PDA

View Full Version : BOB historical question



bhunter2112
09-26-2007, 09:44 PM
In the Battle of Britain no german escaped english soil (I believe)after being shot down. I read that a guy was on the run for about two weeks, not bad.
Number of pilots shot down into Channel ?
Number captured ?
number rescued ?
Number lost ?

How much does prox to each coast play into it?
What about Allied pilots ?
anyway interesting for campaing mode.
Any comments

Grand_Armee
09-26-2007, 11:54 PM
Only one German Pilot escaped the hands of the evil English. He did it via Canada/USA/Mexico, though. Hard to escape an armed island.

bhunter2112
09-27-2007, 12:42 AM
So I guess I'm sayin. In BOB (the game) in campaign mode you go down in the drink. Campaign over? what are your chances for rescue? Will percentages change with prox to your coast ? Any I guess I'm also askin in real life does anyone know what the numbers were?

nickdanger3
09-27-2007, 01:04 AM
There were search and rescue teams from the British side, but did a German pilot have any hope of rescue at all?

I just finished Derek Robinson's "Invasion 1940" and he mentions that a number of shot down German pilots washed ashore with a single bullet wound to the head. Apparently a few hours the Channel was not the preferred option. Eventually pilots were required to fly without sidearms.

Friendly_flyer
09-27-2007, 01:24 AM
The Germans had a boat-based rescue service.

major_setback
09-27-2007, 01:28 AM
Here's some good historical information on air sea rescue, scroll down to the bit about the Battle of Britain period:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aurevi...jan-feb/tilford.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jan-feb/tilford.html)

An interesting excerpt from there:

"The flight log or Group Captain A. C. Deere recorded that on 11 July 1940, ". . . we had just crossed the coast at Deal where I spotted a silver-colored seaplane with Red Cross markings. . . behind it were a dozen Me 1O9s. "43 A fight ensued in which the seaplane was forced down. The Heinkel and its crew were captured. Entries in the pilot's log noted positions and movements of British convoys. Reconnaissance being definitely a military and not a humanitarian function, -the British decided to take repressive measures. On 13 July the Air Ministry released Bulletin 1254 which stated that as of 20 July air-sea rescue planes would be shot down.

Sir Winston Churchill presented a somewhat less legalistic and more sanguine interpretation of the issue when he wrote, 'We did not recognize this means of rescuing enemy pilots so they could come and bomb our civil population again. . . all German air ambulances were forced down or shot down by our fighters on definite orders approved by the War Cabinet.' It was Churchill's contention that since the 1929 Geneva Convention made no specific mention of rescue airplanes, such aircraft were not entitled to its protection."

Waldo.Pepper
09-27-2007, 01:41 AM
Tidbits I can remember.

The Germans had an Air-sea rescue service that used planes and boats. Heinkel-59 floatplanes. Flyable please (along with Walrus http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

http://avia.russian.ee/air/germany/he-59.php

Going down in the channel is not a pleasant experience. A story to illustrate this point. During the battle an order was given to collect sidearms from Luftwaffe pilots involved in the battle. It became an embarrassment to the regime to have bodies recovered from the channel who had blown their own heads off. Choosing this end rather than drowning. This is told in Spitfire on my Tail (Ulrich Steinhilper)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-My-Tail-View-Other/dp/1872836003

German escapes from POW camps. UK none that I can think of.

Franz Von Werra escaped from Canada. Made his way back to Germany through (then neutral) USA - Mexico - South America to die in action in 1943.

There is a terrific theatrical movie of his story called The One that Got Away.

All I can remember at the moment.

Kurfurst__
09-27-2007, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
Sir Winston Churchill presented a somewhat less legalistic and more sanguine interpretation of the issue when he wrote, 'We did not recognize this means of rescuing enemy pilots so they could come and bomb our civil population again. . . all German air ambulances were forced down or shot down by our fighters on definite orders approved by the War Cabinet.' It was Churchill's contention that since the 1929 Geneva Convention made no specific mention of rescue airplanes, such aircraft were not entitled to its protection."

Anything with a Red Cross on it and without guns is protected by international law. Churchill simply ignored the rules of war and ordered shooting down Red Cross airplanes in order to prevent the German rescuing their own pilots (which was a rather well organised and effective operation BTW, there were even rescue bouys laid down in the channel, with provisions etc). The seaplanes also rescued RAF pilots from the Channel. Churchill merely came up with some BS excuse for it, but it's all the same violation of the spirit of the Convention. He was determined to use mustard gas in the case of an invasion, and later on in the bombing war, pragmatically setting aside international conventions on war when it seemed to yield some advantage.

Bewolf
09-27-2007, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
Sir Winston Churchill presented a somewhat less legalistic and more sanguine interpretation of the issue when he wrote, 'We did not recognize this means of rescuing enemy pilots so they could come and bomb our civil population again. . . all German air ambulances were forced down or shot down by our fighters on definite orders approved by the War Cabinet.' It was Churchill's contention that since the 1929 Geneva Convention made no specific mention of rescue airplanes, such aircraft were not entitled to its protection."

Anything with a Red Cross on it and without guns is protected by international law. Churchill simply ignored the rules of war and ordered shooting down Red Cross airplanes in order to prevent the German rescuing their own pilots (which was a rather well organised and effective operation BTW, there were even rescue bouys laid down in the channel, with provisions etc). The seaplanes also rescued RAF pilots from the Channel. Churchill merely came up with some BS excuse for it, but it's all the same violation of the spirit of the Convention. He was determined to use mustard gas in the case of an invasion, and later on in the bombing war, pragmatically setting aside international conventions on war when it seemed to yield some advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in all honesty, you are right when judging the brits on their own, but compared to other countries, namely Germany, but also Hungary, I do not think any of us is entitled to throw morale accusatiions around. That is done on these forums way too much anyways. Just state it as it was and anybody can form their own opinions.

Waldo.Pepper
09-27-2007, 03:36 AM
Further...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/air%20sea%20rescue/1.jpg

Kurfurst__
09-27-2007, 03:46 AM
Justice is not a relative term, it's an absolute value. In other words, two wrongs don't make one right.
Neither I buy excuses for why violating the rules of war was almost like unavoidable, and the only right thing to do, and therefore, it should be overlooked. From neither side, that is.

Of course, the reality with these international agreements, and especially with internationally recognized crimes against humanity, the rules of war etc. that they are seldom enforced equally onto all. International law is hardly law at all, in practice it's just a mild agreement between countries that are set aside when it seems beneficial, and seldom it is possible to be sanctioned. I guess we will have to wait for that until the next century, when the UN becomes something of a bit more than the powerless joke it currently is.

bloblast
09-27-2007, 04:24 AM
Waldo.Pepper,

From which book did you get the "No man's sea"
pages?

I like the drawings.

Bewolf
09-27-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Justice is not a relative term, it's an absolute value. In other words, two wrongs don't make one right.
Neither I buy excuses for why violating the rules of war was almost like unavoidable, and the only right thing to do, and therefore, it should be overlooked. From neither side, that is.

Of course, the reality with these international agreements, and especially with internationally recognized crimes against humanity, the rules of war etc. that they are seldom enforced equally onto all. International law is hardly law at all, in practice it's just a mild agreement between countries that are set aside when it seems beneficial, and seldom it is possible to be sanctioned. I guess we will have to wait for that until the next century, when the UN becomes something of a bit more than the powerless joke it currently is.

I agree, but throwing accusations around nowdays usually does nothing but to make a thread go down in flames. Everybody asccues everybody else. So there is not much sense in doing this, in all honesty. I understand where you are coming from, and I am the last guy to not speak out once the blames comes in my direction from ppl I do not consider beeing in the position for that, for example. But starting it is not the best of ideas.

Dtools4fools
09-27-2007, 05:03 AM
Franz Von Werra escaped from Canada. Made his way back to Germany through (then neutral) USA - Mexico - South America to die in action in 1943.

He actually already tried to escape while being in the POW camp in UK. Got away and got as far as sitting in a Hurricane, fumbling around in the 'pit trying to find out how to start that thing.
Was arrested by a guard then...

Went down with engine troubles over the sea after returning from Kanada, was never seen again.
Stupid.
****

*****

asheshouse
09-27-2007, 09:04 AM
Churchill was right to order the shooting down of the rescue planes. These were not "ambulances" taking wounded servicemen away from the front. They were mainly picking up unwounded airman and taking them straight back to base where they would rejoin the fighting as soon as they had changed into some dry clothes. They should never have been marked with red crosses.

On the other hand, how many RAF pilots were rescued from near certain death by the same planes?

Bewolf
09-27-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by asheshouse:
Churchill was right to order the shooting down of the rescue planes. These were not "ambulances" taking wounded servicemen away from the front. They were mainly picking up unwounded airman and taking them straight back to base where they would rejoin the fighting as soon as they had changed into some dry clothes. They should never have been marked with red crosses.

On the other hand, how many RAF pilots were rescued from near certain death by the same planes?

So you state they deliberatly ignored wounded pilots and only chose the healthy ones? Sources for that, please.

AFAIK they took everybody on boards injured, both german and english pilots. AND, if the possibility arose, they also noted movement of convoys or other enemy action. Hardly suprising.

luftluuver
09-27-2007, 09:20 AM
List of POW camps in Canada, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_POW_camps_in_Canada

There was some 600 or so attempted escapes but I like this reason why some returned.

Conditions in the Canadian camps tended to be better than average, and many times better than the conditions of the barracks that Canadian troops were kept in. It is believed that this treatment foiled many escape attempts before they even started. Notably, a group of German prisoners returned to Ozada camp after escaping because of encountering a Grizzly Bear.

