the red baron hero or villern

[voggmo]

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.

The problem with this thinking is very simple. To be successful at air combat, one had to be, you guessed it, Ruthless! Your opponent certainly is going to be. To approach it any other way is silly. It wasn't Tennis.

Ask any war ace alive today & they to a man will tell you aggressiveness is the key to victory. Hartmann was no more or less a hero than Manfred Von Richthofen. Both Manfred & Hartmann had dinners for their downed opponents before they were sent to prison camp. There is a film of Manfred with a South African Sopwith Pup pilot that gave him a real battle, Manfred was smiling & full of praise for his opponent & obviously pleased he wasn't hurt.

 

[Me-Ike]

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.

Maybe. But at least your conscience doesn't go ding-ding-ding.

 

[CorporalClegg]

^
Well the difference I was trying to showcase was, while MVR first goal was the kill, Hartmann's was to always get his squad home ... which, as it was, he did.

 

[Count Zero]

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

Well, a lot more time has passed and thus I'm not involved in it as much. Hell, most of the peoples that play key roles in it don't exist anymore, at least not in the same way.
As for recen history, well, my uncle died a stupid, meaningless death in WWII and my grandfather got buried alive in WWI as a very young man (he survived at least). When I read about the Third Reich I can't help but wonder what my grandparents, granduncles and grandaunts were doing or not doing during that time.

 

[voggmo]

MVR also was very much interested in getting his squad home. Hartmann only concerned with his wingman, while Manfred had his whole squad to deal with. he would speak to each man after battle & give advice, you did this right, but made this mistake & so on. He was a team player unlike Fonck or some of the other "Lone Wolf" Aces. Often he would fly over the whole battle & watch over his men, in fact, he was doing exactly that in his last battle. A British plane went after his cousin, he then dove in after the enemy pilot. May.

Algernon Bird was the Sopwith pilot.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

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.

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

Oh, I'm a realist. I'm also an optimist. I don't see any contradiction myself. I've been luckier than you, I suppose. My experience of people is that they're almost always pleasant and well-meaning once they- and I- try. You're right, the world certainly doesn't work the way I want, but I believe we have to make the world we want. We can show those broken, greedy and selfish people there's a better way.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, I honestly see no difference. Violence is violence. Okay, of course I understand the difference in the mind of the distressed and angry avenger in the second scenario, but it is the duty of those around such people to prevent their friend/loved one from succumbing to his/her baser instincts. The desire to avenge is excusable, the action itself is not.

Thank you very much for sharing your own experience in such an open manner, though, I find that very courageous. I'm honoured you would share it.

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.

I might well accept a more lenient sentence for a murderer whose crime was committed in an act of rage against someone who had murdered his or her loved ones, but it's still unacceptable. The father murders the rapist. The rapist's family then murder the father in revenge for his murder of their loved one, and word will get around that you don't screw with their family either. Violence begets violence. Take a life for granted and someone will take your life for granted. Look at Albania or places like that, and the Blood Oaths. Whole families wiped out, each murder motivating another. Humans are a clan-based hunting race. The instinct is too powerful to be let out of its box. There is no excuse to do so, and those who do require separation from society and rehabilitation/discipline. If the rehabilitation fails, sadly they must remain imprisoned.

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?

I disagree- I'm entirely opposed to the idea of death penalties- but you made your case reasonably here, I would say. I certainly understand your points, even though I strongly oppose them

[

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.

Your re-write of my argument is essentially correct yes . I didn't phrase myself well at all, so thanks for that.

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.

Indeed, and thank you. I would add that re-examining our morals is also a good idea. Just because it is the norm to define moral conduct in a certain way, doesn't mean one should simply accept it.

 

[voggmo]

At about 3.26 in you can see Manfred with South African Sopwith Pup pilot Algernon Bird after their encounter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4VZAPDmiM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaerodrome.com%2Fforum%2Fpeople%2F42326-mvr-algernon-bird-photos.html&feature=player_embedded


He was Rittmeister Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen's 61st. victim.
Here is der rote Kampfflieger's account of the contest:

"I was absolutely convinced that in front of me I had a very skilful
pilot, who even at 50 metres altitude did not give up, but continued
to fire and, even when flattening out before landing fired at an
infantry column, and then deliberately steered his machine into a
tree."

