Not quite understanding modern outrage

A user on this board posted a WWII German item for sale and didn't post pics because the item had the swastika on it and he didn't want to offend. It is a kind gesture from the poster. But...

Over on a guitar forum that I frequent someone started a thread featuring vintage warplanes so I posted a picture and mentioned the THREE Focke Wulf FW190s that live down the road from me. The pic is of two of them in the WWII hangar from Cottbus, Germany, in which they reside.

residing https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...oWarbird-1.jpg

Within a short time a person posted, highly offended, saying he thought both the displaying of the flag and my posting of the picture with the flag were in extremely poor taste. Now, this picture was shot at a museum that houses many, many WWII aircraft (most flying) from the U.S., Britain, Germany, the U.S.S.R., and soon Italy.

What has happened to our culture when people can't handle history in the context of a museum?

Bob

Individuals like to claim outrage because they take enjoyment from it, and the attention that follows, it's just the way some people are. Someone in that case is failing to observe the context, spirit, and intent of the display before coming down on someone.

Personally, I have always thought that prop spinner design on the plane in the back is very neat, and I have been thinking about applying a similar scheme to one of my supercharger pullies.

A lot of people out there re-writing history by omitting it completely. Sad days...

Russ

[B]What has happened to our culture when people can't handle history in the context of a museum?

Bob [B]
"Those who are unable to learn from history are destined to repeate it"

Tell said person to put his big boy pants on and shut up. If he's looking for a "safe space" history doesn't offer it whether he likes it or not. He's just spewing PC nonsense. It's all the rage nowadays, I refuse to play along.
I would be a "Bully" and remind the guy he's never won a fist fight and has never been with a women so why would anyone care what he thinks an see how he likes them apples. That's just me though. :D

Some people in my generation are weak individuals who take offence to everything. I have long since accepted that no matter what you do someone will take offence to it for whatever reason. That is there right, just as it is my right to do things they find offensive.

For example some of those same people who take 'offence' to the swastika don't take offence to Chinas flag or the Hammer and Sickle even though more people were killed in the name of 'equality' under those two symbols (or even one of them) than were killed due to people under the swastika. Its all about perspective and history is written by the victors. The more people research the more they will understand all these things other nations are demonized for has happened elsewhere (might be in a different time, but they still happened, in fact I can't think of a single culture or empire which didn't commit similar offences at some point in time). The British empire was built on genocide, the Americans wiped out whole tribes of aboriginals, the French Revolution killed thousands in the name of public safety, the Romans destroyed tons of cultures, etc. I could keep going all day.

The suppression of learning (which is becoming a serious issue) is resulting in uneducated 'educated' people who fail to understand why the world is the way it is and how it got to this point. Recently I had a horrible 'social learning' class, that the teacher knew a fair bit of the social issues attacking our society but he failed to understand how it got to that point. There were many points in time I had to EDUCATE the teacher (which isn't what I am spending my money on) as to why things were happening, as he didn't understand much of the history behind it all. All we can do is learn from from the past, and try to prevent it from happening in the future (though we are failing at the prevention part as Syria is showing us currently). Failure to learn from others mistakes means we are doomed to commit them ourselves.

Note I tried to keep the post non-political primarily showing how we get these offended people. If any point is excessively political please feel free to delete it or let me know and I can delete it.

Keeping in the spirit ot the aviation nature of the OP.
Please fasten your seat belts and place your seats in the upright position. I think the ride is going to get bumpy now that the educated (indoctrinated) are in charge.
While I am acutely aware of the horror the swastika and other symbols represent purging the history associated with them will simply make it easier for the uneducated to fall for the same bananna in the tailpipe again (please see the film Beverly Hills Cop for explination of the bananna refrence.)

I'm not particularly fond of the North Vietnamese flag, or that of any Communist country. For that matter, I'm not fond of Lenin's picture or the Che Guevara shirts the Uni students cherish either, but I don't get 'cheesed off' every time I see one. The small minded subset of humanity that gets its knickers in a twist at the slightest infringement of political correctness needs a reality check.

