Cardinal Mindszenty Fascist Activities
Sue Simonyi (Sverdrup)
>were quite rude. I am not trying to 'smeer a revered Hungarian
>Catholic clergyman.' Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
> I am just trying to augment a significant amount of information
>indicating that the Hungarian people have misplaced their affections on
>a man that in reality may have merited their disdain. Among the
>sources which I earnestly doubt anyone would question is the account of
>George Seldes, the world-renowned American journalist (of Hungarian
>heritage). He writes:
>
stuff deleted
.
.
David,
What are you trying to prove in this post? If you are not trying to
smear the name of Mindszenty, then what are you trying to do?
Where did you get this information? where did this writing of George Seldes
appear? You wrote it down, but no reference was given.
I think you are just trying to stir up something here, frankly I can't take
you seriously, and hope most others won't either.
P. Sue Simonyi |\/\/\/\/|
fs...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov | |
216-891-2261 | |
| (e) (e)
| _) ________________________
(c ,_____\ / |
| (__( < Oh Yeah, Right! |
| / \ Don't have a cow, man |
/____\ \_______________________|
/ \
David D. Gray
Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty's apparent fascist activities, including a
significant role in the deportation of Jews to German concentration
camps. I have received several responses over the net, some of which
were quite rude. I am not trying to 'smeer a revered Hungarian
Catholic clergyman.' Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
I am just trying to augment a significant amount of information
indicating that the Hungarian people have misplaced their affections on
a man that in reality may have merited their disdain. Among the
sources which I earnestly doubt anyone would question is the account of
George Seldes, the world-renowned American journalist (of Hungarian
heritage). He writes:
"In 1948 the entire American section of the resident foreign press
corps in Hungary implored me to report the facts about Cardinal
Mindszenty's collaboration with the Nazis during the war, his part in
the deportation of the Jewish population to Hitler's death camps, and
other criminal actions; and also to expose the fraudulent news items
coming from outside Hungary, from Vienna, London, Prague. and Rome
especially, alleging drugging and torturing of the Cardinal."
"Mindszenty had graciously received Miss Bertha Gaster, the Budapest
representative of a great London newspaper... He answered all her
questions very satisfactorily. And then, in conclusion, the Cardinal
suddenly launched into his old enraged attack on 'the Jews, the Jews' Q
the Jews were to blame for alll the ills of the world, the Jews had
stabbed Germany in the back, the Jews were trying to run the world
their way.... (Mindszenty), who previously had only been too happy to
talk to the foreign press, now made it an absolute rule to never grant
another interview."
This information was rigorously supressed by the governments of the US,
Britain et al, because Mindszenty was a perfect Cold War weapon to be
used against the Hungarian and Soviet governments. Even Eleanor
Roosevelt, when she tried to set the record straight about the false
reports that Mindszenty
had been tortured, drugged, etc., was silenced by the American
government from publishing the information in her column. Repeated
collective protests of the Budapest foreign press to their newspaper
publishers were to no avail.
Somebody mentioned that Mindszenty's remains are soon to be brought to
Esztergom to great fanfair. I would like to think that if the
Hungarian people, whom I deeply admire and respect, knew the truth
about this man, their enthusiasm for this event would be significantly
diminished. Unfortunately, however, given the neo-fascist,
anti-semitic, and nationalist wave passing through Hungary at the
present time (I've spent virtually the entire last two years there, if
anyone cares to question this) it may well be that even if the good
Cardinal were to have been the biggest Nazi of them all, it would only
slightly reduce many Hungarians' estimation of him. (By way of
example: the recent discussion over the net Q 'Horthy wasn't really all
that bad, the devil made him do it')
Keep the comments and information (sources please) coming.
David Gray, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
ps Q Was the person who said that he didn't think the US Government
would give refuge to a known fascist really being serious?
Joe Pannon
>I have received several responses over the net, some of which
>were quite rude. I am not trying to 'smeer a revered Hungarian
>Catholic clergyman.' Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Nothing can match the rudeness of the never-before-heard suggestion your
message contained.
Since you have better things to do with your time, this issue must be
more than a passing interest to you. So, is it too much to ask how come?
Considering the seriousness of the allegations of which most, if not
all of us heard nothing before, it might be helpful to know where you're
coming from on this issue.
> I am just trying to augment a significant amount of information
>indicating that the Hungarian people have misplaced their affections on
>a man that in reality may have merited their disdain. Among the
>sources which I earnestly doubt anyone would question is the account of
>George Seldes, the world-renowned American journalist (of Hungarian
>heritage). He writes:
Is this all you have as a "proof"? The "significant amount of
information"? Where is the corroborating evidence? How do you reconcile
that with the easily checkable fact that Mindszenty was imprisoned by
the Nazies themselves? I noticed that you conveniently ignored this
key part of my message, just as you have ignored the powerful argument
mentioned by someone else here. Namely, the communist accusers surely
would have used such Nazi collaboration against Mindszenty during his show
trial only three years after the war when memories must have been fresh
about the Cardinal's activities. Forget about whether the Americans
would have given him a refuge or not, if they knew about it. Just explain
why the communists did not know about it. I'm sure I am not the only
one eager to hear your arguments.
