Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[Feathered_IV]

There is a saying: A good man in a bad place. I suspect there were many such men, and women in those days.

One thing I have always found heartening about the Japanese was the behavior of many civilians and enlisted men towards prisoners in the home islands. Despite the threat of being quite literally beaten to death if caught fraternising with the enemy, many risked their own saftey to show kindness to PoW's. Even Greg Boyington, a self confessed Jap-hater (his words, not mine) said how touched he was by the way civilians would risk all to give them food, despite their own deprivations. He also mentioned kindly guards that smuggled precious soap to the prisoners. Demonstrating as one would to a child how to bathe and keep themselves clean.

Away from the eyes of the brutal regime, it seems that compassion and dignity still survived. The idea of collective guilt is often mentioned in relation to some nations. In the case of Japan, I think it is rather less so. The civilians could not of guessed what appalling acts were being being committed by their military overseas. Such things could hardly have made it into the newsreels. Indeed, most troops once sent overseas did not return home for the duration of the war. So word wouldn't have filtered back much that way. The civil population would have only known strict military rule, constant reports of victories. Then a slow tightening of bellies before the B-29's came. It's no wonder many would later appear skeptical of the crimes of the military, and be more focused on how much they suffered at home.

Well, just thinking out loud there.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

There is a saying: A good man in a bad place.

There were plenty of bad men in bad places too. That's the thing, War is all about the individual fight to survive. Take any cross section of society and there will be the rotten few in there somwhere, problem was in WWII they were heavily armed and trained to kill.

I've read accounts of RAF pilots flying very close over German parachutes in order to collapse the 'chute and kill the pilot hanging from it.

IL-2 wise I always felt a little wierd shooting down Spits (I'm British) but not enough to stop me doing it.

Luckily we all share a passion for WWII aviation and so when you see someone flying a 109 around online you don't think 'Nazi' you just think '109 lover'.

The beauty of IL-2 is the emotional attachment to the aircraft means that the politics of it all don't matter. Man and machine, that's all.

[rakinroll]

I only fly German planes because of her:

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2861/...aschifferb.jpg

[swiss]

I only fly blue side because of this:

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

One can look at the treatment of draft dodgers or people who went AWOL in the past decade - in America - during wars of lower intensity, less ideology and less risk to the home country.

Exactly. Let's make a comparison between then and now, in an effort to have the differences point out a possible explanation.

A lot of european countries are fighting a war along with America that takes place way over the other side of the globe with no clear objective, unattainable goals, moral justifications that often contradict actual events on the field and for no apparent gain when the net resuls of things is assessed might i add, neither for the men fighting, not for the public back home and certainly not for the local populations, on behalf of whom these wars are partly supposed to be fought, instead of tightening up border control, funneling all those funds into the secret services and special police branches and focusing on nipping the situation in the bud (what creates anti-western sentiment in the east, which is all too oten foreigners meddling in their domestic affairs) instead of waiting till it blows over and having to put boots on the ground.

Looking at the treatment of news reporters who raise doubts about the whole situation makes it clear what the treatment of servicemen who oppose this would be. And while it's considered and legislated an act of treason often punishable by death to disobey orders during war time, there is no formal war declaration for what's happening over there, which is in direct contrast to WWII. So, first of all, back in WWII you could get shot.

If this wasn't reason enough to go and do what you're told, the other big difference with WWII and the reason we all had to start running out of money to fund our countries before conceding the point is simple: modern wars are mostly fought by professional soldiers, a situation that combined with the far away places the fighting occurs by and large shields the bulk of the population back home from experiencing the war.

If there was a draft and a civilian army fighting along with the pros, criticism and public intervention in how things are run would be a lot higher. For people to be against war, they have to experience war. And for people to understand how war ties your hands into doing things you don't like, they also have to experience it first hand.

At the very least, in order to even sympathize with these two lines of thought when there is no direct danger to the home grounds, they need to have an indirect personal investment in it, like a relative in the armed forces, which has the effect of shortening the geographical distance of war. The smaller, professional armies of today mean that less of the civilian population is indirectly invested in the war, as opposed to the massive conscripted armies of WWI, WWII and Vietnam which touched entire neighbourhoods despite the distance between home and battlefield.

