|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > A.B. Rosiorii de Vede (Teleorman)|
|Posted by: lucian April 27, 2007 09:53 pm|
| Can someone give me a few information (pics, site, article, real history, etc..) about it?
|Posted by: Dénes April 27, 2007 10:10 pm|
| Try to use the Search engine first:
|Posted by: cainele_franctiror April 28, 2007 10:23 pm|
|military base since the '20s, some military activity during ww2. Read my article about slt av Petre Scurtu on aviatory.ro|
|Posted by: aztec July 17, 2008 09:14 am|
| I dont know orientation of landing.. it's a guess
|Posted by: lucian July 19, 2008 07:24 pm|
| A view from road Alexandria-Rosiori (above pictures from right-up corner)
|Posted by: lucian July 19, 2008 08:06 pm|
| Building situated where the two black thik line meet
|Posted by: lucian July 19, 2008 08:36 pm|
| Control tower (?) , under first building.
|Posted by: lucian July 19, 2008 08:39 pm|
| One of two doubles house.
|Posted by: lucian July 19, 2008 09:05 pm|
| View from down corner of parc area, to south, to ex-railway and fuel tanks. Between, people told me, there are the two hangars (?)
|Posted by: lucian July 20, 2008 07:17 pm|
Road for supply the tanktruks. This "feet" is for supply or is for light into. I don't now. I see 20 years ago a pipe like handle umbrella in this support.
Each fueltank (group for two) has box like this for valves, for unloading tanker (railway)
The upper side for one tank. In far back other box for valves alongside of road.
|Posted by: lucian July 20, 2008 07:55 pm|
From 20 years ago this was a house with subsoil. Under I see many valves, stair case, etc.... There was two houses. Now is two dirty holes...... You can see between firs and secon group tanks, and third and fourth group.
An old/new construction (?) I suppose however, old. Now a big concret hole.
Appeare after fourth tanks like a white square.
Drainage sistem between runway and other fields. Above, was two railways.
Is in bottom of pictures, but I don't see. The old railway go south to old station.
|Posted by: cainele_franctiror August 08, 2008 04:05 pm|
|The buildings are a Hospital (for people who have Tuberculosis)|
|Posted by: aztec July 01, 2015 06:31 pm|
| Roşiorii de Vede
(ROM) (c. 44 04 40 N – 24 57 00 E)
: airfield in S Romania 95 km WSW of Bucharest and 4 km SW of Roşiorii de Vede.
Rated for bombers.
: existed pre-war and used by the Luftwaffe in spring 1941 during the Apr-May
campaign in the Balkans. Inactive for several years and then used operationally by
Luftwaffe night fighters and bombers in spring and summer 1944.
: 1941 measured 1000 x 1000 meters. Extended and apparently reconfigured
during the war with mid-summer 1944 dimensions of approx. 1830 x 455 meters (2000 x
500 yards) giving it an irregular shape.
Surface and Runways
: grass surface. No paved runway.
Fuel and Ammunition
: fuel available. Ammunition stored in 5 sites off the W boundary and
3 more off the E boundary.
: 1941 had 1 massive hangar, 2 smaller wooden hangars and a barracks area
for 1,900 men. An additional workshop building or hut off the N corner and several small
barrack huts were erected during the war. The nearest rail connection was in Roşiorii de
Luftwaffe Airfields 1935-45
: there were no organized aircraft dispersals.
: no information found.
c. 15 Aug 44: total Luftwaffe station strength this date: 6 officers, 17 Beamten (officials),
345 NCOs and men, 14 German civilian workers, 92 Schuma, 95 Hiwi.
: I Fighter Gp. (Nov 43 – Jul 44); VII Fighter Gp. (Nov 43 – Apr 44).
: 2./NJG 100 (elements) (Aug 44).
: Fl.H.Kdtr. E 6/VI (Jan 41); Fl.H.Kdtr. E 34/XIII (? - Mar 44); Fl.H.Kdtr.
E(v) 224/XVII (Apr-Aug 44).
(on various dates – not complete): Nachschub-Kp. d.Lw. 5/XVII (Mar 41);
Wetternebenstelle 1192 (Aug 44); Werft-Abt. 102/VIII (Jul-Aug 44); Flak-Abt. 412 (one
Zug) (Aug 44); Störtrupp 3./Ln.-Abt. 81 (Aug 44); 3.Kp. Lw.-Bau-Btl. 101/XII (K) (Aug 44);
Feldbauleitung 6/Kuckuck (Aug 44); Flug-Betr.St.Kol. 505/I (elements) (Aug 44); Trsp.Kol.
104/XII (elements) (Aug 44); Schuma-Kp. (Aug 44).
: AFHRA A5263 p.1361 (31 May 44 updated to 25 Jan 45); chronologies; BA-MA;
NARA; PRO/NA; web site ww2.dk]
|Posted by: Agarici July 02, 2015 09:43 pm|
Regarding the introductory remarks, I'm tired to hear, in 2014-2015 the same old bs: "Transylvania, taken from Hungary and given to Romania in 1918, returned to Hungary by the Vienna Award on 30 August 1940." We're not talking about a lost umbrella, dude!
NOBODY took Transylvania from Hungary, in 1918 (!), except the Romanian majority from the province. This is a measure of being both ignorant and offensive in the same time. Perhaps someone could relay my observation to the author. Adjust your knowledge or mind your own business, instead of writing "books"!
|Posted by: Radub July 07, 2015 08:03 am|
There is ABSOLUTELY no need to be so mean!