>This information was rigorously supressed by the governments of the US,
>Britain et al, because Mindszenty was a perfect Cold War weapon to be
>used against the Hungarian and Soviet governments. Even Eleanor
>Roosevelt, when she tried to set the record straight about the false
>reports that Mindszenty
>had been tortured, drugged, etc., was silenced by the American
>government from publishing the information in her column. Repeated
But still, why was it surpressed by the communists? It would have been
in their own interest NOT TO DO SO! As to Eleanor Roosevelt, how would
she know the truth about Mindszenty's torture and drugging? Because of
what some of her leftist friends told her? What a joke!
>Somebody mentioned that Mindszenty's remains are soon to be brought to
>Esztergom to great fanfair. I would like to think that if the
>Hungarian people, whom I deeply admire and respect, knew the truth
>about this man, their enthusiasm for this event would be significantly
>diminished.
Yes, I mentioned it because I found this off-the-wall allegation more
than coincidental with the event. Has it crossed your mind, that the
Hungarian people are in better position to know about the Cardinal
than you out here?
>Unfortunately, however, given the neo-fascist,
>anti-semitic, and nationalist wave passing through Hungary at the
>present time (I've spent virtually the entire last two years there, if
>anyone cares to question this) it may well be that even if the good
>Cardinal were to have been the biggest Nazi of them all, it would only
>slightly reduce many Hungarians' estimation of him. (By way of
>example: the recent discussion over the net Q 'Horthy wasn't really all
>that bad, the devil made him do it')
Again, you are making unfounded charges without any supporting evidence
whatsoever! You say that you spent the last two years in Hungary but
give no indication whether you actually speak the language. If you
don't, I doubt you could tell much about how the people feel. Or you
gage that feeling on what a few punks and skin heads do on their spare
time to call attention to themselves?
I happen to know quite a lot about those allegation of antisemitism
"sweeping" Hungary. A good example was last fall's infamous scandal
in the Hungarian Parliament, the so called "barrel case" (hordo ugy).
Some member from the main opposition party caused an uproar by claiming
that he heard an antisemitic shout from the back benches of the chamber,
directed toward the speaker. The charge was made that the offending
shout was also recorded on a tape, recording the proceedings. The
supposed offending words in Hungarian were: "Hordot a zsidonak!".
Literal English translation is "Barrel to the Jew!", but to understand
it, one has to be aware where the "barrel" comes from. It used to be
an old Hungarian election campaign custom that candidates when working
the crowds in the countryside, often would use a barrel as a makeshift
podium to rise above the crowd. So that's the significance of the
barrel.
Obviously, the reported antisemitic shout caused a scandal capitalized
on by the opposition parties because the anonimous remark was heard
from the section where members of the ruling party were sitting.
For weeks, this "barrel case" was the most important issue for
every newspaper and charges of antisemitism were flying left and right.
The Hungarian National TV, that also covered the Parliament's session
found the section of the tape where the supposed offense was recorded
and played it back one night. As it turned out, the shout in question
was not what the opposition claimed after all. It was "Hordot a
szonoknak!" (Barrel to the speaker), and NOT "Hordot a zsidonak!"
(Barrel to the Jews!). In Hungarian the words "szonoknak" and "zsidonak"
sound fairly similar, especially with all the background noise present,
but what a difference in meaning!
At the end, the opposition tried some rear guard action by claiming that
the TV's audio tape was "doctored", but that turned out to be a
ridiculous claim, and they ended up with eggs on their faces.
So, charges of antisemitism, in the light of this infamous "barrel
case", should be viewed with extreme skepticism. More often than not,
those charges have political motivations.
But then, what can one say when even attempting to set Horthy's record
straight is viewed as evidence of antisemitism?
>Keep the comments and information (sources please) coming.
You are the one who owes some serious sources instead of hearsay.
Joe Pannon
Jason D. Maloney
fs...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Sue Simonyi (Sverdrup)) writes:
> David,
> What are you trying to prove in this post? If you are not trying to
> smear the name of Mindszenty, then what are you trying to do?
I, for one, would think it quite significant if this man was able to
somehow prove that, as he termed it, people have misplaced their
affections on
a man that in reality may have merited their disdain. The historical
significance of the use of Mindszenty as a political cold-war device is
quite well noted. If there was to surface information which revealed
past repression of vital information for political ends, then we should
by all means know of it. This is not the mere defecation of a revered
cardinal for the sake of simple agitation, Mindszenty was made much
more than a religious figure by the West.
>
> Where did you get this information? where did this writing of George Seldes
> appear? You wrote it down, but no reference was given.
Give me a break, how many times have I seen radicaly claims made here
that have not been questioned. This character has given us a full
quote and listed its source (at least in name), which is more than most
have done. What do you think, the Seldes quote was a fabrication?
>
> I think you are just trying to stir up something here, frankly I can't take
> you seriously, and hope most others won't either.
My first comments apply here too
If you have not yet seen the German film, "The Nasty Girl", then I
implore you to do so as soon as possible. The situation in the film
applies here, when someone's efforts to legitimately question their
past are squelched by those who would rather deny it.
I think it would be in our general interest to try to see what David
has to say rather than to automatically shut him off because his words
offend us.
Perhaps he would have had more sucess by signing on as David Szurke
than as David Gray...
