Romanian Royal Aeronautics - correct or not?

Did you also asked Dicezare about this?

I did call him,but he was tired and I was disturbing him...
He has a busy progran those days...

O.K. Back to more serious debate.

Victor, I think the clue to which appears to be a contradiction between what you and I posted is the capital letters.
The excerpts you posted mention the names in low case letters, while mine with capital letters. AFAIK, the name of an institution must be written in capital letters, while when you're referring to a topic in general terms low case letters should be used. For example, if I write: 'aviatia civila romana' (Rumanian civil aviation), in general terms, it's perfectly acceptable; however, if I write 'Aviatia Civila Romana' (Rumanian Civil Aviation), referring to a non-existing institution, it's not acceptable any more.

Although there were indeed instances when a person's name was misspelled, it was usually corrected in one of the following issues (check it out). Misrepresenting repeatedly and consistenly the name of an important institution is not the case, however.

C'mon, it's the fault of a single guy, whoever he might be, who just added repeatedly the inexisting royal appelation (and who was an employee from W.W. 1 to 1947)? No, there should be another, much simpler explanation to why the royal appelation pops up so frequently (and not only in the name of the Aeronautics, but also of the Navy, etc.).

Finally, can I ask you next time you visit the library to make a copy of the 4 June 1941 issue of M.O., where the 'Semnele distinctive al personalului navigant din Aeronautica Regala Romana' law was published? It would certainly be yet another solid proof of the official existence of Aeronautica Regala Romana.

Thanks,

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 09, 2005 09:56 pm

Gentlemen,

The contents of this post may seem off-topic, but I do think them quite opportune.
Some time has elapsed since I my last posted in this forum - I've been very busy lately due to professional obligations. Nevertheless, I always try to visit the forum from time to time.
I value it as a place where one can learn about military history. Some issues tend to be hotly debated, but this is mostly done through a well-reasoned exchange of ideas, with the occasional laugh that helps making this such a unique forum.

Today, while visiting this thread (incidentally, a similar discussion has kept some Spanish historians busy), I was genuinely disgusted by what I read in Miroslaw Wawrzynski's personal attack against Dénes (or should I say “Tovaritch Dénes”…), in what can only be described as an outburst of rage. The verbal abuse reached a hitherto unseen level, ranging from the political variety down to the most incredible accusations of incompetence and intellectual dishonesty.
I have disagreed with Dénes over some trivial matters – namely on a certain linguistic issue – and I am not at all engaged in defending his point of view, something which I am sure he can do on his own; however, I felt I should express both my sympathy towards his response, not just as a fellow forum member but also as a researcher and enthusiast, and the hope that Mr. Wawrzynski may re-think his position.

Ruy Aballe

P.S. On-topic note: the subject is well worth discussing, as is any aspect that may help us clarify the history of Romanian aviation.
I second Sid's question about the approximate date when the abbreviations came into usage.

L. A. R. E. S.
Liniile Aeriene Romane Exploatate de State.
...............................

Poly Vacas, an aviation pioneer who took part as pilot in the war with Bulgaria in 1913, and who previously performed a non stop flight of 400 km in 1911 (Bucharest-Roman) when he was only 18 years old, was working for L.A.R.E.S. in 1939. Using mathematics, it result to me that in 1939 he was 46 years old.


Photography from: Realitatea Ilustrata (The Illustrated Reality), year XIII, no. 646, 6th of June, 1939

This post has been edited by Florin on November 09, 2005 04:39 am

Hi Guys,

Firstly, I would just like to support Ruy Aballe's post defending Denes.

Denes is clearly a serious researcher who has brought hard, sourced facts to this discussion which, if not abolutely conclusive, make a sound circumstantial case for ARR.

Secondly, looking through my books, I see that Denes has single handedly managed to correct non-Romanian publications from using FARR.

A British publication, Air Enthusiast June 1971:

"With the creation of a Ministry of Aviation and Marine (Ministerul aerului si Mainei) in 1936, the Rumanian air arm, now known as the Fortelor Aeriene Regale ale Romania, or FARR) gained a greater degree of autonomy."

A French publication, Fana d'Aviation in the mid 1980s:

"En 1936, le ministre de l'Aviation et de la Marine roumain forme une force aerienne devenant la Fortelor Aeriene Regal ale Romana, soit les Forces Aeriennes Royales de Roumanie (FARR)."

"Third Axis, Fourth Ally" published in the mid-1990s also uses FARR.

