The map in Rumanian Air Force 1938-1947

[dragos]

QUOTE

Reghin/Szászrégen/Sächsische Regen

:?

This remembers me of the map on the cover of the book Romanian Air Force The Prime Decade. Only that, there the Hungarian names of the towns in Transylvania are put first, followed by Romanian and German. Denes, shouldn't be Romanian names first ? :oops:

[Dénes]

QUOTE

This remembers me of the map on the cover of the book Romanian Air Force The Prime Decade. Only that, there the Hungarian names of the towns in Transylvania are put first, followed by Romanian and German. Denes, shouldn't be Romanian names first ?  :oops:

Strictly historically speaking no. At that time Northern Transylvania was part of Hungary; therefore, the Hungarian names were the official ones, not the Rumanians. Please note that in Southern Transylvania, area that remained within Rumania, I kept the Rumanian names first.

By the way, this historical fact is mentioned on the bottom left corner of the map, where I indicated that "place names and boundaries shown in the map reflect the situation existing in June 1941, at the beginning of Operation 'Barbarossa'".

Dénes

[dragos]

Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary following an agression act, the situation there was a state of occupation, such us in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Considering the public this book is targeted at (foreign, not Romanian), these locations must be known with their Romanian names, not with names given by a temporary administration. A more decent manner was to put the Romanian name first, followed by the Hungarian designation for strictly informative purpose.

[Dénes]

QUOTE

Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary following an agression act, the situation there was a state of occupation(...)

I consider myself an (amateur) military historian, not a judge. Therefore it is not my intention and scope to label certain historical events as good or bad, right or wrong. I don't write political history, but rather military one. I am simply chronicling the historical events as they actually happened, without taking sides. That's why I don't label the events surrounding Northern Transylvania either as "occupation", or as "liberation". Both terms bear political and emotional load, surely resented by one of the sides, which I try to avoid. That's why I intend to be neutral by simply stating the plain historical fact: between 1940 and 1944, Northern Transylvania was officially part of Hungary, while Southern Transylvania part of Rumania.

QUOTE

(...) these locations must be known with their Romanian names, not with names given by a temporary administration.

By writing "temporary administration" one commits a historical fault, namely looks at the history in hindsight. When a historian describes events of a certain time period, he/she should virtually “travel in time” and describe the historical events as they had happened back then, not from a 50+ years’ perspective. This blunder is often made, for example by speaking of Yugoslavia in the 1941-1945 time period, when the country did not officially exist (but also simultaneously mentioning Croatia, country born only when Yugoslavia dissolved in April 1941).
As for the locations’ names in Northern Transylvania, I have to repeat what I already said in my previous post, in line with my attempt to neutrally approach and narrate history: in the time period I am describing, that region was part of Hungary; therefore, the Hungarian names were the official ones, used in the period’s documents and maps. Parallel to this, I used the Rumanian names of localities from Southern Transylvania, as they were the official ones. Simultaneously, I don’t hesitate to use the Rumanian names of Bessarabia -- with the Russian and occasionally German ones included in brackets, for reference -- for the 1941-1944 time period, despite the fact that the Rumanian administration was a “temporary” one. No-one back then knew which administration was to be only temporary and which was to be not. And that historical fact should be respected by all historians, amateur and professional ones alike.

Dénes

[dragos]

QUOTE

I consider myself an (amateur) military historian, not a judge. Therefore it is not my intention and scope to label certain historical events as good or bad, right or wrong.

That's an evasion answer. While sometimes it is difficult to discerne good, some things are plain bad. The war was full of bad things, the Holocaust being the first example. Tell me what has brought to Romania the territorial raptures, beside suffering and struggle ?

QUOTE

This blunder is often made, for example by speaking of Yugoslavia in the 1941-1945 time period, when the country did not officially exist (but also simultaneously mentioning Croatia, country born only when Yugoslavia dissolved in April 1941).

Is this relevant for our discussion ? Transylvania was legitimate Romanian territory. You will find that if you travel a little further back in time.

QUOTE

therefore, the Hungarian names were the official ones, used in the period’s documents and maps. (...) I don’t hesitate to use the Rumanian names of Bessarabia -- with the Russian and occasionally German ones included in brackets, for reference -- for the 1941-1944 time period, despite the fact that the Rumanian administration was a “temporary” one.

And how can you do that ? Why is this "discrimination" between the two territories if you are truly neutral ? I must admit that your book is a great documentary work and a very valuable source of information. But you would have had in mind that this book will eventualy be read by some Romanians.

[Csaba Becze]

Well, IMHO the tone of this forum turning for a bad direction (when just the miserable inahurry made several 'kind' and 'objective' posts, it was accepted by me, it was fun, but when it was made by a site admin - well, it is not a joke at all)

[Victor]

My opinion is that Denes is right concerning the way the names of the different locations on the map are written. Like it or not this was the situation then and the fairly objective approach is pretty visible to me. There is no mention of Hungary "liberating" NW Transylvania in 1940. He also shows on the first page the motives of this representation, which I think are easy to understand for an American/English reader. Also note that the same way are represented the Slovakian towns.

