# Which Air Force would you have liked to fly with in WW2



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

Just a thread. Which air force and why? And what plane would you have liked to flown in? 

I would say, personally, Luftwaffe. I think they had great a arsenal of aircraft that were very lethal. I would've liked to flown in a He-111 bomber.

(Hey I typed in for the title, which Air Force and it only came out, which air. )

I searched to see if a thread like this was already started. There wasn't.

I know AVG wasn't an Air Force, but I thought they should be included.


----------



## BillF (Sep 27, 2009)

The Luftwaffe until 1944. They had amazing aircraft. Period. They had fantastic pilots. Period.

They had evil and horrible leadership thankfully which eventually sunk them. Plus the Russians on one side, the Americans, Brits, French, Italians and just about everyone else on the other...

After 1944, stick me with the Americans or Russians.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 27, 2009)

I'd go with Poland. I enjoy being an underdog.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

Poland had a pretty good air force but was hardly mentioned on what they accomplished.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2009)

I want to fly in a photo mapping squadron in the south pacific. All the fun of flying with few of the risks of combat.


----------



## phatzo (Sep 27, 2009)

choose raaf but as an after thought the finns had themselves a good air war against the russians.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 27, 2009)

Ah, I have to say USAF. The Luftwaffe had very talented pilots, but in terms of survivalbility, the US has an advantage. I'd say RAF, but I wouldn't understand all the English dialect.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 27, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> Just a thread. Which air force and why? And what plane would you have liked to flown in?
> 
> I would say, personally, Luftwaffe. I think they had great a arsenal of aircraft that were very lethal. I would've liked to flown in a He-111 bomber.
> 
> ...


Tough question, tough decision...

I am an American, and my first instinct is naturally to fly American. I also have deep German ancestry, and that's my second choice, but that would be a tough one, because the German pilots were at war longer than the U.S. and the pilots flew more than one sortie perday...and there was no "50 mission" rotation policy...they were there for the duration.

(By the way, there were 10 Axis airforces and 19 Allied airforces that fought at some point during the war)


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

I added some major ones


----------



## claidemore (Sep 27, 2009)

hmmmm, you missed the fourth largest allied airforce. 
RCAF.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

Da**it I missed it. Sorry.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> I added some major ones


They were all major, in one way or another! 

(look at my T-Shirt logo...that'll give you a good list of the airforces!  )


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 28, 2009)

F*ck ur right, I shoud've done that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2009)

LMAO


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 28, 2009)

Well, if this thread is any success I'll remember for part II


----------



## RAF_Loke (Sep 28, 2009)

I'll go with the US.
I'm sure that they got the best babes when they were in Britain


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

My choice would be one of the following:

1. The Luftwaffe. Purely because of the aircraft and because of my interest in the history of it.

2. US Navy in a PBY unit on anti sub duty in the Caribbean. Beaches, Cocktails and Women...


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2009)

I would go US for at least three reasons. 

The first was Training. Just about every pilot was in training for a year from pre-flight through Advanced and the weather for training enabled not just US but also RAF, RCAF, etc pilot training to be accomodated.

The second reason was sheer variety, numbers and quality of aircraft coming off assembly lines in 1943 - unmolested by Axis.

Resources. Material, factories, methods, new tooling and skilled personnel.


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 28, 2009)

I would go with Luftwaffe. Great aircraft. My aircraft would be the Bf-109 (all models)


----------



## Glider (Sep 28, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My choice would be one of the following:
> 
> US Navy in a PBY unit on anti sub duty in the Caribbean. Beaches, Cocktails and Women...



Go to the back of the queue


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

Glider said:


> Go to the back of the queue



What are you talking about me and Joe have been in charge of it since the last time this thread came around!


----------



## Glider (Sep 28, 2009)

Mods throwing their weight around again, I don't know


----------



## davebender (Sep 28, 2009)

The Schweizer Luftwaffe works for me. You get to fly an Me-109 but don't get immersed in the WWII blood bath.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

Glider said:


> Mods throwing their weight around again, I don't know





You are hired as navigator on our bird...


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 28, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I would go US for at least three reasons.
> 
> The first was Training. Just about every pilot was in training for a year from pre-flight through Advanced and the weather for training enabled not just US but also RAF, RCAF, etc pilot training to be accomodated.
> 
> .



