wrote:
: In article >,
: Hermes  > wrote:

: The Roman Empire was long gone when the Hungarians arrived in the
: Carpathian Basin at the end of the period commonly known as the Great
: Migration of People.

	No, Joe, once again your grip of historical reality proves itself 
quite weak.  The Eastern Roman Empire only fell in 1453 when the Ottoman 
Turks sacked Constantinople.  The Magyars had arrived in the Carpathian 
Basin some half millenium earlier.

:  The standards of that period were quite a bit different
: than that of the 20th century.  The closest thing to the UN of that era
: was the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and if he legitimized a conquest and
: status quo, that was all that was needed.

	Never mind that Romanians are Eastern Orthodox.

: That state was recognized by the international community
: as legitimate for many centuries, so challenging that legitimacy with
: ridiculous claims dating back to over a 1,000 years is absurd.

: So I agree with *S* that Trianon was not about what the Romanians like
: to call "historic justice", but something much less noble.

	Sure, Joe.  But, in our reality, Romania got Transylvania because the 
majority of the population was ethnic Romanian.  The Western powers 
really don't give a damn who got there first.  The fundamental question 
is one of self-determination.  Too bad that you think that is "much less 
noble" than Hungary's hanging on to as much territory as she could, never 
mind that the population of that territory did not want to live under her 
rule.

	Alexander

 wrote:
: In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote
:

: >But, if Vojvodina wasn't given to either the Serbs or the  Croats, but to 
: >them JOINTLY, and now they aren't living in one state any more, does that 
: >mean that "Vojvodina belongs to neither the Serbs nor the Croats" and 
: >should be returned to "its rightful owners", the Hungarians?  If not, why 
: >are you telling us that Vojvodina historically belongs to Hungary?

: Because I described how Voivodina came to belong to Yugoslavia.  But you
: conveniently ignored my suggestion that a partition of it between Serbia
: and Yugoslavia would be more in line with the original joint ownership
: than Serbia grabbing it all.

	I know that your grip on reality is tenuous at best, so let me 
just remind you that in our reality, Serbia is part of Yugoslavia.  
Anyway, wouldn't a vote be a fairer way to decide what country it 
should belong to?

: >In 1102, when King Koloman of Hungary, having consolidated Hungarian 
: >control of Croatia, had himself crowned king of Croatia, he asserted the 
: >triple claims of conquest, inheritence and election.  And, his "rights" 
: >to Croatia came in just that order.

: According to A. Bossy ...  

	Give us your version, and I'll cross-post it to 
alt.history.what-if.

	Alexander

From:  ()
>In article >, DBrutus >
wrote:
>> As for Romanians getting Transylvania, I see
>>little wrong with a compact ethnic group with fairly easily defined
>>borders getting its wish of independance from an abusive colonial
>>master.

>You can repeat that lie all you want, but that won't make it true.
>It's an all too obvious attempt of selfjustification by squatters. 

I've been looking over the historical justification arguments
(which I'm finding very educational on both sides) that go on in
this group. I find the Hungarian position either badly argued or
simply lacking in merit. Of course, this could be the self-serving
justification of someone who is personally biased. but can anyone
really doubt that if there would be a plebescite held today that
the large majority of Transylvanians would vote again for union
with Romania? If not, why aren't Hungarian politicians concentrating
on organizing such a plebescite for a legal separation?



In the tradition of Publius, Cato, and Centinel...
Decius Brutus

Hermes > writes:

>... Dima ... is a professor now !

Shit, this is news !  Professor of what ?  Where ?

I hope I can stay on a different continent.

George Antony

Why don't you speak Spanish...
...this is America

In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote:
>
>	No, Joe, once again your grip of historical reality proves itself 
>quite weak.  The Eastern Roman Empire only fell in 1453 when the Ottoman 
>Turks sacked Constantinople.  The Magyars had arrived in the Carpathian 
>Basin some half millenium earlier.

What relavence does that have to the former Pannonia and Dacia?  They
were not part of the Eastern Roman Empire, so you're just blowing hot
air again.  In fact, the Magyars arrived there some half millenium later
than the Romans were last seen in the Carpathian basin (by the Huns).
>
> Never mind that Romanians are Eastern Orthodox.

That's right, I don't, for that Church did not legitimize any Romanian king or
state in the area and time in question.

>	Sure, Joe.  But, in our reality, Romania got Transylvania because the 
>majority of the population was ethnic Romanian.  The Western powers 
>really don't give a damn who got there first.  The fundamental question 
>is one of self-determination.  Too bad that you think that is "much less 
>noble" than Hungary's hanging on to as much territory as she could, never 
>mind that the population of that territory did not want to live under her 
>rule.

I think I already expounded on what I thought about that particular
implementation of the self-determination principle.  BTW, how about
implementing the self-determination also for the Hungarian minority
where they form local majorities?  After all, before Trianon, Romanians
were also a minority in the Hungarian Kingdom and majority only in
Transylvania.  And I am not even talking about ceeding from Romania;
only local autonomy.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

Joe

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------------------58391727627638
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Here is yet another publication on the subject of NATO expansion.  Several
analysts are presenting different views on this subject in a somewhat more
open manner than the officials do.  The situation does not get any clearer,
though :-)  On the contrary, the confusion in Washington about what to do next
on this issue (as well as when) seems to be complete.