Lt. Bird was uninjured and was taken prisoner. Richthofen hastened
to the scene to gather souvenirs and to be photographed with Bird.
Aircraft constructor Anthony Fokker was in the area and arrived
shortly thereafter, bringing his cine camera. With it he recorded
both Richthofen and Bird beside the wrecked Pup.

In the words of Richthofen authority Peter Kilduff, "Lt. Bird's
slightly nervous but self-satisfied smile made it clear to the viewer
of those scenes that the young Briton knew he had done his duty in
firing to the last and rendering his aircraft useless to the enemy,
and had survived his encounter with 'the bloody red baron'".

 

[MANT!]

Manfred Von Richthofen's opponents had NOTHING but respect for him.. his surviving victims had nothing but respect for him..he followed all the rules of war applicable during WW1..unlike many of his country's leaders..

His job was to fly and to fight, he did so with the utmost professionalism and dedication..and his conscience often bothered him..as it does to many good people who fight in horrible conflicts..


Not a villain, not a hero..just a tragic young man

He is honored in the modern Luftwaffe by having a squadron named after him..

http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/lu...1DB060000000001/W26EV9Y9938ITSRDE/content.jsp

 

[voggmo]

& he didn't strafe downed airmen or any of the nonsense old books say.

Townsend Bickers said this in his book; Richthofen beat his dog because he was short, & it doesn't take a trained Psychologist to know what that means.

Absolute rubbish that is. He wasn't short for starters, look at any photo, he was average height for that time, certainly not shorter than than most other men of the time. & he chided his dog because he( Fritz), would chase after airplanes as they went down the runway & got one of his ears lopped off while doing so one time.

http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/berlijn/deel-06-luchtmacht/images/13-manfred-von-richthofen.jpg

http://www.armianiemiecka.tpf.pl/Pliki/red1.jpg

A good example of artistic license gone wild.

Over half his bag was 2 seaters, & he gets heat for that. James MCcudden's score was about the same, over half being 2 seaters, no one has ever said a thing negative about MCcudden. In fact. he's called a genius for his technique, yet Manfred gets labelled a butcher for the same accomplishment. He was ordered to knock those down as they were more valuable targets anyways.










Trophy hunting another knock he gets. Those making said knock forget Boelke, Voss etc did it too. All sides did actually. Manfreds Tripe was cut up into, you guessed it Trophy pieces.






Here's The book I mentioned. Bickers gives Mannock & Bishop kill figures in the 70's, when any WW 1 buff worth his salt knows the numbers are considerably less.


Richthofen is denounced as a murderer and yet men like Bishop and Mannock are let off the hook essentially because they flew for the RFC (he seems to think they both got 70+ victories--and never mentions Bishops, uh questionable claims.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557505713/manfredvonrichth






After selflessly sharing his 61st victory with Donald Inglis, a newcomer from New Zealand who had yet to score, Mannock was killed when his aircraft was shot down in flames by machine gun fire from the ground.
http://www.wwiaviation.com/aces/ace_Edward_Mannock.shtml

 

[voggmo]

And Billy Bishop had 58. I don't think people realize how much responsibility MVR actually had. 25 yrs old & responsible for the most important part of the front, ( French sector not as important), not to mention the pilots of his that didn't come home. Who wrote the letters to their mums?

Anyway, on the whole War topic, there was a movie made about Anthony Fokker, ( who invented the interrupter gear for machine guns on airplanes). He 1st offered his services to the French & British who turned him down, then to the Germans. Asked about it, ( in the movie), after the war, why he would work for the Germans! He replied; Wars come and go, technology moves on.

 

[Canadave]

And Billy Bishop had 58. I don't think people realize how much responsibility MVR actually had. 25 yrs old & responsible for the most important part of the front, ( French sector not as important), not to mention the pilots of his that didn't come home. Who wrote the letters to their mums?

