invasion” (Wiki)
.
Was that not enough killed and wounded?
Every analyst, given the 1956 events, knew and still knows that any bigger/longer resistance would had been extremely bloody and may even had escalated in to a big scale European war, so ‘Alex’s’ comments are not exactly that type of comments that will try to re-build the trust between the countries
And trust between two nations comes from trust between the people living there so it is better to keep to the actual facts
@ Viking;
Of course you sided with Francis Wilson, we all knew you were going to, because that is what you do. Try to find anybody to cosy up to that has anything negative to say about Hungary. You didn’t have to waste your time “wikiing” Slovakia, your trusted source for bullshit information.
Really, you’ve become so obvious, that if you weren’t considered boring before, you are now. Hands down for sure, you pitiful little man.
PS: Slovakia just gave the Swedes their walking papers tonight in Hockey at the Olympics. I guess it will be left up to the Canadians to teach these Slavic son-of-a bitching-assholes, oops I meant, “guys” a lesson.
You know, that is like the second time that I had a Freudian slip like that. I wonder if Cinaed has a moment to help me “understand” where this is all coming from?
Hungarians will never a have a good relationship with slovakia because of the ‘past’…
@Atilla – OK, what do you suggest Hungary do? Move to ‘another’ neighbourhood, live with this relationship, or try to improve it?
I’m curious how you would try to improve it? I would really like to know your suggestion because we have the same thing in my country.
@Attila – sorry, typed your name too fast.
You didn’t have to waste your time “wikiing” Slovakia, your trusted source for bullshit information
justasking at February 25, 2010 8:27 AM
—
Prove me wrong instead of trying to insult me, but that is probably to hard, or?
* Did Hungary invade Czechoslovakia in 1968?
* Was it morally right to do that, given what we today know about the situation at that time?
* How will Hungarian insensitivity to the Slovak/Czech Remembrance Day on August 21st (every year) of that invasion (if we assume you claimed it was morally wrong to invade above), help the situation out?
-
Is it not like this that both in Slovakia and Hungary, the local nationalists are leading both countries by the nose, making the situation worse, when instead, on both side of the border, a more reasonable and calm approach is needed
The problems did not start with this new Language Law, that is just one bad milestone and it looks likely not to be the last, then people like you want to have a bad relationship with Slovakia
In your world Slovakia does not even exists, so how can you have a dialogue with something that does not even exist?
I don’t really believe that the Hungarian people should be held responsible for the actions of their government in 1968. Hungary tried to throw off the communist dictatorship, but was unable to do so because of the ‘unfair advantage’ of the Soviet big brother. Clearly the Hungarian people didn’t want to be dominated by the communists, and I dare say, notwithstanding the current level of hostility towards their northern neighbours, would probably have preferred to stay at home. To me, the involvement of Hungary in any military action in contrast with the 1956 revolution just highlights the degree to which its government did not represent the will of its people.
-
I’m not exactly inspired by Caucescu either. The guy was just as evil as anyone else. For him to make ‘anti-soviet’ statements is a bit like the pickpocket, having been caught in the act, pointing and shouting Thief! Thief!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4630855.stm
I don’t really believe that the Hungarian people should be held responsible for the actions of their government in 1968
Cináed at February 25, 2010 11:56 AM
—
Well, which people *should* “be held responsible for the actions of their government”
A people loves a Government in ‘uptime’ and hates it in ‘downtime’
Hitler was loved by many Germans before the wars started to disrupt their life and cost their loved ones
It is totally ‘human’ and ‘natural’ to do this
Said that, I never ever claimed that the “Hungarian people should be held responsible”, but current Hungarian politicians/representatives and also Hungarians in common, must take a personal stand:
* ‘was the Hungarian participation in 1968 years invasion morally right’?
* ‘Should we as Hungarians, especially when we want others to respect our 1956 events, respect other peoples similar event, especially when we were on the side of the aggressor in such an event’?