Regards,

-- 

Plamen
Internet E-mail: 
WWW: http://ASUdesign.eas.asu.edu/~bliznako/

---------------------------------58391727627638
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain

 
DATE=JULY 15, 1995 
TYPE=ON THE LINE 
NUMBER=1-00339 
TITLE=THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE 
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037 
 
 
CONTENT= 
 
THEME:           UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE 
 
ANNCR:           ON THE LINE -- A DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES  
                 POLICIES AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES. 
 
                 THIS WEEK, "THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE."  HERE IS 
                 YOUR HOST, ROBERT REILLY. 
 
HOST:            HELLO AND WELCOME TO ON THE LINE.  
 
                 THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION -- NATO  
                 -- IS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ALLIANCES IN  
                 HISTORY.  FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY, IT  
                 PROTECTED WESTERN EUROPE FROM AN EXPANSIONIST  
                 SOVIET UNION.  TODAY THAT THREAT NO LONGER  
                 EXISTS.  IN 1994, NATO ESTABLISHED THE  
                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE.  THIS INITIATIVE IS  
                 DESIGNED TO PROMOTE MILITARY AND POLITICAL  
                 COOPERATION BETWEEN NATO AND FORMER SOVIET-BLOC  
                 COUNTRIES.  FOR MANY, IT IS EXPECTED TO BE THE  
                 FIRST STEP TOWARD FULL NATO MEMBERSHIP. 
 
                 JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS THE PARTNERSHIP FOR  
                 PEACE AND UNITED STATES POLICY ARE THREE  
                 EXPERTS.  JOSEPH KRUZEL IS DEPUTY ASSISTANT  
                 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR EUROPEAN AND NATO  
                 AFFAIRS;  WILLIAM ODOM DIRECTS NATIONAL SECURITY 
                 STUDIES AT THE HUDSON INSTITUTE AND FORMERLY  
                 HEADED THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY;  AND  
                 PAUL GOBLE IS DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AT THE  
                 JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION.  HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED IN  
                 THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT AND IS A LONGTIME  
                 SPECIALIST ON RUSSIA AND EASTERN EUROPE. 
 
                 GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM. 
 
                 MR. KRUZEL, LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU, IF I MAY.   
                 NATO APPROVED THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE PROGRAM  
                 A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.  IS IT LIVING UP TO  
                 EXPECTATIONS SO FAR?  WHAT IS ITS CURRENT  
                 STATUS? 
 
KRUZEL:          I THINK IT HAS EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS.  WE HAVE  
                 TWENTY-SIX MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP; FOURTEEN  
                 OF THEM ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS PLANNING  
                 AND REVIEW PROCESS; ABOUT EIGHTEEN OF THEM HAVE  
                 OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO NATO HEADQUARTERS OR  
                 WORKING IN THE COORDINATION CELL AT MONS,  
                 [BELGIUM].  WE HAD THREE EXERCISES IN 1994.   
                 WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ELEVEN EXERCISES THIS YEAR,  
                 EVEN MORE IN THE YEARS BEYOND.  IF YOU GO TO  
                 NATO HEADQUARTERS OR TO MONS, YOU SEE POLES AND  
                 HUNGARIANS AND CZECHS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE  
                 WORK OF THE ALLIANCE.  WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO  
                 BUT I WOULD SAY GIVEN THE GLACIAL PACE AT WHICH  
                 GOVERNMENTS USUALLY OPERATE, WE'VE DONE A LOT IN 
                 THE FIRST EIGHTEEN MONTHS. 
 
HOST:            GENERAL ODOM, ARE YOU PLEASED WITH THE  
                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE?  IS IT MEETING  
                 EXPECTATIONS AND FULFILLING THE NEED FOR  
                 SECURITY IN EUROPE? 
 
ODOM:            LET ME SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE POINTS THAT JOE 
                 KRUZEL MADE ABOUT SOME OF THE PROGRESS AT THE  
                 OPERATIONAL LEVEL HE'S DISCUSSING AND SINCE  
                 WE'RE INTO THIS PROGRAM WE MIGHT AS WELL MAKE  
                 THE BEST OF IT.  I PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT WAS  
                 A BAD IDEA.  IT'S A BAD IDEA BECAUSE IT GIVES AN 
                 EXCUSE TO THOSE WHO WANT TO OPPOSE EXPANSION OF  
                 NATO TO POSE THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE.  IT ALSO  
                 CONFUSES A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT WHERE OUR  
                 PRIORITIES ARE STRATEGICALLY IN THE EAST.  IT  
                 PUTS THEM ALL ON THE SAME STATUS.  WE SAW THE  
                 PROBLEMS THAT CREATED WITH RUSSIA'S INTEREST IN  
                 THIS.  SO WHILE THERE ARE SOME VERY POSITIVE  
                 CONSEQUENCES OF SOME OF THESE EXERCISES, I THINK 
                 THERE ARE DOWN SIDES [NEGATIVE ASPECTS] TO THE  
                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE THAT WE SHOULD NOT LOSE  
                 SIGHT OF, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE LARGER  
                 NATO GOALS. 
 
