Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (6) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The Battle of Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, 60 Years Ago...
dragos
Posted: November 05, 2004 10:07 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Nov 6 2004, 12:55 AM)
QUOTE (dragos @ Nov 6 2004, 03:46 AM)
Please refresh my memory and tell me about your book "Rumanian Air Force The Prime Decade 1939-1946", on the cover map, how did you use the names for the localities in Bessarabia?

Since the map shows the situation existing at start of 'Operation Barbarossa', June 22, 1941 - as mentioned in the footnote - the main names of localities in Bessarabia are in Russian, while the Rumanian and German ones, if any, in brackets.

Lt. Col. Dénes

That is ok. I remembered wrongly.

As I have said, what you expressed here is logical, with an objection regarding the official names. The relevance of these official names is very little regarding a small timeframe and when established during wartime, without an international recognition.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted: November 05, 2004 11:04 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Nov 6 2004, 12:21 AM)
Whoever has access to German documents or books related to the 'Schacht am Thorenburg'...

As seen here, it seems that the Germans also used maps with Hungarian names:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1128

Most of their factory maps had probably Hungarian and Romanian sources.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 06, 2004 12:15 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



Below is a map taken from a scholarly historical book dealing with the Luftwaffe, written by a collective of four authors, published in Germany, in 2003.
Schäßburg, anyone? :D

Lt. Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 06, 2004 12:53 am

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: November 06, 2004 07:28 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Nov 6 2004, 02:15 AM)
Schäßburg, anyone? :D

Maybe next year, during the medieval festival. :D
My opinion is that your correct about the use of town names, as it will make it easier to identify them and relate them to other works in different languages.
Btw, isn't Akkerman Turkish?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 07, 2004 04:01 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Nov 6 2004, 02:58 AM)
Szt Mihalyfalva = Mihai Viteazul
Sinfalva = Moldoveneşti
Egerbegy = Viişoara


Just for fun, I double checked the Rumanian version of the names you listed (I mention only those that are not entirely correct):

Szt. Mihályfalva (actually, without 'falva', which means village) was called back then Sânmihaiu-de-Sus. Only in the post-war era was renamed in more Rumanian sounding Mihai Viteazu (without the 'l' at the end).

Sinfalva is actually Cornesti in Rumanian. The Hungarian name of Moldovenesti is Várfalva.

The rest is O.K.; however, the enclosed map does not always give the complete Hungarian names of localities, e.g. 'Egerbegy', as shown, is actually 'Aranyosegerbegy' (there is an 'Egerbegy' elsewhere in Transylvania).

Lt. Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 07, 2004 04:03 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: November 07, 2004 09:29 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Thanks for clarifications.

The following localities on the map that I have been unable to identify:
- Pusztacsan
- Komjatszeg
- Koppand
- Meszko
- Keresztes
- A. Polyan
- Mezoorke
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 10, 2004 01:34 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Nov 7 2004, 03:29 PM)
Thanks for clarifications.

The following localities on the map that I have been unable to identify:

- Pusztacsán = Ceaunu Mic
- Komjátszeg = Comsesti
- Koppánd = Copaceni
- Mészkö = Cheia
- Keresztes = Oprisani
- A[ranyos]Polyán = Poiana
- Mezöörke = Urca

Mind you, I did not check a current detailed map of Rumania to see if all these localities actually are around Turda.

Lt. Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 10, 2004 01:40 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 10, 2004 10:13 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Nov 6 2004, 04:07 AM)
As I have said, what you expressed here is logical, with an objection regarding the official names. The relevance of these official names is very little regarding a small timeframe and when established during wartime, without an international recognition.

This is a common error done by many historians, namely regarding and describing the historical events in hindsight and not turning back in time to the particular historical period they are studying.

Back then, during the war, it was not clear at all that the official names will be short lived. It's only now that we know, in hindsight, that they lasted only a few years.
This is no excuse not to use the names and borders valid officially during the time period described in a historical study.

Similarly, I would encourage the usage of Rumanian names (along with Russian and German, if any) of various Bessarabian localities when we're talking about war, regardless the fact that they were officially valid even for a shorter period than the Hungarian names in Northern Transylvania.

As for the note "without an international recognition", this is obviously not true, as the Rumanian-Hungarian territorial changes and new border between 1940 and 1944 were recognized by many states, including Rumania herself.

Lt. Col. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: November 10, 2004 11:55 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Denes)
This is a common error done by many historians, namely regarding and describing the historical events in hindsight and not turning back in time to the particular historical period they are studying.

Back then, during the war, it was not clear at all that the official names will be short lived. It's only now that we know, in hindsight, that they lasted only a few years.


But today we know. A historian's job is to present the past events to the people of today. Therefor, for better understanding names and places, it is better to use actual places with the temporary names as hindsights. While the official names used during the short period must be mentioned, the attention must be focused on the current names.

