PDA

View Full Version : Can you be shot while parachuting?



blazer-glory
07-31-2005, 03:42 AM
I was wondering if I could be stilled be killed by an enemy after I have jumped from my plane in this game? Also what were the rules on this during WWII?

Luftwaffe_109
07-31-2005, 03:44 AM
You can be klled, yes.

Even the AAA gunners will try to kill you, which I think is particularly bloodthisty.

HotelBushranger
07-31-2005, 03:47 AM
Mmmmm. There was a 7+ page thread a while ago debating the morality of this vs necessity of war. It happened in real life, but then again some pilots refused to. Get the same thing in game.

Taylortony
07-31-2005, 03:51 AM
Yes you can and yes they did, one RAF Pilot flying with the Poles said he was appalled to see some of them do it, but could totally understand there mindset and if he was in their place would do the same.

Luftwaffe_109
07-31-2005, 03:58 AM
It is mentioned in Adolf Galland's "The First and the Last" that Goering had asked him what he thought of a proposed policy of shooting RAF pilots in their parachutes over England during the Battle of Britain. The rational was that Luftwaffe pilots bailing out during the Battle would usually become POWs (as they were over Britain) whereas the RAF pilots would live to fight another day.

Galland rejected the policy as he felt it was dishonourable and Goering agreed with him as he had been a WWI ace himself.

I agree with both, gunning down defenceless airmen is unchivalrous.

However, it was not illegal under the Geneva Conventions. It did happen. For example, I think the Americans would frequently attempt to shoot bailed out Me 262 pilots since they were usually aces.

Atomic_Marten
07-31-2005, 04:10 AM
Well, then it would be highly advisable for pilots to wait 'till the critical altitude before they pulled the parachute rope.
That way they can avoid troubles better, by reducing the time spent hanging in the air.

Luftwaffe_109
07-31-2005, 04:14 AM
Well, then it would be highly advisable for pilots to wait 'till the critical altitude before they pulled the parachute rope.

It would if they had the nerve.

Also, it was not unheared of for pilots to attempt to strafe downed airmen on the ground.

Udidtoo
07-31-2005, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
You can be klled, yes.

Even the AAA gunners will try to kill you, which I think is particularly bloodthisty.


They don't try in game, they do. If your in range of AAA unless you bailed so low that you hit terra firma toot sweet they will blow holes in your chute with ferver.

Luftwaffe_109
07-31-2005, 04:19 AM
I once managed to land near an airbase and they continued to fire at me! They could easily have sent someone out to capture me, but instead they decided a couple of anti-aircraft shells would be a better course of action. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Needless to say I died.

Quite frankly I don't see why this happens in the game. You would think firing heavy flak at downed airmen is not very efficient.

Bremspropeller
07-31-2005, 04:33 AM
Well, but some people should be shot for their dumbness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://img165.exs.cx/img165/3548/34.jpg

I guess I don't have to translate, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

("Wegpunkt" = waypoint; Strg = Ctrl) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-31-2005, 04:38 AM
I have just remembered one BoB story (mid 1940) that one English pilot was describing in some book. Of course I can not remember his exact words but
"Yeah at first chivalry was almost strictly enforced by both sides; no parachute shooting etc. But that did not last for long.. some officers were particularly angry at their pilots when they saw them showing mercy to the enemy.
...
I was near the runway when I heard unusual roar. Few moments later I saw low flying lone Ju-87 closing to my position followed by group of Spitfires. Stuka had no chance of escaping but the guys in Spitfires keep shooting at him 'till Ju-87 exploded in mid-air. It would be far better if they forced the Gerry to land.. we could have intact Ju-87.."

trumper
07-31-2005, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Well, then it would be highly advisable for pilots to wait 'till the critical altitude before they pulled the parachute rope.
That way they can avoid troubles better, by reducing the time spent hanging in the air.
Unfortunately you don't have that choice in game,you hit cont E and it's up to the computer when your parachute opens.

Atomic_Marten
07-31-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, but some people should be shot for their dumbness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://img165.exs.cx/img165/3548/34.jpg

I guess I don't have to translate, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

("Wegpunkt" = waypoint; Strg = Ctrl) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
LMAO.. I presume that the victim had pressed CTRL+E? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bremspropeller
07-31-2005, 05:54 AM
"- Hasi bailed out"
.
.
.
"BLUE WON"



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

F19_Ob
07-31-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by blazer-glory:
Also what were the rules on this during WWII?

There were no rules more than the pilots own morality.
Many pilots were shot in their chutes on all sides. Seemingly all nationalities strafed pilots and people on the ground aswell and it was not solely a German phenomena as some belive from the propaganda.

From my reading so far it feels like germans and americans were the most dedicated to this but I ofcourse cant show that it is a fact.
However there are detailed pilot stories and accounts of battles and strafing pilots and people on the ground. Especially the Americans seem to have been very determined that no enemy pilot was left alive and there are many accounts where a group or a flight dives down to strafe a downed enemy pilot and the rests of his plane.

It's easy to moralize afterwards but one have to try to see the larger picture wich is not so easy to do.

a few thoughts.

Zyzbot
07-31-2005, 07:32 AM
Shooting at parachutes and downed airmen was something that was done by ALL sides. Some seemm to want to say it was done more by one side than another but the truth is that it was done by all side and was done more often than is commonly believed:


BRITISH SHOOTING ITALIAN PILOT IN PARACHUTE:

€œOne of the fighters shot down was indeed a CR.42 of the 412a Squadriglia, the pilot being badly wounded; he is believed to have been Tenente Luigi De Pol, who later died in hospital. The second aircraft lost was a CR.32 (the last available in Eritrea) from which the pilot, Tenente Bossi, baled out. However, it was reported that he was machine gunned in his parachute by a Hurricane, and on landing was rushed to hospital where an arm and a leg was amputated, but he died shortly afterwards.€

RUSSIANS Shooting at Finns
1. From an Interview of Finnish pilot Kyosti Karhila :
Q-Do you know of cases when a parachuted pilot would have been strafed?
A- Russians did do that.
Q- Were those single cases or was that systematic?
A- Well, I know of several cases. Especially those Finnish airmen who had been in a reconnaissance mission and had the bad fortune of having to bail out, they were in the risk of being shot in their parachute harness. I find that quite disgusting.
As to me, I can say that the La-5 pilot who nearly got me parachuted in the middle of the Gulf of Finland. He was rescued by a speedboat from Lavansaari, and I did not have any idea of going to strafe the boat. I must admit that my hands and feet were shaking at that moment.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/karhi/karhinv2.htm
STRAFING Downed aircraft:
2. €œ €¦But there was a high price to be paid for the success; after the attack Sterner's and Jung's Harts collided in the air probably because of a shot steering wire. Jung's Hart lost an engine and fell to the ground tail first. In the other Hart Jung commanded several times his navigator, Lt. Zachau to parachute, but he couldn't escape from his position. Sterner was saved by his parachute. Also Jung's navigator, Sgt. Sunsten couldn't escape from his position. At 500 m (1.700 ft) altitude Jung parachuted out. The Hart continued its dive tail first, straightened at 50 m (170 ft) and fell to the woods in normal position. Sgt. Sunsten climbed out unharmed while the enemy fighters strafed the Hart.
The other aircraft spread and ensign F¤nstr¶m's Hart strayed away from them. While he was flying south three enemy fighters attacked and F¤nstr¶m dived down to the treetops. At 50 m (170 ft) he got engine trouble and had to land on a frozen swamp. The wing spars had been shot so that he had been in the risk of losing his upper wing. F¤nstr¶m and navigator Hanson escaped to the woods while the enemy fighters strafed their aircraft. After a while they returned to their aircraft, took their survival skis and headed back to the Finnish lines. A Finnish patrol found Sunsten a week later. Sterner and Jung were captured by the Soviets. Zachau had died in the aircraft€¦.€
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-ujtnhfa8doJ:www.s...afed+parachute&hl=en (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-ujtnhfa8doJ:www.sci.fi/~fta/f19-2.htm+strafed+parachute&hl=en)

Germans shooting at Americans in parachutes:
1. "I thought I was the only person on board, so I jumped. Three fighters came after me. The first one missed and the second also missed. When the third one came by I was too low for him to shoot at me. When I hit the ground a burst of machine gun was fired at me. I hit the dirt fast. Then German soldiers came and drove me on a motorcycle to a building. On the way we passed a row of dead American airmen, about 12 of them covered with blood soaked parachutes. I knew they were shot dead on the way down. When we reached the building I saw our radio operator (McCauley) who was wounded and hurt bad. The Germans still made him stand up.€
http://www.southernoregonwarbirds.org/b17a.html


2. "As I descended in the parachute, the Germans were firing 20 and 30 mm cannon shells at me in the parachute. I didn't think they could hit such a small target, especially since I was swinging back and forth. The pilots on the mission said it looked like the rounds were going right through the canopy of the chute and they thought I was dead because they couldn't see me moving. The P-47s couldn't linger in the area to see me land because the flak being fired at them was too intense. The silence of my descent surprised me. After the noise of getting hit, all the smoke and the explosion, the silence was stunning. In a matter of minutes after hitting the ground, I was captured. €œ
http://pages.prodigy.com/fighterpilot/

3. With a chest type chute, which is what I was wearing, it was best if you were on your back when the chute opened, so the shrouds would not cut your face when they were pulled from the pack. I know I tumbled a long way trying to find that 'on my back position' until I finally got it. When the chute opened, there was a tremendous quiet. I had heard stories about the Germans shooting men in their parachutes, heard stories about people lynching them when they got on the ground and naturally I was now concerned for my welfare.

I looked off to my right and I saw a German fighter plane heading right for me and I felt this was it. But instead he flew up along side me, tipped up on one wing, and turned so that his prop wash collapsed my chute, and I dropped...fast, about 50 feet - until my chute reopened. In the meantime he circled around and made a second pass and again collapsed my chute and again I fell. A third time he headed towards me but this time he turned his cockpit towards me, gave me a snappy military salute, and flew on. Of course what he was doing in the meantime was drawing the attention of the people on the ground to where I was coming down, and for them to wait for me. And wait for me they did!"

http://www.384thbg.iwarp.com/rs_lavoie.htm

4. €œTheir mission for the day was Magdeburg, a major oil supply center for the Germans. The mission was successful, despite heavy enemy activity. Only five-flying minutes away from friendly territory, there was a malfunction with a gun on a neighboring plane and Spades€ aircraft was struck. The pilot told the crew to bail out.

Spades was the only crewmember from the front of the plane to make it out. The pilot was right behind him, but never jumped. The reason why he did not jump is still unknown. As Spades was descending, a German artillery unit made his descent faster by shooting a hole through his parachute.