HOST:            LET ME ASK PAUL GOBLE.  ISN'T THERE A NEED FOR A 
                 TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM SUCH AS THE PARTNERSHIP FOR 
                 PEACE BEFORE FULL NATO MEMBERSHIP IS GRANTED? 
 
GOBLE:           A TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM IS FINE AND I THINK THE  
                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE HAS MADE AN IMPORTANT  
                 CONTRIBUTION.  BUT AS BILL ODOM SUGGESTS, IT HAS 
                 ALSO GOTTEN IN THE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THE  
                 SECURITY ISSUE IN EUROPE.  NATO IS NOT A CLUB,  
                 IT'S A DEFENSE ALLIANCE.  IT WAS CREATED NOT  
                 ONLY TO DEAL WITH A THREATENING SOVIET UNION,  
                 WHICH AS YOU SAY NO LONGER EXISTS, BUT ALSO WITH 
                 A FUNDAMENTAL SECURITY PROBLEM BROUGHT ON BY  
                 GEOGRAPHY.  BETWEEN BERLIN AND MOSCOW THERE IS A 
                 RANGE OF WEAK STATES.  TWICE IN THIS CENTURY  
                 ALREADY THAT'S WHERE WAR HAS BEGUN.  NATO  
                 EXPANSION EASTWARD AS FAST AS IT CAN BE ARRANGED 
                 IS ONE WAY OF COPING WITH THAT SECURITY VACUUM  
                 BETWEEN TWO CAPITALS OF TWO OF THE MOST  
                 IMPORTANT COUNTRIES IN THE CONTINENT. 
 
HOST:            AT THE TIMES WHEN THOSE WARS BEGAN, WE HAD  
                 TOTALITARIAN STATES IN GERMANY AND IN THE SOVIET 
                 UNION. 
 
GOBLE:           ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S SAID ALL THE TIME IS  
                 THAT DEMOCRACIES DON'T GO TO WAR AGAINST EACH  
                 OTHER.  THIS IS HELD UP AS AN ABSOLUTE  
                 PRINCIPLE.  THE PROBLEM IS IT'S NOT A  
                 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ONE.  IN THE WORLD  
                 TODAY, THERE ARE ONLY SEVEN COUNTRIES THAT HAVE  
                 BEEN CONTINUOUSLY DEMOCRATIC FOR ONE HUNDRED  
                 YEARS.  WE CAN'T PREDICT WITH ANY ACCURACY WHAT  
                 KIND OF A GOVERNMENT WILL BE IN MOSCOW OR INDEED 
                 ELSEWHERE OVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO.  WE'RE  
                 JUST BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF CHANGE IN RUSSIA.  
                 THE REVOLUTION IS FAR FROM OVER, THERE ARE LOTS  
                 OF DISTURBING SIGNS THAT THINGS MAY NOT TURN OUT 
                 THE WAY WE WANT. 
 
HOST:            PRECISELY.  AND ONE OF THE CRITICS OF THE  
                 EXPANSION OF NATO, DR. KRUZEL, SUGGESTS THAT THE 
                 EXPANSION OF NATO WILL BRING ABOUT A THREAT IN  
                 RUSSIA THAT DOES NOT EXIST NOW BY UNDERMINING  
                 DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENTS AND PLAYING INTO THE  
                 HANDS OF CERTAIN NATIONALISTS WHO SAY WE  
                 [RUSSIANS] ARE CONSIDERED AN ENEMY BY THE WEST.  
                 HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT CRITICISM? 
 
KRUZEL:          I SAY THE RUSSIANS SHOULD TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF 
                 THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE.  THEY HAVE SIGNED THE 
                 PARTNERSHIP.  FOREIGN MINISTER KOZYREV SAID AT  
                 THE LAST MEETING OF NATO MINISTERS IN NOORDWIJK  
                 JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT RUSSIA WOULD BE  
                 ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE.  
                 IF THEY ARE, THEY WILL SEE THE NEW NATO.  THEY  
                 WILL SEE THAT NATO NO LONGER IS A THREAT TO  
                 RUSSIA, IF IT EVER WAS.  THEY WILL SEE THESE  
                 COUNTRIES WORKING TOGETHER COOPERATIVELY TO  
                 RESHAPE EUROPEAN SECURITY ENVIRONMENT.  THAT IS  
                 THE WAY THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT NATO  
                 ENLARGEMENT IS NOT A THREAT TO THEM BUT INDEED A 
                 BENEFIT TO ALL OF EUROPEAN SECURITY.  BOB, CAN I 
                 COME BACK TO MY COLLEAGUES OVER HERE WHO HAVE  
                 RAISED A CURIOUS OBJECTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP  
                 FOR PEACE?  BOTH OF THEM ARE SERIOUS MILITARY  
                 ANALYSTS AND THEY HAVE BOTH SAID THAT NATO IS  
                 NOT A CLUB, NATO IS A SERIOUS MILITARY  
                 ORGANIZATION.  THAT MEANS THAT NATO, IF IT'S  
                 GOING TO BE A SERIOUS MILITARY ORGANIZATION, HAS 
                 TO PREPARE FOR NEW MEMBERS AND HAS TO HAVE THESE 
                 NEW MEMBERS PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE OBLIGATIONS  
                 AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBERSHIP.  THAT'S WHAT 
                 THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE IS DOING EVERYDAY.  IF 
                 WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS, IF WE WAVED A MAGIC WAND  
                 AND BROUGHT THESE COUNTRIES IN, NATO WOULD NOT  
                 BE READY TO ACCEPT NEW MEMBERS AND THESE  
                 COUNTRIES WOULD NOT BE READY TO MAKE THEIR  
                 CONTRIBUTIONS.  THIS GRADUAL EVOLUTIONARY  
                 PROCESS ENLARGES THE TRANSATLANTIC COMMUNITY IN  
                 THE RIGHT WAY. 
 
