I was waiting to see Mihai Caragiu's proof of Hungarian "propoganda
machine", but I got this:
>This might be yet another aspect of the Austro-Hungarian propaganda machine.
>Why, by the way, any propaganda-based state almost always fears his
>propagandistic machinery is not as powerful as it should be (this fear
>is understandable, the instinct for freedom of the individuals might
>be more powerful in some cases). "Officially" this might get translated
>by : "All others have propaganda machines, except _us_". Then...way to go,
>got it ? Let's read from Seton-Watson biography:
Of course, there was no evidence of Hungarian propoganda machine in the
biography, either.
But let's see what Jeliko dug up on S-W a while back when he answered
George Frajkor on the Slovak-L list (I was hoping Jeliko would pick up
the thread this time again, but he must be busy this time. I hope
though he won't mind if I republish his prior article):
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Subject: Re: to1t nem ember and Tisza?
Date: 28 Apr 1994 17:45:48 GMT
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
Lines: 138
Message-ID:  >
NNTP-Posting-Host: worldlink.com
X-Newsreader: PSILink for Windows, Version 1.1.9
On Apr 25, 1994 Professor Frajkor wrote an extensive discussion regarding
"historical" events and was surprised by the seeming ignorance of some of
these by others on the net. He also quotes extensively from R. Seaton-Watson's
various publications.
Well, lets start out by Mr R. Seaton Watson and his circle, the main other
character being Mr Henry Wickham Steed, in those days, of the Times of
London.
Mr R. Seaton-Watson certainly can not be counted as an unprejudiced
individual in regard to the events he so nicely modified by his prejudicies
and other motives. He was a member of the Political Inteligence Department of
the British Foreign Office and the co-director of the Austro-Hungarian
section of the British Department of Enemy Propaganda during WW I. It is
difficult to establish for me, what particular event turned him into a bitter
anti-Hungarian, but his participation in the equvalent of a Goebbels Bureau
aimed against the then enemy of Britain does not indicate an "unbiased"
opinion in any of his profound statements in regard to the events of the
times. His good friend and collaborator Mr Steed generally referred to the
Hungarians as " Judaeo - Magyars", which also indicates an interesting
prejudice toward several folks. (ref T.L. Sakmyster in Atlantic Studies 15,
1982). The whole group of activists working toward the destruction of their
"enemy" by any means, certainly generated a lot of sill used material.
Who was the hated group? The Magyars? The, at that time, well assimilated
Jews? But lets look at other great ideas of Mr R. Seaton - Watson. In a
letter to his wife of Aug 6, 1914 he wrote "Dalmatia, Bosnia, Croatia, Istria
must be united to Serbia..." (ref. H. Seaton - Watson in Atlantic Studies 15,
1982) It is so obvious that he knew exactly what the people wanted -
particularly as viewed by the current events.
Professor Frajkor also attributes the expoundings of Apponyi at the peace
conference to the outcome of the Trianon Treaty, however the borders
established at that point were already taken care of and whatever Apponyi
said had nothing to do with the issue. The borders certainly were not set
based on nationality boundaries, but on the basis of revange toward the
loosers in a very stupid war. For example the British opinion from Harold
Nicolson "My feelings toward Hungary were less detached. I confess that I
regard, and still regard, that Turanian tribe with acute distaste... The hour
of liberation and retribution was at hand" (H. Nicolson Peacemaking 1919,
p.34, 1965 ed Grosset and Dunlap). As a result, the only one of the Czech
imperialistic designs that was not accepted at the peace conference, was the
so called "corridor" (Burgenland) between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
It is time to put away the notion that the Trianon borders were set on the
basis of "self- determination". The same uncouched nationalism was at work
from the Czech, Slovak, Romanian and Serb side, as these same people were
accusing, prior to the war, the Hungarian side. While it may be good
journalism to describe events this way, it is historically not correct that
nationalism and prejudice was the exclusive domain of the Hungarians.
