Romanian Royal Aeronautics - correct or not?

What was the official designation of the civilian branch of Aeronautics?

take care

Knowing how things work in ROmania I wouldn't be surprized if even those who were in charge those days would not know the exact offical term of our Air Force - just see Victor's extracts from same Monitorul Oficial as Denes's (it is mainly a joke.. but who knows )

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on November 07, 2005 07:31 pm

I am not aware of any specific title, just the general term 'aviatia civila' - which, by the way, was not a branch of Aeronautica... (you fill in the rest), which was a military organization.
But I have to check more closely into this.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 08, 2005 12:40 am

I had in my hands, about 15 years ago, one piece from 1943 of "Aripi Romanesti" (Romanian Wings). If I remember right, on the cover it was printed something like: "...a magazine of the Romanian Royal Aviation" (obviously, that was in Romanian language).

Does anybody has available some "Aripi Romanesti" magazines, to take a look regarding this matter which is at the center of this topic?

This post has been edited by Florin on November 08, 2005 12:57 am

But we have seen Aeronautica Militara. So, if you consider that it is an abbreviated form, then Militara should be included in the official title, right?

I have arrived at the conclusion that the Monitorul Oficial wasn't very exact when publishing. There were many mistakes done, especially in spelling the names. It lacked rigurosity. For all we know, and editor at the MO could have added "Regala" because he thought it just sounded better. IMO until an official decree naming th Romanian military aviation surfaces, the debate can remain open.

Sadly that enforces my opinion I tend to agree with this, if the name was official and wellknow (like RAF/RAAF/USAAF/etc.) we would find it as it should in official documents, also the pilots would sure know the name. I think no-one doubt what was the official name of RAF - why was that ? Compare that situation with ours. It only shows 100% "romanism".

Very funy but empty dictution. Counts only hards proofs, evidence, acts nothing more! Like somebodys private thinking, emotional opinion.


Seeing this discution from the big distance , :-) and as a forigner.

I am a little astonish, that some people could not admit to make own simple error and quite big one - historical ignorance and incompetnece.

Instead they (as Gen Denes) presents next low valuable evidence of own historical incompetence like "Deutsch-Königlich Rumänisch Jagdverband"

German can called all as they wanted and wished (like "Fighting Mickey Mouse Air Force" too), this is not important and do not counts. Presenting such a 'evidence" means only big historical ingorance!


Such a thing as a name of formation (air, land, see) are regulated via king or goverment, or parlament or presidents or dictator, ect acts of power (like the decreet, act, bill).

If the King made it and there were not other legislation act, which had changed it or had make the new name, the whole arguments is only making an empty foam based on lack of fundamental knowledge of history and political (state) acts and administration paper and regulations.

Only the superior power set up the rules, having the power of doing so. No one more even historian who had written several books about this topics.

No, even "veeeeeeeeeeeeery smart" historian, who wants to creat own visions of history maight not change it.
Such a person can only make false asumption like have been made by Gen Denes in his statmens and books.

He have began to promote the name of Rumanian Aviation, which is not correct (rather popular, general name but still this is not any state official, which has not any legislation fundaments) ARR - and this is all.
Second he has made in his searches a big mistake!.
Third - He does not let to admit to make it and withdraw.

So anyone who thinking that might know better as shoule be called the true name of Rumanian Avaition make mistake too.
He do this according his private thinking, deductions based on reading "newspapers", some official military papers or talkings with veterans. But again still this is not real name, like ARR.
Still it has nothing with the true and real history.

This only shows that one can not openly and frankly say - "Mea Culpa, I am sorry this was my big fault and error preseting my own historical ignorance".

No one on this forum or in other places can create his private visions of history!

Yes, it was time that there were such persons in communist regime, who always said that they monopo and rights to make history. So some of you would like to restore such a condition and to creat only his, her vision of history like Gen Denes.

All the best

Mirek W
Some of you like Gen Denes make fundamental error, beacuse:

the seraching the history means only getting as much as possible to the true (good or bed) not as such person would like see it in creation of own vison "the true" like in communism time which Gen Denes looks to be strong admirator and supporters.

