Ju87D, Ju87G for the Rudel wannabe's soon i hope

[metronom]

Oh man, here we go again... >sigh<

Hartmann's ability as a Pilot is out of question. But he was a political amazinhunk. Hitler's ability of moustache trimming are unique   But he was a threat to mankind, and he's ideas are still a threat.

Yep Finnland had a hard time with the Russians, but so did Russia with Germans.
 
But the same Hartmann was training his skill on strafing refugees in Poland and Russia - so for me he was a War Criminal. Point.
I said it once, if you wan't to see war go to the refugees camps - they are a few arround the world. Thats war. The rest is Hollywood.

Sailor

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by metronom:
But the same Hartmann was training his skill on strafing refugees in Poland and Russia - so for me he was a War Criminal. Point.
 

Is that american pilot who did bomb a refugee truck in kosovo, as well a war criminal?

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Nashwan:
Sir Arthur Harris is a man who did a difficult job. He fought using some of the same methods as his enemies, because when he took command it was the only way Britain could fight. He did not invent area bombing, or introduce it, he simply refined a German tactic. He fought for a  better world, not for a vision of hell that the Nazi's would have brought.
Don't compare him to scum like Rudel, or any Nazi for that matter.

yah yah yah yah. I will tell you one thing, I dont compare Harris with Rudel (because he doenst reach his pants...when did Harris get into a combat aircraft?. Harris sent his men to bomb civilians because he could not send them to fight the military.).

I compare him with Göring. A man who orders terror bombings because he has not the guts to fight the enemy's military as it has to be done, is a war criminal for me. Göring did this in Rotterdam and Belgrade. Hitler did it with London. Harris did it with Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Etc, LeMay did it with Tokyo, and most Japanese cities, etc. And dont come to me with the "they did it first". If my neighbor gets a .12 shotgun and kills my father, that doesnt allow me to get a gun and kill his. The "they did it first" is the most denigrant excuse you can present because impliticly you admit you have fall to their same level.

Harris or LeMay were as war criminals as Göring was. They were not nazis, yeah, but both ordered terror bombings.

Metronom, just FYI, Hartmann was not nazi. And your story about Hartmann's training shooting refugees, is the first time I hear or read about it. So I say is BS until you come here with the sources.

Nuremberg was a biased trial; It was a fair trial and a very benefitious one for the humanity (basically nuremberg declared that to wage war was illegal).
But it was a heavily biased one aswell. Biased because it trialled German criminals while let the allied criminals out of it.

 People like Dönitz were sentenced to long time in prison, or to death like Göring, while their allied counterparts were just as guilty as them and were at that time taking a beer, victorious and raised to national hero status.

Why did Donitz go to jail for 10 years, while Lockwood was treated as an hero in the USA?. Both did the same thing: open and total submarine war against the enemy's merchant fleets.

Why did Göring got sentenced to death because crimes against the humanity (bombing of London, Rotterdam, Belgrade, etc), while Lemay and Harris were given the status of living legends in their nation, after having given just the same kind of orders?.

And I wont enter and start talking about the "uberhumanitarian" comrade Stalin and his wonderful actions...

And dont come here mad at me, I'm not saying that the Trial to Göring was unfair. he was trialed and found guilty of crimes against the humanity, and his penalty was death. I agree with that sentence. But then WHY didnt the other war criminals who did the same crimes went to the death?.

Vae victis....................... ..


[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-07-2001).]

[Karnak]

I didn't want this to turn into a "All LW fliers are evil" thing, I don't think that they are/were.

I just wanted some of the readers of this forum who are less versed in histroy to understand both sides of Rudel.

The man was very skillful at what he did, however he was also a firm believer in the cause he was fighting for, a cause that is seen in historical terms as evil.

As far as Harris goes, the stigma of what he ordered kept him from any great success after the war.  A lot of you guys really ought to look at the circumstances from which he, and the United Kingdom, where operating though.  It was a war that they hadn't asked for, a war for which they weren't prepared and a war for which new tactics, sometimes tactics of desparation, were needed.  The Commonwealth forces were using the tools that they had, to try to win by means that were believed at the time to be effective.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[AG Sachsenberg]

Didn't the British start WW2 without trying diplomatic intervention?

[Dowding]

 

Now keep politics out of AH please.

Keep the hero-worship out of AH, please.

 

Looks like you have a problem with "Nazi-pilots".
Should I have a problem with Commie-Pilots too? Because I don't have any problems to fly with commie plane or respect those Russian pilots who fought in WW2, Just like any other pilots who fought for their country.

No Staga - you misunderstand by a huge margin. I have no problem with the 'Nazi-pilots' as you put it - I respect those that grudgingly 'did what they had to do' and I admire those that were openly anti-Nazi.

I despise those who were rabid Nazis, whether they were Hitler's closest aides or those fighting on the battlefield. But they are mostly dead, so it doesn't really 'get' to me.