Spades eventually landed near the same German artillery unit that shot his parachute. At first, he was under the watch of a very pessimistic German soldier. Through conversation, Spades found the boy was 14-years old. He expected the Germans to be defeated soon.€

5. After assisting Len to bail out, our pilot "Bill" Terry yelled, "Hey, Lou wait for me!" I waited until he left the control column then bailed out through the bomb bay. Distrusting the Germans I free fell and saw one parachute open above me which had to be Terry€s. While free-falling I realized that with the "H" (Jewish) on my dog tags I risked being shot as a spy, if I ripped them off and threw them away€¦ and risked being shot as a Jew if I left them on and fell into the hands of the Gestapo or S.S.! I left them on. While free falling I thought of the gross of condoms scattered in every pocket of every uniform€¦ "My parents will think they raised a sex fiend!"
When I finally opened my parachute I found I was being shot at from the ground. Slipping and spilling air I became an instant expert in maneuvering the chute despite admonitions to keep our "cotton-picking€ hands" off the shroud lines. I got away from a small camp where they were shooting at me toward another small camp where they were not

http://www.axpow.org/loevskylouis.htm
6. Lt Bernard T. McNamara (N-POW) Landed on and passed through the roof of the "Gaspard" repair shops in St. Saulve, a suburb of Valaneciennes. Was reported to have been machine-gunned during his parachute decent with wounds to his head, a hand and leg. Was cared for by local inhabitants and Dr. Delrue. Was found by the Germans two hours later and was sent to a local hospital for treatment. On the next day he was driven to a Luftwaffe Hospital in Cambrai.
http://www.303rdbga.com/358hendry.html

7. 17 April 1943:

€œ While escorting B-17s Captain James Harman, the 94th CO downed a Ju.88 but was in turn hit and forced to parachute. His parachute had been strafed and Cpt Harmon subsequently killed along with Lt Anderson with the 27th. Lts. Matthews and Lowe both claimed a Ju. 88 and Harold Lentz claimed a probable on both an Me. 109 and an Me. 210.€

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:fnYh2nOvuU4J:www.l...afed+parachute&hl=en (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:fnYh2nOvuU4J:www.langley.af.mil/wm_source/1_fw_source/staff_agency/HO/1943.doc+strafed+parachute&hl=en)

8. 12 Jan 1943:
€œOn a fighter sweep in the Gulf of Gabes, Joseph Smith of the 71st bailed out after the Germans shot down his aircraft. He reportedly died when machine guns fired at his parachute. €œ


GERMANS SHOOTING POLISH PILOTS IN PARACHUTES:

€œIn the same battle, pilots of 123. Fighter Eskadrille, flying obsolete PZL P.7a fighters, were surprised by Bf 110's of I/LG1 (commander Maj. Grabmann was wounded in a morning fight, so the unit was led this time by Hauptmann Schleif). Cpt. Mieczyslaw Olszewski, 123's commander, was quickly shot down and killed, his P.7 crashing near Legionow. Three other pilots shot down, bailed out and parachuted: Sec.Lt. Stanislaw Czternastek, Sec.Lt. Feliks Szyszka and cadet Antoni Danek. Only Czternastek safely reached the ground: Szyszka and Danek were attacked in the air. Strafed by a German fighter, Danek got down without injury. Szyszka wasn't so lucky, suffering 16 wounds. He was transported by civilians to a hospital. During that combat on 1 September 1939, I.(Z)/LG 1 escorted the He 111s of KG 27 and LG 1 against the airport of Warsaw. The Bf 110s claimed 5 PZL-fighters shot down - 3 by Hauptmann Fritz Schleif, one each by Unteroffizier Sturm and Unteroffizier Lauffs.

2 September 1939, about 16:00, Lodz area. Eight PZL fighters of III/6 Squadron clashed with 23 Bf 110's of I./ZG76. In the battle, Sec.Lt. Jan Dzwonek was shot down. Hanging in his parachute, he was attacked twice by a Bf 110. Apparently, the Luftwaffe pilot was so busy attacking the defenseless Dzwonek, that Corporal Jan Malinowski, flying an obsolete P.7 fighter, downed the German plane without any problem. See details in the story: Jan Dzwonek - within an ace of death.

3 September 1939, about 10:00 six PZL P-11c of 112. Eskadra Mysliwska (Fighter Eskadrille), leaded by commander of III/1 Dywizjon (Squadron) Cpt. Zdzislaw Krasnodebski took off against German Bf 110 fighters. In hard combat over Wyszkow city, Krasnodebski was forced to bail out. The German pilot who shot him down, aimed to finish his victim, shooting at Krasnodebski while he slowly glided down in his parachute. But Lt. Arsen Cebrzynski saw this deadly pass and the Luftwaffe pilot soon became a victim. Leutnant Barents, a veteran of "Legion Condor", bailed out safely, and became a POW.€

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pol39/pol39.htm


Polish pilots shooting Germans in parachutes

€œThere were two Poles in 151 Squadron, Frank Czaijkowski and a Sergeant Gmur who spoke little English and was shot down and killed. There was also a Czech pilot. Their flying skills were exemplary.
They hated [the Germans]. Absolutely hated them. In fact, I understand once or twice when Germans were shot down in parachutes they were shot at, but then the Germans would shoot any of us, which was why we were all told, "If you do have a chance, don't bail out, crash land your aeroplane.€
http://www.war-experience.org/collections/air/alliedbrit/ellacombe/index.html



GERMAN SHOOTING BRITISH PILOT IN PARACHUTE:
1. €œS/Ldr Starr: He joined 253 Squadron a few days before he was shot down and killed while descending by parachute on 31 August 1940€

2. €œAt about 18.30 hours, RAF Sergeant A. W. Wooley was piloting Hawker Hurricane No P3681 of 601 Squadron. Whilst engaging a Heinkel 111 off the Isle of Wight, his gravity fuel tank was hit and set alight by return fire. According to eyewitnesses, Sergeant Wooley baled out high above Freshwater and as he drifted towards Thorness he was machine-gunned by an enemy fighter. Luckily he survived but his parachute harness was almost cut through by one of the bullets. His troubles were not quite over that day for he landed in cow-pats.€


3. One British plane brought down. Pilot baled out and was machine gunned by Germans:
http://brew.clients.ch/GrndDiaries41.htm
Strafing downed pilot:
4. 30 November 1941, Sunday
€œOur boys went out looking for a fight and ran into a mixture of Italian and German aircraft. In the ensuing battle, we got eight enemy aircraft confirmed, with a probable 13. We lost three aircraft. One pilot, "Woof" Arthur still missing. Scotty shot down two, the guns must be working well!
Tiny Cameron crash landed in the desert and a German plane saw him and strafed him as he got out of his kite. He got out of it all with a few shrapnel cuts. "Winca" Pete Jeffries saw what was happening and drove off the enemy aircraft, landed in the desert next to Tiny, who ditched his parachute and climbed in with Pete and sat on his knee. Tiny is about 6'4", and Pete is about 6'0", so they can't close the cockpit hood.€
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Wi6XCJ-jOzsJ:www.3...afed+parachute&hl=en (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Wi6XCJ-jOzsJ:www.3squadron.org.au/felix.htm+strafed+parachute&hl=en)

5. €œGeorge Andrew Forsyth BUCHANAN, from Rhodesia. Forced to baled out over Malta on 17th May 1942, he was killed when an enemy fighter opened fire on his parachute.€
http://website.lineone.net/~remosliema/airmen191570.htm

6. JG: When was your next action?
David: €œOn a Sunday, 11th August 1940, off Portland Bill. There were fuel tanks there and the Germans were trying to bomb them. We went after them and I shot down a Junkers Ju-88A. The Ju-88 could take a lot of punishment, and I had to really hit it. Then Me-109s attacked us and John R. ****, who had already downed a Ju88, got an Me-109 and two probables before he was shot down. He went to hospital that night because a fragment of his radio went into his arm, but he rejoined us in September.
Later on, while they were salvaging his Hurricane from the sea on 30th August, 1983, **** confirmed that I had shot down another airplane. I didn't know it. I had aimed at one of the 109s trying to shoot Johnny in his parachute-it's awful to see a 109 trying to shoot a man in his parachute. It was hardly a one-second burst, but it must have been deadly, because he saw that chap crash straight into the sea, 10 miles southeast of Portland.
The Germans did damage to the port, but not major damage. We'd try to get their leaders if we could, but it was always a matter of getting in a shot or two while you could, then you upped your neck and got in a dogfight with a 109 determined to kill you.€
http://www.thehistorynet.com/bh/blluftwaffeincrosshair/index1.html
7. 12th January 1945
€œNF992 KC-B Type Lancaster I took off from Woodhall spa at 8.30am (12th January 1945) carrying tallboy bombs the mission was to attack the U-Boat pens at Bergen, they were attacked by german 190's off the Norweigen coast. The Lancaster was seen by other crews to have an engine fire, but made a perfect landing on the sea at approx 1315 hours. All the crew managed to scramble onto the top of the aircraft even life saving equipment was dropped to them by a Warwick aircraft, this had to take evasive action due to enermy aircraft "Junkers 88" the Junkers proceeded to strafe the downed Lancaster killing all onboard. The only body found was that of F/O Ellwood. €œ
http://www.dambusters.org.uk/bergen.htm


AMERICAN SHOOTING GERMAN IN PARACHUTE:
On 8 March 1944, Ehrenberger engaged USAAF bombers and fighters near Wittenberg. In the resulting aerial combat his Bf 109 G-6 (W.Nr. 440 111) received hits. He baled out but was then shot and killed while hanging in his parachute. Ehrenberger was posthumously awarded the Ritterkreuz on 5 April.

Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart Oberleutnant
€œOn 8 June 1944, Zweigart was shot down in Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 170 736) €œBlack 3€ in aerial combat near Le Cambaux. He baled out but was then shot and killed while hanging in his parachute.€
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/zweigart.html

JAPANESE ATTACKING AMERICANS IN PARACHUTES:

1. €œ The fate of the "Temptation" was as bad as "Mama's." Lieutenant William Rutledge's crew had fought off nine Zeros over Haiphong before her No.3 engine was hit. Rutledge successfully feathered the engine so the plane was able to fly northwest with the remaining two Liberators, "Doodlebug" and "Flub Dub." The crippled Liberator was unable to keep up so Rutledge turned his ship north and struck out on his own. She was jumped again by "Zekes," whose bullets shut down No.4 engine and jammed her stabilizer, causing the plane to start a slow spiral down to her left. The crewmembers were ordered to jump by the pilot and were immediately machine gunned as they floated helplessly to the ground. Lieutenant Rutledge was killed by a shot to the head, S/Sergeant Wilber Willis was riddled with bullets. Bombardier Lieutenant Richard Warren had been wounded in the leg during the attack. Navigator Robert Powers, a new replacement on the crew, had helped Warren into his chute and assisted him out the open bomb bay. Machine gunner S/Sergeant Robert L. Corbin had also been wounded and was nearly unconscious. Copilot Don Smith struggled to get him into a chute and pushed him out of the plane. Corbin revived long enough to open his chute. But neither Lieutenant Warren nor Sergeant Corbin was ever found.€


2. On May 5, 1945, an American B-29 bomber was flying with a dozen other aircraft after bombing Tachiaral Air Base in southwestern Japan and beginning the return flight to the island fortress of Guam.
Kinzou Kasuya, a 19-year-old Japanese pilot flying one of the Japanese fighters in pursuit of the Americans, rammed his aircraft into the fuselage of the B-29, destroying both planes.
No one knows for certain how many Americans were in the B-29; its crew had been hastily assembled on Guam. But villagers in Japan who witnessed the collision in the air saw about a dozen parachutes blossom.
One of the Americans died when the cords of his, parachute were severed by another Japanese plane. A second was alive when he reached the ground. He shot all but his last bullet at the villagers coming toward him, then used the last on himself.
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/germwar/uspow.htm



3. €œWhatever the motivation, it was common for Japanese pilots to shoot helpless victims. During the large air battle of June 7th, 1943, some of which is related above, Corsair pilot Lieutenant Samuel Logan experienced the practice but lived to describe it:

I saw two Zeros chasing a New Zealand P-40. I followed them down trying to close in on the tail of the Zero. When I was about 500 yards away, my plane suddenly began to vibrate and shake. I pulled up the nose but it continued to stall and shake worse than ever. I hadn€t seen any tracers but I turned and saw that my rudder was mostly shot away and that I had very little elevator control. The nose kept dropping. Suddenly I saw a Zero go past me from behind. I hadn€t known one was there. My plane was getting out of control so I opened the greenhouse, got out, and crawled back along the fuselage, clear to the tail. I didn€t have a chin strap on my helmet, so it blew off with my goggles, and for a while I couldn€t see a thing. I jumped but made the mistake of pulling my ripcord too soon. It worked OK and I was at about 20,000 feet. I was trying to pull up into the seat of the chutes when I heard kind of a €˜put-put€ behind me, the noise of machine gun fire. I swung around in my chute and saw a Zero making a run on me from behind firing with two machine guns. He missed but went so close under me that I had to jerk up my feet to avoid being hit by the prop. When he passed by, he did a wingover and made a second run on me. I was trying to collapse the chute to speed up my descent, but couldn€t do it. I was pretty high and weak from lack of oxygen. He missed again and then wheeled around and came back for a third run with both guns firing. I was busy trying to spill the air out of the chute, and I now had it partially collapsed. This time though, I didn€t think to pull up my feet. The prop hit me. I thought at first my feet were gone, but then saw that only the heel had been taken off my left foot. He made another run before the New Zealand P-40 I saw before came along and chased him off. It seemed to take ages to hit the water, and I had to fight to keep from passing out. Several Corsairs and P-40s were around so I figured I€d get picked up soon. I put a tourniquet on my right leg. The bit toe and the one next to it were on, but all the outside and rest were cut off just above the ankle-kind of a sideways cut. My left heel was cut too. I gave myself two morphine surettes and I took four sulfa tablets. The morphine started to do its work, things began to go dim, and I lay back and relaxed.

