What was the best fighter of World War 2?, What was the best fighter of World War 2

That’s appalling. I quit, my only chance - in terms of time and patience - to bring both (the three?) of you to the right path would be to talk it over in front of a couple/few/many beers.

PS: I am still surprised how some would consider the Saxon inhabitants of Sibiu/Hermannstadt as invaders/occupants, some good hundred years after their settlement, and after a history with not too many violent conflicts with the local population.

By that time they were not more of an “invading” strata then the Romans in Dacia by 200+ AD, or the Hungarians by, let’s say, 1800s. I also think that Conrad Haas does have more (or at least as much) in common with the Romanian history than with the history of nowadays Germany. Was William the Bastard the invader part of the English history, were the Varengians/Wikings from the Volga river part of the Russian past? I would rather call that a multicultural reality, and a multicultural past of these lands. Being multi-cultural, I don’t think one should consider it the exclusive property of one of the communities only.

Btw, Nicolae Horti din Baia Mare sounds interesting. Not to mention the idea of having an admiral at Baia Mare.

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 16, 2011 09:21 pm

it is not whether Haas is part of romanian history. it is about whether Haas has anything to do with the history of romanian aeronautics, which he clearly has not.
a site, mentioning him in that context, just as Oberth, has been quoted as a reference for the IAR 80 being the 4th most "performant" fighter of ww2.
apart from the obvious mistakes which sort of shed some doubt over the authors authority as ww2 military aviation expert, the site claims that it occupied that disputed 4th place in 1940.
therefore:
-that site has been misquoted
-apart from that misquotation that 4th place in 1940 is a myth
-that site is hardly a sound reference for ww2 military aviation

did i leave something out?

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 16, 2011 10:21 pm

Yes!

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 17, 2011 12:26 am

Traiasca ai nostri! Huo ai lor!

That website is naive (to say the least) and contains too many errors to be taken seriously.

What if a German with a German name, living in a German town with a German name did not see himself as a "Romanian"? He was a German! He had no idea that two hundred years later, that town would be part of a country that would call itself "Romania" and he would have no logical reason to identify himself with that country.

Imagine this as a scenario: NOW we call ourselves Romanains. Maybe in two hundred years this land will be part of another larger nation with some other name. Irrespective of that, NOW we continue to call ourselves Romanians. Maybe that future nation will claim us as theirs long after we die and get to have a say in it. But NOW we are Romanians. Apply the same train of logic to Conrad Haas. He was German. And saying that does not make me less of a Romanian - I do not believe in using other people's achievements as crutches to prop up my self esteem.

Radu

Yes!

OK, Agarici, here is my last attempt to clarify this issue - which to me and many other people is obvious - and to point out your logical faux pas.

I will take another example, this time from aviation - the topic this whole controversy started from.

Aurel Vlaicu and Traian Vuia are well known names of pioneers of Rumanian aviation. Nobody really denies this, right?

However, both of them were born in Hungary, they were Hungarian citizens, they spoke Hungarian and they went to (also) Hungarian schools. Based on your logic, they must then be part of Hungarian aviation (much more than Conrad Haas has to do with Rumanian aviation!). Correct?

However, I have seen no reference at all in any Hungarian aviation books on these two pioneers as they being Hungarian, or having anything to do with Hungarian aviation. Right or wrong?

Please set up the standard for yourself, and use it thoroughly to all similar historical situations. If you want to sound credible, of course.

Gen. Dénes

OMG! I would surely need many beers (for you all to drink), in order to get me right.

Seriously now, why should it be either/or? What is wrong with you people, why being so reductionists? Why thing it as a zero sum, what he should be ours or theirs? I did not imply at any point that Haas was Romanian - being a still sane person. So Radu is right on that. I didn't even address the aviation history part, only (in what became a prolonged off-topic discussion), Denes question/assertion underlined in my previous post.

Of course Haas was Saxon, living in a Saxon town etc , but that community, while being German, was a part of what is today's Romania. Of course his contribution was a part of the cultural past of both German (culture) and Romanian (lands).

