Alan Minyard wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:13:31 GMT, (John Bailey) wrote:

This book, which I found in the public library, expresses a different
point of view regarding aces in World War One.

The Dream of Civilized Warfa World War I Flying Aces and the
American Imagination
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...376127-2633402
(quoting the Amazon blurb
During World War I, air combat came to epitomize American ingenuity,
technological superiority, adventure, leadership, and teamwork.
Robertson reveals how the romantic and chivalric imagery associated
with flying aces was a product of intentional propaganda and popular
culture. Examining aviation history, military battles, films,
literature, and political events, she looks at how the American
public's imagination was shaped-how flying aces offered not only a
symbol of warfare in stark contrast to the muddy, brutal world of the
trenches, but also a distraction to an American public resistant to
both intervention in a European conflict and the new practice of
conscription. (end quote)

So the US did exactly the same as the UK, the Germans, the Austro-Hungarians,
etc, etc. What is the big deal?

I thought everyone was aware of the propaganda value of the "flying aces".

I was going to opine pretty much the same.

Seems everyone thought fighting in the sky somehow "more noble" or
"clean" than the killing on the ground. Perhaps because it was a
bit more "personal"? Certainly there were cases of "chivalric"
behavior amongst combatants in the air. Someone runs out of
ammo and rather than being polished off by the opponent, there's
a wing waggle and salute and separation.

But that sort of stuff also sometimes occurred on the ground too,
perhaps even more commonly considering the numbers of persons
involved, but never reached the level of defining the combatants,
as it did in the air.

Seems every other nation involved was spinning the same story.


SMH