SAP...@liverpool.ac.uk
David....@dartmouth.edu (David D. Gray) says:
>
>diminished. Unfortunately, however, given the neo-fascist,
>anti-semitic, and nationalist wave passing through Hungary at the
>present time (I've spent virtually the entire last two years there, if
>anyone cares to question this) it may well be that even if the good
>Cardinal were to have been the biggest Nazi of them all, it would only
>slightly reduce many Hungarians' estimation of him. (By way of
>example: the recent discussion over the net Q 'Horthy wasn't really all
>that bad, the devil made him do it')
>
Well, there are anti-semitic and nationalist things in Hungary. ( I doubt
that this 'wave' would be stronger than ,say, in France. I suppose this exists
in your state,too.) But I have never heard of neo-fascist wave!!
(Do you think of skinheads ? Or Roland Antoniewicz ? (A mentally ill man who
caused some trouble in politics.First he was a very red 'communist',that time
he made a fascist provocation which he was charged for in court. Now he
advertises extreme right-winged views.)
Could you name neofascist groups? Although you'd better write to the Hungarian
authoraties first of all. While in Hungary,if you please...
This sentence ('it may well be that...') made me really upset! (Was that your
goal?) I guarantee that a fascist would never be burried in that way
in Hungary!! How do you dare to claim such a thing???!!!
If you had a reliable proof about your statements (I doubt it very much,indeed)
,you should tell it at once. Yesterday is too late!
I'd like to believe you are not malicious. So far your postings haven't
convinced me about your good will.
I'd like to remind you that this kind of fraud is punished by law. If you
would be right that would be a political A-bomb explosion in Hungary.
I hope you know about these.
>David Gray, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
A suggestion to all: If he couldn't prove his statements and he was malicious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~ ^^^^^ ~~~~~~~~~
,i.e. he cannot give reasonable explanations , then let's collect
money to take LEGAL action against him. Certainly, I will make my donation,
but only somebody in the States would be suitable to do this.
Miklos Prisznyak
Joe Pannon
unsubstantiated charges regarding Cardinal Mindszenty's alleged
Nazi-collaboration and antisemitic past and I think I found it.
The quoted passages posted by Mr. Gray can be found in George Seldes'
book, titled: "Witness to a Century", subtitle: "Encounters with the
Noted, the Notorious, and the Three SOBs." The memoir-like, almost
500 page book was published in May '87, by Ballantine Books.
I have to admit that ny familiarity with George Seldes was very limited
up until now; only his name was familiar. After reading several chapters
from this book, I think I have a pretty good idea where he is coming
from. But before I get into that, here is his brief background for those who
may also know very little about him.
He was born in 1890 and alive when the book was published. I am not
sure if he is still alive. Perhaps he died recently and I recall his name
because of obituaries in the news media. I suspect Mr. Gray will bring
us up to date about this. Seldes' newsreporting career spans almost the
entire 20th century, right from before World War I to recent past. He
was a well-travelled international reporter who met and interviewed
almost all key personalities during his exceptionally long life.
However, as he himself also admits, he was one of those muckraking
journalists who seemed to be always "at war" with the prevailing
themes of established newspapers, to the point -- in my opinion --
that he almost automatically distrusted any characterization of major
events by them. In addition, reading his book, it is obvious that his
sympathies lied with the left which -- in combination with his distrust
of establishment journalists -- made him highly susceptible to
becoming a conduit of leftist propoganda. He seemed to accept at face
value almost anything that was fed to him by communists which he then
passed on as THE TRUTH. His book makes it abundantly clear to me that
many communist leaders were aware of his pink blinders and awarded him
for it with special treatment and exclusive interviews. Here are just
a few sample passages from his "Witness to a Century" for illustrating
my point.
Seldes devotes an entire chapter to his "hero", Tito of Yugoslavia which
he actually entitles: "My Last Hero: Marshal Tito." I wonder if he knew
about the attrocities committed by the partisans of that "hero" against
peaceful populations, among them ethnic Hungarians. The Croats could
also tell horror stories about similar attrocities against them.
In this chapter he writes:
"... thanks to the intervention of my old Yugoslav friend Vladimir
Dedijer, now editor of Borba, the leading daily newspaper of the
country, who was also Tito's closest friend, I was invited to
Belgrade to interview Marshal Tito..."
Now, anybody with even a cursury knowledge of the internal workings of
communist-run countries knows that to be the editor of a leading daily
paper, such as the Borba (which, BTW, is the official organ of the
Yugoslav Communist Party (but Seldes does not mention this) also means
that he is member of the ruling communist "nomenklatura", especially
if he also is Tito's closest friend, as Seldes admits.
And this guy was Seldes' "old Yugoslav friend!" How goes that Hungarian
proverb? "Madarat tollarol, embert baratjarol lehet megismerni".
Right after this chapter, the title of the following one is also
revealing: "Rakosi: Dictator(?) of Hungary". Just like that! -- with the
question mark. What does that suggest to you?
In the chapter about Rakosi, Hungary's "little Stalin", or "Stalin's
best Hungarian pupil", as he liked to be called, Seldes writes:
"Hungary, the world press said, was faithful to Stalin, and Matyas
Rakosi was always labeled the "red dictator." (Just note his
scepticism showing again! -- J.P.) It was quite a surprise, about
one hour after I had arrived at my hotel, to learn from my former
interpreter and for many years my (that is to say Chicago Tribune's)
"stringer," Eugen Szatmari, that Rakosi was vice premier, not
premier, and that although the Communist Party was the strongest
(this was in 1948 -- J.P.), the nation was governed by a coalition of
four parties, the three others ranging from anti-Communist to
Marxist-reformist."