ODOM:            I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT.  IN THE FIRST  
                 PLACE, IN THE PAST WE'VE TAKEN COUNTRIES IN  
                 WITHOUT PREPARATION AT ALL. 
 
KRUZEL:          THAT WAS THEN.  THAT WAS IN THE COLD WAR. 
 
ODOM:            WE TOOK THEM IN 1949 WITH VIRTUALLY NO  
                 PREPARATION FOR IT, SO I THINK THAT'S A RED  
                 HERRING.  THE LARGE POINT HERE [IS], WHAT SHOULD 
                 YOU DO INSTEAD OF PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE?  YOU  
                 NEED AN ALL-EUROPEAN SECURITY STRUCTURE AND YOU  
                 NEED TO SATISFY GENUINE RUSSIAN SECURITY  
                 INTERESTS.  I THINK THEY CAN BE SATISFIED, AND A 
                 NUMBER OF RUSSIANS I THINK UNDERSTAND THIS.  THE 
                 O-S-C-E [ORGANIZATION ON SECURITY AND  
                 COOPERATION IN EUROPE] NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED AND  
                 LET ME BE SPECIFIC.  IT CAN'T ACT NOW BECAUSE IT 
                 LOOKS LIKE THE U-N GENERAL ASSEMBLY.  IT NEEDS A 
                 SECURITY COMMITTEE WITH A FEW KEY GREAT POWER  
                 MEMBERS, LIKE RUSSIA, GERMANY, FRANCE, THE U.S., 
                 BRITAIN.  AND IT SHOULD HAVE RULES THAT IF THERE 
                 IS A CONSENSUS IN THAT COMMITTEE, IT CAN ACT.   
                 THEN RUSSIA HAS A ROLE TO PLAY IN ALL EUROPEAN  
                 SECURITY AND THAT CAN BE BUILT TO DEAL WITH  
                 THINGS RIGHT NOW THAT I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO  
                 DO UNDER PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE, BUT THERE'S NO  
                 SENSE OF PRIORITY.  THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO  
                 EXPAND NATO VERY FAR.  IT SHOULD TAKE IN A VERY  
                 LIMITED NUMBER OF MEMBERS FOR THE VERY REASONS  
                 YOU POINTED OUT.  WE CAN'T TAKE IN ALL OF  
                 EASTERN EUROPE, BUT I THINK WE COULD TAKE IN  
                 THREE RATHER QUICKLY, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
                 THE REASON THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS NOT ONLY THE 
                 ISSUES THAT PAUL JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE  
                 PROBABLE CHANGES IN SOME OF THESE GOVERNMENTS OR 
                 THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT, BUT TO ENSURE AN  
                 UMBRELLA UNDER WHICH DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND  
                 MARKET ECONOMIES CAN DEVELOP EFFECTIVELY.   
                 PEOPLE TEND TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WHEN  
                 NATO WAS FORMED IN 1949, MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS  
                 IN EUROPE FOR IT HAD TO DO WITH CREATING A  
                 SECURITY CONTEXT FOR INTERNAL REASONS IN FRANCE  
                 AND GERMANY AND THE BENELUX COUNTRIES.  RUSSIA  
                 WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE FRENCH DEBATE, ONLY 
                 SLIGHTLY IN THE BRITISH DEBATE.  NATO WAS  
                 DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO GET OLD WARRING ETHNIC  
                 GROUPS AND STATES TO COOPERATE. 
 
HOST:            LET ME ASK THAT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ABOUT THE  
                 PURPOSE OF NATO TODAY.  HAS IT LOST ITS MAJOR  
                 ROLE AS A DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE SINCE ITS PRINCIPAL 
                 THREAT, THE SOVIET UNON, NO LONGER EXISTS, AND  
                 INDEED IS ITS PURPOSE NOW TO QUELL ANCIENT  
                 TRIBAL ANIMOSITIES?  DR. KRUZEL, DO YOU AGREE  
                 WITHTHAT? 
 
KRUZEL:          WE HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE POINT WHERE WE CAN  
                 SAY THAT FOR ALL OF TIME, EXTERNAL THREATS HAVE  
                 DISAPPEARED FROM EUROPEAN SECURITY.  THERE ARE  
                 RESIDUAL THREATS THERE, AND NATO AS A COLLECTIVE 
                 DEFENSE ALLIANCE IS THE MECHANISM FOR PREPARING  
                 TO DEFEND AGAINST THEM.  IT'S ALSO MORE BROADLY  
                 IN THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD A MECHANISM FOR  
                 MULTI-NATIONALIZING SECURITY OBLIGATIONS.  IT IS 
                 THE WAY THAT COUNTRIES LEARN A COMMON SET OF  
                 OPERATING PROCEDURES THAT WILL ALLOW THEM EITHER 
                 IN TOTAL OR IN SOME COALITION OF WILLING STATES  
                 TO TAKE A BODY OPERATING STANDARDS AND  
                 PROCEDURES TO SOME MILITARY OPERATION ANYWHERE  
                 IN THE WORLD, NOT JUST IN EUROPE. 
 
