Who is this soviet comander ?
Who answered pls put a small info about this and about Alex Vraciu.
http://img805.imageshack.us/i/sovietcom.jpg/
Uploaded with http://imageshack.us
PS:It is submarine comander.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Guess Who |
| Posted by: Fanex February 11, 2011 09:36 am |
| I propose a game for you gentlemens. Who is this redutable american ace ? He is born in 1918 and still living today. http://img199.imageshack.us/i/65710957.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Radub February 11, 2011 09:41 am |
| Alexander Vraciu Next! Radu |
| Posted by: Fanex February 11, 2011 10:00 am |
| Next one is more easy. Who is this soviet comander ? Who answered pls put a small info about this and about Alex Vraciu. http://img805.imageshack.us/i/sovietcom.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us PS:It is submarine comander. |
| Posted by: Alexei2102 February 11, 2011 10:44 am |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vraciu |
| Posted by: Victor February 11, 2011 06:12 pm |
| Sources for images please, as required by forum rules. Otherwise they will be deleted. Also, this thread is in the wrong subsection. It has nothing to do with ARR. Thank you. |
| Posted by: Mircea87 February 11, 2011 09:46 pm |
| Both pics are from wikipedia. The soviet commander is Alexander Ivanovich Marinesko. |
| Posted by: Radub February 12, 2011 11:51 am |
| I guess this thread is about people with Romanian-sounding names that fought for other nations. In as far as I recall, Vraciu was asked in an interview whether "he considered himself Romanian" and he replied that he would have loved to think so, but sadly there was little other than his parenting to link him to Romania and, regrettably, he felt completely estranged from anything to do with Romania. Vraciu was born in Chicago on 2 November 1918. His parents were ethnic Romanians that had emigrated from Transylvania. At the time when he was born, Transylvania was not in Romania. According to Vraciu, his father had an Austrian passport. Parts of an interview with Vraciu were published in Aeromagazin No. 6, October 2002. Furthermore, not to be pedantic, but the word "Vraciu" is not Romanian. It is a Slavic vord for "Doctor" or "Healer". I know a guy who thinks he is a Greek because he has a Greek-sounding name. Two of my best mates have Polish names (one of them related to General Maciulski) but are not linked in any way with Poland. Names mean little. This reminids me of a joke in Catavencu a few years ago while describing some politician who was part of some Armenian political group in Romania by virtue of his name while he was "just as Armenian as Nod Gordian, Chist Ovarian or Bulb Rahidian".  Radu Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf February 12, 2011 12:21 pm | ||
This was a good joke!  I think one is what he feels he is. Genetically, there is no pure ethnicity and the notion of ethnicity is just a social one. Of course it would be harder for a man from a european nation to declare himself let's say, mmm, of japanese or congolese ethnicity. |
| Posted by: Dénes February 12, 2011 12:49 pm | ||
This is one of the most important statements of this thread. Basic rule: everyone is what he/she declares him/herself to be, regardless how his/her family name sounds like. N.B. a better indication is the person's Christian/given name. It's hard to say a guy called Attila is a Rumanian, or Dacian a Hungarian - although I've seen cases like this. For example, an acquintance of mine from Sf. Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy, Transylvania, called Antonescu Traian (one can hardly think of a more genuine Rumanian name) was not only considering himself a true székely, but actually felt offended if called a Rumanian. He was an avid photographer and always signed his works with his self-assumed name of Szentgyörgyi Ignác (the name everyone was calling him, except the policeman). Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 12, 2011 01:12 pm |
| What about this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pomutz |
| Posted by: 21 inf February 12, 2011 01:58 pm | ||
He is what he considered being, not what we are saying today he was. If he considered himself romanian, then he was a romanian, if not, he is not be regarded as romanian. |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 12:07 am | ||
He was born in 1818. No one was "Romanian" in 1818. There were "Moldovans", "Wallachians" or "Transylvanians". Most likely, he might have called himself an "Olah" or "Moldovan" rather than a "Romanian". In 1818, the word "Rumelia" (also spelled on some maps of the time as "Romania") was another by-word for "Thrace" and covered the entire European side of the Ottoman empire. "Romania" as a word to describe the current nation of that name began to be circulated after the union of the two principalities under Cuza in 1859, but it became official when Carol I acceded to the throne. Officially, "Romania" was recognised by the rest of the world after the 9th Russian-Turkish War in 1877, known in Romania as the "War of Independence" Radu |