Then Seldes goes into breaking down the 284-member Parliament by those
four parties which shows the Communist Party having 100 seats, Social
Democrats 67, Small Holders (Kisgazda) Party 61, National Peasants 56
seats. Now, I know that something is wrong about these figures but don't
have my reference material handy to know for sure. Perhaps someone can
point this out, but in either case, to list these numbers for 1948
without mentioning Rakosi's infamous "salami tactics" that broke up
the opposition parties is just misleading. I am also aware that the
communist party merged with ("swallowed") the Soc Dem Party during the
same period. Wasn't that in '47?
Much of Rakosi's interview is spent on a seemingly cleaver attack on the
RC Church and Mindszenty, chiefly dealing with the Cardinal's supposed
opposition to land reform, the nationalization of the RC Church's huge
land holdings, when in fact Mindszenty was mainly opposed to the
nationalization of the Church's institutions such as schools, papers,
etc. Land reform was an issue in '46, not in '48. Anyway, from the
description of the interview, it was obvious that Rakosi knew what to
say to make it sound reasonable to Seldes. Interestingly though, despite
of Rakosi's vitriolic attack on Mindszenty, even he mentioned nothing
about the Cardinal's supposed collaboration with Nazies. Why?
The next chapter is titled "Journalists and Cardinal Mindszenty," and
contains the offending passages Mr. Gray quoted.
George Seldes conveniently groups together three well-known RC churchmen
of the era: Minszenty, Cardinal Stepinac of Croatia, and Msgr. Tiso of
Slovakia. He does it as follows:
"There were in fact three notable churchmen who had been charged
-- in the European but never in the American press -- with working
for Hitler: Mindszenty, Monsignor Tiso, and Cardinal Stepinac of
Yugoslavia -- and I investigated all three, with little hope that
any publication in America outside the liberal weeklies with their
usual twenty-five or thirty-thousand circulation, would publish a
single paragraph of facts."
Seldes then goes into describing Tiso's Nazi collaboration (he was the
head of the brief-lived "independent" Nazi puppet state of Slovakia)
to prove his case against ALL THREE RC churchmen. The problem is that
he says nothing about the other two: if you read this book to find
out just what Mindszenty (or Stepinac) did during the war that warrants
the charges of Nazi collaboration, you won't find out from this book!
Seldes sweeps this under the rug by saying:
"But in the Mindszenty and Stepinac cases, thanks to almost total
falsification of the news in the world press, Hungary and Yugoslavia
were accused of great crimes against the Church."
Here Seldes had a great opportunity to uncover just what that
falsification was, but he missed his chance. So, you just have to take
George Seldes' word because he investigated all three
of them. We just never find out what he found, except the
unsubstantiated words of some other "fellow Anglo-American" journalists!
But to get an idea just what kind of journalists he is talking about,
I found the following passages quite revealing:
"Before leaving Budapest I was given a copy of the following protest,
which the Anglo-American press corps there had sent to all their
newspapers, and which, they assured me, not one newspaper they
represented had published:
'In the view of the untrue reports written and broadcast abroad
about the journalists' coverage of the Mindszenty trial the
undersigned foreign correspondents wish to state that we regard
these charges as unfounded ... and we categorically wish to deny:
1. That censorship of any kind is being exercised. ...
2. That the translation ... is inaccurate. ...
3. That the only correspondents granted visas or admitted to
the courtroom are Communists or Communist sympathizers.
Eugen (Jeno) Szatmari, Basler Nachrichten
and Hearst newspapers and news service
Dr. Endro Marton, the Associated Press
(this must be Endre Marton -- J.P.)
Michael Burn, The Times of London
Peter Furst, Reuters
Rev. Stanley Evans, Daily Worker, London.
[Although the Worker is the Communist organ, Dr. Evans was
not a communist, according to all his colleagues.]'
(Sure! -- and the Pope is not catholic, either. -- J.P.)
From whatever it's worth, I've heard from those who knew Endre Marton
from those days that he definitely was considered a leftist reporter
by those Hungarian reporters who knew him. And of course, from other
references in the book to Eugen Szatmari, another Hungarian employee
of Western news services, it looks likely that he was also a sympathizer
of the Rakosi regime, if not worse.
Another interesting name popped up in the same chapter that most
Hungarians will recognize: Ivan Boldizsar, whose name Seldes also
misspelled as "Ivor". However, from what is written about him, I have
no doubt that it's the same guy who became to be known as a talented
journalist and writer, but he sold his soul to the devil, as if it were,
because he prostituted his pen to serve every communist regime after
WW II. He died recently.
Boldizsar enters the picture after that alleged Bertha Gaster interview
with Mindszenty in which the Cardinal supposedly went into rage about
"those Jews".
"... Under-Secretary of State Ivor Boldizsar, on whom foreign
journalists relied, told me that Miss Gaster on taking her leave,
and somewhat emotionally upset, could not resist repeating her
name to the Cardinal, and adding, "My father, Rabbi Gaster, is the
chief rabbi of London.""
So here we have a picture of the type of sources George Seldes relied
on, one of them Ivan Boldizsar "on whom foreign journalists relied"
during the Rakosi regime! These are the guys who told him about the
supposed "Gaster interview" which -- in my firm opinion -- either
never took place or was falsified.