As for Denes example, I entirely agree that Vlaicu and Vuia traces in the Hungarian culture are a fact, and they should be mentioned/considered/acknowledged accordingly. Their existence and contribution was part of BOTH cultures, and if it is not mentioned in the Hungarian aviation history books it should perhaps be. That is what the multiculturalism means. Damn, fellows, do a google search for this word sometime...

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 17, 2011 01:53 pm

Multiculturalism? This is not multiculturalism. It "history a'la carte", whereby you choose to pick what you perceive as "nice things" and ascribe them "Romanian traits", but conveniently forget/ignore what you perceive as "bad things". You constantly seem to refute the known fact that there was no such thing as ROMANIA until Carol acceded to the throne and that what we now call "Romania" was for many, many hundreds of years part of other empires. Conrad Haas has less to do with Romania than anyone else you can think of for the simple reason that he was a German living in what was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at a time when Romania did not exist.
Romania was not always here and "Mastodontul de la Racosul de Sus" did not sing Nicolaie Furdui Iancu songs.
Radu

actually, at the time of his living, Haas was a subject of the crown of Hungary. nothing else.

but it's like Einstein said, "if it turns out i'm right, then the germans will say i'm german and the french that i'm a citizen of the world. however if i'm wrong the french will say i'm german and the germans that i'm a jew."

The history of Romania is not (only) the history of Romanians, is also the history of all the people that ever lived in today Romanian territory. So, Conrad Haas is part of the Romanian history as the celts from ancient Transilvania are part of our history. More over, the history of the Hungarian people is part of Romanian History, as Vuia and Vlaicu is part of Austro/Hungary history. And, if you ask me, the today Romanians should learn more about Germans, Hungarians, Jewish, Greeks etc that lived and live in Romania. Is more easy (and the only way) to understand the history of Romania.

Is Conrad Haas part of Romanian Aeronautics? I don't know... but is ok to open the display with him at the Aviation Museum in Bucharest.

ASA!!! HAI AI NOSTRII! huo pe altii ....
do not take me seriously .....
just kidding

Alex30cag, please refrain from posting useless chat style messages. This is a serious forum and I expect an appropriate attitude.

I agree 100% with that, thumbs up!

Some of the most interesting/exotic/worth to be seen places in Romania, but not only here, are those with a multicultural "touch". An already given example is Transylvania, another one would be Sulina... Constanta and Mangalia could qualify too.

As a side note, the multiculturalism presupposes a certain maturation and interpenetration of the different cultures, too. If, for example a large percentage of a population with a different religion than the locals would settle (temporary or indefinitely) into "their" territory, perhaps not speaking their language, and starts building their own church (like in the case of the Muslim immigrants in many European countries), I wouldn't automatically (yet) consider that a case of multiculturalism.

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 18, 2011 02:48 pm

Actually is NOSTRI, with one i.

Just joking myself.

But, seriously now, it doesn't need anything additional for a plural form, being already a plural.

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 18, 2011 02:56 pm

So, re-labelling a German as a "Romanian" is "multicultiralism"? How?
"Multi" in multiculturalism implies a "multitude". Just reducing all the people, irrespective of their ethnic background, into just one label is anything bult "multicultural".
Radu

An A-H empire in XVI century? No way! I guess it is another +1 beer and several posts to convince you of that.

That's not the point. And I have news, if there was no such thing like Romania until 1860s (which I obviously agree, and I said nowhere anything contrary to that), there was no such thing as Italy until then either, even if Machiavelli wrote about it as early as 1500. Also there was no country called Austria, with its capital in Vienna, until the end of the XVIII century, because its official name was "The Holy Roman Empire". But then, in your oppinion, Galibardi (that's for the connaisseurs only - I hope you're familiar with "Nenea Iancu"), Galibardi himself, the Italian national hero, was he Italian or not? Or was he not when he was born, only when he died?

YOU:

ME, a couple of posts before:

I think I've put it as clear as it's possible, for anyone who can read. I will stop here with that, there's no fun in repeating myself anymore. But if Radu prefers to continue on his own, I cannot stop him.

Nevertheless, I'd like to drink that beer sometine, so we can sing together "Noi suntem romani". If only Denes could join too...

This post has been edited by Agarici on February 19, 2011 09:39 am