Verhovayak Lapja, 1945 (28. évfolyam, 1-52. szám)
1945 / Verhovay Journal
Page 2 Truths Versus Ha Si-Truths Beware of false prophets from Central Europe who pervert facts to their ow“n secret ends By STEPHEN HUZIANYI From the Danubian Basin a secret weapon is being launched against Americans that may decide the war long after the weapons have been silenced and armies have ceased to deploy. This secret but by no means new device is PROPAGANDA and may well destroy again, as in 1919, the structure of peace in Central Europe by an arbitrary reshuffling of boundaries based on lies and falsification of history. The sly agents who direct Central European propaganda against us are here in our midst. They wear the disguise and protective coloring of allies and friends of the United States but machinate against the long-term welfare of Americans and the world at large. They spread propaganda for a new and powerful world, state, a Slav empire, in a cunning and innocent manner by filling columns and pages of ostensibly disinterested and respectable magazines and periodicals with seemingly ‘'impartial” and “analytical” essays and articles. I will use excerpts from these articles to show samples of the lies and distortions of the truth with which we are being bombarded. We hope that Americans will learn to recognize these hifalutin and documented “analyses,” “editorials,” “criticisms,” etc., no matter in which high-sounding magazine or periodical they find them, as just so much sophisticated baloney and plain hooey. POINT 4 (Part 4) INSTALLMENT XI. “Magyar nationalism . . . was a more powerful impulse than the liberal „ achievements linked with it.” —Rustem Vambery KOSSUTH IN THE. UNITED STATES Another important speech of Governor Kossuth is the one that he made on self-government of Hungary. It was on April 30, 1852. Kossuth was the guest of Massachusetts. A grand legislative banquet was arranged in honor of the Magyar hero, at Faneuil Hall, Boston, where there were present such outstanding men as Governor Boutwell; Mayor Seayer of Boston; Col. Isaac H. Wright, Naval Representative at Boston; Erastus Hopkins; Col. Isaac Davis; Rev. Dr. Beecher; et al. President Henry Wilson of the Senate introduced Kossuth with the following words: “Gentlemen, allow me to present to you the illustrious guest of Massachusetts,* Governor Kossuth. He has won our admiration as a man by the advocacy of the cause of his country, and he has won all our hearts by the purity of his principles.” Kossuth then made a speech, in the course of which he said: “Gentlemen, one thing I especially desire to speak of in Boston, where, notwithstanding the intelligence and republican spirit of the people, a voice has been raised to declare that the war in Hungary was a war between races. Allow me to say a few words on this matter, although the voice to which I refer has been successfully answered by intellect and knowledge among yourselves. “In the year 1000 King Stephen wrote a political testament, wherein he declared that no country could securely exist where the people spoke but one language. It is a curious fact, and I mention it to show why in Hungary never did exist rivalry and hostility to the introduction of foreign languages. “Having determined to convert the people of Hungary to Christianity, King Stephen invited the Roman Catholic priests of Germany to help him. Hungary, after some resistance, became Christian; but those who had assisted Stephen, looking naturally a little to their own interest, invited their countrymen to • come to Hungary, and desired that certain privileges should be • secured them; and they so managed the system that all the power came through their hands. They succeeded to persuade King Stephen to introduce Latin as the diplomatic language of Hungary, because even the best-educated Hungarians did not know a single Word of Latin; only the Roman Catholic clergy from Germany and Italy understood it. By and by, the aristocracy learned it; but the mass of the people, not brought up to be Latin and Greek scholars, but only good citizens, were excluded from public concerns, and so the power was concentrated in the hands of the priests and nobility. Therefore, we were led to say that the Latin language should not longer be used in our Legislature, but that a living language should take its place. Now, there were 'different languages spoken in Hungary; but by Hungarians what was. more natural than that they should desire the Hungarian language to be fixed as the legislative, the national language? ,The Magyars were equal in numbers to, almost all the rest of the people, and twice as numerous as those speaking any other dialect. '‘Now, gentlemen, this is quite your condition in the United Státes, composed of millions speaking different languages; still nobody ever heard it was oppression that in Congress and in the State Legislatures the German (or Slovak, or Serbian, or Rumanian) language is not spoken. The only difference from us is thát we found the Latin language ruling, and had to say which language should take its place; while you had, without question, to adopt the language you found ruling, because it is a living Verhovay Journal February 28, 1945 language, and as the people understand it, they are not excluded from participation in public concerns. » “But it is false to say there was the slightest difference made between the Slavonian, Magyar, or German, or Wallach people. Already King Stephen had introduced the fashion; and whoever would look back to books would find that nine-tenths of the titled nobility were foreigners, and the aristocracy numbered only five hundred thousand, while the Magyars were at least six millions; therefore, gentlemen, the only distinction in political rights was nobility, not Magyar or Slavonian. There were amongst the Germans, Wallachians and Slavonians, large numbers of nobles, and amongsts the Magyars many who had no political rights, Every race had the same political rights; and by the revolution (1948—1849) all the people, of whatever language, had not only equal rights before the law, but in politics. “When Banus Jellacic rose against us, if the Croats had fought for nationality, they would not have invaded Hungary to establish the absolutism of the house of Habsburg. The basis of Jellacie’s military reputation was always to be beaten; but, when we had beaten him, we did not enter Croatia—we did not intend to conquer it, even though we had the right. We told the Croatians: ‘If you will not be connected with us, God bless you! We can be good neighbors.’ It was our intention to restore all the people to freedom, civil as well as religious . . . “I am anxious to make known my ideas upon the future organization of my people. (Cries of ‘Go on! Go on!) Well, gentlemen^ that organization we' propose is founded upon the sovereignty of the people, not only in a legislative capacity, because it is not enough that we show that sovereignty by casting a vote once in three or four years; we must feel it every day, everywhere. “The sovereignty of the people claims that men have certain rights, not depending from any power, because they are natural rights. I mean such as religious liberty, free thought, a free press, and the right of every family to regulate its own affairs; but not only every family—every town, city and county. Now, our Hungarian sovereignty shall be such that the higher government will have no power to interfere in the domestic concerns of any town, city or country. These are the principles upon which our government shall be founded; principles of popular sovereignty, not only in legislation, but a particular share in the executive department of government. These are the principles which we have upheld for a thousand years, and which we always, by the help of God, will uphold. Judge whether such a people is worthy to meet the sympathy of republicans like you, who have shown to the world the capability to be powerful without centralization! (Cheers.) Believe me, there is harmony in our ancient principles and yours. Judge Whether my people is capable of seif-government! (Cheers)” Entirely sympathetic to the Magyar cause, Daniel Webster, at one of the assemblies, spoke thus, in part: “We have all had our sympathies much enlisted in the Hungarian effort for liberty. We have all wept at its failure. We thought we saw a more rational hope of establishing independence in Hungary than in any other part of Europe where the question has been in agitation within the last twelve months. But despotic power from abroad intervened to suppress it.” Kossuth made over 500 speeches in the 6 months that he spent in the United States, speaking the truth concerning the position of Hungary, and the international1 conspiracy between the Russian Czar and the Austrian Habsburgs. Kossuth was welcomed everywhere he went; delegations came to him to request his appearence in their respective communities. “Nothing appears in history similar to the enthusiasm roused by Kossuth in nations foreign to him, except perhaps the kindling for the First Crusade by the voice of Peter the Hermit.” (Speeches of Kossuth, by F. W. Newman.) To those wha have the time and are interested in reading in detail of Kossuth’s tour in the United States, and his speeches, I would recommend the following books: Kossuth in New England — John P. Jewett, Boston, 1852. The Life of Louis Kossuth — P. C. Headley, Auburn, N. Y. 1852. Speeches of Kossuth — F. W. Newman, London, 1853. Kossuth and his Generals — Henry W. DePuy, 1852. Reminiscences^ of two Exiles (Kossuth and Pulszky) — F. W. Newman, London, 1888. The Magyars — Arthur J-. Patterson, London, 1869. Kossuth and Magyarland — Charles Fridham, London. • Kossuth and the Hungarian War — H. Mansfield, New Haven, 1852. Reminiscences of an Octogenarian Hungarian Exile — Kune, Chicago, 1911. Julian Hungary and its Revolutions — E. O. S., London, 1854. Memories of my Exile — Louis Kossuth, New York, 1880. Kossuth —- Otto Zarek, London, 1937. Asiatic Chiefs — J. Szeredy, 1856. Modern Hungary — E. Horvath, Budapest, 1922. The History of Hungary — Edwin L. Godkin, London, 1853. Sympathy and Understanding (Continued from Page 1) to cry on your shoulder . tears are exhausted and spent. And then return to the house of give them sincere listening while sorrow/ Don’t ever believe that they tell their story, over and i over again, until their pains and | your brotherly duty is done by having made a visit of condolescence! Return to give the mourning the uplifting gift of an understanding and helping friendship which, though it cannot replace the one lost, will give them some measure of compensation ... it will make the sorrowing feel that not all love is lost . . . and while it is little what the sympathizer can offer, it is sufficient to strengthen the will to live in the broken-hearted. Understanding sympathy is the balsam of the soul’s deadly wound . . . the wound will remain but the balsam will render fits horrible pain endurable . . . WE HAVE A DUTY. If we have the duty to buy War Bonds ... if we have the duty to supply our soldiers with food and clothing and weapons ... if we have the duty to render them moral support . . . we have a duty also towards those who have beep hit by the war right in our neighborhood. The mothers and wives and children of the crippled and dead are just as much casualties of the war as their loved ones who had been hit in the field of battle. Just as the nurses stand by the wounded soldiers on the battlefield hospitals and ease their pains by the gentle art of their noble profession, so do we have the obligation to stand by those who suffer with their loved ones thousands of miles away. And it is not sufficient to make our sympathy one brief ceremonial act, it must be a continuous process, just like that of the mother who nurses her sick child back to health. The Verhovay F. I. Association symbolizes this fraternal obligation by having the portraits of its heroic dead members painted and giving it to the bereaved families as a lasting token of sympathy. Even though the memory of this ceremonial act will live long with these families through the presence in their homes of the portraits of their' loved ones who made the supreme sacrifice, it is, nevertheless, an act only. There must be a follow-up. And it is up to the fellow-members in the branches to live up to this necessity of a follow-up. By their helpful visits to the house of the sorrowing, by their sympathy and understanding they must keep alive the flame of comforting love that has been lit up in that "house by the sympathetic act of the association. Let the mourning feel that we are really concerned about them, let them feel that in their fellow-members they have an inexhaustible source of friendship, let them feel, that even though they have lost a son or husband, at the same time they have gained a great number of true friends. Now is the time for all fraternalists to realize that this is an added and unavoidable obligation that has been placed upon our shoulders by the war. There is no medicine for the brokenhearted and there are no hospitals for the mourning: it is up to the brotherhood of men to give them the only medicine that can help them to survive their loss: brotherly love. And all fraternalists who will accept this obligation will find that their own life will have been enrichted by the discharging of their duty of dispensing sympathy and understanding.
