Quote:
Originally Posted by winny
(Post 204263)
All this 'I'd kill a guy in a chute' talk is fine until it's you hanging from the chute.
...
I said nothing about the rights and wrongs of it, I mearly pointed out that if you were hanging from a 'chute and an enemy aircraft was approaching you'd be thinking 'hope he dosn't shoot me'
|
Your comment suggests that my opinion that it can be right to shoot enemy parachutes would change if I was in the chute. No it wouldn't. I think if you're a foot soldier, it's right that the enemy shoots back at you. I wouldn't like them shooting at me, but I'd understand that's the way it has to work, and the same goes for chute shooting.
You also say that all killing is wrong. I disagree. If someone is walking round killing civilians, and you can't stop them without killing them (they have body armor), you say it's wrong to kill them - I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moilami
(Post 204279)
Hmm, how is sniping different? In air combat one of your missions is to eliminate the enemy.
|
We're all entitled to our views, and it's interesting to read how others feel about these things, but it seems moilami and I have the same views.
Quote:
And I have seen many think something like air combat would had been some sort of glorified game with some sort of rules (moral code) which makes the difference between "us" and "them" e.g. good and evil.
...
Shortly said there was a war going on, and in war you have certain responsibilities. Like protect your people and defeat the enemy. The faster and more effective you are in your responsibilities, the better. Now imagine a war where Knighs of the Sky are playing a game while the rest are burning and torn by explosions and gunfire. How much does that make sense? Are pilots privileged to only shoot "planes" down and not people? Or if they only shoot planes down does it make them better pilots (especially when they don't shoot chutes down because of the fear of getting the same fate from enemy)?
I know what people think with that glorified Knights of the Sky illusion. However that is sandbox war. Real war is not sandbox war.
...
Those who shooted chutes made the real sacrifice. They stopped playing a wargame and begun to do their best to eliminate the enemy. In the process they sacrificed their humanity, their principles of not shooting helpless, their respect as seen by enemy and comrades (honour stuff), and their safety of not getting shooted at in a chute by themselves. They sacrificed possibly everything we can imagine to stop the war and minimize casualties. They had the choise, and they made the sacrifice.
Such is war. Total madness. And it is best to see as it is.
|
Very well said. There would have been nasty people on both sides who shot at chutes for fun - I'm not talking about them. There would have been those like the RAF Polish who shot for revenge, or anger - I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that don't like killing, but recognised that a job had to be done, and as moilami put it, sacrificed their own humanity. I also appreciate that many pilots wouldn't want to make that sacrifice (I certainly wouldn't want to), but I think of those pilots as humans like me, not as honourable knights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wutz
(Post 204284)
That is one opinion, but certainly one that I would not give any respect for.
I have had the honor of meeting a few former airmen of that time, and they all said those who shot at parachutes where frowned upon. I know you will say that is not backing 100% the war effort, many exmilitary will say that is the differance between being human and a savage.
|
So it was frowned upon, big deal. This is about understanding how nasty war is, and looking at the bigger picture. Shooting the enemy is not savage. If they are over your territory with little chance of evading capture, that's different, but if they can return to fight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by winny
(Post 204294)
Bomber pilots were hitting targets and the civillian casualties were secondary.
|
Er, what war are you talking about? When London, Coventry, Berlin etc were bombed, were they military targets? Did the Atom bombs hit a gun placement in Japan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven
(Post 204301)
Always a difficult subject, the not shooting of shutes is just common accepted among pilots and therefore will mostly not fire upon them, I'm just glad that there is such a thing, less people killed.
|
If it was less people killed, I'd agree with you - but it's not. When you don't shoot a bailed airman, and they later bomb your city, how is that less people killed? Gunther Rall was shot down 8 times I think - if he'd been shot in his chute the first time he wouldn't then have shot another 240 ish allied planes. So bravo to any chivalrous knight that let him parachute to safety (and I really mean no disrespect to either Gunther or the allies that let him live, but I do question the logic).