Eric Hartmann
Andrew LaCombe
Does anyone know of a good Hartmann biography in english? An
autobiography would be the kitties!
Dan Ford
Hartmann, who flew for the nation that murdered 6 million Jews and was
directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 20 million Russians
and uncounted millions of other nationalities, is the subject of at least
one book, which may be an autobiography:
Hartmann & Jaeger: _German Fighter Ace Erich Hartmann: The Life Story of
the World's Highest Scoring Ace_, forty bucks from Schiffer, email
schif...@aol.com
- Dan
Dirk Lorek
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>Hartmann, who flew for the nation that murdered 6 million Jews and was
>directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 20 million Russians
>and uncounted millions of other nationalities, is the subject of at least
>one book, which may be an autobiography....
Hm. Then I suppose that Ivan N. Khozedub was directly or indectly
responsible for the death of 20 million Russians killed by his nation?
And Marmaduke E. Pattle would be directly or indirectly responsible
for Arpartheid. Francis S. Gabreski is then responsible for the
suppression of the Blacks in the South, well, shall I go on ?
Dirk
!! My email adress has been altered. Sorry for any inconvenience !!
Dan Ford
Sure, go on. Just make sure that your nouns agree with your verbs, or
don't they teach that stuff any more? The operative noun in the sentence
you quote is "nation."
Anyone who reads Hartmann's auto/biography should also read Daniel
Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust (Borzoi, 1996).
As Phil Garey wrote in another context, the Luftwaffe was not a
documentary on the Discovery channel, nor a video game. It was an integral
part of the most murderous military and political machine known to human
history, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union. And Hartmann
was an integral part of that.
Among the other justifications I have read on this newsgroup for this
curious idolization of Hartmann is that he mostly killed Russians! Great.
Anyhow, the original poster has got his information. I hope he reads the
Hartmann book. Even if he never gets around to reading Goldehagen's
account of how all those other Hartmanns whipped, starved, worked,
tortured, starved, shot, gassed, and burned 6 millions Jews to death, he
will at least have a better grasp of those years than the folks who get
their history from Wings and Flight Sim.
- Dan
Vince Staffo
Andrew LaCombe wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a good Hartmann biography in english? An
> autobiography would be the kitties!
There is one and I think the title is "The Blond Knight of Germany".
I will research it on my local Library Database system and get back to
you.
DonSS3
C'mon guys, lightne up. What's next "Eddy Rickenbacker the greatest ace
from the country which committed genocide on the Native American peoples?"
Hell, I am absolutely NO fan of Uncle Adolph and his crew of misfits, but
I am an admirer of the skill which Hartmann had to use to survive.
Don
Don
According to Hemingway (and I paraphrase here):
"There are only three true sports; Auto Racing, Bullfighting and Mountain climbing. All the rest are children's games at which men play."
Lindsey Kiang
Dan Ford wrote:
>
> Among the other justifications I have read on this newsgroup for this
> curious idolization of Hartmann is that he mostly killed Russians! Great.
>
What's your point? Is an individual soldier responsible for national
policy, or the crimes of some other people who happened to wear the same
uniform? Am I as guilty as Lt. Calley for the My Lai massacre? Many of
our Vietnam vets suffering from Agent Orange syndrome consider that
"weed killer" to have been poison to humans; am I guilty of spraying
that poison on people?
DHeitm8612
<<
Does anyone know of a good Hartmann biography in english? An
autobiography would be the kitties!
>>
I've seen on Hartmann.
Keith Heitmann
dheit...@aol.com
IamVger
Sir, without meaning ofense, those same Svoiets, as a nation, brutally
conquered more than one nation themselve.. To imply that EVERY German in
uniorm somehow earns the stain of dishonor due to the regime they were
raised in is unfair. There was an active underground within the german
military that fought in the shadow of the Gestapo to end the tyranny.
They didn't succeed, but that is hardly the fault of a young fighter
pilot, doing his best to defend his country against the enemies he was
directed to engage. Mr Hartman did nothing to earn your comments -- the
National Socialism state did. If you had been born in the 1920' in
Germany, gues what? You would have fought to. It was hardly a choice!
"I will NOT stand up for my country!"
"Ok, then."
"Firing squad, ....ready......aim....."
<===(A+C)===>
Seasnake
"It's always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine."
JLAuPage
> It was an integral
>part of the most murderous military and political machine known to human
>history, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union. And Hartmann
>was an integral part of that.
No possible in this case. Stalin murdered more of his own people before
WWII then Hitler killed in his entire career He continued killing them
during the war and had one more murderous binge after the war. At the
time of Stalin's death, the regime was in the process of vilifying its
Jewish population. This campaign was a prelude to the mass deportation of
Soviet Jews to Siberia for final disposition. Furthermore, without the
technical assistance supplied to the SS by the NKVD in 1939-41, Nazi
Germany could never have pulled off the holocost.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Dirk Lorek
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>Anyone who reads Hartmann's auto/biography should also read Daniel
>Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the
>Holocaust (Borzoi, 1996).
I second that. And hopefully she/he reads one about ordinary Germans
living in the Third Reich too.
>As Phil Garey wrote in another context, the Luftwaffe was not a
>documentary on the Discovery channel, nor a video game. It was an integral
>part of the most murderous military and political machine known to human
>history, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union. And Hartmann
>was an integral part of that.
I wouldn't say the Luftwaffe was an integral part of the Holocaust,
nor that the Red Army Air Force had anything to do with famines,
purges and deportations. More relevant IMO are the crimes the
Luftwaffe actually committed, Belgrade, London, strafing of refugees,
treatment of Red Army Air Force POWs...BTW, are there any good books
about WW2 strafing (I mean not in a technical sense) available?
>Among the other justifications I have read on this newsgroup for this
>curious idolization of Hartmann is that he mostly killed Russians! Great.
Showing interest in the pilot who achieved more air kills than anybody
else does not automatically mean idolization, especially if requested
in an aviation newsgroup.
>Anyhow, the original poster has got his information. I hope he reads the
>Hartmann book. Even if he never gets around to reading Goldehagen's
>account of how all those other Hartmanns whipped, starved, worked,
>tortured, starved, shot, gassed, and burned 6 millions Jews to death,
Hm. And I just thought that the operative noun was "nation."
>he
>will at least have a better grasp of those years than the folks who get
>their history from Wings and Flight Sim.
Agreed.
Dirk (one of 'those Hartmanns')
Al Sumrall
Could you guys knock all this quasi-political crap off? It never solves
anything. Its off subject.
Al
Al Sumrall
JLAuPage wrote:
>
> > It was an integral
> >part of the most murderous military and political machine known to human
> >history, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union. And Hartmann
> >was an integral part of that.
>
> WWII then Hitler killed in his entire career He continued killing them
> during the war and had one more murderous binge after the war. At the
> time of Stalin's death, the regime was in the process of vilifying its
> Jewish population. This campaign was a prelude to the mass deportation of
> Soviet Jews to Siberia for final disposition. Furthermore, without the
> technical assistance supplied to the SS by the NKVD in 1939-41, Nazi
> Germany could never have pulled off the holocost.
>
> Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Guys, please keep on the subject. This politial-historical stuff is not
appropriate for this newsgroup. Its not going to solve anything and it
is not about military airplanes and their pilots. This a very good
newsgroup. We don't need neo-nazis, anti-neo-nazis or whatever getting
on the soapbox. Luftwaffe history and the history of its pilots in
action is legitimate subject matter for this newsgroup, however getting
into who was to blame for the war, and whether or what they are Nazi's
etc. is not. I seen these discussions on other newsgroups and its
useless.
Al
Andrew LaCombe
damn I guess only the winners are allowed to tell their story.....thanks
to all with suggestions for reading...
Will Lawrence
It is my observation after a little over a year on this ng
that there are people who will never accept the fact that
men like Hartmann and Galland were doing exactly what every
other fighter pilot was doing in Europe. That is, they were
attempting to get a little older. They may or may not
have been Nazis, just like every other member of the German
population - not to mention the American, Canadian, British,
Soviet, French, Belgian, and Dutch populations (and everybody
else I may have omitted).
_NO_ nation can claim to have been free of the stain of
fascism. That's not an accusation, it's a simple fact. And
no single citizen of any of those nations can be stained with
or exonerated of the stigma of the Nazis and their ilk merely
because of their birth. I have an acquaintance who was in
the Jugend. Know why? Because his choices were the Jugend,
or (ultimately) Dachau.
Hartmann had the same choice as any other German: leave
(impossible once the war began), fight and hope to outlive
the Nazis, or die for nothing. You really think you would
have chosen differently? I doubt it. There aren't that many
saints.
--
===============================================================
|W. Lawrence | How many nights before? |
|aka Darcangel | How many times have we danced? |
|ak...@chebucto.ns.ca | How many times have I courted flames? |
|HALifax, N.S. | How many scars have I borne? |
===============================================================
Lou Haas
He was also a highly respected and decorated officer, whose advise
not to buy that piece of S**T Startfighter for the German Air Force
was disregarded and resulted in the needless waste of many many
youg fighter pilots.
Will Lawrence
Al Sumrall (a...@livingston.net) wrote:
: Could you guys knock all this quasi-political crap off? It never solves
: anything. Its off subject.
Quasi-political? I'd say offhand it's _deeply_ political.
And I think it's on-topic, since the poster accusing Hartmann
is making a derogatory statement about the highest scoring
ace in history, based on where he was born. That's military
aviation, it's a personal attack on a damn fine fighter jockey.
If I accused Dick Bong of being an Imperialist running dog
baby-killer (which I'm not, by the way), would that not
be on-topic?
There. I've said my piece (twice). I'm done.
Dan Ford
The Russians certainly shared the guilt of dividing Poland, invading
Finland, and thereby allowing Germany to move west in 1940. Japan, by
invading China wholesale in 1937 and by going to war against the ADBA
powers in 1941, likewise bears a considerable guilt for WWII. But neither
of these nations, nor any other nation in the history of the world,
committed a crime like Germany's against the Jews.
If I remember aright, there were 8 million Nazis--many or most, I
suspect, being the fat bureaucrats at home. Those capable of front line
combat, or even of manning police battlions (as Daniel Goldhagen shows in
Hitler's Willing Executioners) were so thinly spread that absolutely
nothing could have been done unless they were enthusiastically helped by
the "good Germans," in which category I am willing to include Eric Hartmann.
His name, and that of the Luftwaffe, is forever stained by the crime that
he helped make happen.
An earlier poster suggested that if Hartmann is guilty, then so is Pattle
(for apartheid), Bong (for racism in America), etc. This is nonsense. In
the first place, Pattle did not fly for South Africa but for Britain (he
transferred to the RAF in 1936). In the second place, if every South
African had refused to fly in World War II, that action would not have
affected apartheid in the least. The same is true of Americans who
disapproved of lynching, und so weiter.
But if Hartmann and the others had refused to fly for Germany, there
would have been no Holocaust.
There was, incidentally, no need to court-martial German officers and
enlisted men who refused to take part in the Holocaust. A few did; they
were transferred out, usually back home. The vast majority not only did
the job willingly, but snapped photos of each other on the killing
fields, which they sent home to their loved ones.
There is indeed such a thing as national guilt. Americans who lived at the
time will never erase the guilt of the (few hundreds) lynchings in the
South, or of our country's well-intentioned but murderous error in
Vietnam. The British are guilty of their genocide in Ireland, among many
other colonial crimes. But these are the good guys. Germany was home to
the bad guys. And Eric Hartmann was one of the bad guys. If I had been
born a Jew in Bamberg in 1920, and Hartmann had walked down my street, I
would have shit my pants in fear of him, and I would have been right to do
so.
Maybe I should add a new page on this subject. However, you will find some
stuff there about Japan in WWII. Read especially the long section on Col
Tsuji Masanobu. It gives a whole new light on the notion of moral
equivalency between nations at war.
- Dan
"Nothing new about death" (Curtis LeMay) at www.cris.com/~danford
(Brewster Buffalo / Japan at War / Flying Tigers / Warbirds Pages)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Will Lawrence
Lou Haas (bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: He was also a highly respected and decorated officer, whose advise
: not to buy that piece of S**T Startfighter for the German Air Force
: was disregarded and resulted in the needless waste of many many
: youg fighter pilots.
Umm...the only thing wrong with the Starfighter was the Luftwaffe
wasn't ready to fly or maintain such an aircraft. Their technical
personnel weren't ready to maintain it, and the pilots not
ready to fly it. But, they needed an up-to-date fighter in a
hurry. Like I've said before, history and circumstance have never
been kind to the Luftwaffe.
Please don't blame the aircraft for the Luftwaffe's problems.
Christoph Schlegel
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<Pine.OSF.3.91a.97021...@christa.unh.edu>...
>
> The Russians certainly shared the guilt of dividing Poland, invading
> Finland, and thereby allowing Germany to move west in 1940. Japan, by
> invading China wholesale in 1937 and by going to war against the ADBA
> powers in 1941, likewise bears a considerable guilt for WWII. But neither
> of these nations, nor any other nation in the history of the world,
> committed a crime like Germany's against the Jews.
>
> If I remember aright, there were 8 million Nazis--many or most, I
> suspect, being the fat bureaucrats at home. Those capable of front line
> combat, or even of manning police battlions (as Daniel Goldhagen shows in
> Hitler's Willing Executioners) were so thinly spread that absolutely
> nothing could have been done unless they were enthusiastically helped by
> the "good Germans," in which category I am willing to include Eric
Hartmann.
>
> His name, and that of the Luftwaffe, is forever stained by the crime that
> he helped make happen.
Re-read Goldhagen's book, Dan, you've understood *nothing*.
It seems to me that you're just relying on that single source, aren't you?
That's always dangerous, maybe you should do some real historic research,
and then think again.
> An earlier poster suggested that if Hartmann is guilty, then so is Pattle
> (for apartheid), Bong (for racism in America), etc. This is nonsense. In
> the first place, Pattle did not fly for South Africa but for Britain (he
> transferred to the RAF in 1936). In the second place, if every South
> African had refused to fly in World War II, that action would not have
> affected apartheid in the least. The same is true of Americans who
> disapproved of lynching, und so weiter.
Schön, du sprichst deutsch.
> But if Hartmann and the others had refused to fly for Germany, there
> would have been no Holocaust.
But then, we wouldn't need armed forces at all, would we? If everybody
refused to fight and kill...
Wake up. Humans do not work that way. Their primary goal is always
survival. Moral is and has always been luxury.
> There was, incidentally, no need to court-martial German officers and
> enlisted men who refused to take part in the Holocaust. A few did; they
> were transferred out, usually back home. The vast majority not only did
> the job willingly, but snapped photos of each other on the killing
> fields, which they sent home to their loved ones.
I've seen very similar reports of GIs doing the same in Vietnam (the photo
thing). Not particularly typical of Germans, but of humans.
> There is indeed such a thing as national guilt. Americans who lived at
the
> time will never erase the guilt of the (few hundreds) lynchings in the
> South, or of our country's well-intentioned but murderous error in
> Vietnam.
You shouldn't forget the American genocide of the Indians, then.
> The British are guilty of their genocide in Ireland, among many
> other colonial crimes. But these are the good guys. Germany was home to
> the bad guys. And Eric Hartmann was one of the bad guys. If I had been
> born a Jew in Bamberg in 1920, and Hartmann had walked down my street, I
> would have shit my pants in fear of him, and I would have been right to
do
> so.
I know Goldhagen's thesis, and I recognize most of them in your
argumentation.