The pdf article at that link is possibly one of the most amazing pieces of research on Romanian aviation I have seen in the last decade!
I thank the author from the heart! It answered a lot of questions for me. In fact, I think that it should be printed in a book together with the existing photos (aerial and ground-level) of the airfields.
|Posted by: Agarici July 07, 2015 08:28 pm|
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.
|Posted by: Radub July 08, 2015 08:16 am|
| 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.
|Posted by: Agarici July 08, 2015 11:36 pm|
| 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.
|Posted by: Radub July 09, 2015 08:01 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!
|Posted by: Agarici July 09, 2015 08:33 am|
| 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...
|Posted by: Radub July 09, 2015 10:42 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.
|Posted by: Dénes July 09, 2015 06:19 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...
|Posted by: Imperialist July 22, 2015 05:42 pm|
| According to that PDF,
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.
|Posted by: Dénes July 22, 2015 09:11 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).
|Posted by: Agarici July 23, 2015 08:56 pm|
| 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.
|Posted by: Dénes July 24, 2015 05:51 am|
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.
|Posted by: Imperialist July 24, 2015 02:48 pm|
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.
|Posted by: Agarici July 25, 2015 12:07 am|
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.
|Posted by: Agarici July 25, 2015 12:23 am|
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”]
|Posted by: Imperialist July 25, 2015 12:12 pm|
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.
|Posted by: Agarici July 25, 2015 10:56 pm|
Imperialist, I'm aware of what you said. But I'm affraid you miss the point of the difference between the integeral and dependent teritories of the Empire. On the one hand, the Turkish feudalism (including its late phaze) was different from the European/Christian feudalism being more centralized. The Pashale were invested by the sultan and their authority derived from his. On the other hand, many recent authors praise the degree of flexibility of the Ottomans (especially regarding the administration of justice) towards the non-Muslim communities in the Empire, be they in the Sandjaks/Rayas or in dependent/vassal territories.
Nevertheless, in XVIII - ealry XIX century the international relations, even when they did not directly involve warfare, were mainly based on force (see the three partitions of Poland). In talking about legal/illegal, I was referring strictly to the contractual relations between the Principalities and the Ottoman Porte. For I'm sure you are aware that those territories, even after 1711, were governed not directly by the Sultan but rather indirectly through the Hospodars from Fanar. As far as I know, the fact that the Principalities submitted themselves to the Porte (instead of being conquered by pure force) was mentioned more then once by the Turkish delegations at the peace conferences troughout the XVIII and XIX centuries, and (again) as far as I know that involved (or was a common point to be claimed so) the fact that their territory was not Porte's to give it away, be that after a defeat or in other circumstances.
|Posted by: Radub July 26, 2015 10:03 am|
| The PDF is about AIRFIELDS during WW2 and nothing else. Changes of land "ownership" within certain periods of WW2 are mentioned ONLY in order to help researchers locate them under various "jurisdictions". These changes of "jurisdiction" are historic facts backed by signed treaties that anyone can research.
I repeat, please do not allow the "fog" of forcefully fabricated faux "controversy" take anything away from the FACT that the PDF is a fantastic resource of immense help to any historian with genuine interest in Romanian aviation.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 28, 2015 10:17 am|
Force certainly played a major role in the principalities' submission to the Porte. Because every time they rebelled the Porte responded with force, over and over again until they understood that rebelling is no longer worth it.
As for the second part, whether the Porte was "justified" to give up that territory or not, the bottom line is that this is a moot point. Russia grabbed the territory and the Porte was unable to hold on to it. Why didn't the principality of Moldavia continue the war with the Russian Empire then? First, because it had no legal right to do so since it was legally subordinated to the Porte. Foreign policy was the Porte's prerogative. Secondly, because it had no chance even if it were to somehow do so by itself, so it submitted to the territorial changes.
|Posted by: Agarici August 29, 2015 03:57 pm|
| Again, off-topic:
I invoked perceptions widespreaded in that period, included in contemporary documents of the (foreign) Great Powers, and quoted by historians, and you reply with your own contemporary theories and perceptions - I see no point in continuing that. The "de facto" status of the Danubian Principalities was a result of the fact that they were not conquered by force, and that's that. Moreover, the Porte never failed to aknowledge this thing...
PS: perhaps you are aware with the (quite unprecedented) fact that the Paris Peace Treaty (1856) restored the Moldavian (a vassal, but not an integral part of the Ottoman Empire) authority over three counties/judeţe in Southern Bessarabia (Cahul, Bolgrad and Ismail), after the Crimean War. Thus Russia lost the acces to the Danube which was secured after 1812... The loss of the region by Romania (again) after 1878 (to its former ally, whom the country bailed out in the most difficult moment of the Russian-Turkish war) does nothing but confirm the fact that, by that time, diplomacy was mainly based upon sheer force and not upon principles or rules.
|Posted by: Radub September 01, 2015 08:40 am|
| What have airfields and aviation in 1941 got to do with the Porte or anything else that happened at least 100 years before?
Admin, please clean-up.
|Posted by: Imperialist October 27, 2015 08:38 pm|
Your belief that these are "contemporary theories and perceptions" is sorely mistaken.
Had you read some 19th Century books on international law (IL) or international relations (IR) you would have known that this subject was tackled at that time and the theory is not at all contemporary and certainly not a concoction of mine.
In fact, the Romanian principalities were included by contemporary IL and IR writers in the semi-sovereign or even fully non-sovereign category of statal units.