The Germans also had their 'Great Escape', http://www.lynximages.com/POW.htm

FlatSpinMan
09-27-2007, 09:25 AM
Justice is an absolute value??? Here's a qoute from a funny man, Terry Pratchett. While I applaud your sentiment I disagree with your particulars in this case.
" THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE, AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY..."

asheshouse
09-27-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
So you state they deliberatly ignored wounded pilots and only chose the healthy ones? Sources for that, please.
AFAIK they took everybody on boards injured, both german and english pilots. AND, if the possibility arose, they also noted movement of convoys or other enemy action. Hardly suprising.

Well - if you read my post again you will see that I did not say that they ignored wounded pilots, deliberately or otherwise. However it is reasonable to presume that the proportion of injured to uninjured for those that parachuted into the channel is similar to those that parachuted out over land. A high proportion were only lightly injured or uninjured. You only have to read the accounts of the pilots to realise this.
Perhaps someone else can answer the question, were these "red cross" planes armed or unarmed?

bhunter2112
09-27-2007, 02:59 PM
Thanks for the links.
My guess is maybe a 1/3 chance to be rescued and get to return to your unit to continue your campain. Does this sound reasonable ? Maybe a 2/3 chance to be rescued on your half of the channel.

Kurfurst__
09-27-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by asheshouse:
Well - if you read my post again you will see that I did not say that they ignored wounded pilots, deliberately or otherwise. However it is reasonable to presume that the proportion of injured to uninjured for those that parachuted into the channel is similar to those that parachuted out over land. A high proportion were only lightly injured or uninjured. You only have to read the accounts of the pilots to realise this.
Perhaps someone else can answer the question, were these "red cross" planes armed or unarmed?

Hmmm... basically if you're in the water you'll die within a few hours even if the water is only moderately cold. Your body will quite simply cool down and your body functions will stop soon. Even in tropical waters, it will just take longer. And if you don't die of the cold, you will from - oh, the irony - dehydratation.

Kurfurst__
09-27-2007, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
Justice is an absolute value??? Here's a qoute from a funny man, Terry Pratchett. While I applaud your sentiment I disagree with your particulars in this case.
" THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE, AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY..."

I appreciate (and to some extent, share) his cynism, however, if he is right, we are back into the jungle, in fact never came out of it, and in fact, the various social-darwinist thought schools are right, including that one run by Hitler and co. Survival of the fittest and so on.

And while these primal instinct behaviour are undoubtedly very effective ways of individualak/national/race's survival (obviously they are) in the short run, I also doubt that several thousends of civilizational evolving was in vain, and I also wonder, why urge to sign that piece of paper full of declaring your own obligations in times of war to limit your actions in a certain manner?

Perhaps the answer is the wisdom learned in the long course of human vs human conflicts, that limiting the damage and the depth of the wound inflicted to a bearable, 'civilized' level is essential; otherwise it turns into a vicious circle of violance and in the end, a struggle until the total extermination of one party, of which in the end not even the winner, paying a heavy price for it, will benefit in the big picture.

See also Cold War and M.A.D. The reasons and mechanics are ancient, however. There's a good reason why Nations decided to agree to limit their own actions in such extreme situations.

major_setback
09-27-2007, 03:54 PM
Well, in all honesty, you are right when judging the brits on their own, but compared to other countries, namely Germany, but also Hungary, I do not think any of us is entitled to throw morale accusatiions around. That is done on these forums way too much anyways. Just state it as it was and anybody can form their own opinions.

Well said. It's all history now. We don't discuss the right and wrongs of Napoleons actions (for example). The objective historian perspective work well for me.

major_setback
09-27-2007, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Further...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/air%20sea%20rescue/1.jpg

Shsshhh!
If Oleg sees those 'floating islands' BoB will be delayed another few months. It would be great to have them in the game though, something to aim for if your fuel runs out. Let's hope pilots will be able to swim!

Bewolf
09-27-2007, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by asheshouse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
So you state they deliberatly ignored wounded pilots and only chose the healthy ones? Sources for that, please.
AFAIK they took everybody on boards injured, both german and english pilots. AND, if the possibility arose, they also noted movement of convoys or other enemy action. Hardly suprising.

Well - if you read my post again you will see that I did not say that they ignored wounded pilots, deliberately or otherwise. However it is reasonable to presume that the proportion of injured to uninjured for those that parachuted into the channel is similar to those that parachuted out over land. A high proportion were only lightly injured or uninjured. You only have to read the accounts of the pilots to realise this.
Perhaps someone else can answer the question, were these "red cross" planes armed or unarmed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK the planes were not armed initially, but later on after they got under attack on a regular basis.

major_setback
09-27-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by bhunter2112:
Thanks for the links.
My guess is maybe a 1/3 chance to be rescued and get to return to your unit to continue your campain. Does this sound reasonable ? Maybe a 2/3 chance to be rescued on your half of the channel.


While the rescue of a flyer downed off the coast in the summer of 1940 was a rarity, between February and August 1941, of the 1200 (British) aircrew members who went down in the Channel or North Sea, 444 were saved. During the same period the Seenotdienst picked up 78 other downed British Flyers. : From the same link as I posted before.

That's about 1/3 (closer to 3/8 actually) chance of rescue for the period February to August 1941.
Not much of a chance for the British flyers before that point by the sound of it.

Waldo.Pepper
09-27-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by bloblast:
Waldo.Pepper,

From which book did you get the "No man's sea"
pages?

I like the drawings.



Here is the book that this is from ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/air%20sea%20rescue/PagesfromBattle_of_Britain_L.Deighton.jpg

Not a great book, but if you are like me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and like pictures in your books, then it is worth a trip to the library.

Also while I am on a Len Deighton jaunt, in fighter the decision to shoot at the He-59's is covered. They were unarmed, painted WHITE, and had RED CROSSES on them. However, after one was captured relatively intact, and the crew made prisoner, and the same crew was interogated - then the order was given to shoot at them. I would suggest that the interrogation revealed that the He-59's were operating in a manner not exclusively dealing with the rescue of downed airmen. They were a letigimate target. Just as the Walrus' and the Whaleback's were legitimate targets.

Painting something white and slapping Red Cross' on it doesn't make it an inviolate sacred object. Not if the object (in this case an aircraft) is used for NON Ambulance (Red Cross) purposes. If the planes were used for purposes other than Rescue, and they were, then they were legitimate targets.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/air%20sea%20rescue/Fighter1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/air%20sea%20rescue/Fighter2.jpg

bhunter2112
09-28-2007, 01:40 AM
Cool pics thanks. I am looking forward to some great FMB scenerios with the sea rescue aspect.

asheshouse
09-28-2007, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by bhunter2112:
Cool pics thanks. I am looking forward to some great FMB scenerios with the sea rescue aspect.

Yep! I fully agree. Hope some of the seaplanes are flyable. Scenarios with Primary goal to pick up downed fliers with bonus for successful recce spotting or picking up enemy pilots.

I wonder if those german floating "safety islands" will be modelled. Good to have a safe haven mid channel, even if they are hard to spot from the air. But were they in place in 1940 or do they come later, and how many were there, and where?

Kurfurst__
09-28-2007, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Painting something white and slapping Red Cross' on it doesn't make it an inviolate sacred object.

Err... it does. At least in theory.


Not if the object (in this case an aircraft) is used for NON Ambulance (Red Cross) purposes. If the planes were used for purposes other than Rescue, and they were, then they were legitimate targets.

Well, then the ones who'd ordered them to be shot down should have been given a chance to prove before a military tribunal that they had valid reasons for violating the Convention which would not apply to the subject and to order the shooting down of those planes. Claiming so is just not enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

After all, how would you expect plane crews 'not seeing' enemy shipping that they come by, and why should not they report that..? Can't a medic bringing back a wounded from no man's land report that he saw an enemy MG nest while doing so...? It's an entirely different matter if the Red Cross is solely used as a cover for what were purely recce missions.

hop2002
09-28-2007, 06:46 AM
Anything with a Red Cross on it and without guns is protected by international law.

No it's not. There are rules about what can carry red cross markings, reconnaissance aircraft aren't amongst them. Search and rescue aircraft aren't, either.

The relevant law of war at the time was the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.

It states:

Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.

(No mention of transporting uninjured personnel. )

Most importantly, though, is another part of article 18:

In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing or dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited.

Did the Germans have express permission to overfly British convoys and the area of the battle? No. In fact, they had fair warning that the aircraft would be deemed hostile.


Churchill simply ignored the rules of war and ordered shooting down Red Cross airplanes in order to prevent the German rescuing their own pilots

No, he actually followed the laws of war. Allowing enemy aircraft to fly freely over the battlefield would have been stupid.

The British used seaplanes and fast launches for air sea rescue, they didn't try to hide them behind the Red Cross.

The commentaries to the 1949 Geneva Convention are also telling. They point out that:

As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.


Painting something white and slapping Red Cross' on it doesn't make it an inviolate sacred object. Not if the object (in this case an aircraft) is used for NON Ambulance (Red Cross) purposes. If the planes were used for purposes other than Rescue, and they were, then they were legitimate targets.

Worse than that, if they were displaying the Red Cross and carrying out reconnaissance, they were committing a war crime themselves.

At the very least, they were not entitled to the protection of the Red Cross, because they were flying over the battlefield without permission. At worst, they were committing a war crime themselves in claiming protection of the Red Cross whilst carrying out military duties.

ploughman
09-28-2007, 06:56 AM
"
Enemy aircraft bearing civil markings and marked with the Red Cross have recently flown over British ships at sea and in the vicinity of the British coast, and they are being employed for purposes which His Majesty's Government cannot regard as being consistent with the privileges generally accorded to the Red Cross.
His Majesty's Government desire to accord to ambulance aircraft reasonable facilities for the transportation of the sick and wounded, in accordance with the Red Cross Convention, and aircraft engaged in the direct evacuation of the sick and wounded will be respected, provided that they comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention.
His Majesty's Government are unable, however, to grant immunity to such aircraft flying over areas in which operations are in progress on land or at sea, or approaching British or Allied territory, or territory in British occupation, or British or Allied ships.
Ambulance aircraft which do not comply with the above requirements will do so at their own risk and peril.