| Posted by: Imperialist February 13, 2011 12:59 am | ||||
The word "Romania" was circulating since at least 1848. Here's the title of an article published in Revue Des Deux Mondes in 1856:
http://cgi.ebay.fr/Revue-mondes-26e-annee-1856-Relie-cuir-/360340441843 |
| Posted by: 21 inf February 13, 2011 05:49 am | ||||
Really? Than why during Horea's uprising in 1784, the hungarian nobles converted to ortodoxism by force by Horea's rioted peasants, received "laisser-passer" which stated "acesta-i bun român" ("this individual is a good romanian")? Why romanian peasants didnt writte on those paper "this is a good transylvanian", if they considerer themselves transylvanians rather than romanians? My personal opinion is that the consciousness of romanians of being romanians cant be established when it started, but it started earlier than some wants to believe it was. Coressi dean, when he printed the first book in romanian language, in XVIth century, stated that he printed it because it was lacking a book "în limba noastră rumunească" ("in our rumanian language"), and not "în limba noastră ardelenească". What can be argued is the moment when romanians started to dream of a unique state, Romania. I might doubt that Mihai Viteazu wanted to create Romania in 1600, but much before 1848 the idea of a Romanian country, uniting the 3 romanian provinces, was already a reality, even if not to the masses, but to the romanian inteligents. At Blaj, in May 1848, romanians from Transylvania declared "Noi vrem să ne unim cu ţara!" ("we wanted union with the country"), even if there was no Romania on that time. But the idea was already existing. How many people know that at that gathering participated also Alexandru Ioan Cuza, the one who will be the ruler of the new created Romanian Principalities in 1859? Romanian transylvanian revolutionaries were in close contact with those from Moldova and Muntenia and all shared the idea of union, even if only in Transylvanian was stated public. A customs (vamală) union existed since 1842 between Moldavia and Wallachia, so the idea was earlier than that. |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 11:05 am |
| I understand all you are saying and I agree. I was referring to official name of "Romania" as a country recognised by the world as such in 1818 when George Pomut joined the army. When George Pomut came to Ellis Island, when asked about his nationality by the immigration officer, he could not say "Romanian" because, legally, there was no such thing. Similarly, Vraciu's father could call himself a "Romanian", when he presented his passport at entry to America, the passport said "Austria" on the cover. Also, see this : http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPages/Commentary/RomaniaName.html "Romaioi", "Rumun", "Ruman" described any Byzantine citizen for many centuries. Considering that the principlaities of Wallachia and Moldova were part of the Byzantine Empire, it stands to reason that some people from those lands wouild call themselves "Romaioi" or a variation thereof. Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf February 13, 2011 11:18 am |
| I dont see the link between Byzantium and name of "romei" (a variation of those listed above) and romanians. Actually, this variation of denominations describing a greek ethnicity who wanted to conect with the glory of the romans, as later did The Holy Roman Empire of german nation. I doubt that a latin nation as early romanians were very atracted to adopt a name "camouflaging" greeks as romans. I dont know if Moldova was really under byzantine domination ever, as it was the southern part of actual Romania. As for Transylvania, were it is left in this listing? Byzantine influence in Transylvania was quite earlier also, as it is stated by Anonymus that Menumorut declared himself subject of Byzantium. I dont think that romanian comes from the name of Byzantium citisens. I saw another hypotesis, that romanian name may come from Romania (sometimes spelled Romagna) as a left over from romans, who, after retreat from different parts of their european side of empire, left this name (in a multitude of places) to those who stayed, in order to remember them that they were roman citisens. Nowadays is suposed that Romagna provence and "romanş" name of a language is this kind of reminiscence. A stupid theory is that romanian name, in it's early version rumân, comes from the Wallachia's social class named rumân, which designated serfs. |