With that, these, the aircraft and the flags, are simply historical relics much like an Egyptian chariot, a Greek Statue, Roman Gladius, a Viking long ship, or even the Tower of London and Dachau or Auschwitz. They are a part of our history and to deny history is to deny how we became who we are.


I'll add here that one of my ancestors, Sir Isaac Pennington, was a Lieutenant of the Tower before he became its prisoner and died there ~1666. The Tower doesn't offend me either.

OK the really important question, is that a Dora (D9) or a TA152??

The 152 had an inline am I correct, the butcher bird was a very nasty surprise for the Allies pilots when it hit the skies they tried to combat it with a clipped wing version of the spitfire to increase the roll rate and an engine with a smaller blower impeller which ended up being inferior to the 190 anyway.
The pilots who flew that particular type of spitfire against the 190 called that mark of the spitfire " Clipped, Cropped and Clapped "

cinders, both the 190D9 and the TA152 ran inline engines.

i love how the designers used the exhaust to disrupt the airflow to mate the round cowl (radial) to a slab sided body. very clever.

Bob,
I have just had the same dilemna. A friend who is an accomplished REME fitter has collected for many years WW2 vehicles which he has always marvelled at the simplicity of their reliable construction. One such vehicle I have put up on the site is his Type 82 1943 Kublewagen in Afrika Corps markings as it was. (With no photos)
It comes with everything original that would have been in the vehicle and its trailer which in itself is like "Rocking horse ****".
It comes with the obvious marking of the swastika on nearly everything and the usual red flag that draped over the bonnet. To counter that when the British captured German vehicles they draped the RAF roundel over the bonnet, it has that too.
Everything on the vehicle including ALL the DEAC weapons are authentic, and I would class this as a 100% Museum piece because of it.

So yes it is an issue that some people find offensive, but it is part of history and "We should never forget" and by so doing show it as it was IMHO!

Here in Germany, it is definitely verboten to apply any symbol designating National Socialism on anything that is on public display. So therefore, a vintage aircraft that is privately owned could display the Iron Cross, but not a swastika on the tail. The only exception is for items displayed in a museum depicting their historical relevance. Germans generally might find the US practise of openly displaying Nazi symbols amusing, but slightly naive. And definitely not to be tolerated locally. Personally, I´m not complaining ...

Same problem right now in the US with the Confederate flag. Add to that the problem that people don't know which flag is the correct flag and assume they all are and all are bad. They are also removing monuments. It is erasing history and it's being done by a very vocal minority.

It's in vogue these days to be seen as politically correct, and to be aware of what others perceive as politically correct. Not that it does any good...yes, that long nose 190 is stellar...you don't see those too often. Very nice, and a huge $ collection.

Yes agreed, but I even see our Union Flag flying, sometimes on Government buildings upside down and that makes my blood boil grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Saw a programme last night on the rise of the KK in the south and their fight to protect the Confederate flag very interesting stuff on how ex pilots after WW2 were recruited into the FBI by J.Edgar Hoover to infiltrate them.

So is it that sensitive that it is banned at reenactments of the famouis battle sites there then??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Same problem right now in the US with the Confederate flag. Add to that the problem that people don't know which flag is the correct flag and assume they all are and all are bad. They are also removing monuments. It is erasing history and it's being done by a very vocal minority.

---

Not just erasing history but rewriting it as well. For example the US Civil War is a great example of a war which they have tried to change why they fought. Current history classes teach it was fought over slavery, which didn't really become a issue until later in the war as there were Northern states with slavery as well (even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all the slaves only those in rebellion with the North, so basically the slaves in the South were freed, well those in Northern states that still had slavery were still slaves).