I knew right from the beginning that such interview could not have
taken place because the Cardinal was not known to go into "rage",
especially as Seldes described it: "the Cardinal suddenly lounched
into his old enraged attack". If anything, the Cardinal was known to
control his emotions -- and MOSTLY -- known to have protested the treatment
of the Jews.
I have been trying to find information about this Bertha Gaster by
looking up all "Who is Who" volumes (British), but the most I could
find was a Rabbi Moses Gaster, who was presumably her father.
It would be interesting to find out, for instance, which way her
political antenna was leaning. The suggestion that news reporters
are not affected by their political sympathies is a bogus, IMHO.
Lastly, the record should also be set straight about that attribution
made to Eleanor Roosevelt in Mr. Gray's post when he writes:
>Even Eleanor Roosevelt, when she tried to set the record straight
>about the false reports that Mindszenty had been tortured, drugged,
>etc., was silenced by the American government from publishing that
>information in her column.
Actually, it was George Seldes who gave that information to Mrs.
Roosevelt who then wanted to use it. Here is what Seldes writes
on pg. 392:
"... I received a note from Mrs. Roosevelt asking about the Cardinal
Mindszenty trial in Budapest. I sent her a short summary mentioning
the outrageous falsehoods that were being published in the United
States and Mrs. Roosevelt forthrightly mentioned it in her syndicated
column. As a result Mrs. Roosevelt was viciously attacked by such
fellow columnists as Westbrook Pegler -- which did her no harm --
and by Cardinal Spellman of New York. I then sent her all the
documentation I had obtained and all the statements from most of the
members of the British, Swiss and American press corps in Budapest
(we have already seen the makeup of that press corps -- J.P.)
refuting the New York Cardinal -- but Mrs. Roosevelt was unable to
get the facts published in the American press -- no more able to
do so than I."
So, from what I could ascertain from the book, I have no idea why
Mr. Gray could write that
>... I earnestly doubt anyone would question is the account of
>George Seldes, the world-renowned American journalist ..."
Well, George Seldes may be world-renowned for his longevity perhaps,
but as to anybody doubting his account? Frankly, I think I would be
too generous if I said he was duped by the communists. I hope it
wasn't worse than that.
Submitted by
Joe Pannon
George Regnery
Well, its just past 2 AM, and I have just finished writing a 70+ page paper
on Hungarian History, so this Seldes/Mindszenty thread is interesting.
Seldes claims that Rakosi's government was a coalition of four parties.
What complete disinformation.
The last elections that had any freedom were the elections of 1947, in which
the votes were distributed as follows:
Communists 22.3% 100 Seats
Social Dems. 14.9% 67 Seats
Natl. Peasants 8.3% 36
Smallholders 15.4% 68
Hung. Dem. Party 5.2% 18
Independence 13.4% 49
Dem. Peoples 16.4% 60
Christian Womens 1.4% 4
Bourgeois Dems 1.0% 3
Hung. Radicals 1.7% 6
Source: History of Modern Hungary, Jorg Hoensch, London, Longman Pub
In the 1945 elections, the Smallholders had received 57% of the vote, to the
Communist's 17%. However, since the Allied Control Commission Occupied
Hungary, they had dictatorial power. They forced the coalition to let the
Communist Party control the Ministry of Interior. Since the Ministry of
Interior controlled the Police, it was easy for the Communists to wedge their
way into power. They forced the head of the Smallholder Party, Ferenc Nagy,
to resign when he was recovering from a medical treatment in Switzerland.
They blackmailed him by threatening to harm his four year old son.
The communists continued to breakup the small holders by forming the Hung.
Dem. Party to split the votes, and by appointing Istvan Dobi, a leftist, as
head of the Smallholders. The 1947 elections were supposedly going to get hte
Communists into power, but the Communists did not fill out enough "absentee
ballots" in the elections that most people concur was rigged.
After the election, the Communists continued to arrest rival leaders, and
force parties to merge with the Communist Party, until they had absolute
control.
Throughout the whole period, the Soviets had controlled the economy throught
he Supreme Economic Council, which could control the economy without going
through the cabinet. They nationalized the banks and steel mills.
--
George M. Regnery. WPI '92. (Operations Research)//"I saw the cities of many
***reg...@wpi.wpi.edu*** INTERESTS: investing, \\men, and learned their
E-music (Cusco, Vangelis, TD), Conservatism, GB //manners." -- Homer, as
Packers, Capitalism in Hungary, Currency Hedging \\quoted in Vangelis' The City
Jure Marn
crosspost this to soc.culture.yugoslavia. In general I have no
opinion on clergy alleged collaboration with occupying forces
in either Hungary or Yugoslavia.
In article <6...@bcsfse.boeing.com> pan...@bcsfse.boeing.com (Joe Pannon) writes:
>Seldes devotes an entire chapter to his "hero", Tito of Yugoslavia which
>he actually entitles: "My Last Hero: Marshal Tito." I wonder if he knew
>about the attrocities committed by the partisans of that "hero" against
>peaceful populations, among them ethnic Hungarians. The Croats could
>also tell horror stories about similar attrocities against them.
>
Mr. Pannon certainly knows very little about Yugoslav history during
WWII apart from the fact that Mr. Broz happened to be a communist
and thus eligible for eternal damnation. Well, Hungarians happened
to be occupiers (along with Germans, Bulgarians and Italians) and
as such fair game for local freedom fighters. Moreover I did not
hear too many complaints about Partizans and local population.