Golghagen argumentation is racistic in itself and has been disapproved of
by most historicans. It is not a souce which can be cosidered as reliable,
when you are interesed in a historical debate. It was intended to become a
best seller, and so it did.
best regards,
Christoph
Dirk Lorek
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>The Russians certainly shared the guilt of dividing Poland, invading
>Finland, and thereby allowing Germany to move west in 1940. Japan, by
>invading China wholesale in 1937 and by going to war against the ADBA
>powers in 1941, likewise bears a considerable guilt for WWII. But neither
>of these nations, nor any other nation in the history of the world,
>committed a crime like Germany's against the Jews.
>
>If I remember aright, there were 8 million Nazis--many or most, I
>suspect, being the fat bureaucrats at home. Those capable of front line
>combat, or even of manning police battlions (as Daniel Goldhagen shows in
>Hitler's Willing Executioners) were so thinly spread that absolutely
>nothing could have been done unless they were enthusiastically helped by
>the "good Germans," in which category I am willing to include Eric Hartmann.
>
>His name, and that of the Luftwaffe, is forever stained by the crime that
>he helped make happen.
[snip]
>But if Hartmann and the others had refused to fly for Germany, there
>would have been no Holocaust.
You accuse a dead man that he willingly fought for brutal mass murder
of women and children. How much of the Holocaust happened at the front
where Hartmann was located? How much of the Holocaust happened in
Germany when he was on vacation together with the 'good Germans'? All
the Death camps were located in Poland. When the Holocaust began, 250
000 Jews were living in Germany. What was the chance that Hartmann or
the average German knew a Jew who then 'disappeared'? Nevertheless
Goldhagen uses the few instances of objection to antisemitic politics
as a case for common German anti-semitism (pg 429). Goldhagen cites
the diaries of 2 persons (pg 105) and concludes that 'few *could* have
illusions about the fate of the Jews'. He quotes Reichsminister Kerrl
on pg 112 talking of '*rumors* about the mass killings in the East'.
On pg 165 he states 'virtually all of [the Germans] *must have known*
of slave labor' [my emphasis]. That's about it. I'm sure that I too
could find the same 'evidence' from the 1941 USA, people being
suspicious, rumors about Japanese being transported to camps. Did Bong
and 'ordinary Americans' know what happened in the internment camps?
If the Japanese had been murdered there, would you accuse Bong as
having fought for mass murder?
Another aspect that you forget is that even for those who knew or did
not believe in the official 'resettlement' story, it was not easy to
help. The concentration camp and the Gestapo were institutions created
for the Germans and not for the Jews. Until 1939, very few Jews were
sent there, instead hundreds of thousands of Germans died in these
camps. But according to Goldhagen, '*the* Germans established these
camps' (pg 170). The penalty for hiding a Jew from 'resettlement' was
death (why was such a severe punishment needed, according to Goldhagen
'the Germans were fundamentally antisemitic' (pg 63)?) The children
were questioned in school about their parents. Every apartment house
had an official Gestapo 'concierge' who observed your visitors and
whereabouts. Informers were at your office and in your pub. Many
people did not trust their own family members. But these things are
not found in Goldhagen's book. I would *really* like to see what YOU
would have done in one of the most totalitarian regimes that ever
existed on earth.
Goldhagen's book is not uncontested (no, not only by Germans, also
some high ranking Jewish historians like Raul Hilberg are among the
critics). There is also nothing new in it, apart from Goldhagen's
conclusions (he used mostly secondary sources). I still recommend
reading it because large parts are very good, but for God's sake, read
it and think a bit by yourself. And let it not be the only book you
base your opinion and accusations on.
>There was, incidentally, no need to court-martial German officers and
>enlisted men who refused to take part in the Holocaust. A few did; they
>were transferred out, usually back home. The vast majority not only did
>the job willingly, but snapped photos of each other on the killing
>fields, which they sent home to their loved ones.
How many were they? *I* estimate that the number of those who actually
did the killing to 50 000. How many were there in Russia and China?
And how many men would you find in the US who were willing to kill if
it would be legal and encouraged by the governments? Does this make
the average Russian or Chinese a supporter of mass murder? You quite
frankly and without evidence extend these tens of thousands into 60
million Germans.
>There is indeed such a thing as national guilt. Americans who lived at the
>time will never erase the guilt of the (few hundreds) lynchings in the
>South, or of our country's well-intentioned but murderous error in
>Vietnam. The British are guilty of their genocide in Ireland, among many
>other colonial crimes.
No, there is no national guilt. But there is national shame. And, for
what it's worth, I'm deeply ashamed about what has happened in the
name of my country. And I hope it will never be forgotten. To be
ashamed is far to little for all thoose victims who died and those who
survived. But the accusation of innocents will probably not help
either.
>But these are the good guys. Germany was home to
>the bad guys. And Eric Hartmann was one of the bad guys. If I had been
>born a Jew in Bamberg in 1920, and Hartmann had walked down my street, I
>would have shit my pants in fear of him, and I would have been right to do
>so.
Strange, during the Weimar Republic many Jews achieved high positions
in German politics, culture, science and commerce. Maybe you mean in
the 40's? Well, I asure you that many Germans too were quite afraid of
uniformed men approaching their houses then.
Dirk
Glenn E. Craven
> Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
> <Pine.OSF.3.91a.97021...@christa.unh.edu>...
> >
> > If I remember aright, there were 8 million Nazis--many or most, I
> > suspect, being the fat bureaucrats at home. Those capable of front line
> > combat, or even of manning police battlions (as Daniel Goldhagen shows in
>
> > Hitler's Willing Executioners) were so thinly spread that absolutely
> > nothing could have been done unless they were enthusiastically helped by
> > the "good Germans," in which category I am willing to include Eric
> Hartmann.
> >
> > His name, and that of the Luftwaffe, is forever stained by the crime that
>
> > he helped make happen.
Another poster made a yeoman's effort to debunk this logic, but let's
lay it down in layman's terms.
The vast majority of military men and women -- be they a muddy grunt in
the trenches who never gets a whiff of glory, or a Luftwaffe fighter ace
who reaches the highest kill total of all time -- fight not for their
leader (do you think Audie Murphy volunteered because of FDR?) or their
leader's ideaology, but for their homeland. They fight for their wives and
children, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.
Yes, there are fanatics. Yes, some German soldiers, sailors and airmen
no doubt felt Hitler was absolutely right when it came to exterminating
the Jews. But for the overwhelming majority of German servicemen in World
War II, the battle was not one of Hitler's "Master Race" ideology over
Stalin's vision of an Earth overwhelmed by Communism or the western
world's promotion of democracy.
German servicemen simply displayed the kind of devotion to their
homeland that we would choose to honor in our own servicemen. Those who
were card-carrying Nazis deserve to be dishonored. Those who were not
Nazis don't deserve to be lumped in with the fanatics who were.
Glenn Craven
William Miniscalco
In article <3305F7...@borg.com>, vin...@borg.com wrote:
> Andrew LaCombe wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know of a good Hartmann biography in english? An
> > autobiography would be the kitties!
>
> There is one and I think the title is "The Blond Knight of Germany".
> I will research it on my local Library Database system and get back to
> you.
_The Blond Knight of Germany_ is by Constable and Toliver.
Frank R. Borger
In article <330635...@worldnet.att.net>, ki...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Dan Ford wrote:
>>
>
>> Among the other justifications I have read on this newsgroup for this
>> curious idolization of Hartmann is that he mostly killed Russians! Great.
>>
>
>policy, or the crimes of some other people who happened to wear the same
>uniform?
Ok folks, let's look at what a contemporary pilot thought. The
following is from James Goodson's book "Tumult in the Clouds."
Goodson (32 kills in WWII described his fellow pilot Ralph "The
Kid" Hofer, (27 kills.) He was lost during the Forth's mission to
Budapest when they tangled with Bubi Hartman's JG52.
"His course was converging with that of another 'Kid,' but when
his friends called him 'Kid'they used the German 'Bubi'...
But his grey 109 carried the black crosses and swastikas of
the Third Reich. Under the cockpit was his insignia of a bleeding
heart pierced with an arrow, and the word Ursel, for his wife
Ursula. ... At the end of the war he burned what was left of his
planes and led JG52's remaining personnel on foot to surrender
to the Allies. In the worst sell-out of the war, the Allies
turned the heroes of Germany over to the Russians to be treated
as criminals, only to be released after 10 years of Hell."
Goodson goes on to say:
"So if the Kid had to be shot down, I'm glad it was by the best,
and I know the Kid would agree."
I've never been there, so I try to listen to those who have!
Frank R. Borger - Physicist - Center for Radiation Therapy
net: Fr...@rover.uchicago.edu ph: 312-791-8075 fa: 791-3697
"If I owned Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas."
P. Sheridan, Civil War General
SoBernardo
What about the millions of Chinese slaughtered by the Japs and the
wonderful medical and biological experiments which the latter conducted
upon POWs? (And for which no one was ever brought to trail, so the good
old U.S. of A. could benefit from these wartime atrocities.)
Dan Ford
The tendency in recent years has been to reissue these books under less
saccharine titles. Thus Toliver & Constable's ode to the Luftwaffe is now
simple Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe, and the only Hartmann biography I
see in the Shiffer catalog is German Fighter Ace Eric Hartman: The Life
Story of the World's Highest Scoring Ace, by Hartmann & Jaeger. I like to
think that my proposed biography of Lt Hiroyoshi Nishizawa under the
title Jolly Elf of Nippon had something to do with that, but I suppose it
didn't.
Schiffer, by the way, is a gold mine for those who dote on the German war
machine. The most intriguing new item is a book on fire engines of the
Third Reich. A must-have!
More seriously, for those interested in the inter-war period, Schiffer
has Aircraft of the Chaco War, 1928-1935. Don Hagedorn is co-author. He
is a grand man. (The Chaco War was a long-running border dispute between
Bolivia & Paraguay.)
- Dan
Dan Ford
"How many German generals, the supposed guardians of traditional
German honor and moral rectitude, did not want to cleanse Germany
of Jews? [Heinrich] Himmler, in fact, once discussed the
extermination of the Jews in a speech before a good portion of
the leadership of the armed forces--three hundred generals and
staff officers gathered in Posen on January 25, 1944. The
genocide was hardly news to the military leaders for, by then,
the Germans had killed millions of Jews, and the army had been a
full partner in the slaughter of Soviet Jewry. Himmler, knowing
the army leadership well--which, as the abundant and irrefutable
evidence shows, was in "fundamental agreement" with the
extermination of the Jews--spoke openly as someone does before an
approving crowd. Indeed, when Himmler announced that Germany was
wiping the Jews off the face of the earth, the military leaders
broke into applause. The applause was not scattered; it was
well-nigh unanimous. A dissenting general looked about him to see
how many in the audience abstained from applauding. He counted
five." -- Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners (Knopf,
1996), p. 430.
Goldhagen, like most people who never served in the armed forces,
doesn't quite understand the difference between army, navy, and
air force. Hermann Goering's Luftwaffe generals certainly
attended the Posen meeting, just as Luftwaffe ground soldiers
were at that moment serving valiantly on the eastern front.
Eric Hartmann was part of the Holocaust. Every German born before
say 1930 who did not raise his hand against that monstrous crime
was part of it. So is every German born since 1930 who would
presume to defend it.
Have a nice day :) - Dan
Glenn E. Craven
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91a.97021...@christa.unh.edu>, Dan
Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
> Eric Hartmann was part of the Holocaust. Every German born before
> say 1930 who did not raise his hand against that monstrous crime
> was part of it. So is every German born since 1930 who would
> presume to defend it.
>
> Have a nice day :) - Dan
This is my last effort on the subject since people like Dan continue to
maintain a double-standard in the debate.
Let's carry Dan's logic to its ultimate conclusion and see if it holds water.
Okay, since Erich Hartmann was born before "say 1930" and didn't "raise
his hand against that monstrous crime" he is a racist who was as
responsible for the Holocaust as Hilter himself.
Then that means my parents (b. 1937 and 1939) who didn't leave Kansas
to go to the south and march WITH Martin Luther King for racial equality,
were against him? It meas ancestors who lived in the south, regardless of
whether they kept slaves or not, were racists unless they took visible
steps to end slavery. It OBVIOUSLY means anyone who ever donned a uniform
for the Confederacy (and yes, there were blacks who did) was in favor of
maintaining slavery.
How about the Indian wars in the American west? Any one of your kin who
didn't take action to oppose the U.S. Government's war on this nation's
indigenous people is as guilty of having caused the massacre at Wounded
Knee (and countless others) as is Hartmann with the Holocaust.
It is too damned convenient to blame German servicemen for World War
II. It is exceedlingly naive to argue that if German soldiers had just
refused to fight, there would have been no World War II and no Holocaust.
I believe we've all seen what happens when people choose this course of
action -- during the Vietnam War protests of the 1960s and early 1970s.
The fact that a fairly large percentage of the population was visibly
against the war didn't stop the conflict until 58,000 Americans were dead
or missing. And this was with a DULY ELECTED government that couldn't, as
another post suggested of Hitler, choose line its citizens up against the
wall and shoot them for refusing to support the "leadership."
The Germans of the 1920s and 1930s made a grave mistake in allowing
Adolf Hitler to ascend to power. In hindsight, that is obvious and many
who survive from those times bear deep regret for the resulting mayhem.
But once again, "historians" a half-century later choose to judge
individuals and nations by the knowledge and standards of today. If the
German people had known in 1933 that their nation would be in ruins by
1945, or that each and every one of them would be personally held
responsible by people like Dan for the Holocaust, Hitler's rise would have
been stopped. Unfortunately, we can't go back and give them this
information prior to his ascendency.
Obviously, many of our choices would be different if we knew the
outcome before making them. But this is life, where events often unfold so
quickly that we are swept up in them and must then find our way out.
This doesn't mean you don't hold anyone responsible for crimes of war.
It does, however, mean that you tilt the scales of justice most heavily
against those who actually planned and perpetrated the acts, and very
little against those who were played as pawns.
GC
Will Lawrence
Dan Ford (d...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
: Eric Hartmann was part of the Holocaust. Every German born before
: say 1930 who did not raise his hand against that monstrous crime
: was part of it. So is every German born since 1930 who would
: presume to defend it.
: Have a nice day :) - Dan
So was every country who refused to admit Jewish refugees before
the war, and every country who could have stopped Hitler before
1939 and didn't, and all of their citizens born in 1930, and
all of their citizens born since who don't accept this and regret
it.
Just usin' your own logic.
Me, I think we've exhausted this thread. Anyone?
Will Lawrence
Will Lawrence (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
: Dan Ford (d...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
: : Eric Hartmann was part of the Holocaust. Every German born before
: : say 1930 who did not raise his hand against that monstrous crime
: : was part of it. So is every German born since 1930 who would
: : presume to defend it.
: : Have a nice day :) - Dan
: So was every country who refused to admit Jewish refugees before
: the war, and every country who could have stopped Hitler before
: 1939 and didn't, and all of their citizens born in 1930, and
^^
sorry..._before_ 1930.
: all of their citizens born since who don't accept this and regret
Robert
I thought that this news group was about military aviation and not
politics. I have tried to resist replying to this garbage but find that I
can not.
My family is from Germany although I was born in Montreal. Eric Hartmann is
no more responsible for the death of the people in the concentration camps
than I am. Almost everyone in my family on my mother and fathers side of
the family served in the German military during the war. I have had
extensive conversations with a great deal of the survivors regarding the
war with respect to the treatment of Jews, concentration camps etc. All of
my relatives were aware of discrimination and hatred of Jews but not one in
service at the time was aware of or knew the existence of concentration or
death camps. My Grandfather who was on the Russian front emphatically
denies knowing about this until his escape from Russia. At this point the
war was basically over. My Grandfather would not deliberately kill or
execute civilians nor would anyone else in my family.