Not really familiar with the RCAF being trained in the US however the USAAF was a very large recipient of trained instructors from the RCAF post Pearl Harbour which probably expedited the training of USAAF crews. For those not aware over 8000 Americans joined the RCAF pre Pearl Harbour some 6000 opted to join the USAAF after Pearl many of these were instructors that continued in this role in the US


----------



## herman1rg (Sep 28, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Ah, I have to say USAF. The Luftwaffe had very talented pilots, but in terms of survivalbility, the US has an advantage. I'd say RAF, but I wouldn't understand all the English dialect.



I say Old chap, cant understand the Old English Idiom What What. Toodle Pip Old Boy!


----------



## LWulf (Sep 28, 2009)

Some threads motivated me to fly for the IJN in a A6M2/3 just to get to shoot at Wildcats.


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 28, 2009)

I can tell you the one I would not want to fly with for sure, I would not want to fly with any Japanese outfit.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 28, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I want to fly in a photo mapping squadron in the south pacific. All the fun of flying with few of the risks of combat.



Ditto


----------



## BikerBabe (Sep 28, 2009)

I say, I'd rather give it a go with the RAF boys. 
Excellent training at the outbreak of war, wonderful aircraft, and being given the chance of flying a Supermarine Spitfire, anyone?
Tally-Ho, lads! 

*whispers*...or of course the Luftwaffe. Bril aircraft, shi**y leaders, darned good pilots.


----------



## Skip M (Sep 28, 2009)

The USAF did not do anything during WW2. I would preffer to be in the USAAC. They at least did a lot. Still like the USN more with the Enterprise.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 28, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> I say Old chap, cant understand the Old English Idiom What What. Toodle Pip Old Boy!



Yup, that's it Go to land, not understand the instructions, crash in terrain.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 28, 2009)

United States Army Air Forces or US Naval Aviation

As previously stated below, a wide variety of excellent machines to fly, great training and logistical support 2nd to none. 

Not to mention being on the winning side. 

TO


----------



## Doughboy (Sep 28, 2009)

United States Army Air corps because of the wide variety of (excellent) machines to fly.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2009)

Skip M said:


> The USAF did not do anything during WW2. I would preffer to be in the USAAC. They at least did a lot. Still like the USN more with the Enterprise.


You lost me there, Skip...

The USAAC (United States Army Air Corps) became the USAAF (United States Army Air Forces) on 22 June 1941, and later broke away from the Army and became it's own branch, the USAF (United States Air Force) on 18 September 1947.

So actually, the USAAC didn't see action in WWII...


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> You lost me there, Skip...
> 
> The USAAC (United States Army Air Corps) became the USAAF (United States Army Air Forces) on 22 June 1941, and later broke away from the Army and became it's own branch, the USAF (United States Air Force) on 18 September 1947.
> 
> So actually, the USAAC didn't see action in WWII...



no USAAC was a branch of USAAF in '41 - '47 so it combat


----------



## Skip M (Sep 29, 2009)

The survey first listed USAF and it has since been changed. All I was pointing out that many people posted that they liked the USAF during WW2 when it was not around yet.


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 29, 2009)

Yes could you also include the USN, USMC, IJN, Fleet Air Arm etc in Part II 

I voted for the RNZAF - I'm not a Kiwi but a.) They flew the F4U (my favourite fighter) well built and radial powered; b.) they didn't see that much action at least in the Pacific which is what I have in mind. 

All the other air forces mentioned generally had a tough time in their respective theatres, some more than others. Survival rates for most were pretty bad at some point or other.

BTW interesting poll !!


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 29, 2009)

In no particular order....

Luftwaffe for its geniality(?), well, most of the time anyway....
USAAF/USN for pure strength....
RAF for the spirit etc,...
VVS (Soviet Union) for the ruggedness(?)....
...and so on.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 29, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> Yes could you also include the USN, USMC, IJN, Fleet Air Arm etc in Part II
> 
> I voted for the RNZAF - I'm not a Kiwi but a.) They flew the F4U (my favourite fighter) well built and radial powered; b.) they didn't see that much action at least in the Pacific which is what I have in mind.
> 
> ...



The RNZAF was very much in tough combat I believe 103 kiwis in BoB and were very active in the Pacific


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 30, 2009)

My apologies, no disrespect to the RNZAF intended .

I did however specify the Pacific where yes they were active but maybe not as much as the USN, USMC etc.

Yes - not only the BOB but probably every theatre / campaign fought by the RAF. Neither must one forget leaders such as Keith Park.


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 30, 2009)

Changed my mind. I'ill be true to my avatar and fly for the RAF Coastal Command. 
Sunderlands, PBY Catalinas, and B24s all the way out into the gray expanses of the Atlantic. 

