Historical Accuracy vs. Modern Sensibilities

[rwanttaja]

We had one discussion kind of sidetracked over historical sensitivity; my thought would be to set up a separate thread to discuss it.

Here's our situations: How acceptable is the depiction of a swastika in these cases:

Case 1: An original or exact replica of an actual German airplane from WWII, such as a Messerschmidt BF-109 or JU-52.
Case 2: An original or exact replica of a license-built German WWII airplane, such as a Hispano HA-1109
Case 3: A nearly-full scale replica of a German airplane from WWII. For example, a Titan T-51 painted up like a captured P-51 or as a "German" fighter from the movie, "Fighter Squadron."
Case 4: A plane with a vague semblance of a German WWII aircraft but not anything near accurate. Think WAR FW-190, or a Bowers Namu.
Case 5: A plane with no relationship to Germany in WWII, but painted like it was.
Case 6: A plane from OUTSIDE the WWII period, including a swastika that is NOT the Nazi hakenkreuz.

Where do YOU think the line should be drawn? Be complete. Show your work.

Some water-muddying:

Case 1 is surprisingly gray. Martin Caiden restored a JU-52 in original colors, but replaced the tail swastika with an angled iron cross. Also, not all the new-production ME-262s got swastikas. But at least one went to Germany, where they aren't allowed to be shown.

Case 5 stems from a plane I saw over 30 years ago. Beautiful WWII German camouflage, including the swastika. On a Cessna 140.

Case 6, of course, is from that age-old edge condition: The insignia of the Lafayette Escardrille included a swastika on the indian's headdress. Other pilots in the Great War had non-Nazi swastikas as personal symbols. Some people are GONNA freak...how do you handle it?

Ron "Time to stir the pot" Wanttaja

[Dana]

Historical accuracy is more important than worrying about offending somebody. Case 5 is stupid (why would anybody do that?) and case 6, while absolutely acceptable, might take some explaining to the kind of people who want to ban Huckleberry Finn because of the language.

The question applies to models, too... I remember having the discussion with a recently emigrated Russian Jew I was working with when he saw a picture of an R/C FW-190 in a model magazine on my desk and asked, "Why would anybody build a model of a fascist airplane?" We're still friends 30 years later so I guess I explained it OK.

I seem to recall that the rules for judging scale models allowed the builder to reverse the swastika if they so chose, so it's no longer the Nazi version, without penalty. It may have just been a proposal, but I thought it was reasonable.

[Joda]

Ron,

Good subject. Here are my comments on each case....

Case 1: An original or exact replica of an actual German airplane from WWII, such as a Messerschmidt BF-109 or JU-52.

I vote for historical accuracy in this case. This is especially true if the airplane is an original example. Mark it with the correct, historical markings. Let the snowflakes have a meltdown if necessary.

Case 2: An original or exact replica of a license-built German WWII airplane, such as a Hispano HA-1109

Most people don't know the difference between the actual Messerschmidt and the Hispano, so using historically correct German markings is appropriate in my view. Most people will just accept that it's a Messerschmidt and find the markings appropriate.

Case 3: A nearly-full scale replica of a German airplane from WWII. For example, a Titan T-51 painted up like a captured P-51 or as a "German" fighter from the movie, "Fighter Squadron."

Personally, I don't have a problem with marking scaled-down replicas of military airplanes with the appropriate historical markings. I know some people get their undies in a bundle over such things, but hey, it's a replica of a warbird, so mark it as such.

Case 4: A plane with a vague semblance of a German WWII aircraft but not anything near accurate. Think WAR FW-190, or a Bowers Namu.

Same comment as Case 3. It's a replica, although significantly scaled down, so appropriate historical military markings are OK in this case.

Case 5: A plane with no relationship to Germany in WWII, but painted like it was.

Forget the Swastika. In general I think anyone who puts military/warbird markings on an airplane that is not a military type ought to be horse-whipped, keel-hauled, or otherwise beaten with a big stick. Seeing aircraft such as you described (the Cessna 140) or most any homebuilt other than the above-discussed replicas painted with military paint drives me nuts! I will give a pass to someone who was actually a military pilot and who marks his or her homebuilt with the markings of their old squadron, but that's as far as I'll go. Anyone who paints an Ercoupe like a warbird because they think it looks like a mini B-25 (or paints a C140 in Luftwaffe markings) is an idiot. Period!

Case 6: A plane from OUTSIDE the WWII period, including a swastika that is NOT the Nazi hakenkreuz.

This wouldn't bother me a bit, but I'm sure there are some who would be offended. But then, no matter what you do there are always some who will be offended. Some people go out of their way looking for ways to be offended. Screw 'em!

There, I guess that pretty much covers it!

[robert l]

But Joe, what about the people that paint their biplanes to look like birds and such, it's just personal preference. LOL ! Personally, makes no difference to me, it is what it is. But I think historical accuracy should be maintained, even if it chaps someone's a** ! It's the same with the flag, it's history, it happened, leave it alone.
Bob

[rwanttaja]

Joe, I seem to recall there were a few military Ercoupes. The ones in the RATO experiments?

A lot of guys do faux warbird jobs on Fly Babies, and I have to confess I like them. They range from WWI allied and German though the 30s ABC and Navy though WWII and the 50s USAF.

