the red baron hero or villern

[Count Zero]

I am by far no historian so all I go by is my general knowledge. When I was in school I learned that even though Germany started the war, many more nations were building up to it; especially Britain and Germany were having some sort of race concerning their marine military. Aggressions, I was told, were fueled from both sides; this is not to say that the blame should be shifted away from Germany but at least it doesn't make it look as if the other nations were having peace in mind.

Is there anything to it?

Well, yes. Those things you mentioned are certainly true. There were a lot of tensions between the various European countries and their "blocs". I learned the same thing in school. But Germany heavily influenced Austria-Hungary to escalate the conflict by making demands of Serbia they wouldn't fulfill (as a matter of fact, they were ready to fulfill all but one of them). While a lot of people elsewhere in the beginning weren't opposed to a war for one reason or another, Germany did cause the actual escalation.
Apart from that, Germany's conduct during the war was anything else than honourable. From invading neutral countries to using poison gas, they broke a lot of the rules of war (and yes, there are such rules, and for good reasons) and human decency.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Apart from that, Germany's conduct during the war was anything else than honourable. From invading neutral countries to using poison gas, they broke a lot of the rules of war (and yes, there are such rules, and for good reasons) and human decency.

With respect: Name those good reasons. What would be "honourable"? The silly game of lining up your armies and awaiting a mutual agreement to charge? Turn war into a game with rules and customs and co-operation and you have no reason to stop it. You blunt its edges and it simply goes on longer while you forget the cost. It is war. Not fisticuffs. Not "you have offended my honour sir *glove-slap*". War. As for "human decency", every country violated it in its treatment of its young males, as I mentioned above. A treatment, I would add, which is supported by the rules. With respect, defending those rules is no different from defending any other justification for massacre, discriminatory slaughter or enslavement.

I think the problem here is that people are using an outdated standard of morality to evaluate each nation's actions. If, like me, you have a view that cuts to the heart of how each nation viewed and treated its young men (and this is and has always been the central issue when it comes to fighting wars) then all the nations were the same. I'm afraid for me it is as simple as that.

 

[Count Zero]

So your idea of war is to let those young men act like monsters?
The rules of war I referred to above would be to not target civilians, to not use weapons of mass destruction, to treat prisoners decently. Basically what you wanted if you got into a war, as a civilian or soldier.
Some of Germany's enemies might have been equally bad to their own soldiers (Italy, e.g., had terrible disciplinary punishments and there were a lot of soldiers executed for supposed cowardice on all sides), but that should be a lesson to make it better, not to abandon this altogether.
War is never honourable and always a terrible, bloody and murderous affair. But sometimes, it's inevitable. So what do you do if someone declares war on your or invades your country? You try to fight back the best way you know.
I'm actually a pacifist but reality doesn't really work my way in this case.


As for the original question, I'd say he was neither. There's nothing particularly heroic about war since it's about killing other people. But as far as I know, Manfred von Richthofen wasn't a villain, either.

 

[Starbreaker]

Red Baron was not a villain, although I prefer Tony's and California Pizza Kitchen when I'm hungry.

Stop posting jokes before me!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

So your idea of war is to let those young men act like monsters?
The rules of war I referred to above would be to not target civilians, to not use weapons of mass destruction, to treat prisoners decently. Basically what you wanted if you got into a war, as a civilian or soldier.
Some of Germany's enemies might have been equally bad to their own soldiers (Italy, e.g., had terrible disciplinary punishments and there were a lot of soldiers executed for supposed cowardice on all sides), but that should be a lesson to make it better, not to abandon this altogether.
War is never honourable and always a terrible, bloody and murderous affair. But sometimes, it's inevitable. So what do you do if someone declares war on your or invades your country? You try to fight back the best way you know.
I'm actually a pacifist but reality doesn't really work my way in this case.