GOBLE:           THE END OF THE COLD WAR DID NOT REPEAL EITHER  
                 HISTORY OR GEOGRAPHY.  WHILE WE CAN HOPE FOR THE 
                 BEST IN ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES, THE FACT IS THAT 
                 MANY OF THESE COUNTRIES FEEL VERY THREATENED,  
                 AND COUNTRIES THAT FEEL THREATENED TEND TO  
                 BEHAVE BADLY AND THAT TENDS TO SPIRAL.  WE MAY  
                 BE ABLE TO SAY ESTONIA OR POLAND SHOULD NOT FEEL 
                 THREATENED BY A RUSSIA THAT WE'VE DECIDED IS  
                 DEMOCRATIC, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT BOTH POLES  
                 AND ESTONIANS, NOT TO MENTION OTHERS IN EASTERN  
                 EUROPE, FEEL THAT RUSSIA STILL CONSTITUTES A  
                 THREAT.  GIVEN THAT THAT IS THEIR JUDGMENT,  
                 GIVEN THE SECURITY VACUUM AND THE FAILURE TO  
                 ARTICULATE A NEW SET OF PARAMETERS FOR NATO AND  
                 TO ALLOW A LARGE GRAY AREA TO EMERGE BECAUSE WE  
                 DON'T REALLY WANT TO MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS  
                 JUST NOW, THAT IS LEADING SOME OF THESE  
                 COUNTRIES TO GO OFF IN DIRECTIONS WHICH WILL  
                 EXACERBATE THE SECURITY PROBLEM FOR RUSSIA, AND  
                 THAT PLAYS OFF RUSSIAN INSECURITIES TO THE  
                 EXTENT THAT A POLISH GOVERNMENT COULD DECIDE  
                 THAT RUSSIA IS A REAL THREAT TO IT, WHETHER WE  
                 THINK THAT OR NOT, AND THEN COULD BEHAVE  
                 ACCORDINGLY.  ONE WAY THEY MIGHT BEHAVE WOULD BE 
                 TO BECOME INCREDIBLY CONCESSIONARY TO MOSCOW.   
                 ANOTHER WAY, HOWEVER, WOULD BE IN THE DIRECTION  
                 OF A MORE RADICAL NATIONALISM.  EXTENDING A NATO 
                 GUARANTEE OVER THOSE COUNTRIES, JUST AS IT  
                 WORKED IN 1949 AND THEREAFTER, IS A WAY OF  
                 PREVENTING EITHER OF THOSE EVENTUALITIES FROM  
                 HAPPENING.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING  
                 THE RUSSIANS OUT PER SE. 
 
HOST:            I WANT TO ASK ONE PRACTICAL QUESTION BEFORE WE  
                 RUN OUT OF TIME.  PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS MADE  
                 VERY CLEAR, THE QUESTION IS NO LONGER IF NEW  
                 STATES WILL JOIN NATO, THEY WILL.  THE QUESTION  
                 IS WHEN AND HOW?  ARE WE ANY CLOSER TO A  
                 DECISION THERE? 
 
KRUZEL:          WE'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.  WE'RE  
                 NOT GOING TO GIVE THESE COUNTRIES A CHECKLIST OR 
                 CALENDAR OR TIME-TABLE.  PART OF THE REASON FOR  
                 THAT IS BECAUSE IT DEPENDS VERY MUCH ON THE  
                 ACTIONS OF THESE STATES.  THE REAL NIGHTMARE FOR 
                 NATO I THINK, WOULD BE TO EXPAND THE ALLIANCE,  
                 ADMIT A NEW STATE AND TO WAKE UP THE NEXT  
                 MORNING AND TO FIND THIS STATE GOING OFF IN SOME 
                 TOTALITARIAN DIRECTION.  WE WANT THESE STATES TO 
                 SHOW US BEFORE THEY JOIN OUR SECURITY COMMUNITY  
                 THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLECTIVE  
                 DEFENSE, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY THAT THEY  
                 SHARE OUR VALUES.  THAT THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC  
                 STATES, THAT THEY HAVE MARKET ECONOMIES, THAT  
                 THEY HAVE CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY.  YOU 
                 SEE THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE WORKING EVERY DAY. 
                 I JUST CAME BACK WITH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PERRY 
                 FROM WARSAW.  THEY TOLD US, "HERE'S WHAT WE'RE  
                 DOING TO PREPARE OURSELVES FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP." 
                 IT WOULD BRING TEARS TO YOUR EYES TO SEE HOW  
                 EAGERLY THEY ARE WORKING IN THIS INTERIM PERIOD  
                 TO MAKE THEMSELVES NATO WORTHY AND NATO READY.   
                 IF THEY WERE IN, I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE WORKING 
                 AS HARD AS THEY ARE TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. 
 
ODOM:            LET ME POINT OUT BY THOSE STANDARDS WE WOULD NOT 
                 HAVE LET GERMANY INTO NATO. 
 