Lieutenant Logan was quickly picked up. His foot was later amputated€¦€


4. 29 April,1945:

Roger's Diary:
Miyakonojo Airfield, Kyushu. Altitude 15,000 ft. Daylight formation raid, no fighter escort. Flak moderate. Fighters 40 to 50. Lt. Wollschlager got a probable fighter. It came in at 11 o'clock and I could see the tracers coming at us. It was smoking badly as it passed us. T 4's #3 engine caught fire, but it made it 20 miles from the Jap coast before it's crew bailed out when the whole right wing caught fire. The plane exploded shortly before hitting the water. The men were scattered out quite a bit and we circled over them for three hours and threw things down to them. I contacted a submarine and kept sending in their position and their condition. As our fuel was running low we had to leave them and land at Iwo Jima for gas. On take off the #4 engine caught fire and we feathered it and landed again. We flew A 53 back to Saipan and left Bernie and Bob on Iwo to guard T 8 . Two Jap boats were damaged and four sunk, also a Jap Betty was shot up, trying to come out and strafe the survivors. Lt. Fisher and five of his men were rescued. We also lost T 12 over the target. http://home.att.net/~sallyann5/b29/schifferli3.html


JAPANESE SHOOTING CHINESE PILOT IN PARACHUTE:

1. Then Chang was attacked by three Type 97s from above. He took evasive action, flipped over, made a half roll and tried to climb, and then was hit by enemy gunfire. The aircraft went into a corkscrew, and Chang became dizzy and lost his vision. The throttle control became totally unresponsive. He could feel hot lubricant slopping on his legs and feet. He knew the aircraft could catch fire any moment and decided to bail out. He released his lap belt and shouldered his way out of the cockpit door. He spun out in the air and the objects he carried in his leg pockets, including map, protractor, ruler, pen, goggle and revolver, all flew out into the air. Chang bent his legs and put his arms below his knees to stop the spinning. He estimated that he had fallen from 6000 meters to 3000 meters and pulled the ripcord. The parachute opened with a big thump. As he descended slowly, he was dreading that he would land to the north of the Yellow River occupied by the Japanese. Images from his past went through his mind. Suddenly, he regained some vision. From pitch black, he began seeing things in deep yellow, and then light yellow, and he saw the deep blue sky turn into light blue.
His joy suddenly turned into fright as he saw three Japanese aircraft flying towards him, with guns blazing. In the first attack, tracers burned several holes on his parachute and severed five cords. The parachute went lop-sided, accelerated its downward decent, and swung left and right. The second aircraft attacked and severed three more cords. The swaying and acceleration increased. The Japanese planes left him only when he was near the ground. Chang fell on a vegetable field in Hsia Yi County east of Kwei Teh. He injured his lower back on landing, and the injury bothered him all his life.



2. €œOn February 8, 1938 a pilot of the 25th squadron, Yang Jien was shot down in air combat over Hankow. He baled out of Hawk No. 2306 (it was his second escape by parachute during the war), but was strafed by the Japanese. It is necessary to note that the Japanese pilots, out of simple Samurai cruelty chased after pilots who had force-landed or baled out by parachute trying to finish them off in the air or on the ground. Thus perished too many Chinese pilots and a number of our volunteers. In August 1938 in one battle over Hankow the Japanese at once strafed two pilots who had baled out of Soviet fighters. A gunner-radio operator saved on August 12 from a shot down SB (the pilot and navigator perished) remembers: €œHow I opened the parachute I don€t know...Observing me, a Japanese fighter began to dive at the parachute and opened fire, with the result that there were several tears in the canopy of the parachute, but I remained unharmed. Then he drew very near to the canopy; to all appearances he wanted to hook me on his landing gear and drag me back to his own territory as a trophy. I actively defended myself and began to slip the parachute, rapidly losing height. Following three or four unsuccessful attacks, the Japanese left me in peace...€ Killed that same day [6] were Senior Lieutenants F. D. Gulyi, N. M. Terekhov, Kh. Kh. Churyakov, and Lieutenant A. G. Maglyak.€

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/china_skys_part_ii.htm

Air Ops in Burma:

€œFrom January 1st the cost in losses was 38 fighters shot down by the enemy in air combat. Of these 16 were P.40€s and 22 Buffaloes and Hurricanes, but the majority of pilots were fortunately saved. I regret to report that there were 2 substantiated incidents when Japanese fighter pilots attacked and killed our fighter pilots while descending by parachute.€

http://www.fepow-community.org.uk/Research/London_Gazet...tml/body_part_ix.htm (http://www.fepow-community.org.uk/Research/London_Gazette/Air_Ops_Burma_Jan_to_May_1942/html/body_part_ix.htm)

SPANISH CIVIL WAR

€œ€¦.Henrici was probably shot down by Sergiey Chernych, (I-16). It seems that Eberhardt collided with Tarchov since it€s reported that he single-handed fought against a number of He51s before being forced to bail out after a collision. While hanging in his parachute, Republican soldiers mistook him for Nationalist pilot and opened fire, hitting him six times. Tarchov landed in Madrid but was attacked by the public because they thought he was a German. He died of his injuries at G³mes Ulla hospital on 23 November. This led General Miaja to the issue following order the next day:
€œAny aviator who jumps from his aircraft using a parachute is out of the battle and, therefore, I order all forces defending Madrid not to shoot at parachutists under any circumstances. They may be our own men, but, if they prove to be enemies they can provide us with valuable information, which will be of great use for our operations.€
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/soviet_rychagov.htm

BigganD
07-31-2005, 07:58 AM
In game I can shoot it, I just shoot at a humen looking figure that can only glid down to ground (I kill his parachute if he killed mine before) ..just a game, in reality i would not do somthing like that.

x__CRASH__x
07-31-2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
...I think the Americans would frequently attempt to shoot bailed out Me 262 pilots since they were usually aces.
DON'T ACE HATE!

blazer-glory
07-31-2005, 10:31 AM
Thanks for the replies. I guess it was an personal decision in the end. Seeing your friends and collegues being shot down and killed swung things a bit I guess.

Luftwaffe_109
07-31-2005, 06:57 PM
Hello all.


AMERICAN SHOOTING GERMAN IN PARACHUTE:
-On April 4, 1945, Major Rudolf Sinner flying a Me-262, took off from Parchim, to intercept incoming planes. After completing one and a half circuits, he had seven of his squadron with him. While the others remained below the low cloud cover Sinner flew above it and saw four Mustangs chasing an Me-262. Before he could help, four more Mustangs came down attacking. Before Sinner got into the cloud cover he took a number of hits. Two Mustangs followed him into the cloud cover, and he took more hits, with a fire starting near the left wing root. As the fire spread to the cockpit, Sinner bailed out at low altitude, and he landed in a freshly plowed field. While still in his parachute harness, the two Mustangs fired on him on the ground. The parachute pulled him into a barbed wire fence, and when the Mustangs circled to come back, he quickly got away from the parachute. The Mustangs continued to fire into the parachute.

Sinner finished the war with 39 victories. He was forced to bail out three times, wounded five times, shot down twelve times making forced landings.

-Oberleutnant Franz Barton was killed while in a parachute on August 4th 1944 while flying his 895th mission for JG53.

-"Interviewer: Tell us about April 26. That was your last combat flight wasn't it?
Galland: Yes, I was shot down by a Republic P-47D flown by a man named James Finnegan, whom I met some years later, and we became friends. We were intercepting bombers near Neuberg. I was leading a flight, and I attacked from the rear, astern. My rockets did not fire, but I poured 30mm cannon shells into one bomber, which fell in flames, and flew right through the formation, hitting another. I could not tell if that bomber was finished off, so I banked around for another run, all the while my jet was receiving hits from the bombers' defensive fire. Suddenly my instrument panel disintegrated, my canopy was shattered, and my right knee was struck. I was losing power and was in great pain. I thought about parachuting out but realized that might be dangerous, as some of our pilots had been strafed upon exiting their jets. I flew for the deck and headed for this field at the air base, which was under attack. I cut the power to my good engine and thumped across the field. My nose wheel had been flattened, and smoke was pouring from my plane. I climbed out to get away, in case it should explode, only to find aircraft dropping bombs and firing rockets at me. Well, our mission netted five victories total, and none of the pilots were killed. From that point forward, B¤r took operational command, and every unit in Germany with jets began bringing them to us at Reim airfield, near Munich. For such a long time I had been begging for planes. Now that the war was almost over I had more planes than men to fly them....."

You see the practise of shooting pilots in their parachutes was more widespread than some people believe. All sides did it, although it was particularly prevalent in the Pacific and amongst the Americans in Europe and not so prevalent amongst the British and Germans.


I guess it was an personal decision in the end.
Yes it was a personal decision, the pilots did not have any official directives and there were no laws prohibiting it at the time.

However, these days it is illegal to shoot a pilot in a parachute:


Geneva convention:
Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War
Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art. 42 - Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

Badsight.
07-31-2005, 07:07 PM
shooting chutes is fun

but the best is when you plink either the Chute or the person alone

& if you do it to me ill go "S!" & "good shot!"

LStarosta
07-31-2005, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blazer-glory:
Also what were the rules on this during WWII?

There were no rules more than the pilots own morality.
Many pilots were shot in their chutes on all sides. Seemingly all nationalities strafed pilots and people on the ground aswell and it was not solely a German phenomena as some belive from the propaganda.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans were the first to do it. I don't quite recall Polish airmen shooting the parachutes of downed Germans in 1939. I do, however, remember plenty of stories of Germans shooting at not only airmen, but at civilians as well. Then you wonder why everyone else started shooting Germans in their chutes. Maybe payback?

Stanislaw Skalski, Poland's top ace downed a German aircraft in the first days of the war. He landed beside it, took his own first aid kit and treated the German crew. He waited on the ground until a Polish ambulance took the Germans to a medical facility and POW camp. Later, after the LW crew was recaptured and put back into circulation, LW command learned of what Skalski did. They issued an order that if Skalski were to ever be downed and captured, he was to be treated with the utmost respect. Fortunately, it never came to that.

Anyway, the attitude of British and Polish airmen during the BoB was very different. The British thought that air combat was a gentleman's occupation, much like fox hunting. The Poles were out there to slaughter every last German. That was basically it. The Poles saw their land trampled by the German war machine. They were extremely bitter, and the war was much more personal for them than for the British. Many British airmen looked on in shock as Poles shot Germans hanging in their parachutes. War was brutal.

F19_Olli72
07-31-2005, 09:31 PM
LStarosta, read 'Fighter boys' by Patrick Bishop (mainly about BoB) and you'll learn that not all british pilots were that chummy & sporting 'gentlemen'. Specially the pilots who had participated in Battle of France.

LStarosta
07-31-2005, 10:01 PM
Obviously I do not think all Brits were "chummy". But the "Chummy" ratio amongst Polish airmen was much lower than that of British airmen. Which is understandable since most Brits did not witness and experience German wrath to the extent that Poles did. I do not mean to disrespect any Brits, but many things I read from British airmen and officers reflect the same idea.