-
Of course no leader of any of the Eastern Europe countries were nice people, but some had more guts (for personal benefits maybe?) to mobilise their own people to keep the Russians at bay
Tito was not nice, but Soviet troops never occupied Yugoslavia and they left the Warsaw Pact early
In this sense both Yugoslavia and Romania were better neighbours/friends to the Czech/Slovak people than the Hungarians
Was the Hungarian leaders real reason to join the 1968 invasion built on ‘revenge’, to get back the old territory?
Or were they just afraid, unlike Tito?
Said that, I never ever claimed that the “Hungarian people should be held responsible”.
Viking; fair enough and on reflection perhaps I should have phrased that differently. You also raise the interesting point of whether or not there were Hungarians interested in getting back old territory. I guess I can’t really rule that out, even if I seriously doubt it would have happened anyway. I also take the point that if Hungarians want their experiences and memories to be validated that it cuts both way. Having said that, I’m still very cautious about the issue of Hungarian forces in Czechoslovakia. I would reinforce that in 1956, Hungarians DID rise up and were put down violently.In the following years, there was extreme repression and ‘punishment’ with any opposition being ruthlessly dealt with.It would be no surprise that there wasn’t as much opposition to the military action in Czechoslovakia, as anyone who would have said anything were either too scared or dead.I think there is no clear ‘moral high ground’ here, and that nothing is ever as simple as black and white. I don’t think that your idea of hating a government when you’re down and loving it when you are up really applies when you live in a country where you have no say in your government’s decisions anyway.
Just to add another strange facet to the history of Eastern Europe:
In 1968 East German forces stood ready to help invade (sorry, of course: help the government against counter revolutionary fascist forces) Czechoslovakia.
However the soviet leaders thought better of it, so the German troops were held back.
Maybe even the Russians leaders did not want another invasion exactly 30 years after Hitler’s soldiers “liberated” their German brothers and sisters in “Böhmen und Mähren” (that was the German name for this part of Europe) …
In 1968, the Russians wanted to avoid the public relations black eye they incurred in 1956, when they unilaterally and alone took action in Hungary. To the world, it looked like a big country invading a small one. Thus in 1968, when the Dubcek “deviationism” reared it’s head, they took pains to involve the militaries of their satelltes in a joint invasion of Czechoslovakia. They wanted the world to believe that what was happening in Prague was a regional concern shared by nominally independent nations including the USSR. It was in fact nothing more than an empire and it’s vassal governments jointly interfereing in the internal affairs of one of the vassal states. To allow Dubcek style revisionism and independence of policy might have caused it to spread to the other client states of the Soviet block; thus it had to be nipped in the bud.
To say that the Hungarian participation in the suppression of ’68 can not be forgotten, is to wallow in needless and misdirected resentment. Such a person will need also resent above all else the Russians, whose empire it was after all, as well as the other Warsaw pact “allies” that glumly participated in the “exercise”. To say no to Moscow would have been risky, and the Hungarians did not want to risk another ’56 style reinvasion and suppression. Romania was in a different bargaining situation perhaps, but the East Germans and the Poles toed the line.
The second bit of disengenousness brought up by the top poster to this thread is the idea the Hungary “backed the wrong side” in the first world war. The relationship with the Austrians, like the Russians later on, was not voluntary, but the result of conquest. Hungary violently rebelled against both empires and lost. “Dragged along” would be a better metaphor rather than using an allusion appropriate to betting in a horse race. The Austrians found it expediant to use the Hungarians as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The administrative boundaries of “Greater Hungary” were set by Vienna, in the hope that the Hungarians could help them rule a bunch of smaller national groups.
What such an argument overlooks is that the Slovaks themselves were vassals to Vienna, not just the Hungarians. When the “diplomacy” of old “Ferenc Jóska” with Serbia failed, then the Slovaks too, along with the Hungarians, had the honor of donning Austrian military uniforms, and of course, going on the “back the wrong side”.
