Romanian Royal Aeronautics - correct or not?

Let's forget about it and go on!
Some people can have a bad day sometimes (and I'm one of them).

Hope I'm not your patient when you;re having a bad day

It's not so bad..
Just imagine yourself,me flying an aircarft made by YOU on a bad day!

Well, at least theoretically its not so hard to understand, since one little mistake made by one author could lead to a whole domino of mistakes in other works which use his work as reference. This kind of discussions can be pretty heated, but usually they are settled by writing new books to "obliterate" the author who got it wrong in the first place.

take care

As the Polish researcher, and historian with scholarly credentials I wouldn't like to discuss any subject in so aggressive manner. Neither in Poland nor in Romania.

The list could be expanded to include other relevant scholarly sources, both foreign and domestic, as the reference article on Rumania's aircraft industry during WW 2, written by Mark Axworthy and published in AE, No. 56, pp. 8-27 (who uses the term Fortelor Aeriene Regal ale Romania), as well as recently published Rumanian ones, as the important book about the I.A.R. 80 by Antoniu & Cicos, who refer to the Rumanian air force as FAR, i.e. Fortele Aeriene Romane (page 20). It has to be noted that in other parts of the book the authors use various other names.

F.A.R.R. was actually the acronym for Federatia Aeronautica Regala a Romaniei, or Royal Aeronautical Federation of Rumania (see the scan from 'Monitorul Oficial' I posted on page 1 of this thread - of course only for those who accept the Rumanian State's official gazette as a valid source).

Yes, correct. However, I must leave that one to those living in Rumania, in larger cities, who have unlimited access to the inter-war issues of Monitorul Oficial, as I can't afford to spend any of my valuable free time during my yearly visits to Rumania to search through mountains of M.O.'s. Instead, I plan to focus my available scarce time to further study original documents of the Rumanian air force, located in various archives, for future projects I am working, or plan to work on.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 10, 2005 12:30 am

It's not up to us to decide, I think. There are clear grammatical rules in efect for the Rumanian language that regulate such formal usage in official terms. Personally, I would discard any names that are not written with capital letters.

Yes, of course it's a theory. However, until proven wrong the theory should stand.

That's too bad, as it would have added another solid evidence to the topic. Perhaps in the future you can keep your eyes open for any pertinent information related to this debated topic what you may find in the M.O. or any other reliable source.

Needless to say, the request to post a copy of the said law as published in the M.O. is valid for anyone else who has the time and willingness to look it up, as personally I have no meaning to do that (it would take only a few minutes, as I gave the year and issue no. as reference).

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 10, 2005 12:40 am

Well, at least theoretically its not so hard to understand

Well, it appears, Mr. Imperialist, that you're one of the very few forumites who actually understands, albeit 'theoretically', Mr. Wawrzynski's outburst and aggressive verbiage. Based on your past approach to my person, I didn't expect anything else from you.

This having been said, I have a suggestion to you. Instead of pouring more gas on the fire and then enjoying it, why don't do something constructive for a change? Do some research in any of the main libraries in Bucharest - since you apparently live there - which hold the issues of the M.O., and try to contribute something meaningful to this debate.
Just a suggestion, of course.

Gen. Dénes

Very interesting and fresh look at the topic, Carol I. - although, I believe, any finding would not be a direct proof, but rather an indirect, circumstancial one.

I suggested earlier something similar, related to the official name of Rumania up to 1947. Interestingly, no-one picked up that challenge, despite being a very simle (or simply looking) question.
I repeat it again: what was the official name of the country, Regatul Român (the Rumanian Kingdom), or simlpy România (Rumania)?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 10, 2005 12:54 am

While looking for some info in my archive related to the P.Z.L. P.24 fighter, I found copies of two original documents where 'Corpul 1 Aerian Regal Român' is mentioned. It has to be noted that the shorter 'Corpul 1 Aerian Român' form can much often been found in these documents; however, the appearance of the royal appelation right above Gen. av. Ionescu's signature is noteworthy.

As a sidenote, the quoted document (the top scan) relates to the official request submitted by Gen. com. av. (Lt. Gen.) Ionescu for Cpt. av. A. Serbanescu to receive the IInd Class of the prestigious 'Michael the Brave' Order. Unfortunately, due to the untimely death of Cpt. av. Serbanescu on Aug. 18, 1944, the request was never granted.

Gen. Dénes





This post has been edited by Dénes on November 10, 2005 03:06 am

Very interesting and fresh look at the topic, Carol I. - although, I believe, any finding would not be a direct proof, but rather an indirect, circumstancial one.

I agree Dénes that this is only indirect evidence, but on the other hand isn't it some sort of a precedent for official changes that occurred through use rather than by law?

Yes, I can understand him being upset. That doesnt mean I condone the way he practically expressed it or having something personal against you.

This last discution on this forum has quite clear showed me, that here is thinking, which is based not according hard fact, data but only on samebody’s vision and opinion, thinking and worldwide debate.

When one looks at Denes Bernad’s book “Rumanian Air Force. The Prime Decade 1938-1947, p. 3, he/she can easly see that the author only write according his assumption that the name FARR is wrong and still according his visiions and opinion the ARR is better one and just then would be better to use this last name.

Still Mr DB does not give (support) any official document (he of course mentioned the name of document - "Monitorul Oficial", and some military document like, Corpul 1 Aerian Regal Român' or simple shorter version Corpul 1 Aerian Român (I have aslo seen in the Rumanian documents this name too)'. He still again has not gave any evident and appriopriate number and the date of editions the M.O. with name “ARR”!