AerialTarget
07-31-2005, 10:10 PM
There is a lot of generalizing, of course. The only country for whom 'chute shooting was the standard operating procedure was Japan. There it was not only officially encouraged but rather mandatory.

There were plenty of 'chute shooters on all sides, of course, and plenty more who didn't. But I laugh at those who display their obvious anti-American agenda when they try to claim that "Americans tended to shoot chutes more than Germans or British," baseless claims devised only by their small, propogated minds.

Luftwaffe_109
08-01-2005, 02:49 AM
Hi LStarosta.


The Germans were the first to do it. I don't quite recall Polish airmen shooting the parachutes of downed Germans in 1939. I do, however, remember plenty of stories of Germans shooting at not only airmen, but at civilians as well. Then you wonder why everyone else started shooting Germans in their chutes. Maybe payback?

What evidence do you have that the reason that some pilots shot at parachuting German pilots was out of revenge for a perceived similar practise amongst the Luftwaffe?

What evidence do you have that "the Germans were first to do it" and that there are "plenty of stories of Germans shooting at airmen" (presumably you mean bailed-out airmen)?

As far as I have heard, the reason why Polish pilots often shot at defenceless pilots was because of their hatred at having had their homeland over-run, not because the Luftwaffe suposedly frequently shot at parachutes. I've seen no evidence that they did this any more than others.

As for strafing civilians, I guess it probably did happen occasionally just as it did in every airforce, but it certainly wasn€t a matter of operational doctrine. For one thing, few pilots of the Jagdgeschwader would want to give away their hight advantage (height is essentially important for boom and zoom fighters) for the militarily pointless task of strafing civilians.

More likely, when civilian columns were strafed, it would be because of poor identification (it must have been extremely difficult to tell the difference between a military and civilian column in WWII - indeed, it still is today!)

German doctrine included sealing off the battlefield and this interdiction activity included attacks on moving columns of the enemy. With the difficulty in identifying targets, it is quite likely that attacks were carried out against civilian columns.


Best Regards

Destroyer110
08-01-2005, 04:17 AM
That's the one reality missing from PF .. gunning of pilots in parachutes by appropriate nations. Those would include Japan against any, Russians against Germans (and vv), Poles against Germans (and vv) .. plus more.

If this is added then I would like the ability to say WHEN to pull the rip cord ... preferably at the last minute. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Destroyer110
08-01-2005, 04:19 AM
... plus, AA shooting Airmen in chutes is STUPID!!! THey're crazy, shooting the water and trees once the pilot's down!

PLEASE REMOVE!!

SeaFireLIV
08-01-2005, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
But instead he flew up along side me, tipped up on one wing, and turned so that his prop wash collapsed my chute, and I dropped...fast, about 50 feet - until my chute reopened. In the meantime he circled around and made a second pass and again collapsed my chute and again I fell. A third time he headed towards me but this time he turned his cockpit towards me, gave me a snappy military salute, and flew on. Of course what he was doing in the meantime was drawing the attention of the people on the ground to where I was coming down, and for them to wait for me. And wait for me they did!"



Amazing read, Zyzbot, particularly the above. Thnx.

F19_Olli72
08-01-2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
As for strafing civilians, I guess it probably did happen occasionally just as it did in every airforce, but it certainly wasn€t a matter of operational doctrine. For one thing, few pilots of the Jagdgeschwader would want to give away their hight advantage (height is essentially important for boom and zoom fighters) for the militarily pointless task of strafing civilians.

More likely, when civilian columns were strafed, it would be because of poor identification (it must have been extremely difficult to tell the difference between a military and civilian column in WWII - indeed, it still is today!)

German doctrine included sealing off the battlefield and this interdiction activity included attacks on moving columns of the enemy. With the difficulty in identifying targets, it is quite likely that attacks were carried out against civilian columns.


I doubt that Condor Legion turning the village of Guernica to rubble with all the civilians in it was a case of mistaken identity. Anyone trying to escape were strafed by fighters. 1,654 people were killed and 889 wounded. The attack lasted over 3 hours at as low levels as 600 feet.

The germans did it early, and they sure didnt get any good PR from it either. Even if they claimed that the target was "a bridge of strategic value".

LStarosta
08-01-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Hi LStarosta.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Germans were the first to do it. I don't quite recall Polish airmen shooting the parachutes of downed Germans in 1939. I do, however, remember plenty of stories of Germans shooting at not only airmen, but at civilians as well. Then you wonder why everyone else started shooting Germans in their chutes. Maybe payback?

What evidence do you have that the reason that some pilots shot at parachuting German pilots was out of revenge for a perceived similar practise amongst the Luftwaffe?

What evidence do you have that "the Germans were first to do it" and that there are "plenty of stories of Germans shooting at airmen" (presumably you mean bailed-out airmen)?

As far as I have heard, the reason why Polish pilots often shot at defenceless pilots was because of their hatred at having had their homeland over-run, not because the Luftwaffe suposedly frequently shot at parachutes. I've seen no evidence that they did this any more than others.

As for strafing civilians, I guess it probably did happen occasionally just as it did in every airforce, but it certainly wasn€t a matter of operational doctrine. For one thing, few pilots of the Jagdgeschwader would want to give away their hight advantage (height is essentially important for boom and zoom fighters) for the militarily pointless task of strafing civilians.

More likely, when civilian columns were strafed, it would be because of poor identification (it must have been extremely difficult to tell the difference between a military and civilian column in WWII - indeed, it still is today!)

German doctrine included sealing off the battlefield and this interdiction activity included attacks on moving columns of the enemy. With the difficulty in identifying targets, it is quite likely that attacks were carried out against civilian columns.


Best Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bullsh1t. How you could mistake a woman and child working in a potato field with a military column is beyond me. Fact of the matter is, Germans knew they had the upper hand. There were plenty of German photos released of Polish towns with no military importance just bombed for the heck of it. Anything else that moved was strafed for gunnery practice.

Civilian columns. Utter bullsh1t. Seriously. Face the facts, the Germans strafed civilians knowingly. Why would it be so **** hard to believe, considering the other atrocities committed by German troops. I am not talking about simply the concentration camps. I'm talking about Germans, yes, even Wehrmacht units, stealing and killing livestock for no reason, raping women, and humiliating everyone else. If the godd4mn German public was indoctrinated with Nazi theories of Poles and other Slavs being subhuman, why does that make it seem impossible that maybe your beloved Luftwaffe fell "victim" to such indoctrination as well? When you kill varmint on your property, you don't think twice about it. They had it coming, they were in the way on YOUR land after all. That's how the Germans regarded Poles. Nothing but pests in the way of achieving their dream of Nordic Lebensraum. It doesn't surprise me that they shot women and children like some of us shot squirrels out of trees.


As for the motives of Poles gunning down German airmen, isn't that exactly what I said? The Poles hated the Germans. They hated them for slaughtering their families, they hated them for running over their homeland, and they hated them for gunning down their own airmen. I do not see how that could be misinterpreted.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pol39/pol39.htm

Of course, this is probably just more Polish propaganda, though, right?

Luftwaffe_109
08-01-2005, 01:09 PM
I doubt that Condor Legion turning the village of Guernica to rubble with all the civilians in it was a case of mistaken identity.
No it was not. However, this is a different situation in a different war, and I don't see what it has to do with Fall Weiss.

It is also not as if Guernica was the first or only aerial attack on civilians in the Spanish Civil War. The bombing of Madrid in November, 1936, or Santander, 1937, are just two other examples.


Bullsh1t. How you could mistake a woman and child working in a potato field with a military column is beyond me.
Obviously you can't. However, if ever this occured most likely it would be rare and certainly not any type of common practise.


Fact of the matter is, Germans knew they had the upper hand. There were plenty of German photos released of Polish towns with no military importance just bombed for the heck of it.
Although the towns were not bombed "for the heck of it" any more than Dresden was bombed "for the heck of it", this doesn't have anything to do with strafing civilians.


Civilian columns. Utter bullsh1t. Seriously. Face the facts, the Germans strafed civilians knowingly.
Face what facts exactly?


Why would it be so **** hard to believe, considering the other atrocities committed by German troops.
Whether its hard to believe or not (because obviously every German must have some craving to constantly commit warcrimes) is irrelevant. Where is the proof that civilians were frequently and knowingly strafed? Where is the proof that this was part of Luftwaffe doctrine?


I am not talking about simply the concentration camps.
Neither concentration camps nor extermination camps have anything at all to do with the Wehrmact.


I'm talking about Germans, yes, even Wehrmacht units, stealing and killing livestock for no reason, raping women, and humiliating everyone else.
While I don't like your implication that every German unit was involved in these things, I agree that they did happen particularly in the East.

More often, it would be members of the SS, SD, feldgendarmie, etc, that commited such acts however. In any case this has nothing to do with the Luftwaffe, its a straw-man.


If the godd4mn German public was indoctrinated with Nazi theories[/Qutoe]
This is a gross generalisation.

[Quote]why does that make it seem impossible that maybe your beloved Luftwaffe fell "victim" to such indoctrination as well?
"Why does that make it seem impossible" is a far cry from "they definitely strafed every civilian they found because they were evil!!"

I don't see any reason to think the Wehrmact was "indoctrinated". It was simply the armed forces of Germany, no more no less. In fact, out off all the groups in Germany it was the military that was probably the greatest opponent to the Nazis.


That's how the Germans regarded Poles. Nothing but pests in the way of achieving their dream of Nordic Lebensraum. It doesn't surprise me that they shot women and children like some of us shot squirrels out of trees.

That was how the Nazi leadership regarded Poles, not the opinion of Germans as a whole.


Of course, this is probably just more Polish propaganda, though, right?
Even if it was, there is nothing there to lead me to believe that German planes flew around looking for civilians in fields to strafe anyway.

LStarosta
08-01-2005, 01:16 PM
Yeah, we all know that Germany was just in the wrong place at the wrong time in 1939, and that they surely have an excuse for killing civilians in such a blatant manner.

I mean, it was probably just a coincidence that they killed 12 million people, right?

Atomic_Marten
08-01-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
I don't see any reason to think the Wehrmact was "indoctrinated". It was simply the armed forces of Germany, no more no less. In fact, out off all the groups in Germany it was the military that was probably the greatest opponent to the Nazis.

Well I say that we can't really blame the population of attacked countries who were still trying to ensure that they chew a bullet. Even the "unindocrinated", good ones.


Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
What evidence do you have that "the Germans were first to do it" and that there are "plenty of stories of Germans shooting at airmen" (presumably you mean bailed-out airmen)?

Even if German pilots did not strafe anyone, we can't really blame Poles and others for their attempt to strafe them, now can we?


Originally posted by LStarosta:
They had it coming, they were in the way on YOUR land after all.

Exactly.



About civilians, well any harm done to them regardless of sides is just plain wrong.

AerialTarget
08-01-2005, 02:18 PM
Luftwaffe 109 has some rose tinted glasses on, but they don't seem to work when he is looking at the United States.

Clearly, Germany was the victim in World War Two.

Loser...

LStarosta
08-01-2005, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fact of the matter is, Germans knew they had the upper hand. There were plenty of German photos released of Polish towns with no military importance just bombed for the heck of it.
Although the towns were not bombed "for the heck of it" any more than Dresden was bombed "for the heck of it", this doesn't have anything to do with strafing civilians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha, this is my favorite quote. Apparently there's a difference between shooting a civilian with MG's and dropping a bomb on his house.

And yes, to reiterate, these towns were bombed for the heck of it. Unless you want to call it "deliberate and scientific testing of conventional munitions on nonmilitary targets". That sounds more official and less evil and Nazi, doesn't it?