Communiqué issued by the Royal Air Force July 14th 1940"

major_setback
09-28-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by asheshouse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
Cool pics thanks. I am looking forward to some great FMB scenerios with the sea rescue aspect.

Yep! I fully agree. Hope some of the seaplanes are flyable. Scenarios with Primary goal to pick up downed fliers with bonus for successful recce spotting or picking up enemy pilots.

I wonder if those german floating "safety islands" will be modelled. Good to have a safe haven mid channel, even if they are hard to spot from the air. But were they in place in 1940 or do they come later, and how many were there, and where? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In October 1940, the Germans introduced the Sea Rescue Float as one remedy for the changing needs of the air war". Unfortunately a little late,

stathem
09-29-2007, 08:47 AM
This thread's gone a bit quiet since hop posted the relevant articles from the Convention.

leitmotiv
09-29-2007, 09:09 AM
Wondrously high moral stands are a luxury 67 years after the event, and the stuff of freshmen in college arguing heatedly over their beers. When the enemy sank ATHENIA a few hours after the declaration of war, bombed Warsaw into flames, did the same to Rotterdam and many French towns, and sank the freighters carrying food to the homeland, to all concerned it looked liked the Marquess of Queensbury rules were de trop. The only question which remained in the summer of 1940 was who had the greater will to prevail. Since Hitler was absorbed by planning for his long-awaited reckoning with Slavs, Jews, and the USSR, his attention was diverted from the contest in the West. Winston was fully engaged in thwarting the Nazis. He, as should have been expected from his ruthless actions in WWI to thwart the U-boats, could be depended upon to eliminate any possible German means of gathering intelligence. The mere suspicion the Heinkels were observing convoys was reasonable justification for draconian measures in times of national emergency. The smashing of the British cities in the winter/spring of 1940-41 demonstrated the "humanitarian" face of Hitlerism.

Whirlin_merlin
09-29-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anything with a Red Cross on it and without guns is protected by international law.

No it's not. There are rules about what can carry red cross markings, reconnaissance aircraft aren't amongst them. Search and rescue aircraft aren't, either.

The relevant law of war at the time was the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.

It states:

Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.

(No mention of transporting uninjured personnel. )

Most importantly, though, is another part of article 18:

In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing or dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited.

Did the Germans have express permission to overfly British convoys and the area of the battle? No. In fact, they had fair warning that the aircraft would be deemed hostile.


Churchill simply ignored the rules of war and ordered shooting down Red Cross airplanes in order to prevent the German rescuing their own pilots

No, he actually followed the laws of war. Allowing enemy aircraft to fly freely over the battlefield would have been stupid.

The British used seaplanes and fast launches for air sea rescue, they didn't try to hide them behind the Red Cross.

The commentaries to the 1949 Geneva Convention are also telling. They point out that:

As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.


Painting something white and slapping Red Cross' on it doesn't make it an inviolate sacred object. Not if the object (in this case an aircraft) is used for NON Ambulance (Red Cross) purposes. If the planes were used for purposes other than Rescue, and they were, then they were legitimate targets.

Worse than that, if they were displaying the Red Cross and carrying out reconnaissance, they were committing a war crime themselves.

At the very least, they were not entitled to the protection of the Red Cross, because they were flying over the battlefield without permission. At worst, they were committing a war crime themselves in claiming protection of the Red Cross whilst carrying out military duties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that is what our American chums would call a 'slam dunk'.

Bravo Mr Hop jolly good show.

Kurfurst__
09-29-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anything with a Red Cross on it and without guns is protected by international law.

No it's not. There are rules about what can carry red cross markings, reconnaissance aircraft aren't amongst them. Search and rescue aircraft aren't, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact no aircraft type is listed, since the Convention doesn't make any list of the aircraft types.

It uses a general term. Any and all aircraft that fullfills the description is protected by the convention.

'Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.'

Were these aircraft used as means of medical transport? Yes.
Were these aircraft reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick? Yes.
Were these aircraft reserved exclusively for the transport of medical personnel and material? Yes.

Thus they enjoyed the protection of the Convention. The fact that Britain simply choose to ignore the Convention when it see it fitting doesn't change that.


The relevant law of war at the time was the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.

And the United Kingdom, or rather it's direct precedessor, known back then long time ago, the British Empire - note, it no longer exists, having been colonized by it's own colonies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - signed it. It was obliged by it.


It states:

Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.

(No mention of transporting uninjured personnel. )

There's mention of sick military personnel. The human body submerged in water will develop kinds of sickness that will lead to death in short term. In this spirit the Geneva convention described the group of protected more precisly :

Chapter II. Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked

Art 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term "shipwreck" means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

It 1929 convention also says :

Art. 3. After each engagement the occupant of the field of battle shall take measures to search for the wounded and dead, and to protect them against pillage and maltreatment.
Whenever circumstances permit, a local armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged to permit the removal of the wounded remaining between the lines.


Most importantly, though, is another part of article 18:

In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing or dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited.

Did the Germans have express permission to overfly British convoys and the area of the battle? No.

Pity that the Convention does not speak of 'British convoys' or 'area of battle' at all.
It's just made up by our local British hero.

The convention prohibits flying over territory specified as, and described by the terms :

- generally over all enemy territory
- territory occupied by the enemy

As for flying over enemy territory, well, perhaps some of our local ultra-nationalist, uber-tory Chelsea hardcore cheerleaders may wish for the whole Channel to be British territory, but unfortunately it's largely international waters, with no state in authority in it.

I guess that is exactly what was argued in a similiar manner the British argued recently when some of their boyscouts were rounded up recently by the Iranians, that they were on international waters. A small portion near to British shore would be belonging in 1940 to the British Empire, and thus forbidden zone for the Seenotdienst. Another small portion near to French shores, ceded to the Reich by the French surrender in 1940, would be effectively Reich territory, green zone. All between would be international waters, green zone again.

The other prohibition would territory occupied by the enemy. This is rather simple to be ruled out, since customary law defined a territory occupied when it was actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation could extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and could be exercised. Basically, both air and sea, where such thing is impossible, and in any case, the Brits were hardly the masters of either at the time.

Perhaps the Germans would have needed a British permission to fly over the Channel in the wet dreams of Hop or Churchill (I am not sure about the latter would be such a jerk though), but certainly not according to international law or the Geneve convention.



In fact, they had fair warning that the aircraft would be deemed hostile.

Oh, a made up lie that doesn't even deserve a comment.


Churchill simply ignored the rules of war and ordered shooting down Red Cross airplanes in order to prevent the German rescuing their own pilots

No, he actually followed the laws of war. Allowing enemy aircraft to fly freely over the battlefield would have been stupid.[/QUOTE]

Of course it would be. Trouble is, Britain have signed a treaty in which it restricted itself from doing so in case of Red Cross aircraft.


The British used seaplanes and fast launches for air sea rescue, they didn't try to hide them behind the Red Cross.

Perhaps they did not even know what the Red Cross means in the first place, or perhaps they did not believe in the protection of the Red Cross they did not respected themselves.


The commentaries to the 1949 Geneva Convention are also telling. They point out that:

As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.

Unfortunately it's not a Convention, it's Commentary. Now, you may be somewhat uneducated in these matters, so briefly let me tell you the rule with them : Conventions bind, commentaries don't bind.

As for the 1949 Geneva convention, it has to say this :


Chapter V

Art 39. Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked*, and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, may not be the object of attack, but shall be respected by the Parties to the conflict, while flying at heights, at times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the Parties to the conflict concerned.


* Chapter II. Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked

Art 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term "shipwreck" means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

In summary :

Medical aircraft may not be the object of attack.
Medical aircraft may be exclusively employed for the removal of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked.
The term "shipwreck" includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

Apperantly violations of the convention by the British in 1940 forced the signitories to be much more specific this time.



Worse than that, if they were displaying the Red Cross and carrying out reconnaissance, they were committing a war crime themselves.

Well there's no evidence as the these planes ever carrying out reconnaissance. Pity isn't it. It's just being told by the guys who ordered the shooting down of Red Cross aircraft. It's like shooting a guy in the back of an alley, and then telling the cops that it was in self defense. You may of course attempt to prove that in your defence, but first you'll be taken away and be charged with homicide.


At the very least, they were not entitled to the protection of the Red Cross, because they were flying over the battlefield without permission.

So the international waters between France and England were a 'battlefield', and they would need Britain's permission to fly over international waters.

It's getting bizarre.


At worst, they were committing a war crime themselves in claiming protection of the Red Cross whilst carrying out military duties.

Well without any evidence the only thing that is certain is that the British were shooting down planes in 1940 carrying the Red Cross, thus committing war crimes.

Kurfurst__
09-29-2007, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
"
Enemy aircraft bearing civil markings and marked with the Red Cross have recently flown over British ships at sea and in the vicinity of the British coast, and they are being employed for purposes which His Majesty's Government cannot regard as being consistent with the privileges generally accorded to the Red Cross.
His Majesty's Government desire to accord to ambulance aircraft reasonable facilities for the transportation of the sick and wounded, in accordance with the Red Cross Convention, and aircraft engaged in the direct evacuation of the sick and wounded will be respected, provided that they comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention.
His Majesty's Government are unable, however, to grant immunity to such aircraft flying over areas in which operations are in progress on land or at sea, or approaching British or Allied territory, or territory in British occupation, or British or Allied ships.
Ambulance aircraft which do not comply with the above requirements will do so at their own risk and peril.

