Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

ejmaztec

kentreaper wrote: »

Churchill was a great man - and he was the one who predicted Hitler's rise and was highly instrumental in his fall.

He was the first person to become and Honarary Citizen of the US and won the Nobel Prize (for literature).

Few countries did not award him in some way. Ireland was probably an exception?

I'm not surprised at this, as he handed them the UK's family gold, silver, jewels, and anything else that wasn't bolted down.

Fratton Fred

The Polish broke the original codes prior to wwii but the Kreigsmarine used a far more complex system.

kentreaper

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm not surprised at this, as he handed them the UK's family gold, silver, jewels, and anything else that wasn't bolted down.

Could you be even vaguely specific, tec?

asherbassad

getzls wrote: »

Surely this is a cowards excuse?

Irelands shame.

Shame? Where's the shame in staying out of a scrap between industrialised powers who want to slug it out over control of Europe's and Asia's and Africa's resources?
Like all wars it was another banking and power grab to enrich industrialists many of whom were on opposite sides but were in reality working together. George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush was providing oil and steel to the Nazis via Fritz Thyssien. That very steel was going into guns used to shoot American and British soldiers.

Now that, my friend, is shameful but hardly surprising.

ejmaztec

kentreaper wrote: »

Could you be even vaguely specific, tec?

.. access to the UK's secrets, leases on military bases worldwide, gold bullion reserves held in South Africa (the Americans even tailed the ship that was going to pick up the gold, just in case the British changed their minds). I think they even replaced Sterling with the US Dollar as the prime world currency. The Americans were also given any property that was owned by the UK in the US.

On top of that, they made a good killing on lend-lease.

Churchill let them bleed the UK dry, then some.

dpe

kentreaper wrote: »

Could you be even vaguely specific, tec?

He was forced to. The terms of Lend/Lease were actually incredibly harsh. Before the British got anything they had to hand over their entire gold reserves (they'd been sent to South Africa for safe keeping at the outbreak of war) and the Americans got to buy up the American arms of a lot of British companies (like Shell) at rock bottom prices which they then sold on at a massive profit. Lend/Lease was not American altruism in action; and the weapons they did give to Britain prior to 1942 were pretty crap in the main; the old WWI destroyers had to be pretty much rebuilt by the British, the P-40s and other planes they gave were generally inferior to their British equivalents and the Stuart (Lee) tanks were crap compared to the Panzer III/IVs they met in Africa. Unfortunately, since the British had left most of their kit in France, it was better than nothing.

Capt'n Midnight

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I think so. We would have contrivutfed fsck all, but its the principle of the thiknh. Nazism needed to be opposed.

Look at the list of countries who joined up once the writing was on the wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#After_the_Declaration_by_United_Nations

Capt'n Midnight

jugger0 wrote: »

We were right to stay out of it, but if we did enter then i hope it would be to reclaim the rest of our Island from foreign invaders.

Churchill offered the North if we joined in, then again he offered the French national unity with the UK if they didn't surrender. These offers were during the period when the outlook for the UK wasn't certain. And of course one has to remember that the Poles got very little support when they were invaded.

Dyr

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And of course one has to remember that the Poles got very little support when they were invaded.

And then were royally shafted by winnie after the war despite all the fighting they did for him.

Seanchai

kentreaper wrote: »

Churchill was a great man.... Few countries did not award him in some way. Ireland was probably an exception?

Just checking but is this Churchill chap the lad who as Secretary of State for War during the Irish War of Independence proposed the creation of a paramilitary force known as the Auxiliary Division of the RIC, those charming chaps who paid that visit to Croke Park on Bloody Sunday 1920? Is this also the same Winston Churchill who advocated a shoot-to-kill policy against all Irish people who refused to stay in their homes after the curfew the British imposed during martial law in the same war?

It's absolutely shocking that the Irish don't have a national day of commemoration for this great humanitarian who hadn't a racist, imperialist, mass murdering bone in his body.



The above events in Ireland would have occurred within two years of the same Winston Churchill writing that infamous letter advocating the gassing of, and I quote, "barbarous tribes", otherwise known as the Kurds in Iraq. The Kurds were, indeed, subsequently gassed by Britain's RAF.

