Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[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.

[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

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Actually, the Luftwaffe was probably the least Nazi organization extant in Germany during WWII

I know you are wrong about that one. I have read much about this and the LW was the MOST Nazi organization besides the Waffen SS. Reserach this, you may be surprised!

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Well as they say "History is written by the victors."

This is sometimes true, but not always. What is much more true is that history is written in the main by the survivors, and that is a big bias.

[Friendly_flyer]

Just to go back on topic for a moment:

I mainly fly RAF, because I've always been partial to the machines (particularly the Hurri) and partially because of growing up in Norway in the 70ies (the RNAF has strong ties to the RAF from the war, the squadrons are even numbered as part of the RAF system). Having said that, I fly whatever side or whatever plane tickles my fancy: German late war wonderplanes, Italian birds (the SM 79 is great!), Soviet ground hogs or any rickety double decker. Mostly i enjoy flying for whomever is the underdog. That is a rather typical human trait. I don't fly American planes much, mostly because the US were top dogs for most of the war, and because I don't like their planes much. Polished metal has never been my thing. The Martlet is a great little plane though.

[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?

[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