C.K. Zolta1ni writes:
> As far as the fuel consumption is concerned, a check of the
> characteristics of the  turbines used in both planes should persuade
> you of the correctness of the statement.
I'm sure it's correct, but is fuel consumption a major factor in the
operational costs of warplanes? How about airstrips, infrastructure,
preventive maintenance, or pilot training?

> Unfortunately, the choices in equipment purchases are often political.
> Some of the Hungarian leadership are still wedded to their old handlers
> in Moscow, much to the detriment of the Hungarian people.
Are we to understand that the US planes were cheaper and Hungary is buying
inferior but more expensive equipment for political reasons?  Without
contesting the point that these MIGs are inferior to US or Swedish planes it
seems likely they are quite comparable (possibly identical) to what most
other countries in the region have. "Only the best will do" sounds great but
I'm afraid "szege1ny ember vi1zzel fo3z" is more like it for Hungary.

Leaving price out and considering performance by itself is not very useful,
and in this case the MIG price/performance ratio has a compelling advantage,
since the price is effectively zero.  It is no secret that Russia owes
Hungary a large pile of money (on the order of 1 billion USD) and loans
backed by the full faith and credit of the Russian government are, well,
backed by the full faith and credit of the Russian government. For this
reason even the Antall/Boross government, which could hardly be accused of
being "wedded to their handlers in Moscow" purchased Russian military
equipment.

Andra1s Kornai

Ivan Marki > writes:
>Hugh Agnew asks for the Hungarian name of the Przemyslid king of
>Hungary. The name is Vencel. Ladislav V is doubly wrong:

Not doubly wrong! My reference say that the young Vencel, who later become
the Czech king Vencel III was indeed crowned in Szekesfehervar with the Holy
Crown of Hungary as king "La1szlo1". However, because the crowning was
conducted by the bishop of Kalocsa and not by the bishop of Esztergom the
crowning was not legally binding. After some nasty fighting, and pressure
from the Pope Vencel III formally renounced his claim to the Hungarian throne
on Oct. 9, 1305. The Crown was returned to Hungary by Otto, Bajor Prince,
who become the 3rd disputed King of Hungary in the year of 1305.

Barna Bozoki

Ivan Marki wrote:
> Hugh Agnew asks for the Hungarian name of the Przemyslid king of
> Hungary. The name is Vencel. Ladislav V is doubly wrong: Ladislav is, of
> course, not a Hungarian name....

        Actually it isn't wrong.  Wenceslaus _did_ reign in Hungary as
Ladislaus (Laszlo) V (all of his seals refer to him that way), but for
some reason he went down in history under his real name.  As you correctly
point out, the king officially reckoned as Ladislaus V reigned 150 years
after Wenceslaus;  had Wenceslaus' pseudonym stuck, the Habsburg Ladislaus
would have been Ladislaus VI.

        As far as the spelling of the name, there are several ways that I
have seen Ladislaus rendered in non-Hungarian sources.  Of course, it is
also possible that the source might have Ladislaus mixed up with the
Polish name Wladislaus (which also has several English forms) (Ulaszlo),
but that's usually written as Vladislav.

        Norb



Norbert Ja'nos Udvardy Walter      | "Ask, and it will be given you;
Fort Worth, Texas, USA             |  search, and you will find; / knock, and
Internet:          |  the door will be opened for you."
FidoNet:   1:130/911.6212          |               Matthew 7:7

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the Vaclav/Vencel/Wenceslaus
Ladislav/Ladislaus/La1szlo1/Ula1szlo1 question.  (Wasn't it all a lot
simpler when we just wondered whether to say "Magyar" or "Hungarian"? :-)

Life isn't made easier  when we're figuring out from Latin seals and documents
and when the vernacular has also changed (at the time of St. Wenceslaus, or
Vaclav, in the 10th century, Czech still had nasal vowels like Polish, so
it probably would have been pronounced more like "Venceslav" than "Vaclav").

Just to answer the "what happened next" question (not that anyone has
asked it, mind), Vaclav III (Czech king from 1305) was murdered under as yet
unexplained circumstances in Olomouc in Moravia in 1306, on his way to
Poland with an army to try to prevent Wladyslaw Lokietek from taking away
his Polish crown, too.

Thanks again!

Hugh Agnew

Barna Bozoki provides the interesting information about King Vencel that
he was crowned "Laszlo I." I would appreciate your letting me know what
the source of your information is. Standard sources list four Laszlos
from the Arpad dynasty: Laszlo I (the Saint, reigned 1077-1095), Laszlo
II ("ellenkiraly," rival of Istvan III during the turbulent years after
the early death of geza II; Laszlo II reigned 1162-63), Laszlo III (r.
1204-1205, King Imre's son; four years old when he died), and Laszlo IV,
"the Cuman" (Kun Laszlo, r. 1272-1290). Vencel was, indeed, crowned king
and is counted among the kings of Hungary, but not as Laszlo; otherwise,
he would be fifth in the line, but Laszlo V is the young Habsburg king
who reigned between 1452 and 1457 while Janos Hunyadi was governor of
the country.
How poor Vencel, who later was killed under mysterious circumstances in
Olomouc, got on the record as Laszlo I is an interesting question, I
think. It would seem that either the Archbishop of Kalocsa or the writer
of the reference lost count of the Laszlos. Of course, there may be a
simpler and better explanation, too, and I would be interested to hear
it.

Ivan Marki

 has treated us to a long litany of alleged Hungarian
wrongdoing in "Southern Slovakia"  during the half-dozen years the area was
again part of Northern Hungary as a result of the Vienna arbitration agreed
to by the two countries.  The piece lists several complaints of Slovaks who
felt their rights to their children to be educated in their mother tongue
were violated.

Unfortunately, in the light of later events in that long-suffering part of
Central Europe in later years make the complaints listed there seem almost
laughingly trivial.  As the war was ending and the area came under
Czechoslovak administration for the second time in 25 years, the treatment of
Hungarians was harsher.  Not only were they not allowed to have their
children educated in their mother tongue (even in regions where they were in
overwhelming majority), but ALL schools were closed for Hungarian children
for several years.  Yes, the children of Hungarians were locked out of
Czechoslovakia's schools until 1948.  In the meantime, tens of thousands of
Hungarians were either deported to distant areas of the country or simply
ejected from the country across the border into Hungary with only a few
belongings.  To this day, they have not been compensated.

I think that the present situation of minorities' lack of educational
opportunities and use of their mother tongue in Slovakia would be a much more
fruitful subject for discussion.

Could it be that the listing of minor grievances of half a century ago are
used to mask today's mistreatment of Hungarians in that area?

Ferenc

My father swears that on Wednesday or Thursday when he turned the
TV on and the ABC news program Nightline was ending, someone was
interviewing a Rumanian who mentioned Transylvania.  Did anyone watch
Nightline last week who saw this?

        Norb


Norbert Ja'nos Udvardy Walter      | "Yesterday is not ours to recover, but
Fort Worth, Texas, USA             |  tomorrow is ours to win or lose."
Internet:          |
FidoNet:   1:130/911.6212          |                   -- Lyndon B. Johnson