QUOTE

And how can you do that ? Why is this \"discrimination\" between the two territories if you are truly neutral ?

I do not see the discrimination here. I think Denes explained it very clearly.
Btw, no one is truly neutral and I am sure that like we, the Romanians, think that we were the first in Transylvania, so do they, the Hungarians. But we can both adopt a pretty objective attitude when relating different facts. And the solution used by Denes is a good one. If he had a secret agenda, as some on this forum seem to think (coughinahurrycough), he could have easily used the Hungarian names in S Transylvania too, as I doubt the American publisher would have protested.

Now, can we get back to a more serious and productive discussion?

[C-2]

Peace Gentalmen,peace!
And Mr Denes is now a Canadian anyway...

[dragos]

Forgive my temper, but I ment no disrespect or attack.

Now, to clarify this for good, here are several points:

1. I did not blame Hungary for the loss of Transylvania. Transylvania was simply stolen by Germany and offered as a gift to Hungary, to consolidate Axis' strategical position in the east. But to deny that there was occupation in Transylvania is something different... However, it is not my intention here to re-open one of those unproductive discussions (® Victor :wink: )

2. I found quite out of place (and not only me) those official names (official for whom? not for Romania is sure thing). Actually this is the reason the Romanian pilots fight for and died for.

3. The "discrimination" I spoke of is: if both Transylvania and Bessarabia were under foreign administration, why did Denes use the Romanian names first for the Bessarabian localties, shouldn't he use the Russian ones ?

4. We have an word: mortul de la groapa nu se mai intoarce, so let's get over it.

[C-2]

I'll translate:"The dead doesn't come back out of his grave".

[tempesta]

QUOTE

3. The \"discrimination\" I spoke of is: if both Transylvania and Bessarabia were under foreign administration, why did Denes use the Romanian names first for the Bessarabian localties, shouldn't he use the Russian ones  ?

Actually Denes used the same system for both Bessarabia an NV Transylvania: he used the names in the language of the foreign administration. Using russian names in Bessarabia and hungarian names in NV Transylvania would have been inappropriate.

Denes may seem inconsistent only when he usues the "romanian names first" convention on this forum, and "hungarian names first" convention in the map, instead of using only one convention

PS. I've got a garbbled coppy of "Aeromagazin", in wich some pages are missing.
I'm glad to notice that only my coppy happened to be garbled, not the whole edition.

[Dénes]

QUOTE

QUOTE This blunder is often made, for example by speaking of Yugoslavia in the 1941-1945 time period, when the country did not officially exist (but also simultaneously mentioning Croatia, country born only when Yugoslavia dissolved in April 1941). Is this relevant for our discussion?

I gave this neutral example, because there are non-Rumanian visitors of this forum too, who with this well-known example would hopefully better understand why is not a good practice to write about history with a hindsight. This would be the case, for example, when writing about "temporary" administration of a certain territory or region. Back then, in 1941, it was not clear if the new administration would be temporary or final. No-one could know the outcome for certain!

QUOTE

QUOTE therefore, the Hungarian names were the official ones, used in the period’s documents and maps. (...) I don’t hesitate to use the Rumanian names of Bessarabia -- with the Russian and occasionally German ones included in brackets, for reference -- for the 1941-1944 time period, despite the fact that the Rumanian administration was a “temporary” one. And how can you do that ? Why is this "discrimination" between the two territories if you are truly neutral ?

Sorry, I don't really understand this sentence. I am not discriminating anyone.
As I said earlier, I am using the names, boundaries, orthography, etc. valid for the time period I am describing. The map in my 'Rumanian Air Force. The Prime Decade' book shows the situation existing in June 1941, prior to 'Operation Barbarossa', the staring point of the war in East.

QUOTE

(...)these locations must be known with their Romanian names, not with names given by a temporary administration.

The Hungarian names of localities in Transylvania were not given by the temporary administration, existing between 1940 and 1944, but they are rather centuries old. By the way, the very same ethnic names are officially used today, besides the Rumanian names, in localities where 20% or more of the local population is of ethnic minority. The law is valid for all over Rumania, not only Transylvania.

QUOTE

But you would have had in mind that this book will eventualy be read by some Romanians.

Of course. However, the main targets of my books are English speaking "Westerners", who generally know little of the Rumanian Air Force, and Rumania, in general. That's why a few basic general aspects must be included, so they would better understand the historical circumstances the book's topic fits into.

Also, there is another beneficial aspect of using the period names and orthography. By mentioning the localities' names official back then as well as the equivalent names in other languages circulating in the described area, I help 'Western' historians to identify the actual locations, mentioned in wartime documents and locate them on today's maps. For example, how many persons not intimately familiar with Transylvania would know that a city mentioned in Hungarian wartime documents as Nagyvárad, or in German documents as Großwardein, is mentioned and spelled in Rumanian pre-war maps and documents as Oradia-Mare, but on today's maps you can find it as Oradea?

I hope I could further clarify the issues you raised as well as my approach to writing history, which intends to be always neutral - as much as it’s humanely possible – despite the attempt of some to present it otherwise (on this forum, I am thinking primarily of Mr. 'inahurry').

Dénes