I would reinforce that in 1956, Hungarians DID rise up and were put down violently.In the following years, there was extreme repression and ‘punishment’ with any opposition being ruthlessly dealt with
Cináed at February 25, 2010 1:00 PM
—-
Yes, but that does not change how we judge the leaders who ran the country at that time
-
“The Hungarian Communist party’s highest body, the Politburo, hadn’t authorized Kádár to agree to take part in a military “solution” to the Czechoslovak “problem.” Perhaps Ulbricht’s warning that after Czechoslovakia Hungary would be next made an impression on him. The reluctant Kádár gave in. However, although he might have been better than Brezhnev, Ulbricht or Gomułka, in the final analysis it really didn’t matter. The whole incident reminds me of István Tisza, prime minister of Hungary from 1903 to 1905 and again from 1913 to 1917, whose agreement was necessary for declaration of war in 1914. Tisza hesitated for a very long time but in the end he gave his nod. Hungarians like to point out that the Hungarian prime minister was a reluctant participant and somehow this is supposed to be a plus. But in the final analysis it made no difference”
-
http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2009/08/hungary-and-czechoslovakia-in-1968-kádár-and-dubček-.html
-
The above is the closing paragraph on Eva’s entry on Kádár’s ‘achievements’ in 1968. It is built on Tibor Huszár, Kádár János: Politikai életrajz, 2 vols. (Budapest: 2001-2003)
-
Cont
@ Curious George
“OK, what do you suggest Hungary do?”
Well there are 2 ways: Firstly, We can express our superiority over Slovakia, stating we wont accept any of their unjust actions and declare that action from Hungary(this action can range from sanctions to war, depends on what is most effective) will be taken if they cant be reasonable with us. That is ofcourse is the ‘bully’ way, America does it quite abit and it works well for them from time to time. OR
Secondly, We do the peaceful approach with Slovakia where we act as if the past has no significance between us and that we should move on. A compromise could be reached between the two and we could live happily ever after. Problem is though is that Hungarians tend to be strongly attached to the past and will not just let it go. This could hamper the negotiation process and could leave with no result being achieved. However if achieved, the diplomat will be seen as a prophet!
Those are the 2 extremes, picking either has it advantages and disadvantages so its really up to the leader of the nation to do what he feels is right.
Cont
-
Compare Kádár’s doing with “Ceauşescu encouraged the population to take up arms in order to meet any similar maneuver in that country: he received an enthusiastic initial response, with many people who were by no means communist willing to enroll in the newly-formed paramilitary Patriotic Guards” (wiki)
-
Here we have 2 totally different type of leaders,
* Kádár following in the footstep of previous Hungarian leaders and giving in under pressure
To the Tisza-comparison above, I would add Horthy’s decision to chose his son’s life before the welfare of his people in accepting the Nazi-German invasion in 1944
* Tito and Ceauşescu daring to stand out and (probably still for personal benefits) trusting their people to resist the Soviets
-
In this light, I think it must be easy to see both Tito and Ceauşescu as better leaders for their people at that specific time, than Kádár were for Hungarians
In hindsight we now that Ulbricht’s warning to Kádár was just hot air, both Tito and Ceauşescu survived without any major problems
If Kádár had resisted and instead joined both Tito and Ceauşescu against the Soviets, well that had been an interesting ‘What If?’
Dear Viking,
I remember ’68 quite well. Kadar represented a country that just 12 years before itself violently rebelled against Soviet rule. As a result, both he and Hungary were under the gun to prove their loyalty and usefulness to Moscow. I remember that Hungarians did not want to risk another hostile Soviet invasion, not after experiencing the tragedy and loss of life in ’56. Insubordination to Moscow within the Soviet block could carry terrible consequences. Dubcek found that out as well.
The other thing Hungarians felt was that if Kadar said no, he could easily be replaced by Moscow with a more hard line leader, something nobody wanted.