The main cause for the South to secede was the complete and total exclusion of the South from the political process. They did vote but they felt there votes were worthless when Lincoln was elected without any support from the South. This caused the South to give up on being part of the Union feeling they had no say, and the opinions the North and South had were so far apart which resulted in the civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

Here in Germany, it is definitely verboten to apply any symbol designating National Socialism on anything that is on public display. So therefore, a vintage aircraft that is privately owned could display the Iron Cross, but not a swastika on the tail. The only exception is for items displayed in a museum depicting their historical relevance. Germans generally might find the US practise of openly displaying Nazi symbols amusing, but slightly naive. And definitely not to be tolerated locally. Personally, I´m not complaining ...

---

You would be interested to know that several of the German planes that have been at the museum were restored at a specialty flugzeugwerk in Germany. They had to wait until they arrived in the U.S. before the the Hakenkreuz could be applied. Another little irony of history was that the name of the flugzeugwerk was Meier Motors. Remember the quote from Hermann Göring?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...98332182-1.jpg
BF-109G-4

Bob

Bob,
Yes wasn't it something along the lines............" Don't fly over England again as we are getting our arses kicked, by a better plane the SPITFIRE".
All joking aside...........didn't he tell Hitler he would win the war in the air if he had a squadron of Spitfires............that took him off Hitlers Christmas card list instantly.:lol:
Bit rough about the badging as I know the guys fly the 109's at Duxford Airshows all marked up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Bob,
Yes wasn't it something along the lines............" Don't fly over England again as we are getting our arses kicked, by a better plane the SPITFIRE".
All joking aside...........didn't he tell Hitler he would win the war in the air if he had a squadron of Spitfires............that took him off Hitlers Christmas card list instantly.:lol:
Bit rough about the badging as I know the guys fly the 109's at Duxford Airshows all marked up!

---

That was what then-Major Adolph Galland said to Reichmaschall Göring during the Battle of Britain.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...232C_Ado-1.jpg

Göring had just come to France and had spend a nice long while royally chewing out his two primary fighter commanders (Galland, Gruppenkommandeur of Jagdgeschwader 26, and Major Werner Mölders, Gruppenkommandeur of Jagdgeschwader 51) because he felt the fighter pilots were being cowardly by not flying close escort to the bombers. Some objected that they didn't have the fuel to do so but Göring wouldn't hear of it and demanded close escort. Then Göring had one of his famous mercurial changes of temper and said, 'Come now, I've chastised you enough. What can I get for you.' Mölders kept his lip buttoned but Galland, blurted out, "A squadron of Spitfires!" That toasted Göring pretty well. The truth was that uder the best conditions the BF-109e that they were flying had only about ten minutes combat time once it reached the fighting areas in England so the locally-based British interceptors could engage them until they ran dry or used enough fuel that they had to ditch in the Channel on the way back. Formation flying ate up far more fuel than having bombers and fighters fly over at their most economical speed and do a rendezvous. That, and Galland knew that fighters lost the initiative if they were tied to formation flying with the bombers.

Bob

His book, “The First and the Last” is excellent.

If I wanted to fly the FW in Germany I would just have a set of temporary decals made up to appease the history police, "look it's just a harmless diamond..." LOL.

Attachment 73109

:lol::lol: yes it was Galland initially my error, but didn't that view get passed up the line to the man?
Goring would never have got into the cockpit let alone get out with his waistline, and his sense of humour was fried anything and several bottles of the finest French wine!

Oh, by the way the quote from Göring I was referencing was during the early part of the Battle of Britain: 'If one bomb ever falls over the Reich, you may call me Meier.' Apparently that is a colloquial phrase in Germany that means that whatever condition is contained in the first clause is simply impossible. Towards the end of the war some of the German people sarcastically called the air raid sirens "Meier's Trumpets."

Bob

The ferocity of the RAF pilots in the first days of the Battle of Britain took the Germans completely by surprise. There are several accounts of RAF pilots ramming Luftwaffe aircraft after running out of ammunition (Ray Holmes is probably the most famous).