Communiqué issued by the Royal Air Force July 14th 1940"


... and then they shoot down everything with a Red Cross. Seems like the above merely a cover for openly neglecting their international obligations.

Churchill was much more frank about it :

"We did not recognize this means of rescuing enemy pilots so they could come and bomb our civil population again.* . . all German air ambulances were forced down or shot down by our fighters on definite orders approved by the War Cabinet."

The claim about bombinb the civil population at the time was of course, false. There could be hardly any concern about bombing the civil population 'again' just one week after the battle started, with Hitler's directives for the conduct of warfre against Britian initially banning any terror bombings.

Here's a similiar order in complience with the rules of war :

Schon seit längerer Zeit bedienen sich unsere Gegner in ihrer Kriegführung Methoden, die ausserhalb der internationalen Abmachungen von Genf stehen. Besonders brutal und hinterhältig benehmen sich die Angehöigen der sogenannten Kommandos, die sich selbst, wie feststeht, teilweise sogar aus Kreisen von in den Feindländern freigelassenen kriminellen Verbrechern rekrutieren. Aus erbeuteten Befehlen geht hervor, dass sie beauftragt sind, nicht nur Gefangene zu fesseln, sondern auch wehrlose Gefangene kurzerhand zu töten im Moment, in dem sie glauben, dass diese bei der weiteren Verfolgung ihrer Zwecke als Gefangene einen Ballast darstellen oder sonst ein Hindernis sein könnten. Es sind endlich Befehle gefunden worden, in denen grundsätzlich die Tötung der Gefangenen verlangt worden ist.

Waldo.Pepper
09-29-2007, 04:41 PM
The claim about bombinb the civil population at the time was of course, false.

I think that maybe he could have been thinking about Warsaw, and Rotterdam maybe.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-29-2007, 04:44 PM
Well thanks to my grandparents, and others like them, I was under no obligation to learn German. Translation please.

MB_Avro_UK
09-29-2007, 05:52 PM
Hi all,

There was a TV programme shown in Germany recently about the Battle of Britain.

It mentioned the shooting down of LW 'Red Cross' aircraft by the RAF.

One of my squad mates is German and we had a discussion about this. He was and is angry about this. He suggested that if the LW had shot RAF pilots as they baled out over England the outcome of the BoB would have been different.

But there is evidence (see previous posts) that the LW Rescue planes were gathering and reporting intelligence. The crews were LW and trained to fight. They were NOT independent aircrews from a neutral country.

If for instance the crews were from Sweden and flying rescue missions I would support the accusations against Churchill.

What was the briefing of the LW 'Rescue Crews'?
If they rescued an RAF pilot would they return him to England? No, of course not.Their role was to rescue LW crews and return them to operations.

The real victims of the LW policy were the LW crews of these aircraft.

As mentioned earlier, RAF rescue aircraft and boats did not use the Red Cross. And they also rescued LW crews.

The RAF were put in a 'no win' situation by the devious acts of the Nazis.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-29-2007, 06:35 PM
True to his lawyerly breed, K thinks prolixity and parsing makes a case. The simple fact is that in time of war tit gets met by tat. Hitler made it clear before the first shot was fired by Nov 1938's odious Kristallnacht that the Nazi state had kicked rule of law in the ballocks, and all had best learn that salutary lesson fast. Churchill had the will to meet Hitler in any sewer and fight 'til the last man was standing. Arguing legal niceties in a time of war is like searching for virgins in a brothel. Civilization is maintained by the threat of war, thus, Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, stands with a spear. Civilization is destroyed by war no matter how many soldiers you shoot or imprison to give an illusion of order and legality. The film BREAKER MORANT is a nice little essay on the needs of making war, and the prim pretense of legality.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/828/35080558.JPG

MB_Avro_UK
09-29-2007, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
True to his lawyerly breed, K thinks prolixity and parsing makes a case. The simple fact is that in time of war tit gets met by tat. Hitler made it clear before the first shot was fired by Nov 1938's odious Kristallnacht that the Nazi state had kicked rule of law in the ballocks, and all had best learn that salutary lesson fast. Churchill had the will to meet Hitler in any sewer and fight 'til the last man was standing. Arguing legal niceties in a time of war is like searching for virgins in a brothel. Civilization is maintained by the threat of war, thus, Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, stands with a spear. Civilization is destroyed by war no matter how many soldiers you shoot or imprison to give an illusion of order and legality. The film BREAKER MORANT is a nice little essay on the needs of making war, and the prim pretense of legality.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/828/35080558.JPG

Spoken as a man standing on the Cliffs of Dover in 1940... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-29-2007, 08:58 PM
Thanks, MBA. If I live to be 100, I'll never get a better compiliment.

klower
09-29-2007, 10:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...
'Art. 18. Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.'

Were these aircraft used as means of medical transport? Yes.
Were these aircraft reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick? Yes.

No, they were used to search for downed airmen. They were clearly, clearly not used "exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick...".
...

hop2002
09-30-2007, 01:17 AM
Kurfurst, doesn't matter how much you quote the 1949 conventions, try to change the meaning of the 1929 convention, etc, the fact remains that search and rescue aircraft weren't protected then, and aren't protected now.

The 1929 convention said:


In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing or dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited.

The 1949 convention said:


Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.

Even the 1979 protocol to the 1949 convention says:


While carrying out the flights referred to in Articles 26, medical aircraft shall not, except by prior agreement with the adverse Party, be used to search for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked.

It's perfectly clear to everyone but you.

Now, you have offered your opinion that somehow search and rescue aircraft were protected under the 1929 convention, even though the convention says flights must be agreed between both parties.

However, your opinion must be set against the opinion of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which clearly states:


As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.

Now, who to believe? Kurfurst's interpretation, which relies on ignoring bits of the treaty like the expression "firing line" (which the channel in the summer of 1940 clearly was), or the International Committee of the Red Cross, who say that search and rescue aircraft weren't protected at all in the 1929 treaty, or the 1949 one.

Hm, Kurfurst or the Red Cross? Which has more credibility?

luftluuver
09-30-2007, 05:29 AM
Oh dear, not again.
http://www.verne-online.de/upload_files/me109G6.jpg

ploughman
09-30-2007, 05:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

cawimmer430
09-30-2007, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Further...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/air%20sea%20rescue/1.jpg

Interesting. Anyone have more info on that "German Floating Safety Island"?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-30-2007, 07:28 AM
Interesting. Anyone have more info on that "German Floating Safety Island"?


Wartime U.S. article:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/rescue-buoy.html

Ares_336sqn
09-30-2007, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Civilization is maintained by the threat of war, thus, Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, stands with a spear.
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/828/35080558.JPG

Athena, the goddess of knowledge and wisdom stands with spear because "knowledge is power...'. Which is why a certain absolute leader called Zeus ate her. And he got a headache. Because knowledge and education is always a headache to any absolute authority.

The "Civilization is maintained by the threat of war, thus, Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, stands with a spear" notion is a very twisted explanation, which supports and serves absolute authority, quite the opposite of the original idea.

major_setback
09-30-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Interesting. Anyone have more info on that "German Floating Safety Island"?


Wartime U.S. article:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/rescue-buoy.html

That's a nice site. Interesting info on the time taken to fill in road craters:


The following table may be used as a guide to indicate the time and labor required for crater filling. If a party of 20 men, equipped with picks, shovels, and axes, go to work on a dry crater 25 feet in diameter and 7 feet deep, in medium soil, they can make it passable for

tracked vehicles _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
in 30 minutes
"4 x 4" (all-wheel-drive) trucks _ _ _ _
in 35 minutes
3/4-ton trucks _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
in 40 minutes
all vehicles except buses _ _ _ _ _ _ _
in 75 minutes
all vehicles _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
in three hours

Kurfurst__
09-30-2007, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

There was a TV programme shown in Germany recently about the Battle of Britain.

It mentioned the shooting down of LW 'Red Cross' aircraft by the RAF.

One of my squad mates is German and we had a discussion about this. He was and is angry about this. He suggested that if the LW had shot RAF pilots as they baled out over England the outcome of the BoB would have been different.

Shooting down pilots on their chutes would be certainly something similiar, macchievellian move as Churchill's. It would hurt the RAF, which's greatest problem through the battle was to (un)availabiliy of trained pilots. OTOH, shooting down a chute, esp. in an air battle may not be as easy. Say half of the chutes would be shot down, that would mean the British would loose about 75% of the pilots of every shot down plane instead of about 50%. Frankly, I am not sure about if that would be decisive.


But there is evidence (see previous posts) that the LW Rescue planes were gathering and reporting intelligence.

There's merely a claim from the British side that says that one such aircraft was forced down and sightings of convoys was found in the logbook. However, this alone does not warrant the automatic shotdown of all other Red Cross aircraft (especially since these could be forced down, too, to make sure of their operations).

In any case, Churchill was rather clear about the actual intnetion :

"We did not recognize this means of rescuing enemy pilots so they could come and bomb our civil population again. . all German air ambulances were forced down or shot down by our fighters on definite orders approved by the War Cabinet."

No mention is being made about any issues, that was a cover up to what was the actual idea, prevent the Germans from rescuing any pilot - at all costs and by any means.



The crews were LW and trained to fight. They were NOT independent aircrews from a neutral country.
If for instance the crews were from Sweden and flying rescue missions I would support the accusations against Churchill.

The first in blanket statement, and both are irrelevelant as the question wheter it was in line with the convention. If neutral citizenship would be a requirement, you could pretty much shot up the all doctors and nurses found in an overrun field hospital. The Geneve convention applies on basis of combat status, not citizenship.


What was the briefing of the LW 'Rescue Crews'?