| Posted by: Agarici February 13, 2011 11:38 am | ||||
Now seriouslly, Radu, before repeting (again) such shocking aberations (for me at least), I think you should involve yourself in a serious basic (Romanian) history enlightment plan. Please don’t consider my statement as being personal or offensive towards you, because it wasn’t ment to be - but you are putting yourself in a trully embarassing posture by claiming loudly such pieces of sheer ignorance. The Romanian post WW 1 military aviation history isn’t a substitute for the hole Romanian history, nor is the collection of trivial counter-myths (such as the one that there was no use of the “Romanian” name - as in a substantive or adjective - before 1859) vechiculated by the bunch of semi-illiterate (in terms of history) and frustrated (in terms of professional accomplishments) students (to be read as in - in their mind - “researchers”) in social sciences and/or humanities, who could not cope with the complexity of the historical facts and are trying - with some succes, as I saw from your post – to substitute it with something dumb enough to be accesible to their minds and understanding. A key factor is that the majority of them are not historians; in addition to that, they fall victim to a common form of scientific error, simply and forcingly justaposing their present day concepts over some different (and intricate) past realities. Morover, they do not understand the common sense fact that, in order to deconstruct some “myths”, those have to be circumscribed, understood and researched first; they simply proceeded to their “quest” starting from their ab initio, preexistent ideas which simply have to be legitimated by their work. You said in an earlier post, in a different topic, that you had been “brainwashed” by the nationalist „Cenaclul Flacăra” propaganda. Please do not let yourself being brainwashed by something different, now. There is a series of decent books and authors which, in their multi-decade work and research, were dealing with the Romanian pre-XIX-XX history. Not all of them were members or related with Cenaclul Flacăra or The Greater Romania Party. Their works had been around for over 50-100 years now, so some people ignorance is not their fault anymore. Among this all I’m taking the liberty to recommend you the works of the American professor Keith Hitchins. I do hope I did not offend you. Also please excuse my language - if it has been to blunt - but I was trully surprised by what you claimed. My best regards, A. |
| Posted by: Agarici February 13, 2011 11:43 am | ||||||
PS: As for your "parallel" between Rumalia and Romania, please, for my sake, edit your initial post, do not repeat it to anyone, anymore, and deny that you have ever said that.  |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 01:07 pm |
| I ask the administraors to intervene. There is no room for such personal attacks on what purports to be a history discussion forum. Bullying and censorahip should not be allowed. Can we discuss the subject, however sensitive, without attacking the speaker? Radu |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 03:01 pm | ||
Rumelia, "the land of Romans" also included Wallachia and Moldova. Wikipedia has a medieval map showing that. Furthermore, for centuries "the principalities" of Moldova and Wallachia were ruled by Greek Christians, Rumelians, or Romaioi. We know these rulers as "Fanarioti", people like Sturdza, Ghika, Mavrocordat, Cantacuzino, Stirbei, etc. These people came from old Greek Byzantine families living in the Fenerbahce district of Constantinople (Byzantium) which was the last remnant and keeper of values of the "Roman Empire" after the fall of Rome. This rule by Fanarioti ended in 1859 when Alexandru Ioan Cuza became ruler of both principalities of Wallachia and Moldova, which then became known as "the united principalities". The Romanians call themselves "the last remnants of Rome". The Romanians were under more influence from the Byzantine side of the Roman Empire and for a longer time than "Rome" in the Italian Peninsula. The fact that we wre not Catholics is clear evidence of that. There are maps drawn in the 17th century in which Rumelia is spelled "Romania" and is described as "the land of Romans". But this is besides the point. The country (as a legally recognised entity, with a ruler, government and parliament) that is called "Romania" did not exist until Carol I acceded to the throne. This country gained its "independence" from the Ottoman Empire in 1877, a fact that is taught in 8th grade history to 13 year-olds. Radu |
| Posted by: Victor February 13, 2011 04:08 pm |