What I do have a problem with is the hero-worship of these people and individuals who talk like excited children discussing their favourite football player. It's positively infantile.

 

Sir Arthur Harris is a man who did a difficult job. He fought using some of the same methods as his enemies, because when he took command it was the only way Britain could fight. He did not invent area bombing, or introduce it, he simply refined a German tactic. He fought for a better world, not for a vision of hell that the Nazi's would have brought.
Don't compare him to scum like Rudel, or any Nazi for that matter.

I agree totally Nashwan. But RAM can't seem to understand that the British did not want WW2 and went out our way to avoid conflict. Furthermore, he fails to understand why the Allies should want the war ended as soon as possible. For him, WW2 was an arena for his 'glorious' aces to increase their season tally. I'm sure Hartmann et al would be so very pleased that 60 years later their exploits would be 'admired' so fervently by people who weren't even born when the war ended.

Finally, in RAM's view of the world, the Allies' ROE would have involved throwing more and more Allied troops at the Germans - bleeding the Allies dry of resources and man-power to the point that Europe could not be rebuilt. Meanwhile, the atrocities at Auchwitz and all the other death camps would proceed regardless.

It is a point of controversy whether or not the bombing shortened the war. There are Germans who were there at the time who think it did; there are some that believe it didn't. Frankly, we'll never know for sure. But the true war crime of WW2 was that comitted by the German leadership and their unwillingness to surrender - thus comitting a whole German generation to death and the partitioning of Europe for 50 years.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
As far as Harris goes, the stigma of what he ordered kept him from any great success after the war.  A lot of you guys really ought to look at the circumstances from which he, and the United Kingdom, where operating though.  It was a war that they hadn't asked for, a war for which they weren't prepared and a war for which new tactics, sometimes tactics of desparation, were needed.  The Commonwealth forces were using the tools that they had, to try to win by means that were believed at the time to be effective.

What you say would've been valid in 1943 or 1944, but the massive night bombings on a nation beaten down as Germany was in 1945 had no reason to be by that standard. By late 1944 the UK had clearly the assets to fight the war in other way, yet Harris DEMANDED the terror bombing to go ahead.

Tell me, was Dresden a good example of "to try to win by means that were believed at the time to be effective."?...in 1945 was that Dresden bombing the only way believed to be effective?.

Well, Harris' bomber command was there en masse. Just as they were on Hamburg, or over Berlin, or over all the rest of the cities he ordered to be bombed. In 1940 at their bleakest moments I can udnerstand your argument. In 1944-45 when Germany was clearly going doen,not. And it was at that period when most of the british bombs fell over germany.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Finally, in RAM's view of the world, the Allies' ROE would have involved throwing more and more Allied troops at the Germans - bleeding the Allies dry of resources and man-power to the point that Europe could not be rebuilt. Meanwhile, the atrocities at Auchwitz and all the other death camps would proceed regardless.

Oh no no no no, dude. What I say is that if that way of warfare was found to be "legitim" then nuremberg was the highest peak in earth hypocresy history. Because lots of men were sent to jail or sentenced to dead, guilty of the same penalties wich made allied commanders HEROS.

 IF the allied terror bombings were legitim...why was Goering sentenced to death as a criminal agaisnt the humanity because that same reason?....

 IF the US submarine offensive against Japan in 1944 was legitim...why was Doenitz sent to Jail for 10 years (initially sentenced to be in Jail for the rest of his life) while Lockwood was drinking Bourbon saluting his comrades?

I dont say there were otehr ways of warfare. I simply say that the double standards of nuremberg are the biggest peak of hypocresy yet reached. And that this same hypocresy is alive today. Nothing else. Nothing less.

And on the Rudel thing, Hans-Ulrich Rudel will never be a hero for me. No nazi will ever be. But I am awed, and I admire, and I apreciate the skillful combat pilot wich was behind the hardcore nazi. I dont forget he was a nazi, and I hate him for that. But at the same time I can only be awed for his achievements as a fighting man.

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-07-2001).]

[Nashwan]

RAM, Harris was a pilot in WWI, he was a bit old to fly combat missions in WWII
Harris sent his men to bomb all german targets, factories and cities and ships and anything else he could hit. He did it because not doing it would have prolonged the war, or allowed the germans to win. The best quote I have seen on the matter is "The most immoral thing we could do is allow oureslves to lose"
Harris fought hard and dirty, not because the enemy did it first, byut because he felt it was necessary. It would be very easy for Britain to have sat there while Russia was fighting and done nothing, arguing that bombing the enemy was immoral.
When you are busy comparing Harris and Lemay with Goering and Doenitz, try to remeber 1 thing. Both Doenitz and Goering were convicted of planning and waging agressive war. They sat down and planned how they could conquer Europe, knowing what would happen to the people of Europe who got in their way.
 

The "they did it first" is the most denigrant excuse you can present because impliticly you admit you have fall to their same level.