In that sense, it's pretty obvious how stark the contrast is to WWII when most of the fighting was done by conscripts, a lot of times within their own neighborhood. Having your relatives die or your local school carpet bombed tends to bring out the self-preservation in people and since we are naturally distrustful of each other, most of us think it's better to have a corrupt government of our own to try and overthrow, than be a subject of a foreign occupying power that will meet all such efforts with increased force.

It's the same reason Greece fought on the allied side in WWII, even though we were ruled by a military dictatorship that ideologically had much more in common with the axis: the guy in charge knew that a world war rests a lot on projecting naval power so he threw his chips in with the side the UK took, but he also knew that the general public would have none of it if he announced an intention to give away land to Mussolini's armies as per the ultimatum delivered to him, because it's easier to overthrow your local dictator than a foreign one. Plain and simple, if your local dictator sends the army to shoot at civilian protesters, there's a higher chance of your countrymen missing on purpose than if they were a foreign occupation force, or having a friend/relative at the other end of your gun barrel.

This was illustrated in the fall of the Greek junta back in 1974, when on one hand a tank smashed the gate into the Athens polytechnic university to end the student uprising that had taken up HQ there, but on the other one most of the military units posted all along the city (some of them commando units no less) didn't lift a finger to harm the protesters, whom in turn had already appealed to the soldier's (again, mostly conscripted) sense of a common ancestry. In fact, the majority of torture, killings and deportations during the 7 year dictatorship were carried out by the police forces and certain special military police groups, not the rank and file of the conscripted youth.

Finally, people often do wrong for the right reasons and vice versa. Studies have been coming to light that show most normal and well adjusted human beings are naturally averse both to violence and injustice, wether that means having it imposed on you or exerting it on others. It seems that despite our overall shitty nature, we instictively know what's wrong and our own body has mechanisms to punish us for straying from what is considered ethically acceptable.

This is why post traumatic stress disorder was experienced a lot during WWI (the condition defined as shell-shock back then) with the appaling living conditions and the mass loss of life in cannon fodder attacks that served minimal tactical or strategic purpose, why a lot of the SS troops who were posted to death camps actually went clinically certified insane and committed suicide after witnessing and causing all that violence, why Soviet troops fared better and had more resolve despite their enormous casualties, why it has resurfaced in the morally ambiguous military undertakings of recent years but mostly on the western side, but also why PTSD was not encountered as often in WWII veterans of the western front.

Political and religious beliefs, justification of actions to oneself and accepting that nobody is 100% pure good or evil can only go so far, if the wrong we do starts outweighing the right as we perceive them instinctively, it starts taking its toll on us. If people are inclined to feel (not believe, but instinctively feel) they are morally justified in what they do, or at the very least that their hands are tied and they have no other way out, they tend to have a higher morale level and less objections.

Summing it all up, it's clear that airmen experienced the war in a more isolated, cleaner way than the troops on the ground, especially on the western front. Especially during the early conquest of France and the low countries, most of the luftwaffe pilots were carrying the remnants of the WWI aviator's tradition: professionals engaging in deadly combat proving one's superiority with an air of sport, competition and respect for the opponent's abilities.

Even as early as that however, the missions they mostly disliked was ground attack taskings. It wasn't only because a fighter pilot would find a freijagd mission more enjoyable, it was also the fact that ground attack would take away that air of sportive cleanliness that pervaded fighting against an opponent flying an evenly matched machine as equals and put them closer to the dirty side of death, in a position of superiority over the grunts on the ground, the friendlies to be anxious of protecting and the enemies to ruthlessly kill in a way that makes them seem almost defenseless to you. Having also in the back of your mind that you are not defending your home but ruining somebody else's is enough to create some resentment for the task. This situation was further exacerbated in the Eastern front, were wanton violence and destruction on anything that moved (not only on military targets) was coupled with worse living conditions and an increased amount of close air support needs.

Finally, as the war drew to a close, moral was low but resolve sprang back up, due once more to moral justification. The strategic bombing campaign gave the Luftwaffe pilots the moral justification they needed to keep fighting, in their mind's eye they probably weren't fighting the enemy as much as trying to minimize devastation wrought on their civilian population. Even though bomber interceptions (especially at the face of complete allied air superiority late in the war, but even during the early stages of no long range escorts) was considered a very undesirable mission that sapped morale levels, they drew on the instictive "self preservation justifies me morally" attitude that's found in all human beings to keep at it until no longer feasible.