Civilian or soldier, it makes no difference. I have never heard a sensible or convincing argument- from either a moral or logical viewpoint- for why there should be a distinction. All life is precious. A soldier has become a soldier due to societal pressures and conditioning. Usually it is exclusively young males treated in this manner. To call them "legitimate targets" and those lucky others conditioned onto a different path illegitimate targets is unacceptable. Their lives are just as precious as anyone elses, but biologically (and so in primitive society's thinking) they are disposable and expendable. That's why they're the ones chosen to fight, conditioned to fight. What happens when you have rules and customs stating that only the disposable and expendible people may be killed? No reason to stop fighting, that's what. Treat prisoners decently, yes I agree, but my point is none of the nations involved even treated their own sons decently. I am also a pacifist. I believe war must be avoided at all costs, as must violence. Diplomacy is essential. If, however, my nation was under immediate threat of invasion or destruction, sadly I would have to authorize violence in defense. I would aim to stop the war as quickly as possible, through diplomatic means hopefully. I would treat all human life as equal and not target any one group discriminately. Instead I would simply attack the opposing nation wherever possible, if in a fashion designed to swiftly end the conflict (take out industrial sites, etc.).

PS: If young men conditioned into military service become "monsters"- and keep in mind one person's monster is not another's- then all I can say to society is "take a good look at youself, Frankenstein". Don't condition your sons with the understanding that their own lives don't matter and they should dedicate themselves to war, and they won't become "monsters" will they?

 

[CorporalClegg]

small trivia - how many know that Von Richthofen's younger brother Luther was Germany's fourth highest scoring ace with 40 kills?

I did!

As did I!

And as far as the original question, I would say no.

The guy got to the point where he was rather merciless and ruthless in his fighting.

In fact, that whole core or early aces: Richthofen, Udet, Voss, Lowenhardt were all a bit too bloodthirsty. They flew with a "get the kill at all costs" mentality.

I know that James Franco movie about the Escadrille got a lot of flack (pardon the pun) for its portrayal of the "Evil German pilots," but there was actually a bit of truth in it.

Ironically, the commonly accepted nowadays that the Immelmann really began as a common "last ditch" effort by allied pilots of crippled planes to get away and retreat because the German pilots were gong to shoot them down anyway. In fact, some say it actually had little or nothing to do with Max Immelmann himself at all. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, sort of speak. (As an interesting side note, the "Immelman" turn used in roller coasters and the like is really a misrepresentation of the maneuver and has little in common with it.)

This all goes to show that, in a lot of ways, when it came to combat tactics, the WWI Germans were a lot more ruthless and "evil" than those of WWII.

I'd even say that the a good portion of the WWII Luftwaffe pilots (At least those not under Goring's direct influence.) were much more "heroic" than those of WWI.

Erich Hartmann for instance, who, IMO, is the best aviator who ever lived, was a fucking hero.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I would aim to stop the war as quickly as possible, through diplomatic means hopefully. I would treat all human life as equal and not target any one group discriminately. Instead I would simply attack the opposing nation wherever possible, if in a fashion designed to swiftly end the conflict (take out industrial sites, etc.).

The quickest way possible, when you are a major world power, is always the utter annihilation of everything in the opposing nation.

The fact that this is still not desirable, and even if it were, will cause you diplomatic problems with nations you did not have problems with before, should provide a bit of insight into why we should have rules for warfare.

It isn't even, necessarily, that we expect them to always be followed - although it is good when they are. It is also that the existance of rules provides a legitimacy to actions (sanctions, providing aid to your enemy, or outright declaring war on you) that I (as a third-party nation) may take when you (as a party to war) fail to observe the rules.

Saying that there is no difference between civilians and military personnel is the same thing as saying that there is no difference between a criminal shooting someone to take their money and a policeman shooting a criminal to prevent it. Or that there is no difference between the quality of the crime when a man rapes and kills a young woman, and when that young woman's father, or a court, kills him for doing it. All sin is not equal. And when society decides to create, of its own democratic will, a class of people (policemen, military personnel, government officials) who are empowered to take actions on behalf of the people that cannot be safely entrusted to all of the people (making treaties with foreign powers, putting dangerous criminals to death), then yes, of course that changes the morality of them doing those things. And it also changes the morality of how an opposed power should allow itself to respond to those people as opposed to the general population.