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

kentreaper wrote: »

Churchill was a great man.... Few countries did not award him in some way. Ireland was probably an exception?

Just checking but is this Churchill chap the lad who as Secretary of State for War during the Irish War of Independence proposed the creation of a paramilitary force known as the Auxiliary Division of the RIC, those charming chaps who paid that visit to Croke Park on Bloody Sunday 1920? Is this also the same Winston Churchill who advocated a shoot-to-kill policy against all Irish people who refused to stay in their homes after the curfew the British imposed during martial law in the same war?

It's absolutely shocking that the Irish don't have a national day of commemoration for this great humanitarian who hadn't a racist, imperialist, mass murdering bone in his body.



[SIZE="1"]The above events in Ireland would have occurred within two years of the same Winston Churchill writing that infamous letter advocating the gassing of, and I quote, "barbarous tribes", otherwise known as the Kurds in Iraq. The Kurds were, indeed, subsequently gassed by Britain's RAF.[/SIZE]

Yawn.....

You do enjoy making up your own history.

kentreaper

Seanchai wrote: »

Just checking but is this Churchill chap .....

Keep reading Wiki, sean

Broad statements

Ok, hard war time decisions were made; RoI is only about 20,000 square miles, not that relevant and neutral

Should neutral countries be consulted in world wars; I think not

But, why so many honours for Churchill from so many countries?

All wrong?

foxcat

Churchill, born at Blenheim Palace, was like no Irish man ever was.

At the Boer War, he later saw what Hitler was going to do - and was right.

He forced the US into the war...'we shall fight them on the beaches'.....

And saved a very small country (RoI/c20,000 sq. miles) from destruction.

Like Westerham - where he lived - and Westminister, there should be a memorial in Dublin..........

kentreaper

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Churchill offered the North if we joined in, then again he offered the French national unity with the UK if they didn't surrender

WHAT RUBBISH?


Any evidence, at all?

FionnK86

foxcat wrote: »

Churchill, born at Blenheim Palace, was like no Irish man ever was.

At the Boer War, he later saw what Hitler was going to do - and was right.

He forced the US into the war...'we shall fight them on the beaches'.....

And saved a very small country (RoI/c20,000 sq. miles) from destruction.

Like Westerham - where he lived - and Westminister, there should be a memorial in Dublin..........

Jaysus, I thought the Japanese and a couple planes forced the US into the war, wow your a genius!!! He hardly saved Ireland from destruction, the US saved England and therefore Ireland from destruction, and a monument? Sure we would more likely have one of Kate Midletons extremities on Grafton Street beside Molly Malone.

I think he probably would have given us a bit of Tyrone and Derry back if we had joined the effort in 1944, at least the bits the boundary commission said were ours before it got overturned:)

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yawn.....

You do enjoy making up your own history.

What parts did he make up, precisely

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yawn.....

You do enjoy making up your own history.

What parts did he make up, precisely

Just the bit about gassing Kurds.

Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time).

The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just the bit about gassing Kurds.

Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time).

The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.

So you're saying that he was'nt in favour of gassing those pesky savages?

Or he only wanted give them a light gassing that wouldnt kill many?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Churchill's_1919_War_Office_Memorandum

golden lane

churchill was a man of his time........thank god they don't arrive very often....

so were both sides of the irish civil war......irishmen killing irishmen......

Wibbs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just the bit about gassing Kurds.

Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time).

The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.

So Churchill approved the use of gas? In which case Seanchais statement on that point stands, as do his other statements in the main, even if taken in isolation.

Now this...

foxcat wrote:

Churchill, born at Blenheim Palace, was like no Irish man ever was.

What has his birthplace got to do with it? "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse" attributed to Wellington but he never actually said it, but apposite in this case.

At the Boer War, he later saw what Hitler was going to do - and was right.

Ehhhh you really need to read some history beyond the Sun Book of Hysterical "facts". When was the Boer war? Do you even understand the background to same? I doubt it. In any event, just in case your education was truncated for whatever reason, the Boer war(well technically two wars) was fought and ended before 1902. Hitler was around 12-13 years old by it's end. I'll have what you're smoking Ted.

He forced the US into the war...'we shall fight them on the beaches'.....