KRUZEL:          BILL, THAT WAS IN THE COLD WAR WHEN WE FACED A  
                 VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION. 
 
ODOM:            WE FACE A SITUATION NOW THAT'S IN SOME WAYS MORE 
                 COMPLICATED THAN THE COLD WAR.  LET ME POINT OUT 
                 THAT IN THE INTER-WAR PERIOD, A COMPETITIVE  
                 DIPLOMACY TOOK PLACE, ONE THAT HAD ITS LINEAL  
                 ANTECEDENTS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND  
                 EARLIER IN THE BALKANS.  BUT WHEN THESE STATES  
                 WERE FREED UP IN EASTERN EUROPE AFTER 1919, THE  
                 BRITISH, THE FRENCH, THE GERMANS, THE RUSSIANS  
                 ALL COMPETED THERE.  NOW, THE PATTERNS OF THAT  
                 COMPETITIVE DIPLOMACY ARE ALREADY REAPPEARING,  
                 AND IF NATO DOES NOT ASSERT ITSELF OVER A  
                 LIMITED NUMBER OF STATES TO BREAK UP THAT  
                 COMPETITION, I DON'T CARE WHAT FAVORABLE REPORT  
                 YOU GET FROM A STOP IN WARSAW, THEY WILL BE  
                 SWEPT ASIDE BY THESE LARGER COMPETITIVE FORCES.  
                 I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO MANY EAST EUROPEAN  
                 OFFICIALS WHO WANT TO KNOW WHY CERTAIN WEST  
                 EUROPEAN POWERS ARE CULTIVATING THEM AGAINST THE 
                 GERMANS AND AGAINST THE RUSSIANS AND SO FORTH.   
                 I'VE HAD RUSSIANS TELL ME THAT FILLING THAT  
                 VACUUM IS VERY IMPORTANT OBJECTIVELY FOR RUSSIAN 
                 SECURITY AND, THEREFORE, THE LONGER WE WAIT ON  
                 THIS, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT THE POSITIVE  
                 DEVELOPMENTS YOU CAN POINT TO WILL NOT HOLD UP  
                 AGAINST THESE LARGER FORCES. 
 
KRUZEL:          THE POLES ARE WORKING HARD TO PREPARE THEMSELVES 
                 FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP.  THEY HAVE MADE THEIR  
                 STRATEGIC CHOICE, THEY HAVE CAST THEIR LOT WITH  
                 THE WEST.  NATO HAS MADE ITS CHOICE.  NATO  
                 ENLARGEMENT IS INEVITABLE, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN  
                 AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY.  I  
                 DON'T FIND ANY COMPLAINTS OR CRITICISM IN WARSAW 
                 OR ANY PLACE ELSE IN CENTRAL EUROPE ABOUT THE  
                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE NOW.  AS THEY UNDERSTAND  
                 THIS, IT IS THE PATH FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN IT, 
                 TOWARDS NATO MEMBERSHIP.  ONCE THEY UNDERSTAND  
                 THAT, THEY ARE HARD AT WORK NOW PREPARING  
                 THEMSELVES TO JOIN THE ALLIANCE. 
 
HOST:            SINCE THERE IS NO SENSE OF IMMINENT THREAT IN  
                 CENTRAL OR EASTERN EUROPE... 
 
GOBLE:           THERE IS. THE COUNTRIES BETWEEN BERLIN AND  
                 MOSCOW HAVE NOT ONLY BEEN SUBJECT TO THE INTENSE 
                 DIPLOMATIC COMPETITION AMONG WEST EUROPEANS AND  
                 THE RUSSIANS FOR INFLUENCE, BUT THEY HAVE HAD TO 
                 LISTEN TO A VARIETY OF RUSSIAN POLITICIANS AND,  
                 LET US BE HONEST, RUSSIAN OFFICIALS TALKING  
                 ABOUT DENYING WESTERN ACCESS TO THESE REGIONS,  
                 ABOUT A SPECIAL ROLE, A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.   
                 WHILE WE CAN USUALLY POINT TO OTHER RUSSIAN  
                 STATEMENTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, THE REALITY IS  
                 THAT AN OFFICIAL SITTING IN WARSAW OR TALLINN OR 
                 KIEV OR PRAGUE IS HEARING THOSE KINDS OF THINGS  
                 AND IS FRIGHTENED.  OF COURSE THESE COUNTRIES  
                 ARE GOING TO COOPERATE IN THE PARTNERSHIP FOR  
                 PEACE.  IT IS, FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW, THE  
                 BEST THEY CAN DO AND INDEED THE SUREST WAY  
                 ULTIMATELY TO GET INTO NATO.  BUT THAT COULD BE  
                 SWEPT ASIDE, AS GENERAL ODOM SUGGESTS, BY MUCH  
                 LARGER FORCES.  WE HAVE WATCHED IN THE LAST FIVE 
                 YEARS, DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THIS REGION.  I DON'T 
                 THINK ANYBODY WOULD WANT TO BET THAT THE NEXT  
                 FIVE YEARS ARE SUDDENLY GOING TO BE AN EVEN,  
                 SMOOTH PATH.  I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT  
                 MORE CHANGES.  I THINK THE COUNTRIES IN THE  
                 REGION EXPECT IT AND PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THAT  
                 SENSE OF INSECURITY, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME  
                 EXTENSION OF A SECURITY ENVIRONMENT BEFORE  
                 THINGS GO REALLY BAD. 
 