I tend to agree with Victor. If one looks Aeronautics in the dictionary, one can see it has no military meaning whatsoever. I find it odd that the military would adopt the neutral ARR designation, and to me ARR looks more like the general name of both civilian and military branches of Romanian Aeronautics. I dont know if this is so, I hope Denes will look into it.

p.s. in the book "Istoria Militara a Poprului Roman", it is said that in 1913 the romanian military aeronautics was born. (thought it isnt in capitals, and so not a name, obviously the military distinction has to be applied, since Aeronautics can have both civilian and military "application")

take care

I don't know if it's relevant for our issue but in WWII all rom. civilian planes were given military markings ( Michel cross, yellow band. some green cammo ).

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on November 08, 2005 12:50 pm

Mirek, we are all free to present our opinions here, but try to avoid the personal remarks. Thank you!

L. A. R. E. S.
Liniile Aeriene Romane Exploatate de State.
I am not sure whether that was part of the "Aeronautics".
HTH,
Radu

In 1937-1939 it was DCA(Dir.Av.Civ) covering SARTA and later LARES and all the civil flying schools(mostly preparing cadets for military flying schools,the flying instructors where miltary)

Hi Guys,

Purely as a matter of interest, when did any of the possible abbreviations (AR, ARR, FARR, or whatever) first come into usage? Are such abbreviations a recent introduction or were they used historically?

Cheers,

Sid.

I was very surprised by this sudden, unprovoked personal attack, coming out of the blue, which doesn’t fit the style and language generally used on this forum.

I really don’t kwon what triggered Pan Wawrzynski’s outburst, but it’s beside the point. The point is that, for whatever reason, he resorts to slender instead of bringing proofs that might support point of view. This direct strike against me is even more surprising in view that I did help him in the past with information that he later on used in his writings. This fact speaks for itself and characterizes the author.

I won’t waste too much time in answering everything that he has been piling up, as I don’t have either the time, or the willingness to engage in a full-fledging flame war. Therefore I will pick a few relevant comments only.

I clearly noted that it’s an “indirect proof”. Why would the Germans (Rumania’s principal ally in the war against the Soviets) call it ‘royal’ if it wasn’t so?

Thanks, but I already knew that. That’s why I referred, among others, to the royal decree describing the various specific identification symbols to be worn by the air force personnel (see first page of this thread).

Overlooking Pan Wawrzynski’s primitive language and clear provocation attempt, may I ask for proofs of “false assumption”, or “historical ignorance and incompetence” (as stated earlier) in any of my books?

Again, proofs, please.

This is about Pan Wawrzynski’s only sentence that I support. You’re correct, Sir.

I have been called Nazi and pro-Nazi before by some morons, for my work in writing about and popularizing the history of small axis airmen – Rumania included – less known to the English language reader, but this is the first time I am called a Communist. Besides its sheer stupidity, this is due to a severe logical flop, as the Communists were exactly the ones who tried to erase any reference to the Royal era, throwing pro-royal airmen (and other soldiers, as well as politicians) in jail and attampted to erase the evidences from post-war history books.
No further comments are needed.

Finally, because I didn’t read anything what Pan Wawrzynski has written, I have asked someone to check out his writings where he refers to the Rumanian air force. Surprise, surprise. I was told that in his book on the Ju 87s in Foreign Service (Mushroom Red Series), page 43, he uses the following title: ‘Aeronautica Regala Romana’ (translated as ‘Romanian Air Force, instead of the correct ‘The Royal Romanian Air Force’). Since it was I who introduced this term in my writings in English, accessible also to him, apparently Pan Wawrzynski copied the title from me. Ironical, isn’t it?

Have a nice day.

(Retired ex-KGB) Gen. Dénes

P.S. In the mentioned book on the Ju 87, authored by M. Wawrzynski, on the only page that was sent to me (p. 43), he wrote that Rumania received captured equipment, as Dornier Do 17Ks from Yugoslavia. It’s a major error, as the author apparently confuses Rumania with Croatia. There are other errors in the page, too. And this was on the only page I’ve seen from any of his works!

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 09, 2005 12:26 am

I made a phone call to a veteran pilot (his name is not important).
He said: "Aeronautica Regala Romana".
I have a copy of a book of former Gen Denes.Still no time to read it.
But hearing that it has comunist stuff in it,makes me curios....