Hermann Göring was a well-respected fighter pilot in WW1. When the Battle of Britain started he was already a drug addict. And you know there’s a reason it’s called “dope”.

The slimmest thing on him was his magic wand:lol:
I suppose his aircraft was sign written as "The Little Focker":lol:

Yes Meier referenced coming from the end of cow, pigs etc and all other animal anuses of this planets menagerie.
Goering was nothing but a fat arsed gong getter he could not wait to get the Blue Max after taking over Richthofen's flying circus in WWI Galland absolutely detested the man, had the Germans had a rotational system like the allies for their fighter pilots and bomber crews things may have been a tad different not forgetting the supreme leaders dabbling in the 262 project. Which if it had entered service a year earlier like it should have would have blown the B-17's out of the sky. The gun turrets on the 17's were not fast enough to follow the jets flight. The Red tails developed a system of lining up their P-51's then letting loose at the 262's so it had to fly through a wall of 50 cal projectiles. The 163 was just a glider after its fuel ran out and did not get than many air to airs besides with that fuel T-stoff it was more of a danger to the crews than us.

Another trick the Fatty liked (Gallands italics) was he would give the pilots very expensive cigars which they stuck in their sleeve pockets when they went to leave Fatty used to shake their hands but made sure his other hand crushed the cigars he had given them so they could not smoke them. The 3 German services had some very capable men, equipment and Generals thank god they had 2 twits leading them (No offence to the Germans who served either in WWII who may read that)

If you look hard at buildings and places in the Ruhr area of Germany you can still see the remainbs of the swastika chiselled from the old buildings. At Caernarvon Barracks in Dusseldorf, the former German RAF camp, the eagle and laurel wreath is/was still there but the cross in the centre of the wreath has been chiselled away. But, if you look hard, you can still see the occasional swastika, hidden in undergrowth or on signs. I saw some set in an old metal fence, dating from 1936 and sent a photo to a friend in Germany asking whether he could shed some light on the why's and wherefores regarding them,. Back came a speedy e-mail saying that they were absolutely taboo in Germany, even in electronic form so he'd hastily deleted them and....... Anyway.

In Dusseldorf the new underground still bears the scars of the era. In the form of bombs. If they're more than 2m away from the workings, that's where they stay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul S.

I'm not particularly fond of the North Vietnamese flag, or that of any Communist country. For that matter, I'm not fond of Lenin's picture or the Che Guevara shirts the Uni students cherish either, but I don't get 'cheesed off' every time I see one. The small minded subset of humanity that gets its knickers in a twist at the slightest infringement of political correctness needs a reality check.

With that, these, the aircraft and the flags, are simply historical relics much like an Egyptian chariot, a Greek Statue, Roman Gladius, a Viking long ship, or even the Tower of London and Dachau or Auschwitz. They are a part of our history and to deny history is to deny how we became who we are.

---

Well said Paul. My relatives fought the British in the Revolution (over civil rights), in the War of 1812 over the impressment (enforced slavery) of seamen, the American Civil War (over slavery), Germany in WWI (over aggression), Japan and Germany in WWII and then North Korea (over demonic predators), and then I in Vietnam (over Communist domination).

Today we are at peace with all these enemies (except North Korea). Being at peace means a level of reconciliation and an understanding (but never a denial) of the causes of war.

Every museum has to make choices about what to display, how to display it, and what should be communicated to the observer. Here in America there is still a deep controversy about flying the Confederate flag, which to some represents the same values the swastika means. Whenever I see either of these flags, I'm not offended; these just provide the opportunity to take the opposing view to what these flags represent -- to take the high road, an enlightened vision of the choices humanity has to make, a mission of courage to stand for human rights, and a testimony of those who were prepared to give their lives to a cause worthy of dying. That's why we celebrate Memorial Day today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Well said Paul. My relatives fought the British in the Revolution (over civil rights)White slave owning colonists who refused to pay their fair taxes over a war they wished fought, in the War of 1812 over the impressment (enforced slavery) of seamen America trying to take over the whole of North America through Manifest Destiny, the American Civil War (over slavery) Political domination of the South leading to them wishing to succeed from the Union, Germany in WWI (over aggression) WWI was more a prevent empire building and trying to build a empire, realistically it wasn't Americas war, Japan and Germany in WWII Same reason as WWI, Germany Japan and Italy wanted a empire, other nations said no.
Today we are at peace with all these enemies (except North Korea). Being at peace means a level of reconciliation and an understanding (but never a denial) of the causes of war.