Since then, Denes has managed to correct usage so that ARR seems to be now the favoured abbreviation. What is more, he has documentary proof that it was in official usage, whereas nothing seems to back up the usage of FARR.

As far as I can see, the only question remaining is not one about Denes's quality or integrity as a researcher or whether ARR is a legitimate contender. It is simply establishing when or if AR officially became ARR.

Cheers,

Sid.

There are 2 kinds of way:
1. That some resarcher would like to get as much as possible to the true (no matter good or bad). One does not fear any “HOLY COWS’ ” fundamental opinions and statments. So the resarcher should be honest and fair in his opinion. This is scientist approach to be honest.
2. Some of resarcher would like to creat own vison of “the true”, which fit to there “narrow minds”. They will never admit to make any faults and errors. Honest counts only then when fit to his/her opinion. In situation when one would find that such person makes fundamental error and faults such “minds” attacking with furie and anger that somebody has discovered their incompetence and ingorance.

This is the point and ways/line of our discution and talkings in this or others forums.

Some of you would like to create only nice society, which is interesting only in own visions of the true. No matter to hard fact-documents and the historical true and honest. Some are even not interesting in publishing materials, which are not according “political correct” of such called “holy cows”.

This is normal in the society and world (in Poland too) and this is up to you what do you like to do with the true and honest.

Frankly, I am prefer only the point no 1. and I am very aginst the second opinion, no matter how very big and very saint is the “holy cow”. No matter. Only true and honest.

Making some materials about Rummanian avaition (like Hurricane in Foreign Service from 2001) I had used the name of ARR. It was done according Denes Bernard book “Rumanian Air Force. The Prime Decade, 1938-1947”.

BTW. Thanks for you nice commnets Denes, you have been sincery marked: “page 43 (my Ju 87 in FS), he uses the following title: ‘Aeronautica Regala Romana’ (translated as ‘Romanian Air Force, instead of the correct ‘The Royal Romanian Air Force’). Sorry Mr Denes but on the front cover of your book “Rum. Air. Forc. The Prime....” I do not see either - mayby I am so blind and somebody else can help me to find the English world - “Royal”, but I still do not see it! We are talkings about these big yellows letters (no Royal)!

Denes, frankly - I only had followed you by using the ARR and R.A.F. names. You are the perosn who using also such a name, ist it not?

Next. In the the book “Rumanian Air Force” written by Denes Bernard (I am underline again, there are not any “Royal” on the front cover) in the foreword he had explained the FARR (why it was not right) and next had began/promote the new one - ARR.

So far, it was clear and obvious for me that better could be used ARR name and Engslih translation also could be good too - Rumanian Air Force, because Denes Bernard promoting such both titles (Rumanian, English wersion in his worldwide book in English, printed in Squadron in 1999).

So, I have also began to promote such name in my Polish materials about Rumanian Air Force (see: also my last work Ju 87 in Foreign Service, MMP 2005), as Denes Bernard has marked. Denes this is your names!

The next book of Mr Denes Bernard about “Rumanian Aces of WW 2” Osprey, there is the same ARR names - in the whole book. I am wonder if DB is so tightly connect with the word “Royal” apprioprite title should be “Royal Rumanian Aces of WW 2/ Rumanian Royal Aces of WW2”. One should be consistent, does not he?)

There is also printed in Polish magazine “Skrzydlata Polska” 3 part article where Polish readers also can meet the same ARR.

All was OK with the name ARR/RAF till the last post made by George (who as some of you know also had done a few works about Rumanian Air Force). In my opinion Georg is a better aviation historian then Denes (George could not be the first one in RA topics but of course is better making deeper searches then Denes).
I could be wrong in my opinion and for most of you only Denes Bernard is the first and only first in resarching Rumanian Air Force/ROMAIAN AERONAUTIC history.

I am deeply sorry but according the last explanation written by George:
“ROMAIAN AERONAUTIC was born after the Royal Decree No.3199/30.04.1913 witch apeared in the "Monitorul Oficial" No.5/03.05.1913.This name was not changed till 1948, there is no other decree to modify this name. In 1947 when the King was on strike, the AR was the only part of R.Army witch was on his side and took de name Royal Romanian Aeronautic,but not oficialy. Until somebody produce an decree with RRA...”.

Now is for me sharply clear and obvious that Mr Denes Bernard have been promoting (since 1999) wrong and false name of Rumanian aviation.

It is pity and my fault and error that I have done the same accordings written in English materials made by DB, which are not correct.