Nope as has been pointed out, a bunch of Japanese interrupting a hawaiian luau did that. The US while giving tacit support was very much into keeping a largely hands off approach to the European theatre of war. Again, pick up a kindle.

And saved a very small country (RoI/c20,000 sq. miles) from destruction.

My apologies, it seems it's not the Sun's fault for your confusion, but the Daily Mail's. Hell he did live here for a few years when he was a toddler, maye we should claim him as our own? Oh wait... maybe not. Meh looks like the Irish Daily star is about to go kaput so our collective IQ will go up, if even by a smidgeon. Would that the British gutter Press fall to the same end. Ye'd be in a better state if it did.

A decade ago now I was in the Canaries on the piss and fell into conversation with some British squaddies as they were reading the Spanish Sun. Beers were taken and debate, argument and discussion was had as it will. These "working class" lads, the cannon fodder for the cynical, below the bullshít they'd been fed were OK and intelligent guys(one exception who was a moron, but the others just patronised him). They were shocked/surprised and interested in equal measure when exposed to other viewpoints. One of those lads I'm still in contact with today. The Irish are all too often trapped and bullshítted by our own slanted history and I thought ours was bad, but jaysus the Brits, especially the English everyday people have it worse, if that's possible.

Like Westerham - where he lived - and Westminister, there should be a memorial in Dublin..........

Maybe. Well the supermarkets dump tonnes of out of date tomatoes and such a week, so a viable target might be an option alright...

Jesus H fcuking Christ, I've some time for Winston, great orator and historian, brave, but bogged down in self doubt and depression, his "black dog", but that didn't serve to diminish the man, even if I might have grave reservations about his opinions and actions at time. Yes a great statesman who late in life red flagged the Nazi bastards and as a pensioner FFS fought them for his country, while many in his parliament were all too in favour of them and he wasn't a bad painter(though Hitler was better with architectural stuff)... Yea all good, but seriously on your points, get a bloody clue. Going cheap at your nearest library. Avoid the books with too many pictures, as it might serve only to confuse.

Capt'n Midnight

kentreaper wrote: »

WHAT RUBBISH?


Any evidence, at all?

http://dfat.gov.au/publications/historical/volume-03/historical-document-03-391.html This proposed Act of Union was made public by the U.K. Govt on 17 June 1940 (see the Times, 18 June 1940, p. 6). The proposal lapsed with the resignation of the Reynaud Govt.


http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationship

After midnight on the morning of 8 December 1941 Churchill sent de Valera a message marked ‘Personal, Private and Secret.’ The contents of which read: ‘Now is your chance. Now or never. “A Nation once again”. Am ready to meet you at any time

Winston Churchill enjoyed a good joke. According to Dennis Kelly, one of Churchill’s former literary assistants, the following was one of his boss’s favorite stories, one that ‘he used to adore telling’: ‘British bomber over Berlin, caught in the searchlights, flak coming up, one engine on fire, rear-gunner wounded, Irish pilot mutters, “Thank God Dev kept us out of this bloody war.”’

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just the bit about gassing Kurds.
Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time). The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.

So you're saying that he was'nt in favour of gassing those pesky savages? Or he only wanted give them a light gassing that wouldnt kill many?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Churchill's_1919_War_Office_Memorandum

Seanchai said the British gassed the Kurds, that is not true.

The war office was bombing the Kurds to quell riots, personally I would much rather someone threw tear gas at me than bombed me from an aeroplane.

Seanchai wrote a deliberately misleading statement.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And of course one has to remember that the Poles got very little support when they were invaded.

And then were royally shafted by winnie after the war despite all the fighting they did for him.

More Roosevelt than Churchill actually. Roosevelt practically traded Poland for Russian agreement to create the UN and have it based in New York.

By the time of the Yalta conference Britain was on its last legs and had nothing to bargain with.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More Roosevelt than Churchill actually. Roosevelt practically traded Poland for Russian agreement to create the UN and have it based in New York.

By the time of the Yalta conference Britain was on its last legs and had nothing to bargain with.

Did winston sign the Yalta agreement? I mean, you're making it sound like britain was just a glorified bystander in the war while the yanks and soviets did all the heavy lifting. Surely that is'nt right?

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More Roosevelt than Churchill actually. Roosevelt practically traded Poland for Russian agreement to create the UN and have it based in New York.

