The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

You know what's not been mentioned so far? And it's a positive.

Neither side shot at parachuting airmen. There was some sort of mutual respect.

Any examples?

Perhaps 'Total War' was not part of the language then?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[adonys]

Shooting parachutes no.. but I remember I've read some accounts saying that the brits were destroying the german life-buoys to not allow the germans to recover pilots downed into the Channel.

[MB_Avro_UK]

The life-buoys didn't work. Their mooring chains broke and they were carried away by the sea currents.

Maybe you are thinking about the luftwaffe rescue float planes for downed airmen? Such as the He-59?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

The life-buoys didn't work. Their mooring chains broke and they were carried away by the sea currents.

Maybe you are thinking about the luftwaffe rescue float planes for downed airmen? Such as the He-59?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

the ones that were painted with a red cross but also, allegedly, carried out recon missions...

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Hi all,

You know what's not been mentioned so far? And it's a positive.

Neither side shot at parachuting airmen. There was some sort of mutual respect.

Any examples?

Perhaps 'Total War' was not part of the language then?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Dowding wanted to order his pilots to shoot 'chutes but Churchill vetoed it.

[fruitbat]

it happened, from both sides from time to time. i've certainly read references to it regarding both sides.

theres also the nice taped conversations of a few Germans shot down during the BoB describing how they enjoyed shooting at houses, buses etc. I have no doubt in my mind that it happened the other way around at the end of the war.

you can still read the transcripts of these lovely people who didn't realise they were being taped.

war brings out the utter shit in some people. on all sides.

a couple of pleasant exerts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-2263579.html

[TomcatViP]

I don't want to be moralistic but it's hard to compare the brutality of the Axis forces and the deaths involved in teh liberation of those countries.

Pls see the diag there :

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

8M killed by the allies including 1.6 M civilians causalities (yes far too much)

40M by the Axis regimes including 25.6M of civilians ! (and those countries did not really have strategic bomber forces)

Obviously you don't kill 40M of ppl just by signing your name on an order form (at that time there was no nuke to be feared). Millions of others had to be committed in the blood bath.

[Madfish]

I don't think morals are a solution. There will always be opinions anyways. In fact if you just go by numbers then you'd have to face the issue of our planet being overpopulated even though we had those wars anyways. And that is not an excuse but it's an indicator of what will happen again: conflicts!

Earth doesn't have unlimited rescources. There may be countries or individuals who are rich, e.g. have huge territories etc. but as long as they sit on it and don't distribute it there will be crime and there will be wars. Simple as that.

Also keep in mind that almost a billion is in grave danger of starvation with about 5 million dying yearly. So all cruelties of the war aside the real killers out there are usually something the developed countries don't care about. We sit on our wealth and try to defend, expand and exploit.

From that perspective it doesn't even matter what happened during the war or who won what battle - if you want to be moralistic either defend earth and rid if from it's overpopulation or try to save these people dying from hunger. Of course you could add those who die from desease, exploitation and crimes etc. as well. It's just such a complex task that starting and fighting wars seems to be easier and certainly more lucrative to the people behind the wars. The industry e.g.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Dowding wanted to order his pilots to shoot 'chutes but Churchill vetoed it.

That's a new one on me.

All accounts I've read say that Dowding's opinion was that German parachuting aircrew were prisoners, no longer combatants and should not be shot at, whereas the Germans would have been within their rights to shoot at British aircrew parachuting over England as they would soon be back in the fight.

Churchill was appalled at this notion but had no 'veto' to make, the Luftwaffe jagdflieger luckily held a different view also.

There are reports of it happening on both sides, although whether by accident or design is purely speculative. The Poles in particular had a 'reputation', but there's no concrete proof as far as I'm aware.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Hi all,

You know what's not been mentioned so far? And it's a positive.

Neither side shot at parachuting airmen. There was some sort of mutual respect.

Any examples?

Perhaps 'Total War' was not part of the language then?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

not quite the case from what i read.

there were isolated instances, one where an RAF pilot came down after being machine gunned on his chute which was witnessed by a comrade, and another where a polish pilot shot at a luftwaffe pilot on his chute. emphasis on "isolated" though, as well as being unclear if they were actually hit intentionally, or simply hit by some of the stray lead that you are exposed to if falling through a battlespace.

stereotypically speaking (dangerous i know) our czech and polish pilots were a tad more bloodthirsty than the british ones. but generally it wasn't in the slightest "necessary" if the german pilots were bailing over UK territory - captured anyway - but there was always a certain level of surprise that the german pilots didn't do it, some sections even feeling they would have been within their rights to do so. one quote went so far as to say that he would've been a legitimate target on the end of his parachute, because that parachuting pilot could be back in the air by tea time.

i would guess it's an element of self-preservation in it though - you never know when you'll be dangling helpless in the middle of an air battle.


also coming down in teh channel was very dangerous. the north sea even more so - very very few pilots were pulled out of there.