Serbians seem to bring a lot into discussion Ustase (nazi like
organization of A. Pavelic puppet government) and Croatians
don't blame anybody too much while Muslems tend to bring Cetniki
(royalistic organization of D. Mihajlovic puppet government)
into picture.
>In this chapter he writes:
> "... thanks to the intervention of my old Yugoslav friend Vladimir
> Dedijer, now editor of Borba, the leading daily newspaper of the
> country, who was also Tito's closest friend, I was invited to
> Belgrade to interview Marshal Tito..."
>
Mr. Dedijer was a member of Den Haag court of justice. Care to take
argument with that, Mr. Pannon? To me it proves that Mr. Dedijer
was very well respected member of international diplomatic corps.
>Now, anybody with even a cursury knowledge of the internal workings of
>communist-run countries knows that to be the editor of a leading daily
Hey, don't lump Yugoslavia with East Block countries. Mr. Broz was a
politician who used his personal charizma to ease nationalistic
tensions in Yugoslavia for 40 years. Look what's going on now in
Yugoslavia. I am certainly not defending many wrongs governing
elite did, but at least we did not try to kill each other.
>paper, such as the Borba (which, BTW, is the official organ of the
>Yugoslav Communist Party (but Seldes does not mention this) also means
It seems to me that Borba is the official organ of Yu Socialistic
Union of Labor and Komunist is official organ of Yu Comm. Party.
Now, those are two completely different entities. Case in point is
Rev. Vekoslav Grmic who was a member of the former and very
influential one for that matter (I believe his clergy title was Bishop).
>that he is member of the ruling communist "nomenklatura", especially
>if he also is Tito's closest friend, as Seldes admits.
>And this guy was Seldes' "old Yugoslav friend!" How goes that Hungarian
>proverb? "Madarat tollarol, embert baratjarol lehet megismerni".
>
I believe somebody suggested legal action. I am not a lawyer but it
seems to me that one would have to prove the a) relationship with
late Cardinal and b) that damage has been done to that person (or
is that a condition for libel?). Anyway, legal actions should
be taken against criminals and not against people who merely
disagree with official history. (let alone 2nd Ammendment rights).
--
Jure Marn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ma...@wright.seas.ucla.edu ! kdor visoko leta ...
Thank you for flowers, flames and fun ! ... ima dober razgled
George Antony
> Hey, don't lump Yugoslavia with East Block countries.
In some aspects this is certainly a mistake. In others, however, there have
been undeniable similarities. Most importantly, the basics of the political
system in Yogaslavia were much closer to the Eastern-European (aka Soviet)
model than to, say the Western democracies. In particular:
> Mr. Broz was a
> politician who used his personal charizma to ease nationalistic
> tensions in Yugoslavia for 40 years.
I accept that Tito was charismatic, but I doubt that this had as much
effect on the lack of obvious nationalistic tension as his other
characteristic, namely that he was not afraid to use power.
Repression is a more likely word in this context than easing.
> Look what's going on now in
> Yugoslavia.
Exactly my point; it looks more like a pressure cooker with a weakened
valve rather than one with less fire underneath it. My definition of
easing tension would involve the latter.
Perhaps a little unfair comparison, but the easing of ethnic tension
would, in my view, apply to Switzerland. If Germans and French can
live together in peace then just about everybody else should be able to.
If it comes to minorities, the Italian approach to South Tirol springs
to mind as a good example. The Italians agreed to a regular UN revision
of the situation there, with the Austrians in the role of the watchdog.
I cannot think of any other country in the Central-Eastern-European
region that went that far.
> I am certainly not defending many wrongs governing
> elite did,
Perhaps the wording could have been a little clearer then.
George
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Antony (gan...@gara.une.oz.au)
Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management
University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia
Fax: (+61-67) 711531 Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Pannon
|> Seldes claims that Rakosi's government was a coalition of four parties.
|> What complete disinformation.
|> The last elections that had any freedom were the elections of 1947, in which
|> the votes were distributed as follows:
|>
|> Communists 22.3% 100 Seats
|> Social Dems. 14.9% 67 Seats
|> Natl. Peasants 8.3% 36
|> Smallholders 15.4% 68
|> Hung. Dem. Party 5.2% 18
|> Independence 13.4% 49
|> Dem. Peoples 16.4% 60
|> Christian Womens 1.4% 4
|> Bourgeois Dems 1.0% 3
|> Hung. Radicals 1.7% 6
|>
|> Source: History of Modern Hungary, Jorg Hoensch, London, Longman Pub
Thanks, George, for that research. Yes, those figures do look like the
ones I vaguely remembered.
As to Rakosi's fugures showing only four parties, it may still be fairly
accurate because they reflected the result of the infamous "salami
tactics" I referred to earlier. By 1948 when the Rakosi interview took
place, several of the parties participating in the '47 elections have
been virtually eliminated by constant arrests and harrasments of the
communist AVO (secret police).
I would still like to know though when the fusion of communists with the
social democrats happened? Was it in '48?
|>The 1947 elections were supposedly going to get the
|>Communists into power, but the Communists did not fill out enough
|>"absentee" ballots" in the elections that most people concur was rigged.
Oh, you must be referring to the so called "blue tickets" that
authorized the bearer to vote outside of the home polling place.
