What the Jews say about Hungary: the truth

Remove all ads!

And you're really an exotic pal.

 

I apologize for the off-topicness of the duel. I forgot that it hijacked the topic, and thus reduces the quality of the forum. I suppose such talk belongs to the random babbling section, right? Thx for the heads-up.

[As if you were someone who knows whether others see my arguments as valid or not... funny self-confidence]. Moreover, with regard to "how other places are worse", at least read before you criticize: I pointed out a double standard.* How EU applies double standards. Even last time in the BoM, I was told that only I see it. Since then, how funny, known politicians in Europe made similiar statements about EU. But think whatever you wish, it won't keep me in wrong belief (as it will happen with you).

*Maybe from your "safe" distance, you are only accepting strict logical and legal arguments. But you can't place them to a cultural context and to a context of specific legislation and jurisdiction practice. You try to interpret a different world based on your rules, because you think those rules are universal. But they are not. Hungary has existed for more than a thousand years, and it doesn't need others to educate it from democracy or from anything else. It has its traditions, and what may look strange in your country is completely normal in Central Europe, and vice versa.

Two quotes from Hungarian writers that may let you better understand Hungary:

(source)

Power distance -- a comparison of American and Hungarian culture
Why we are an island in the sea -- we came from Asia

 

Baronius, if we're not fit to judge what is happening in your country, why start this topic at all? Why not just write up a blog and disable comments as apparently you wish only to inform us of how the situation really is?

I don't know if this is actually such a big deal in Hungary, but as has been said many times before, no-one outside of your country seems to consider this a big deal. As such, it seems more like a group in Hungary trying to create a smoke screen to avert the attention of its inhabitants to "the outside" - i.e. play on their nationalistic feelings - so as they don't notice the stuff happening right under their noses.

It seems to be working too.

Maybe in some parts of the world patriotism is considered a good thing, but I don't agree. It promotes the us-against-them mentality, of which rarely any good comes. (Although a government is not a country so defending the decisions of a government technically does not constitute patriotism.)

 

I didn't try to restrict the reactions, but I can decide which reactions to take into account, and which to consider as not so useful (e.g. because the person has a narrow point of view in this matter in my opinion). And yes, the key expression is "not fit to judge" -- I didn't ask anyone to judge (nor I can prevent it, of course), feedback is enough (but not necessary, of course). As you said, it was meant to be a blog post in a certain sense, but leaving the option of discussion open.

I agree that the us-against-them mentality is a bad one, and in this sense, patriotism is not a good thing. But for Americans, French, English, even German, it is easy not to act like that. Hungary, on the other hand, lost enormous territory in 1920 (along with millions of native Hungarian people -- and this is what matters). In several countries, these native Hungarians live in bad circumstances even nowadays (e.g. they are discriminited in Slovakia, treated as secondary citizens). So, it's easy for an American, French or English person to warn Hungarians not to be patriots. But when they take your land and take your compatriots, it is not as easy as it sounds. I wonder how would the proud French or American people act if suddenly the 66% of their territory was taken from them.

This is not self-sorrow, this is a natural process of returning balance. Hungary was split to parts by an unjust treaty (Trianon Treaty, in Versailles), where borders were set without taking into account the ethnic circumstances. So it's just natural that Hungarians expect this to be changed. If not in a territorial way, then at least in a united national way. Western powers can babble about Eastern European stability as much as they want, but it's stability here only because we want so. Considering the anti-Hungarian incidents and laws in certain surrounding Slavic countries, this region must be grateful to the peace-preferring Hungarian mentality (if we were Basque or Kurds, for example, then there would be blood here...). We want peace, but we also want (at least partial) justice (even if we can't get back our territory from Slovakia, Romania etc.). So when Orban is referred to as a "dangerous nationalist" in international press, then don't forget: he is of the peaceful type. A true nationalist would indeed cause instability here, even war. And who is responsible for this? Clemenceau and those "gentlemen" who decided Hungary's border near their coffee, in 1920. It's a miracle it hasn't yet resulted in a second Balkans here.