The explanation is stight - counts this name, which is approved by superior power.
Second many Rumanian avaitors/soldiers fought in WW II for the country, for the king and for them there is no matter our schoolar talkings (with Royal or not). Most of them would say then and now we were in Royal service and in line of duty we fought for the King and Country and seved in Royal service.

But no matter what do they saying and their private opinion the only right name still is ROMAIAN AERONAUTIC, approved by the King’s decree.
This is for me obvious.


If there are no any official law, which says that should be used new one since (193... or 194..) ARR name all this talkings are only making empty foam.

I am a litle bit fourius discovering that there is such wide and popular acceptance for promoting false not historical true opinion among many readers of this forum.

Second it is also not good that some of the pepole using this forum are so easly influenced by “holy cow’s opinion which is not suppotred by hards fact taken from documents.

We may privatly talking about how would be nice and very very nice if we could use such a beautifull name like Aeronautica Regala Romana’- The Royal Romanian Air Force’. And this is all. We can not use it if we can not find and hard document/regulation of it by the King or by the marschal Antonescu ect.

Only the superior power like The King, government ect, has the power to creat any official name. No one more.
It looks like some of you would like to vote, this or second name which is the better one. You are wrong this is not sociology opinion but hsitorical true.

“Communism supporter”
I think that there is quite similar set of principles, which are connected with people of communism mind and menthality (no matter if one lives in Canada or in Poland or in Rumania ect.) - Homo Sovieticus. This is such things:
1) The lack of self-critic and total ignorace of clear evidence in documents.
2) Promoting only one vison and only his/her true vison of the past. The others opinions do not counts, only his/her opinion – dictatorships.
3) The lack of frankly, and openly admiting that one can make faults - Mea Culpa.
4) Escaping from the bitter true and hard evidence and instead of accepting this implementing futher meangiless fact and attacking oponets using emotional and personal word.

In the behaviour Mr Denes Bernard I fully recognise this 4 points, which means that we have person interesting in promoting incomepentence, who does not admiting of making the fundamental errors, who aslo could not prove hsi point and instead of it attacking oponents by emotional language.

PS
1. Denes you know that some times ago I and some others we had not nice discution with next “HOLY COW” Mr Ch. Bergstrom. You are quite similar to him for me.
2. Mr. Denes Bernard please to show me the no of the state, King’s document/regulation, which officialy had changed the first name ROMAIAN AERONAUTIC into Aeronautica Regala Romana. From the post made by George is clear such information, from your steatmens are not (you make only roumor not hard fact). You can not prove your opinion by presenting second or third hands materials which are not any legal and state orders and regulations


To Ruy Aballe
In my opinion you would like to see the power of “political correctness” or the power of “holy cows” on this or other forums, when the general all opinion (even wrong) is more important then the hard fact and the true. This is your point of view (you may be strong supportes of it) but not mine and I have rights to do not agree with you and share any your opinion.

Bitter true and stright talkings about the past and human errors (as mine too) are faster way to getting true then let to get to teh power such “holy cows”.

Yes, this is the main point, IMO.
It happened with the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain too. Founded in 1866, it later received the "Royal" name, eventually ending up as Royal Aeronautical Society of Great Britain. Sid can give us more details about this change, presumably.
So the point is, if George is right and the initial name was Romanian Aeronautics, when did it receive the Royal?

take care

mirekw,
I started this topic, because the opinion of Mr. Dan Antoniu, whose books and articles most of us read, carries some weight and diserved to be discussed IMO. I wanted a civilized discussion, not one that would degenarate in personal attacks.

Like you, I too don't share the same oppinion with Denes, but I find the tone of your posts to be more aggressive than neccessary. If you have a problem with him personally, it is not our bussiness. We cannot have a productive discussion under these circumstances, so I must ask you to control your temper and discuss the issue, not the man.

Denes,
I don't think capital letters are that important, but I did provide an example of the use of Aeronautica Regala and I can provide at least another one, as I can provide several examples of Aeronautica Regala or aeronautica regala. The problem, for me, is the lack of rigurosity shown by the MO editors in this respect. You say that they abbreviations. It is possible, but it is only a theory IMO. Why aren't there always the same abbreviations then?

Unfortunately I don't have the time now to search for the decree you mentioned.