The communists printed these by the thousands and gave them to their
"troops" who would be trucked from polling place to polling place to
submit their votes. Despite of this fraud, and intimidation by their
police, the Cummunists could still not get the absolut majority they wanted.
They then achieved complete control by further harrassment of opposition
parties and fusion with the social democrats, thanks to the communist
"moles" planted in that party. By 1949, they had consolidated their
power and Hungary became a one-party dictatorship on the Stalinist
model, virtually simultaneously with the other East-European countries
in the Soviet orbit.
Joe Pannon
George Antony
> crosspost this to soc.culture.yugoslavia. In general I have no
> opinion on clergy alleged collaboration with occupying forces
> in either Hungary or Yugoslavia.
>
> In article <6...@bcsfse.boeing.com> pan...@bcsfse.boeing.com (Joe Pannon) writes:
>>Seldes devotes an entire chapter to his "hero", Tito of Yugoslavia which
>>he actually entitles: "My Last Hero: Marshal Tito." I wonder if he knew
>>about the attrocities committed by the partisans of that "hero" against
>>peaceful populations, among them ethnic Hungarians. The Croats could
>>also tell horror stories about similar attrocities against them.
>>
>
> Mr. Pannon certainly knows very little about Yugoslav history during
> WWII apart from the fact that Mr. Broz happened to be a communist
> and thus eligible for eternal damnation.
Jure, this is not up to your usual standard of reasoning.
> Well, Hungarians happened
> to be occupiers (along with Germans, Bulgarians and Italians) and
> as such fair game for local freedom fighters. Moreover I did not
> hear too many complaints about Partizans and local population.
^^^^^^^^
Does this mean *any*? If so, is this an accepted historical fact?
With admittedly little factual knowledge about the issue, I would still
venture that atrocities were likely to have been committed by all sides
at that time. There may well have been a difference in their extent, but
this doesn't negate the argument.
Jure Marn
>From article <26...@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, by ma...@curtiss.seas.ucla.edu (Jure Marn):
>> Since Mr. Pannon mentioned Yugoslavia and Tito I took a liberty to
>> crosspost this to soc.culture.yugoslavia. In general I have no
>> opinion on clergy alleged collaboration with occupying forces
>> in either Hungary or Yugoslavia.
>>
>> In article <6...@bcsfse.boeing.com> pan...@bcsfse.boeing.com (Joe Pannon) writes:
>>>Seldes devotes an entire chapter to his "hero", Tito of Yugoslavia which
>>>he actually entitles: "My Last Hero: Marshal Tito." I wonder if he knew
>>>about the attrocities committed by the partisans of that "hero" against
>>>peaceful populations, among them ethnic Hungarians. The Croats could
>>>also tell horror stories about similar attrocities against them.
>>>
>>
>> Mr. Pannon certainly knows very little about Yugoslav history during
>> WWII apart from the fact that Mr. Broz happened to be a communist
>> and thus eligible for eternal damnation.
>
>Jure, this is not up to your usual standard of reasoning.
>
I was trying to be ironical. In my opinion Mr. Broz did a lot of good
in preventing the same type of resentment among nationalities of
Yugoslavia as encountered between WWI and WWII. I also don't share
Mr. Pannon's judgement about Partizans based solely on their
ideology (he accused Partizans of atrocities without any indication
where/when that happened. He just mentioned Croats and ethnic
Hungarians...).
But you were right. I'll try to curb my temper in the future.
>> Well, Hungarians happened
>> to be occupiers (along with Germans, Bulgarians and Italians) and
>> as such fair game for local freedom fighters. Moreover I did not
>> hear too many complaints about Partizans and local population.
> ^^^^^^^^
>Does this mean *any*? If so, is this an accepted historical fact?
>
It does not mean any. But Partizans tried to keep their conduct
organized, they had (albeit ideologically biased) marshall courts and in
some cases punished (i.e. executed) their own soldiers for stealing,
torturing and killing of POW's. Mr. Broz understood very well
that the local population provided the base for the resistance.
Partizans could not afford not to be fed and sheltered by
people in villages (as opposed to other groups which relied
on occupying forces).
There was a sense of "pride" of being more civilized than other
troops as well (I guess). And rightfully so. If I were around in
1941 I would probably wait in hiding. I probably wouldn't go fight
one of the best armed forces of that time without a gun while
adhering to code of conduct many of fighters did not understand.
A bulk of complaints I am aware of stems from the period after the
war when number of prisoners of war were executed in Slovenia
without trial. This is currently under investigation but
preliminary results don't show much evidence (so far).
On the other hand Germans killed 50 men for each German soldier killed
and there was practically no alive Partizan left in Cetnik's hands
(I think that is accepted fact).
>With admittedly little factual knowledge about the issue, I would still
>venture that atrocities were likely to have been committed by all sides
>at that time. There may well have been a difference in their extent, but
>this doesn't negate the argument.
>
IMO the Partizan's crimes were not directed toward local population.
Also, the incidents were not a policy whereas Ustase attempted
genocide of Jewish and Serbian population. There cannot be any excuse
for *single murder in name of whatever reason* but I believe (and
will have to be convinced au contraire by more compelling arguments
as fabricated accounts in "Crne bukve", 1943) that Partizans worked
activelly to prevent and punish such occurrences.