If you want to make an argument that drafting people into those positions, as opposed to allowing them to volunteer for them, is wrong, then I'm inclined to agree. Hell, if you want to make an argument that there are additional classes of people that have been given special powers to represent people than the ones that I listed above, like banking officials, and that that is a reason why the World Trade Center might have been considered a valid target, then I won't agree with you, but I would have to concede that there is a logic to that argument. But to contend that war should mean utter anarchy even to nations that otherwise consider themselves civilized is specious to say the least.

 

[captcalhoun]

the reason why we don't indiscriminatly target innocent civilians in war is simple: the poor bastards don't stand a chance and can't fight back.

a soldier is trained and equipped to fight back. he either does that or he surrenders.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I would aim to stop the war as quickly as possible, through diplomatic means hopefully. I would treat all human life as equal and not target any one group discriminately. Instead I would simply attack the opposing nation wherever possible, if in a fashion designed to swiftly end the conflict (take out industrial sites, etc.).

The quickest way possible, when you are a major world power, is always the utter annihilation of everything in the opposing nation.

The fact that this is still not desirable, and even if it were, will cause you diplomatic problems with nations you did not have problems with before, should provide a bit of insight into why we should have rules for warfare.

It isn't even, necessarily, that we expect them to always be followed - although it is good when they are. It is also that the existance of rules provides a legitimacy to actions (sanctions, providing aid to your enemy, or outright declaring war on you) that I (as a third-party nation) may take when you (as a party to war) fail to observe the rules.

Saying that there is no difference between civilians and military personnel is the same thing as saying that there is no difference between a criminal shooting someone to take their money and a policeman shooting a criminal to prevent it. Or that there is no difference between the quality of the crime when a man rapes and kills a young woman, and when that young woman's father, or a court, kills him for doing it. All sin is not equal. And when society decides to create, of its own democratic will, a class of people (policemen, military personnel, government officials) who are empowered to take actions on behalf of the people that cannot be safely entrusted to all of the people (making treaties with foreign powers, putting dangerous criminals to death), then yes, of course that changes the morality of them doing those things. And it also changes the morality of how an opposed power should allow itself to respond to those people as opposed to the general population.

But to contend that war should mean utter anarchy even to nations that otherwise consider themselves civilized is specious to say the least.

First, I said nothing about "utter anarchy". Second, I said "through diplomatic means hopefully". Blowing the entire enemy nation off the map is not good diplomacy. My goal in any war would be to end it in a fashion that allows both them and I to make a peace and strengthen one another in the aftermath. If it somehow isn't clear by now, I don't like violence. Do you really think, given my prior comments here, that "blow whole nations to shreds" is a favoured tactic in my eyes?

Also, well, with respect I don't agree with several of your points here. First, I don't believe in sin so saying "all sin is not equal" is meaningless to me. Also, the court or the father murdering that man and that man raping that woman are both terrible crimes, the perpetrator of which requires a lengthy prison sentence for discipline, rehabilitation and to keep such dangerous people from hurting anyone else. The murder is a more serious crime, but basically I don't see why my attitude should be different.

As for sanctions, no nation would have applied sactions when young males were selectively enslaved, imprisoned or murdered because they all did it. That is the point I've been making from the start. They were all the same, essentially, and all thought it justified because of their shared rules. That's what happens when you have rules. If there was a shared custom and rule in every nation that Jews, rather than young men, are to be the ones murdered and enslaved, or conditioned into thinking their duty is to suffer and die for others, then someone would likely be here arguing the holocaust was wrong and all nations [participating were just as bad, and everyone would be disagreeing.

As ever, my aplogies for being so strong in my opinions.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

the reason why we don't indiscriminatly target innocent civilians in war is simple: the poor bastards don't stand a chance and can't fight back.

a soldier is trained and equipped to fight back. he either does that or he surrenders.

Illogical. Soldiers are "poor bastards" just as much as civilians. Second, a soldier is protected by his gun and knife. A civilian is protected by the soldier's gun, knife and the fact that the soldier has been conditioned into fighting to the death to protect that civilian. The civilian is better protected. Even if we accept your first point, if I shoot both a soldier and civilian dead, you say the soldier has a defense so that's okay. Well, it clearly wasn't an adequate defense was it? Because he's dead. What's the difference between killing someone with "no defense" and someone with an inadequate defense? Aren't both "poor bastards?" As for surrender, soldiers are often conditioned not to surrender. My grandfather fought in World War Two, the poor man (though happily he came through okay). Do you know how many 12-year-old German boys he saw shot because they had been conditioned into refusing to surrender?