I'm referring to 1940.


The whole D-Day thing was 1944.

But you are right in that had the US been as interested as the UK in liberating Poland & Co. then D-Day would have been aimed at supporting the war in Italy with a view to breaking out into Austria and beyond / linking up with Tito / other countries that tried to change sides. By invading France especially when they pulled troops from Italy to go to Southern France they acquiesced in the creation of the Soviet Block.

dpe

Bambi wrote: »

Did winston sign the Yalta agreement? I mean, you're making it sound like britain was just a glorified bystander in the war while the yanks and soviets did all the heavy lifting. Surely that is'nt right?

By Yalta, you're pretty much describing the exact state of affairs. Churchill was increasingly marginalised as Roosevelt and Stalin carved up the post-war world. There was very little Britain could do about Poland when there were a couple of million Soviet soldiers occupying the place in 1945. There was also the politically delicate issue that Britain's Soviet allies had already invaded Poland in 1939 as part of shameful Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Made it quite difficult to bring the subject up in polite conversion with Stalin...

kentreaper

Wibbs wrote: »

Hitler was around 12-13 years old by it's end.

Wibbs, most saw I was typing about Churchill.

Its clear you're not a Mod for history - which you are quick to make up.

But, you might consider adding sarcasm and straying off the point to your brief!

foxcat

kentreaper wrote: »

you might consider adding sarcasm and straying off the point to your brief!

Maybe, his sojourn with the brits in the Canaries was the start of it......

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

Did winston sign the Yalta agreement? I mean, you're making it sound like britain was just a glorified bystander in the war while the yanks and soviets did all the heavy lifting. Surely that is'nt right?

By Yalta, you're pretty much describing the exact state of affairs. Churchill was increasingly marginalised as Roosevelt and Stalin carved up the post-war world. There was very little Britain could do about Poland when there were a couple of million Soviet soldiers occupying the place in 1945. There was also the politically delicate issue that Britain's Soviet allies had already invaded Poland in 1939 as part of shameful Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Made it quite difficult to bring the subject up in polite conversion with Stalin...

By the time of Yalta the cold war was starting to take shape.

Roosevelt wanted all US troops back in the states, Churchill wanted them to stay in Europe. Without them there was nothing to stop Stalin marching all the way to the Atlantic.

Roosevelt want stupid, he knew Poland was a lost cause and made the moat of an irretrievable situation. Churchill was more passionate, but had nothing to bargain with.

Poland went a long way to costing Churchill his job. There was a lot of anger in Britain about giving them up, it was, after all, why Britain went to war in the first place.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By the time of Yalta the cold war was starting to take shape.

Roosevelt wanted all US troops back in the states, Churchill wanted them to stay in Europe. Without them there was nothing to stop Stalin marching all the way to the Atlantic.

Roosevelt want stupid, he knew Poland was a lost cause and made the moat of an irretrievable situation. Churchill was more passionate, but had nothing to bargain with.

Poland went a long way to costing Churchill his job. There was a lot of anger in Britain about giving them up, it was, after all, why Britain went to war in the first place.

Except Britain didn't really go to war for Poland back in 39 did they? Dropped a few leaflets on the Germans telling them what swine they were and called it a day. With allies like that you're better off neutral :P

ejmaztec

Bambi wrote: »

Except Britain didn't really go to war for Poland back in 39 did they? Dropped a few leaflets on the Germans telling them what swine they were and called it a day. With allies like that you're better off neutral :P

I think the main problem was that "rapid deployment" doesn't seem to have been heard of in those days, and the British just didn't have the logistical set-up to get them on the ground in Poland at short notice, so they trickled into France instead.

If they did manage to get into Poland, I think that both the Russians and the Germans would have minced them up between them.

dpe

Bambi wrote: »

Except Britain didn't really go to war for Poland back in 39 did they? Dropped a few leaflets on the Germans telling them what swine they were and called it a day. With allies like that you're better off neutral :P

Well, thanks for that bit of strategic insight. Proper Von Clausewitz you are aren't you? Try looking at a map.

Micky Dolenz

dpe wrote: »

Well, thanks for that bit of strategic insight. Proper Von Clausewitz you are aren't you? Try looking at a map.

Don't be such a menie.