There are several allied pilots who owe their lives to my Grandmother on my
mothers side of the family. Allied bombers would make their turn into
Kassel over her house outside of the city which also happened to be where
the flak batteries were. Many aircrew bailed out over this area. My
Grandmother hid several of these people in her basement until they could be
taken out of the country. The penalty for this is death no exception.
As for the concentration camps they were definitely not just for Jews. Many
of my family ended up in these camps. Some for merely listening to the BBC
others for being pro Russian. The fact of the matter is you were picked up
and no one knew what became of you until after the war or not at all.
One of my relatives on my mothers side of the family was a commandant of a
prisoner of war camp which held Polish prisoners. They were a mix of
soldiers and civilians. A lot of Polish doctors and nurses. Before the
Americans arrived they were released many of them staying with the
commandant. When the Americans arrived they quickly rounded up suspected
Nazis including this relative. The Americans soon had to release him on the
insistence of the former prisoners. I guess he must have treated them with
some kind of decency. Certainly he was the exception but it proves you can
not paint all Germans with the same brush.
I admire Eric Hartmann for his skill and achievements. He was more than
just an exceptional fighter pilot he was also a decent human being.
Remember what happened to all the people who died not just the Jews but
don't let it consume you. Learn from it.
My apologies to the group I am not much of a writer as you can tell. I hope
I have expressed myself in a way you can understand. If I have offended
anybody it was not intentional.
No more politics please.
Robert
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.91a.97021...@christa.unh.edu>...
>
> Hartmann, who flew for the nation that murdered 6 million Jews and was
> directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 20 million Russians
> and uncounted millions of other nationalities, is the subject of at least
> one book, which may be an autobiography:
Ben Schapiro
Lindsey Kiang wrote:
>
> Dan Ford wrote:
> >
>
> > Among the other justifications I have read on this newsgroup for this
> > curious idolization of Hartmann is that he mostly killed Russians! Great.
> >
>
> What's your point? Is an individual soldier responsible for national
> policy, or the crimes of some other people who happened to wear the same
> our Vietnam vets suffering from Agent Orange syndrome consider that
> "weed killer" to have been poison to humans; am I guilty of spraying
> that poison on people?
Responsibilty. Hartmann flew to further the goals of a government that
openly and repeatedly declared the that the forceable removal and
destruction of at least one group of people in its entirety was a
central goal of national policy. There was no secret to the use of
concentration and extermination camps in Hitler's Germany.
Hartmann's skill furthered the goals of a government that sought to
stand moral values on their head. A governemnt that operated in the
belief that the individual had no purpose other than to serve the
government and that only select groups would even be allowed to exist.
This goes completely against the priciples that the US was founded on.
That our government once used excessive coercive means to move the
Native Americans off their lands does not excuse Hartmann. That the
Russians, under Stalin, may have been more brutal than the Nazis does
not excuse him either. If another individual's or another nation's
behavior was the sole means for deciding 'right' then all murders should
be let free. Certainly there are plenty of other murders doing it too.
The key tenet to the Judeo-Christian ethic is that there is a core set
of values that guide us in determining what is right and wrong. That
they are open to debate, that they are hard to apply in real life is
certainly true. But they are not determined in a relativistic way.
Right and wrong isn't decided on the basis "well everyone else is doing
it".
Hartmann used his skills as a pilot to further the existence of a
political system based of the murders of millions of people and the
forced domination of many millions more by arms and terror. There is
nothing to admire in an artisan who uses his skills thus.
Ben Schapiro
IamVger
I agree with you. But you take it too far to assume or label. It
was war, they were wrong, as a nation, and those that committed atrocities
against ANYONE deserve the death penalty. However, it is simply
inappropriate to "stain" all men from that country. Our country certainly
committed what are considered atrocities against the indiginous indians
that inhabited this continent before us. The current government
established an effective stranglehold on those 5,000 cultures. Today,
less than 200 years later, you say from a pious position that anyone
serving such a state wears a stain of guilt...?
Did German Armed Forces commit atrocities? Yes, of course. But
individuals bear that guilt. If my neighbor murders, and I don't turn him
in, I am a criminal. If my nation attacks a foreign country, and I am
forced to fight against the entire planet, I am the guilty one? No -- I
don't agree. Hartman was a boy, growing into manhood in a harsh and
marshal society. He stayed out of trouble and pursued his dream of
flying. It led him, ultimately, to years of hard labor in a Soviet Work
Camp. I would say he was punished quite enough for his unwilling crime of
being born German.
Hartman falls into the historical category of an outstanding soldier,
fighting on the losing side. To say there is no honor in that would be to
say that Lt Lassen did not deserve his Medal of Honor in Vietnam. I don't
expect you to agree, but it is important to counter your views -- not
everyone is "lucky" enough to be born into a society that is *always* in
the right.
--Gordon
Robert Fowler
Hartmann's autobiography is "The Blond Knight Of Germany" I think it was
written with Clarance Toliver but don't quote me on that. A very interesting
story not only of air combat, but of life in Soviet POW camps for 10 years.
Bob Fowler
fow...@superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/fowlerr
In article <330570...@cts.net>, lac...@cts.net says...
Dan Ford
Robert, remind me again:
What nation invaded Poland in September 1939, and what branch of its
armed forces led the assault?
The role of the Luftwaffe in making the Holocaust possible is certainly
relevant to this newsgroup. (So, for that matter, is the morality of the
USAAF's dropping nuclear weapons on Japan, or the RAF firebombing Dresden.)
Six million Jews, Robert. Six million. Twice the population of Berlin. If
you can forget that and move on, you are not a human being.
My folks came to the U.S. in 1928, so I could easily wave off the Indian
wars, for example. I don't. Germany's guilt will last until there are no
more eyewitnesses (or earwitnesses, in my case) to the events of 1939-45.
Then you can rewrite the history books, if you like, as Erik Shilling
says Japan has already done.
Have a nice day, and you might do something especially polite to the next
Jewish grandmother that you encounter. Then explain to her that you are of
German extraction, and watch her eyes when she takes it in.
- Dan
Kai J Anttila
> : He was also a highly respected and decorated officer, whose advise
> : not to buy that piece of S**T Startfighter for the German Air Force
> : was disregarded and resulted in the needless waste of many many
> : youg fighter pilots.
>
> Umm...the only thing wrong with the Starfighter was the Luftwaffe
> wasn't ready to fly or maintain such an aircraft. Their technical
> personnel weren't ready to maintain it, and the pilots not
> ready to fly it. But, they needed an up-to-date fighter in a
> hurry. Like I've said before, history and circumstance have never
> been kind to the Luftwaffe.
>
> Please don't blame the aircraft for the Luftwaffe's problems.
Hmmm. I think that F-104 was the worst US fighter built after WW2.
( at least in large scale production )
It's Russian counterpart MiG-21 was superior in almost every
respect. ( Look what happened in Pakistan-India war )
Luftwaffe wasn't only airforce that had problems with that
fighter, and I believe that it was one of the most trained airforce in
the time and the pilots and groundcrews were anything but inexperienced...
So the problems are likely to be in the plane.
kja
Glenn E. Craven
Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
As Robert wrote later in his post, it must be nice to be an American so
that you've never been wrong. It also must be nice to number yourself
among the world's educated elite, those whose opinions are more valued
than others.
I sent a post earlier that never showed on my list, so pardon me if
some of this is repeating something you've already seen. But people like
Dan and others ENTIRELY miss the point.
The vast majority of servicemen ‹ be they German, Japanese, Russian,
American, British or whatever ‹ do not fight for a leader or his
ideaology. They fight for their wives and children, fathers and mothers,
sisters and brothers.
America was a segregated nation during World War II. Was Richard Bong
flying to maintain the federally accepted policy of "separate but equal?"
How about the Tuskeegee airmen? Were black men who served in American
armed forces content to live with the racism they suffered back home?
Hell no, but they went to war on behalf of their nation, in large part
because it is the only home they ever knew.
In cards, Dan, you play the hand you are dealt. In war, a soldier
fights for his home nation.
Germany as a nation will always be remembered as the perpetrators of
the Holocaust. But Dan ‹ and his "six million Jews, Robert. Six million.
Twice the population of Berlin." ‹ very neatly forgets the millions of
innocent Soviet citizens slaughtered by Stalin. Does Dan choose to sully
the record of famous and skilled Soviet pilots like Sergei Luganskii and
Lily Litvyak because their leader was a tyrant who killed his own people.
It's EXACTLY THE SAME THING DAN!
No, apparently only Germany and every person who lived in that nation
from 1933 to 1945 (Dan's own time frame) are worthy of eternal scorn.
It does not require revisionist history to forgive the average German
serviceman of his role in the war. Ask any man who has attended an
international convention of fighter aces. They are a brotherhood unlike
any other, a brotherhood of men who took to the air and risked their lives
on behalf of their nation, and their individual honor.
As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
consider him a war criminal.
"In the worst sell-out of the war, the Allies turned the heroes of
Germany over to the Russians to be treated as criminals." (JAMES GOODSON,
"Tumult in the Clouds.")
A man is not a war criminal simply for fighting on the wrong side, even
if that side perpetrates war crimes.
Dan, are you the type who labels every American soldier sent to Vietnam
a "baby killer?" Yet war crimes WERE perpetrated in Vietnam by American
servicemen. Certainly not on the scale of the Holocaust, but it DID
happen. And not every man sent to Vietnam is guilty because of the actions
of a few.
It is impossible to paint every German soldier and citizen with the
same brush. Those who were guilty of war crimes were (and still are) being
caught, tried and in some cases hanged. But take note that the Nuremburg
court ACQUITTED a large number of German leaders. Again, Dan, this should
show that simply serving one's country is not cause for being branded a
war criminal.
GC
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
While it strikes me as being a bit revisionist to attempt to paint
wartime attitudes with time distant postwar sensibilities, I do have to
say that, as of the late '70s, Hartmann was publicly an unappoligetically
nationalistic racist, very proud of killing lots of Russians/communists.
And Germany, even now, still commonly (but not publically)has racist
attitudes that would do the Old South proud.
But, so does entirely too many people just about anywhere. The Nazis
didn't invent racism, but it is hard not to think of them when issues of
racism come to mind.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <klhybcm...@alpha.hut.fi>,
Kai J Anttila <kant...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't blame the aircraft for the Luftwaffe's problems.
>
> Hmmm. I think that F-104 was the worst US fighter built after WW2.
>( at least in large scale production )
>It's Russian counterpart MiG-21 was superior in almost every
>respect. ( Look what happened in Pakistan-India war )
> Luftwaffe wasn't only airforce that had problems with that
>fighter, and I believe that it was one of the most trained airforce in
>the time and the pilots and groundcrews were anything but inexperienced...
>So the problems are likely to be in the plane.
Well, I would not rate the '104 as "worst" production fighter, but it did
have some problems. But to the point of the German ones, they were rushed
into ops without enough training and support infrastructure in missions
that they were not initially designed for under conditions they didn't do
well in. Then there are all manner of comparisions of rates of attrition
with other types and with other operators and the '104s don't come out
looking so bad over all.
Will Lawrence
Kai J Anttila (kant...@alpha.hut.fi) wrote:
: Hmmm. I think that F-104 was the worst US fighter built after WW2.
: ( at least in large scale production )
: It's Russian counterpart MiG-21 was superior in almost every
: respect. ( Look what happened in Pakistan-India war )
: Luftwaffe wasn't only airforce that had problems with that
: fighter, and I believe that it was one of the most trained airforce in
: the time and the pilots and groundcrews were anything but inexperienced...
: So the problems are likely to be in the plane.
: kja
The material I've seen suggests that while the Luftwaffe were
well-trained, they were simply not readyu to transition to
this aircraft.
While we're on the topic...the F-104 served in half of NATO,
including 25 years in Canada, and was well-liked by its crews.
It had a good safety record in Canada, though folks love
to blame it for all the crashes it suffered (including 31
CFIT accidents, 21 engine failures, 2 hangar fires, and 19
pilot-error accidents out of 108 lost airframes. Oh yes,
and 19 FOD incidents).
It's my observation that those who denigrate the Starfighter
haven't looked at their record. As for India-Pakistan, who
got first blood? A Starfighter :)
Granted, it wasn't much of a dogfighter. But it was one damn
fine strike aircraft.
Ben Schapiro
Glenn E. Craven wrote:
>
> Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
> defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
Must make life easy to be able to catagorize folks by their address
domains.
> As Robert wrote later in his post, it must be nice to be an American so
> that you've never been wrong. It also must be nice to number yourself
> among the world's educated elite, those whose opinions are more valued
> than others.
I've not seen any posts excusing American Indian policy.
> I sent a post earlier that never showed on my list, so pardon me if
> some of this is repeating something you've already seen. But people like
> Dan and others ENTIRELY miss the point.
> The vast majority of servicemen ‹ be they German, Japanese, Russian,
> American, British or whatever ‹ do not fight for a leader or his
> ideaology. They fight for their wives and children, fathers and mothers,
> sisters and brothers.
Would they have had to fight for their families and home if the german
people
had not been so enthusiastic to invade Poland? Could Hilter have
instigated
his plans with out popular support?
> America was a segregated nation during World War II. Was Richard Bong
> flying to maintain the federally accepted policy of "separate but equal?"
> How about the Tuskeegee airmen? Were black men who served in American
> armed forces content to live with the racism they suffered back home?
No they were not and neither were they rounded up to be shot or gassed
or
worked to death. And when they got home they wer able to fight against
the
injustice of segregation within the legal framework of this country.
> Hell no, but they went to war on behalf of their nation, in large part
> because it is the only home they ever knew.
Actually they went to war on behalf of their government which they
freely elected.
> In cards, Dan, you play the hand you are dealt. In war, a soldier
> fights for his home nation.
As Germans soldaten in Poland and France and in the concentration camps?
Certainly the Tunisians and Libians were happy to have the Germans
fighting
for Germany in their countries.
> Germany as a nation will always be remembered as the perpetrators of
> the Holocaust. But Dan ‹ and his "six million Jews, Robert. Six million.
> Twice the population of Berlin." ‹ very neatly forgets the millions of
> innocent Soviet citizens slaughtered by Stalin. Does Dan choose to sully
> the record of famous and skilled Soviet pilots like Sergei Luganskii and
> Lily Litvyak because their leader was a tyrant who killed his own people.
> It's EXACTLY THE SAME THING DAN!
Why are you looking at this discussion in relativistic terms. Stalin
was
horrible so it's ok for Hitler to be horrible too. Is that your
position
for gauging this?
> No, apparently only Germany and every person who lived in that nation
> from 1933 to 1945 (Dan's own time frame) are worthy of eternal scorn.
> It does not require revisionist history to forgive the average German
> serviceman of his role in the war. Ask any man who has attended an
> international convention of fighter aces. They are a brotherhood unlike
> any other, a brotherhood of men who took to the air and risked their lives
> on behalf of their nation, and their individual honor.
But would the American and British and French pilots want to fly in
Hitler's Luftwaffe?
> As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
> consider him a war criminal.
And apparently none of the posts here have called Hartmann a war
criminal either.
> "In the worst sell-out of the war, the Allies turned the heroes of
> Germany over to the Russians to be treated as criminals." (JAMES GOODSON,
> "Tumult in the Clouds.")
> A man is not a war criminal simply for fighting on the wrong side, even
> if that side perpetrates war crimes.