That's a very valid and cornerstone point. Intention is important.
If there's evidence (witnesses, written orders etc) that German crews were explicitely instructed to gather intelligence, then it's clear the use of Red Cross was violated. If not, then it was clearly not their goal, but

I'd see little reason for the Germans to use such disguise though. The Channel is not very wide, they could have easily observed the whole by strong magnification optics, or by the two complete Freya radar stations they have installed on the French shores with the spefic goal of observation of the shipping movements (the LW's Freya was basically the same device as the German navy's surface search radar). They could simply use recce aircraft, which had little trouble penetrating much deeper over Britain at the time. Using the limited number of existing, 'disguised' floatplanes to that purpose, instead of using them to rescue their pilots, when they had numerous other and more effective means to do the same... where's the gain..?



If they rescued an RAF pilot would they return him to England? No, of course not.Their role was to rescue LW crews and return them to operations.

They would not have to, as per the treaty. A wounded or sick RAF crewmember would be put under medical care, and when he hopefully recovered, he would be taken as a PoW. That's what the convention presribes.

A pilot's position would be not in any way different from a wounded British infantrymen at Arheim, found on no man's land, being was collected and received medical treatment from the Germans.


The real victims of the LW policy were the LW crews of these aircraft.

They were put into this position by the War Cabinet decision not to respect the protection these unarmed Red Cross planes enjoyed under the Convention.

The funny thing about Hop's arguements is that it is solely about denying that there has been any violation of the treaty. It's getting increasingly bizarre with the quoting of 1979 conventions, or defyining the whole channel as 'firing zone'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Whatever, usual stuff.

The funny thing is that the desperation of denial make him create self defeating arguements.

On one hand he argues the whole Channel was firing zone, but also enemy territory (we've been over with that. The only enemy territory - on international waters - would be the deck of ships flying under British flag, but I am rather sceptical about the Seenotdiesnt landing rescuing pilots from the decks of British destoyers on the channel). Or they were doing reconnaissance. Or maybe it was a dressing station. Or clearing station.

All that would be, he says, violating of the Geneva Convention of 1929 - but oops! Such violation can be only with vessel with status of a Red Cross vehicle... which in the end means he admits these aircraft were enjoying the protective status of the Red Cross, but were violating it by various, and possibly all colorful means. That latter part has been already addressed, though. He has no idea of the status of the Channel under international law, and somehow seems to be under impression that even a fishing boat with a Union Jack would project a 500 miles wide force field around the whole Channel, impenetratable for Red Cross aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It would be one arguement with some sort of logic, from a young lawyer student, having absorbed his first year in the University, and being totally ignorant about International law's commonly accepted definition - and in the end, making as much sense as if he would name a wheatfield as his successor in his will.

Unfortunately he started his arguement by (blanket) statement that 'there are rules about what can carry red cross markings, reconnaissance aircraft aren't amongst them. Search and rescue aircraft aren't, either.'

OK, so these aircraft are not Red Cross aircraft, but if they are, they are violating the rules (firing zone, air above international waters being enemy territory, or occupied by the enemy yada yada yada).

He is as much convincing as a young lawyer saying in his speech of defense that his defendant did not commit the crime, so he should be excused, but if he did, he should be excused because he committed it in self defense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Or this guy :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI



As mentioned earlier, RAF rescue aircraft and boats did not use the Red Cross. And they also rescued LW crews.

The RAF rescue service did not come about until much later in the Battle, after Britain had already decided not to accept/respect the protection offered by the Red Cross to these kind of aircraft. It would be really odd from them to use it after they begun shooting down aircraft

The odd thing is here that somehow the British were not arguing about the status of these aircraft. They do not argue that these are not Red Cross aircraft, or that they should not be immune from attacks.

They make a claim that these Red Cross aircraft are recently being used for non-Red Cross purposes.

'Enemy aircraft bearing civil markings and marked with the Red Cross have recently flown over British ships at sea and in the vicinity of the British coast, and they are being employed for purposes which His Majesty's Government cannot regard as being consistent with the privileges generally accorded to the Red Cross.His Majesty's Government desire to accord to ambulance aircraft reasonable facilities for the transportation of the sick and wounded, in accordance with the Red Cross Convention, and aircraft engaged in the direct evacuation of the sick and wounded will be respected, provided that they comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention.'

The trouble is, such was only a claim from the War Cabinet about violations. Churchill's word makes the real intent rather clear, he notes the real reason was to prevent the Germans rescuing their pilots 'so they could come and bomb our civil population again'. Churcill's decision, at the time, given what he knew and what would fear the most, was perhaps the logical, if ruthless thing to do to ensure Britain's survival. It was also violating the treaties in a cynical manner. You need to put these two things in the scale and judge them against each other. They may be in balance (or not), but one side does not make the other disappear, they exist at the same time, as our reality is complex.

The fact that ALL Red Cross aircraft were to be shot down, regardless that they 'violated' the treaty regulations or not, makes the case rather simple to judge, at least from the legal point of view. From the moral point of view, it's up to everyone to judge it for himself.

RocketDog
09-30-2007, 10:20 AM
Once again, there is no action taken by a democracy that Kurfles won't condemn. And there is no action taken by fascists that he will. I wonder what side Kurfles would have wanted to fight for had he been alive in WWII? Perhaps he would like to tell us?

Cheers,

RD.

Kurfurst__
09-30-2007, 10:33 AM
What democratic rights the residents of India, part of the British Empire at the time, enjoyed?

The Right to Being Beaten With a Stick by a True Briton in a Tropical Helmet at His Pleasure ?

Or could they elect members of the House of Lords..? Then why ain't the majority of (or ANYBODY in) the British Parlement was made up by representatives of India? One reason I'd guess that in that democracy, seats in the House of Lords were possible to be inherited based on medieval titles and nobility : on birthright.

That's 150 years after the French Revolution.

JG4_Helofly
09-30-2007, 10:33 AM
That decision from Chruchill is strange. I read a story about Churchill beeing against the "chute kill" proposed by one of his airforce generals. That doesn't fit. Why shoot at SAR planes to prevent bailed pilots from being rescued, but on the other hand interdict the chute kill?

Kurfurst__
09-30-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
That decision from Chruchill is strange. I read a story about Churchill beeing against the "chute kill" proposed by one of his airforce generals. That doesn't fit. Why shoot at SAR planes to prevent bailed pilots from being rescued, but on the other hand interdict the chute kill?

What point shooting down a chute if the pilot will be taken prisoner after he lands in England anyways...?
The only possible result I can think of is the LW responding in kind - that's a rather bad trade for the RAF.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-30-2007, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What democratic rights the residents of India, part of the British Empire at the time, enjoyed?

The Right to Being Beaten With a Stick by a True Briton in a Tropical Helmet at His Pleasure ?

Or could they elect members of the House of Lords..? Then why ain't the majority of (or ANYBODY in) the British Parlement was made up by representatives of India? One reason I'd guess that in that democracy, seats in the House of Lords were possible to be inherited based on medieval titles and nobility : on birthright.

That's 150 years after the French Revolution.

Who's using strawman tactics now, Kurfy?

Back to correcting your earlier misinformation.

[Quote:]The RAF rescue service did not come about until much later in the Battle, after Britain had already decided not to accept/respect the protection offered by the Red Cross to these kind of aircraft. It would be really odd from them to use it after they begun shooting down aircraft[Quote]

"From 1918 to 1986 the Marine Branch of the Royal Air Force supplied waterborne support, rescue facilities and services for the Royal Air Force throughout the world.

Inaugurated as the Marine Craft Section just eleven days after the Royal Air Force itself was founded, it initially provided back-up for the flying boats but it also developed a rescue service which during and after the second world war became the largest in the world. During the war years alone over 13,000 lives were saved by the crews of the high speed rescue launches who faced enemy action and all weathers to uphold their pledge of "The Sea Shall Not Have Them".

http://www.aviationmuseum.net/ais-sea%20resue.htm

Kurfurst__
09-30-2007, 10:53 AM
Well if you read the study of Air-Sea Rescue services by Captain Earl H. Tilford Jr., (M.A., University of Alabama), provided earlier in this thread :

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aurevi...jan-feb/tilford.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jan-feb/tilford.html)


Conversely, the British could hardly have responded to save their own downed airmen. The RAF had only a few crash boats and no rescue planes in 1939. Back in 1935, the Air Ministry approved the building of an experimental high-speed rescue launch. Coastal Command subsequently ordered 15 of these boats following successful testing in 1936. An order for 13 additional boats was placed in 1939, about the time that the entire force was called in from Aden, Singapore, Malta, and Malaysia and stationed in home waters. These actions marked the extent of British preparations for search and rescue (SAR). Locating a downed pilot remained the primary responsibility of the parent unit throughout the first two years of the war.

...

Losses suffered by the RAF in the Channel and North Sea made it evident that an improved rescue capability was urgently needed. In late July 1940, Air Vice Marshal Keith R. Park, Air Officer Commanding No. 11 Group of Fighter Command, borrowed 12 Lysander single-engine patrol aircraft from Army Cooperation Command. These planes worked in coordinated rescue efforts with launches and Royal Navy ships to locate and retrieve downed airmen. 50 Air Vice Marshal Sir Arthur T. Harris, Air Officer Commanding No.5 Group of Bomber Command, called a meeting at the Air Ministry in London to draft a plan for coordinating rescue efforts. The result was the establishment of a joint RAF I Royal Navy rescue apparatus, with the RAF responsible for organizing and performing aerial search and the Navy for making the actual pickup. 51

The growing British awareness of rescue needs was reHected in an improved record. While the rescue of a flyer downed off the coast in the summer of 1940 was a rarity, between February and August 1941, of the 1200 aircrew members who went down in the Channel or North Sea, 444 were saved. 52 During the same period the Seenotdienst picked up 78 other downed British Hyers.53

The United States, like Great Britain, entered World War II with almost no airsea rescue capability. As American aircrew casualties climbed, General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General, United States Army Air Forces, became concerned with the need for rescue. In September 1942, the Royal Air Force and the USAAF held a conference that led to an agreement on coordination of SAR efforts in the North Sea and English Channel. 54

American rescue pioneers learned from the Seenotdienst, and by 1945 air-sea rescue had improved to the point where chances of rescue were good, given adequate planning and prepositioning of forces. Rescue equipment, much of it patterned on German models, developed as the war progressed. Throughout the war nearly 5000 USAAF aircrew members were rescued, testifying to the improved conditions in air-sea rescue. By the end of the war, combat crews could reasonably expect to be picked up if they were shot down.

