Rene Fonck? Ha!

Lucien,
Not at all, he is very uch present. I have fought to defend his character against those who would smear it with the "he must've lied" statements. Of course I have subjected myself to ridicule from those who believe they are some kind of eminent historians, in doing so. I stated my reasons for accepting what he said at face value, and until someone comes up with definite, concrete eyewitness proof that he stretched the truth and inflated his claims for some selfish motive, I'll continue to take the man at his word. Sad to say, but the truly great ones are always subjected to the harpies trying to tear them down.

To Jim,
You say I disparage any cause I fight for! You sound like one of the the cold timid souls in the following quote.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Regards,
Jim 'ACE'

[Jim]

Ooh, nice Roosevelt quote. But by that measure, we're all guilty of being 'cold and timid souls', pack up and get on with our lives - unless we were in the Great War ourselves.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
I find it quite interesting in the way this discussion has gone. Capt. René Fonck claimed 125 victories and is credited with 75 victories by the French Aviatiom Militaire at war's end. The French had a rather strict confirmation system that required two witness' to confirm the victory. I have yet to see anything from the detractors except he lied. Well it took more than his word to be credited with victory. Fonck may have lacked the charisma of Guynemer, but he was very confidant of his abilities, a bit of a braggart,maybe, but, I don't believe he was a
"four-flusher". I have yet to meet a "Fighter Pilot who was not confident of his ability. Those that lacked self confidance were the ones that were most likely decorated with the "purple Heart" posthumously. According to Frank Bailey/Norman Frank in their "Over The Front", on p.160 Fonck was credited with "75 confirmed victories plus another possible 69 disabled. I would suggest to the revisionists to use a little less imagination and a lot more study of history.
Dan-San Abbott

[Ron_F]

DSA,
I hope your not including me in that for what i posted? i was only showing what matches i could/couldnt find for his claims. Granted, i dont have access to everything to do it, but give me some credit for the scouts claimed/not claimed.

Esp the one where he claimed 2 scouts (if indeed they were) when only 1 was lost that day.

I await the French claims book coming out soon, and i still need the German cliams book as well...

which goes back to German records vs overclaiming vs claims in good faith.

the above is what everyone else is debating.

Personally, the scores will never be changed, and RF is the highest Entente ace of WW1. Period. B. Bishop is the highest for Canada/RAF/RFC, and for those that disparage them, they cant change it, nor will any of the historians do so, either.

My previous post was to do with the main post that started all this...

fwiw,
Ron F.

Sorry was just trying to point out that the word revisionist isn't a dirty one!

It doesn't matter how many confirmed claims Fonck has he served his country to the best of his ability and survived a war that many others didn't. Everyone knows the problems of 'confirming' the confirmed over 80 years after the event so unless there are documented cases of him lying/mis-claiming lets just leave the poor man to rest in peace.

Mark

Craig:
Hold down your temper and follow this carefully; it could change your outlook and increase your awareness.
History has been interpreted and evaluated by the witnesses since time immemorial. Scientists and those interested in obtaining a more complete view of what actually happened have been adding to, or revising history. They may have been doing so in good faith, and depnding upon the reliability and veracity of their sources...certainly, they have contributed to knowledge of events in the past. They are ADDING TO the knowledge of events.
History Revisionists, on the other hand, feel no obligation to stick to the facts and they often publish outright calumnies in an attempt to attain their ends, which are to revise history along the lines of current social change. In other words, they lie about the past to make current or future events more palatible. They are employed by organizations or groups that espouse great social change to "a world economy," at the expense of personal rights and freedoms. This is not some vague fear of "them" nor is it the ramblings of a confused mind. If you wish to verify this to your own satisfaction, I will provide you (or any other forumite)with a source where you can read a major textbook company's advertisement for writers who want to become history revisionists by "re-writing history along the lines of social change." (Their own words.} Is this a vague fear of bogeymen lurking in the shadows? I think not.
If you will email me, I will send you to a library, where you can read the History Revisionist publisher's advertisement exactly as it was printed, with no embellishment from anyone.
Then, lyou might want to read the U.N. charter, written by Marxist and convicted spy Alger Hiss. Just buy an almanac and read the damnable thing. I have talked with people since 1945 who think the U.N. charter is the savior of mankind. Most of them lie about actually reading it...too much research required. FIND THE BILL OF RIGHTS in the U.N. Charter. (Neither could I!)
Now, we are talking about history revisionism as a deliberate act of change to cast countries and individuals in the role of buffoons in order to make current social changes seem inevitible and in the common interest.
These two things will demonstrate the truth of what I, and many others, have been saying on this forum for years. Those who revise history based on acceptable proof are not History Revisionists, they are Historians.
As for my having "heroes from history", quite frankly, I have but one from the entire span of history. As it happens, he was almost solely responsible (according to military historians) for establishing the foundation of western civilization (the intrinsic dignity of individuals.) His name was Leonidas, king of Sparta.
While Leonidas is my personal hero because he led his 300 troops against the largest army ever assembled to that time, standing at the forefront.
Shortly after this battle, Thermistocles, who led the Athenian fleet, destroyed the Persian fleet at Salamis, under the eyes of the invading king Xerxes. He led his troops, but never engaged in hand to hand battle. Jim "Ace" and I have argued this many times. He feels that militarily, Thermistocles was a better general than Leonidas because he wanted to insure that his men would not be left leaderless, as were Leonidas' men, when he was killed. My mother read me the story of king Leonidas when I was 5 years old, and he is my only "hero".
So, keeping with forum rules, we are speaking of what some would call a "conspiracy" to abrogate the credibility of pilots and the leaders of countries in WW-I. In many cases, however, the perpitrators are not primary conspirators, but have been convinced by them that it is an intelligent course of action. Some of us prefer to let history and truth speak for itself.