Not the most glamorous tasks but vital.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 30, 2009)

The RAF just so I could fly low level photo recon Spitfires. Going to war in an unarmed pink aeroplane how cool is that


----------



## Juha (Oct 2, 2009)

While in general I would have preferred to serve in the Finnish Air Force, that being a rather small band of skilful and very motivated people and was one of the least “Spit and polish “ type air force in the world IMHO the odds against which they fought were so big and water being here in springs and in autumns so cold and there was no rescue service to speak, so I choose RAF in Med area late in the war. Flying Spit Mk VIII over Italy, I know that winters there are not nice but they are anyway mild if compared what they are here. Italy also had mountainous areas but here there are vast forests. And in Italy red wine supply was indefinitely better.

Juha


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 18, 2011)

Lucky will understand my choice .. . ... rugged and good machines.

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 18, 2011)

I never realized the engine was THAT close to the pilot in a P-39, imagine the heat in the summer, and what will likely happen in a crash landing.

And look a the second picture, the cover on the front tire, to prevent sun damage to the rubber tire I guess.


----------



## Readie (Dec 18, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> View attachment 187283
> View attachment 187284
> 
> 
> ...



Hard to see out of though Michael 
I would love to have been able to fly so many allied planes. Very hard to choose just one.
Must I?
Well...ok, that would have to be a Spitfire with a Merlin of course.
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 18, 2011)

"... what will likely happen in a crash landing."

Myth. Experience showed that the engine compartment stayed "put" and they pancaked (wheels up) in like penguins in the snow .....  [Minimal repairs]

Then there was that poor bast**d who landed wheels down on the ice .... and undid his safety harness _before_ ... just in case. He was long dead when the plane sank through in the Spring.

Life.

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 18, 2011)

Was the door considered an advantage or disadvantage Micheal?
John


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 18, 2011)

I guess with the propeller not directly connected to the engine there was nothing to apply force to the engine to tear it from the engine mounts. But it's still got a strong structure up front for the 37mm cannon. Might have been one of the safer WW2 aircraft to crash land in.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 18, 2011)

".... Was the door considered an advantage or disadvantage Michael?"

Not enough so _the British_ didn't use it (the door) on early Typhoons, John ....  .... actually .... both doors were jettisonable .... though the pilot's left was awkward to access. I don't think bail-outs were a big issue ..... roll right .... loose straps ... lose door .... voila. No harder than inverting IMHO .

You could roll the windows too, but not at flying speed .... 

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 18, 2011)

You mean you couldn't hang your elbows on the window sills at 250 kts ? That must have been hell.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 18, 2011)

i would have thought that procedure in any forced landing would have been to unlatch the door....not open it all the way just unlatch it. if the landing bows the airframe the door could be jammed shut and the pilot not able to get out. if the door was ajar the frame could flex but the door remain free to be opened.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 19, 2011)

.... maybe it was, bobby. 

All I know was that Soviets would always try to limp back to airfield as opposed to jumping because the odds of crash landing wheels up were that good.

MM


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 21, 2011)

I hate rain, and fear drowning, so the Pacific is out. I hate cold, and the 'ole drowning thing, so flying for the Brits or U.S. from England is out. The cold wipes out Russia. Then again I hate dust, and too hot, so out goes any Air Force in Africa. In my mind that leaves me with the 15th AF / 325th FG in Italy. Lovely Mediterranian weather. Put me in a Warhawk, Thunderbolt, Lightning, Mustang, Spitfire. Wait, I will stay down low, and in warmer air and closer to base in the P-40!


----------



## Readie (Dec 22, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Was the door considered an advantage or disadvantage Michael?"
> 
> Not enough so _the British_ didn't use it (the door) on early Typhoons, John ....  .... actually .... both doors were jettisonable .... though the pilot's left was awkward to access. I don't think bail-outs were a big issue ..... roll right .... loose straps ... lose door .... voila. No harder than inverting IMHO .
> 
> ...



I hope the windows were wind down so one could causally flick a fag end out before engaging with Jerry. 
But, then again you had to go the 'right school' to have the correct level of languid arrogance 

John


----------



## futuredogfight (Aug 5, 2013)

Finnish, Fighting for the right cause using "bad" equipment (B-239 and Hawk 75) and looking good while doing it. Plus they had some cool German equipment.