58? Bishop had 70 confirmed, five unconfirmed, and three balloons. He was right up there with Fonck and Richthofen. I know some of Bishop's exploits have been questioned due to his "lone wolf" nature, but I've read a fair amount about his career and I think his abilities and accomplishments are more or less accurate, and his "score" is no more exaggerated than any other ace from the time. And yes, almost all of them are exaggerated to some degree due to the way kills were credited... in the case of most RAF aces, I think somewhere around a third of kills were recorded as "driven down", where an enemy plane appeared to be in an uncontrolled dive, but no crash was ever seen and it was entirely possible that the pilot was able to regain control and return safely to his aerodrome.

As to the topic, I don't think Richthofen was any more a hero or villian than most other well-known airmen in WWI. Generally speaking, pilots in that time tended to view themselves as "Knights of the Sky" and conducted themselves fairly honourably. Take, for example, Bishop's encounter with the Red Baron. Bishop was flying with his commanding officer as his wingman, early on in his career (I think he had around 15 victories at the time), when they encountered Richthofen's squadron on patrol. Bishop and Richthofen ended up in a duel, and instead of ganging up on him, Richthofen's pilots hung back and let the two men fight it out one-on-one. Bishop's commander eventually ended the duel when it looked like Bishop could be shot down, but it certainly could have played out much differently were the attitudes of the pilots different.

In the end, I think the Baron makes a convienient villian. His name is well-known, and the blood-red triplane makes for a compelling image. But in reality, British pilots feared and respected that plane as much as German pilots respected Fonck's SPAD or Bishop's Neiuport. History has simply changed the perception of the air war in WWI.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Generally speaking, pilots in that time tended to view themselves as "Knights of the Sky" and conducted themselves fairly honourably. Take, for example, Bishop's encounter with the Red Baron. Bishop was flying with his commanding officer as his wingman, early on in his career (I think he had around 15 victories at the time), when they encountered Richthofen's squadron on patrol. Bishop and Richthofen ended up in a duel, and instead of ganging up on him, Richthofen's pilots hung back and let the two men fight it out one-on-one. Bishop's commander eventually ended the duel when it looked like Bishop could be shot down, but it certainly could have played out much differently were the attitudes of the pilots different.

So basically the war was a big game of "let's play fisticuffs/you have offended my honour sir, let us duel" to them? These attitudes of diminishing war's impact by turning it into a farce contribute to the understanding that war is somehow justified. I agree the Red Baron- like any other fighter pilot- was in no way a "villain" but to suggest he was morally superior for reducing the horror of war to a system of controlled rules and "honour" strikes me as a mistake.

 

[Canadave]

Generally speaking, pilots in that time tended to view themselves as "Knights of the Sky" and conducted themselves fairly honourably. Take, for example, Bishop's encounter with the Red Baron. Bishop was flying with his commanding officer as his wingman, early on in his career (I think he had around 15 victories at the time), when they encountered Richthofen's squadron on patrol. Bishop and Richthofen ended up in a duel, and instead of ganging up on him, Richthofen's pilots hung back and let the two men fight it out one-on-one. Bishop's commander eventually ended the duel when it looked like Bishop could be shot down, but it certainly could have played out much differently were the attitudes of the pilots different.

So basically the war was a big game of "let's play fisticuffs/you have offended my honour sir, let us duel" to them? These attitudes of diminishing war's impact by turning it into a farce contribute to the understanding that war is somehow justified. I agree the Red Baron- like any other fighter pilot- was in no way a "villain" but to suggest he was morally superior for reducing the horror of war to a system of controlled rules and "honour" strikes me as a mistake.

I'm not saying that at all, and I'm not saying any of them were "morally superior" as you suggest, I'm merely saying they tended to fight by a code of honour. And that's not to say it wasn't brutal, either... I believe the average lifespan of a new British pilot in April, 1916 was a mere 11 days.