>George
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>George Antony (gan...@gara.une.oz.au)
>Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management
>University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia
>Fax: (+61-67) 711531 Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs)
>-------------------------------------------------------------
I guess there is a part in me which is thankful to Mr. Broz for
stopping the hatred which has split many families during
the war (including my own relatives). That's why I can't
take postings such as that of Mr. Pannon lightly.
George Regnery
The Communist PArty forced the merger with the Social Democrats (SDP) as
follows:
The SDP withdrew from the coalition after it was clear that there had been
major fraud in the 1947 elections by the Communists, the blue tickets as Mr.
Pannon mentioned.
The Police apparatus was reorganized, and policemen were prohibited from
joining political parties, while the Communists controlled the Policeman's
association.
Anti-communist members of the SDP were harrassed, and the more militantly
anti-communist members were dismissed in exchange for the Communists stopping
their concerted efforts to change parties.
A leftist faction of SDP in December, 1947 passed a pro-Communist
resolution. Rajk let anticommunist SDP members leave Hungary safely, and
Marosa'n, de facto leader of the SDP, and a pro-Communist, arranged a
timetable for unification. The Soviet union promised to repatriate 100,000
Hungarian prisoners of war if and only if the two parties merged.
On February 18, 1948, it was announced that the centrists in SDP had
"resigned" and the congress of March 6-8 confirmed the communist's coup had
succeeded.
The Communists actually tried to keep the SDP still up for a few weeks so
that the cermony of the merger could commence. Many people were leaving the
party and joining the Communist Party in order to assure a better future
status.
For a more complete analysis, consult pages 225-228 of _Communism in
Hungary: From Kun to Ka'da'r (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1980).
by Bennett Kovrig.
This book has a very comprehensive History of the Communist Parties in
Hungary, and their activities. It is 525 pages long, so it is quite a read,
and VERY detailed.
Gabor Hetyei
fascist activities, I propose to drop the above thread-title in order to avoid
misunderstandings from the side of newcomers to the group.
Gabor Hetyei
Gabor Hetyei
[lot of stuff, most of which I agree, deleted]
>I'd like to remind you that this kind of fraud is punished by law. If you
>would be right that would be a political A-bomb explosion in Hungary.
>I hope you know about these.
>
>>David Gray, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
>
>A suggestion to all: If he couldn't prove his statements and he was malicious
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~ ^^^^^ ~~~~~~~~~
>,i.e. he cannot give reasonable explanations , then let's collect
>money to take LEGAL action against him. Certainly, I will make my donation,
>but only somebody in the States would be suitable to do this.
>
>Miklos Prisznyak
David Gray's accusation hurt me as bad as most of us. Even if I was not a
Catholic, I would feel pity for the late Cardinal Mindszenty who has spent most
of his life in prison or exile, for being slandered even after his dead.
On the other hand, I do not support the idea of taking legal actions against
him. It should be noted that if he just wanted to slander Mindszenty, he could
have chosen other forums where there are no Hungarians to put things straight.
And it should also be remembered that in his original letter he _just asked a
question._ Of course thay way he asked it was not completely unbiased, but
it was still only a question. And if he has spent the last two years in Hungary
I am afraid he might have experienced some expressions of anti-semitism, even
if -I hope so at least- these expressions don't come near to fascism.
Because of this I do understand psychologically his urge to ring the
alarm-bell.
The only thing you need to understand, David, that you chose the wrong person,
and the wrong way of asking a question. I thank you though that you asked it
here from us, and I do hope that you will understand our answer even if we re-
acted also with more passion than necessary. So much about the Cardinal who
also has nothing to do with current events in Hungary, whichever they are.
Concerning your worry about the rising anti-semitism, I do hope that whatever
you have experienced in Hungary is not typical to Hungarians, and I am sorry
about it.
Gabor Hetyei
PS. Sorry for my bad English. Hopefully it was understandable what I tried to
point out.
Joe Pannon
>
> The Communist PArty forced the merger with the Social Democrats (SDP) as
>follows:
George,
Thanks for that very detailed answer to my question!
> On February 18, 1948, it was announced that the centrists in SDP had
>"resigned" and the congress of March 6-8 confirmed the communist's coup had
>succeeded.
This is why it puzzled me that George Seldes, in his 1948 interview with
Rakosi showed SDP separately from the communists. This makes little
sense to me because the Rakosi interview was later, in the Summer of that
year.
Joe Pannon
Jure Marn
puts the foot size 11 in his (i.e. mine) own mouth:
>Mr. Dedijer was a member of Den Haag court of justice. Care to take
>argument with that, Mr. Pannon? To me it proves that Mr. Dedijer
>was very well respected member of international diplomatic corps.
Mr. Dedijer was a member of Russell's arbitration and later its
chairman and not member of ICJ as asserted above. My remark about
him being respected in international diplomatic corps stands.
(I got an E-mail from Yugoslavia reminding me of the fact and I am
thankful for this correction).
Joe Pannon
|> In article <26...@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> ma...@curtiss.seas.ucla.edu (Jure Marn)
|> puts the foot size 11 in his (i.e. mine) own mouth:
|>
|> chairman and not member of ICJ as asserted above. My remark about
|> him being respected in international diplomatic corps stands.
|> (I got an E-mail from Yugoslavia reminding me of the fact and I am
|> thankful for this correction).
You mean that World Peace Council "fellow traveler" Bertrand Russel?
That figures ...
Joe Pannon