> Dan, are you the type who labels every American soldier sent to Vietnam
> a "baby killer?" Yet war crimes WERE perpetrated in Vietnam by American
> servicemen. Certainly not on the scale of the Holocaust, but it DID
> happen. And not every man sent to Vietnam is guilty because of the actions
> of a few.
The core issue here is can a person's skills be completely divorced from
the cause or purpose they put those skills to. We are not talking
about
basketball players here. Everyone agrees that Hartmann flew for the
Luftwaffe, the arm of the German military most closely alinged with the
NAZI paty.
The party emblem was painted on every aircraft. Hartmann flew in the
defence
of a government and system built on terror and murder. To say he's not
involved
cause he didn't pull the switch begs the question. To say we shouldn't
talk about
it because some other contemporay gov't, even the US isn't completely
free of taint
either is idiotic.
The machines of war are built for a purpose, by states with goals and
methods
for achieving those goals. To exclude the reasons the machines we all
love to
talk about came into being ignores the central lessons of military
history. It
reduces all posting to the level of 'which plane has the tighter turning
radius'.
If we do not address the whys of these aircraft then what is the purpose
of
discussing them. Are they to simply be considered some art object to be
enjoyed
in the abstract? Even art has a social context. The best threads on
this group
have always touched on the human, social and political aspects of
military
aviation.
> It is impossible to paint every German soldier and citizen with the
> same brush. Those who were guilty of war crimes were (and still are) being
> caught, tried and in some cases hanged. But take note that the Nuremburg
> court ACQUITTED a large number of German leaders. Again, Dan, this should
> show that simply serving one's country is not cause for being branded a
> war criminal.
The German goverment and to a great extent the German people have
examined
their history under Hitler and have accept responsibilty for correcting
the conditions that led to the horrors. The discussion to date has not
been about branding every German a war criminal.
>
> GC
Ben Schapiro
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.97021...@teflon.RZ.Uni-Augsburg.DE>,
Matthias Laznik <matt...@teflon.RZ.Uni-Augsburg.DE> wrote:
>I have only read some of Hartmann's remarks in Toliver/Constable's
>"Fighter Aces of The Luftwaffe", but there he talked very respectfuly of the
>Russian peasant who treated them kindly during captivity. He even said
>that the Russian People should not be blamed for trhe deeds of a few
>soldiers (he refered to the mass raping after his Geschwader was turned
>over to the Russians).
>
>In my opinion that does not sound like a "nationalsitic racist, very
>proud of killing lots of Russians...". It is your right not to sympathise
>with Hartmann, the Luftwaffe or Germans in General. But I would be
>interested to know when/where Hartmann is supposed to have made such remarks.
An address he made at the Officers Club at Ramstein and discussions
later. And i was in germany for three years then and have been keeping up
on international news since.
I don't have a particular agenda against the Germans, then or now. My
real point is that people are people, and most tend to be clannish and
xenophobic, even in the best of times. The average German isn't anymore
of a racist monster than your average Englishman, Frenchman, or American,
but German society, though giveing lots of lip-service to progressive and
enlightened attitudes towards non-natives, still has a deeply entrenched
notion of national and racial identity.
The Nazis, historically, and skinheads now are often only the fronts for
a more general hostility to things foreign (early nazis were little more
than goon squads for big business to bust up unions and
other"communistic" and "foreign" intrusions into the status quo, and some
rescent skinhead/neonazi incidents have been sponsered by local
businesses and governments to deal with local situations imposed by Bonn).
But back to german military types, I do agree that it is unfair to paint
the whole of the force with some kind of Nazi brush, and even among those
who have no misgivings about what they did or who they did it for, so be
it, as long as they have no ambition to do so again.
Christoph Schlegel
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote
<bevnsagE...@netcom.com>...
> While it strikes me as being a bit revisionist to attempt to paint
> wartime attitudes with time distant postwar sensibilities, I do have to
> say that, as of the late '70s, Hartmann was publicly an unappoligetically
> nationalistic racist, very proud of killing lots of Russians/communists.
> And Germany, even now, still commonly (but not publically)has racist
> attitudes that would do the Old South proud.
Examples of racism only encountered in Germany, please.
best regards,
Christoph
John Maxwell
Andrew LaCombe <lac...@cts.net> wrote:
>
>damn I guess only the winners are allowed to tell their story.....thanks
>to all with suggestions for reading...
Well, no, the losers can tell their side as long as they agree
completely with the winner's version.
God forbid they even hint there was some joint responsibility, or the
winners are anything less than just and pure, or they themselves were
in any way noble or selfless . . .
Matthias Laznik
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> While it strikes me as being a bit revisionist to attempt to paint
> wartime attitudes with time distant postwar sensibilities, I do have to
> say that, as of the late '70s, Hartmann was publicly an unappoligetically
> nationalistic racist, very proud of killing lots of Russians/communists.
> And Germany, even now, still commonly (but not publically)has racist
> attitudes that would do the Old South proud.
> But, so does entirely too many people just about anywhere. The Nazis
> didn't invent racism, but it is hard not to think of them when issues of
> racism come to mind.
>
>
What do you base your above opinions upon? Can you please quote your source?
I have only read some of Hartmann's remarks in Toliver/Constable's
"Fighter Aces of The Luftwaffe", but there he talked very respectfuly of the
Russian peasant who treated them kindly during captivity. He even said
that the Russian People should not be blamed for trhe deeds of a few
soldiers (he refered to the mass raping after his Geschwader was turned
over to the Russians).
In my opinion that does not sound like a "nationalsitic racist, very
proud of killing lots of Russians...". It is your right not to sympathise
with Hartmann, the Luftwaffe or Germans in General. But I would be
interested to know when/where Hartmann is supposed to have made such remarks.
Greetings
Matthias
Robert
> you can forget that and move on, you are not a human being.
Again you miss the point. It's a tragedy no matter what the race. You
obviously don't care for any other race of people. You are a racist period.
Since I have no responsibility regarding their deaths I will not lose sleep
over something that happened so long ago.
> Have a nice day, and you might do something especially polite to the next
> Jewish grandmother that you encounter. Then explain to her that you are
of
> German extraction, and watch her eyes when she takes it in.
>
> - Dan
When I do something nice for someone I don't ask about their race or
nationality. I do it because I want to. When I do something nice I don't
think they care if I am of German extraction.
You must be the one who has trouble sleeping at night. In fact I believe
this whole thing about Eric Hartmann is really eating you up inside.
Robert
Had a great day today building my Zenair 701.
Wish I had the flying skill of Eric Hartmann.
Lou Haas
But one of the main reasons they bought the F-104 was the Lockheed
supposedly bought the German politicians, e.g., Strauss.
Just like they did the Dutch prince escort. Anyone remember?
Wilhelm Wirén
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
>
> Matthias Laznik <matt...@teflon.RZ.Uni-Augsburg.DE> wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> >
> >> While it strikes me as being a bit revisionist to attempt to paint
> >> wartime attitudes with time distant postwar sensibilities, I do have to
> >> say that, as of the late '70s, Hartmann was publicly an unappoligetically
> >> nationalistic racist, very proud of killing lots of Russians/communists.
> >>
snip...
> > I would be
> >interested to know when/where Hartmann is supposed to have made such remarks.
>
> An address he made at the Officers Club at Ramstein and discussions
> later. And i was in germany for three years then and have been keeping up
> on international news since.
>
And other officers in their Clubs around the NATO countries of course professed
to love the Russians. In late '70s quite a few Westerners would have agreed with
comments like that, whether they came from Hartmann or enyone else. The Cold War
period had after all given them ample proof of what the Soviets were capable of.
Heck, Patton had strong misgivings as early as 1945.
> >> And Germany, even now, still commonly (but not publically)has racist
> >> attitudes that would do the Old South proud.
> >> But, so does entirely too many people just about anywhere. The Nazis
> >> didn't invent racism, but it is hard not to think of them when issues of
> >> racism come to mind.
> >>
That's just another result of the idiotic notion of collective guilt. I confess
to be guilty in occasionally thinking about the N word when German affairs are
discussed. Still it's better to know that one's misinformed than continue to be
disinformed.
Snip..
> But back to german military types, I do agree that it is unfair to paint
> the whole of the force with some kind of Nazi brush, and even among those
> who have no misgivings about what they did or who they did it for, so be
> it, as long as they have no ambition to do so again.
Agreed.
Wilhelm Wirén
Wilhelm Wirén
Ben Schapiro wrote:
Heavily snipped
>
> Glenn E. Craven wrote:
>
> I've not seen any posts excusing American Indian policy.
>
And I've not seen any posts excusing Hitler's extermination policies.
> Would they have had to fight for their families and home if the german
> people
> had not been so enthusiastic to invade Poland? Could Hilter have
> instigated
> his plans with out popular support?
>
Since when have dictators required popular support?
> > In war, a soldier fights for his home nation.
>
> As Germans soldaten in Poland and France and in the concentration camps?
> Certainly the Tunisians and Libians were happy to have the Germans
> fighting
> for Germany in their countries.
>
The members of e.g. Allgemeine SS who mainly guarded the camps were hardly
soldiers. There apparently was a standing order according to which a request for
transfer to combat duty could not be refused. Thus the primary instruments of
extermination were just REMFs.
> > As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
> > consider him a war criminal.
>
> And apparently none of the posts here have called Hartmann a war
> criminal either.
>
Just collectively guilty of the crimes Hitler's rule lead to, which amounts to
the same.
> The core issue here is can a person's skills be completely divorced from
> the cause or purpose they put those skills to. We are not talking
> about
> basketball players here. Everyone agrees that Hartmann flew for the
> Luftwaffe, the arm of the German military most closely alinged with the
> NAZI paty.
I'd say Waffen SS was part of German military system, and had closer links with
the party.
> If we do not address the whys of these aircraft then what is the purpose
> of
> discussing them. Are they to simply be considered some art object to be
> enjoyed
> in the abstract?
I look at them as landmarks in technical achievement.
> Even art has a social context. The best threads on
> this group
> have always touched on the human, social and political aspects of
> military
> aviation.
>
At least the most exhausting ones.
> The German goverment and to a great extent the German people have
> examined
> their history under Hitler and have accept responsibilty for correcting
> the conditions that led to the horrors. The discussion to date has not
> been about branding every German a war criminal.
>
Just a couple of generations?
> >
> > GC
>
> Ben Schapiro
Wilhelm Wirén
Dan Ford
On 18 Feb 1997, Robert wrote:
> Again you miss the point. It's a tragedy no matter what the race. You
> obviously don't care for any other race of people. You are a racist period.
> Since I have no responsibility regarding their deaths I will not lose sleep
> over something that happened so long ago.
Now that's another curious thing. Eric Hartmann and I are of the same
race--caucasian--to the extent that race is a meaningful way to
categorize folks.
This has been such an interesting conversation that I am adding a new page
to my website.
- Dan
"Nothing new about death" (Curtis LeMay) at www.cris.com/~danford
(Brewster Buffalo / Japan at War / Germany at War / Flying Tigers)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thomas Myers
The F104 was designed as a point-intercept fighter. It went up, shot down
the bomber, & came back down very quickly. Don't forget the original T/O
was just a pair of sidewinders. When they started loading it down with
other ordinance is when problems developed.
Also keep in mind the Luftwaffe went from the F-86 to the F-104, whereas
our guys made the transition more gradually from the F-86 to the F-100,
F-101, & F-102. They didn't have quite the learning curve they needed. As a
more contemporary example, look at the Marines & the Harrier. The Brits
proved the Harrier worked in the Falklands, whereas the Marines were
pranging them at an alarming rate. After the Corps had adequate time to
sort them out, the incidents all but stopped.
Lou Haas <bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<5e5tbt$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
Erik Shilling
As I understand it the main problem with many of the accidents was
maintainence induced problem.
The Chinese on Taiwan were very successful flying the 104, with the
best safety record of all nations flying the F-104
As a matter of fact they even had an aerobatic team flying the F-104.
Erik Shilling
Bernard Kampmann
>>>>>>>Racist garbage snipped<<<<<<<<
> So is every German born since 1930 who would presume to defend it.
>Have a nice day :) - Dan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. I retired honorably from the West German Luftwaffe.
2. I still wear my wings with pride.
3. Bubi Hartmann was one of the finest pilots and officers we ever had.
4. I still treasure his personal autographed picture on my wall.
5. I have not read anything more comical than your silly-assed interpretation
of history. (Ick hach ja selten so jelacht, Herr Rittmester)
6. Just one fact in this idiotic thread make me sad,
THAT 'UNCLE ADOLF' DID NOT GET PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
have a nice day
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <3309FF...@notis.com>, Ben Schapiro <scha...@notis.com>
wrote:
>Glenn E. Craven wrote:
>
>>
>> Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
>> defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
>
>Must make life easy to be able to catagorize folks by their address
>domains.
>
>> As Robert wrote later in his post, it must be nice to be an American
so
>> that you've never been wrong. It also must be nice to number yourself
>> among the world's educated elite, those whose opinions are more valued
>> than others.
>
>
>> some of this is repeating something you've already seen. But people
like
>> Dan and others ENTIRELY miss the point.
>> The vast majority of servicemen ‹ be they German, Japanese, Russian,
>> American, British or whatever ‹ do not fight for a leader or his
>> ideaology. They fight for their wives and children, fathers and
mothers,
>> sisters and brothers.
>
>people
>had not been so enthusiastic to invade Poland? Could Hilter have
>instigated
>his plans with out popular support?
>
Hell, Ben, it is very easy to say these sorts of things in the light of
living in a democratic nation where you have an ability to choose. Have a
look at Vietnam, though. I am sure that most of the people that served
there had no wish to be there, and didn't subscribe to the "Domino Theory"
if they even knew what it was about. Atrocities were being committed
there, but how many actually evaded the draft. Some, but the majority
went. Now, the punishment for not serving in Vietnam was far less odious
than the consequences of bucking the Nazi ship. Put Americans in the same
position that the Germans faced in WW2, and I am sure that the result
would be the same.
Do you sincerely believe that the Iraqi people as a whole support Saddam?
Do you believe that the Iraqi Kurds should be blamed for what happened in
the Gulf War? After all, they didn't do anything about it until AFTER the
Gulf War.
I am an ex South African, now an Australian. South Africa, in the bad old
days, still had a limited form of democracy, with white South Africans
having a fair amount of rights. I was lucky in that my family managed to
migrate in 1982; I had managed to "defer" my military service through
legitimate means, but although I totally disagreed with Apartheid, I have
to be honest and say that if push had come to shove, I would probably have
served. Also, I must add that the feeling of freedom upon arrival in
Australia was palpable. You have to remeber that a population at large
generally does not have the strength of will to buck a huge political
entity. Even your own War of Independence was fought with less than half
the population supporting your cause.
>> America was a segregated nation during World War II. Was Richard
Bong
>> flying to maintain the federally accepted policy of "separate but
equal?"
>> How about the Tuskeegee airmen? Were black men who served in American
>> armed forces content to live with the racism they suffered back home?
>
>No they were not and neither were they rounded up to be shot or gassed
>or
>worked to death. And when they got home they wer able to fight against
>the
>injustice of segregation within the legal framework of this country.
>
Isn't this just the point? The Germans were unable to fight against
injustice in the legal framework of the nation. Maybe no shooting or
gassing, but your government sure as hell rounded up and interned
Americans of Japanese extraction. What about Americans of German
extraction? Does this mean to say that all Americans fighting the war
agreed with this persecution and racism, any more than the Germans knew of
the concentration camp issue. Come to think of it, which major nation has
been involved in the greatest number of military escapades this century?