And it's quite clear that the war took a heavy psychologial toll on most ace's. Richthofen, as noted upthread, had recurring dreams of the first British pilot he shot down, and in Bishop's letters home to his finacee (later his wife) his initial ethusiasm for being a fighter pilot quickly gives way to more introspective tones. So no, they weren't morally superior, but most of them did at least seem to respect what it was they were doing and respect the men flying the planes they were shooting at.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Generally speaking, pilots in that time tended to view themselves as "Knights of the Sky" and conducted themselves fairly honourably. Take, for example, Bishop's encounter with the Red Baron. Bishop was flying with his commanding officer as his wingman, early on in his career (I think he had around 15 victories at the time), when they encountered Richthofen's squadron on patrol. Bishop and Richthofen ended up in a duel, and instead of ganging up on him, Richthofen's pilots hung back and let the two men fight it out one-on-one. Bishop's commander eventually ended the duel when it looked like Bishop could be shot down, but it certainly could have played out much differently were the attitudes of the pilots different.

So basically the war was a big game of "let's play fisticuffs/you have offended my honour sir, let us duel" to them? These attitudes of diminishing war's impact by turning it into a farce contribute to the understanding that war is somehow justified. I agree the Red Baron- like any other fighter pilot- was in no way a "villain" but to suggest he was morally superior for reducing the horror of war to a system of controlled rules and "honour" strikes me as a mistake.

I'm not saying that at all, and I'm not saying any of them were "morally superior" as you suggest, I'm merely saying they tended to fight by a code of honour. And that's not to say it wasn't brutal, either... I believe the average lifespan of a new British pilot in April, 1916 was a mere 11 days.

And it's quite clear that the war took a heavy psychologial toll on most ace's. Richthofen, as noted upthread, had recurring dreams of the first British pilot he shot down, and in Bishop's letters home to his finacee (later his wife) his initial ethusiasm for being a fighter pilot quickly gives way to more introspective tones. So no, they weren't morally superior, but most of them did at least seem to respect what it was they were doing and respect the men flying the planes they were shooting at.

Well, I don't think they did have respect for what they were doing if they were turning fighting and death into a silly game of "honour", as I said above. "Honour" is a concept that has always been used to justify combat and warfare and ritual murder by attaching a moral label to the actions. That's what "honour" is, surely?

 

[Canadave]

So basically the war was a big game of "let's play fisticuffs/you have offended my honour sir, let us duel" to them? These attitudes of diminishing war's impact by turning it into a farce contribute to the understanding that war is somehow justified. I agree the Red Baron- like any other fighter pilot- was in no way a "villain" but to suggest he was morally superior for reducing the horror of war to a system of controlled rules and "honour" strikes me as a mistake.

I'm not saying that at all, and I'm not saying any of them were "morally superior" as you suggest, I'm merely saying they tended to fight by a code of honour. And that's not to say it wasn't brutal, either... I believe the average lifespan of a new British pilot in April, 1916 was a mere 11 days.

And it's quite clear that the war took a heavy psychologial toll on most ace's. Richthofen, as noted upthread, had recurring dreams of the first British pilot he shot down, and in Bishop's letters home to his finacee (later his wife) his initial ethusiasm for being a fighter pilot quickly gives way to more introspective tones. So no, they weren't morally superior, but most of them did at least seem to respect what it was they were doing and respect the men flying the planes they were shooting at.

Well, I don't think they did have respect for what they were doing if they were turning fighting and death into a silly game of "honour", as I said above. "Honour" is a concept that has always been used to justify combat and warfare and ritual murder by attaching a moral label to the actions. That's what "honour" is, surely?

That's all fine and good if you want to step back and look at things philisophically, but not if you were one of the men fighting these wars. They weren't looking to make any sweeping moral statements, they were trying to stay alive and win the war they signed up to fight. And one of the best ways to stay alive is to respect your enemy. After all, if you treat your enemy well, they are far more likely to do the same to you.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I'm not saying that at all, and I'm not saying any of them were "morally superior" as you suggest, I'm merely saying they tended to fight by a code of honour. And that's not to say it wasn't brutal, either... I believe the average lifespan of a new British pilot in April, 1916 was a mere 11 days.

And it's quite clear that the war took a heavy psychologial toll on most ace's. Richthofen, as noted upthread, had recurring dreams of the first British pilot he shot down, and in Bishop's letters home to his finacee (later his wife) his initial ethusiasm for being a fighter pilot quickly gives way to more introspective tones. So no, they weren't morally superior, but most of them did at least seem to respect what it was they were doing and respect the men flying the planes they were shooting at.

