Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Indeed:

"Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."


"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."


However that is not quite the same as the Waffen SS which required "Aryan ancestry and National-Socialist beliefs ":

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/waffen-ss.html

Actually I would normally not write in a thread like this, but certain comments are a little naive, and most likely written because the writers know only part of the picture. Give this also some thought, there where plenty put to the choice concentration camp or front line service. Give that some thought now, with all the hind sight we have. How you would have choosen in that situation and only knowing rumors what is going on in those camps?
Also there where more than enough that didn´t give a hoot about the political big wigs, but where there where they where, because they hoped so to protect their families and homes. That they where misfortunate to be fighting on the side of a cruel system is what we know now, but when you are given only the choice certain death, and high risk of death which would you choose? That there where also exceptions that knew full well what was going on, and believed that was right so is also known, but these are also more the nut jobs. I am just trying to say look at the individuals and don´t throw all in the same pot. As that is how many thought during the fourties, we should know better now.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Wutz

Actually I would normally not write in a thread like this, but certain comments are a little naive, and most likely written because the writers know only part of the picture. Give this also some thought, there where plenty put to the choice concentration camp or front line service. Give that some thought now, with all the hind sight we have. How you would have choosen in that situation and only knowing rumors what is going on in those camps?
Also there where more than enough that didn´t give a hoot about the political big wigs, but where there where they where, because they hoped so to protect their families and homes. That they where misfortunate to be fighting on the side of a cruel system is what we know now, but when you are given only the choice certain death, and high risk of death which would you choose? That there where also exceptions that knew full well what was going on, and believed that was right so is also known, but these are also more the nut jobs. I am just trying to say look at the individuals and don´t throw all in the same pot. As that is how many thought during the fourties, we should know better now.

I completely agree.

I was pointing out the Wehrmacht may have had a compulsory oath to Hitler as leader but nothing else. It was just part of the formality of joining or being conscripted. Everyone swore the oath whether they truly believed in Hitler or not.

On the other hand the Waffen SS did require a genuine commitment to National Socialist beliefs.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

every German pilot had to swear personal allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
They may have said, 'well yes we did but we had to', but they still flew around with a big swastika on their tails.
I can't bring myself to do that.

I don't think you are a hypocrite. You use your freedom to elect not to fly under the swastika banner, that right was after all an important part of what the war was about.

Like you, I fly for my own enjoyment. I do not feel any obligation to "honour all veterans on all sides" by flying under their banners. As long as you recognice your feelings for just that, and not mistake them for some absolute moral imperative, you are not a hypocrite in my book.

[MrBaato]

I will fly anything that isnt american

or I use a non-american skin on it...

Perhaps thats because I played Aces High II (which has all american planes flyable and a few foreign ones because they need non-american planes to shoot down xD)
and the holiwood movies

I also dont like their lack of chivalry and i cant stand their skins with the redneck names written on them

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by MrBaato

I also dont like their lack of chivalry and i cant stand their skins with the redneck names written on them

Are you talking about the actual WWII pilots or the people who play Aces High II?

Splitter

[Avimimus]

I support the Italians surrendering early.

Splitter,

The basic fact is that the war was horrible for almost everyone caught in it, on both sides. However, a lot of beliefs (including one's held on the allied side) made that war possible.

I guess I'm so aware of the horror that people allowed to happen - all sort of people, for a few generations leading up to the wars - that I view the big picture as being decisive.

You might say that I'd hold the moral character of the troops on both sides as being less important than the moral character of the people and societies on both sides. Perhaps not even that, but rather the moral character of what some people and societies were willing to create or to allow to happen.

As for your other question:
I admit that there are some days when I can't fly for blue, there are some when I can't fly for anyone and most days I'm simply using toys that represent technology (and technology I admire). It is a give and take between enjoying the meaning given to the history and getting to close to it. That is how I react.

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Anthony Beevor wrote something of that in his book on Stalingrad. The Germans physical courage wasn't in doubt, but their moral courage was nowhere. I always respected the Italian troops who recognised things for what they were and surrendered. If only 5 million Germans were as brave as that.

And as wise. Thanks for the quote.

Originally Posted by AWL_Spinner

There were enough men and women of honor in various uniforms to be cautious of stereotyping a nation, or nations.

Very true.

Originally Posted by AWL_Spinner

Ethics? I suspect this thread'll rapidly unravel and get locked really quickly. Or at least it would on a lot of other forums, but we'll see how things progress!

Yes, exactly what I was thinking. I immediately regretted taking people's advice and creating the thread.

Although the forum is suddenly and inexplicably civil and sane these days. We'll see how long it lasts.

[BadAim]

Actually, the Luftwaffe was probably the least Nazi organization extant in Germany during WWII, which is quite odd considering their leader, so I suppose if any of us are going to wear the "black hat" it might as well be as a Luftwaffe pilot.

I'm not sure the same can be said of the Japanese, but I'm just not in a position to know what some kid who had been brutalized during his training was thinking 60 years ago.

As for the Italians, you can say what you will about their armed forces, but they had the courage to not give up their Jews to the death camps, and that rates them a bunch of extra points in my book. The same can't be said for the French.

The problem with a discussion like this is (as has already been mentioned) is that we tend to paint with a broad brush, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, but always roughly. The truth almost always lies somewhere between our perceptions (and I do believe there is such a thing as truth).

While I believe that the "average Joe" fighting in the mud or the skies or wherever his job put him for the most part fought for his comrades, the pall of brutality hangs over the Axis forces, and any honest evaluation (at least I believe so) of the war will show that much of the brutality committed by the Allies was in reaction to this (though I don't offer it as an excuse).