In the case of both the Austrian and Soviet empires, let nobody forget that the political leaders were not democratically elected. It was Vienna, and later Moscow who decided who the “leaders” of Hungary were. Moscow in particular relished the role and perogative of installing, and deposing leaders, both at home and in the satellitte states. Not toeing the line was dangerous for anybody, for both private citizen and local “leader” alike.
Viking: I don’t know the depths of what went on during that period in Hungary…so I’ll take your word for it. Yes, it would have been an interesting ‘what if’, but very unlikely. As I understand, Kadar owed everything to the party and so wasn’t really in any position to resist even if he had wanted to.
-
I get the point you’re making about Caucescu, but I’ll always find it hard to say anything positive about him. The guy was a monster, just like every other monster that held power at the time.
I remember other things about ’68.
I recall how my cousin was in the army at the time, and how he and his unit had to go to Czechoslovakia to put down the Dubcek “heresy”. I remember how Hungarians loathed a system that required them to participate in such adventures. To have to roll in WITH the Russian tanks made us vomit! We saw in Dubcek what we saw in our own Nagy Imre in ’56. We were rooting in our hearts for Dubcek, or any other leader who stood for some reformist tendency in a system that was ruled by rigid ideology, repression and leaders who were unaccountable to their people.
It secretly made us very angry that our men and our army and to be used for such an ignoble purpose. It made us even more angry that to say such things openly, and to be reported for such sentiments, would have gotten us imprisoned for years! The rage would just simmer, and many who weren’t claimed by the prison system were taken down by suicide and alcoholism.
Franz Joseph, his son Charles, Horthy, Szálasi, Rákosi, Kádár etc., none of them were elected. They were part of a regional pattern of autocracy and dictatorship that goes back at least a 1,000 years. Representative govt didn’t really take hold until after 1989.
I regret one thing, and that is that there do not seem to be any regular posters here who claim to be Czech. I’ve never met a Czech who hates Hungarians for what Moscow made us do in 1968.
I’ve never met a Czech who hates Hungarians for what Moscow made us do in 1968.
Farkas László at February 25, 2010 5:36 PM
—
Dear Mr Farkas,
Your personal experience is valuable to share to today’s youth, on both sides of the border, that easily thinks history is like a football club – you need to see the own team as heroes and the ‘others’ as really bad
-
You are probably very true about the Czech reaction
.
There is obviously more anti-Hungarian feelings among Slovak nationalist, than among Czech
In some sense the Czech and Hungarian nationalists see ‘eye to eye’ regarding Slovaks
.
Anyway, mutual understanding and respect is good start, but that seems a bit hard in today’s rhetoric
It will be interesting to see what happens the next 6 months, with the new Hungarian Govt and more international involvement
A new Govt, regardless the old rhetoric, can be either an open or closed door to better relations
For the Slovak side is it important to be able to back out of the Language Law without creating an internal political crisis that will be exploited by their rabid nationalists, creating more difficulties for Hungarians and Hungary
Hi FL: Thanks for your last post. I have copied and pasted it into a Word document to keep for future reference. If you don’t mind, I’d like to post it on my own website. I know you’ve said in the past it was ok, but I just feel I should ask again. Of course if you would prefer I didn’t, I won’t.
Dear Viking,
I appreciate your sympathetic response. The people were one thing, but the leaders were another matter. Many of the nationalist antagonisms in the region were the result of the actions of unaccountable leaders.
The Czechs may not hate us for ’68, but I can tell you my cousin, many of his comrades and relatives ended up hating themselves for having anything to do with it! In those days, many people took out their anger and rage, not on the sources of the problem, but upon themselves.
I pity all the peoples of the region, Russians included, for having had to put up with so much shitty history for so many centuries, and with so many leaders who couldn’t be removed by the people except by violence.
Farkas László & Wolfi.
Naive girl from magazine interviewing Béla Lugosi:
Girl:Mr Lugosi, do you really believe in Vampires?
