A.B. Rosiorii de Vede (Teleorman), I look for a few information.

I see your point, Radu. And I use the occasion to thank you for the many interesting information that you have shared with us on the forum.

Newerteless, using something as unsofisticated as Wikipedia, and a little bit of common sense and good will, the author could have penned the a introductory description of the following sort - one which I'm almost sure wouldn't have been challenged by nobody:

"Transylvania, which became part of Romania after 1918, following WW 1 [military defeat of Austria-Hungaria and popular decision sanctioned by the Trianon treaty], and whose North-Western part was returned to Hungary (1940-1944/1945) by the Second Wienna Award".

OFF-TOPIC: the above formulation of the author (the one which I criticized) reminded me about a post, on Robbie Williams Facebook page, which advertized his following concert in Bucharest (the end of July, I guess), saluting in the end the... Bulgarians. Well, he remains the same famous pop artist and is a good thing he sings in Bucharest; nevertheless it would habe been way better for him (and/or his PR staff) to know or learn (in about 1-3 minutes, from Google) which is the nation which inhabits the city he's going to held his concert in... Btw, the minimum price for tickets is, as far as I know, a little bit under 200 lei - a sizable amount of money for Romania.

I think you are trying too hard to find offence where there is none to be found. The pdf is about "airfields in Romania between 1935 and 1945" and they needed to explain why for a period of time some Romanian airfields were in Hungary. For that reason, in that database, the Transylvanian airfields are included in the chapter "Hungary". Simple and elegant. You may be upset with the wording (I see nothing wrong there BTW), but the truth stays the same.

Entertainers or sportsmen often get their "current location" wrong, this is a regular occurrence all over the world. Google can give you more examples. Most people have a giggle and then forget about it.

Radu

Radu, I think we both can be right up to a certain extent, because we see the situation from different angles.

You say a certain sort of ignorance is widespreaded. I say that this does not make it a good thing, not even a justified one, and we should try, from time to time, to improve our bad habbits in the world we live in. Especially when all it takes is to spend 3 meaninghul minutes on the internet. This type of cultural (imperialistic) ignorance could have been explainable before Google, but it's certainlly not explainable anymore. AND, it is imperialistic because anyone will laugh and accuse you of being stupid if you'd say, for example, that the Scots or Welsh are English. But, abour Romanians and Bulgarians - they are at the margins of the known world anyhow. So they should settle with anything more (or less) then "there'd be dragons"... Let's try not to be self-sufficient without becoming ignorants instead.

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 09, 2015 03:13 am

I honestly cannot see any reason to pollute this excellent history thread with politics and nationalism. It does not "advance" your "cause" and it does not improve the thread. Please stop!
Radu

Please keep your "tone" polite and mind your own business. I have no "cause" to defend, please keep the paranoia low too. Be polite at least because I was very polite while addressing you...

Not knowing history and oversimplifying delicate things means bringing politics and "nationalism" in (whatever nationalism would mean for you). Please read my original post once more, because apparently you didn't undestand anything...

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 09, 2015 08:34 am

All I know is that the pdf neatly gathering all data about Romanian airfields is a perfectly fine contribution, a fantastic resource. Well done!
All the rest that followed is just not right.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on July 09, 2015 02:16 pm

I am also very grateful to Larry for putting together that outstanding material and releasing it for public access. Minor inaccuracies don't detract an inch from his great work, which should be appreciated, not denigrated...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 09, 2015 06:22 pm

According to that PDF,

So...

Bessarabia is presented as a province of Romania since 1918, without mention of the fact that it belonged to Russia prior to that, seized by Russia in 1940.

Transylvania is presented as belonging to Hungary prior to 1918, given to Romania in 1918, and returned to Hungary in 1940.

The author should at least have kept the same kind of approach in both cases. Since Bessarabia was mentioned first and its pre-1918 owner was not mentioned, he should have done the same for Transylvania.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 22, 2015 05:43 pm

Quite the opposite: the author should have mentioned to whom did Bessarabia belong to prior to 1918, to give a clearer picture. This way, he would have used the same measure for both regions (here I agree with Imperialist).

Gen. Dénes

Prior to 1918, Basarabia belonged to the Russian empire for 106 years (1812-1918) - illegaly/forcefully traded for by the Ottoman empire, since, accordind to the historical Capitulations (treaties) between the Empire and the Principalities, the Turkish sovereignty implied that the territory North of the Danube (with the exception of the "Rayale", and Basarabia wasn't a "Raya") was not his to give - and for about 400 (+) years to the Principality of Moldavia, NOT having an administration separate/distinct of that of the Principality, unlike in the case of Transylvania and Hungary (and latter, the Habsburg and the Austro-Hungarian Empires) - since, at least from the beginning of Alexandru the Good's rule, the Principality extended its fronteer up to the Dnister River. The situation of Bukovina was in big part similar, only the "receiving country" was a different one. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

The problem was not this one; we cannot expect/request from an amateur historian of WW 2 aviation to have this sort of knowledge. The problem was with the TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE "taken" and "given" words employied by the author (with refferrence to Transylvania), instead of plenty of other available NEUTRAL formulas. In 1812 and 1774 Basarabia and Bukovina were, indeed, TAKEN by administrative (backed by sheer military) force (and also, in the case of the former, by some dubious diplomatic maneuvers) by the two Empires, over the heads of the local Hospodars. It was not the case, IN ANY WAY, in 1918-1919.