Craig and Jim,
I'll use this quote to explain how what you're trying to do is perceived - "No sadder proof can be given of a person's own tiny stature, than their disbelief in great people.~ Thomas Carlyle ~
Regards of sorts,
Jim 'ACE'

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Ron F:
One of the questions that needs to answered is; What and how do you define a victory? To use any system that what was not used by that nation at that time, has no relevance. What defined a loss?
As far as the Germans were concerned a loss was the total distruction of the aircraft. No matter how badly damaged was the aircraft, if it could be repaired and returned to service, it was not a loss. It also applied to the aircrew or pilot, if his was wounded and could be be returned to duty, it was not a loss. For example, MvR was shot down on 6 July 1917, the Alb. D.V was returned to service, MvR was retired to a hospital, his head wound treated and returned to duty 25 July 1917, there was no loss as far as the German Luftstreitkrafte was concerned. However he was shot down and the crew of an RFC F.E.2b were given credit. Yet there was no loss listed in the German records. It was a victory. Those of you that have been to Nortern France can appreciate the weather. It rains almost every day in the Flanders region. The sky is cloudy and misty and quite often the ground cannot been seen even as low as 5000ft. You read in RFC/RAF combat reports the "HA spun into the mists". These usually wound up as an OOC. The area of France that includes the Somme, Artois, Picardy and Flanders is very wet, misty and cloudy. Read the daily weather reports in BodenSchatz'book, "Jagd im Flandern Himmel" This area constituted the British Front. As a matter of interest opposite the British air units were 50% of the German air force. This situation prevaled from early 1917 until September 1918 when a more uniform deployment of the GAF occured because of the insertion of the USAS units supporting the French in the Lorraine region. During that period 50% of the GAF covered approximately 75 miles of the front, while the other 50%covered about 300 miles of the French front. The bulk of the air fighting was opposite the Brits. A study of the monthly air order of battle will show who was fighting and where. I have gone off the thread of the victory thing. I define a victory as driving him away from your area of operations and permitting your recce and artillery aircraft to do their duty un interupted. It does not matter how that is accomplished, chase him away, drive him down, shoot him down or whatever. It does not mean he was killed, wounded or whatever, what matters is, you have prevented him from interferring with your air operations. This is the reason that MvR had more victories over Recce and artillery aircraft than fighters. When he engaged fighters the enemy recce aircraft were allowed to function.
As a matter of record Major Edward Mannock is CREDITED with 73 victories, you can't change what is in his citation for the V.C. and is the Leading British ACE. Also his victories were witnessed by those who flew with him. The Brits took a man at his word. There are several books that are currently that will help in figuring out who done what to who, they are:
"Above The Trenches",RFC/RAF. Above the Lines,GAF. "Over the Front",Americans/French.
The Jasta War Chronology, GAF. "The Jasta Pilot"GAF." "Bloody April...Black September"(ALL)
These titles are by Norman Franks and co-authors.
These are an excellent source of information.
Blue skies, Dan-San Abbott

[Dan_San_Abbott]

John L.
I don't know you, but I will tell this as long as there are those like you out there, there is hope that this country will prevail. In regard to the UN, I believe we should cancel their lease and give 60 days to get out of this country. How many of you that read this are aware that the US pays 25% of the UN budget! Also with the termination of the lease, we give them our notice of withdrawal from the UN. This is the worst deal that has ever happened to the US. The UN UN wants to subordinate the United States of America under the UN. And we the American people become citizens of the UN under their Charter. Read it!
DARK SKIES ahead. DAN-SAN ABBOTT

[Ron_F]

DSA,
good points sir. however, as you stated in the previous post, we are talking about the René Fonck and their system of confirmation, not the British scoring system. i am well aware of OOCs. I have defended that system of victories due to thats how the British saw it.

BUT, those planes i used that i could identify for RF were considered DESTROYED, not OOC or DD, which the French system doesnt use. Granted, without a list of airplanes that were written off, as i understand it, no complete loss list exists to help verify planes lost.
And yes, i do understand if the pilot was unhurt, it wouldnt be considered a loss by the Germans.

I was also proving that its hard to verify his claims for his general ID of his victories, ie, EA, 2 seater, etc.

As i said, we cant change it, so people should leave the aces alone.

As far as Mannock and 73 victories, Please check ATT again, its 63 victories. 73 is what came from Ira Jones to best Bishops score.

James Dudgeon in him 'Mick' bio, states Micks score could have been as high as 90 total, confirmed and unconfirmed. but ATT gives it 61 confirmed, and the VC was written at his 59th victory.

I have all the aformentioned books you describe, save Bloody April Black September.

regards,
Ron F.