You miss the point. Britain, despite having a long range bomber force, didn't bomb Germany at the start of the war. They tried to abide by the "rules" of war. When Germany showed they didn't care about any rules, what was the RAF supposed to do? Hamper themselves by observing a set of rules the enemy didn't? That's the quickest way to lose.
To have turned Germany into a peacefull haven, witrh no bombing (and thus no defences needed), whilst Britain was being bombed, and Russia overrun, would have been to give the Germans a much greater chance of winning.
You call Hamburg a war crime. Even by the standards of Nuremberg, which you seem to despise, it wasn't. Nor was London, or Rotterdam, or any of the cities the Germans bombed. Attacking your enemy is what war is all about. Harris attacked them with every means at his disposal, and I am glad he did. I would not like to live in a Nazi state, and I am sure you would not either. Trying to fight a "clean" war, whilst the Germans accepted no rules at all, would have brought a Nazi state a lot closer.
Men like Harris contributed to the freedom we enjoy today, and I for one am gratefull.

[-tronski-]

Old Adolf once said:
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.

 Plenty of good people killed alot of other good people, and quite a few of them in cold blood. For both sides commited attrocities, its just that anyone in a german or japenese uniform gets a special mention.

Quite frankly being a Nazi is irrelevant. The thread was on what Rudel did, not why.

 Tronsky

[Dowding]

 

Didn't the British start WW2 without trying diplomatic intervention?

Absolute, unmitigated rubbish. So now WW2 is Britain's fault? UN-BE-LIEVEABLE.

Britain DID enter into diplomatic talks with Hitler. Chamberlain 'gave away' the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in 1938, but Hitler wanted more. When Hitler had taken most of Czechslovakia, Britain gave assurances to Poland and Romania that she would come to her aid if invaded by Germany.

Britain had NO choice but to declare war. Hitler was given a chance to avoid a conflict but pushed ahead anyway. Where do you think Britain should have drawn a line? Brusselles? Paris? Calais? The Channel Islands? The Isle of Wight? Dover? Brighton? Parliament Square?

Britain did NOT want a war. The population remembered WW1 and did not want a repeat. It had everything to lose - including the Empire. Which it duly lost in the post-war.

Sweet Jesus. The UK was nearly consumed by German forces - do you really think that would not have been avoided if there was any other way?

[R4M]

Nashwan I very much doubt that Goering and Doenitz sat down planning the invasion of Europe. Donitz was not the chief of the Kriegsmarine in 1939,so had not many things to say (fortunately for the UK), and Goring was quite too much busy injecting morphine in his fat body.

And you very well support my point. In 1939 british bombers were ordered not to drop bombs on German anchored ships because they could hurt civilians. In 1940 Churchill ordered Berlin to be bombed. The second was ordered because the Germans had bombed london by error (tho the UK could not know that). In short, retaliation.
I say again, if I am hit by a guy with a baseball bat, and I go to hospital, I can't get out of hospital, get a bat and hit him as vengeance. Because then I will be as guilty as him. Or at least, after I do taht ,what I cant do is to go to trial accusing him of hitting me with a bat, because I have done it.

The allieds did it. They came out from hospital with a BIG fat bat, and they hit back the germans. Ok, lets assume than then terror bombings are legitimate. But then why go to trial?...both side were agressors, both sides were agreded. no matter who hit first, if you hit back you legitimate the first one. So both parts were guitly, but only one got its penalty. And I say that it was hypocresy, plain and simple.

 

Originally posted by AG Sachsenberg:
Didn't the British start WW2 without trying diplomatic intervention?

ehhe, well, while this is objectively true, there is much more than this. Germany was the agressor in WWII, regardless that it was the UK and france who declared war on Germany.

And in any case at that time, going to war with a Casus Belli was perfectly legitimate, and frankly, I think that Europe was at a latent war since Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia in early 1939. The attack on poland simply signaled the "official" start of hostilities. Is quite similar to when the USA declared war on Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The agressor was Iraq, even tho they had not declared war on the USA.

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-07-2001).]

[AG Sachsenberg]

Man I forgot the smiley face.  LOL was a joke, sheesh tough crowd over here today.  
Please lets not talk about the french either,they seem to fight better when they are not on their own territory.

Get your redhots, popcorn, cotton candy.  

------------------
 

Verkaaft's mei Gwand `I foahr in himmel!
Sell my clothes I am going to Heaven!

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 05-07-2001).]

[Staga]

Wow what a thread. Let's lighten this a little.

Few years ago I saw a drug-addict kicking my car's door. I gave him good lesson which contained some re-modelling of his face (Yeah, tarmac is quite hard).
Later I was happy that guy didn't sue me after that fight  

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by AG Sachsenberg:

Please lets not talk about the french either,they seem to fight better when they are not on their own territory

LOL! oh man, I see stormy weather coming