For anyone interested, check out RAF Squadron 303. Consisted of Polish pilots. Amazing story with one of the best kill records in the RAF.

A British commander said " we (British) wanted to shot down planes, the 303 wanted to kill Germans"

Dyr

Probably had as much to do with the different training methods and the experience of fighting the luftwaffe that the polish pilots had.

The brits were still messing around with vic formations in 1940, while the poles had already learned that that **** would literally not fly against the luftwaffe.

dpe

Bambi wrote: »

Probably had as much to do with the different training methods and the experience of fighting the luftwaffe that the polish pilots had.

The brits were still messing around with vic formations in 1940, while the poles had already learned that that **** would literally not fly against the luftwaffe.

The RAF considered it bad form to shoot Luftwaffe pilots who'd bailed out and told the Poles to pack it in, so they took to flying over the top of their parachute to knock the air out instead. Those guys were playing for keeps...

Dyr

dpe wrote: »

The RAF considered it bad form to shoot Luftwaffe pilots who'd bailed out and told the Poles to pack it in, so they took to flying over the top of their parachute to knock the air out instead. Those guys were playing for keeps...

Granted the poles were sore about losing. There was an incident where a polish flyer shot up a german plane/crew after it had crash landed in Ireland which caused some complaining.

kentreaper

Bambi wrote: »

There was an incident where a polish flyer shot up a german plane/crew after it had crash landed in Ireland which caused some complaining.

Nothing wrong with that m8 - the crashed crew could have shot the Pole down.....

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

dpe wrote: »

The RAF considered it bad form to shoot Luftwaffe pilots who'd bailed out and told the Poles to pack it in, so they took to flying over the top of their parachute to knock the air out instead. Those guys were playing for keeps...

Granted the poles were sore about losing. There was an incident where a polish flyer shot up a german plane/crew after it had crash landed in Ireland which caused some complaining.

I guess when you've been on the receiving end of a blitzkreig offensive you get a little bit bitter

Micky Dolenz

Bambi wrote: »

Granted the poles were sore about losing. There was an incident where a polish flyer shot up a german plane/crew after it had crash landed in Ireland which caused some complaining.

Sore about losing? The fact that they saw their county and it's people raped, pillaged and murdered by the millions probably had a lot to do with their bitterness.

Dyr

kentreaper wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that m8 - the crashed crew could have shot the Pole down.....

yes matey there is, he was shooting up a plane that was downed on neutral territory.

I guess when you've been on the receiving end of a blitzkreig offensive you get a little bit bitter

It wasn't blitzkrieg though. But yes, people who are invaded, murdered and have their cultures suppressed do tend to feel strongly about the matter, and with just reason.

Unless, of course, it's the british empire that's doing the invading/murdering/supression

Micky Dolenz

Ireland were only neutral on paper though. Downed British airmen were sent home while German airmen were sent to a POW camp.

Dyr

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Ireland were only neutral on paper though. Downed British airmen were sent home while German airmen were sent to a POW camp.

Not necessarily, allied airmen were also interned. Including one aristocratic pole who was meant to be a right scaldy bollix to deal with

kentreaper

Bambi wrote: »

yes matey there is, he was shooting up a plane that was downed on neutral territory

If he thought the crashed crew could down him, he was correct to fire - no matter where he was!

Was the Pole supposed to know if he was in Northern or Southern Ireland?

Dyr

kentreaper wrote: »

If he thought the crashed crew could down him, he was correct to fire - no matter where he was!

Was the Pole supposed to know if he was in Northern or Southern Ireland?

Are you suggesting a downed plane was a threat to an airborne fighter, were they were going knock him out with 7.9 mm fire as he pissed past at 180 mph?

kentreaper

Bambi wrote: »

were they were going knock him out with 7.9 mm fire as he pissed past at 180 mph?

And you got these new facts/figures, where?

ejmaztec

kentreaper wrote: »

And you got these new facts/figures, where?

Probably from "The Book of the Blindingly Obvious".