| Agarici, we do not encourage the use of such strong words. The forum is a rather impersonal way of communicating and brutal language only leads to bad things in such a "one-dimensional" environment. I also disagree with Radu, but I am convinced that there is a much better way to prove him wrong by discussing his arguments. After all, this why are all together here: to discuss. |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 05:14 pm |
| These are the medieval maps that refer to "Rumelia" as "Romania". http://www.bergbook.com/htdocs/Cache520.htm Radu |
| Posted by: Victor February 13, 2011 06:08 pm | ||||
More to the point of this issue is probably the book of Ioan-Aurel Pop: Natiunea romana medievala, Ed. Enciclopedica, 1998. On page 120, there is a quote from a work of Giorgio Tomasi, first secretary of the Papal Chancellery during Michael the Brave's reign:
The term Vlach/Olah was not a term used Romanians, but by their neighbors. It even arrived to be seen as a derogatory term in Transylvania. Thus it is unlikely that a Romanian might declare himself Olah on his own free will. But to quote again Ioan-Aurel Pop, in all likelihood, the medieval Romanian considered himself first a Christian, then Moldovean/Muntean/Hategan etc. and in the last instance Romanian. |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 06:43 pm | ||
But the country was called Valahia. This name appears on contemporraneous maps. Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf February 13, 2011 07:37 pm | ||||
In medieval times romanians from Transylvania were also called by other nations as wallachians, olahok (same as wallach, in hungarian), but the province was not called Wallachia or Olahia. In Transylvania were living also hungarians, szeklers and saxons, and they were the rulling nations, but the province was not named Hungary, Szekleria (term I invented now, for this discussion - God, I love to invent new english words! ) or Saxonia. |
| Posted by: Agarici February 13, 2011 07:43 pm |
| Victor, Radu, I stick to my initial lecture recommendation. I also give a title: Keith Hitchins - Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică la românii din Transilvania, 1700-1868 (National consciousness and political actions of the Romanians from Transylvania, 1700-1868), Editura Dacia, Cluj, 1987. Radu, regardless of any administrative actions on the forum, I reiterate my initial disclaimer. Please do not take my reply personally, and please do appologize my tone. But, I must repeat, what you said is a proof of sheer ignorance on that matter, and there are lots of information out there, available to be consulted. What have shocked me mostly was the fact that you presented your oppinion in a assertive "without doubt" manner, which I think one should avoid unless he or she is trully familiarized with that particular domain and very sure about his information - which on that particular issue was not the case. As a humble suggestion, please try to avoid obscure internet links and try using some of the allready known and consecrated authors on that field/subfileld. Showing some respect for those who invested their time to do that won't hurt, either. As for the Romania-Rumalia association, it is indeed a way too extensive discussion to be even briefly replicated here, and I do not have time for that. But it is (or at least I thought so), sort of common knovledge that the Byzantine empire claimed the succesorate of the Roman empire (hence various names and toponyms for its emperors, inhabitants and European provinces), without any connection with nowadays Romania. The so called “Oriental Romania”/"Romania Orientala" is a completelly diferent matter, of which you seem completely unaware of, one which was approached and researched by various historians (N. Iorga, for example) as early as the beginning of XXth century. As a hint, it has something to do with the Wlach population from the Balcans and with the various states that incorporated them (in some as a part of the rulling strata), and not with the Western part of the Byzantine Empire. Please do not take my suggestion regarding that matter as bullying, I was only trying to put it in a jockingly manner, because it was the only way to adress such a (pardon me, again) nonsense. Please do rest assured of my best regards and my consideration for you. I appologize again if I heated the debate, it was not in my intention. [EDIT: As a side note, I am distrustfull of the gradually consolidating practice to bring forth arguments only form the world.wide.web, made availble there in a simplified “half-cooked, ready to go” manner, and to consider them equivalents or substitutes to the (sometimes) tens of thousand of pages researched and written on a particular matter. THAT is not a balanced debate/discussion. On the one hand it requires an extensive (and unfair) investment in time from those who red, on the other it is (in my oppinion) an innacurate (and even dangerous) overestimation from those who use