QUOTE (Denes)
As for the note "without an international recognition", this is obviously not true, as the Rumanian-Hungarian territorial changes and new border between 1940 and 1944 were recognized by many states, including Rumania herself.


Let alone Romania, who you know very well that followed the goal of undoing this act because it was forced to accept it, how many of the United Nation countries officially recognized this act? It's like saying that Poland must be erased from history during 1939-1945, because the borders changed with the military operations.

P.S. One exception regarding the locality names is the Polish town of Oswiecim. It remained in history as an epitome of the Nazi doctrine (Auschwitz). I think there is no reason for a town in Transylvania to "gain" such a reputation.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 11, 2004 01:33 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Nov 11 2004, 05:55 AM)
A historian's job is to present the past events to the people of today. Therefor, for better understanding names and places, it is better to use actual places with the temporary names as hindsights. While the official names used during the short period must be mentioned, the attention must be focused on the current names.

I beg to disagree here.
There are countless cases when it's not recommended the usage of current names, but rather the names in effect during the war should be used by historians. One such clear case is Stalingrad, rather than the current Volgograd. Königsbers vs. Kaliningrad is another good example. Or the Eastern Prussian towns and villages, part of Germany during the war, currently in Poland (Danzig vs. Gdansk, Stettin vs. Szczezin, etc.).
Or, closer to home, would you advocate the usage (in non-Rumanian text, of course) of Chernovtsy, or Czernowitz, instead of Cernauti, or Kiliya instead of Chilia, both located in historical Bessarabia, when talking of the 1941-1944 period?

Hindsight is rarely an effective tool for the historians (except for 'what-if' scenarios).

QUOTE
P.S. One exception regarding the locality names is the Polish town of Oswiecim. It remained in history as an epitome of the Nazi doctrine (Auschwitz). I think there is no reason for a town in Transylvania to "gain" such a reputation.

"Nice" try... <_<

Lt. Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 11, 2004 01:49 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: November 11, 2004 08:43 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Denes)
There are countless cases when it's not recommended the usage of current names, but rather the names in effect during the war should be used by historians. One such clear case is Stalingrad, rather than the current Volgograd. Königsbers vs. Kaliningrad is another good example. Or the Eastern Prussian towns and villages, part of Germany during the war, currently in Poland (Danzig vs. Gdansk, Stettin vs. Szczezin, etc.).


While I agree to some of these particular cases, given the reputation these places have earned, I would not recommend it in the case of the localities in Transylvania. Using for example Nagyvarad instead of Oradea would not help much people that are not very accustomed with local history.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
BobM
Posted: November 13, 2004 09:10 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 148
Joined: November 25, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Oct 19 2004, 03:00 PM)
Here are a few historical details related to the beginning of the Battle of Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, as given by a detailed Hungarian newspaper article:
Magyar Nemzet Online
Red Army armoured units were stopped by the IIIrd Battalion of the Hungarian 25th Infantry Division (headquartered at Nagyvárad, in Rumanian Oradea, in German Grosswardein), at the road intersection at Vintul de Sus (in Hungarian Felvinc, in German Oberwintz) on Sept. 13.

Gents

Does anyone have a map showing where Vintul de Sus (in Hungarian Felvinc, in German Oberwintz) is?

Cheers

Bob
PMUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 13, 2004 03:56 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (BobM @ Nov 13 2004, 03:10 PM)
Does anyone have a map showing where Vintul de Sus (in Hungarian Felvinc, in German Oberwintz) is?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: November 15, 2004 10:23 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Nov 11 2004, 02:43 PM)
Using for example Nagyvarad instead of Oradea would not help much people that are not very accustomed with local history.

Well, that's exactly why I always use/suggest using all main forms for a certain locality, so people could not accustomed with local history could find it easier in any maps of the period.
Therefore, when talking of the 1940-1944 time period, it would be Nagyvárad (Oradea Mare, Großwardein). Or Brasov (Brassó, Kronstadt).

BTW, you conveniently skipped my previous question, which could help clarifying the issue:
QUOTE
Or, closer to home, would you advocate the usage (in non-Rumanian text, of course) of Chernovtsy, or Czernowitz, instead of Cernauti, or Kiliya instead of Chilia, both located in historical Bessarabia, when talking of the 1941-1944 period?


Col. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: November 16, 2004 10:41 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Denes)
Or, closer to home, would you advocate the usage (in non-Rumanian text, of course) of Chernovtsy, or Czernowitz, instead of Cernauti, or Kiliya instead of Chilia, both located in historical Bessarabia, when talking of the 1941-1944 period?


Yes, why not? For non-Romanian target audience it would be Chernivtsi (Cernauti in Romanian), Oradea (Nagyvarad in Hungarian, Grosswardein in German). However some localities in Bessarabia like Chisinau can be used as given, as they can be found under the same name nowadays.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (6) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0176 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]