Mexico, WW1, invading Russia (1918-19), WW2, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam,
Libya, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, etc. I have undoubtedly missed a few. I
take it that this means that all Americans support this, after all, if you
didn't, you wouldn't still be living there, would you? Does the fact that
most of the citizens in any nation really have no choice make any
difference to you?
>> Hell no, but they went to war on behalf of their nation, in large
part
>> because it is the only home they ever knew.
>
>Actually they went to war on behalf of their government which they
>freely elected.
>
>> In cards, Dan, you play the hand you are dealt. In war, a soldier
>> fights for his home nation.
>
>As Germans soldaten in Poland and France and in the concentration camps?
>Certainly the Tunisians and Libians were happy to have the Germans
>fighting
>for Germany in their countries.
>
>> Germany as a nation will always be remembered as the perpetrators of
>> the Holocaust. But Dan ‹ and his "six million Jews, Robert. Six
million.
If they had been German, yes!! Would Germans in the Luftwaffe in WW@ have
wanted to fly for the USAAF or RAAF? This is a bit of a stupid question to
pose.
>> As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
>> consider him a war criminal.
>
>And apparently none of the posts here have called Hartmann a war
>criminal either.
>
>> "In the worst sell-out of the war, the Allies turned the heroes of
>> Germany over to the Russians to be treated as criminals." (JAMES
GOODSON,
>> "Tumult in the Clouds.")
>> A man is not a war criminal simply for fighting on the wrong side,
even
>> if that side perpetrates war crimes.
>> Dan, are you the type who labels every American soldier sent to
Vietnam
>> a "baby killer?" Yet war crimes WERE perpetrated in Vietnam by American
>> servicemen. Certainly not on the scale of the Holocaust, but it DID
>> happen. And not every man sent to Vietnam is guilty because of the
actions
>> of a few.
>
>The core issue here is can a person's skills be completely divorced from
> the cause or purpose they put those skills to. We are not talking
>about basketball here.
>The party emblem was painted on every aircraft. Hartmann flew in the
>defence
>of a government and system built on terror and murder. To say he's not
>involved
>cause he didn't pull the switch begs the question. To say we shouldn't
>talk about
>it because some other contemporay gov't, even the US isn't completely
>free of taint
>either is idiotic.
The point is, the party emblem had become the emblem of Germany, whether
the individual liked it or not. My flag has a Union Jack in the corner.
Does that mean that I think that Britain has any rights over me? Having an
emblem on your flag means zilch.
The point is that we are talking of degree here. German attrocities in WW2
were worse than those of the US by a large degree, but they had less
ability to express those rights by a similar degree. And why is it simple
numbers that make something more palatable?
>
> GC
>Ben Schapiro
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, kla...@idirect.com ("Robert") said:
>Since I have no responsibility regarding their deaths I will not lose sleep
>over something that happened so long ago.
Well, I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the current generation of
Germans is so willing to forgive and forget and not learn from history. Just
great.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc/">RFC Web Page</a>
RFC is selling two of our PA28-181 Piper Archer IIs. See web page for details.
Glenn E. Craven
> Glenn E. Craven wrote:
> > (GC) Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
> > defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
>>In article <3309FF...@notis.com>, Ben Schapiro
<scha...@notis.com> wrote:
> (BS) Must make life easy to be able to catagorize folks by their address
> domains.
Didn't like it, did ya?
But you made it so easy, just like Erich Hartmann's service in the
Luftwaffe made it painfully easy (yet unjust) for you to characterize him
as a Nazi and just as guilty of the Holocaust as Hitler.
Anytime a group of people are painted with the same, broad brush,
you risk touching those who don't deserve to be so characterized. The
sweeping generalization -- be it something trifling like "everybody with a
.edu IP is insipid" or something as damaging as "since Erich Hartmann flew
for Germany during World War II he is by definition a Nazi, a butcher of
Jews, and a war criminal just as if he had killed all 6 million Jews and
20 million Soviet citizens by himself" -- is illogical and has no place in
a rational consideration of the facts.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.
> > (GC) As Robert (a defender of Hartmann, FYI) wrote later in his
post, it must be nice to be an American so
> > that you've never been wrong. It also must be nice to number yourself
> > among the world's educated elite, those whose opinions are more valued
> > than others.
>
> (BS) I've not seen any posts excusing American Indian policy.
No, but this is a sin of OMISSION and not a sin of COMMISSION.
To characterize all German soldiers, sailors and aviators of World
War II as war criminals guilty of the Holocaust, the logic and reasoning
must be applicable in all circumstances. But Mr. Schapiro and another
poster, whose name I only remember as Dan, would prefer to single out
Germans of the World War II era and would really rather not apply their
argument to any other situation.
If Hartmann is a Nazi racist and murderer for shooting down 352
enemy planes and advancing Germany's war effort, then my
great-great-grandfather was a racist bigot and slave owner. Forget that he
was just one generation removed from Ireland when the Arkansas militia
rounded him up during the Civil War. Forget that the young sharecropper
didn't have enough money to own a mule, let alone slaves. The fact that he
fought for Arkansas, his home state at the time, when it seceded from the
union is ample proof for Mr. Schapiro that he was then, and should be
considered now, a racist and a deplorable human being.
If Hartmann is a Nazi racist and murderer for flying for the
Luftwaffe in World War II, then any U.S. serviceman active during Indian
Wars is also a racist murderer. The U.S. government's expansion under
"Manifest Destiny" is not all that different from any other attempt at
colonizing, or expanding a nation's borders. American Indians -- often
unarmed women and children -- were slaughtered by SOME members of the U.S.
military.
Does this make all soldiers of the 1860s through 1880s or '90s
racist murderers? I don't think so, but if you apply Mr. Schapiro's logic
it certainly does. Gee, if they'd all just refused to follow orders, so
his logic goes, massacres Wounded Knee never would have happened.
> > (GC) The vast majority of servicemen ‹ be they German, Japanese, Russian,
> > American, British or whatever ‹ do not fight for a leader or his
> > ideaology. They fight for their wives and children, fathers and mothers,
> > sisters and brothers.
>
> (BS) Would they have had to fight for their families and home if the german
> people
> had not been so enthusiastic to invade Poland? Could Hilter have
> instigated
> his plans with out popular support?
No one can even attempt to justify Germany's invasion of Poland. But
don't blame the citizens for what was a military decision. Military
decisions are made all the time and public opinion is worried about later.
(Go to your campus library and look up "Vietnam War" for further evidence)
And if you are winning (again, read about Vietnam) the people fall in line
behind you.
The situation during the early stages of World War II was much the
same in the Soviet Union. Truth be told, when the Germans invaded, the
people of the Ukraine treated them as liberators. Stalin was hated, and
rightfully so. But as big a butcher as Stalin was, and as much as his own
people at times hated him, he always got his way, didn't he?
Public opinion isn't all-powerful, Ben.
> > (GC) America was a segregated nation during World War II. Was Richard Bong
> > flying to maintain the federally accepted policy of "separate but equal?"
> > How about the Tuskeegee airmen? Were black men who served in American
> > armed forces content to live with the racism they suffered back home?
>
> (BS) No they were not and neither were they rounded up to be shot or gassed
> or
> worked to death. And when they got home they wer able to fight against
> the
> injustice of segregation within the legal framework of this country.
What is worse, Ben, being rounded up and gassed or being lynched in
your own front yard by your neighbors while your wife and children watch?
Personally, I find both reprehensible.
> > (GC) Hell no, but they went to war on behalf of their nation, in
large part
> > because it is the only home they ever knew.
>
> (BS) Actually they went to war on behalf of their government which they
> freely elected.
Ben can think what he wants. But ask any World War II vet if he went
to war for FDR or Harry Truman and see what answer you get.
>> > (GC) In cards, Dan, you play the hand you are dealt. In war, a soldier
> > fights for his home nation.
>
> (BS) As Germans soldaten in Poland and France and in the concentration
camps?
> Certainly the Tunisians and Libians were happy to have the Germans
> fighting
> for Germany in their countries.
You would think Ben would read -- and interpret -- better than this.
By fights "for" his home nation I obviously didn't mean ONLY ON HIS OWN
HOME SOIL. That would be ludicrous. But I guess that's the direction Ben
wants to go. I hope he enjoys himself there.
Obviously, what I meant was "on behalf of" his home nation. In fact,
even those who CROSSED LINES to fight with other armies (the Cossacks in
particular, but also the late-war Italians and others) believed themselves
to be doing what was right for their families and their homeland.
>
> > (GC) Germany as a nation will always be remembered as the perpetrators of
> > the Holocaust. But Dan ‹ and his "six million Jews, Robert. Six million.
> > Twice the population of Berlin." ‹ very neatly forgets the millions of
> > innocent Soviet citizens slaughtered by Stalin. Does Dan choose to sully
> > the record of famous and skilled Soviet pilots like Sergei Luganskii and
> > Lily Litvyak because their leader was a tyrant who killed his own people.
> > It's EXACTLY THE SAME THING DAN!
>
> (BS) Why are you looking at this discussion in relativistic terms. Stalin
> was
> horrible so it's ok for Hitler to be horrible too. Is that your
> position
> for gauging this?
Uhhhhhhhh ... again, the purpose for saying this is that to be
valid, your argument that Hartmann was a Nazi murderer guilty of 6 million
Jewish deaths and 20 million Soviet deaths must also be applicable in
other circumstances.
Josef Stalin was EXACTLY the same kind of butcher as Adolf Hitler.
In fact, Stalin sent more people to their deaths in the Gulags and on
forced labor camps than did Hitler via the Holocaust, although you hardly
ever get this taught to you in high schools or colleges.
Stalin's use of strategic slaughter started early.
In 1918, he meddled in the defense of Tsaritsyn (later to be known
as Stalingrad) during the Revolution. "Before long, the corpses of
citizens whom he had condemned as political subversives were being dumped
nightly from a barge moored in the great river (Volga)." <TIME LIFE BOOKS,
"Red Army Resurgent" pg. 138>
His military purges and brutality against civilians continued
throughout his reign.
The point is -- if Hartmann is a Nazi murderer of Jews, then Lily
Litvyak is a Communist murderer of her own fellow Soviet citizens. It is
an inescapable fact according to your OWN logic, Ben.
This segment was not written in "relativistic" terms. Hitler and
Stalin are both reprehensible characters. But obviously you've chosen to
consider Hitler (and his servicemen) MORE reprehensible than Stalin and
the Red Army and Air Force. Otherwise, you wouldn't take it upon yourself
to so VOCIFEROUSLY attack Hartmann's record as a source of admiration for
fighter pilot enthusiasts.
Oh, and while you're thinking about it, don't EVEN try to argue that
Litvyak and others flew for the Soviet Union because they were protecting
their homeland from the Nazi horde -- gee, poor Russia, such an innocent
little victim.
Stalin dealt in war, he dealt in power politics, he dealt in death
and deception. He carved up Poland along WITH Hitler. You live by the
sword, Ben, and you die by the sword.
>
> > (GC) No, apparently only Germany and every person who lived in that nation
> > from 1933 to 1945 (Dan's own time frame) are worthy of eternal scorn.
> > It does not require revisionist history to forgive the average German
> > serviceman of his role in the war. Ask any man who has attended an
> > international convention of fighter aces. They are a brotherhood unlike
> > any other, a brotherhood of men who took to the air and risked their lives
> > on behalf of their nation, and their individual honor.
>
> (BS) But would the American and British and French pilots want to fly in
> Hitler's Luftwaffe?
What in THE HELL are you talking about? I think the identifying tagline
(BS) prior to Ben's entry is enough said on this issue.
>
> > (GC) As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
> > consider him a war criminal.
>
> (BS) And apparently none of the posts here have called Hartmann a war
> criminal either.
Oh really? Someone who is just as guilty as Hitler for the Holocaust
is NOT a war criminal according to you?
Please pardon another lapse in Ben's logic and reasoning.
> > (GC) A man is not a war criminal simply for fighting on the wrong
side, even
> > if that side perpetrates war crimes.
> > Dan, are you the type who labels every American soldier sent to Vietnam
> > a "baby killer?" Yet war crimes WERE perpetrated in Vietnam by American
> > servicemen. Certainly not on the scale of the Holocaust, but it DID
> > happen. And not every man sent to Vietnam is guilty because of the actions
> > of a few.
>
> (BS) The core issue here is can a person's skills be completely divorced from
> the cause or purpose they put those skills to. We are not talking
> about
> basketball players here.
In this instance, Ben, yes. Hartmann is admired for his skills as a
combat aviator. Not for the nation for which he flew. This is ultimate
proof that you have missed, and will always continue to miss, the point of
this discussion. Erich Hartmann is undeniably the most successful fighter
pilot who ever lived, regardless of whether he flew for the United States,
Germany under Nazi reign, or Satan himself.
>(BS) Everyone agrees that Hartmann flew for the
> Luftwaffe, the arm of the German military most closely alinged with the
> NAZI paty. The party emblem was painted on every aircraft.
Funny, I thought the Waffen SS (among combat units) was most closely
aligned with the Nazi Party. After all, it's initial division was the 1st
SS Panzer "Leibstandarte Adolf Hilter," drawn from Der Fuhrer's own
bodyguards. But I guess since this is an aviation forum, Ben conveniently
forgets ground troops.
> (BS) Hartmann flew in the
> defence
> of a government and system built on terror and murder. To say he's not
> involved
> cause he didn't pull the switch begs the question. To say we shouldn't
> talk about
> it because some other contemporay gov't, even the US isn't completely
> free of taint
> either is idiotic.
Again, Ben, to compare Hartmann's situation to that of other
warriors throughout history is absolutely valid. It is called an ANALOGY.
Go to your campus library and look that up, please.
>
> (BS) The machines of war are built for a purpose, by states with goals and
> methods
> for achieving those goals. To exclude the reasons the machines we all
> love to
> talk about came into being ignores the central lessons of military
> history. It
> reduces all posting to the level of 'which plane has the tighter turning
> radius'.
> If we do not address the whys of these aircraft then what is the purpose
> of
> discussing them. Are they to simply be considered some art object to be
> enjoyed
> in the abstract? Even art has a social context. The best threads on
> this group
> have always touched on the human, social and political aspects of
> military
> aviation.
This thread had absolutely ZERO to do with "the machines we all love
to talk about."
It started with someone (not me, BTW) asking a simple question --
where do I find a biography or autobiography of Erich Hartmann? This
agonizing debate began when Dan Whatshisname decided to respond with a
caustic post about Hartmann's biography being the story of the man who in
large part was responsible for the deaths of "6 million Jews and 20
million Russians."
I think EVERYBODY in the future would like to avoid political
ramifications in this newsgroup and focus on the machines, the pilots who
flew them, and their tactics. Whether Hartmann was American, Japanese,
Russian, a German but not a Nazi, or a German AND a Nazi (or even a green
Martian, as my granddad used to say) is irrelevant. Dan was out-of-line in
making it a part of the response to the initial question.
But once Dan and others like yourself have taken it upon yourselves
to make insipid suggestions (the following being Dan's) that a young man
of German extraction now living in North America should (paraphrasing
here) "perform an act of kindness for an elderly Jewish matron, then tell
her you are of German descent and see how she reacts," I take it upon
myself to try and counter attack this lunacy.
>
> > (GC) It is impossible to paint every German soldier and citizen with the
> > same brush. Those who were guilty of war crimes were (and still are) being
> > caught, tried and in some cases hanged. But take note that the Nuremburg
> > court ACQUITTED a large number of German leaders. Again, Dan, this should
> > show that simply serving one's country is not cause for being branded a
> > war criminal.