The only usable weapons that the aircrew had would have been handguns, and they would probably have been too busy looking for the first aid box or someone's missing limb.

indioblack

Bambi wrote: »

Except Britain didn't really go to war for Poland back in 39 did they? Dropped a few leaflets on the Germans telling them what swine they were and called it a day. With allies like that you're better off neutral :P

Yeah, imagine Britain declaring war and them doing nothing. They might as well have taken a back seat, declared neutrality and pontificated from the sidelines.

indioblack

dpe wrote: »

The RAF considered it bad form to shoot Luftwaffe pilots who'd bailed out and told the Poles to pack it in, so they took to flying over the top of their parachute to knock the air out instead. Those guys were playing for keeps...

And as regards the leaflet raids, some aircrew were simply chucking the tied bundles out of the aircraft - this had to stop as it might hit someone on the head.
They were also ordered not to empty the contents of the Elsan chemical toilets over Germany as this might be construed as chemical warfare.

Wibbs

kentreaper wrote: »

Wibbs, most saw I was typing about Churchill.

Its clear you're not a Mod for history - which you are quick to make up.

Might I respectfully suggest you re read your own post on the matter

You said wrote:

At the Boer War, he later saw what Hitler was going to do - and was right

The Boer war. Over by the turn of the 20th century. When Hitler was in knee pants. How in gods name did Winston see what an Austrian schoolboy was going to do 30 years later? Hey maybe Winnie was channeling the spirit world as was mighty popular at the time? And you accuse me of making up history? Try again I'm afraid.

kentreaper wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that m8 - the crashed crew could have shot the Pole down.....

Well ejmaztec points out the obvious flaw in your argument. I shoot you down, you crash land. For you zee war iz over. Any practical tactical threat is gone. How do I avoid being shot down by you? By flying away, or by going in for the kill with a strafing run? Answers on a postcard please...

"The Book of the Blindingly Obvious" indeed. Even going for a strafing run at 150 mph it would be one helluva lucky shot from a handgun to shoot me down. Even if and it's a big if, they were in a position and had enough time to extricate one of the MG's from the wreckage, try holding and aiming and shooting one singlehanded at a fast moving monoplane bearing down on you. Even properly mounted MG emplacements had a hard time and needed skill and luck and not a little bravery to shoot down a strafing fighter. I've been reading Heinz Knoke "I flew for the Fuhrer" recently and he mentions successfully strafing MG AA emplacements on the eastern front with no loss to himself. The Polish pilot was simply going for the kill end of. The morality of that is an entirely different question.

Though for me personally shooting men who are out of the action, either on the ground or hanging in parachutes is pretty scumbaggy behavior. All sides were accused of it and wild rumours and propaganda was bandied about again on all sides. Actually in the same book mentioned above Knoke saw a fellow flyer being machine gunned in his parachute by an American pilot and he was nearly fired on himself. Of the personal accounts over the years I've read a parachuting pilot was generally safer if his opponents were Germans or British, both seemed to keep the notion of "fair play", a pilot was in more peril if Japanese or Soviet(and other eastern Europeans) and occasionally Americans were involved.

A similar situation was in play in the case of the treatment of pilot POW's. Allied pilots caught by the Germans could generally expect fair treatment(unless they were Russian). Watched a good programme recently on the last of the British bomber pilots and one gentleman who was Jewish with an obvious Jewish sounding name was captured as a POW and even he survived the experience. Also look at the investigations after the war. The allies hunted down those responsible for the massacre of POW's following the "Great escape" as shown in the movie. It was a rare enough event that required a follow up. It went the other way too. Germans almost to a man recount the fair treatment of German POW's by the Brits. This continued after the war too. Germans were better treated in British zones than the others. The Russians were unreal, the French were right bastards overall, the Americans were a step above both, but not as much as the Brits. On the other hand being captured by the Japanese was not so good and being captured by the Russians in the majority of cases meant being summarily shot.

Dyr

ejmaztec wrote: »

Probably from "The Book of the Blindingly Obvious".

The only usable weapons that the aircrew had would have been handguns, and they would probably have been too busy looking for the first aid box or someone's missing limb.

Technically you might be able to swing a dorsal gun skywards after crash landing, sweet FA chance of hitting anything (If the other guy obliged by strafing you I suppose your chances might improve slightly :pac:)

Interestingly, luftwaffe crews were known to carry proper firearms or detach the on board machine guns after being downed. The last foreign army action on British soil was the crew of a JU 88 getting into a firefight with local troops sent to secure the downed plane.