You Professor Frajkor and several others on the net seem to be reading (I
certainly hope not teaching) only one side of the story. The Hungarian
government of aristocrats was certainly an oppressive government, they were
oppressive toward their own people as much as against the minorities. If
anyone from the outside visited the parts of Hungary populated by non
Hungarian minorities they easily could get the impression that only the
minorities were oppressed. Naturally, there were pressures toward
"Magyarization" most of them stupid and crude, just as there were in the
successor states. Tasteless sayings, I wouldn't even classify them as
"proverbs" also exist in all places. Picking only those of one side is not a
fair presentation of the situation. How some Slovaks feel about Hungarians
was recently demonstrated on this newsgroup "Madari za Dunaj", interestingly
another Slovak netter (Mr Gajdos) found it convenient to repost my somewhat
tounge in cheek response to this, without the original posting. It is an
often used trick in journalism, but it is not an unbiased presentation of the
events. I have recently read a book by C.J.C Street "East of Prague" with an
introduction by Vojtech Mastny (London 1924), discussing his travels through
Slovakia and Ruthenia with a soujourn through Hungary. Mr Street was also a
member of the R. Seaton - Watson circle. It has some very interesting
sections. " The Czech officials came along the train turning off all those
with Magyar passports, and their delight at seeing a British one was most
comic. Their leader insisted upon shaking me by hand, "Good English!" he
exclaimed, "No dirty dog!" "(p77) "It is easy enough to produce statistics
proving that the number of scholars attending Magyar classes has fallen off
since the formation of the Republic (Czechoslovakia) and to attribute this to
the coercieve methods of the Czechoslovak Government. The truth is the
Magyars themselves who, within the borders of Slovakia are almost to a man
perfectly contended with their lot, are keen enough to see that their best
chance of success is within the new State is through acquaintance with the
language, manners and costums of the majority" (p144). Gee, it is nice enough
to have been said by Tisza himself. "Thus Magyar education limits the
individual's field of effort to a narrow and decreasing range, while Slovak
education is a means of opening the whole Republic to his ambitions.
Realizing this, many Magyars within the Republic are sending their children
to the Slovak classes, thus decreasing the importance of the purely Magyar
schools" (P144). Now I have read a lot about the educational problems in
Hungary and diatribes reqouted from Mr Deak, and I couldn't help but laugh
when after the above excerpts Mr Street wrote " On the whole, one is forced
to the conclusion that the grievances of the Magyar minority in the Republic
are without any real foundation, and exist not so much in the minds of the
individuals composing that minority as in the scheming brains of the
propagandists." (p145). It is true the other way around also!
Talk about racial stereotyping by Mr Street as he learned through his travels
in the area. "The first non-Slav people with whom the Slavs came in contact
were the Germans, whom they called Nemecky, the dumb folk (nemeti to grow
dumb) because they could not make the Slavs understand their speech,..(P59)
or "The Hungarians are interesting people to study, in addition they never
have been over fond of work..." (p75). By the way, Mr Street also wrote a
book "Hungary and Democracy", which I have not found yet, but I am sure,
based on reading this book, that it is in the R.Seaton-Watson and his ilk's
manner, so I am not feverishly searching for it.
So based on these, I am not surprised that most Hungarians are not aware of
what Mr R. Seaton-Watson wrote, regrdless of the sources he qoutes, because
the source selection can be also performed very ingenuously. However, it is
obvious that many Slovaks are also not aware of the opposite cases (At least
I hope are not aware, rather than beeing mute about) and sometimes make
interesting statements, like a recent discussion about the autonomy of
Ruthenia, which while written into the original Republics' constitution, "The
autonomous territory of Podkarpatske Rus (Ruthenia) which shall receive the
widest measure of self-government compatible with the unity of the
Czechoslovak Republic, shall be an integral part of this unit...Podkarpatska
Rus shall have its own Diet, which shall elect its presiding officier and
other officials", this in fact never happened. The apologetic explanation
given by Street after his tour of the area with the governour of the region
is also very interesting " To hold elections at the moment would mean that
certain sections of the population, the inhabitants of the towns of the plain
(mainly Hungarian), the German villages, would alone understand the
proceedings. For the rest, the Jews would find in an election a means of
adding political jobbery to the influence they already possess, which would
hardly lead to the true representation of the Ruthene people.In brief the
country is not yet fit to govern itself" (P234). Wow, was Tisza ever this
racist in his statements?
Professor Frajkor, wouldn't it be easier and fairer to practice responsible
journalism and present the stupidity of ALL prejudicies regardless of who
wrote them and why? I do not think either side can be too proud of some its
members and their utterings. There are enough demagogues in both countries,
who rejoice at fanning the fires of ultranationalism and blame everything on
another race, nationality or religion. I think, it is the duty of those who
know (and I believe you do) better not to present only what was done to you
but, also what was done by your people to others. That way, at some future
date we can start all working together for a better life for all in the
Carpathian basin and evrywhere else. We don't need Bosnian solutions to the
problems. I repeat again what I have proposed privately before, perhaps all
countries' history books should be written collectively and unanimously by
their neighbors. But not on a one to one basis.
Regards,Jeliko
----------------------------------
Joe Pannon
|