 

[captcalhoun]

well, the obvious answer to that point is: if the soldier's got a knife and a gun, there's as much chance of him shooting you as you shooting him.

the civilian's chances are on whether you have a conscience and don't shoot an unarmed civilian or you do.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

well, the obvious answer to that point is: if the soldier's got a knife and a gun, there's as much chance of him shooting you as you shooting him.

the civilian's chances are on whether you have a conscience and don't shoot an unarmed civilian or you do.

Shooting anyone offends my conscience.

PS: I hope I'm not coming across as too accusationary here. I really appreciate you all sharing your own moral views with me. It's quite illuminating and fascinating.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

There are two problems with the idea of defeating an enemy totally.

1) Many wars are not about defeating an enemy but involve ulterior political and social goals which would be undercut by focusing on non-military targets. America's Cold War proxy wars and are current war in Iraq are good examples of that. We were and are ostensibly not trying to defeat those countries, but rebuild the social and political structure to a government more favorable to us. Iraq seems to show that the more damage you do to a country in the name of their good the less you are liked.

2) Most of the time the victor is stuck with the requirement to clean up the damage a huge bill to cover the cost. We are still in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc after pumping trillions into their economies so they would be freindly to us in the war's aftermath.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

There are two problems with the idea of defeating an enemy totally.

1) Many wars are not about defeating an enemy but involve ulterior political and social goals which would be undercut by focusing on non-military targets. America's Cold War proxy wars and are current war in Iraq are good examples of that. We were and are ostensibly not trying to defeat those countries, but rebuild the social and political structure to a government more favorable to us. Iraq seems to show that the more damage you do to a country in the name of their good the less you are liked.

2) Most of the time the victor is stuck with the requirement to clean up the damage a huge bill to cover the cost. We are still in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc after pumping trillions into their economies so they would be freindly to us in the war's aftermath.

Indeed. Given that I would only fight a war in urgent self defense, it would be my duty to assist the enemy in rebuilding should I win. A difficult duty, but one I would embrace (combined with demonstrations that an alliance with me would strengthen them and allow their prosperity far more effectively than renewed conflict).

 

[USS Triumphant]

Second, I said "through diplomatic means hopefully". Blowing the entire enemy nation off the map is not good diplomacy. My goal in any war would be to end it in a fashion that allows both them and I to make a peace and strengthen one another in the aftermath. If it somehow isn't clear by now, I don't like violence. Do you really think, given my prior comments here, that "blow whole nations to shreds" is a favoured tactic in my eyes?

I once thought like you, but I no longer believe that diplomacy can always ultimately carry the day. I've met too many people who were too broken, selfish, and/or greedy to believe in after-school special endings for things anymore. And world leaders are always more Colonel Klink than Captain Picard.

To give you an example - I still believe that if Russia were to launch its full arsenal of nukes at us, the proper response would be to do nothing. The decision to launch would have been made by a very few people, and would not justify a decision to kill millions of their people in return. But my dad, who served on nuclear subs, says that he would launch. And that, in order for MAD to work, that had to be true. To protect everyone on both sides, both sides had to have people ready to do something completely morally WRONG.

The world doesn't work like we would want it to, that's for certain.

First, I don't believe in sin so saying "all sin is not equal" is meaningless to me.

"Sin" can be a religious term, but it can also more generically refer to an immoral act. And I find that occasional use of the word, amongst others (like amongst ), allows for more beautiful and interesting sentence construction.

Also, the court or the father murdering that man and that man raping that woman are both terrible crimes, the perpetrator of which requires a lengthy prison sentence for discipline, rehabilitation and to keep such dangerous people from hurting anyone else.

Some people are too broken for this. I say this as someone who argued for the death penalty for a mother that I loved. I had seen the things she had done, and had done everything I could to change her, and had watched others (like my father) do the same - and just get hurt repeatedly for our trouble. She is just going to keep hurting people, and no amount of time or rehabilitation will change that. In the end, the best I could do was to get my family and I away from her and keep them that way - but there is still a bit of quite logical fear, because she is still out there.

