the red baron hero or villern

[captcalhoun]

you seem to think anyone in a country engaged in a war is not innocent and therefore should be seen as a hostile, yet you also claim to be a pacifist and think that having moral standard in conducting a war is wrong. that's fucking weird. you also seem to view war as being wrong and unjustifiable even if waged in a limited and structured fashion. that's narrow.

and you claim to be pacifist whilst using an avatar of an axe-weilding alien bug, which combined with your user name and sig indicates that a TV show drives you into psychotic rage. that's weird. and mildly disturbing.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

you seem to think anyone in a country engaged in a war is not innocent and therefore should be seen as a hostile, yet you also claim to be a pacifist and think that having moral standard in conducting a war is wrong. that's fucking weird. you also seem to view war as being wrong and unjustifiable even if waged in a limited and structured fashion. that's narrow.

and you claim to be pacifist whilst using an avatar of an axe-weilding alien bug, which combined with your user name and sig indicates that a TV show drives you into psychotic rage. that's weird. and mildly disturbing.

I never said "having moral standard in conducting a war is wrong". I'm applying a moral standard to war right here, have been from the start. I also never said people weren't innocent, I said innocence is irrelevant. Whether you are soldier or civilian, innocent or not innocent is a result of social conditioning and social pressures. It's irrelevant when it comes to deciding who gets shot and who doesn't. Life is life. It is always equally precious. Also, I never said war was entirely unjustifiable. War in urgent self-defense when your neighbour will not respond to diplomacy and is intent on invading or destroying you is entirely justifiable in my eyes. Other than that:

Well, in a sense you're not wrong. I certainly acknowledge that I must look contradictory and inconstant at times, but I assure you it all adds up. Whether I have the skills to explain myself or not, I am consistant and largely at peace with myself (well, to the extent anyone can be). I'm very complex, as are you and everyone else. We can't be broken down easily. Sadly, you haven't got years to get to know me, because we'll never truly meet. Of course you'll only see glimpses of me and those might seem at odds.

As for the Deranged Nasat wielding his axe psychotically, I remember KRAD writing once that he was a pacifist and yet loved writing about Klingons. It may look odd, I entirely agree, but don't read too much into it. I have a very wide sense of humour, probably to balance my tendency to take things very seriously. In my mind, seriousness needs humour. Humour also serves as a means of coping with that which we find distressing. Violence upsets me. Yet it is real. One of my coping mechanisms is to, well, create avatars featuring insanely violent alien bugs attacking those who enrage him.

I hope I have not offended you, Captcalhoun, or anyone else here.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's never been a time in history where innocents were safe. From ancient Viking wars to wars between American Indian tribes to the American Civil War, and just about any other conflict you can mention, civilians were hurt and killed.

 

[voggmo]

58? Bishop had 70 confirmed, five unconfirmed, and three balloons. He was right up there with Fonck and Richthofen.



Er, not exactly Dave...

Billy Bishop's victories have reached an "unofficial" high of 79 in David Baker's book BILLY BISHOP, to a low of 55, "corrected to the World War II system" of accreditation of victories in an article by American historical writer, Barrett Tillman.
http://www.richthistle.com/article_include.php?i=a17_billy_bishop.php





Ben Greenhous (THE MAKING OF

BILLY BISHOP) drew statistical comparisons showing how Bishop's victories were more likely to be claimed on lone patrols than when there were witnesses about



Wayne Ralph found the case against Bishop (as per the events of 2 June 1917) was unconvincing - yet he concluded that Greenhous was right on the money when it came to Bishop subsequently padding his score.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/people/656-billy-bishop-again-3.html

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

He is a definite villain. I saw this documentary once where to throw off the Germans America had a cute little beagle fly one of its planes. And the Red Baron actually still went ahead and shot down the little dog. Luckily he was able to bail out and survive, but he spent many days crawling back to safety behind enemy lines.

Incredibly, color footage of one of their epic "dogfights" exists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Mkf1fUTAk

 

[voggmo]

In Ernst Udet's book, he mentions Richthofen leading his squad at low altitude to strafe enemy trenches, yet he forbade his men to strafe an enemy pilot on the ground after he had been shot down. Strange bedfellows these honorable/dishonorable behaviors are. I suppose one could argue a downed opponent was unable to shoot back, yet men in trenches had all sorts of weapons on hand, mortars, rifles AA guns, the lot.




One other rumor even notable authorities still mention is that Richthofen was protected by his men so he could get the kill while they covered his back. Retarded myth simply because it's impossible to to maintain formation as such in a WW 1 style air battle. They simply break up into individual dogfights all over the sky. If they did stay together in a pack like that, they'd have Camels all over them from behind & get shot to pieces. When one hears the bullets strike from behind, one banks left or right immediately or one dies. One doesn't stay in formation & eat bullets to protect the leader. It's balderdash.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

In Ernst Udet's book, he mentions Richthofen leading his squad at low altitude to strafe enemy trenches, yet he forbade his men to strafe an enemy pilot on the ground after he had been shot down. Strange bedfellows these honorable/dishonorable behaviors are. I suppose one could argue a downed opponent was unable to shoot back, yet men in trenches had all sorts of weapons on hand, mortars, rifles AA guns, the lot.