Béla:Why, of course…I married five of them!
@Cobblestone:
Thanks a lot – yours was the first posting today that made me laugh …
Some of the others with their paranoia are almost frightening …
Wolfi,
What’s your take on this?
http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=22912
Now, for something comletely different (but interesting)…
@…consideration:
Interesting – my first impression of that paper:
Germany has had it Jobbik-like movements on the right, now we have those “misfits” on the left.
Most of them are either remnants of the old Szalinist party SED or frustrated social democrats, Lafontaine especially is just a little Napoleon in my opinion.
We have to wait to see how the Left will manage after he’s gone.
Personally I take them about as important as Jobbik, BNP or French National Front – a fringe phenomenom, they come and they go, like Haider’s parties …
PS: This was not a deep analysis, I am an optimist and hope the future proves me right.
Dear Cináed,
You are always more than welcome to use what I write; I’m glad you can appreciate and use the material. I know that you will not quote me out of context!
Dear Cobblestone and Wolfi,
Humor is good!
I see these people writing stuff about how insensitive Hungary is
about 1968 invasion of czechoslovakia , how about the czechs and
slovaks with the Benes decree, which came into effect after WW2,
Hungarian populations were sent away as slave labour after WW2
to work in the czech republic and parts of slovakia, they were sold
off trains to the highest bidder, only when the Americans and
soviets intervened did they stop, what about the deportation of
Hungarian populations in parts of what is now slovakia where
Hungarians lived for over a 1000 yrs. How about Romania’s
attempted genocide of Hungarian populations in transylvania ,
it took the soviets to force them to stop, how about the destruction
by flooding Hungarian towns and villages in Romania by that clown
known as cseucescu, I think “viking” and Francis wilson don’t know
what the hell they talk about, and if they are getting their info from
wiki that explains a whole lot, anyone could edit that
@ Viking;
You were wrong on everything your wrote,the proof is there, you just chose to twist it around to suit your needs
a)1968:Hungary’s “invasion of Czechoslovakia” Nope, it was a Russian invasion, and Hungary was forced to participate. You know, the Russians being in control of Hungary and all.
b)”Was it morally right to do that, given what we know today” Well, why not pose that question to a Russian? They are the ones that invaded Czechoslovakia. I personally think it was morally wrong on all levels.
c)” How will Hungarian insensitivity to the Slovak/Czech remembrance day on August 21 help the situation” Now lets see, Solyom went to attend by invitation,the unveiling of a statue of King Stephen I,how exactly was that being insensitive?? The Slovak Government knew for months that he would be attending and at the last minute denied him entry on grounds of a “security risk”. Not on the grounds of Hungary being insensitive to their Remembrance Day. I wonder if the PM of Slovakia, toodles down to to join in with the Hungarian Minority when they have a Trianon Remembrance Day on June 4 (every year). What do you think?
You say that in my world that Slovakia does not exist. No,the problem to me, is that they do exist. Slovakia creates there own problems through lies, manipulation and general bottom feeding techniques. But it does stand to reason for that is how their country was formed. Call it karma.
As for insulting you, sometimes I just can’t seem to help myself
Hi FL: Thanks. You’re right, I’m not going to quote you out of context. What I have done is just copy your posts directly. Please feel free to take a look and leave a comment if you think something should be added or changed. Here is the link to the specific page, but you are more than welcome to take a look around the rest of the site and make suggestions or comments.
http://never-a-protege.webs.com/history.htm#532690031
“Nope, it was a Russian invasion”
justasking at February 26, 2010 1:21 AM
Nope, it was a ‘Soviet’ invasion seeing that the Russian people didn’t really have any say in their government’s decisions.
@ Boy George;
Whatever! You say potato, I say pohtatoe.
What point is there in calling for Czechs or even Slovaks to contribute here if every time they do, they’re immediately insulted. After the raids of local vultures marking them braiwashed liars, Slav assholes, Slovakia the joke etc., it’s no wonder most of them will probably not return back.