Contributor

Captain Earl H. Tilford Jr., (M.A., University of Alabama) is assigned to the Office of Air Force History, Hq USAF, where he is researching and writing a history of search and rescue in Southeast Asia. Additionally, he is studying for his Ph.D. in military history at George Washington University. Previous assignments have included tours as an intelligence analyst in Thailand and at Hq Strategic Air Command.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-30-2007, 10:59 AM
It's not the size, but it's very existance you erroneously called into question.

ploughman
09-30-2007, 11:06 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/BB.jpg

leitmotiv
09-30-2007, 11:08 AM
"Mr K has never let a fact or logic get in the way of a post."

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/RoseMcGowan.jpg

leitmotiv
09-30-2007, 11:09 AM
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/wart.jpg

Bewolf
09-30-2007, 11:19 AM
And there I thought for a moment this forum was on its way up. Naive me.

ploughman
09-30-2007, 11:39 AM
Bewolf, if Kurf wants to litter his posts with drivel like :

"I guess that is exactly what was argued in a similiar manner the British argued recently when some of their boyscouts were rounded up recently by the Iranians, that they were on international waters."

And...

"And the United Kingdom, or rather it's direct precedessor, known back then long time ago, the British Empire - note, it no longer exists, having been colonized by it's own colonies Big Grin - signed it. It was obliged by it."

The Kurf can munch on Bob's behind.

Frankly, Kurf's a pathology and while he can lay out his stall all he wants if he starts up with his tedious Anglophobic moral relativism that he's been pedalling ever since I've known him on these boards then he can chew on Baghdad Bob. I couldn't care less if you have a problem with that.

Bewolf
09-30-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Bewolf, if Kurf wants to litter his posts with drivel like :

"I guess that is exactly what was argued in a similiar manner the British argued recently when some of their boyscouts were rounded up recently by the Iranians, that they were on international waters."

And...

"And the United Kingdom, or rather it's direct precedessor, known back then long time ago, the British Empire - note, it no longer exists, having been colonized by it's own colonies Big Grin - signed it. It was obliged by it."

The Kurf can munch on Bob's behind.

Frankly, Kurf's a pathology and while he can lay out his stall all he wants if he starts up with his tedious Anglophobic moral relativism that he's been pedalling ever since I've known him on these boards then he can chew on Baghdad Bob. I couldn't care less if you have a problem with that.


you made your point, hm?

leitmotiv
09-30-2007, 12:19 PM
"What do you think this is, the Sorbonne?"

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/NICOLEKIDMAN.jpg

MEGILE
09-30-2007, 12:24 PM
LMAO, you guys crack me up.

leitmotiv
09-30-2007, 12:27 PM
I am grief stricken since you retired your cheerleaders doing the splits sig, M.

RocketDog
09-30-2007, 12:28 PM
Beowulf,

Your signature says to never discuss with stupid people. But what are we to do with Kurfles? He's desperate to make a moral equivalence between the murderous fascists of the 1940s and the Allies. It sneaks into most of his posts in the end. This one is no different. It's bonkers and mendacious. I think he wants to do this because it allows him to indulge his admiration for the Axis without having to feel guilty about rooting for the Nazis. But maybe I'm wrong.

At any rate, we are left with either allowing him to spread his revisionist history or challenging him on it every time he starts to slide. The first option would be easy. But we wouldn't let someone get away with it at work, so why should we do it here? Of course, the easiest option of all is just to wind him up by replying in kind. Sometimes I do this because it amuses me see him boil. But that option ends every thread where he posts in a flame fest. I've often thought that the best solution would be to ban him permanently. I think something like that happened to the other "uber twin" and I would be happy if the mods did it in this case. But for some reason he has a charmed life and still gets to post here (In fact, Ivan seems particularly tolerant of him).

So what are we to do? I think in the end I will just give up. I used to post here a lot, but the endless procession of Nazi fanboys begins to tire after a while.

Cheers,

RD.

leitmotiv
09-30-2007, 12:43 PM
K has been known to bore beautiful women to untimely deaths at 50 meters:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/wesselmann_cynthia_in_the_bedroom.jpg

Whirlin_merlin
09-30-2007, 01:01 PM
I read once of an RAF pilot (cant remember who) that summmed it up nicely when asked if he had any sympathy for the German pilots he shot down.

'No, they weren't invited.'

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2007, 01:13 PM
Hi all,

I don't have a problem with Kurfurst. I disagree with a certain amount of his posts but I would object to having him banned.

He is knowledgeable in his own area and he is not afraid to state his position.

If we all had the same views om history and aviation this site would probably become boring.

@Kurfurst...The British Empire was NOT the same as the Third Reich...discuss... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Whirlin_merlin
09-30-2007, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I don't have a problem with Kurfurst. I disagree with a certain amount of his posts but I would object to having him banned.

He is knowledgeable in his own area and he is not afraid to state his position.

If we all had the same views om history and aviation this site would probably become boring.

@Kurfurst...The British Empire was NOT the same as the Third Reich...discuss... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Much of the history of the British Empire doesn't make one proud (to put it midly).
However attempts to make the Nazi regime seen less atrocious by pointing out that WWII saw the B.E's end, are somewhat of a blind.
I don't really feel Hitler should be remembered as the savour of India.
Things were changing anyway.

Waldo.Pepper
09-30-2007, 02:41 PM
Inevitable.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/inevitable/WW2Perrybiblefellowship.jpg

JG4_Helofly
09-30-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I don't have a problem with Kurfurst. I disagree with a certain amount of his posts but I would object to having him banned.

He is knowledgeable in his own area and he is not afraid to state his position.

If we all had the same views om history and aviation this site would probably become boring.

@Kurfurst...The British Empire was NOT the same as the Third Reich...discuss... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Good post. Same pov here.

hop2002
10-01-2007, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I don't have a problem with Kurfurst. I disagree with a certain amount of his posts but I would object to having him banned.

He is knowledgeable in his own area and he is not afraid to state his position.

If we all had the same views om history and aviation this site would probably become boring.

@Kurfurst...The British Empire was NOT the same as the Third Reich...discuss... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

The biggest problems I have with Kurfurst are the constant personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and the way he will bring in totally unrelated issues in an attempt to smear people, and countries, he doesn't like.

Look at his reply to me in this thread.

I stuck strictly to the subject of British attacks on German search and rescue craft flying the red cross.

From Kurfurst's first reply:


And the United Kingdom, or rather it's direct precedessor, known back then long time ago, the British Empire - note, it no longer exists, having been colonized by it's own colonies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Pity that the Convention does not speak of 'British convoys' or 'area of battle' at all.
It's just made up by our local British hero.


As for flying over enemy territory, well, perhaps some of our local ultra-nationalist, uber-tory Chelsea hardcore cheerleaders


I guess that is exactly what was argued in a similiar manner the British argued recently when some of their boyscouts were rounded up recently by the Iranians,


Perhaps the Germans would have needed a British permission to fly over the Channel in the wet dreams of Hop or Churchill (I am not sure about the latter would be such a jerk though)


Oh, a made up lie that doesn't even deserve a comment.

How on earth can you carry on rational debate with someone who makes comments like that all the time? What's the point of such language? He speaks English well enough to get his point across without resorting to invective.

And that's one of his mild responses. Why does he have to try to drag every thread into a slanging match?

Wurkeri
10-01-2007, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
How on earth can you carry on rational debate with someone who makes comments like that all the time?

The problem is that for one reason or another such behaviour seem to be tolerated here. And when one is allowed to behave like that, also the others feel that they can as well and so on...

You might remember that the situation was quite similar in the AH board before they started tighter moderation. In practice permanent banning of just few people made a huge difference.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 03:33 AM
It's relieving to see the refreshing change from page 3, where one petty arguement followed the other, pro and contra, into a such friendly discussion involving illustrative and humorous pictures, a suddenly arisen godly fear of the possible nazi danger, and bleeding hearts for focused discussion. It's good to see all the hypocriticism is now all gone, and true concern for the greater good has took it's place in the full.

I wish good luck to RD, Hop and Wurkeri in their struggle for the greater good in the rest of this thread.

And now the wheater.


MB_Avro_UK

@Kurfurst...The British Empire was NOT the same as the Third Reich...discuss... Wink

I've a theory in a rather embrionic form which is vaguely that Herr Hitler was basically seeked out to colonize Europe. It's often forgotten from the 20/20 hindsight that both Hitler and Churchill were more the product of 19th century Empires and colonization than the 20th century (in contrast of the rather more modern Stalin and FDR, imho at least). It seems to me Hitler's foreign policy was following Kaiser Wilhelm II's, seeking 'a place under the sun' for the newly unified Germany - securing natural resources etc - without the errors made by the latter, namely recognizing that Germany's strategic position is ill-suited for an overseas colonial Empire, and such only makes unneccesary hostility with other Great Powers (first and foremost Britain). The colonisation in Europe itself, especially given the vacuum left after the Habsburg Empire and the downfall of Russia made the conditions ideal. Or at least it seemed. Especially the plans for the Ost, with large highways, German settlers etc. reveal what line of thinking Hitler was following. There was nothing particularly modern in it - it's basically the same what other European countries did under the flag of 'White Mans Burden'.