 

I'm just using the words you used, but I don't think anyone in this thread is judging Hungary or Hungarians in general. As I said before, a government is not it's country, however much many people seem to think.

You won't hear me defend many decisions from my government here either.

Crucial difference here is that in the Balkan it was a single country that tore itself apart. For Hungary the opposite would need to happen: They'd need to invade other countries to reclaim what apparently was once theirs.

 

While I have never claimed to know a great deal about Hungary, or indeed about modern Europe in general, here's what I see:

The EU is an interesting idea. Unifying the dozens of countries in Europe into a single cooperative entity means that each individual country can't be easily pushed around. In addition, the goal seems to be the whole TEAM thing -- Together Everyone Achieves More and all that. Synergy, Economy of scale, a bundle of sticks together are more difficult to break than each one singly, etc etc etc.

But in the course of striving for that unity, there is a huge question that faces smaller countries (and maybe even the larger ones, too) -- how much do we want everyone else in the Union to dictate our domestic policies, laws, traditions, culture, etc? How much unity results in the erosion or erasure of our unique cultural identity?

For the big dogs, like Germany, England, France, etc, the question is moot. These countries are large enough and economically powerful enough that their culture and traditions are immune. So when demanding changes to those other countries, they really don't see how their superior, condescending attitudes can rub smaller, threatened countries the wrong way.

The same thing is happening here in Canada with the U.N. People like Ragusa from powerhouse nations like Germany don't understand why Canada and other smaller countries don't roll over and eagerly take instructions from the larger entity. In Canada's case, we had a convicted genocide organizer, Leon Mugesera, deported recently. We sent his vicious, criminal butt back to Rwanda, and if he is executed there for his part in the Rwandan genocide, not many Canadians will lose too much sleep over it. He was in Canada illegally, and he's most assuredly not an innocent victim of a misunderstanding. It took over 15 years for his case to wind its way through the red tape and appeals process, and the Canadian Supreme Court made a final decision regarding this piece of crap.

Then the U.N. stepped in, trying to dicate to Canada, a sovereign country, how we should run our laws. We have a Constitution, a damn good one, and we followed it. At that point, these multinational bodies should STFU mind their own business. If they want to do some good, let them do it in their own countries. I see the heart of Baronius' posts as coming from this mindset -- to him, Hungary's internal governmental processes should not be subject to EU or Un or any other influences.

I can see his point. But we live in a complex, multinational world. Other countries are bound to express their opinions, and often the only ones that get much coverage are the negative ones. Certainly if someone like Hitler or Stalin were to come into power here in Canada and start slaughtering people or some such, I would want the international community to step in before some douche made an LKD lampshade. I mean, the loudest sentiment expressed by Holocaust victims was "why didn't the world DO something sooner?"

So finding the balance between fair observation and undue, uninformed interference is the critical issue here. At the risk of seeming wishy-washy I'm going to say that Orban is likely not nearly as studly as Baronius makes him out to be, but he's probably not as evil and totalitarian as Ragusa would like us to believe with his snide "dear leader" comments.

 

LKD,
Canada has a fairly good constitution. That's something Hungary doesn't have. It has nothing to do with big dogs and the like. Hungary has some seriously flawed laws, and Orbán is as divisive domestically as he is internationally.

And as for dear leader ... it rather accurately reflects B's ever fervent praise that inevitably finds no wrong in whatever Mr. Orbán does. Mr.Orbán pukes? B sees a rainbow. Orbán farts? B smells roses.

Also, what has criticising Orbán's government for abolishing for instance judicial oversight for tax related laws, for enacting censorship laws - what does that have to do with them ominous internationals and 'big dogs' 'bossing around' Canada, or poor little Hungary? Russia and China, big dogs, are treated with such criticism every effing day. Oh, why bother. Hungary is special, and unfairly singled out anyway, and any day!