This is all pretty much summed up in the saying of one of the luftwaffe aces (i don't know but i think it was Priller, please correct me if i'm wrong as i would welcome someone reminding me who actually said it) about air combat, where he stated something to the effect of: "To tangle with Spitifres over the channel or even with 20 Russians trying to take a bite off of one of yours is enjoyable, but turning into the pursuit curve towards a formation of a few hundred Fortresses makes your life flash in front of your eyes every single time."

I know someone will be along shortly to flame me as a LW appologizer or a traitor to modern western standrds, but first of all this would simply prove my point and second, i live in a country that's up to its neck in debt, due in large part to the wars we've been forced to fight (99% of them defensive ones, fought on our land and with our civilians right on the line of fire) and the need to maintain a military half the size of Germany with 1/7th of Germany's population, in which we are all inducted and serve as coscripts before we turn 30.

Please, keep that in mind and realize i'm trying to paint a picture of how humans react to war regardless of race or religion through examples from history, not point fingers or give pats on the back. Disagree with me just like it's your right to do and state your objections, but let's not turn this from a statement of uncomfortable truths about human nature to a personal slagging match. Thank you for reading this far

[swiss]

Indeed, just checked Wiki: Greece spend 2.8% of it's GNI for their armed forces.

But, why?

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

At the very least, in order to even sympathize with these two lines of thought when there is no direct danger to the home grounds

I feel your whole post was a bit naive on human behavior. Which also begs the question why you enjoy a war simulating game. America cannot just standby, and wait for another tower to be brought down.

[Blackdog_kt]

By the time i finished my usual diatribe ( ) the thread has moved along quite a bit, plus quite nicely and in a civil manner i may add. Good work everyone.

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

war is usually the massacre of young people that don't know each other for the sake of old people who don't fight and know each other.

That's a sig-worthy quote

Originally Posted by SlipBall

I feel your whole post was a bit naive on human behavior. Which also begs the question why you enjoy a war simulating game. America cannot just standby, and wait for another tower to be brought down.

I'm not saying they should sit there defenceless. I'm just saying the guys in charge messed up the execution for most of the people involved, regardless of side.
In any case, this was used as an example to compare with previous wars because it's the only high profile war running today on a more or less global scale. As for what's naive or not, the whole "instinctively good" angle is not my deduction. It's actually the conclusion of a research done by a US army officer on the conduct of soldiers during WWII and Korea, which ended up influencing changes in the entire training doctrine of the US army.

It's not the main theme of the thread to dissect this topic however and i would prefer not to dwell on it for fear of derailing the very constructive and on-topic thread we have going here. It's a current day issue and tempers can run hot even when no ill will is present, i'd like to avoid going down that route and ruining it for everybody else who's participating on this thread. Cheers

Originally Posted by swiss

Indeed, just checked Wiki: Greece spend 2.8% of it's GNI for their armed forces.

But, why?

Because a few expansionist politicians periodically end up governing a neighboring state or two, plus some painful history lessons that end up forgotten every few years and then the leadership scrambles to plug the holes all over again.
Also, on a humorous note, we lack Switzerland's banks that would make powerful people all over the world very negative to the idea of us ever getting attacked
Again, i'm answering this as it's directly addressed to me but i would prefer to leave it here in order to keep this thread on topic.

I like this self-moderation thing we're exercising here

[Ltbear]

Originally Posted by swiss

Indeed, just checked Wiki: Greece spend 2.8% of it's GNI for their armed forces.

But, why?

Well....i give a few pointers, but wount go into it....

Cyprus and if you look at a map, look east of greece, that is the main reson and have been like that since...wowser....many many many many many years......

Exept the shootings and the "official war" the situation between greece and the "land far east" is almost with the same tensions as north korea and south korea...

[Oktoberfest]

Well, as John Lennon said, Imagine...

I think I'm happy to live in a peaceful Europe, with friends from Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Croatia, Poland, England, Ireland, etc... all joining in a virtual sky to fight with and against, but where the end of the fight is usually join the girlfriend and not sleeping on a muddy field, half frozen with shells incoming...

What was good in WW2 ? Nations grew adult and started talking together. Peace was paid at the cost of millions of lives, and just because those people allowed me to have friends in Europe and live in peace, I have the deepest respect for them.