But of course, we, righteous, God-fearing and enlightended Europeans know exactly the difference between colonising parts of Europe, and colonising remote parts of world, some of which names we can't even pronounce so instead we give them our own, and write books about the blessings that our actions have brought - even thouh the process itself may be analogue on the surface. Invasion, occupation, deprieving of rights, Master and Slave, harsh punishment to those who raise their heads. But the difference is, those people on distant lands were in dire need of our guiding hand to lead them into the community of civilized people, situated on both sides of the Atlantic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Whirlin_merlin

I don't really feel Hitler should be remembered as the savour of India.

I don't feel that either. WW2 may have been the fatal blow to the viability of the BE, but that was hardly Hitler's intention, nor I believe he would have been much concerned about Gandhi and his goals. Quite the contrary - from the records we have from him and his nearby collegues, we know that Hitler's was more interested in preserving the BE, as a kind of buffer zone, and understanding that wrecking it and making it falling apart would only lead to the US and USSR feeding fat on the carcass (which was something that eventually took place, aka Cold War).

For the same reasoning however, I don't really feel Churchill should be remembered as the savour of Europe, or democracy for that matter, much the same as Japan was not savour of Asia from under the White Man's Burden, having persuing rather different, and selfish, goals. Churchill's goal was to preserve the British Empire, with all it's darker aspects, from it's closest and most dangerous rival, and to a lesser extent, to preserve the archaic social structure of Britain. For the same reason he hated Stalin's Russia, once the uneasy Alliance with it ended, a threat to both the colonial empire and the lifestyle Churchill's class enjoyed - and which was something that Churchill defended ruthlessly even against his own countrymen. I guess that would lead to a rather interesting discussion on the 'Downfall of the British Empire and it's Effect in transitioning Britain into a Modern Society'.

RocketDog
10-01-2007, 03:53 AM
It would make these boards much better if he was banned. In the days when we had both Uber Twins, I had a series of private discussions with the moderators about what was happening to the forums and in particular the way that Nazi sympathies were being brought in by the back door - the lunatics were taking over the asylum. They banned a couple of people and there was quite a positive change to the forum. Even now it's still much better than it used to be.

But the mods are still very slow to act. We had some fool recently who thought that modern-day Jews should not necessarily be killed, but should be persecuted just enough to encourage them to voluntarily leave modern-day Germany. Very generous of him. I pointed this out to (IIRC) Tully, but he didn't seem to think it was a problem. It took several days after that before he was finally banned. I guess that someone higher up the chain finally had had enough.

In comparison, Kurfles is actually very clever. He always stops just short of an open endorsement of fascism and prefers instead to work on making a moral equivalence between democracy and fascism. Of course, he continually undermines his own position by resorting to hystrerical accusations when he's challenged. He'd be far more dangerous if he could keep his anger under control.

Cheers,

RD.

RocketDog
10-01-2007, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
German settlers etc. reveal what line of thinking Hitler was following. There was nothing particularly modern in it - it's basically the same what other European countries did under the flag of 'White Mans Burden'.

Here, again, you are twisting the truth. At the very core of Hitler's philosophy was an obsession with race and a xenophobic hatred of the "other". Something you conveniently ignore. Most European states built empires. Only the Nazi one used it to systematically exterminate entire populations. There is a world of difference between the Raj and the Holocaust.

As I see it, you are just an apologist for fascism.

RD.

luftluuver
10-01-2007, 06:11 AM
RD, someone is just POed that his tiny A-H Empire came down with a terrible crash after WW1 and the one he is so in love with also came to a quick end in a few short years.

luftluuver
10-01-2007, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
You might remember that the situation was quite similar in the AH board before they started tighter moderation. In practice permanent banning of just few people made a huge difference. I remember hearing about his banning at Aces High. He went on one of his rants saying some VERY unsavory comments to a guy regarding the death of his 2 teenage children in a car crash. They were so bad that the mods had to delete his posts.

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 08:57 AM
Kurfurst could benefit from some discipline.

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/BettiePageMAIN.jpg

ploughman
10-01-2007, 09:14 AM
Ah, well I'm fairly sure that I've been a very naughty boy too.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 09:22 AM
I subdue myself for disciplinary action, for the greater good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 09:58 AM
All bad boys will not receive flight sim gear at Christmas, Mistress says!

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/278500/278897RxAW_w.jpg

MEGILE
10-01-2007, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I am grief stricken since you retired your cheerleaders doing the splits sig, M.

1 boob is not enough? Leitmotiv you are insufferable

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 10:17 AM
O the huge manatee!

RocketDog
10-02-2007, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
You might remember that the situation was quite similar in the AH board before they started tighter moderation. In practice permanent banning of just few people made a huge difference. I remember hearing about his banning at Aces High. He went on one of his rants saying some VERY unsavory comments to a guy regarding the death of his 2 teenage children in a car crash. They were so bad that the mods had to delete his posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This raises a question which is actually the only interesting thing about Kurfles. Is he mad or bad? His fellow uber-twin, Huckbein_Fw, was clearly a rather disturbed individual who had real problems with anger. It was pretty hard to imagine him being able to cope with people in the real world and the anonymity of the web let him pour out his frustrations and resentments in forums like this one. But with Kurfles, it's hard to know if his behaviour is simply immature aggression or if it has deeper roots in a more disturbed state of mind. I'd always pegged him as just another Nazi-wannabe, compensating for his problems in real life by fantasising about a society in which people like him would be in a position to revenge themselves on the rest of us for various imagined slights (for in such fantasies, the fantasist is always the one wearing jackboots).

If you look at what he posts, you can almost see how his behaviour has come about. He seems to be a petty eastern-European nationalist of a rather old-fashioned type who has fixated on the Bf-109 because it was manufactured in his native Romania. There seems to be a great deal of his self esteem invested in proving it was better than any other aircraft. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm for the 109 appears to have spread to embrace the political system that produced it. The only way he can justify this is by arguing that while the Nazis were bad, everybody else was even worse. Of course, here Kurfles is being intellectually lazy to the point of being comatose, but that's how it reads to me. However, I am just guessing what has made him behave like he does and I might be quite wrong.

The example from the Aces High forum suggests a much deeper level of problem. At any rate, I still think a permanent ban would be the best option.

Cheers,

RD.

Bewolf
10-02-2007, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:

If you look at what he posts, you can almost see how his behaviour has come about. He seems to be a petty eastern-European nationalist of a rather old-fashioned type who has fixated on the Bf-109 because it was manufactured in his native Romania. There seems to be a great deal of his self esteem invested in proving it was better than any other aircraft. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm for the 109 appears to have spread to embrace the political system that produced it. The only way he can justify this is by arguing that while the Nazis were bad, everybody else was even worse. Of course, here Kurfles is being intellectually lazy to the point of being comatose, but that's how it reads to me. However, I am just guessing what has made him behave like he does and I might be quite wrong.

The example from the Aces High forum suggests a much deeper level of problem. At any rate, I still think a permanent ban would be the best option.

Cheers,

RD.

If this is your definition of beeing a "Nazi", or something to be deeply converned about, then this whole board is deeply in the brown mud. Just exchange plane types.

The double standarts applied here mostly by anglo saxon folks is breathtaking at times. Acting exactly like Kurfürst most of the times and then complaining bout that when other nationalities show this same ignorance and willingness to make their stuff the "best".

Wurkeri
10-02-2007, 04:03 AM
Well, what I said above was a general comment about how people tend to turn arguments personal here. And if such behaviour is tolerated, it tends to come more like a standard way to communicate. In other words such behaviour makes sensible discussion impossible.

Generally I can tolerate some bias, selective quoting/memory etc. because no one can claim full objectivity. However, continous personal attacks should not be tolerated in any form.

Bewolf
10-02-2007, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
Well, what I said above was a general comment about how people tend to turn arguments personal here. And if such behaviour is tolerated, it tends to come more like a standard way to communicate. In other words such behaviour makes sensible discussion impossible.

Generally I can tolerate some bias, selective quoting/memory etc. because no one can claim full objectivity. However, continous personal attacks should not be tolerated in any form.

So totally greed there. Unluckily it appears ppl love to fight fire with fire instead of some common sense and reason.

ploughman
10-02-2007, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:


The double standarts applied here mostly by anglo saxon folks is breathtaking at times. Acting exactly like Kurfürst most of the times and then complaining bout that when other nationalities show this same ignorance and willingness to make their stuff the "best".

Fascinating. Could you please elaborate further on how you think someone's race/ethnicity colours his/her thinking.

Bewolf
10-02-2007, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:


The double standarts applied here mostly by anglo saxon folks is breathtaking at times. Acting exactly like Kurfürst most of the times and then complaining bout that when other nationalities show this same ignorance and willingness to make their stuff the "best".

Fascinating. Could you please elaborate further on how you think someone's race/ethnicity colours his/her thinking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'll just direct you to Rocket Dog for a perfect example.

Ruy Horta
10-02-2007, 04:36 AM
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/Luftwaffe_SAR.jpg

ploughman
10-02-2007, 04:36 AM
Right, just to be sure though. You think Rocket Dog's race/ethnicity has something to do with him applying what you perceive to be double standards. That is what you're saying, yes?

Could someone offer a translation of that doco Ruy just posted?

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 04:38 AM
It's funny, in a sad sort of way to see the same who violated the forums rules in every possible manner in the last 2 pages seriously expect the moderators be as stupid to actually buy this easy-to-see-through hypocrite show they're running.