----------



## pattle (Aug 5, 2013)

I think the Portugese Air Force would have been the best Air Force to fly in during World War Two.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 5, 2013)

I am American of English and Italian ancestry. 

So, USAAC (later USAAF) or USN. Since hitler was an evil piece of filth, had I been German, I hope had I sufficient morals to emigrate before fighting for him. Mussolini was a bombastic ass; I'd not want to fight for him, either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> I am American of English and Italian ancestry.
> 
> So, USAAC (later USAAF) or USN. Since hitler was an evil piece of filth, had I been German, I hope had I sufficient morals to emigrate before fighting for him. Mussolini was a bombastic ass; I'd not want to fight for him, either.



So if you were German and did not leave Germany and immigrate, you lacked sufficient morals? 

Really? Seriously?



Really looking forward to this response...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 6, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ...Really looking forward to this response...


My Teutonic/Saxon ancestry is also

(But it seems my Scottish ancestry is having a drink and not paying attention  )


----------



## pattle (Aug 6, 2013)

I have always been a bit confused by the ambiguous attitude towards the war that I have noticed in Germans of my own generation born in the (60's and 70's). On one hand they are anti Nazi and on the other hand they recent losing the war, they seem to feel cheated and especially annoyed about the part played by Britain in their defeat.

Written by a German Pastor.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.
Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up for me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 6, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> My Teutonic/Saxon ancestry is also
> 
> (But it seems my Scottish ancestry is having a drink and not paying attention  )


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 6, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So if you were German and did not leave Germany and immigrate, you lacked sufficient morals?
> 
> Really? Seriously?
> 
> ...



Looking from 80 years in the future, yes. Looking from the vantage of 1938, it's probably a much more difficult decision. I find it very, very difficult not to feel that the governments of both hitler and stalin were deeply immoral institutions, and it's certain that the bases of the nazi ideology -- anti-semiticism and racism -- were morally indefensible.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 6, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Looking from 80 years in the future, yes. Looking from the vantage of 1938, it's probably a much more difficult decision. I find it very, very difficult not to feel that the governments of both hitler and stalin were deeply immoral institutions, and it's certain that the bases of the nazi ideology -- anti-semiticism and racism -- were morally indefensible.


As far as the politicians and thier boot lickers go, sure...but what about the poor bastard at home, working day to day, feeding his family and watching the events unfold in the papers...

At the beginning, the population was stirred by the prospect that thier nation would emerge prosperous from the ruins of WWI and national pride swept the citizens. It wasn't until they were already committed that the cold hard truth started to set in. By then, it was too late.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 6, 2013)

I know that there was an active anti-nazi movement in Germany, at least from hitler's assumption of power, in the same way as there was a dissident movement in the USSR. As I said, it's much easier to make this sort of pronouncement over seventy years after the fact.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 6, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Looking from 80 years in the future, yes. Looking from the vantage of 1938, it's probably a much more difficult decision. I find it very, very difficult not to feel that the governments of both hitler and stalin were deeply immoral institutions, and it's certain that the bases of the nazi ideology -- anti-semiticism and racism -- were morally indefensible.



The govt. was an evil regime yes, but it did not show that in the beginning. Hitler was a New York Times man of the year. The country was in ruins and he gave them hope. 

Millions of people living in a country are not lacking in morals by being born into a country. Were millions going to immigrate? Where would they go? Were the soldiers and citizens living in the US when the govt. and army were massacring native americans and pushing them off their lands lacking in morals? 

Also a soldier fighting for his country does not make him lacking in morals, especially when the majority had no choice. In Hitlers regime, it was rather unhealthy to decline service in one form or another.

My Grandfather was in the Wehrmacht, so was my wife's. I can tell you they were not lacking in any morals any more than my American Grandfather who fought on the US side anf landed in Normandy. He was fighting to live another day, and get home to his family.

The vast majority of soldiers on all sides acted with dignity and honor...


----------



## pattle (Aug 7, 2013)

It was a long time ago and we are all friends now. After the war the German state had the courage and honesty to take responsibility for what it did under Hitler, nobody can turn back the clock so lets leave it at that gents.


----------



## s1chris (Aug 8, 2013)

It hardly takes courage and honesty to admit the plainly obvious?

A colleague of mine who is German but works in the US told me a very humbling story about his father that illustrated to me that there is good and bad in all and that not all Germans actually wanted to fight. 