It’s true that Czechs and Slovaks never blamed Hungarians, Poles or Germans, but not even ordinary Soviet soldiers from invasion in 1968. But true is also that actions like the one of Hungarian president shed very bad light on general perception of the event. Francis Wilson is not misplaced at all in his remark. Hungarian president dishonours his own Hungarian legacy of 1956 by making his trips organized on such days. Announced in forward or not, if he would have chosen another day for his visit, than even if seen as provocative, what reason would Slovakia have to bar him from entering.
@vdx:
You shouldn’t mind those right wing fascist loonies – they’ve insulted me as a German also (sometimes they call me a Nazi, sometimes I’m a Jew) it’s a sign that they have no more arguments.
They hate everything and everyone, probably even themselves. Remember Donizelli aka Fantron … ?
Anyway they’re only a small minority – most of them aren’t even “Hungarian” …
Please don’t leave this site!
Dear vdx and wolfi,
The way I see it, posting here is an individual choice, whastever one’s nationality.
Some people post once or seldom. Others feel the need to be regulars. To be a “regular” here, (whether one is Hungarian, Slovak or whatever) borders on masochism, or so it seems at times!
That being said, I welcome a regional perspective, especially from local nations that have a communist past. We have many things to share and learn from one another, besides arguing different versions of history. What concerns me the most are question of economic development and governance. I especially would like to see posters from Slovenia, Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic share with us their experience and observations about these vital questions.
Thanks wolfi. It’s not so much about me as I’m quite accustomed to their insults and when I have time I post a word or two here. It may be determining for some others, however, who leave disgusted after seeing how these defenders of true Hungary sent them to “burning hell” with satisfation of the work well-done.
Such an approach is only to their harm as it deprives them of feedback which would normally be considered to be a plurality of opinions. Slovakia has this plurality as it possesses developped ethnical communities which unfortunately don’t exist in Hungary. This way, Slovaks usually don’t need to visit sites like this as they’ve got enough reactions from ethnical Hungarians living in Slovakia.
Hungarian extremists on the other hand don’t have any relevant opposition in Hungary which would be able to argue them adequately. So they turn their attention abroad with the results that we can see.
Farkas László,
I see you motive to attract other commenters, but I’m not sure whether Czechs or others you mentioned would be attracted to come here just “like that”. This site is oriented to foreign Hungarians and even I wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t article about Slovakia from time to time. Besides that from what I see, topics here tend to be quite monotonous and also, they’re often outdated. So even if this domain seems to be at first sight quite attractive, attendance here is quite limited, around 500-1000 visits a day, which is not much.
Why do Hungarians say, that Hungary “lost” 2/3 of its territory after Trianon? Would it not be correct to say that the Old Hungary collapsed and new successor states emerged, New Hungary being only one of them? Why do Hungarians not realize that Old Hungary was homeland also for other nations?
How can someone say that Slovakia is only 15 years old trying to make impression that it does not have its own history? The fact, that Slovaks lived in a country that Hungarians call Hungary, does not mean that Slovakia is not one of the successor states in the same way as now Hunagry is.
@ Gyorgy
Slovakia is a ‘successor state’ of the Trianon breakup of Hungary in much the same sense that Israel is a successor state of what was Palestine, which, strangely enough, has not ever been given state status by the creators (the UN) of the artificial state of Israel. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, created your ‘successor states’ from the breakup of Hungary. That we, the Hungarians, lost two-thirds of our territory to the League’s creations is evident in the fact that the Hungarians in the lost territories are still there, except for the 50,000-odd who were murdered in Ujvidék in 1945, or hounded out of Erdély or Pozsony and Kassa, and so on. And when you ask ‘How can someone say that Slovakia is only 15 years old trying to make impression that it does not have its own history?’ you can answer your own question. Just look at a few maps of the world, and see if you can find ‘Slovakia’ on any of them before the breakup of the artificial state ‘Czeckoslovakia’ fifteen years ago. Your ‘successor states’ that emerged from the breakup of Hungary were all artificial states, with the possible exception of Croatia, which was not at all pleased by having been ripped away from Hungary at Trianon and attached to the artificial state ‘Yugoslavia’ and ipso facto placed under Serb hegemony.