F19_Olli72
08-01-2005, 03:06 PM
In any case, we all know that war is...
http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/black_and_white/p012596.jpg

blazer-glory
08-01-2005, 03:11 PM
Just to bring this to and end. I'd never shoot a parachuting pilot, I alway miss!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Luftwaffe_109
08-01-2005, 11:13 PM
Well... where to begin I wonder?

To AerialTarget:

Luftwaffe 109 has some rose tinted glasses on, but they don't seem to work when he is looking at the United States.
Ok AerialTarget, this is the second time you've attacked me over some perceived "anti-American bias" and quite frankly I don't understand it. Why am I "anti-American"? Surely it is possible for us, as grown men, to hold differing views without the need to resort to childish insults.

If you think that my statement that "all sides practised the strafing of bailed-out airmen, slightly more so amongst the Americans and the Japanese and slightly less so amongst the British and Germans" than, quite frankly, I don't know what to say. Presumably any statement I make that depicts the US in anything less than glorious terms at all times is to be considered "anti-American" by you?

Regardless, I made that statement (which is my general opinion based upon what I have read, and you are welcome to a differing one) and I have provided my reasons for such a contention (which proves, I think, that I was not just America-bashing).

Curiously, I noticed you haven't raised your objections at those in the thread who seem to think the Germans were evil-incarnate, accounting for practically all prachute strafings during the war. I guess that bias is perfectly fine.


Clearly, Germany was the victim in World War Two.

Loser...
Ad Hominem is the last refuge of a baseless argument. Come back when you learn how to string a coherent argument together.

Oh, and everyone is a victim in war (as in the people are, I mean).

To Atomic_Marten:

Even if German pilots did not strafe anyone, we can't really blame Poles and others for their attempt to strafe them, now can we?

I guess that's your opinion, I have mine.


About civilians, well any harm done to them regardless of sides is just plain wrong.
I agree.

To LStarosta:

Haha, this is my favorite quote. Apparently there's a difference between shooting a civilian with MG's and dropping a bomb on his house.
There is in fact. Legally there was nothing wrong with laying waste to civilian centres from the air, as was indeed done throughout the war and by all sides (particularly by the allies during their strategic bombing offensive in Europe). Did you ever hear about soldiers being put on trial for the bombing of Hiroshima, Dresden, Tokyo, Coventry, Hamburg, Nagasaki?

Knowingly gunning down civilians, however, whether from an airplane or anywhere else is simply murder.

I do appreciate where you are coming from though. To a civilian, it matters little whether he dies in a terror-bombing, by being shot, by being gassed, by starving to death, by being forcebly expelled from his home so that he can die from exposure, etc, etc.


And yes, to reiterate, these towns were bombed for the heck of it. Unless you want to call it "deliberate and scientific testing of conventional munitions on nonmilitary targets". That sounds more official and less evil and Nazi, doesn't it?

Well there is your answer exactly. It was not done "for the heck of it" but, apparently, as a terror-bombing. As you yourself have said. It did serve a purpose, the same purpose that raids like Dresden served.

I find your argument that it was a "Nazi" practise particularly bankrupt though (almost humorously so), considering as how the tactic of terror bombing was eagerly practised by all sides in the war. Let's get our blinkers of, shall we, and recognise that this "evil" practise was done by everyone, not just the "despicable Germans".

Freefalldart
08-02-2005, 12:37 AM
Reading along this thread I realized that I will shoot you all while parachuting if I had the chance.

The fact is that you all Allies&Axis s**ks like every side involved in a war.

Just play the game and not discuss about who did what.

HotelBushranger
08-02-2005, 04:38 AM
I'm gonna love this.



If Germans strafing maybe dozens of civilians makes them pure Sons of Satan Nazis, what does that make the Americans nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The nuke at Horishoma landed squarely in a hospital where the 144 Japanese Regiment were recovering. I suppose that was just 'for the heck of it'? The civilian death toll of both was over 300,00 total.

Military target. Utter bullsh1t. Seriously. Face the facts, the Americans nuked civilians knowingly. Why would it be so **** hard to believe, considering the other atrocities committed by American troops. I am not talking about simply dropping napalm on Japanese villages, to which an American veteran admitted soldiers laughed to, seeing civilians run down the road on fire. I'm talking about Americans, yes, even USMC units, stealing and killing livestock for no reason, raping women, and humiliating everyone else. If the godd4mn American public was indoctrinated with Nazi theories of Japanese and Germans being subhuman, why does that make it seem impossible that maybe your beloved USAAF fell "victim" to such indoctrination as well? When you kill varmint on your property, you don't think twice about it. They had it coming, they were in the way on YOUR land after all. That's how the Americans regarded Japanese/German. Nothing but pests in the way of achieving their dream of world domination. It doesn't surprise me that they shot women and children like some of us shot squirrels out of trees.

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Freefalldart:
Reading along this thread I realized that I will shoot you all while parachuting if I had the chance.

rotfl.
We will give you your love back then. http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/rocketargue.gif

LStarosta
08-02-2005, 08:58 AM
Well there is your answer exactly. It was not done "for the heck of it" but, apparently, as a terror-bombing. As you yourself have said. It did serve a purpose, the same purpose that raids like Dresden served.

I find your argument that it was a "Nazi" practise particularly bankrupt though (almost humorously so), considering as how the tactic of terror bombing was eagerly practised by all sides in the war. Let's get our blinkers of, shall we, and recognise that this "evil" practise was done by everyone, not just the "despicable Germans".

Alright, wise guy. What did Poland do to Germany that would warrant any German terror bombing? When it was Germany's turn to get bombed, they had it coming, IMO. I'm fairly confident that the allies would not "terror bomb" Germany if Germany hadn't started the fricken war.

And please don't tell me the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with advancing the Nazi war machine. For Christ's sake, it was headed by a godd4mn Nazi. It answered to the bidding of the godd4mn Nazis. Don't give me that bullsh1t that the poor Luftwaffe was just defending their homeland. Certainly, you'd get a big spit in the face from the people subject to this terror bombing.

It took kicking lots of German @ss before your beloved Luftwaffe was just "defending its country". If not for allied intervention, it would have been more of the same: unprovoked attacks ordered by Nazis of the Hitler and Goering calibre.

Call me biased, but I have no compassion or understanding for a regime who, unprovoked, started a World War with all of its consequences for those involved.

It's okay. Tell me how bad the allies were during the war when they bombed civilians etc etc. Fact of the matter is, if not for Nazi aggression, there would have been no Dresden, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki.

Dresden was retaliation. The German attack on Poland was unprovoked. Get your sh1t together.



HotelBushranger, you have 24 hours to edit your post before I begin legal proceedings on account of your plagiarism. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 09:42 AM
Luftwaffe_109 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Atomic_Marten wrote:
Even if German pilots did not strafe anyone, we can't really blame Poles and others for their attempt to strafe them, now can we?

I guess that's your opinion, I have mine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you obviously don't agree with me on that one.
So said it, in your opinion what is wrong with that sentence then?

AerialTarget
08-02-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
That's how the Americans regarded Japanese/German. Nothing but pests in the way of achieving their dream of world domination.

That's right, it's about time people realized that the United States of America started World War Two. Imperialist pigs!

AerialTarget
08-02-2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
If you think that my statement that "all sides practised the strafing of bailed-out airmen, slightly more so amongst the Americans and the Japanese and slightly less so amongst the British and Germans" than, quite frankly, I don't know what to say.

No, your statement was, "All sides did it, although it was particularly prevalent in the Pacific and amongst the Americans in Europe and not so prevalent amongst the British and Germans. Emphasis is mine. You are stating that, in Europe, the Americans practiced parachute strafing more than the Germans.


Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Curiously, I noticed you haven't raised your objections at those in the thread who seem to think the Germans were evil-incarnate, accounting for practically all prachute strafings during the war.

That's strange, I don't see any posts of the sort here. Indeed, the post with all of the parachute strafings listed only had a small amount of German ones. Of course, yours had none.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 06:20 PM
Greetings again LStarosta, its always a pleasure:


Originally posted by LStarosta:
Alright, wise guy. What did Poland do to Germany that would warrant any German terror bombing?
What did they do? Well in my opinion nothing warrants terror bombings. However, they were in a war, and one of the tried and tested methods of war is to terrorise the civilians, as both sides did in WWII, and this is what they did.


When it was Germany's turn to get bombed, they had it coming, IMO.
Yeah, those women, children and elderly had it coming all right, da/mned Nazis...


And please don't tell me the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with advancing the Nazi war machine. For Christ's sake, it was headed by a godd4mn Nazi. It answered to the bidding of the godd4mn Nazis. Don't give me that bullsh1t that the poor Luftwaffe was just defending their homeland. Certainly, you'd get a big spit in the face from the people subject to this terror bombing.

Emoty rehtoric LStarosta. The Luftwaffe simply did what every other airforce did, what they were told to do. They were no different to any allied air force. Their methods were no different. You can no blame the Luftwaffe for waging a war then you can blame any other airforce.


Dresden was retaliation. The German attack on Poland was unprovoked. Get your sh1t together.
I see, so burning civilians out of revenge is ok?


Fact of the matter is, if not for Nazi aggression, there would have been no Dresden, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki.
Spare me your "righeteous fury" LStarosta. If you think absolutely anything the allies did was justified because they were fighting those evil Nazis, that's your opinion. Others have a slightly more balanced view of things.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 06:23 PM
When you obviously don't agree with me on that one.
So said it, in your opinion what is wrong with that sentence then?

Ok, since you asked. Simply I don't agree with the practise of strafing defencelss pilots in their parachutes. The fact that the Germans were agressors, in my opinion, doesn't provide some kind of "blank check" to change that fact.

A pilot who has bailed out of his aircraft is no more responcible for the war than the person who has shot him down.

LStarosta
08-02-2005, 06:25 PM
Answer the question:

If Hitler hadn't started WWII, would the Allies have committed war crimes against defenseless Germans?


Germany upped the ante in how brutal war was allowed to get. Do I think allied bombing of Germany or Japan or other axis members was right? No. Please do not put words into my mouth. However, it is only natural in the view of superpower leaders that if your civilians are subject to attack, you will subject the enemy to the same treatment. I never saw any power win a war by being compassionate.

Stop trying to get away from the fact that Germany started the war. Germany was the first to bomb civilians. If it wasn't for Germany, there would be no bloody aerial massacres of civilians, ANYWHERE on ANY SIDE, unless of course someone somewhere else started themselves a different war.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 06:26 PM
Obviously not, are you happy now? What at all does that have to do with anything we have been arguing about? Maybe you think that, because Hitler started the war every single German should have been killed, or that everything that happened to German civilians was justified... thankfully views like your's are rare.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
No, your statement was, "All sides did it, although it was particularly prevalent in the Pacific and amongst the Americans in Europe and not so prevalent amongst the British and Germans. Emphasis is mine. You are stating that, in Europe, the Americans practiced parachute strafing more than the Germans.
No... I said that amongst the Americans it tended to happen more so. Not just more than amongst the Germans. And I gave my reasons for that view. Now, does that make me anti-American?


Originally posted by AerialTarget:
That's strange, I don't see any posts of the sort here. Indeed, the post with all of the parachute strafings listed only had a small amount of German ones. Of course, yours had none.
My post was to provide reasons for my contention that the Americans tended to try to kill the pilots of Me-262s as they were recognised as being aces. Simple as that. Now, here is one of those posts you missed:


Originally posted by F19_Ob
From my reading so far it feels like germans and americans were the most dedicated to this but I ofcourse cant show that it is a fact.

Is he anti-American too? Anti-German as well? Or does he simply have a different opinion to you?

LStarosta
08-02-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Obviously not, are you happy now? What at all does that have to do with anything we have been arguing about? Maybe you think that, because Hitler started the war every single German should have been killed, or that everything that happened to German civilians was justified... thankfully views like your's are rare.

Did you not read my post?