Mr. Wawrzynski,

Just a few lines, to address the penultimate paragraph of your last post. I am not at all interested in seeing "the power of «political correctness" in action, nor, for that matter, any "holy cows"'s prowess...
You should be more careful with your choice of words, though. I am much more interested in hard facts that you might imagine and I've followed this path in both my research and professional activities. Frankly, I do not see the point when someone resorts to gratuitous aggresivity to support his/her views.
You may fail to grasp this, but good manners and well-reasoned arguments do not necessarily equate with conformism and political correctness. The reverse, on the other hand, was very much true in what pertains the political system you mentioned before.
Vaya con Dios,

Ruy

I do not want to fuel this debate any further, but I have found a reference to decree no. 427 published in Monitorul Oficial no. 40 of 17 February 1940 entitled: "Organizarea corpului maiştrilor şi submaiştrilor militari din Aeronautica Regală". It will presumably be possible to see who initiated or sanctioned the decree (and indirectly the name of Aeronautica) if one would check the original issue of Monitorul Oficial. Thus it would be possible to see whether it was the king, the president of the council of ministers, another minister or a government official?

Sid, while it is generally true that the official attributes of the Romanian state (symbols, name or designations of institutions etc.) were regulated through laws, it would not have been the first time such an attribute was changed through use rather than by law. As proof I will bring to your attention the arms of the Romanian state used between 1872 and 1921. Several different designs were in official use during the mentioned period, while there was only one law describing the arms of the country (Decree no. 498 of 8 March 1872 published in Monitorul Oficial no. 57 of 11 March 1872: "Modificarea armelor ţării"). The different designs appear on the coins and the official documents of the period, as illustrated by the images below:

The 'original' 1872 design on a 2 lei coin from 1873

Source: Romanian Coins

Post-1877 design on a 2 lei coin from 1881 (before the proclamation of the kingdom). The most notable change is the addition of the Order of the Star of Romania beneath the motto. Other, more subtle changes were in the shape of the ribbon with the motto and the surmounting crowns, the addition of an ornate platform for the tenant lions and the change of the position of the tail for the two tenant lions.

Source: Romanian Coins

Post-1881 design on a 5 lei coin from 1883 (after the proclamation of the kingdom). The Order of the Star of Romania is still present beneath the motto as the premier order of the country (up to 1906). There were however some changes in comparison to the '1877' design, namely the shape of the ribbon with the motto, the shape of the surmounting crowns, the shape of the ornate platform for the tenant lions and the position of the tails of the two tenant lions.

Source: Romanian Coins

I have also seen a reference to the use in the first reigning years of King Ferdinand of a coat of arms with an eagle holding a shield on its chest (somewhat similar to the coat of arms adopted in 1921).

So, here are at least 3 different designs (or maybe 4) for the coat of arms of Romania that were in official use during the 50 years in which only one law existed to describe the arms of the country. It is not definitive evidence, but at the same time it does not exclude the possibility that changes in official designations could have occurred through other ways than by law.

I was looking at this interesting topic for a while. Now, I am scratching my head trying to figure out what happened to the nice logical pattern of the argument?
I would tend to believe the written documents, and in my opinion Denes is winning hads down. He can quote official evidence including page numbers and titles. He even showed some scans that support his agument. So far, the evidence provided by the "opposition" seems weak - it seems to be mostly anecdotal. Now, it looks like their side was pushed into disrepute by someone that moved on to the the weapon of the uninspired: "insults".

Mr. Wawrzynski, with all due respect, it seems to me that you do not have much of an argument. Please provide us with some solid proof. Do you have any documents that support your choice of "Aeronautica Romana" (without "Royal")? Saying "yeah, what George said" is not really evidence - that just makes you a sycophant. You talk about documents that clearly prove your point. Describe them to us please, if possible quote a page number and a title - I would like to look them up. If available, show us a scan please. If you can provide evidence that is more convincing that Denes', I promise to accept it.

Secondly, I had a hearty laugh at your 4 identification traits of "Homo Sovieticus". I know a guy like that, but he never lived anywhere near a Soviet country - he is just a jerk. In addition, it is funny how you did every single one of those 4 things yourself.

Just my 2 cents
Radu

I just taked with Dicesare.
He said Aeronautica Regala Romana-was the oficial name.
But when people talked they could say Aeronautica Romana.
And there were also a few other names in use.

Mirek, it is not yet known which was the correct form, so at this moment both Denes or Goerge/Antoniu may be right. It is a compoicated problem - both sides have strong arguments for their case, and only due to such men as Denes, George, Antoniu, Victor, etc. we will eventually find out the true.
I am really disapointed by your reaction at first I wanted to belive someone else posted with your name - such agressive behaviour is hard to understand especially when this man tried to be helpful and only had good intentions - even if he may be wrong with his logical deduction, which again I say: it is not yet proven, still a matter of debate.