IMO, all that babbling about Trianon is instructive - practically, B uses it as a fit all excuse to justify everything that is being criticised today, after all Hungary was treated badly ... 88 years ago. Right. Orbán abolishes judicial oversight for tax laws? Trianon! Orbán enacts a censorship law? Trianon! Etc pp.

Henkie pointed at it already - if Trianon was to be fixed, Slovakia and Romania need to lose territory and population. They are unlikely to do so willingly. If I recall rightly, Germany, a 'big dog', was asked to get over territorial losses. Austria was, too. But Hungary is special - once part of the same Hungary-Austrian empire that helped kicked off WW-I - well, clearly a different standard must apply to them! One would have thought that fifty, eighty years time would suffice to get the f*** over it, but alas ...

So they they wallow in jingoistic self pity and try to restore 'national greatness', at the expense of minorities inside Hungary and at the expense of neighbouring countries? The anger and resentment so generated are explosive because of the obvious transnational implications.

 

The European Parliament is a massive talking shop with little power. Nobody pays attention to it really at the best of times. I've seen the odd article about Hungary in the high brow newspapers but generally speaking I'd add to the consensus that goings on in Hungary don't register abroad. The corollary of "no news is good news" is that something really bad has to happen for Hungary to make the news. I've certainly never seen anything about its treatment of Jews.

The major point about what Orban is doing isn't what he's doing (though some of it is questionable at best) but how he's going about it. If he runs into a problem getting the result he wants he just gets rid of the procedures in his way rather than finding a work around. He's removed a lot of the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place in running the country. It seems that if you can control a party with a 66% share of parliament you can do almost what you want. The problem isn't just Orban. Even if you think his motives are pure, what about who comes after him? Or the next after that? And so on. I believe I'm right in saying that you dislike the Socialists who did a bad job of running the country before. Would you be happy if they had free rein to do as they wished?

 

There is no crucial difference in the CONSEQUENCES, and that is what matters. Hungary was also tore apart (by external powers, and most historians agree that the Treaty of Trianon (too) was unfair and the loser countries shouldn't have been banned from the negotiations). So it's the CONSEQUENCE that matters: *ethnic* tensions. That is the NATURAL and inevitable consequence when an area is splitted to pieces without taking into account the ratio of ethnics in it. So no matter the reason, the result is the same: problems, and (if we Hungarian weren't of the peaceful sort) potential instability.

That is what you do in every case: you explain that if there is a comparison, it can't apply to Hungary because it's wrong in how it's organized in Hungary. When Chandos the Red pointed out long ago, in the Hungarian Media law thread, that in the USA media is also controlled much by private business, Ragusa also had an explanation how US has a good self-control and Hungary doesn't, and Hungary has no right to apply stronger state control over it just because the left-liberal power groups seem to dominate it.

You know, Ragusa, you're applying the same double standards as EU and many others. Because you lack the smallest empathy, and examine everything from a very strict legal viewpoint all the time. You think what doesn't hurt you cannot hurt others either: they should just accept their fate without trying to do anything for a better one. Orban is far from perfect, has made some problematic decisions as well, but people wanted a change.

(Constantly questioning the rights the 2/3 majority gives him is both disgusting and miserable. His support changed since then? Yes, that's what happens with every government in the first years of governing; but that is why there is an election: it gives power for 4 years, and the winner can do its best during this time, without getting interrupted. And he got 2/3, fairly, so he uses it. As far as the possible overkills are concerned -- that is why the EU law is there: if a Hungarian law is not conform with the EU law, a solution must be found. But otherwise, a 2/3 is exactly defined for a reason: apply BIG changes. And BIG changes always meet a loud refusal from certain groups, no matter where they're implemented in the world.)

This is a lie. He made and makes mistakes. The fact I see there is no alternative for him and that his experiences & connections make him a person who can flourish Hungary has nothing to do with any type of unconditional respect that you seem to imply. I don't respect or support him unconditionally.