I thought I explicitly stated that I don't think that allied bombing of civilian targets is right.

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Greetings again LStarosta, its always a pleasure:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Alright, wise guy. What did Poland do to Germany that would warrant any German terror bombing?
What did they do? Well in my opinion nothing warrants terror bombings. However, they were in a war, and one of the tried and tested methods of war is to terrorise the civilians, as both sides did in WWII, and this is what they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While most of your thoughts are fairly reasonable, LW109, but there is a lot of irony in there somewhere.
People (at least majority) have feelings, they are emotional. Especially if they were consumed by all WW2 madness...
While you can correctly apply your "thousand miles away" cold rethoric, it fails on IMO on common sense test.

Nazi Germany can *never* be treated just like one country from the wwar2, because of various reasons, which you are well aware off, since I can see that you are educated very well in history.
Comparation, and relativism will not help to change that fact, in spite of the fact that the allies weren't exactly "flowers" themselves..

That war itself arises from criminal basis; since in civilized world prevails opinion that you got to have some kind of valid reason for waging a war against someone.

Now we can stop here and ask ourselves; what were the German reasons for attack, especially on Slavs countries (and the rest of eastern Europe)?
While someone can ironically notice that western allies were victorious in WW1, and were enforced unsustainable terms to the Germany, and therefore more or less provide *some* kind of excuse for German attack there, there is in fact NONE that justifies attack on eastern Europe nations.

So there, we can certainly understand, as normal human beings the reasons why level of negative emotions suddenly arises when we talk about Nazi Germany in the Pole's presence..

LStarosta
08-02-2005, 06:54 PM
Thank you, Atomic Marten, that's really what I wanted to say but couldn't quite figure out how.


That whole comment about "they were in a war" is disgusting. It's as if Poland agreed to take Germany on in some sort of gentlemanly sport called War, where terrorizing civilians was not against the rules, but rather encouraged by them.

As we all know, Poland did not agree to such a "game". In fact, Germany attacked Poland before even making a declaration of war, which is all the more reason why something like bombing civilian population centers is more of a war crime than a valid tried and tested method of war under such circumstances.

In my opinion, Germany forfeited its innocence at that point, which is why I said it "had it coming". That is not to say I condone bombing of civilian centers, but I am not surprised that the Allies did so. This time, both parties involved were mutually agreed that there was even a war going on.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 06:56 PM
While most of your thoughts are fairly reasonable, LW109, but there is a lot of irony in there somewhere.
People (at least majority) have feelings, they are emotional. Especially if they were consumed by all WW2 madness...
While you can correctly apply your "thousand miles away" cold rethoric, it fails on IMO on common sense test.
Do you get overwhelmed by emotion when you study the Hundred Years War or Greek-Persians Wars? No. Why should that be any different with WWII? What purpose does obscuring the facts with emotion hold?


Nazi Germany can *never* be treated just like one country from the wwar2, because of various reasons, which you are well aware off, since I can see that you have educated very well in history.

Well this is the problem with the study of WWII. That Germany was "special" or "different". Of course, in some ways it was. In others, it was no different at all.


That war itself arises from criminal basis; since in civilized world prevails opinion that you got to have some kind of valid reason for waging a war against someone.
Well, we know the reasons for war, lets not go into them now. The reasons for war in WWII, were not all that different from any of the other wars that had been occuring in Europe for centuries. Many wars have been fought in an effort to forge a European hegemony.

Personally, I don't see how that any war can be "justified". Certainly wars are not fought only when "justified".


there is in fact NONE that justifies attack on eastern Europe nations.
Well, I agree with you here.

What I don't agree with is with those who maintain that this somehow made the allies completely good, blameless and justified in any and all of the warcrimes that they commited.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 06:59 PM
As we all know, Poland did not agree to such a "game". In fact, Germany attacked Poland before even making a declaration of war, which is all the more reason why something like bombing civilian population centers is more of a war crime than a valid tried and tested method of war under such circumstances.

Regardless, Poland was not suprised and well ready for war, everyone knew it was coming (especially them).


In my opinion, Germany forfeited its innocence at that point, which is why I said it "had it coming".
The worse thing about this statement is that you think there exist such things as "innocent" nations. There do not.

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 07:01 PM
About that Greek-Persian war, you got it wrong in my case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I have always admired the 10,000 Greeks who were able to fight with 100,000 Persians...
Again I have read it that way, which may or may not be true since much time has passed since... and we cannot get some info in 1st hand.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
08-02-2005, 07:03 PM
I guess we have a varying perspective on the matter and probably won't achieve any consensus. You have yours, I have mine. Let's just leave it at that.

Luftwaffe_109
08-02-2005, 07:42 PM
LStarosta,

While we are talking about "innocent" nations, could you tell me your opinion on Poland's support with Germany in the elimination of Czechoslovakia and the subsequent invasion and annexation by Poland, at the beginning of October 1938, of Cieszyn region of Czechoslovakia?

LStarosta
08-03-2005, 12:51 AM
Since you insist on going on...

As I recall, Poland occupied the region in question since 1918. The Czechoslovaks wanted the region because it contained a vital railway to the Slovak region. Since Czechoslovakia was at war with Hungary, they needed the railway. Czechoslovakia attacked in 1919, and due to the Polish-Bolshevik war, Poland could not spare troops to hold the area, and it fell to Czechoslovakia. In 1920 a treaty was signed, dividing the disputed region.


So, as you see, it wasn't a matter of Poland playing big bad wolf in Munich. The picture is much bigger than you make it seem.


This was one of many border disputes during this time period in this region. I'm quite certain that Poland didn't commit genocide against any Czechoslovaks that lived on the territory annexed in 1938.


It's funny comparing border disputes such as this with Nazi invasion, occupation and genocide, isn't it?

F19_Olli72
08-03-2005, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
The worse thing about this statement is that you think there exist such things as "innocent" nations. There do not.

Hmm... Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg etc. If they weren't 'innocent' according to you, just exactly what were they guilty of?

Luftwaffe_109
08-03-2005, 08:20 AM
A pleasure, as always, LStarosta.

As I recall, Poland occupied the region in question since 1918.
Poland occupied part of this region in October 1918. The other part was Czechoslovakia's.


Czechoslovakia attacked in 1919, and due to the Polish-Bolshevik war, Poland could not spare troops to hold the area, and it fell to Czechoslovakia.
You didn't mention, however, that Poland had occupied disputed territories in November 1918. This was one of the causes of the Border conflict.


In 1920 a treaty was signed, dividing the disputed region.

A treaty Poland broke in October 1938 using the very same arguments that the Germans used, ie that the ethnic Polish minority in the area was a reasons for the territory being annexed from Czechoslovakia.


The picture is much bigger than you make it seem.

The picture is always bigger, something you refuse to note regarding WWII.


I'm quite certain that Poland didn't commit genocide against any Czechoslovaks that lived on the territory annexed in 1938.

We are talking about waging agressive war, annexing other territories, not genocide. Keep to the topic.


It's funny comparing border disputes such as this with Nazi invasion
The funny thing is that you think you can't compare them, that for some reason WWII is so special to set it completely appart from any other war.

But my real purpose was to show you that no countries are innocent, not even "pure-good" Poland.

Atomic_Marten
08-03-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
The worse thing about this statement is that you think there exist such things as "innocent" nations. There do not.

Hmm... Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg etc. If they weren't 'innocent' according to you, just exactly what were they guilty of? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That again 'must' be viewed from context. If we insist of finding a pure, innocent nation thru the timeline; we will in fact find none. In that light there are no innocent nations.

But again, if we look at this particular conflict we will see that even so popular 'big picture' (a lot of history timeline covered) will not help us to determine why were the specified nations exactly guilty to the nazi Germany.

So sane answer to that question is quite clear.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Well this is the problem with the study of WWII. That Germany was "special" or "different". Of course, in some ways it was. In others, it was no different at all.

Wwar2 is a lot different from other wars to that time (and if we insist, even to our time) mainly because of it's *scale and methods* that were used in military and non military operations.
Now we can go ahead and compare some really big conflicts from the history to this one, but in fact all of them looks quite like a childplay when compared to ww2, by using many facts to estimate the scale.(vs. Egyptians, Romans, Mongols times and their wars 'till some 'recent' Euro conflicts Hundreds Year War 14-15c. etc.)

Also when you look at the ultimate goals of the nazi party, they were quite unique in the recent history; not much for their plans for the German people as for the 'plans' for many other nations (well one can freely say that they were one of the first that were thinking 'globaly').

And so, when you put nazi Germany as the main actor of that wwar2 conflict, now I can ask, how come that state wasn't special?

LStarosta
08-03-2005, 11:00 AM
You're telling me I'm off topic?

I was talking about pre-emptive and undeclared war, slaughter and genocide as conducted by the the German state and its Armed Forces.

You give me some little border dispute of which there were many in this region of the world, especially with so many new countries being formed after WWI. I'm afraid you're not able to stick to the topic. I find it laughable that you can even compare Germany's start of WWII with the Cieszyn dispute.

Hitler's goals in invading Poland were to slaughter and destroy the Polish intelligentsia, thereby destroying any trace of Polish culture or nationhood. Hitler's motives were nothing but pure destruction. I quite firmly believe Poland was innocent of anything of that magnitude, unless you can show me any proof of any Polish federal directive stating the complete annihilation of any race, nation, ethnicity etc.

Please, stop trying to run away from the original topic. In no place did I say Poland was innocent. Please quote me anywhere where I said I did. I'm saying Germany lost any claim to innocence, aka any claim to yell "hey stop bombing my cities, that's not fair", on the first day of the war when Germany bombed civilian population centers of no military or strategic value.

That said, I still do not condone the bombing of civilian population centers by any side. However, I do believe that Hitler raised the stakes by ordering the first aerial slaughter of civilians. In that way, he had changed the face of the war and had given the Allies a moral crutch to have cities like Dresden bombed in similar fashion to many cities totally pummeled to the ground by the Luftwaffe. By being the first to conduct such raids, like it or not, Germany had opened the door for the bombing of German civilian centers because the Allies had no reason to feel remorse about doing the same to Germany as Germany had done to other countries. I don't like that idea any more than you do, and I do believe that the Allies simply lowered themselves to Nazi Germany's level concerning the morals and ethics of war. However, in war, of all places, "eye for an eye" seems to be a prevalent philosophy.

geetarman
08-03-2005, 12:04 PM
Read Bill Whisner's encounter report during Bodenplatt, if you can find it. In his <span class="ev_code_RED">official</span> report he mentions trying to take out a German pilot as he was leaving his aircraft. My readings indicate that chute shootings were fairly common (but not widespread)in the ETO. This probably stemmed from the fact that a live German pilot that bailed would be back tomorrow, and as retaliation for Germans shooting US pilots.

My dad was in the US Army in the Pacific. It did not take much for a grunt to fire his weapon at anything. Trust me. Same for all sides.

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-03-2005, 12:37 PM
There's the episode from "Reach For The Sky" by Paul Brickhill that details Douglas Bader spotting a crewman from a Dornier whose parachute had wrapped around it's tail as the bomber fell towards the ground dragging the crewman with it. Bader gave a quick burst at the poor unfortunate in an effort to put him out of his misery - would have been a hell of a shot.

And didn't 'Screwball' Beurling get into trouble for openly admitting to a Canadian townswomen's guild or similar that he "finished off" enemy pilots in their parachutes?

Here's one from "Messeschmitt Aces"....
'This was illustrated by an incident involving Soviet pilot, Lt. Vladimir Larinenkov, 35 victories, who shot down a Messerschmitt in Soviet territory. The German pilot belly-landed and ran to a ditch to escape the strafing he expected from his victor. Instead, the Russian landed his plane beside the German aircraft, ran to the ditch, and choked the Jagdwaffe pilot to death. He then calmly took off and returned to his unit! This was the air war on the Russian front.'