Dishonorable? What exactly is the purpose of air power...just to shoot enemy planes down? Then what...go home? I mean, come on now. Strafing troops on the ground isn't exactly gallant, but their job is to kill the enemy. If anything, by leaving downed enemy pilots alone, he was technically doing his side a disservice. Chivalry doesn't win wars.

 

[Goliath]

What exactly is the purpose of air power...just to shoot enemy planes down?

Actually, during the period of trench warfare in the Great War, a fighter pilot's most important missions were to shoot down the enemy's observation planes, and to protect his own from being shot down.

Everything else was secondary to those two critical tasks. The information provided by aerial reconnaissance was absolutely crucial to both sides, and had to be denied to the enemy if at all possible.

Fighter planes could have shot each other down and strafed the enemy lines all day, and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to the course of a battle.

But by establishing and maintaining air superiority, they could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the enemy's artillery--and in the Great War, it was artillery that won battles.

I may be wrong about this, but I do recall reading that the majority of Richtofen's victories were in fact over enemy observation planes--which would show just how well he understood his mission.

 

[Lookingglassman]

The guy could fight and fly well so he got my respect. He was doing what he was trained to do, kill his enemies so I got no problem with him.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

by leaving downed enemy pilots alone, he was technically doing his side a disservice. Chivalry doesn't win wars.

So by extension you are saying it is alright to shoot airmen in parachutes or crews in lifeboats? What about medics or shooting up aide stations?

Sorry, while I can see your point and even the logic of such actions, I just can't agree.

 

[Canadave]

by leaving downed enemy pilots alone, he was technically doing his side a disservice. Chivalry doesn't win wars.

So by extension you are saying it is alright to shoot airmen in parachutes or crews in lifeboats? What about medics or shooting up aide stations?

Sorry, while I can see your point and even the logic of such actions, I just can't agree.

Agreed. A downed airmen is, essentially, a non-combatant until he can return to his own lines and get a new plane. It would be like disarming an enemy soldier and then shooting him anyway, something that simply should not be done.

Strafing troops on the ground, especially in WWI is different. It's not entirely honourable, sure, but they are armed combatants and there are many cases in which troops on the ground were able to shoot down low-flying planes—even (probably) in the case of Richthofen himself. In many ways, it's more honourable than, say, shelling enemy troops, who can't exactly fire back at artillery six miles away.

 

[Goliath]

Agreed. A downed airmen is, essentially, a non-combatant until he can return to his own lines and get a new plane. It would be like disarming an enemy soldier and then shooting him anyway, something that simply should not be done.

I don't know about that.

I'm pretty sure that it's unlawful to shoot at an aviator who has bailed out of a damaged plane, and is parachuting down to the ground. That would be the equivalent of shooting at shipwrecked sailors in lifeboats.

But once they're down on the ground, they become combatants again, unless they're injured, or surrender.

If your reasoning was correct, then it would also be applicable to tank crews--and I seriously doubt that any soldier in war would have any compunctions about shooting tank crewmen who have bailed out of their vehicle.

But it's the very fact that pilots like Richtofen were not required to spare downed opponents--that, in fact, they were placing themselves at risk by giving them a chance to return to the battle--that added to their mystique as "knights of the air".

Yes, it would have been militarily more effective to machine-gun a downed pilot on the ground. But it would also have been unsporting, unchivalrous, and ungentlemanly. Like a game bird, an enemy pilot had to be taken "on the wing."

Plus, one could argue that there's a good military reason for issuing such a prohibition. By refraining from machine-gunning downed enemy pilots, you encourage the enemy to observe the same restriction--and this may well save the lives of your own downed pilots, at some point.

 

[Canadave]

Agreed. A downed airmen is, essentially, a non-combatant until he can return to his own lines and get a new plane. It would be like disarming an enemy soldier and then shooting him anyway, something that simply should not be done.

I don't know about that.

I'm pretty sure that it's unlawful to shoot at an aviator who has bailed out of a damaged plane, and is parachuting down to the ground. That would be the equivalent of shooting at shipwrecked sailors in lifeboats.

But once they're down on the ground, they become combatants again, unless they're injured, or surrender.

Hm, yes, you could be right. I was under the impression they were considered non-combatants, but now that I think about it, I think you have it the right way around.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

I would think the honored prohibition of shooting at parachuting airmen and sailors in lifeboats are because they are essentially unable to escape, take cover or effectively fight back. Once they are on ground they can do any or all three.

Oddly the parachutist tradition does not even remotely apply to paratroopers. While they can do any of the three things, they expect to be shot at on the way down and no one has a problem with it.

The only thing logical about it is that war by definition is absurdly illogical.

 

[Goliath]

Oddly the parachutist tradition does not even remotely apply to paratroopers. While they can do any of the three things, they expect to be shot at on the way down and no one has a problem with it.

I think there is logic to that, actually.

Parachuting is part of a paratrooper's mission: he is trying to outflank or envelop the enemy from the air. And in doing so, soldiers seem to have agreed that he must accept the risks involved.

Whereas an aviator's parachute is basically just a lifesaver.

You could make the same distinction in naval warfare as well. Everyone agrees that shipwrecked sailors in lifeboats should be spared. But I doubt anyone would have any compunction about shooting at marines who are using small boats to try to board their ship.