Well, I don't think they did have respect for what they were doing if they were turning fighting and death into a silly game of "honour", as I said above. "Honour" is a concept that has always been used to justify combat and warfare and ritual murder by attaching a moral label to the actions. That's what "honour" is, surely?

That's all fine and good if you want to step back and look at things philisophically, but not if you were one of the men fighting these wars. They weren't looking to make any sweeping moral statements, they were trying to stay alive and win the war they signed up to fight. And one of the best ways to stay alive is to respect your enemy. After all, if you treat your enemy well, they are far more likely to do the same to you.

Indeed. I'm not disputing any of that, I'm simply suggesting that sadly their culture still encouraged outdated customs and perceptions of "honour" that prevented the men involved from fully understanding the situation their nations had landed them in and why.

 

[captcalhoun]

you know back in the olden days (like pre 1900) they did all used to meet up in a field, line up and then charge at one another in a big ruck. and then whoevver had the most men left standing one and went home (more or less) it was better because it was less likely that villages would get razed, or towns flattened or whatever. it was rather more 'civilised' if you will. because there was a lot chance of inncoents getting killed and collateral damage.

not like world war I, II or Korea, 'nam etc. where the idea was to destroy the enemy and the capacity of the enemy to wage war.

the only way it will ever be less brutal and bloody is if everyone adopts the Ryan Doctrine - if you start a war with us, we won't attack you're country, we'll simply bomb your leader's palace in a surgical strike. and then no one will ever start a war, because they won't want to be unelected by a laser-guided 500lb bomb coming in the window.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

you know back in the olden days (like pre 1900) they did all used to meet up in a field, line up and then charge at one another in a big ruck. and then whoevver had the most men left standing one and went home (more or less) it was better because it was less likely that villages would get razed, or towns flattened or whatever. it was rather more 'civilised' if you will. because there was a lot chance of inncoents getting killed and collateral damage.

Ah, but see my earlier comments on "innocence" and its irrelevence, and also my comments on what happens when the rules and customs dictate that only the disposable, expendible and unnecessary people may be killed. Remember that Star Trek TOS episode with the computer war? Make war clean and you have no reason to stop. Indeed, Europe only finally stopped fighting wars when they did get "dirty" and the methods you mention above were- happily-retired.

 

[captcalhoun]

you've got a very weird narrow view.

and, as for wars in Europe; ever heard of Bosnia? Kosovo? what happened in places like Srebrenica or Gorazde? look it up.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

you've got a very weird narrow view.

and, as for wars in Europe; ever heard of Bosnia? Kosovo? what happened in places like Srebrenica or Gorazde? look it up.

First of all, I mean no disrespect here.

Okay, first of all I probably know more about those conflicts than you, but, yes, I fell into that one with my poor phrasing above. I should have said "Western Europe" which I meant, so that was my fault. I find it amusing, though, that someone feels the need to educate me in the events of those wars. My previous comments should hint that I'm quite aware of them and the actions taken by everyone involved in them.

Second, if by "weird" you mean "unusual in transcending outdated modes of morality that should have been collectively retired decades ago" then, yeah, I'm weird. However, everywhere I go I seem to find people willing to listen to me, and I often leave them quite thoughtful. The problem is people reflexively cling to what their society has conditioned them into believing is moral, and refuse to accept that morality is subjective and constantly evolving. Even if you don't agree, if no-one challenges the assumptions of the status quo, where would we be?

As for "narrow" view, well, I may not be very good at expressing myself here in this medium, but that's one of the very few times I've been accused of being "narrow" in my thinking! With respect, and not wishing to boast, I didn't get on the track towards a First at one of the world's most prestigeous universities by being narrow-minded. If I come across as narrow in my thinking, again maybe I am to fault for poor communication, in which case my apologies, but consider that I may have- indeed, have- already incorporated a variety of angles and opinions into my consideration before stating my own opinions. I don't pull these out of my backside, you know. I spend literally years working towards them. To challenge widely-held assumptions on an issue as essential as morality in war takes time and much reflection.