No swastikas, but one was painted like a Japanese Zero.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mark van Wyk]

An airplane emblazoned with the Nazi swastika would be totally inappropriate, even if it's historically accurate. Too hurtful and too many bad feelings from that symbol. Using that emblem is a provocation. Don't use it. Use an iron cross instead.
Interestingly, Imperial Japanese WWII planes such as the Zero had Japanese "sun" markings (a red disk in a white background), and that is still the official flag of Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Japan), so that emblem would probably not offend or cause hard feelings. However, the "Rising Sun" flag and logo, which has the red circle and red sun rays emanating from it, is generally outlawed and despised, particularly in Asian countries that the Imperial Japanese occupied in '30s and '40s.
Speaking of flags, the Confederate flag is rightly seen as offensive by many in the U.S. I can't think of much good that can be said about the Confederate States of America. I notice that the strangely-named "Confederate Air Force" has changed its name to "Commemorative Air Force".

[rwanttaja]

An airplane emblazoned with the Nazi swastika would be totally inappropriate, even if it's historically accurate. Too hurtful and too many bad feelings from that symbol. Using that emblem is a provocation.

I certainly appreciate that point of view. However, I think Frank had a good point: The swastika says, "This is what Hitler had in his toolbox." From the point of view of anyone born after 1945, the Allied victory was inevitable. It really wasn't, and the capability and quality of the machinery in the Nazi tool lockers was a big part of that. Homer Simpson once summed up this attitude, calling the Nazis "The Washington Generals of the History Channel."

It struck home for me a couple of years back. My father-in-law passed on, and left me a rifle that his uncle had brought home from the war. Like any weapon, it has stamped proof marks to show it had passed qualification test.

In this case, the proof stamps are all the Nazi eagle-and-swastika. Little tiny swastikas, all over the weapon.

The war got a bit more real to me, afterwards.

So I feel they belong, in their proper historical context. However, it's true that the context is no always maintained.

Personally, altered alternatives bug the heck out of me, like Ercoupes in D-Day paint. :-) Caiden's modified eagle just seems jarring. I would sooner just leave it off.

Interestingly, Imperial Japanese WWII planes such as the Zero had Japanese "sun" markings (a red disk in a white background), and that is still the official flag of Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Japan), so that emblem would probably not offend or cause hard feelings.

Odd you should mention that. The Fly Baby has the same basic layout as the Mitsubishi A5M "Claude," and I've toyed with a pre-war Japanese paint job.

However, where the Germans (for the most part) complied with the Geneva Conventions regarding handling prisoners of war, the Japanese did not. Tens of thousands of American servicemen were abused. I just can't imagine having the airplane at a fly-in when one of these survivors come by.

I've contemplated replacing the hinomaru with Army Air Force star and dot insignia, and marking the plane as if it were a captured Claude undergoing evaluation. Pete Bowers actually was involved in engineering evaluation of captured Japanese aircraft, I could add his name as the test conductor.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

However, the "Rising Sun" flag and logo, which has the red circle and red sun rays emanating from it, is generally outlawed and despised, particularly in Asian countries that the Imperial Japanese occupied in '30s and '40s.

Mark, the current iteration of the Japanese navy ("Maritime self-defense force") uses an almost identical rising sun flag.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Joda]

Joe, I seem to recall there were a few military Ercoupes. The ones in the RATO experiments?

Yes, that's right Ron, but none of them were painted like some of the ones I've seen flying around. I think they look ridiculous in military paint, but obviously not everyone feels the same way. So be it! I don't have to look at it!!

One thing that a lot of people don't think about when they choose paint jobs for their aircraft is resale value. Every airplane will be sold sooner or later (unless it's wrecked or scrapped). Either the owner will end up selling it, or his/her estate will. Oddball paint jobs can and do detract from the value of the airplane, so when someone paints an airplane with some off the wall scheme, whether it's military or the previously-mentioned bird, or any number of wild/weird/wicked paint jobs, one has to be prepared to pay the price for that "individuality".

A lot of guys do faux warbird jobs on Fly Babies, and I have to confess I like them. They range from WWI allied and German though the 30s ABC and Navy though WWII and the 50s USAF.

Yeah, I've seen some of those. And some of them don't look half bad. The thing does look a bit like a "between the wars" era airplane, so something from the 30s military doesn't look too bad on it. I can see where that might appeal to some. Not me though. I just won't do it. As always, your mileage may vary.

[Frank Giger]

On historical aircraft, no problem. Indeed, sanitizing history is pretty dangerous, IMHO. When one oohs and ahs over a FW-190, for example, it's good to remember who's toolbox it belonged to. The same for replicas.

Everything else, just weird. If someone wants to paint Nazi crap all over their Cessna 172 that's their call...but don't expect any praise from me. Especially if they're from Illinois. One has to wonder why in the hell any American would glorify the 3rd Reich is beyond me.

That said, I am completely hypocritical on painting aircraft in Allied schemes. Go for it. We are, after all, the good guys.

That's why I stick to WWI aircraft, back when we all hated and killed each other simply because it was the thing to do. Even then, I built a French plane because there were no American WWI scouts, only French planes flown by Americans.

[edit]

I found out after I built my plane that home building is actually something that's happened before, which explained why everyone over there (my parents immigrated, so my distant relations are in Germany) was so casual about it.

Here's my great uncles and their glider shortly before the war:



Bear in mind that this glider was at the 1936 Olympics as part of the demonstration team, and if one wanted a tow the symbol on the front did not hurt.

If I could find this glider and restored it, the nose decal would be on it, along with the Olympic rings.

If I were building a similar glider, or recreating it, probably not.