KRUZEL:          THERE ALREADY IS.  PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE IS AN  
                 EXTENSION OF THIS ENVIRONMENT.  WE HAVE PROVIDED 
                 THESE COUNTRIES WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BREATHE  
                 NATO AIR, TO LEARN NATO PROCEDURES.  IN FACT, TO 
                 HAVE SOMETHING AS A PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE MEMBER 
                 THAT'S VERY MUCH LIKE THE ARTICLE FOUR THAT  
                 BINDS NATO ALLIES TO EACH OTHER.  THEY DON'T  
                 HAVE A SECURITY GUARANTEE, BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE 
                 A PENUMBRA OF SECURITY CAST OVER THEM.  IF WE  
                 HAD ANY SENSE THAT THESE STATES WERE IN IMMINENT 
                 PERIL, WE COULD EXTEND NATO LIKE THAT.  THERE IS 
                 NOT THAT SENSE OF IMMINENT PERIL AND THERE'S NO  
                 REASON TO RUSH A PROCESS THAT IS SERIOUS AND  
                 NEEDS TO BE PREPARED FOR IN THE RIGHT WAY. 
 
ODOM:            I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WAY MEANS IN THAT  
                 SENSE.  IF THE RIGHT WAY IS DELAY, I SEE NO  
                 REASON FOR IT.  I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALSO NOT  
                 TO JUST TALK TO THE DEFENSE MINISTRY IN WARSAW,  
                 BUT TALK TO THE FOREIGN MINISTRY AND LOOK AT THE 
                 PRESSURES THEY ARE UNDER FROM RUSSIA WHEN THEY  
                 DEAL WITH THE UKRAINE.  POLAND IS RIGHT BACK IN  
                 THE POSITION IT WAS IN THE 1930S WHERE IT GETS  
                 CAUGHT GOING BOTH WAYS ON THIS.  AND THAT HAS  
                 MADE GERMANS STAND UP AND SAY, "IF YOU LEAVE US  
                 AS THE EAST-MOST PARTNER IN THIS ARRANGEMENT,  
                 YOU WILL FIND US INEXTRICABLY DRAWN INTO DEALS  
                 EITHER FOR OR AGAINST RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AT  
                 THE EXPENSE OF EAST EUROPEANS."  THOSE OLD  
                 PATTERNS ARE FELT VERY STRONGLY IN GERMANY, THE  
                 RUSSIANS ARE PUSHING THEM AND THE IDEA THAT YOU  
                 CAN GIVE ANOTHER THREE TO FOUR YEARS FOR THAT  
                 DEVELOPMENT AND NOT EXPECT IT TO GET WORSE,  
                 STRIKES ME AS SOMEWHAT NAIVE. 
 
HOST:            GERMANY IS SUPPORTING THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE, 
                 DR. KRUZEL? 
 
KRUZEL:          ENTHUSIASTICALLY. 
 
HOST:            I'M AFRAID THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE THIS  
                 WEEK.  I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR GUESTS -- JOSEPH  
                 KRUZEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE;   
                 WILLIAM ODOM FROM THE HUDSON INSTITUTE;  AND  
                 PAUL GOBLE OF THE JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION -- FOR  
                 JOINING ME TO DISCUSS U.S. POLICY AND THE  
                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE.  THIS IS ROBERT REILLY  
                 FOR ON THE LINE. 
 
13-Jul-95 3:13 PM EDT (1913 UTC) 
NNNN 
 
Source: Voice of America 

---------------------------------58391727627638--

T. Kocsis ) wrote:
: In article > Rainer Lingmann,
:  writes:
: >(I've never been there

: You haven't lost anything. It is a shitty place with terrible
: acoustics for rubbish music. The bier ist warm and the queue
: is always long and slow. The people (mostly 14 years old
: kids) as shitty and rubbish as the music.

What I heard about it is that it's a *really* dark place with dark people
visiting like drug addicts.

But as I already wrote, I felt no urge to go there. Instead I went to the
"Ven diak" (forgive my probable misspelling) a couple of times and
liked it quite a lot. And for just one very quick drop-in I visited the
"Rigoletto".

Regards, 
Rainer
(Aachen, Germany)

PLEASE, everyone, quit following up this trash on the newsgroups!

 Zoli , keeper of <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>;
 <'finger '> 
"For my assured failures and derelictions, I ask pardon beforehand of my
betters and my equals in my calling." 		- 	Rudyard Kipling

From:  (Alexander Bossy)

>DBrutus ) wrote:
>: I see
>: little wrong with a compact ethnic group with fairly easily defined
>: borders getting its wish of independance from an abusive colonial
>: master. The problem comes in only when you have isolated enclaves
>: like the Hungarian areas right smack in the middle of Romania or
>: the Armenian enclave of Ngorno Karabakh.

> Actually, Nagorno Karabakh is seperated from Armenia proper by 
>less than a mile; early in the Soviet period, it was attached to, and 
>infact part of, Armenia.  But, the Turks protested, so Stalin carved it 
>off, put it into Azerbaijan, and made a small portion of it part of 
>Azerbaijan proper in order to keep it from reuniting with Armenia.  In 
>other words, classical imperial divide and conquer tactics.