His father was in the Wehrmacht from the start of the war and survived the whole war. When in Poland his father was instructed to be part of a firing squad that was tasked on this particular occasion to execute a group of Polish Jews. This wasn't what his father believed in (not being a Nazi supporter). So made a request to his superior to not take part. The officer turned to him and said (in short) "of course, I will allow you not to take part as i do not believe this right. However understand that you are lucky, I have no choice!". It was strange when he told me because it really wasn't what I expected to hear. I am not that nieve to think that the Germans were a bunch of barbarians but it showed to me that the actions of a few shouldn't be taken as representative of the masses.

Anyways reference the Poll in this thread. Would be interesting to see the nationality of the people of who voted for who. 

Cheers Chris


----------



## pattle (Aug 8, 2013)

s1chris said:


> It hardly takes courage and honesty to admit the plainly obvious?
> 
> Tell that to the Russians who are still living a lie. When I was a little boy it was very clear to me that the British Army had won the war and that we were the goodies and the Germans the baddies, we even used to have fights over who was going to be the Germans because nobody wanted to be them. How did German kids in the 60's and 70's feel when they watched war films or played soldiers etc, were they supposed to be glad or sorry when their own side was blown up? There is something very unnatural and confusing about this situation.


----------



## s1chris (Aug 9, 2013)

True, but they must deal with the consequences that their previous generations have left for them. 
You could say the same for us. How do the elder and younger generation of where I live (Coventry) feel when they walk into a City Centre that was pretty much completely destroyed. No doubt that most will have lost somebody and we have what remains of the Catherdral as a constant reminder. 

Our history - Coventry Cathedral

We were the "good guy's" but still can't escape the horrors even on our own soil in this present day.

Maybe it's personal because of where i live, but I know the Luftwaffe shaped the future of Coventry until this present day. Give us back out complete medieval city and we could start to forget. It's not a pretty site with housing around the city that was rushed up post war and still stands today. The City is scarred and we will certainly never forget the ruthless bombing of it. Check the word Coventrate and its meaning. coventrate - Wiktionary

The Russians, however. Different story.

Cheers Chris


----------



## pattle (Aug 9, 2013)

I have never been to Coventry city centre so I don't know what it looks like today, I realise it was flattened completely during the war so I can understand what you are saying as living in Southampton you see similar sights. I am quite familiar with Portsmouth and Plymouth both of which were bombed much more heavily than Southampton. I think the post war planners did a nice job in Plymouth, an average job in Southampton and a truly horrible one in Pompey, Pompey is not so bad now but used to regularly get voted as Britain's most ugly city, it also had Britain's most ugly building the Tricorn Centre. I hope nobody from Portsmouth has read this.


----------



## Alex . (Aug 9, 2013)

Shame they didn't flatten Wolverhampton  Hate that place.

I would go for the RAF though, Mosquitos are one of my favourites and would have jumped at the chance. Or the Fleet Air Arm for a go in the Sea Fury!


----------



## s1chris (Aug 9, 2013)

To be honest the Luftwaffe could make a change for the good now! 
I work as a supplier to Jaguar Landrover and had to go to Southampton once to change a set of wheels on a Jag. I can see why it was such an attractive target for the Luftwaffe. Those docks are huge! I never got the chance to see the town centre as it was an in and out job.


----------



## s1chris (Aug 9, 2013)

I'll second that about Wolvo Alex. The only good thing about that place was the Polish war vet who lived in the middle of the ring road. Sad story about him though.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 9, 2013)

s1chris said:


> It hardly takes courage and honesty to admit the plainly obvious?
> 
> A colleague of mine who is German but works in the US told me a very humbling story about his father that illustrated to me that there is good and bad in all and that not all Germans actually wanted to fight.
> 
> ...



In the book _Hitler's Willing Executioners_, a (flawed) history of German soldiers and their execution of racial policies in occupied Europe, it was reported that the soldiers were allowed to opt-out of murdering1​ non-Jewish peoples not of the "master" race; they were not so allowed with regards to Jews. I suspect that the rigor with which this was enforced depended on the particular unit and the fervor of its officers and NCOs: one or two soldiers opting out of a unit are showing a great deal of courage. It is also true that the nazis found willing accomplices to implement its anti-Semitic (and anti-Rom and anti-what-have-you) policies in all the occupied countries, except maybe Denmark (sneaking all the Jews out of the country was brilliant and incredibly courageous).