The murder is a more serious crime, but basically I don't see why my attitude should be different.

Well, I ascribed murder/rape to our rapist, not just rape - but we'll set that aside for the moment.

From an emotional perspective, you honestly see no difference between a violent crime perpetrated on someone who did nothing to provoke it, and a violent crime perpetrated against someone who has done violence to you or those you care about?

My belief on crime and punishment is that punishment should, logically I feel, be based on the likelihood of the crime being repeated:

Someone who kills his daughter's rapist may need a little therapy - but not much more. His crime is fairly unlikely to be repeated, as his loved ones will almost certainly take some steps to protect themselves from being victimized in the manner that the daughter was, and, frankly, word will get around that you don't screw with this guy's family.

Someone who has violently raped a woman is unpredictable, since there seems to have been no logical provocation for his action in the first place. He continues to provide an active threat to society. Maybe the first time, some rehabilitative prison time and therapy is appropriate. But if this person repeats, you are left with two choices: death, or perpetual incarceration. The latter of which is somewhat cruel to the prisoner, and is unfair to society: why should we have to pay for the existence of someone who is unwilling to fulfill their end of the social contract we are all a part of?

That is the point I've been making from the start. They were all the same, essentially, and all thought it justified because of their shared rules. That's what happens when you have rules.

I said nothing about "utter anarchy".

Anarchy is what results from the lack of rules that you seem to be espousing. But I think the problem is that you aren't quite saying what you mean. Let me try:

The fact that something has precedent in the common laws of nations, or in the common rules of societies, does not necessarily mean that it is moral. The fact that all (or most) nations forced their young males to fight wars for them does not make it the morally correct thing for those nations to do.

Does that sound about right? If so, I would agree. No nation should draft soldiers. A nation is either worth defending and volunteers will stand up, or it isn't, and it will fall.

Unfortunately, in a nation that isn't worth defending, one of the things that may make it not worth defending is a lack of recognition of such personal liberty.

As ever, my aplogies for being so strong in my opinions.

Never apologize for having strong opinions. Just always examine and re-examine whether they are worth feeling so strong about.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Indeed. Given that I would only fight a war in urgent self defense, it would be my duty to assist the enemy in rebuilding should I win. A difficult duty, but one I would embrace (combined with demonstrations that an alliance with me would strengthen them and allow their prosperity far more effectively than renewed conflict).

You're ignoring the possibility of continuing essential philosophical differences. Capitalism versus Communism. Freedom of religion versus government by religious law. And so on.

We have recently seen in places like Pakistan and Iraq that it is completely possible to have outcomes of genuinely democratic elections that we don't like.

 

[Me-Ike]

I am by far no historian so all I go by is my general knowledge. When I was in school I learned that even though Germany started the war, many more nations were building up to it; especially Britain and Germany were having some sort of race concerning their marine military. Aggressions, I was told, were fueled from both sides; this is not to say that the blame should be shifted away from Germany but at least it doesn't make it look as if the other nations were having peace in mind.

Is there anything to it?

Well, yes. Those things you mentioned are certainly true. There were a lot of tensions between the various European countries and their "blocs". I learned the same thing in school. But Germany heavily influenced Austria-Hungary to escalate the conflict by making demands of Serbia they wouldn't fulfill (as a matter of fact, they were ready to fulfill all but one of them). While a lot of people elsewhere in the beginning weren't opposed to a war for one reason or another, Germany did cause the actual escalation.
Apart from that, Germany's conduct during the war was anything else than honourable. From invading neutral countries to using poison gas, they broke a lot of the rules of war (and yes, there are such rules, and for good reasons) and human decency.

Ah, thanks for the answer.
My knowledge about the WWI is woefully insignificant compared to other periods. I really should read up on it one of these days.

 

[Count Zero]

I'm more interested in Ancient History myself. Recent history seems a bit depressing to me and usually we're the villains.

 

[Me-Ike]

^Tell me about it. Leads to being very well informed about WWII, though.
Personally, I'm a fan of medieval times.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't know if ancient history is any less depressing

In fact, if you look up "history" in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of a guy shoving a iron spike through his brain.