I stand corrected. Since there is no such Hungarian corridor from
the Hungarian pockets to Hungary proper, I would stand by my
position that reunification is about as practical as Romanian
autonomy for sections of Ridgewood, NY, that is not at all practical.

The real solution is for Romanians to give equal rights to all
so that all individuals are satisfied irrespective of their
ethnicity.



In the tradition of Publius, Cato, and Centinel...
Decius Brutus

In article >  (DBrutus) writes:
>the large majority of Transylvanians would vote again for union
>with Romania? If not, why aren't Hungarian politicians concentrating
>on organizing such a plebescite for a legal separation?

Because they (=the H. party) do not want separation through organizing
such a vote within areas where they have a majority: what they want is
(limited) autonomy within Romania. Anyway this is only about the compact
Szekler area, a good part of Hungarians are dispatched as a local minority,
for them a Szekler kind-of-autonomy is totally indifferent.
-- Olivier

In article >, 
.com (koplyay) says:
>
>Help!
>
>Can anybody tell me where can I find (and download) Hungarian Character Set
>(magyar ekezetes betuket) ?
>
>Janos Koplyay
<


There is an emigré publication called ITT-OTT which uses a perfect
Hungarian character set which was created for Macintosh, though
(I believe) it was created privately, perhaps with some sort of
character-set-creating program. I have used one of those myself
some years ago on my ancient KayPro II. For all of you who use
IMB type computers, WordPerfect has a Multinational character set
which has ALL the characters needed in Hungarian. You do have
to create macros for each (alt - macros), the process is somewhat
tedious (especially in WordPerfect 6 for Windows), but the character
set you gain is totally professional (you can desk-top publish
a book in Hungarian that would vie with the best printers in 
Hungary - with proportionatly paced fonts and all . . . )

Actually, it was an Austro-Hungarian nephew of mine (literally,
father-Austrian, mother-Hungarian) - a young guru, who short-cut
the process of macroizing the necessary characters for me; I think
I still have his instructions . . . will share them with anyone
who will e-mail me at:

DBrutus ) wrote:

: this group. I find the Hungarian position either badly argued or
: simply lacking in merit. Of course, this could be the self-serving
: justification of someone who is personally biased. but can anyone
: really doubt that if there would be a plebescite held today that
: the large majority of Transylvanians would vote again for union
: with Romania?
So sure? If I compare the GDP/person or the standart level of life
in Hungary and in Romania I do have some doubts.
Illes

Alexander Bossy ) wrote:

: : The Roman Empire was long gone when the Hungarians arrived in the
: : Carpathian Basin at the end of the period commonly known as the Great
: : Migration of People.

: 	No, Joe, once again your grip of historical reality proves itself 
: quite weak.  The Eastern Roman Empire only fell in 1453 when the Ottoman 
: Turks sacked Constantinople.  The Magyars had arrived in the Carpathian 
: Basin some half millenium earlier.

I have never seen Byzantine referenced at this time as the "Eastern Roman
Empire". 
: 	Sure, Joe.  But, in our reality, Romania got Transylvania because the 
: majority of the population was ethnic Romanian. 

But Romania also got some parts of Hungary proper where the majority of
population was not ethnic Romanian.

I have been in Budapest last year and I have travelled by car 
through Hungary.
I remember the city as very nice and entertaining.
In the evening with a friend I went to Fortuna disco.
I also remember Hungarian girls as beeing among the most 
(Italians are very expert) beautiful in Europe.
Hope to come there again.

Bye, Giulio

In >
 (Rainer Lingmann) writes: 
>
>T. Kocsis ) wrote:
>: In article > Rainer Lingmann,
>:  writes:
>: >(I've never been there
>
>: You haven't lost anything. It is a shitty place with terrible
>: acoustics for rubbish music. The bier ist warm and the queue
>: is always long and slow. The people (mostly 14 years old
>: kids) as shitty and rubbish as the music.
>
>What I heard about it is that it's a *really* dark place with dark
people
>visiting like drug addicts.
>
>But as I already wrote, I felt no urge to go there. Instead I went to
the
>"Ven diak" (forgive my probable misspelling) a couple of times and
>liked it quite a lot. And for just one very quick drop-in I visited
the
>"Rigoletto".
>
>Regards, 
>Rainer
>(Aachen, Germany)

I heard that most everyone who frequents the Fekete Luk, sleeps with a
person of the same sex.

OD.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
      wrote:
     >
     >My name is Joe Pannon
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     NO DANUBIUS.
     
     YOUR NAME IS NOT JOE PANNON.
     
     YOUR NAME IS ION PANONESCU.
     
     YOUR NAME IS ION PANONESCU.
     
     YOUR NAME IS ION PANONESCU.
     
     MA NUMESC ION PANONESCU.
     
     MA NUMESC ION PANONESCU.
     
     MA NUMESC ION PANONESCU.
     
     -cristian
     
     ps:  hey adrian - looks like our internet fixture needs some more 
     de-magyarization sessions......
     
     pps: and somebody else mentioned that he's also a republican and 
     buchanan lover - well, i may personally take care of this mental 
     aberration.....;->