exclusivelly the www sources. Perhaps that’s why I have sort of overreacted; what I have just said is not connected in any way with Radu. The logic and the practice of argumentation are not “democratic arts”, and the opinions of the uninformed are not (or should not be) equal to those of the documented ones - and I am not including myself in the latter cathegory. The internet is an useful tool for the formers, but only as long as they use it in order to learn, when needed (or to put in a softer form, to improve their level of knowledge), and not only to put forth their beliefs and oppinions and stick to them no matter what. I would be the first - and certainly not the only one - to aknowlegde that I have learned a lot of things on that forum. I do not know if, and in what degree, am I right on that, but that is my oppinion.] |
| Posted by: Radub February 13, 2011 10:33 pm | ||
OK Agarici... let me see if I got this right... The internet is good for learning but not for teaching? So... who does the teaching then if we are all supposed to listen? Look, I came across this argument before: "Your sources are wrong", "Only my sources are right", "Do not listen to those random dudes on the internet!", "Those guys tell lies!", "Anyone can write on Wikipedia", "The internet is not to be trusted". But you are just another random dude on the internet too! You are just as much an "anyone" as that "anyone" from Wikipedia. You are telling me this via the medium of the internet! So, if the internet is bad as a medium, then that applies equally to you. I think you are confused about "ignorance". It is not ignorant to strive to look at things from different perspectives. It is ignorant to "believe and not question". Most leaps in human knowledge were made when the status quo was challenged. Maybe what i said here was not clear enough or well-presented but I am sure that I already planted the seed of an idea in some of your minds (I know of at least one such mind).  Seek the truth and the truth shall set you free. I said all I had to say in this matter. Radu |
| Posted by: Agarici February 13, 2011 11:30 pm |
| Radu, the internet can be used for both of them. I’m only suggesting a separation between the trivial knowledge from the internet, also called “heuristical” by some, and the professional knowledge, wherever that might be found. The first one can look plausible from some (and not plausible for others), is usually internally coherent, and might be true (or not); the only problem is that it is not necessarily consistent with the reality, being made mostly of mere opinions. The second is represented by the work of a professional community, owns a critical/documentary apparatus, a set of rules in order to be recognized and it is critically sanctioned by that professional community. In a word, it is scientific. Now my suggestion was to learn mostly form the second type of sources, weather available on the internet or not, and to be cautious with the first ones, not forgetting that they are only heuristically aggregated knowledge; and not to use them in a (too) assertive manner. Of course (and here I completely agree with you) that some of the most innovative and productive thinkers in the history of human knowledge were the innovators, those capable of a non-linear thinking. But this was proven not to be an easy thing to do. In order to do it, at least in a discipline like history, you must KNOW the previous theories and their line of arguments, in order to be able to contradict and revolutionize them. And there are many writings which would radically contradict your initial post which was addressed by me - enough of them quite easily accessible and quite lavishly documented. If you are going to address any of them in a critical manner, trying to prove your point, I would be more than ready to follow your arguments. Until then, they seem to me rather something like saying “the wheel is square, and it works quite well like that, ‘cos I didn’t know that it could be round too.” It is a pity to ignore the work of all those authors, who dedicated part of their lives to that subject. Nobody has a patent of knowledge in all the fields.That was the only point I was trying to make. I tried to be as clear as I could, but it’s possible that this sometimes “details insensitive” environment had distorted some of the meanings. |
| Posted by: Victor February 14, 2011 03:20 pm | ||
Maps made by Romanians or by foreigners? Are the maps in Romanian or Latin? The words Vlach/Walachia are exonymes (spelling?). They were used by the neighboring ethnicities when referring to Romanians. As the quote I posted earlier demonstrates, the term even arrived to be considered insulting, most likely in Transylvania where it was used by the three nations to refer to the 2nd class citizens that were the majority of Romanians. |