No, as I wrote, Trianon can be fixed in some way without such terroritorial loses. By uniting the Hungarian nation in spiritual way. By supporting Hungarian citizens of nearby countries (such as Slovakia), especially in countries where they are mistreated and considered secondary citizens (e.g. Slovakia, yes).

You easily write things like "Slovakia and Romania need to lose territory and population", but you don't know (or simply don't believe) how Hungarian minorities are mistreated in these countries (often with the support of the government). So what Hungary can do in peace is that it can give a hand of help to these Hungarian people (without any territorial demands). And to give them the feeling: "yes, you're outside of the borders, but you can still feel home here; having the same rights as every other EU citizen". Ragusa, you'll never understand this feeling, because you seem to lack even the minimum empathy, and you examine everything from a strictly technical point of view.

This is ridiculous. How much did the current Germany lose from its terroritory compared to Hungary?! How many Germans were forced to live as oppressed, secondary citizens in the neighbour countries of Germany?!

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about it. It's another topic what and who is truly responsible for kicking off WWI, even historians don't have a perfect consensus about it, so your oversimplifying and accusing statement is primitive and unacceptable.

Your lack of empathy and understanding is simply disgusting. As LKD implied too, it's easy to be the citizen of a powerhouse country. It's easy to educate others about how they should accept something just because it "happened 88 years ago". Yes, 88 years ago, but the Hungarian minorities are still oppressed in many neighbouring countries! (with a few exceptions; e.g. where Taluntain lives, Slovenia; Hungarians in Slovenia are treated fairly, as every other citizen). But oh yes, I "know it": we should just accept our fate silently, because "higher" interests require so.

So this sentence pretty much summarizes what person you're:

...a person of absolute lack of any empathy, sympathy and understanding. Just the strict technical and legal point, just the strict pragmatism. True, an objective discussion has little place for *emotions*, but PEOPLE who live their lives in these countries HAVE EMOTIONS AND DESIRES: they don't say "great, I'm treated as a secondary citizen in Slovakia but the region is stable and there are no political strains!", instead they say "why my son was insulted again in the capital city of Slovakia (Bratislava) just because he talked in the street in his native language, Hungarian?! This is unacceptable!".

You know, the "national greatness" which you talk about so disrespectfully is important even to you (even if you don't notice it, because you're in a powerhouse country); practically to every single citizen of the world. No, it's not necessarily about nationalism or patriotism: it's about keeping together, forming a common culture and community, and the (natural) pride that comes from all this. But, yes, I "know", what is allowed for Germans, French and Brits is not allowed for Hungarians!

The minorities in Hungary have their rights guaranteed, much much more than in neighbour countries.

Expense?! Is it an expense that Hungarians are oppressed by antidemocratic laws (such as the Slovak Language Law) in neighbouring countries and Hungary tries to make their life better (peacefuly)?!

Just answer me one question then, Ragusa, the guard of law and lawfulness: how come that the Benes Decrees, which declare the collective guilt of Hungarians and Germans, are still in effect in the European Union? I know the answer: interests, but you didn't seem to accept such arguments from me regarding the Hungary-related criticisms; so then, answer me, how is it possible that a law that declares *collective guilt* can still be in effect in today's European Union? What lawfullness is that?

I suppose your answer will have to do with the fact that the current practical significance of the Benes Decrees is zero in terms of the collective guilt. But isn't EU about principles? Or is it normal in your opinion that laws which contain unacceptable discrimination (and a gave a base to a genocide -- many historians consider the deportation of German and Hungarians a genocide) are still in effect in the EU? Or principles and symbolic meanings do not matter when it's about financial interests?! If a law that declares collective guilt and gave a basis for a genocide has no practical effect nowadays, it can still be in effect without any problems, eh? Where are principles here?

 

Regardless, despite your patronizing tone, Regusa is describing a process of law that is meant to insure that rights are protected, despite what the ruling party believes is in its own self-interest.