---

The understanding of what the causes of war are is changing. The farther we get from a conflicts the more we can actually analyze it in a unbiased manner. For example each one of the wars you listed can mostly be described in another way as it all depends on your view point. I will put in yellow in the quote what someone else might see them as. Some of the wars listed America was the aggressor, others America was attacked, overall though history is written by the victors and it takes centuries for the conflicts to be looked at from a unbiased standpoint (look at poor Napoleon for example, called the devil for over 100 years, finally no longer demonized to the same extent).

History is written by the winners and changed by the weak minded. Those are facts and the rest is merely opinions (and we all know what Daddy said about opinions) and conjecture. Today is my step daughters birthday she is 42. I tell because when she was a junior in high school I looked through her history book and under the section on Viet Nam I didn't recognize what they were teaching then and I was there. What children are learning today that is called history is a far cry from what is being taught today. When Allied troops started finding the death and work camps Ike told his generals to have then take as much film and pictures as possible because somewhere down the line someone will try to deny it ever happened. Today in the middle east there are factions already claiming the Holocaust was a fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

The understanding of what the causes of war are is changing. The farther we get from a conflicts the more we can actually analyze it in a unbiased manner. . . .

---

While this could be true, it is equally possible that those who find truth particularly troubling, or have an agenda or other motivation could just as easily promulgate an untrue version of history. This is what we are experiencing with revisionist histories.

Hence:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDH

. . . Today is my step daughters birthday she is 42. I tell because when she was a junior in high school I looked through her history book and under the section on Viet Nam I didn't recognize what they were teaching then and I was there. What children are learning today that is called history is a far cry from what is being taught today. When Allied troops started finding the death and work camps Ike told his generals to have then take as much film and pictures as possible because somewhere down the line someone will try to deny it ever happened. Today in the middle east there are factions already claiming the Holocaust was a fake.

---

Without getting too abstract, the concept of truth is very subjective to an individual or group, and the reality is, the decision to go to war is seldom made by one sole person for single reason.

A national figure head may declare something but the facts are that many people had a part in that decision, and each person has a personal motivation for their support.

As a soldier I resolved not to worry about the politics of deployments, but to do my job well, within the scope of warrior ethos and the law of armed conflict. I was better for it, the political motivations of any modern conflict are so complex that the are not only difficult to define, they are hardly worth bothering over.

Recording history is again something of a personal bias, any history author cannot be totally neutral, each will have their own beliefs and will present facts that are in line with that.

I watched a Netflix film "Tell Spring Not to Come this Year" it follows a group of Afghan National Army soldiers for a fighting season in Helmand circa 2011, and their perspectives are that all of the problems are because of the "Americans". Some think because of their "reckless" method of conducting operations, others because they left too soon, others because they didn't give them enough weapons, equipment, bases, etc etc. The religious officer would both praise the recently withdrawn Americans and backhand compliment them during pre-operation motivational speeches.

The film was both interesting, enlightening, and made my blood boil, but it re-affirmed my experiences and concern that the ANA are not an effective, disciplined, professional fighting force yet.

As a historical film it provided one side of the Afghanistan war and as such carried a heavy slant on whose's fault the mess was. Oddly enough none of the soldiers seemed to express hatred or blame of the Taliban for their impact on the country.

I would love to comment however it would get very political and that is verboten!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

I would love to comment however it would get very political and that is verboten!