@ Elle
What do you mean by “our territory”?
If the presence of Hungarians in Slovakia is a proof for you that Hungary “lost” it`s territory, the presence of Slovaks in Old Hungary should also prove something to you, shouldn`t it?
Where did Slovaks emerge from after Trianon?
Was not Old Hungary artifical state?
(I am not trying to deny, that state borders were not stated according to ethnic borders).
‘Was not Old Hungary artifical state?’
No, Gyorgy, it was not. Artificial states made their appearance in the world with the Treaty of Versailles. Never before had states and borders been decided by instruments of international law. Besides, pockets of non-Hungarian peoples had lived through Hungary since a very long time. They did so voluntarily, not because any imposed border obliged it.
Slovakia is a ‘successor state’ of the Trianon breakup of Hungary in much the same sense that Israel is a successor state of what was Palestine, which, strangely enough, has not ever been given state status by the creators (the UN) of the artificial state of Israel
Elle at March 11, 2010 1:20 PM
—
“successor” and “artificial” States, interesting definitions:
* Habsburg Monarchy was succeeded by the Austrian Empire, which was succeeded by the Dual Monarchy of Austro-Hungary, which then was succeeded by Austria and Hungary
-
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/succession+of+states+theory
-
So, as I often claimed here, there was no, in the sense of International Law, an independent Hungarian State that could lose anything, then Hungary was already lost to the Habsburgs
-
With the Trianon Treaty the Hungarian State was re-established as an independent Nation State and was in that given back part of what Hungarians call ‘Greater Hungary’, with maybe not so well defined borders
–
‘elle’ is of course wrong that Israel is the successor state to Palestine, then it never ever existed a Nation State called Palestine
That the maps attaches some names to different areas has nothing to do with Nation States and we do speak about Nation States, when we speak about Israel and Hungary
-
As usual ‘elle’ needs to find a nice Professor (or is it KinderGarten Teacher?) who can explain the basic things in the world (it is round, not flat)
Yes, Elle, you are right. The borders of the Old Hungary were not stated artifically. But does it imply something?
Again, I am asking you what dou you mean by “our territory”? How do you define it?
Do you regard the north of Slovakia as a lost territory?
Do you regard the south of Slovakia as a lost territory?
‘Again, I am asking you what dou you mean by “our territory”? How do you define it?’
There is no mystery, here. ‘Our territory’ in legal terms is the territory that remains to us and is demarcated by its present borders. In terms of our irredentist position, it is the territory that our people still inhabit that was within our borders before Trianon.
Elle, which of the following equations do you agree with?
Soviet Union = Russian territory
Old Hungary = Hungarian territory
Czechoslovakia = Czech territory
West Poladn = German territory
Elle has got it wrong as usual regarding “our irredentist position” :
The word was coined in Italy from the phrase Italia irredenta (“unredeemed Italy”). This originally referred to Austro-Hungarian rule over mostly or partly Italian-inhabited territories such as Trentino, Trieste, Istria and Dalmatia during the 19th and early 20th century.
(From wiki)
I don’t think that many Hungarians today want back “Greater Hungary” -just the loonies …
Wolfi has no idea what ‘irredentist position’ means. No surprise there.
Sorry, Anonymous: I find your equations pretty weird. No dice, here.
Neither dice, nor brains, there.
The above equations are weird, ideed. This is because they express how some Hungarians think about their position towards their neighbours with whoom they used to share one state.
I found a picture of Elle online if anyone cares to see, not a pretty one
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/10/jihad-jane-terror.html