Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by llama_thumper

Has anyone mentioned the chute-killing and civilian-straffing 'honourable' Luftwaffe pilots yet during the Poland 1939 campaign (not to mention the bombing of civilian cities way before Rotterdam or London)? Thought it might be worth a mention since some posters here seem to have amnesia when mentioning the Luftwaffe pilots were 'just doing their job'... or is that OK since they didn't do that in the West (apparently?)?

Wasn't that their job (the bombing civilian targets anyway)? Even if it is a poorly thought out job - and one done with too much zeal.

Originally Posted by Codex

Forgive me if this has been brought up already (I've only read the first few pages) however we must also remember the act of conscription and the penalties for desertion.

My grandfather served as a machine gunner in the Wehrmacht, he’d often mention that if you refused to obey or desert your unit not only did you face a court-marshal (if caught) but there was the possibility of reprisals against family members.

Choice was limited.

That is very interesting. I could especially see this being the case towards the end of the war.

I remember a study that showed that the worst that soldiers generally received for refusing to stay in an einsatzgruppen was being yelled at, humiliated and skipped over for promotion - but refusing to kill civilians is very different from desertion.

It is interesting to think that Nazi Germany - despite everything that was done, recognised this distinction just as we do today.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

but refusing to kill civilians is very different from desertion. [.]
It is interesting to think that Nazi Germany - despite everything that was done, recognised this distinction just as we do today.

My ass.
Both, refusal to obey orders and desertion could be punished by the death penalty.
In both cases your supervisor could do that on the field, without trial.

Have you ever wondered why(in most armies) only officers carry a handgun?
(In Switzerland we call the officers SIG P220: leadership support tool '75)

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

My ass.
Both, refusal to obey orders and desertion could be punished by the death penalty.
In both cases your supervisor could do that on the field, without trial.

Have you ever wondered why(in most armies) only officers carry a handgun?
(In Switzerland we call the officers SIG P220: leadership support tool '75)

...and a really awesome weapon! Need me one of those....maybe my chihuahua will start to listen to me?

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

...and a really awesome weapon! Need me one of those....maybe my chihuahua will start to listen to me?

Splitter

Actually I'm pretty good in doggy education too(Dobermann experience).

Your problem is: This rat has a brain the size of a pea.

[Dietger]

There is not a single case in history, in all of it, in which ppl - civilians, as they are called here, where NOT an utterly important! - startegic and tactical - target(s).

You win, by killing as much as possible of them, preferably in the shortest time possible - keeping the $ost low.

There is not a single army in history, in all of it, which haddnt done so.
Till today....you shot cats and dogs jung and old civilians out of helicoptes, like on a Wolf hunt, sporting. Its called asymetrical war, which means hugh armys kill ppl which hardly got any weapony. We Germans call it: "Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schiessen". And you got away with it!

Just to see where we are standing today!

As for the question: "Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII" and wether they had to refuse killing ppl - it doesent make any sense to destingush between German pilots or British, US, Russian etc pilots, cos all of them killed civilians; I'd say, of course they had to stand down of such tasks!
Cos you cant kill for peace, you just keep it!
And killing is bad, periot.

The dilemma we face is, in most cases, esp. in the German case of WWII, your dead if you refuse to do so. The first victoms of the NSDAP were of course Germans. The simply truth is, you have a right to live, if one is threatened you march and kill. And although its a tragedy, no couch potato has the right to point the finger - some 60 years later - and make big, meaningless gestures!

The right question should be : WHAT WOULD HAVE YOU! DONE???

There is no excuse for shooting pilots on chutes. Bombing cities. Strafing ppl.
Mugging countrys.
And somesuch.

Doesent it make you laugh, to hear your army is killing for peace? Of course all shot dead where bad guys, those are supposed to be shot right?

Its ridiculous, all history books, writen by the winner long after the war(s) are full of self-righteousness, proclaiming, once again!, how they served peace by killing all the other(bad) ppl.

Wouldnt you think, that by now, after all this thousends of years - killing, all "bad" should be dead once and for all???
Everyone has the right to defend himself or others. Its just a thin line ....

Well, think your yourself.

I for my part dont believe in killing for peace and shoting bad ppl anymore.
We all are free by nature!, its your own government, in the first case, that oppresses ppl. And motivates ppl to kill each other for greed...

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well said Dietger. Human nature has never changed, never will. We are masters when it comes to find ways killing another human being...

[Dietger]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Well said Dietger. Human nature has never changed, never will. We are masters when it comes to find ways killing another human being...

S!
Yes Flanker an old and sad story. Only good thing: war and weapon make for nice games afterwards LOL

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Dietger

I for my part dont believe in killing for peace and shoting bad ppl anymore.
We all are free by nature!, its your own government, in the first case, that oppresses ppl. And motivates ppl to kill each other for greed...

Unfortunately, freedom isn't free.
There will be always ppl who try to take it from you.

Is killing for freedom justified? Hell - YES!

[Richie]

Say to the politicians on each side, if you want to have this war fine, but you're going to fight too. You're going to fight along side all of the young sons and daughters who are going to die in this. Do you still want to have this war or do you want to work the problem out somehow.


If only that were possible but it's not.

The last thing I saw where anything was done that way was Henry V and the war between England and France.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by Richie

Say to the politicians on each side, if you want to have this war fine, but you're going to fight too. You're going to fight along side all of the young sons and daughters who are going to die in this. Do you still want to have this war or do you want to work the problem out somehow.


If only that were possible but it's not.

The last thing I saw where anything was done that way was Henry V and the war between England and France.

Oh also a little later Napoleon was also along on the battlefields. I am certain he enjoyed his trip back from Moscow.