Here is what I do know; nearly all of Europe was culpable in the Holocaust, (again, the broad brush sweeps up unintended victims [The Dutch for instance paid a high price for their resistance to the 'final solution']) and the US can certainly be accused of pushing the Japanese into the war. The war on the eastern front was perhaps a case of it's own, but even there the grunt on the ground had a grudging respect for 'Ivan' or 'Hans' as the case may be. The simple fact of the matter is that War is a brutal affair, and no amount of armchair Generaling will ever change that.

Maybe we're all odd ducks for our fascination with this war that was fought by our fathers and grandfathers but I think we can all respect the courage with which they fought their own little corner of the war no matter what flag they fought under.

Should it interest anyone I'm a Yank and I generally fly Axis, though I fly almost anything at sometimes or another.

[csThor]

Actually the Luftwaffe was not much different from the Army or the Navy. In the lower echelons were just as many Nazi-supporters as people who despised the Nazis. And of course there were many soldiers simply had no interest in politics and therefor no opinion beyond the usual crackerbarrel rhetorics (i.e. Hitler saved Germany and removed unemployment ... bla bla bla). The difference was that the higher echelons of the Luftwaffe were a lot more riddled with Nazi supporters than the Navy or the Army.

As for ethics ... Soldiers back then simply had a very limited amount of information available to them. I've read exerpts of Hannes Trautloft's war diary and it soon becomes obvious that even for a Geschwaderkommodore there's little beyond the scope of his role as commanding officer and fighter pilot. He simply has no way of gaining more insights because there are no alternative (and maybe even broader) sources of information available to him. This becomes very obvious in the later stages of the Battle of Britain where he remains extremely confident and expects the launch of the invasion anytime soon.
He also never questions his duty for his country and there's nothing in his diary that is political, although Trautloft was known to be one of those who had no use for the Nazi leadership and despised them for their crudeness and violence. What does that tell you about the ordinary soldier?

Hindsight, which is obviously applied in the question posted by the thread starter, is a marvelous thing, but it's quite clear that most germans remained unaware what kind of criminals they were serving.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by csThor

Actually the Luftwaffe was not much different from the Army or the Navy. In the lower echelons were just as many Nazi-supporters as people who despised the Nazis. And of course there were many soldiers simply had no interest in politics and therefor no opinion beyond the usual crackerbarrel rhetorics (i.e. Hitler saved Germany and removed unemployment ... bla bla bla). The difference was that the higher echelons of the Luftwaffe were a lot more riddled with Nazi supporters than the Navy or the Army.

As for ethics ... Soldiers back then simply had a very limited amount of information available to them. I've read exerpts of Hannes Trautloft's war diary and it soon becomes obvious that even for a Geschwaderkommodore there's little beyond the scope of his role as commanding officer and fighter pilot. He simply has no way of gaining more insights because there are no alternative (and maybe even broader) sources of information available to him. This becomes very obvious in the later stages of the Battle of Britain where he remains extremely confident and expects the launch of the invasion anytime soon.
He also never questions his duty for his country and there's nothing in his diary that is political, although Trautloft was known to be one of those who had no use for the Nazi leadership and despised them for their crudeness and violence. What does that tell you about the ordinary soldier?

Hindsight, which is obviously applied in the question posted by the thread starter, is a marvelous thing, but it's quite clear that most germans remained unaware what kind of criminals they were serving.

I think this is pretty much spot on.

The young men were fighting for their countries and their comrades. Most knew very little about "the big picture". There was no internet, there were few papers, and there were few radio stations. There were was no internet and no 24 hour news networks.

People believed what their government said. The government said it was their duty to go fight and that's what the people did. It was a duty and I respect that very much.

Certainly there were atrocities, I would argue that most were committed by the Axis. Now....when a soldier willingly participates in such atrocities, they have crossed the line from warrior to criminal. In those instances, when a soldier is ordered to do something outside of the scope of warfare or when a soldier takes it upon themselves to commit such atrocities, then that individual needs to be held accountable. At that point, they are no longer soldiers.

Any soldier has the obligation to disobey an "unlawful" order but no soldier can refuse to fight.

It is also important to separate the soldiers from the leadership. Just because the leadership may have been evil does not mean that the society or the soldier was also evil. Therefore it is completely logical to be able to honor the common German soldier while despising the Nazi leadership. (this was just a convenient example, there are others)

Honestly, that's only fair. You cannot hold the common soldier accountable for the evil done by the country's leadership. Conversely, you cannot hold the leadership responsible for an isolated atrocity committed by a soldier or small group of soldiers.

Keep the soldiers and the leadership (the political ideologies and decisions) separate. Critique the leadership all you want, but honor the warriors if they fought honorably.

Splitter

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Wow. Most civil and fair-minded discussion of this topic that I've ever seen on a combat flight sim forum.

As a military veteran of many years, I'm left to feel that there is hope for mankind yet.

Thank you all... it's just very uplifting to see people attempting to sincerely find the truth in it all, and not get distracted by politics, propaganda and agendas.

Republican, Democrat, Fascist, Communist, Theocrat, etc.. as you've pointed out - are all political religions, having very little to do with warriors. Conscripts, draftee's, etc.. really don't have control of these issues.

Volunteers are presented with justification from each of the political factions in conflict which will completely convince almost anyone of the 'rightness', 'honor' and necessity of their sacrifice.

Also, no one who flies for any side more than another - should ever be judged in our community for their choice. I've seen that in Il2, and even in other historical sims.

S!

Gunny