Or to watch Wukeri, who only came over from AH boards to continue his personal feud with Crumpp/Kettenhunde, teach us about sensible discussion. Now that's moving. Dear Harri, I've seen you enough times arguing, it's basically totals in you stubbornly repeating the same, often with the same sentences, and then adding that 'there's no need to argue, we can disagree', then you repeat it all over again like an arguing machine. Sensible discussion..? Your existance here is solely about attacking the people you've disagreed with elsewhere, or trying to achieve to get the same people banned. And you probably think that you're doing it an extremely smart, macchievellian manner, and nobody can figure out whart it's all about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As I said, it's entertaining to watch all that, Wukeri's bleeding heart for sensible discussion, something that he didn't even attempt here but instead continued his old feuds from other boards, Hop's usual hypocriticism, RD repeating for the umpteenth time ' 'I think he is a Nazi' and 'I think he should be permanently banned' in hope he can hypnotize the mods or LL's periodic seizures etc.

At the same time we, (more or less) normal people were having an actual discussion about imperialism and colonialism in this and another threads...

Boandlgramer
10-02-2007, 04:41 AM
Thanks Ruy, nice read.
Sometimes it is very good to understand german http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ploughman
10-02-2007, 04:41 AM
What's the doco say?

M_Gunz
10-02-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
After all, how would you expect plane crews 'not seeing' enemy shipping that they come by, and why should not they report that..? Can't a medic bringing back a wounded from no man's land report that he saw an enemy MG nest while doing so...? It's an entirely different matter if the Red Cross is solely used as a cover for what were purely recce missions.

Taking notes is not covered, it makes that person a spy and spies are shot even if they do some
non-spy activities as cover story.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Right, just to be sure though. You think Rocket Dog's race/ethnicity has something to do with him applying what you perceive to be double standards. That is what you're saying, yes?

I think Beowulf understands that as cultural background. Never heard of anyone of 'Anglo-Saxon race' or 'Anglo-Saxon ethnicity'. I am sure you haven't either. It's rather difficult to understand his statement the way you want to understand it.

I think that's the whole point here. Double standards and hypocriticism are deeper rooted in Anglo-Saxon 'folks' than on Continental Europe. The English never say 'no' - they tell you in a lenghty manner that you should not even ask about it, since the answer would be 'no'. Political correctness. 'How do you do' when you actually don't give a dang. Suddenly being concered for forums rules after running out of arguements. When someone points the nature of that out, trying to make that look like a racist attack.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Thanks Ruy, nice read.
Sometimes it is very good to understand german http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks, Ruy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ploughman
10-02-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


I think Beowulf understands that as cultural background. Never heard of anyone of 'Anglo-Saxon race' or 'Anglo-Saxon ethnicity'. I am sure you haven't either. It's rather difficult to understand his statement the way you want to understand it.

I think that's the whole point here. Double standards and hypocriticism are deeper rooted in Anglo-Saxon 'folks' than on Continental Europe. The English never say 'no' - they tell you in a lenghty manner that you should not even ask about it, since the answer would be 'no'. Political correctness. 'How do you do' when you actually don't give a dang. Suddenly being concered for forums rules after running out of arguements. When someone points the nature of that out, trying to make that look like a racist attack.

Well gee Kurf, thanks for the Anglo-phobe rant. Not sure how else I'm supposed to perceive 'Anglo-Saxons are hypocrites with double standards' other than as an attack on my origins and ethnicity but if that's lost on you, like so much else is, I'll not be losing any sleep over.

M_Gunz
10-02-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I've a theory in a rather embrionic form which is vaguely that Herr Hitler was basically seeked out to colonize Europe.

Says it all. Today Germany, Tomorrow the World.

I missed the part about the British program to systematically wipe out the Indian population
to make room for only the pure (LOL) British blood (ie mixed mostly white). Were they to use
machineguns or gas or both? Would a special branch of the military do the job and get to wear
special, say black, uniforms with deaths heads? Because you see, that was left OUT of history
books I had read. Trust those Brits to screw up and let the natives actually live where
Herr Hitler would have slaughtered the whole bunch (except for the blond haired, blue eyed
Indians of Arayan descent) and erected a beautiful utopia.

Just in case you don't get, that is a bit of sarcasm and parody as reaction to total BS.

Against the Nazis the only war crime would have been losing. In a dirty fight any who fight
by rules will lose, something the precious Herr Hitler well knew and used frequently just as
his apologists still do.

Kurfurst you should count your blessings that even Stalin was not up to wiping every last
trace of Arayanism from the face of the earth. Had the Allied leaders been as Hitler and
his sick a-hole buddies then that well could have been the outcome. And yet YOU try and put
men like Churchill on the same level as Hitler.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Never heard of anyone of 'Anglo-Saxon race' or 'Anglo-Saxon ethnicity'. I am sure you haven't either. It's rather difficult to understand his statement the way you want to understand it.


..... Google yields 1,710 hit against a search of the phrase "Anglo-Saxon racial".

ploughman
10-02-2007, 06:22 AM
Kurf, getting back to "I've a theory in a rather embrionic form which is vaguely that Herr Hitler was basically seeked out to colonize Europe," my understanding of the war in the East was that it sought to:

1. Eliminate Bolshevism.
2. Provide living space.

The nature of the whole lebensraum thing, when mixed up with Nazi racial thinking, was to enslave the Slavic population and reduce it time as the ethnic-German population increased. The end result, at some distant point in time, would have been the extinction of the Slavs as the ethnic German population became large enough not to require any Slavic manpower.

Which would have been colonisation.

This is hardly news and nor was it especially novel, Teutonic attempts at colonisation of the east being a bit thematic of the history of that part of the world. Alexander Nevsky immediately springing to mind, being the subject of the 1938 Soviet film that was used to alert the minds of the people of the USSR to the threat from the West.

As to the West, German plans for an occupied Britain, such as they were, foresaw the mass transportation of able bodied males to the continent, effectively ending the coninuation of this island race, and presumably creating an opportunity for colonisation.

luftluuver
10-02-2007, 06:29 AM
Do I see another padlocked thread coming.

Why is it that most locked threads have Kapt K as the central character in the so called discussion? Now from what I have seen, this phenomena is not restricted to only this board, but on many boards.

RocketDog
10-02-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:


The double standarts applied here mostly by anglo saxon folks is breathtaking at times. Acting exactly like Kurfürst most of the times and then complaining bout that when other nationalities show this same ignorance and willingness to make their stuff the "best".

Fascinating. Could you please elaborate further on how you think someone's race/ethnicity colours his/her thinking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'll just direct you to Rocket Dog for a perfect example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beo - let's be blunt. Kurfles appears to think that the fascists of WWII weren't all that bad. He appears to think, for instance, that the British Raj was morally no different or even worse than the Nazi regime and its genocidal project in the Holocaust. I believe him to be wrong. I would imagine almost any thinking person would believe him to be wrong.

Identifying the Nazi regime like this doesn't depend on one's nationality or ethnicity. It depends on a basic understanding of the facts of history.

Cheers,

RD.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Kurf, getting back to "I've a theory in a rather embrionic form which is vaguely that Herr Hitler was basically seeked out to colonize Europe," my understanding of the war in the East was that it sought to:

1. Eliminate Bolshevism.
2. Provide living space.

Glad to have you back on discussing levels. I would add to that as 3. Grabbing the strategic initiative in the Russo-German war, which was by the time seen as certainity in the very immidiate future. On the ideolical levels there were certainly ideas of what you've described, yet my feeling is that the focus and immidiate reason for Unternehmen Barbarossa was Realpolitik. In short : grab Ivan by the guts before he has a chance to do the same, perhaps choosing to do so at a most inconvinient time when we've our hands full with Uncle Sam, who's entering into the war was only a matter of time.


The nature of the whole lebensraum thing, when mixed up with Nazi racial thinking, was to enslave the Slavic population and reduce it time as the ethnic-German population increased. The end result, at some distant point in time, would have been the extinction of the Slavs as the ethnic German population became large enough not to require any Slavic manpower.

Which would have been colonisation.

Yes, that was my point.


This is hardly news and nor was it especially novel, Teutonic attempts at colonisation of the east being a bit thematic of the history of that part of the world. Alexander Nevsky immediately springing to mind, being the subject of the 1938 Soviet film that was used to alert the minds of the people of the USSR to the threat from the West.

Did you see that movie BTW? There are some interesting lines in the dramaturg ...


As to the West, German plans for an occupied Britain, such as they were, foresaw the mass transportation of able bodied males to the continent, effectively ending the coninuation of this island race, and presumably creating an opportunity for colonisation.

Interesting, I've never heard of that before.

Bewolf
10-02-2007, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:


Beo - let's be blunt. Kurfles appears to think that the fascists of WWII weren't all that bad. He appears to think, for instance, that the British Raj was morally no different or even worse than the Nazi regime and its genocidal project in the Holocaust. I believe him to be wrong. I would imagine almost any thinking person would believe him to be wrong.

Identifying the Nazi regime like this doesn't depend on one's nationality or ethnicity. It depends on a basic understanding of the facts of history.

Cheers,

RD.

Oh, I agree to you. There is no doubt in my mind that the germans were much worse.

But, my feeling tells me that Kurfürst is on the same track on this as I am. That is that certain nationalities have a very limited horizone on what they did themselves, prefering a cleaned up picture of glory and honor and acting in harsh agression to anybody willing to point out some differences in this regard, to a degree as to think they are put on the same level with Nazis in general and take away of the great sacrifices those countries went though without anybody ever saying so. Gross overreaction and "appearantly" a certain state of denial to these kinda topics, especially if members of countries are involved that in their mind should feel "more guilty" then themsevles.
That is undoubtly correct, they should. The problem arises with the "percieved" attitude that with feeling more guilty, they should also shut up and never critizise.