---

Thanks to the modrators for allowing this thread to remain open as I am certain it has come precariously close to the no go zone. It is quite obvious most here are acutely aware of the importance of history
and its preservation, as the preservation of the artifacts of history and history itself are inextricably linked. Countless posters have recoiled at the damage done to an old ware horse by bubba with a hacksaw.
Good to see I am not alone in my revulsion when the same is done to history itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul S.

While this could be true, it is equally possible that those who find truth particularly troubling, or have an agenda or other motivation could just as easily promulgate an untrue version of history. This is what we are experiencing with revisionist histories.

---

That is very true as well. Truth as Sentryduty says is subjective, however the farther we get from a conflict the less emotionally tied we are to it.

The thing I like about the farther we get from the conflict is the less people feel the need to try and justify it. Information which was hidden becomes available allowing us to reanalyze what happened and understand it from both sides (or more depending on how many sides were involved). For me roughly WWI and earlier is the area where we are mostly able to debate without emotion as it is now more or less outside of living memory. It is also partly why I have switched my main focus to WWI because I can actually hold debates with people which aren't emotionally charged (I also just find the era fascinating).

On the other hand WWII and Vietnam are still much to recent to debate with people, as there is still a fair bit of emotional baggage involved with those conflicts. It is hard to look at things in a unbiased manner when people are insistent there perspective is correct without any information to back it up (not saying it isn't correct, they just aren't willing to even consider it from another view point).

Its like I tell people, to go find their truth. To listen to what people have to say and figure out what is right and wrong to them. Most people just aren't willing to do that however as it is much easier to just listen to what others tell you.

Stay strong guys............a lot of experience on this site, and we are big enough and ugly enough to be able to talk about this sort of stuff as one group without offence, as if we stood shoulder to shoulder in many varied conflicts together, regardless of country of origin.

Each conflict is a powder keg of varied opinions and emotions, and seen through the eyes of those who were there. Only they can relate to what they have seen.

We were, and many are, still serving soldiers, we don't do politics, we fight for the man standing next to us.......................we stood together to give those that wanted it, safety and also to be able to possess what we all value.................Freedom of Speech;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

when people are insistent there perspective is correct without any information to back it up (not saying it isn't correct, they just aren't willing to even consider it from another view point).

---

Sorry Gil but that's sounds like the liberal left. I'll take my spanking now.

Another historical faux. the idea that has been perpetrated that the entire 7th calvary was wiped out at the Little Big Horn. Less than half were slaughtered Major Reno and Captan Benteen got most of their men to a mesa top and held out until the next day when Gen Crook with the infantry and artillery arrived. If he hadn't been killed Custer should have been court marshalled for disobeying a direct order. Crook gave him implicit instructions NOT to attack but to scout and report back. The Indians claim Custer and his troops lasted less than fifteen minutes and Custer was one of the first to go down

Personally, I couldn´t care a monkey´s what insignia anyone cares to decorate his aircraft with. If it´s a Nazi symbol I´d consider him an idiot who either never knew (or is too ignorant to understand) how many people fought and lost their lives in the battle against the Third Reich. The difference would lie in a museum or a public display for information purposes using an object with Nazi insignia for educational purposes. Re-enactors all seem to be a bit of a joke, looking nothing like the real thing.

TDH,
Definately not a Liberal mate. I am a supporter of the "Speak your mind party" so no worries there.

Villiers,
Agree totally there. Museums were formed to show exactly that...history as it was, no holds barred so children of the future don't repeat the mistakes of the past!

I'm offended the Three Stooges aren't on Sunday mornings anymore. I mean, I have another boy to raise "he's three now". I'll tell ya right now, I'm not watching Barney and Friends for an hour. I'm calling my Congressmen!!!!

Yes and while you are on..........what have you done to Top Cat??:lol:

I think perhaps this thread has run its course. Thanks for all who participated.

Bob