---------------

1: Obviously, under nazi laws these were not murders. However, I think that everybody would agree that rounding up random civilians (or prisoners) and shooting them just because of their ethnicity or religion is murder. So where cases like the rounding up of and killing of civilians at Ardeatine Caves and the killing of everybody in Lidice.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2013)

There were many examples of people who refused to bend to the will of the Nazi party like the Bulgarians, for example, who refused to turn over captured Allied aircrews to the Germans and resisted purging their population of "untermensch" all under the orders of King Boris.

It's easy for many people to sit back and point fingers and offer opinions, but the reality is, that as with the vast majority of militaries around the world, orders are to be obeyed. Defining the "enemy" depends on that soldier's leaders, who tell him who the enemy is. It's not up to the Landser or Dogface or Tommy to make that decision. And in some cases, objections to follow orders could result in harsh disclipline. An example would be the Red Army during Stalingrad where the penalty for retreat was instant death by the political squads who sat at the rear of the lines and shot anyone coming back.


----------



## pattle (Aug 9, 2013)

The Bulgarians gained an terrible reputation during their occupation of Greece after 1941, they are reputed to have been worse than even the Germans.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2013)

pattle said:


> The Bulgarians gained an terrible reputation during their occupation of Greece after 1941, they are reputed to have been worse than even the Germans.


I your referring to statistics based on Antonios Fosteridis, I'd suggest reading up on that a little further before forming an opinion.

As far as this being relevant to the forum's favorite airforce, I'd say it's not...the thread is drifting quite a bit, actually.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 9, 2013)

Many of the countries on the continent of Europe had very nationalistic governments, with explicitly xenophobic ideologies (iirc, there were some groups _worse_ than the nazis) after WW1, and many of these actively persecuted minorities (in Bulgaria, the minorities were probably Turks and Greeks). That they continued these policies, and even worsened them when they occupied another country is not surprising.


----------



## pattle (Aug 9, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I your referring to statistics based on Antonios Fosteridis, I'd suggest reading up on that a little further before forming an opinion.
> 
> As far as this being relevant to the forum's favorite airforce, I'd say it's not...the thread is drifting quite a bit, actually.



Hey, don't get angry at me for daring to make a comment that you feel challenged by. You were using Bulgaria as an example of some kind of liberal safe haven within the axis powers, I only pointed out that it was not. The Bulgarians were guilty of transporting the Jews of Macedonia and Thrace to the death camps, they were also guilty of annexing those territories and of the ethnic cleansing of Greeks. These things are well known and accepted as having happened, I have never heard them being disputed before and to be honest your going down the road of holocaust denial.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2013)

pattle said:


> Hey, don't get angry at me for daring to make a comment that you feel challenged by. You were using Bulgaria as an example of some kind of liberal safe haven within the axis powers, I only pointed out that it was not. The Bulgarians were guilty of transporting the Jews of Macedonia and Thrace to the death camps, they were also guilty of annexing those territories and of the ethnic cleansing of Greeks. These things are well known and accepted as having happened, I have never heard them being disputed before and to be honest your going down the road of holocaust denial.


Actualy, that was simply a matter-of-fact statement. No anger implied. A brief note about the territories, those had been taken away from Bulgaria after WWI and much like other nations before and during WWII, they sought to reclaim them.
As far as jews and other peoples are concerned, the Bulgarians did not allow any deportations within thier soveriegn territory. They also refused to hand over captured Allied aviators to the Germans.
They could not have any say over occupied territories that were held jointly by the Italians, Germans and other Axis allies.

And again, I'll suggest this isn't the right thread for this discussion...


----------



## pattle (Aug 10, 2013)

What led to this side of things being discussed was a post made earlier in this thread in which a member questioned the morality of remaining in Germany after the Nazis had come to power. This thread is a poll on which Air Force would you have liked to fly with in World War Two and I have noticed that a number of people have voted for the Luftwaffe. I assume this is because those people find the Luftwaffe and it's aircraft the most interesting of all and not because they would have wished to fight for Nazi Germany. However I feel a moral side to this poll does exist. 
If you would like to take a look at Yad Vashem - Request Rejected website/Bulgaria.asp and then maybe do a quick google for things like Bulgarian war crimes Greece you will read both what happened to the Greeks and Jews within Bulgarian annexed Greece.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 10, 2013)

futuredogfight said:


> Finnish, Fighting for the right cause using "bad" equipment (B-239 and Hawk 75) and looking good while doing it. Plus they had some cool German equipment.


how where they fighting for the right cause? Allying with Nazi Germany is not a right cause in my book. If you're referring to the Winterwar, you're mentioning the wrong aircraft, they mainly used Fokker D.21's in that one.


----------