MB_Avro_UK
08-03-2005, 01:03 PM
This is a hot topic but I'm impressed with the historical knowledge and restraint by all.

I've become wiser reading this thread and hope it continues to inform and doesn't develop into a flame war !!

blazer-glory
08-03-2005, 01:57 PM
I guess all of us on here can never truely understand the emotions and actions of the people caught up in the war and hopefully I never will. Just feel **** sorry for all those that were.

Atomic_Marten
08-03-2005, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by blazer-glory:
I guess all of us on here can never truely understand the emotions and actions of the people caught up in the war and hopefully I never will. Just feel **** sorry for all those that were.

IMO thing is that we will never truly understand any kind of emotional state caused by some kind of suffering if we do not get into a proper, required situation.

Atomic_Marten
08-03-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Here's one from "Messeschmitt Aces"....
'This was illustrated by an incident involving Soviet pilot, Lt. Vladimir Larinenkov, 35 victories, who shot down a Messerschmitt in Soviet territory. The German pilot belly-landed and ran to a ditch to escape the strafing he expected from his victor. Instead, the Russian landed his plane beside the German aircraft, ran to the ditch, and choked the Jagdwaffe pilot to death. He then calmly took off and returned to his unit! This was the air war on the Russian front.'

Now that is what I call hate.

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-03-2005, 05:29 PM
According to Stalin's Falcons by Tomas Polak, Larenenkov also rammed an FW-189 with a P-39 and lived to tell the tale, captured by the Germans as a result of this, he managed to escape and rejoin his unit - he survived the war and obtained the rank of General Polkovnik. He died in 1988.

carguy_
08-03-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Here's one from "Messeschmitt Aces"....
'This was illustrated by an incident involving Soviet pilot, Lt. Vladimir Larinenkov, 35 victories, who shot down a Messerschmitt in Soviet territory. The German pilot belly-landed and ran to a ditch to escape the strafing he expected from his victor. Instead, the Russian landed his plane beside the German aircraft, ran to the ditch, and choked the Jagdwaffe pilot to death. He then calmly took off and returned to his unit! This was the air war on the Russian front.'


ROFLMAO!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Thank you,LStarosta.I declare your words on this topic are the same of mine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

If I can add anything from myself is:the lack of understanding why wars went on,what was it all about cause ppl to fight.

SeaFireLIV
08-03-2005, 06:16 PM
We sit here here and talk so glibly about things we cannot possibly comprehend until we are in the same situation ourselves.

None of us can throw the 1st stone.

Luftwaffe_109
08-03-2005, 06:20 PM
Hi once again LStarosta.


slaughter and genocide as conducted by the the German state and its Armed Forces.
While the German Armed Forces certainly commited war crimes, especially in the East, it is too much to say they conducted the Genocide.


I find it laughable that you can even compare Germany's start of WWII with the Cieszyn dispute.
No, I'm comparing Germany's seizure of the Sudetenland with Poland's seizure of Cieszyn, and it is a completely valid comparison. Both used the same justification to accomplish similar goals.


Hitler's goals in invading Poland were to slaughter and destroy the Polish intelligentsia, thereby destroying any trace of Polish culture or nationhood. Hitler's motives were nothing but pure destruction.
Hitler's goals were more complicated than that. It is true that, like the Soviets, Hitler invisioned the destruction of Poland. The reason behind this was his desire to colonise the east to provide "lebensraum" for the German people.

I agree with you that this goal involved the destruction of the Polish inteligencia (by both the Germans and Soviets) and the killing of the Jews.

And before you jump on me, no I am not advocating them...


Please quote me anywhere where I said I did. I'm saying Germany lost any claim to innocence, aka any claim to yell "hey stop bombing my cities, that's not fair", on the first day of the war when Germany bombed civilian population centers of no military or strategic value.
Yes, LStarosta, and all I said was that, under this logic, Poland lost any claim to innocence, aka any claim to yell "hey stop attempting to annex half my nation, that's not fair". on the first day that they handed the ultimatum to the Czech government that they hand over Cieszyn area.

That's why I take issue with your logic about "innocent" nations.


However, I do believe that Hitler raised the stakes by ordering the first aerial slaughter of civilians.
Well, the fact is the Nazis were by no means the first nation to have aerially target civilians, not by any stretch of the imagination. It had been occuring for many years prior to WWII.

vanjast
08-03-2005, 06:20 PM
Have a look on the Eastern Front.
If it moved, it was shot !!!

Ke

Luftwaffe_109
08-03-2005, 06:21 PM
Hi Atomic_Marten

And so, when you put nazi Germany as the main actor of that wwar2 conflict, now I can ask, how come that state wasn't special?
Ok, to the first difference you mentioned, scale. Scale is a difference of magnitude and not order, and I think that is important. I agree that WWII was on such a massive scale as had not been since before or since. But does this really €œset it apart€ intrinsically from other wars?

Consider the Great War. It was also on a previously unheard of scale. But none suggest it was intrinsically different from any other war.

In any case, yes I concede it is a difference from other wars, it is one of things that set WWII apart.


Also when you look at the ultimate goals of the nazi party, they were quite unique in the recent history; not much for their plans for the German people as for the 'plans' for many other nations (well one can freely say that they were one of the first that were thinking 'globaly').
I think you are overstating the differences with the past here. Nazi Germany was by no means the first nation to have goals involving carving up other states. It was also not the first nation that wanted to create itself a European hegemony. It was also not the first nation that wanted to colonise areas.

As to thinking €œgloabaly€ I€m not so sure. The majority of Hitler€s goals were in Europe. Surely they wanted to become a world power but you will scarcely find any goals outside of Europe.

Anyway, these are the reasons I think they weren€t special. I think I€ve already mentioned why they were (racial policies, genocide, etc) so I won€t go into that here.

Atomic_Marten
08-03-2005, 10:23 PM
Saying that you are IMO still overlooking things like nazi plans for "lower races".. so you say that this particular thing wasn't unique by it's extense, methods, hate and racist laws and finally systhematic criminal execution of those that are "inferior" and for that matter any that were think otherwise; Germans too.
At one point, they have even try to prove scientifically that arian race is superior race to all others (they were studying Jew skulls in order to back up such claims).

________________________________________________

Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Ok, to the first difference you mentioned, scale. Scale is a difference of magnitude and not order, and I think that is important.

Nazi Germany was by no means the first nation to have goals involving carving up other states. It was also not the first nation that wanted to create itself a European hegemony. It was also not the first nation that wanted to colonise areas.

Anyway, these are the reasons I think they weren€t special. I think I€ve already mentioned why they were (racial policies, genocide, etc) so I won€t go into that here.

Forgive me for this small illustration.


You are a judge and you are judging serial killer (25 victims)

"Well Cain was the first to kill. He killed his brother. And many more followed his bad example. Therefore kill is no longer 'special'; extent, brutality and strength of criminal will is not of importance. For that matter no criteria is, because result is only thing that matters.
You have choked to death 25 people in especially brutal manner, but you will still get the punishment like you have killed one person inadvertently. Therefore I find you guilty and..."
________________________________________________

So you see Luftwaffe_109 mate, why I can not possibly agree with you.

Atomic_Marten
08-04-2005, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you obviously don't agree with me on that one.
So said it, in your opinion what is wrong with that sentence then?

Ok, since you asked. Simply I don't agree with the practise of strafing defencelss pilots in their parachutes. The fact that the Germans were agressors, in my opinion, doesn't provide some kind of "blank check" to change that fact.

A pilot who has bailed out of his aircraft is no more responcible for the war than the person who has shot him down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, if we take a look from that time, it was a valid act (but somehow not in gentleman maner that one shoot at the pilot under parachute).

Also it always matter big time who was agressor, and who is defender especially in that kind of total war, you don't seem to make any difference there.(not only in this issue, but in many other issues regarding warfare)

Since you have expressed your personal opinion so will I...
In the case of war, and I am soldier who see a parachute, in ideal situation I will either:

-try to capture enemy pilot (only because they are good when it comes down to excehange of prisoners, and also for info since they are usually higher ranking officers)

and if that is not possible

-use any means to kill that pilot

Now while that scenario may be and it is prohibited by int. law, it is what is usually happens in the war.

Luftwaffe_109
08-04-2005, 04:41 AM
Also it always matter big time who was agressor, and who is defender especially in that kind of total war, you don't seem to make any difference there.(not only in this issue, but in many other issues regarding warfare)


Tell me something, Atomic_Marten, would you say insurgeants in Iraq are justified in attacking unarmed or defenceless people because they weren't the agressors of the conflict?

You see, who was the agressor has nothing to do with how the war should be waged. Or do think it was the Luftwaffe pilots who decided amongst themselves that they would invade Poland?

Atomic_Marten
08-04-2005, 05:25 AM
Iraq is miles away from being innocent defender, since they weren't invaded from 'clear sky', without reason.

About your question on attacking civilians, I have made myself clear zillion times there.
Any harm done to them is wrong, regardless if they belong to agressor or defender.

Military pilots aren't civilians and such comparation is invalid.

Luftwaffe_109
08-04-2005, 05:36 AM
I believe you may be refering to the wrong war there, Atomic_Marten, I was talking about this war, that is to say the current Iraq War.

Atomic_Marten
08-04-2005, 05:38 AM
Sorry. I have realised that and I was adjusted my answer accordingly.

blazer-glory
08-04-2005, 11:31 AM
Another way to look at all this is...

To kill a parachuting pilot is like shooting an armed foot soldier.

LStarosta
08-04-2005, 11:55 AM
I would look at it this way:

To kill a parachuting pilot is like shooting an injured or maimed foot soldier.

blazer-glory
08-04-2005, 11:57 AM
oops,that should have read..


To kill a parachuting pilot is like shooting an UNARMED foot soldier.

rnzoli
08-04-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by blazer-glory:
oops,that should have read..


To kill a parachuting pilot is like shooting an UNARMED foot soldier.
So what? In normal wars, soldiers kill UNARMED CIVILIANS as well.

Moreover, when the pilot gets down safely, he has a pistol on him, he might kill someone from those trying to capture him, he can escape and fight your guys another day, kill your friend, or even kill you while YOU are hanging on your chute. Why take that risk?

rnzoli
08-04-2005, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I would look at it this way:

To kill a parachuting pilot is like shooting an injured or maimed foot soldier.

Wrong analogy. Parachuting lasts for a few minutes only, and the person can be fully combat-ready after that.

BSS_Goat
08-04-2005, 01:31 PM
Your best friend from flight school is just shot down, your ears are still ringing from his screams of agony being burned alive in his cockpit. Minutes later that lousy Kraut/ Limey/ Jap/ Yank/ Pole/ ect/ect is hanging in his chute and may be back flying that same day. What are you gonna do? Salute him? HELL NO!! Your gonna get some PAYBACK!!

Atomic_Marten
08-04-2005, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
You see, who was the agressor has nothing to do with how the war should be waged. Or do think it was the Luftwaffe pilots who decided amongst themselves that they would invade Poland?

In fact it has everything to do with... the consequences.
Reffering here on countries like Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia;
defenders had the natural right to defend their country from annihilation, while attackers hadn't the natural right or any right to invade at all.

I suppose we both agree on that one.


You see, who was the agressor has nothing to do with how the war should be waged.

Totally agreed... never did say the opposite. We have int.laws that are dealing with such things quite clearly, but is also a sad thing that they can sometimes be only dead word on paper.

FliegerAas
08-04-2005, 01:42 PM
About the "strafing civiians on the fields" thing: According to my grandmother it happened quite frequently that US planes did that. She lived in the contryside during the war.

Zyzbot
08-04-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
About the "strafing civiians on the fields" thing: According to my grandmother it happened quite frequently that US planes did that. She lived in the contryside during the war.

No doubt about it...it happend elsewhere too. I knew a man who was a teenager in England during the BOB. He and his family were strafed by a German fighter near a beach once. No military targets were nearby.