There are also not such precise data in his book from 1999 or later works (Rumanian Aces ...).

Is for all of you this is professional way of proofing the true, it is up to you. You may aslo belive that the Earth is total flat because all see it very clear and sharp. I can call it as a wishfull thinking or making the true by the debate and polling.


In my opinion this is not right way of presenting the right ARR name (franky it is incompetent and ignorance way of presetning true). This does not fit to any universal, science standard (does not fit to any professional way of making searches too).

I am sorry but I have sustain - counts only hard fact, data not any somebody’s visions, opinions, wishes, debates, ect. For me even, when most of you will decide by voting and agreament to say –Yes the Earth is total flat, I am against your opinion, for me you may total rights to belive in it, but I can not treate you seriously.

There have been put by you the following names:
ROMAIAN AERONAUTIC by George taken from 1913 and
two next taken exactly from the same "Monitorul Oficial"
Aeronautica Regală". 17 February 1940
Aeronautica Regala Romana' 4 June 1941 (via DB)

Is above mean that official name for Rumanian Air Force (as Denes Bernard had began to use in his English book edited in 1999).

I wonder if for all of you only the title or sentence in the document means automaticly the correct name for the whole air force?
According this logic this mean that we have just at least 3 valid names: RA, AR and ARR. All have the same weight and value.

Second the next names put by Mr DB written in the staff documents should also be treated as the oficial name for the whole air force?
If this logic is working we have the fourth official name “'Corpul 1 Aerian Regal Român' or even the fith one “Corpul 1 Aerian Român” (I have seen such name in the document too)


1. In the last days Mr DB could not definetly proves, which M.O. had reversed the name from 1913 into the new name.
2. He could not support his opinions about name’s versions of ARR. And, which name is correct this one from 1940 or maybe the second one 1941? BTW, which name is better and right the shorter or the longer version? In my opinion the name form 1940 is nicer and shorter, why should I do not use this one, J, this is also fine name, J

Summary
Mr Denes have been made his own, private way of proofs, which are based not according any solid and checkable standards (professional, science approach taken from the documents). He created own vision of ARR name, when he is only thinking that one name could be better the others (according his own private assumptions and deductions made form Canada).
Futher. In my opinion he had read some titles from documents and based on this runimentary knowledge made his own private verdict – yes, it should be OK if the ARR would be ARR. Then he has began to promote it all over the world since 1999.

For example I have used it (ARR name) also in my books too. But I see that this is not good, right name (so I have made an error). I also using the logic of Mr DB could write AR, or RA or ARR or FARR (depends of the space in the text)


PS

Sorry this is ill logic, this makes no sence, because the titles of documents are for you the right name for the whole air force. Radiculus thinking!?!

Regards,
Mirek Wawrzyński

PS
I. We probably do not understand ourselfs in our “quarell/dispute”, if I am attack I always do it against ones opinion, thinking not directed towards specific person. Some of you think that one opinion and the same persons all are the same (union). Sorry not for me. Opinions and peoples are different not the same.

So when I think that this is idiots point of view it does not means for me that the specific person is idiot. This is wrong union for me.
Quite often we can meet such narrow minded undrestanding among peoples with big complex about their own personal values (one has low opinion about his/her value). Normal people can undrestand that they can make human faults and errors, these with “HIGH, BIG EGO” doest not and never admit to make any faults and errors (they never makes any faults only others do them).

II. In Rumania was edited in 2003 a book written by dr ing Cristian Craciunoiu, Jean Louis Roba (with long list of name of supporters - 17 names) the title of this book in English - Romanian Aeronautics in the WW 2, the Romanian version Aeronautica Romana ... I do not see in this tittle edited not so long time ago (after 1999 and discovery made by Mr DB) any prefix, sufix with Regala, Royal in the title. Even more the whole book presnets only FARR name any not ARR, as wants to promote according his opinions and visions Mr DB.
Is this mean that one man from Canada knows better then 18 Rumanian (Roba as 19th is not Romanian) aviation historians?
Maybe they are not so smart, analitic and big resarchers as is Mr DB, who can even from the greater distance and aslo from abroad (other continet) see all these things so sharp, clear, evident, how we should call Rumanian Air Force or ARR or Rumanian Royal Air Froce then Aeronautica Romana or FARR? Strange contradictions, is it not?

III. The name of ARR is very nice and privatly I like it very much – frankly nice title - but according Mr DB weak proofs it is not possible to use it futher. He can creat it based on own privaye assupmtions and opinions and can not presents hard evidence=fact (in any officail state document) for it. If one will support Mr DB vision of Romana Aeronautic name he/she also should begin to use the other well know and discuted 4 names, they have the same wight and value even so strnage as 'Corpul 1 Aerian Regal Român'.

Here is something:

http://www.presamil.ro/OM/2004/13/pag%2018.htm

Mirek, you talk about proofs... but you don't even bother to read what Denes wrote ? He gave SOLID proof to consolidate his opinion, it is true that so did George & Antoniu.. This is a hard matter, and mr. Craciunoiu is not necesarry right, neith is mr. Denes or George or Antoniu.. Denes begun his study about romanian aviation (as far as i know) before Craciunoiu did, also Denes comes to Romania to check the archives and talk to veteran pilots, those 18 aviation historians you say about, are you sure all of them went to archives to see if the name of Ar or ARR or FARR is correct or that they all are aviation historians ? Do you know how they work and what they did regarding this matter ? I really doubt it :] ask them and you shall see..

Are you in contact with mr. Craciunoiu ?

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on November 10, 2005 11:07 am