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 23, 2015 09:48 pm

In my book about the Hungarian army, I use the term "recovered territories" when referring to areas that used to be part of Hungary prior to the Trianon Peace Treaty, then became again part of Hungary after the Vienna Resolutions.

Gen. Dénes

The principalities were nothing but autonomous administrative entities that were integral part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire lost a war and ceded territory. There was nothing illegal about it.

In my book about the Hungarian army, I use the term "recovered territories" when referring to areas that used to be part of Hungary prior to the Trianon Peace Treaty, then became again part of Hungary after the Vienna Resolutions.

Gen. Dénes

OFF-TOPIC:
Purely technical (apart from other more subtle perspectives) this is not correct. Modern Hungary was a new state created in 1918-1919 and it never included Transylvania, apart from 1940-1944.

Medieval Hungary was a distinct entity from which Transylvania was dependent (note: the voyevode of Transylvania was never the same person as the Hungarian king, only a vassal of him), until its disparition as an political entity (after Mohacs). It reappeared as a proper state in 1867 (after the Habsburg House defeat to Prussia), in the form of DUAL AH monarchy - which I think you will agree was a diferent state than post-1918 Hungary in almost every regard.

So, talking about recovery in 1940 would be almost as "justified" or "neutral" as saying that, in 1918, the Romanians "recovered" Transylvania (which was theirs by right, being a majority) from their Austrian and Hungarian oppressors. But I guess you did not aim at talking about the national ideology in your book.

On the other hand, recovery could have been (and I'm positive it was) used by the official Hungarian terminology and propaganda of the time. It was your chioice to use it or not, but in my oppinion doind so is, historicaly-wise, as "professional" as talking about "Războiul sfânt/The Holly War" of the Romanian army in the East (against USSR) after June 1941.

In my humble oppinion, it's a pitty that some obviously valuable technical (and niche) historian contributions are obscured by some unprofessional and biased general formulation, due to the fact that the subtlety of the past reality do not fit the actual agenda (or defy the supperficial/ideological knowledge) of the authors. I really regret that - it reminds me of the books from the communist period where, apart from some real and fascinating archive and documentary information, one should almost each time discard the ideology and propaganda bs... But I guess the democratization of the discipline, measured by the advent of a plethora of (new) amateur historians, also shows its downside.

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 25, 2015 01:28 am

The principalities were nothing but autonomous administrative entities that were integral part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire lost a war and ceded territory. There was nothing illegal about it.

You are wrong, Imperialist. The Capitulations (part of them invented over time, but most of them consisting of treaties concluded between the Principalities and the Ottoman Empire over time, or official documents of the Imperial chancellery) meant exactly the distinction between being vassal and being an integral part of the Empire. Among the most important restriction was the prohibition of building moskqes North of the Danube (the Rayas excluded), of entering the Principalities without official approval (as an Ottoman subject or soldier) or of alienating parts of the territory. So, after 1774 and 1812 there were plenty of claims and pettitions of the Hospodar and boyars that the two rapts were void and null...

[Izvoare documentare turceşti privind istoria Romaniei, vol. II (1774–1791), Editura Academiei, Bucureşti, 1983, p. 36 - unfortunately only in Romanian:
Astfel la 5–14 noiembrie 1774 Abdul Hamid I declarã „sã nu se îngãduie nimãnui ostaşi sau civili sã intre în Ţara Româneascã şi Moldova”.
În privinţa comerþului „negustorii îşi vor prezenta scrisorile lor voievozilor Ţãrii Româneşti şi Moldovei şi luând alte teşchererele de la voievozi vor şedea în locurile care li se vor arãta, în târgurile ce vor fi organizate… nu vor întreţine vite şi nu vor înfiinţa câşle”.
Pe 16/25 ianuarie 1782 „era opritã intrarea tuturor, fãrã poruncã în Ţara Româneascã, iar cei ce o vor face contrariul sã fie împiedicaţi, opriţi şi sã fie pedepsiţi”.
12/21 ianuarie 1785 „când va sosi înalta parafã împãrãteascã sã vã fie cunoscut cã Ţara Moldovei fiind din trecut şi pânã acum separatã la cancelarie şi fiind opritã cãlcarea ei cu piciorul, ea este liberã în toate privinţele ….în ţara mai sus pomenitã sã nu intre nimeni”]

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 25, 2015 12:48 am

The principalities had no distinct juridical personality on the international stage, no foreign policy prerogatives. They were not full-fledged states per se but autonomous regions. At the very most, if you like, you could see them as federated states of the Ottoman Empire.

Foreign powers started appointing diplomatic representatives to the principalities only after 1774 but those representatives were just consuls, not ambassadors. The ambassadors were in the Ottoman Empire's capital.

So in 1812 the principality of Moldavia was simply not an actor on the international stage. The war and the peace treaty was between the O.E. and the R.E. And no matter what those old and debatable capitulations may have said, the O.E. was forced to cede territory for peace. There was nothing illegal about it. Maybe it was unfair, or maybe immoral for some, but not illegal.