>
> (BS) The German goverment and to a great extent the German people have
> examined
> their history under Hitler and have accept responsibilty for correcting
> the conditions that led to the horrors. The discussion to date has not
> been about branding every German a war criminal.
National responsibility and individual responsibility are two
entirely different things. The fact that Germany HAS taken great steps to
correct the wrongs it as a nation has perpetrated is a GOOD thing.
But it is time we all stop flaggelating ourselves over things that
happened 50 (or in the case of the Indian and Civil wars 100 or 130) years
ago and start learning to live with each other TODAY.
Part of that is putting the past behind you as you lead everyday
life, and evaulating the past with an unbiased eye when it IS examined.
Question -- Who is the most successful fighter pilot of all time.
Answer -- Erich Hartmann of Germany, World War II, 352 kills.
The focus of this newsgroup is about as simple as that. If you aim
the newsgroup away from turning radiuses, loadouts, airspeeds, Lufberry
Circles and victory counts -- and you DO want to decry those who admire
Hartmann's ability because YOU consider him a racist murderer of 6 million
Jews -- please bop on over to a politics newsgroup.
Regardless of who he flew for, or what his or their politics were,
Erich Hartmann was the most skillful fighter pilot who ever flew. Few
others even came close.
Glenn Craven
Lindsey Kiang
Glenn E. Craven wrote:
>
> > Glenn E. Craven wrote:
> > > (GC) Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
> > > defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
>
Not to mention the fact that those pompous, self-righteous writers with
.edu IPs probably never served in their country's military -- and
certainly never had the experience of being drafted. How can these
ivory-tower academics be expected to understand the societal pressures
compelling a young man to volunteer during time of war or to do his duty
even though he's been drafted against his will?
Tom Bean
Lindsey Kiang wrote:
>
> Glenn E. Craven wrote:
> >
> > > > (GC) Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
> > > > defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
> >
>
> .edu IPs probably never served in their country's military -- and
> certainly never had the experience of being drafted. How can these
> ivory-tower academics be expected to understand the societal pressures
> compelling a young man to volunteer during time of war or to do his duty
> even though he's been drafted against his will?
I'm sure the professor's in Germany cheered as loudly as everone else
at the Nazi rallies even though with all their knowledge and wisdom
they should have resisted--(and been shot.) Was anyone even suprised
that the unabomber taught at Berkeley??
--
Tom Bean
muy...@worldnet.att.net
-------------------------------------------------
"I fly because it releases my mind from the
tyranny of petty things."
Antoine de St-Exupery
-------------------------------------------------
Jeffery S. Harrison
Lou Haas wrote:
>
> He was also a highly respected and decorated officer, whose advise
> not to buy that piece of S**T Startfighter for the German Air Force
> was disregarded and resulted in the needless waste of many many
> youg fighter pilots.
Why are so many people so against the F-104 Starfighter. I don't
understand why everybody seems to think that the Starfighter was a.] a
flying coffin/urn and b.] "a piece of S**T".
The reason that Erich Hartmann advised against the purchase of the F-104
was that he felt the new Luftwaffe was not ready for it. He recognized
the while it was a high performance fighter and there was a lot of
glamour in owning the hottest (at the time) fighter in the world, that
their pilots and maintenance people were not ready for this particular
plane. He reccommended reccommended a easier jet so that they could get
the necessary experience in all aspects of using high performance
aircraft and wait for the next generation of jet fighter to come along.
At no time did he ever suggest that the F-104 was a bad airplane, he
simply felt that it was more airplane than they were ready for.
Nor have I ever read anything in any other source to suggest that the
Starfighter was anything other than an excellent fighter. It was
designed to meet a specific mission. The mission was that of a clear
air air superiority day fighter. To meet the necessary criteria Johnson
first talked to Korean War fighter pilots and asked them what they
wanted in a fighter. They asked for simple, small, and fast and that is
exactly what he delivered. No where did they ask for maneuverable
(nobody would ever argue that the Starfighter is maneuverable) so that
is exactly what he delivered. The Starfighter had (and still does)
amazing performance, the problems came when the Airforce didn't know how
to use the thing. They (being as fickle as ever) started wanted the
plane to do things that it was NEVER intended to do -- they started
wanting more range and for some unfathomable reason decided that it
would make a good ground attack aircraft. When the plane was unable to
do these new missions the Airforce lost interest and the F-104 ended up
having the shortest operationl career of any U.S. fighter (2 years).
Changing mission aside, the Starfighter when properly used in it's
intended mission was unbeatable.
Jeff
IamVger
The Luftwaffe was the arm of the German Military most closed linked to the
Nazis? According to what? That is hogwash, sir! The Luftwaffe hierarchy
tried almost from the first day of the war to stop the German General
Staff plans. Every step of the war, top officials of the Luftwaffe
(Goring, the drug-addicted pervert is of course, excluded) were set
against the directions the rest of the Military were taking. German army
and air force staff officers did there best to kill Hitler and bring an
end to the madness.
Obviously, and thank your God, you have never lived in a totalitarian
state. Good for you. Others are not so lucky, and you are uninformed if
you think for a second you could deny service to your country under such a
regime. Yes, you COULD stand up for what is right, and join the rest of
the forced labor until your body gave out. That was certainly a choice.
However, since it is a situation you will never have to face, it seems
charmingly naive for you to demand that others should have done it, 60
years ago.
I don't pretend for a moment that the German military is free from guilt
for crimes in the World Wars. However, spreading guilt so evenly across
those without a choice of whether or not to fight means you would label ME
a baby-killer for the crimes of select individuals that conducted such
acts in Vietnam. You need to serve, before you can condemn. If you have,
then you understand that a man in uniform does not get to choose his
enemies, or for what purpose he fights.
-Gordon
<===(A+C)===>
Seasnake
"It's always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine."
IamVger
IamVger
IamVger
IamVger
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, "Thomas Myers" <t...@waltermitty.com> said:
>The F104 was designed as a point-intercept fighter. It went up, shot down
>the bomber, & came back down very quickly. Don't forget the original T/O
>was just a pair of sidewinders. When they started loading it down with
>other ordinance is when problems developed.
For about the billionth time, the problem with the Luftwaffe in F-104s wasn't
the plane, it was the fact that they were flying them low and fast. You fly
anything that low and that fast, and people are going to die. Doesn't matter
what you fly, whether a Starfighter or a super-Cessna.
Alexei Doubinski
gle...@terraworld.net (Glenn E. Craven) wrote:
> Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
>defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
> As Robert wrote later in his post, it must be nice to be an American so
>that you've never been wrong. It also must be nice to number yourself
>among the world's educated elite, those whose opinions are more valued
>than others.
> I sent a post earlier that never showed on my list, so pardon me if
>some of this is repeating something you've already seen. But people like
>Dan and others ENTIRELY miss the point.
> The vast majority of servicemen ‹ be they German, Japanese, Russian,
>American, British or whatever ‹ do not fight for a leader or his
>ideaology. They fight for their wives and children, fathers and mothers,
>sisters and brothers.
> America was a segregated nation during World War II. Was Richard Bong
>flying to maintain the federally accepted policy of "separate but equal?"
>How about the Tuskeegee airmen? Were black men who served in American
>armed forces content to live with the racism they suffered back home?
> Hell no, but they went to war on behalf of their nation, in large part
>because it is the only home they ever knew.
> In cards, Dan, you play the hand you are dealt. In war, a soldier
>fights for his home nation.
> Germany as a nation will always be remembered as the perpetrators of
>the Holocaust. But Dan ‹ and his "six million Jews, Robert. Six million.
>Twice the population of Berlin." ‹ very neatly forgets the millions of
>innocent Soviet citizens slaughtered by Stalin. Does Dan choose to sully
>the record of famous and skilled Soviet pilots like Sergei Luganskii and
>Lily Litvyak because their leader was a tyrant who killed his own people.
>It's EXACTLY THE SAME THING DAN!
> No, apparently only Germany and every person who lived in that nation
>from 1933 to 1945 (Dan's own time frame) are worthy of eternal scorn.
> It does not require revisionist history to forgive the average German
>serviceman of his role in the war. Ask any man who has attended an
>international convention of fighter aces. They are a brotherhood unlike
>any other, a brotherhood of men who took to the air and risked their lives
>on behalf of their nation, and their individual honor.
> As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
>consider him a war criminal.
> "In the worst sell-out of the war, the Allies turned the heroes of
>Germany over to the Russians to be treated as criminals." (JAMES GOODSON,
>"Tumult in the Clouds.")
> A man is not a war criminal simply for fighting on the wrong side, even
>if that side perpetrates war crimes.
AFAIK, Hartmann was charged not for war crimes even by Stalin's
prosecutors but for the "Destruction of socialistic property" - i. e.
planes.
IMHO the only reasons for FIGHTER pilot (not bomber) to be charged as
a war criminal are straffing rans on civilians refugees and shooting
at enemy airmen who bailed out. Unfortunately, both was done but some
German pilots. Not only German though.
> Dan, are you the type who labels every American soldier sent to Vietnam
>a "baby killer?" Yet war crimes WERE perpetrated in Vietnam by American
>servicemen. Certainly not on the scale of the Holocaust, but it DID
>happen. And not every man sent to Vietnam is guilty because of the actions
>of a few.
> It is impossible to paint every German soldier and citizen with the
>same brush. Those who were guilty of war crimes were (and still are) being
>caught, tried and in some cases hanged. But take note that the Nuremburg
>court ACQUITTED a large number of German leaders. Again, Dan, this should
>show that simply serving one's country is not cause for being branded a
>war criminal.
> GC
Dan Ford
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Bernard Kampmann wrote:
> 6. Just one fact in this idiotic thread make me sad,
> THAT 'UNCLE ADOLF' DID NOT GET PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
I thought I should repost Bernard's sentiment, in case anyone missed it.
- Dan
"Nothing new about death" (Curtis LeMay) at www.cris.com/~danford
(Germany at War / Japan at War / Flying Tigers / Brewster Buffalo)
fr...@inti.net
In article <klhybcm...@alpha.hut.fi>,
Kai J Anttila <kant...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>
> > : He was also a highly respected and decorated officer, whose advise
> > : not to buy that piece of S**T Startfighter for the German Air Force
> > : was disregarded and resulted in the needless waste of many many
> > : youg fighter pilots.
> >
> > wasn't ready to fly or maintain such an aircraft. Their technical
> > personnel weren't ready to maintain it, and the pilots not
> > ready to fly it. But, they needed an up-to-date fighter in a
> > hurry. Like I've said before, history and circumstance have never
> > been kind to the Luftwaffe.
> >
> > Please don't blame the aircraft for the Luftwaffe's problems.
>
> Hmmm. I think that F-104 was the worst US fighter built after WW2.
> ( at least in large scale production )
I don't know what Hartmann would have prefered. The only other serious
contender for the Luftwaffe at the time was the British Lightning. The
Lightning probably would have been a much better aircraft for the
Luftwaffe to buy, but sucessive British governments in the 50's and 60's
seemed hell bent on destroying the British aerospace industry and did
everything they could to discourage potential export buyers from buying
British aerospace products. In that end they were sucessful, they took
Britain from being a world leader in aviation technology in the immediate
post-war years and reduced the country to being a hopeless also-ran. So
when the Luftwaffe was looking for an airplane to buy, the British
offered the Lightning but they didn't jump in with both feet and work
hard at a securing a deal. The Starfighter deal had a heavy weight
champion in Germany in the form of Franz Josef Strauss, the Bavarian CSU
leader who worked hard in getting the deal for Americans. The British
never seemed to bother with enlisting German politicians to champion
their cause. Not that the Lightning was a perfect airplane either, it
had its share of problems as well, it was a maintenance headache with
its over and under engine installation and various systems on the
aircraft did play up with depressing regularity. But many considered the
Lightning to be one of the best handling fighters of the 50's era, it
was well-behaved, fairly docile, and had no real quirks in handling. The
Starfighter wasn't that bad either as long as you respected its
limitations. When the Starfighter was laid down, the USAF was looking
for a mach 2 fighter at a time when powerplant technology wasn't quite
ready for it. So Kelly Johnson came up with the minimalist approach of
building as little of an aircraft as possible around the lousy engines
that were available in the early 50's and the Starfighter was the result.
That it worked as well as it did is a tribute to Johnson and the Lockheed
designers. The USAF never liked the Starfighter either, and it wasn't
operated in large numbers by the USAF. USAF units that operated
Starfighters got out of them as quickly as they could once alternative
aircraft were available. The Luftwaffe needed an airplane that could
serve as a low-altitude ground pounder, able to run near-mach speeds at
tree-top levels and use terrain masking. Neither the Starfighter or the
Lightning were really designed for such roles, but the Lightning proved
to be more adaptable in that role. It was much better at slower speeds
and its larger wings had both overwing and underwing pylons that you
could mount unguided rocket pods on, assorted air-to-ground missles, or
even good old fashioned gravity bombs on the underwing pylons. The thin
stubby wings of the Starfighter only allowed for launch rails on the wing
tips for missles. Anything else would have to go on fuselage hardpoints.
The Luftwaffe ended up crashing most of their Starfighters and it became
a joke in the German press where newspapers kept a running tally of
Starfighter crashes. But I think it has less to do with the Luftwaffe's
ability to properly maintain Starfighters and their pilots to properly
fly the Starfighter but more with what they plan on their defense
mission.
.....Fred
Matthias Laznik
Luftwaffe also had a two ship 104 display team, called vikings. They
mainly flew basic and combat manouvers. not as fancy as other exhibition
teams
Matthias
Matthias Laznik
I won't quote Glenn Craven's answer to Ben Shapiro again. I think Glenn
made some excellent points (and poor Ben must be sizzling...).
This whole
thing started with the answer to the Hartmann Biography question.
Don't recall who answered. If you wanted to get a discusion going,
congratulations, you did, a very heated one. And although I have
participated, because many posts just upset me a lot, this is not the
place for discussing the political/historical details.
In the future, I would advise anybody who wants to contribute to think
of an interesting subject about military aviation. It may be a bit
harder than just throwing in some unfunded, aggressive and inflamatory remark,
(you actually will have to THINK of something before posting) but it
will certainly be more productive.
Greetings
Matthias
Will Lawrence
Thomas Myers (t...@waltermitty.com) wrote:
: The F104 was designed as a point-intercept fighter. It went up, shot down
: the bomber, & came back down very quickly. Don't forget the original T/O
: was just a pair of sidewinders. When they started loading it down with
: other ordinance is when problems developed.
The F-104G was a redesigned 104, with a restressed and strengthened
airframe to handle the demands of the Strike role. Comparing As and
Cs to Gs and CF-104s is a case of apples and oranges.
The G and CF-104 were _not_ interceptors - the CF-104 wasn't even
wired for AAMs! These were strike aircraft, derived from the F-104A
airframe, but significantly different. It's like comparing an
F-88 to an F-101, or an F-102 to an F-106.
: Also keep in mind the Luftwaffe went from the F-86 to the F-104, whereas
: our guys made the transition more gradually from the F-86 to the F-100,
: F-101, & F-102. They didn't have quite the learning curve they needed. As a
: more contemporary example, look at the Marines & the Harrier. The Brits
: proved the Harrier worked in the Falklands, whereas the Marines were
: pranging them at an alarming rate. After the Corps had adequate time to
: sort them out, the incidents all but stopped.
This part, I agree with.