| Posted by: Radub February 14, 2011 03:34 pm |
| I have no further intention to dissect the origins of names of countries or lands. Yesterday I received a very unpleasant email because of this thread. I am out! Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf February 14, 2011 05:11 pm | ||||
In 1848 a special request of romanians from Transylvania was that they asked not to be called anymore by other nations as "wallachians" or "olah", but to be designated as romanians. The hungarian government took note of this request and started to give up the use of the name "olah" (the same as "wallachian"). |
| Posted by: Agarici February 14, 2011 06:53 pm | ||
OFF-TOPIC: I do not want to interfere in what might be a private matter for Radu, but I want to make it clear that the mentioned e-mail was not form me. I'm not lending myself to this sort of things. Thank you. |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 15, 2011 05:55 am |
| All right, my turn who is this guy? http://img535.imageshack.us/i/68811425.jpg/ |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 17, 2011 07:25 pm |
| who is the german pilot near Galland? he was fluent in Romanian... http://img816.imageshack.us/i/79961011.jpg/ |
| Posted by: Dénes February 17, 2011 08:17 pm |
| That's a good one. I have no clue, whatsoever... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: ionionescu February 18, 2011 12:58 am |
| The first one is Chiang Wei-kuo, and the second one is Eduard Neumann. |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 18, 2011 05:57 pm |
| Corect! The only chinese in Wehrmacht, afaik, and the deputy of general Gesternberg for fighters. Who's turn is now? |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 18, 2011 06:02 pm |
| also, I read somewere that there were some chinese in Waffen SS. And one was pilot in Luftwaffe, so, the president's Jieshi son is the only I know in the Land Units, better said mountain troups |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 18, 2011 06:07 pm |
| Regarding these chinese guys in German units, I am sure only about the one I post the photo. Could you help with more info? |
| Posted by: C-2 February 18, 2011 08:08 pm |
| http://img823.imageshack.us/i/koreanischersoldat.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us Something like those guys? Could be Tatars...... |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 19, 2011 05:56 pm |
| Could be. What about this peinting? Looks like a Japanese and an Indian guys. I know there were Indian units in 1944, in France, in SS... but a Japanese? http://img39.imageshack.us/i/z34v.jpg/ |
| Posted by: Dénes February 20, 2011 02:19 pm |
| Now a 'guess what?' In a corner of a small photo the following airplane can be seen. What type can it be?  I have an idea, but let's see what guesses others come up with. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub February 20, 2011 02:48 pm | ||
I don't think it is a IAR-47. The canopy seems different and this appears to be a biplane. Can it be a modified Potez 25 or Fleet? Radu |
| Posted by: MRX February 20, 2011 02:48 pm |
Looks like IAR-47. My opinion... |
| Posted by: Dénes February 20, 2011 03:13 pm | ||
C'mon, the I.A.R. 47 was a monoplane, this one is a biplane. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: ionionescu February 20, 2011 03:34 pm |
| S.E.T.-XV ? |
| Posted by: Radub February 20, 2011 03:58 pm |
| The "3 strut" arrangement is quite unusual - there are two thick parallel struts and a third thinner parallel aileron linkage behind them. This is a feature of the S.E.T. designs. Judging by the angle of the struts, the two wings are not staggered. However, this wing also features a scallop above the cockpit. This was not an usual feature of the S.E.T. wing which tended to be straight. The only example of this type of "3 strut"+"non-staggered wing"+"scalloped wing" combination was used on the S.E.T.7K. However, the S.E.T.7K did not have a closed cockpit. So... my guess is that this is a S.E.T.7K with a modified closed cockpit. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes February 20, 2011 04:51 pm | ||
This was my guess, too (without spending any time to check the references). Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub February 20, 2011 05:07 pm |
| The S.E.T. XV has "N-shaped" struts and staggered wings. It is a S.E.T., but which? Radu |
| Posted by: MRX February 20, 2011 06:34 pm | ||||
I'm not sure what is seen is the upper wing of a biplane. It could be a temporary building in the background. So it's a biplane or a monoplane? If the picture was better ... |
| Posted by: Dénes April 28, 2011 08:26 pm | ||
An interesting article about Pomutz: http://www.romanialibera.ro/cultura/aldine/romanul-care-a-cumparat-alaska-204834.html Gen. Dénes |