Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[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.

[Dietger]

I beg to differ!

As a human being, I believe peace and freedom are free!
And by their very nature easy to keep!

If someone wants to make you "pay" for it, they lie.

Being attacked or helping a poor soul is as well your right. Notwehr-Selfdefense!

But that is, be no means PEACE-KEEPING, cos some morron already broke it! Read Herbert Markuse on it in: "The one dimentional man".
You have to use force. And everyone has the right to do so....after trying to solf the problem peacefully and in mature mannor.

But.

You defend yourself: >>STANDING YOUR OWN GROUND<< sence this phrase literally!

If you find yourself taking other mens live, somewhere far from home - somthing is going utterly wrong. And (!) your probably be infact the "bad" guy, the attacker - NOT the defender.

If materialism, struggle for resource, dominance, simple greed drive the governments around the globe, its of course hard to "keep" peace, LOL since you constantley seek to suppress others!

In the case of WWII, the world had to face Hitler and there for the axis.

But that doesent mean that masskilling by Bristish or US or (whom ever), is better then masskilling by Germans or Japanese!

In regards of todays "asymetrical war(s)": there is no defense against terror!

- other then(real heartfelt) dialog.

Again, its a thin line ....

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Dietger

I beg to differ!

As a human being, I believe peace and freedom are free!
And by their very nature easy to keep!

If someone wants to make you "pay" for it, they lie.

Your model needs the ppl to be identical, if you were right, communism would work.

If you find yourself taking other mens live, somewhere far from home - somthing is going utterly wrong. And (!) your probably be infact the "bad" guy, the attacker - NOT the defender.

If materialism, struggle for resource, dominance, simple greed drive the governments around the globe, its of course hard to "keep" peace, LOL since you constantley seek to suppress others!

In history, freedom was never free.
Also the urge to suppress, to dominate, seems to be in our genetic code, at least for some.

Compare an chipmunk family or a wolf pack.

Maybe war is just part of our evolution.

Originally Posted by Avala

This is pure psychopathic sentence. (I don't say that Swiss is psychopath, he is just being taken by them)

Funny, I dont know of any free country which achieved this status without bloodshed.
Please explain.

Or, maybe wee should discuss the term "free".
The Taliban f.i. probably consider their system very free(and right).
It all lies in the eye of the beholder.

Btw: I am not a psychopath for sure, but a Machiavellian maybe.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by 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.

You're saying that ALL wars have been won by killing as many civilians as possible? Obviously that's incorrect.

it doesent make any sense to destingush between German pilots or British, US, Russian etc pilots, cos all of them killed civilians;

Well all sides killed civilians, but not all pilots did. And I think there are reasons to distinguish between aggressors and defenders in different conflicts.

Cos you cant kill for peace, you just keep it!
And killing is bad, periot.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree again. Shooting at a madman that's wandering through the streets killing civilians is not a bad thing to do. And there can be occasions when peace will be reached more quickly by killing.

And although its a tragedy, no couch potato has the right to point the finger - some 60 years later

I think I probably agree with your underlying point that it's all too easy for us to judge when we really have no idea about a lot of these things, and it's unfair to judge a lot of it from our armchairs - but we do have the right to judge, that's the point about freedom.

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

That's just as hard to answer - again all to easy to swagger and say what we'd have done, but until we're put in that position we can't always be sure.

There is no excuse for shooting pilots on chutes. Bombing cities. Strafing ppl.

As I've written enough in the other thread, I disagree. And fortunately, so did the allied commanders.

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.

I agree that history is generally distorted by those that have won - but in recent wars around the world, the losers are often equally able to write history books on the subject. If talking about WWII, the Germans are totally free to write history books on it.

Wouldnt you think, that by now, after all this thousends of years - killing, all "bad" should be dead once and for all???

There's one born every minute.

Originally Posted by Dietger

I beg to differ!

As a human being, I believe peace and freedom are free!
And by their very nature easy to keep!

If someone wants to make you "pay" for it, they lie.

Lol, you think Peace is easy to keep? There's never been peace in the world, it can't be that easy. The saying that freedom isn't free doesn't mean that you should have to pay for it, it just means that it's not easy to keep freedom and it does cost you. So when the Polish were free before WWII, and Germany invaded, were the Poles supposed to say 'freedom is free, you lie, please leave'? Obviously they wanted freedom, and to get it they'd have to pay in the form of a war.

Being attacked or helping a poor soul is as well your right. Notwehr-Selfdefense!
...
If you find yourself taking other mens live, somewhere far from home - somthing is going utterly wrong. And (!) your probably be infact the "bad" guy, the attacker - NOT the defender.

There are plenty of wars where I agree with you there, but it is also possible that the poor soul that you're helping is a long way from home. For example, you agree it was right of the Americans to help in Europe in WWII I take it?

In regards of todays "asymetrical war(s)": there is no defense against terror!

- other then(real heartfelt) dialog.

Again, its a thin line ....

Terrorism is certainly not easy to defend against, but are there any examples in history where 'real heartfelt dialog' has worked against terror?

[Skoshi Tiger]

[QUOTE=Richie;204946]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.
QUOTE]

Then America could send in Arnold Schwarzenegger and we all know how that would end!!!!!