Threads like this only become a problem when history revisionists try to insist that one side did it but (insert favorite side here) did not do it or didn't do it as much. All sides did it. It happened often enough so that each side knew that the other side did it.
AAA sometimes shot at parachuting enemy pilots. Civilians sometimes killed enemy pilots who successfully made it to the ground. Angry people often take extreme actions.

FliegerAas
08-04-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:
About the "strafing civiians on the fields" thing: According to my grandmother it happened quite frequently that US planes did that. She lived in the contryside during the war.

No doubt about it...it happend elsewhere too. I knew a man who was a teenager in England during the BOB. He and his family were strafed by a German fighter near a beach once. No military targets were nearby.

Threads like this only become a problem when history revisionists try to insist that one side did it but (insert favorite side here) did not do it or didn't do it as much. All sides did it. It happened often enough so that each side knew that the other side did it.
AAA sometimes shot at parachuting enemy pilots. Civilians sometimes killed enemy pilots who successfully made it to the ground. Angry people often take extreme actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I totally agree. Sadly these boards are full of revisionists from all sides...

LStarosta
08-04-2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I would look at it this way:

To kill a parachuting pilot is like shooting an injured or maimed foot soldier.

Wrong analogy. Parachuting lasts for a few minutes only, and the person can be fully combat-ready after that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who the hell are you to tell me that my opinion is wrong?

rnzoli
08-04-2005, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Who the hell are you to tell me that my opinion is wrong?

I never said that your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is always right. But drawing parallel between an armed parachuter and a seriously wounded soldier - well, that is wrong in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG52_wunsch
08-04-2005, 05:03 PM
i ve been shot in my chute by russian flak,so
i figure they shoot me,i shoot them.simple.

Daiichidoku
08-04-2005, 05:27 PM
dunno if its been mentioned, but in FB it kinda kills the "immersion" when one can hit a paracute with cannon, and the silk sets off the shells, hehehehe

LStarosta
08-04-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Who the hell are you to tell me that my opinion is wrong?

I never said that your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is always right. But drawing parallel between an armed parachuter and a seriously wounded soldier - well, that is wrong in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


According to the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to fire upon an airman parachuting from an aircraft in distress. The fact that the pilot or crewman, who most often is an officer and is permitted a sidearm does not make him armed. The Geneva Convention has an exception for airborne troops.

Brass_Monkey
08-04-2005, 09:40 PM
Christmas Day 1944 my Dad's unit of the 1st Infantry Div got strafed by a enemy aircraft while they were "enjoying" Christmas dinner Everyone fired at the plane, 50's got a hit, the pilot brought the plane straight up and then bailed. He was killed by ground fire while under canopy. When they retrived his body he was wearing civilian clothes.

Luftwaffe_109
08-05-2005, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:

defenders had the natural right to defend their country from annihilation, while attackers hadn't the natural right or any right to invade at all.

I suppose we both agree on that one.


Sure, I have no problem with that. No one has the "right" to invade another country. Of course, it does happen all the time though.


Totally agreed... never did say the opposite. We have int.laws that are dealing with such things quite clearly, but is also a sad thing that they can sometimes be only dead word on paper.
I see we are more and more in agreement every day Atomic_Marten http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Iraq is miles away from being innocent defender, since they weren't invaded from 'clear sky', without reason.


And what were those reasons then, that made that invasion "right" when, say, the German invasion of the Soviet Union was "wrong"?

I thought you claimed "defenders had the natural right to defend their country from annihilation, while attackers hadn't the natural right or any right to invade at all".

rnzoli
08-05-2005, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
According to the Geneva Convention [...]

I am aware of this. But are you aware that the Geneva Convention is a piece of paper? Wars were and are fought for goals other than adhering to this convention. This convention creates the false impression that wars with their fundamentally barbaric nature can be tamed into gentlemens' sports game. In reality however, it never applies to the victorious side (who could enforce it?), while the soldiers on the losing side violate it also, out of plane anger and desperation. This sets up an inevitable escalation path to the worst.

To paraphrase the famous saying, no high moral standards ever survive the first atrocities by the enemy.

Only avoiding a war altogether can prevent anyone from being killed on a parachute.

rnzoli
08-05-2005, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Brass_Monkey:
50's got a hit, the pilot brought the plane straight up and then bailed. He was killed by ground fire while under canopy.
Interesting story. Maybe I misunderstand something, but how could the pilot bail, if already killed in the cockpit?

Zyzbot
08-05-2005, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brass_Monkey:
50's got a hit, the pilot brought the plane straight up and then bailed. He was killed by ground fire while under canopy.
Interesting story. Maybe I misunderstand something, but how could the pilot bail, if already killed in the cockpit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure he means the parachute canopy.

Atomic_Marten
08-05-2005, 09:05 AM
And what were those reasons then, that made that invasion "right" when, say, the German invasion of the Soviet Union was "wrong"?

I thought you claimed "defenders had the natural right to defend their country from annihilation, while attackers hadn't the natural right or any right to invade at all".

OK I see your point, I can explain. Defenders have 'natural right' to defend themselves accordingly from attack, but that 'defenders and natural law' part do not include bullies who were provoked attack (again 'provocation' must be reasonable, according to int.laws) and those who are excluded from being 'defenders' by existing int.law.

UN is very helpful organisation in that regard.(but unfortunatelly, it can be way more helpful)

LStarosta
08-05-2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
According to the Geneva Convention [...]

I am aware of this. But are you aware that the Geneva Convention is a piece of paper? Wars were and are fought for goals other than adhering to this convention. This convention creates the false impression that wars with their fundamentally barbaric nature can be tamed into gentlemens' sports game. In reality however, it never applies to the victorious side (who could enforce it?), while the soldiers on the losing side violate it also, out of plane anger and desperation. This sets up an inevitable escalation path to the worst.

To paraphrase the famous saying, no high moral standards ever survive the first atrocities by the enemy.

Only avoiding a war altogether can prevent anyone from being killed on a parachute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am talking about law, not your feelings about it (with which I agree with, btw). I merely stated the fact that it is illegal to shoot at men parachuting from an aircraft in distress. In addition to that, them carrying a sidearm does not make them an airborne trooper, therefore making them ineligible for being fired upon.

However, if the Geneva Convention were obeyed, then humanity would be too perfect to even wage war.

Brass_Monkey
08-05-2005, 01:22 PM
Thank you ZYZBOT, yes I meant the parachute canopy.

rnzoli
08-05-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I merely stated the fact that it is illegal to shoot at men parachuting from an aircraft in distress. In addition to that, them carrying a sidearm does not make them an airborne trooper, therefore making them ineligible for being fired upon.
Agreed. We can be shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif, but it is illegal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Despite my negative comments, the Geneva Convention is not entirely useless. It does make a very important attemtp to salvage the humanity in war times, and although 100% compliance probably never occurs, there is usually a certain level of compliance anyway (e.g., not to shoot unarmed medics, treatment of already captured POWs etc).

PS. Guys, thanks for the canopy clarifications! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-05-2005, 03:12 PM
Despite my negative comments, the Geneva Convention is not entirely useless. It does make a very important attemtp to salvage the humanity in war times

Precisely.

LStarosta
08-05-2005, 08:31 PM
I have a feeling if there was no war, we'd simply be watching a lot more useless reality TV shows...

Luftwaffe_109
08-05-2005, 09:14 PM
OK I see your point, I can explain. Defenders have 'natural right' to defend themselves accordingly from attack, but that 'defenders and natural law' part do not include bullies who were provoked attack (again 'provocation' must be reasonable, according to int.laws) and those who are excluded from being 'defenders' by existing int.law.

So in what way did Iraq "provoke the attack" that the Soviet Union did not?

Atomic_Marten
08-06-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OK I see your point, I can explain. Defenders have 'natural right' to defend themselves accordingly from attack, but that 'defenders and natural law' part do not include bullies who were provoked attack (again 'provocation' must be reasonable, according to int.laws) and those who are excluded from being 'defenders' by existing int.law.

So in what way did Iraq "provoke the attack" that the Soviet Union did not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try to write your nice question in e-mail form and point it to the UN Secretary-General's adress.

Maybe, just maybe, that guy will be able to give you the answer that you can understand.

Luftwaffe_109
08-06-2005, 11:12 PM
Hello Atomic_Marten,


Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Try to write your nice question in e-mail form and point it to the UN Secretary-General's adress.

Atomic_Marten, your condecending tone is really starting to annoy me. If you have nothing left to say than just admit it.



Atomic_Marten
Maybe, just maybe, that guy will be able to give you the answer that you can understand.

How nice, "maybe, just maybe" I will understand huh?

Interview with United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, discussing Iraq War:

Q: I wanted to ask you that - do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

A: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.

Yeah Atomic_Marten, looks like he really supports your view of a justified invasion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

By the way, is that an answer you can understand?

NorrisMcWhirter
08-07-2005, 04:38 AM
Yes..but it's much more likely that you'll sprain an ankle.

Ta,
Norris

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-07-2005, 06:31 AM
On august 16, 1940, Flight Leiutenant James Nicholson won Fighter Command's only Victoria Cross. Continuing to engage the enemy in his burning Hurricane, he finally bailed out, severely burnt, only to be shot up the @rse by an alert member of the Home Guard as he descended. Proof, if any were needed, that you can indeed be shot while parachuting.

Nicholson recovered from his wounds and returned to duty as a Squadron Leader in April 1941. He was posted missing in May 1945 while flying as a passenger in a B-24 Liberator over the Bay of Bengal.

And while I'm here, I'm sure lots of you know that the Luftwaffe took to removing red crosses from their air sea rescue floatplanes (and indeed arming them) after the R.A.F. continually attacked them. As far as I am aware, the R.A.F. used armed air sea rescue launches from the outset of hostilites, seeing themselves as combatants.

Atomic_Marten
08-07-2005, 08:21 AM
Luftwaffe_109 wrote:
Atomic_Marten, your condecending tone is really starting to annoy me. If you have nothing left to say than just admit it.

I could not care less since your 'tone' is annoying too. I keep saying but you wont listen.


By the way, is that an answer you can understand?

Be sure I can understand perfectly, but BTW that article is not the answer you seek and should receive.

By the way did you get your answer from UN Secretary-General about difference between invasion on Soviet Union and Iraq?

Somehow that could not be seen in that nice article you posted, since invasion on Soviet Union wasn't mentioned. Not once.

Nice try. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You keep asking and answering with partial answers.

Luftwaffe_109
08-07-2005, 07:25 PM
You keep asking and answering with partial answers.


And you refuse to answer at all. This "discussion", if you wish to call it that, is over.

Atomic_Marten
08-07-2005, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
And you refuse to answer at all.

You 'forced' me to explain latest Iraqi war for no reason. Anyway... should I say: "I disagree with Kofi?" No I will not say that. And I agree with the UN's PoV on that matter.

While this answer didn't make my PoV on war invalid; I could bring up the Persian Gulf war in comparation with nazi Germany's attack on Poland and confront that with your PoV... but I don't intend to argue anymore.


Sure, I have no problem with that. No one has the "right" to invade another country. Of course, it does happen all the time though.

My point was that there are some wars in history for which we can blame only one side. Like ww2 war where Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia were fighting "morally justifiable" war against nazi Germany. Nothing more nothing less. That is true fact.
That was my whole point all the time...


This "discussion", if you wish to call it that, is over.

No hard feelings anymore, at least not from my side, in spite of few inapropriate words we shared between each other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We don't agree and it is wise to drop the whole thing like you suggested.

Best regards, AM. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luftwaffe_109
08-07-2005, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
No hard feelings anymore, at least not from my side, in spite of few inapropriate words we shared between each other.
Oh, of course, no hard feelings certainly from my side either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It was a good discussion (a bit heated at times, sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, but interesting nonetheless) but simply I thought it had run its course and that everything that could be said was said.

Best Regards, I look forward to discussing with you in other threads.