 

I admittedly lost my temper in that post. I don't doubt he has good points (he almost always has), but he misses a lot of context, and lately, even more humanity. This is what will always make him narrow-minded in these issues. Legal and (strictly) technical approach is crucial in many matters, but real life is not only organized based on these things -- there are double standards, opposite interests, traditions, cultural issues, people's emotions etc. Many of these overwrite the strictly technical, long-term aspects.

And as a Hungarian (exactly for reasons Ragusa will never understand), I find totally acceptable a temporary inconsistency/issue with the 'checks & balances' system in Hungary (to well-defined extents, of course!). This is undertaking a minor long-term risk for a short-term result (i.e. that people live better in the country than before). I say 'minor', because I see how the Hungarian democracy is still in a very high level, and I do know that issues will be resolved without long-term consequences (these are the points where Ragusa and others would disagree, but I don't need to convince anyone; it's enough that I live here and I see how it works in the everyday life.)

Eventually, while I reject most of the criticism (propaganda) against Orbán's acts, there may be a very small amount of problematic laws/actions indeed. But as I wrote in other threads too, Hungary needs to take that risk, or nothing will ever change here. (Let alone the question of double standards too, i.e. that much more problematic laws exist in the European Union in other countries too, yet the European Commission doesn't care much about it, either because they are mid-level powerhouses or because they didn't oppose influential financial groups, as Orban did.)

On a side note, there are 2 questions that I would be glad to get answered. It would sincerely help me understanding Ragusa's approaches and way of thinking more deeply. The first question group is what I wrote in the previous post about the Benes Decrees. The other question group was this:

...since he talked a lot about "unconstitutional" changes with regard to Orbán.

If he ignores those two question groups, then it will completely discredit many of his good points in my eyes (points that even I agreed with).

 

A little Hungarian centric, are we?

I have a late aunt that was forced to do slave labour in a Siberian coal mine and lost half her lung in a cave in. My late dad was driven from East Prussia at the age of 13, and is said to have been, apparently for the heck of it, mock executed by Polish soldiers in the Red Army (his little sister, now approaching 80, gets livid talking about it). My dad himself never talked about it. This is history. I can do nothing to change it.

In case you are interested these links can serve as a starting point.
Territorial losses Germany
Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)
Beneš decrees
etc pp

Besides, there is a way to help out your Hungarian brethren that are being suppressed in neighbouring countries. Have them come back home to Hungary. Germany did that with ethic Germans living in Russia, who, during WW-II, were sent to the steppes of Kasachstan. When they came home they didn't meet all our expectations, but alas. That way you won't get the lost territory back, but at least you get back your Hungarians, liberating them from the oppression you mention, but that is not quite what you have in mind, is it?

 

I understand and am sorry for your losses. I never doubted Germany had "injuries" too, in fact I know there was a lot. But then I ask the question in a different form: how much percent of its territory does Germany lack now? Not 67%, or even 50%, right? But let's forget the numbers then, OK. How many Germans were forced to live in an oppressed way in the lost areas? The key word is 'oppressed'. In that part of Europe, you don't need to suffer from oppression. There are little ethnic strains (of course, I don't talk about the problem of Turks/Muslims in Western Europe -- I meant historical ethnics). On the other hand, in the areas lost by Hungary, even nowadays there is oppression & discrimination. You can't tell this about Germans who were forced to continue living in different countries.

Many millions (!) of Hungarians became foreign citizens due to the Trianon Treaty. And they would accept it -- if they weren't treated as secondary citizens even *nowadays*!

No. For two reasons, dear Ragusa. The first is that they want to live in the land they were born, and their parents, and grandparents etc. were born. Their life and roots are there. They want to live as an EU citizen, with full rights! Escaping would give the message to Slovaks (and to others who either discriminate Hungarians or do not take steps against it -- e.g. Serbs) that they can get rid of their Hungarian minority in this way. Hungarian minority which works there, pays tax to the Slovak state etc.

If we talked about North Korea, Sudan, etc., it would be different. But we do talk of the European Union. Countries inside the EU!