--
===============================================================
|W. Lawrence | How many nights before? |
|aka Darcangel | How many times have we danced? |
|ak...@chebucto.ns.ca | How many times have I courted flames? |
|HALifax, N.S. | How many scars have I borne? |
===============================================================
Matthias Laznik
Ben Shapiro wrote:
snip
Everyone agrees that Hartmann flew for the
Luftwaffe, the arm of the German military most closely alinged with the
NAZI paty.
snip
Everybody agrees with him having flown for the Luftwaffe. As for being
the "arm most closely...", I definitely do not agree. Does Waffen-SS ring
a bell?
How come so much resistance came from the fighter-comunity during the
war? (Read Macki Steinhoff's Autobiography). It is also no coincidence
that Adolf Galland was clashing with Goering & Co even before being named
General of the Fighter Arm.
Statements like this take a lot of credibility from a post otherwise
well argued (although I do not agree with everything you say).
Greetings
Matthias
Glenn E. Craven
> In a previous article, kla...@idirect.com ("Robert") said:
> >Since I have no responsibility regarding their deaths I will not lose sleep
> >over something that happened so long ago.
>
> Well, I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the current generation of
> Germans is so willing to forgive and forget and not learn from history. Just
> great.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
> <a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc/">RFC Web Page</a>
> RFC is selling two of our PA28-181 Piper Archer IIs. See web page for
details.
Paul,
Robert said he was of German descent. He was born and is living in
North America now. I don't really believe that qualifies him as "the
current generation of Germans."
It DID however put him in line for ridicule from several other posters,
including one Dan Ford. Dan apparently believes that because Robert is of
German lineage, he should "perform an act of kindness for an elderly
Jewish matron, tell her he is of German descent, and see what her reaction
is."
That was inane on Ford's part and I think Robert acted fairly
reasonably in his own self-defense.
Glenn Craven
Rausch
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:15:32 -0600, Ben Schapiro <scha...@notis.com>
wrote:
>Glenn E. Craven wrote:
>
>>
>> Why does it not surprise me that the two most insipid posts by those
>> defaming Hartmann came from writers with .edu IPs?
>
>Must make life easy to be able to catagorize folks by their address
>domains.
Thank goodnees, I got a private provider ;-)
>Would they have had to fight for their families and home if the german
>people
>had not been so enthusiastic to invade Poland? Could Hilter have
>instigated
>his plans with out popular support?
Off course he had support. He was the man who got unimployment from 6
mill. down to zero. But the average man could not see how and what for
he did it.
I don`t know wether you`ve read this book "The Wave". I would
recommend it to everyone trying to understand the 3rd Reich.
and, officially, Poland attacked Gleiwitz, which of course, was a flat
lie, but how should some bavarian farmer know that?!
>> Hell no, but they went to war on behalf of their nation, in large part
>> because it is the only home they ever knew.
>
>Actually they went to war on behalf of their government which they
>freely elected.
>
Well, it might not be common knowledge, but Hitler was elected
according to the regulations of the Weimarer Republic. He then abused
his power to ensure his being Chancellor, but at first, he was
elected. The rest was left to propaganda. One question, how do you get
to the truth if you only hear one side of the story?
>> In cards, Dan, you play the hand you are dealt. In war, a soldier
>> fights for his home nation.
>
>As Germans soldaten in Poland and France and in the concentration camps?
>Certainly the Tunisians and Libians were happy to have the Germans
>fighting
>for Germany in their countries.
>
>> Germany as a nation will always be remembered as the perpetrators of
>> the Holocaust. But Dan ã and his "six million Jews, Robert. Six million.
>> Twice the population of Berlin." ã very neatly forgets the millions of
>> innocent Soviet citizens slaughtered by Stalin. Does Dan choose to sully
>> the record of famous and skilled Soviet pilots like Sergei Luganskii and
>> Lily Litvyak because their leader was a tyrant who killed his own people.
>> It's EXACTLY THE SAME THING DAN!
>
>
>> No, apparently only Germany and every person who lived in that nation
>> from 1933 to 1945 (Dan's own time frame) are worthy of eternal scorn.
>> It does not require revisionist history to forgive the average German
>> serviceman of his role in the war. Ask any man who has attended an
>> international convention of fighter aces. They are a brotherhood unlike
>> any other, a brotherhood of men who took to the air and risked their lives
>> on behalf of their nation, and their individual honor.
Just ask yourself this question: Would you risk your life by deserting
your OWN country due to some unreliable rumors about some jews
vanishing without a trace? I guess not!
And, beginning with 43, the German soldier fought to DEFEND their
country, you should bare that in mind to.
>
>But would the American and British and French pilots want to fly in
>Hitler's Luftwaffe?
There were even French troops defending Berlin in April 1945!
>
>> As another post noted, those who fought against Hartmann did not
>> consider him a war criminal.
>
>And apparently none of the posts here have called Hartmann a war
>criminal either.
>
>> "In the worst sell-out of the war, the Allies turned the heroes of
>> Germany over to the Russians to be treated as criminals." (JAMES GOODSON,
>> "Tumult in the Clouds.")
>> A man is not a war criminal simply for fighting on the wrong side, even
>> if that side perpetrates war crimes.
The Russians tried everything to prove Hartmann being a war criminal,
but they failed. I think that`s proving a lot.
>> It is impossible to paint every German soldier and citizen with the
>> same brush. Those who were guilty of war crimes were (and still are) being
>> caught, tried and in some cases hanged. But take note that the Nuremburg
>> court ACQUITTED a large number of German leaders. Again, Dan, this should
>> show that simply serving one's country is not cause for being branded a
>> war criminal.
>
>The German goverment and to a great extent the German people have
>examined
>their history under Hitler and have accept responsibilty for correcting
>the conditions that led to the horrors. The discussion to date has not
>been about branding every German a war criminal.
Nice to know
Markus Rausch
German Air Force
Tom Bean
Well, if Winston Churchill's opinion carries any weight he "predicted"
WWII would be the result of the extreme terms of the treaty enforced on the
Germans after the First World War. He contended that if you stripped away
the German people's hope for any future they would simply resort to
another war to survive.
Steve Wood
Let's also add to this list Dresden, Tokyo, and, of course, Yokohama.
Plus...let's not forget the shooting of pilots in parachutes, the strafing
of retreating soldiers, the strafing of civilian passenger trains etc...
Oh, yeah, forgot: those were committed by the allies.
Seems both sides did things that are not "nice" in war or peace...
Dirk Lorek <DiL...@pobox.comREMOVE.THIS.PLEASE> wrote in article
<33063094...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
> Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> >Anyone who reads Hartmann's auto/biography should also read Daniel
> >Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the
> >Holocaust (Borzoi, 1996).
>
> I second that. And hopefully she/he reads one about ordinary Germans
> living in the Third Reich too.
>
> >As Phil Garey wrote in another context, the Luftwaffe was not a
> >documentary on the Discovery channel, nor a video game. It was an
integral
> >part of the most murderous military and political machine known to human
> >history, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union. And Hartmann
> >was an integral part of that.
>
> I wouldn't say the Luftwaffe was an integral part of the Holocaust,
> nor that the Red Army Air Force had anything to do with famines,
> purges and deportations. More relevant IMO are the crimes the
> Luftwaffe actually committed, Belgrade, London, strafing of refugees,
> treatment of Red Army Air Force POWs...BTW, are there any good books
> about WW2 strafing (I mean not in a technical sense) available?
>
> >Among the other justifications I have read on this newsgroup for this
> >curious idolization of Hartmann is that he mostly killed Russians!
Great.
>
> Showing interest in the pilot who achieved more air kills than anybody
> else does not automatically mean idolization, especially if requested
> in an aviation newsgroup.
>
> >Anyhow, the original poster has got his information. I hope he reads the
> >Hartmann book. Even if he never gets around to reading Goldehagen's
> >account of how all those other Hartmanns whipped, starved, worked,
> >tortured, starved, shot, gassed, and burned 6 millions Jews to death,
>
> Hm. And I just thought that the operative noun was "nation."
>
> >he
> >will at least have a better grasp of those years than the folks who get
> >their history from Wings and Flight Sim.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Dirk (one of 'those Hartmanns')
>
> !! My email adress has been altered. Sorry for any inconvenience !!
>
Edward Zager
In article <5efrna$2...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling) writes:
|> As I understand it the main problem with many of the accidents was
|> maintainence induced problem.
|>
|> The Chinese on Taiwan were very successful flying the 104, with the
|> best safety record of all nations flying the F-104
|>
|> As a matter of fact they even had an aerobatic team flying the F-104.
|>
The Germans also had an aerobatic F-104 team, I believe they were called the
"Vikings" I saw them perform in the early 80's.
I don't know if it's fair to call them an "aerobatic" team, because they kept
going so fast, and their turning radius was so big, that sometimes it was hard
to keep track of them (or to figure out what they were doing). :-)
Edward Zager
John M. Cotton
On 15 Feb 1997, DonSS3 wrote:
> C'mon guys, lightne up. What's next "Eddy Rickenbacker the greatest ace
> from the country which committed genocide on the Native American peoples?"
> Hell, I am absolutely NO fan of Uncle Adolph and his crew of misfits, but
> I am an admirer of the skill which Hartmann had to use to survive.
Well said. Thanks for the dose of sanity.
Glenn E. Craven
In article <01bc2009$9812e1a0$8142bacd@viper>, "Steve Wood"
<fli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Let's also add to this list Dresden, Tokyo, and, of course, Yokohama.
> Plus...let's not forget the shooting of pilots in parachutes, the strafing
> of retreating soldiers, the strafing of civilian passenger trains etc...
>
> Oh, yeah, forgot: those were committed by the allies.
>
> Seems both sides did things that are not "nice" in war or peace...
>
Steve,
Since when did retreating entitle a soldier to "time out" from being
shot? Just asking, since I don't see anything wrong with strafing anybody
in an opposing uniform unless they have the white flags out.
This does not include aviators in parachutes, but while it is likely
that at some point an allied pilot opened fire on an enemy pilot while in
such a defenseless position, this certainly was an offense more
attributable to the Japanese. Apparently the Japanese were known to quite
often strafe parachuting pilots, or those floating in life boats.
As for the strafing of "civilian" passenger trains, by the time Allied
pilots were close enough to Germany and Japan to strafe trains, civilian
travel was severely limited. No doubt there WERE civilians on some of
these trains, but the primary use of rail transport would be for military
(or at least dual) purposes.
Glenn
Lindsey Kiang
Ron Katona wrote:
>
>
> I say kill them; war is hell. The only true war crime is one which is
> perpetrated against combatants Yes, that status is sometimes hard to
> determine, that's what war crime tribunals are for. The period between a
> pilot punching out, and being captured or rescued, should be viewed as a
> war time tactical situation. The pilot has value to both sides. The
> destruction, or capture of that asset by the enemy is not a crime. The
> treatment pilots expect in their parachutes harkens back to the
> chivalrous days of WWI. Those days are over folks.
> --
????? Has this guy ever served in the military? Or is he just an
armchair warrior? The reason you don't shoot prisoners or shoot pilots
in their chutes is because the enemy will do the same to you. Example:
the Malmedy Massacre made the US troops in the Battle of the Bulge dig
in and fight the Germans with a grim ferocity that ultimately won the
day. If this guy was ever in my unit, I'd watch him real carefully; his
idea of morality can really undermine a unit. For a real professional's
perspective, read the classic book "Platoon Leader," by McDonough. A
career Army paratroop officer, he writes about the need to care for the
troops' moral wellbeing in combat by stressing the difference between
right and wrong. A great book by a great troop leader, who recently
retired as a Colonel commanding an airborne battalion in Europe.
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Ron Katona wrote:
>
> The strafing of the retreating Iraqi "army" on the highway leading out
> of Kuwait is a pretty good example that we consider a retreating army a
> target until a cease fire occurs.
>
According to the Geneva Convention, they are a valid target. Simply
retreating does not take them out of combat.
>
> As far as firing on parachutes, it seems ruthless, but is it really?
> Morally, what's the difference between that helpless human being, and
> the helpless human beings in their stolen Mercedes who have given up the
> fight and are trying to escape home to Iraq? Both could, and probably
> would, fight again if we don't kill them. Both would gladly raise their
> fists and cheer wildly while dragging our dead, burnt, bodies through
> their streets. Both are clearly combatants, not innocent bystanders.
> I say kill them; war is hell. The only true war crime is one which is
> perpetrated against combatants Yes, that status is sometimes hard to
> determine, that's what war crime tribunals are for. The period between a
> pilot punching out, and being captured or rescued, should be viewed as a
> war time tactical situation. The pilot has value to both sides. The
> destruction, or capture of that asset by the enemy is not a crime. The
> treatment pilots expect in their parachutes harkens back to the
> chivalrous days of WWI. Those days are over folks.
>
maybe you should review your course materials. A downed pilot is no
longer associated with his weapon system, and is therefore no longer a
threat. Because he is still in his parachute, he has no means to
surrender until he is on the ground. He is not like a paratrooper, who is
carrying his "war-making" means with him to the ground, and therefore is a
target. If you disagree with this, you are disagreeing with your national
command structure, and should probably re-evaluate your suitability for
military service. Those days are certainly not over. There has been no
finding in the community of nations that such action is "legal", and such
actions are considered war crimes.
S. Gahring
Ron Katona
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring wrote:
> According to the Geneva Convention, they are a valid target. Simply
> retreating does not take them out of combat.
I agree.
> If you haven't taken SOS yet, you'll find out the reasoning. If you have,
> maybe you should review your course materials.
No, I'm not an officer.
A downed pilot is no
> longer associated with his weapon system, and is therefore no longer a
> threat. Because he is still in his parachute, he has no means to
> surrender until he is on the ground.
That's a lovely thought, but isn't a trained pilot a threat until he is
dead, or the war is over? Didn't he have the option to surrender before
dropping 500 lb bombs on my country? The problem I have with this is
that it looks like you're saying the type of weapon system makes the
difference, not the situation. IOWs, if a tank commander jumps out of
his burning tank, he's likely to be fired upon by nearby ground troops.
Simply being on the ground does not necessarily provide a means for
surrender. That tank commander can't just jump up and surrender until
the shooting slows enough for a white flag to be raised without the
danger of being caught in the crossfire. He's basically screwed if the
enemy just doesn't feel like waiting for a white flag. Why do we
consider pilots in sexy airplanes so differently?
> target. If you disagree with this, you are disagreeing with your national
> command structure, and should probably re-evaluate your suitability for
> military service.
Remember, this is a discussion, a hypothetical situation. I disagree
with several policies in the Air Force. I'd like to grow a beard, I'd
like to date military nurses, I'd like to work three days a week. I
simply (and faithfully) follow the rules while on active duty; that
doesn't mean I can't express my opposition to those rules in a forum
that does not compromise military discipline.
Those days are certainly not over. There has been no
> finding in the community of nations that such action is "legal", and such
> actions are considered war crimes.
>
> S. Gahring
I'm sure this is true. I also believe that if the civilian
non-combatants in Hiroshima, Dresden, Stalingrad, London, Oslo, etc...
were given the chance to don a parachute and somehow become magically
protected, they would have. War is war. I think we fool ourselves into
believing that we are civilized while killing each other because we have
rules about how wars are fought. We can romanticize a war with chivalry
and bravery, but we despise a war with ruthlessness and cowardice. Well
guess what, I don't buy it. I think it's an all or nothing proposition,
and the rules just make us feel better about killing. A pilot is an
enemy asset, if that asset can be destroyed, so be it. War is Hell.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
Ron Katona
Lindsey Kiang wrote:
> ????? Has this guy ever served in the military? Or is he just an
> armchair warrior?
Yes, 11 years and counting. (in the military that is)
The reason you don't shoot prisoners or shoot pilots
> in their chutes is because the enemy will do the same to you. Example:
Now hold on there Lindsey, I never said prisoners, don't overstate my
case!! Once an enemy chooses to take prisoners for intelligence,
propaganda, or other reasons, the prisoners clearly are not combatants
anymore. I draw the line at combatants / non-combatants. I simply
consider a pilot in a chute a combatant, however grim his situation. I
realize others disagree. Compare a pilot in a chute to Grandma in
Dresden.
Thank you for the book recommendation, I'll make an effort to find it.
I'll bet I agree with the gist of the book, but I just feel pilots in
chutes a given "special" treatment. Remember how they used to just wave
at each other in the early days of WWI? At that time, it was thought to
be pretty barbaric to sneak a shotgun aboard and take a pot-shot at an
unarmed recon plane. And this was during one of the most ruthless wars
ever! My how times change.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
Bernard Kampmann
In article <5efrna$2...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling) writes:
>From: eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
>Subject: Re: Eric Hartmann, F-104
>Date: 19 Feb 1997 21:35:38 GMT
>As I understand it the main problem with many of the accidents was
>maintainence induced problem.
>The Chinese on Taiwan were very successful flying the 104, with the
>best safety record of all nations flying the F-104
>As a matter of fact they even had an aerobatic team flying the F-104.
>Erik Shilling
So did Germany! ( Marineflieger "Vikings"), and no accidents either.......
Ron Katona
Glenn E. Craven wrote:
> Since when did retreating entitle a soldier to "time out" from being
> shot? Just asking, since I don't see anything wrong with strafing anybody
> in an opposing uniform unless they have the white flags out.
> This does not include aviators in parachutes, but while it is likely
> that at some point an allied pilot opened fire on an enemy pilot while in
> such a defenseless position, this certainly was an offense more
> attributable to the Japanese. Apparently the Japanese were known to quite
> often strafe parachuting pilots, or those floating in life boats.
The strafing of the retreating Iraqi "army" on the highway leading out
of Kuwait is a pretty good example that we consider a retreating army a
target until a cease fire occurs.
As far as firing on parachutes, it seems ruthless, but is it really?
Morally, what's the difference between that helpless human being, and
the helpless human beings in their stolen Mercedes who have given up the
fight and are trying to escape home to Iraq? Both could, and probably
would, fight again if we don't kill them. Both would gladly raise their
fists and cheer wildly while dragging our dead, burnt, bodies through
their streets. Both are clearly combatants, not innocent bystanders.
I say kill them; war is hell. The only true war crime is one which is
perpetrated against combatants Yes, that status is sometimes hard to
determine, that's what war crime tribunals are for. The period between a
pilot punching out, and being captured or rescued, should be viewed as a
war time tactical situation. The pilot has value to both sides. The
destruction, or capture of that asset by the enemy is not a crime. The
treatment pilots expect in their parachutes harkens back to the
chivalrous days of WWI. Those days are over folks.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
JLAuPage
It was considered bad form shooting at pilots in parachutes when they were
downed over enemy territory because they were out of the war and no longer
combatants. However, a pilot in a parachute over his own country is fair
game. He could be back in the cockpit the same day. He is still a
combatant as such is fair game.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Stephen M. Harding
Ron Katona wrote:
> Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring wrote:
> > According to the Geneva Convention, they are a valid target. Simply
> > retreating does not take them out of combat.
> > A downed pilot is no
> > longer associated with his weapon system, and is therefore no longer a
> > threat. Because he is still in his parachute, he has no means to
> > surrender until he is on the ground.
> I'm sure this is true. I also believe that if the civilian
> non-combatants in Hiroshima, Dresden, Stalingrad, London, Oslo, etc...
> were given the chance to don a parachute and somehow become magically
> protected, they would have. War is war. I think we fool ourselves into
> believing that we are civilized while killing each other because we have
> rules about how wars are fought. We can romanticize a war with chivalry
> and bravery, but we despise a war with ruthlessness and cowardice. Well
> guess what, I don't buy it. I think it's an all or nothing proposition,
> and the rules just make us feel better about killing. A pilot is an
> enemy asset, if that asset can be destroyed, so be it. War is Hell.
Wouldn't shooting a pilot in a parachute bailing out over territory
controlled by his own forces be considered a form of retreat, and
therefor
fair game for continued attack, just as any ground forces retreating
along
some nice open straight road?
I remember reading one of the fighter pilot biographies many years ago
where the author stated he never shot at enemy pilots in parachutes, but
would try to get the pilot before he could bail out. I'm speaking here
of actually shooting *at* the pilot after the cockpit came open and he
was crawling out preparing to bail out.
The reasoning behind this is very simple and valid. This enemy pilot is
shot down this morning and he's a wiser, more experienced opponent when
he comes back up after you this afternoon.
Of course there is little justification for British shooting up LW
pilots
bailing out over Britain, or LW pilots firing on Americans bailing out
over Germany, even though there is always the possibility of escape.
Interesting how air war has held to a form of chivilry longer than other
forms of fighting. In an age of BVR fighting, missiles and high speed
aircraft, perhaps this issue is not really relevant anymore. Certainly
not to the extent of WWI and WWII.
SMH
u851...@cc.nctu.edu.tw
Edward Zager (eza...@ctdws59.sc.intel.com) 提到:
: |> The Chinese on Taiwan were very successful flying the 104, with the
: |> best safety record of all nations flying the F-104
: |>
: |> As a matter of fact they even had an aerobatic team flying the F-104.
Nope we don't use F-104 as aerobatic teams, the types of aircrafts
we use were as follow:
F-84 -> F-86 -> F-100 -> F-5A -> F-5E -> AT-3 (looks like a 2
engins CASA C.101)
By the way, the team was named "Thunder Tiger".
The combat F-104G/Js seems retired this January, but the RECCE
role RF-104G is still flying. There were also some eye witnees
claim that they saw 4 F-104 flying together after their retirement.
Rodney Tsao
u851...@cc.nctu.edu.tw
ChangHua, Taiwan
Robert Hodes
I believe that a lot of the accidents the Luftwaffe experienced with the
F-104 can be attributed to flying low-level missions in the miserable
weather of Germany. The U.S., Spain, and Taiwan never had to contend
with that weather anything like that on a regular basis.
Robert S. Hodes
Bangkok, thailand
MKopack
Not according to the Geneva Convention....
CDB100620
Some 2,000 German Catholic priests went to their deaths at Dachau--their
crime: protesting Nazi treatment of Jews. See Robert Graham's "Vatican
Diplomacy" for details. When the consequence of protest is certain death,
most choose silence. If silence is not protection enough, most vocally
join the majority to protect their own lives and those of their loved
ones. Doing so may be reprehensible in the abstract. But it is very
human.
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Ron Katona wrote:
>
> case!! Once an enemy chooses to take prisoners for intelligence,
> propaganda, or other reasons, the prisoners clearly are not combatants
> anymore. I draw the line at combatants / non-combatants. I simply
> consider a pilot in a chute a combatant, however grim his situation. I
> realize others disagree. Compare a pilot in a chute to Grandma in
> Dresden.
>
> Thank you for the book recommendation, I'll make an effort to find it.
> I'll bet I agree with the gist of the book, but I just feel pilots in
> chutes a given "special" treatment. Remember how they used to just wave
> at each other in the early days of WWI? At that time, it was thought to
> be pretty barbaric to sneak a shotgun aboard and take a pot-shot at an
> unarmed recon plane. And this was during one of the most ruthless wars
> ever! My how times change.
>
"Surely the most widely accepted treaties which codify the humanitarian
principles of the LOAC are the four Geneva conventions of 1949. Over 140
states have ratified or acceded to the conventions, though a number of
states have attached reservations to their accession.
The conventions specify treatement to be given to victims of armed
conflict with the object of relieving and reducing their suffering. They
protect those who are hors de combat (out of combat)-- wounded, sick,
shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. Such persons, taking
no part in combat, must be treated with respect and humanity because they
have a specific, legally recognized status entitling them to such
treatment."
Further on:
"The Geneva Convention on the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces at Sea
(GWS-SEA) again affords protection of those who are hors de combat. This
includes the wounded and sick, but also the shipwrecked. "Shipwreck,"
according to GWS-SEA, includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.
Thus, Air Force aircrew memebers are fully protected if downed or forced
to land at sea."
As to civilians, the US recognizes the draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare
(1923), though it is not codified. There are four important articles:
"Article 22 prohibits aerial bombardment for such things as terrorizing
the civilian population or injuring noncombatants."
"Article 24 says that aerial bombardment is legitimate only when
destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to
the belligerent."
"Article 25 requires commanders to spare as far as possible buildings
dedicated to public worship, monuments, hospitals, and other such edifices
if these aren't being used for military purposes."
"Finally, Article 26 provides optional safety zones and a neutral
inspection system to protect historical monuments."
Basically, a downed pilot is protected _while he is in his parachute_
because at that point, he is hors de combat. He has not yet been able to
make his intentions known. Airborne troops are not hors de combat,
because it is their obvious intention to enter the fray. As to the
bombing of civilian population centers, it is a matter of military
neccessity. It is justified only when there is a _distinct_ military
advantage. From further on in the text:
"4. Incidental injury to civilians must be _minimized_. Collateral
damage is legal if it isn't excessive in light of the advantage sought.
The defending side, incidentally, has an obligation to separate civilians
from legitimate military objectives."
Finally:
"Aerial combatants who escape disabled aircraft are protected under the
Law of Armed Conflict. Any person descending from a disabled aircraft
should not be attacked. However, persons descending from an aircraft for
hostile purposes, such as paratroops, are not protected. The attempt to
rescue a downed airman is clearly a combatant activity, and rescue
attempts can be accompanied by armed force. Of course, these rescue
efforts can also be resisted by armed force. Downed enemy airmen from
aircraft in distress are subject to immediate capture and can be attacked
if they continue to resist or escape. Otherwise they should get a
resonable opportunity to surrender. When a downed airman is captured or
surrenders, his status and protection as a POW begins."
S. Gahring
JAMES MARTIN
JLAuPage (jlau...@aol.com) wrote:
: It was considered bad form shooting at pilots in parachutes when they were
: downed over enemy territory because they were out of the war and no longer
: game. He could be back in the cockpit the same day. He is still a
: combatant as such is fair game.
Murder is Murder. If the guy is in a parchute, he can't shot back. What
does this have to do with Hartmann?
: Regards Jerry Goldblatt
--
JLAuPage
The pilot is what makes a aircraft a weapon. If the pilot remains
available for combat then he remains a threat. When he is shot down over
enemy territory he cannot be mated to aircaft and become a weapon again.
He is out of the war.
Wei-bin Chang
In article <5emtj1$i...@news.csie.nctu.edu.tw> u851...@cc.nctu.edu.tw () writes:
>
> The combat F-104G/Js seems retired this January, but the RECCE
ROCAF F-104J's were retired long time ago.
Wei-Bin Chang
--
---------------------------- Wei-Bin Chang --------------------------------
Have you checked out my homepages lately?
Military Aviation of ROC: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/~wei-bin/taiwan.html
Aviation Resources: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/~wei-bin/homepage.html
IamVger
Robert S Johnson, the US leading fighter ace in the ETO, reported in his
autobiography that after one long engagement with an outstanding fighter
pilot in an FW-190, he gained advantage and crippled the enemy fighter.
As the pilot called it quits and jettisoned his canopy, Johnson slid in
astern in his P-47. Paraphrasing his words, "Once he had crawled out of
the cockpit, I opened fire again, right before he could escape. This
pilot was just too good - I couldn't give him a chance to fight another
day."
<===(A+C)===>
Seasnake
"It's always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine."
72740
In <5emtj1$i...@news.csie.nctu.edu.tw>, u851...@cc.nctu.edu.tw () writes:
>Edward Zager (eza...@ctdws59.sc.intel.com) 4#(l:
>: |> The Chinese on Taiwan were very successful flying the 104, with the
>: |> best safety record of all nations flying the F-104
>: |>
>: |> As a matter of fact they even had an aerobatic team flying the F-104.
>
> Nope we don't use F-104 as aerobatic teams, the types of aircrafts
> we use were as follow:
>
> F-84 -> F-86 -> F-100 -> F-5A -> F-5E -> AT-3 (looks like a 2
> engins CASA C.101)
> By the way, the team was named "Thunder Tiger".
>
> claim that they saw 4 F-104 flying together after their retirement.
>
>Rodney Tsao
>u851...@cc.nctu.edu.tw
>ChangHua, Taiwan
Who does one talk to over there about the F-104-A's? I'm looking to purchase parts if possible...
Cliff Chambliss
Enrich Hartman's autobiography was publised in English under the
title "Blonde Knight of Germany" it even made it out in paperback a
few years (late 70's/early 80's) ago. This was a translation of the
original German Text by General Hartman. (I am fortunate to have
both the German and English texts).
LCDR1635
>>It was considered bad form shooting at pilots in parachutes when they
were
downed over enemy territory because they were out of the war and no longer
combatants. However, a pilot in a parachute over his own country is fair
game. He could be back in the cockpit the same day. He is still a
combatant as such is fair game.
That may have been the general practice in the past, but it is certainly
not the accepted practice according to international law, at least as it
has been taught in the U.S. armed forces (and I used to be a law of war
instructor).
Once a member of an aircrew has bailed out, he is considered in the same
status as a soldier that is wounded and helpless, or a seaman adrift at
sea, he is "hors de combatte" (forgive my lousy French Spelling), and is
protected under international law. Once he lands, if he resists capture,
he is fair game.
Paratroops OTOH, are not protected while under their chutes, any more than
Marines in a landing craft are.
John Eckhardt, LCDR, USNR (former JAG, now an intell puke)
John H. Eckhardt
It's not my spelling or grammer that's so bad. It's my typing.
Norman Filer
I'd beg to differ with you on the operational career of the F-104. You
are looking only at the minor part of the airplanes history with the
USAF. Have you overlooked it's time with TAC. The 479th TFW operated
the C from Oct. 1958 until well into the late 60's. As a Tactical Air
Command wing, we expected to use it for mud moving. We practiced a lot
of air to ground with guns and practice bombs, but most of our time was
spent with ADC type missions.
There was absolutly nothing wrong with airplane structually. I never
heard of one coming apart. We had a lot of afterburner nozzel problems
early on. The bird would not hold altitude with full burner ( if you
could get it to light) when the nozzel blew to the full open position.
With a limited amount of fuel that didn't get you very far. A simple
override switch fixed that. Only bad rap I could hang on the airplane
at all was it's fantastic ability to depart at high G, high angle of
attack. The high AOA would blank the elevator/vertical fin and with no
control input to keep it straight away you'd go!! With a lot of
altitude it could be recovered. I know this was the reason for a lot of
the German problems. A hard high G pullup could be real interesting at
a couple of thousand feet. Hell, it was interesting at any altitude!
Most airplanes have some strange quirk somewhere. Once recognized and
understood you just didn't do that!! The F-101 and several others
shared this characteristic.
As a postscript, the PR Air Guard operated the ex 479th birds well into
the late 70's, maybe even the early 80's until replaced with A-7D's.
The bird was by no means a "bust".
--
Norm Filer
"Sadly, it seems, man does not live by reason alone.
All too often we live by drippy intuition and foggy
reasoning with no sound basis in fact."
"You have to be on your guard to keep the two from
gaining the upper hand". -- Clive Cussler