As a lawyer in the European Union, how can you suggest migration-to-home-country as a solution to ethnic discrimination, when the LAW should guarantee their equality in the country where they live?

How can a lawyer, a LAWYER suggest that migration (= escaping, for these people) should be the solution to discriminated minorities *inside* the European Union?!

You truly don't know Eastern/Central Europe well, that's no doubt.

 

Suggestion: Because it is preferable to war? IMO you are seriously kidding yourself when you believe that a revision or fixing of Trianon is possible short of war. That would require, in addition to nearly non existent goodwill, stellar statesmanship and that's in short supply in Hungary and probably even more so in Slovakia.

You have yourself said that the EU has limited influence on domestic Hungarian politics on discrimination, rule of law and the like. I recall that when it was about how little the EU could do about Orbán's laws you said that with glee. You start to lament it when it comes to Slovakia?

Just as with Hungary, the EU has relatively little influence on domestic Slovak politics. The reason for that is that the EU is first of all a free trade zone, it was conceived as one, and as a result that is where it's core influence is and where its mandate lies. Matters of nationality and treatment of minorities are still sovereign domains. The EU can do something when Hungarians from Hungary are treated badly in Slovakia because that is an international affair, a violation of EU citizen's freedoms, and they can address that under their treaty mandate - and even these liberties are first of all reflexes of the free marketplace. Them treating their domestic Hungarians badly is a domestic matter and to an extent farther out of their reach.

For instance, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights can report, advise, facilitate and his mandate ends there. In particular he cannot coerce and boss around, as some folks like to ludicrously assert.

The powers of the EU are still limited, as they have always been, by national sovereignty. The national sovereignty of Hungary limits them as much as the national sovereignty of Slovakia.

 

Member states of the EU also undertook guaranteeing rights of their own citizens. For discrimination, the EU could have found a way to start serious proceedings against Slovakia (the ones which they talked in case of Hungary lately -- not the ones they started, but the stricter ones ) -- but Slovakia is a good servant, so they didn't.

So there is a double standard.

Then if they don't do anything with Slovakia, I hope they will let Hungary in peace too (after some technical changes that satisfy them). Hungary can solve its own problems, even with its neighbours, but then I expect EU to shut up. If they shut up regarding Slovakia, they must shut up regarding Hungary too.

It's possible without war: with economic power. Hungary used to be the most powerful post-communist country in Central Europe in the 1990's. It's not impossible to regain that position (even if very hard and will take a long time). The chances are not that bad: the second largest company of Eastern/Central Europe is owned by Hungarians (MOL), and this company owns Slovnaft (the Slovak oil and gas company). Moreover, a big Hungarian bank has a subsidiary in Slovakia too. We just need to increase our economic influence in the region.

In the meantime, the results of Trianon can still be compensated by supporting the Hungarians living in foreign countries. (E.g. regarding the Hungarian citizenship that ethnic Hungarians may get from Hungary, only Slovakia made a problem with it, created a law against it etc. Others such as Serbia or Romania didn't have problems with it -- and it's a great advantage and emotional compensation to ethnic Hungarians.)

 

Isn`t it sarcasm when you refer to he-who-cannot-be-mentioned-in-an-internet-debate, and the person swallows it hook, line and sinker?
And even swallows it with great pride and joy?

Regards

Defreni

 

It was sardonic, since it expresses my inner terror at the fully anticipated proud and joyful swallowing of said bait, hook, line and sinker.

Even though, to be quite exact, it wasn't he-who-cannot-be-mentioned-in-an-internet-debate but his buddy from down south who I was referring to.

 

Arh thats right. It is just that I recently sat down and read some articles from the 1930s where alot of american businessmen said that they could use a guy like X, because he could get the trains to run on time.
But offcourse it is his cousin down south who usually gets that credit

Regards

Defreni

 

And isn't train punctuality a very important factor, and, indeed, very important to many people's lives?