By Kalikiano Kalei, MA

Introduction:

For several decades I have involved myself with selected areas of military history and the history of technologies linked to them. As a conventionally trained and educated amateur historian (‘non-academic historian’) writing on various subjects found within the broader venue of military aerospace technology, I found frequent need to closely examine examples of artifacts I was focused upon; consequently, the physical collecting of original specimens developed naturally, since having actual artifactual specimens close at hand for direct analysis and evaluation (i.e. photo documentation) greatly complements the preparation of associated articles and papers. Unfortunately, this led to keeping a collection of things that good sense told me properly belonged in museum settings (where they can be put to the most good in programs designed to educate and inform the public on relevant historical topics) and not taking up space in my home or study as material high-tech clutter. That said, I ultimately became a 'collector' of relics related to my fields of interest.

Interestingly enough, having all those artifacts constantly at hand and in direct view served to pique my curiosity over exactly how they were individually used and personally employed by military personnel, and that in turn heightened my awareness of a contemporary phenomenon known by various terms, but generally referred to by most as ‘living history’ and ‘historical reenactment’.

‘Living history’ (or ‘historical reenactment’, as it is often known as) is not a new expression of cultural activity. In fact, the re-creation of historical events, periods and eras has been in existence for centuries. Even back in Roman times certain battles and martial feats were recreated to celebrate the accomplishments of participants in the real events as a form of public spectacle. In more ancient times, the symbolic aspirations of a culture, as well as its religious and military accomplishments, were quite often reflected in ceremonious reenactments of the actual deeds.

I well recall, while a student and avid science fiction ‘fan’ in the 60s, the development of that fannish culture that grew up around the characters and plots of the ‘Star Trek’ television series. Having attended what my peers called sci-fi cons (science fiction conventions, the most contemporary expression of which is today’s youth-culture obsession with comic book fantasy characters, AKA 'comicons') in those puerile days, the practice of dressing up as favorite fantasy characters on special occasions didn’t seem strange at all to myself and my contemporaries, since each sci-fi con had its fancy dress ball specifically for that purpose.

While I myself didn’t participate in costumed sci-fi role-playing, I developed a natural sympathy for harmless ‘play-acting’ of that sort and certainly didn’t find the psychosocial motivations of the participants odd, unusual or even remarkable. Today, the evolution of that sort of fantasy play-acting activity has evolved considerably (due to so-called cosplay role playing, Japanese animae inspired comic book art and other influences) to the point at which the question of where exactly the line between reality and fantasy exists has become far more salient a subject for social and psychological researchers than ever before. Further, as modern (American, material) society relies more and more on commercialized ‘fantasy’ as a primary media marketing device, the question of its impact on emerging patterns of violence and criminal behavior has become far more apparent.

Part of my own involvement in military history has involved close work with others in aviation and chemical and biological defense technology museum settings, wherein the chief objective is to generally educate, inform and involve the public in consideration of past scientific, technological and cultural achievements.  To augment static displays in which manikins have been attired in garments, gear and personal effects it has been found further beneficial to employ museum docents to display artifactual items on their person and discuss their use, since involving a living person adds more productive levels of personal relevance and public engagement to a display presentation. Effective use of these museum-based ‘living history’ methodologies thus contributes a dimensional upgrade to efforts intended to draw the public into an appreciation for and understanding of history.

Thus it was that I occasionally found myself ‘playing’ the part of an aircrewman or pilot at some of our museum events, although walking around fully attired in modern aircrew life support gear can admittedly be quite physically taxing on a warm day, given the weight and complexity of jet-age survival gear and related protective flight apparel. Although limited in scope and highly localised, the parallel to ‘living history’ in this context is instantly obvious, and so it was that I recently came from that more narrowed background to focus on broader historical aspects of the air war during World War 2 (notably that between Allied and European Axis powers). I correspondingly began to become aware of the greatly expanded range of specialized activities related to that subject area (i.e.  ‘living history’ and ‘historical reenactment’ groups focused on World War Two).

Military history and Germany

Although most aspects and areas of human history are generally fascinating to historically attuned and/or academically trained individuals, the history of human warfare holds inarguably strong attraction for both lay amateurs and professionals alike, since conflict between warring factions, opposing creeds, religions and/or philosophies forms the rent underlying fabric of human social and cultural interaction throughout the ages. Nowhere is that strong attraction felt more palpably than in regard to history of the First and Second World Wars, conflicts in which for the first time the effects of rapidly advancing modern science and technology brought about world-wide events of terrible enormity in a large part of the 'developed' world.

With maternal family of Germanic origins (locale being provincial Bavaria along the Austrian border region), I have always had a strong interest in German cultural roots and have in the past studied the German language (in school), belonged to Germanic organisations (notably the Austrian, German and Swiss alpine organisations, but including the TVN/NF, an organization begun in Europe in the late 1800s to provide recreational opportunities for factory workers, and various local Schuhplattler , Trachten and Turnverein clubs) in my effort to explore those ancestral connections. An important part of this cultural sensitisation necessarily involved study of the German character and analysis of the social psychology of its religious, political, economic and social institutions. The evolving of Germany’s warring city-states into a unified European nation relatively early in the 20^th Century did not comprise a wholly positive transformation, as witness the two ‘recent’ world wars that were largely incited by German ambitions, but one cannot consider any culture outside the greater contyext of that culture in its entirety, from lofty aspirations and achievements on the one hand to abysmal lapses of ethical social behavior on the other. Therefore, Germany is a perfect model for reflective historical studies in a number of ways.

That said, and fully aware of the worst and most heinous depredations of Hitler’s Third Reich, I began to take a closer look not just at the history of the Reich’s military air service from 1935 through 1945, but also at the phenomenon of modern affective historical interpretations of that period of history (read ‘living history’ and ‘historical reenactment’ groups) that purport to ‘preserve history’. What I found (and am still discovering) is fascinating. Today, ‘living history’ has most commonly developed into an interpretative expression of period customs, practices, lifestyles, and day-to-day modes of existence, while ‘historical reenactment’ most commonly attempts through popular recreations of famous battles, conflicts and skirmishes. Regarding the latter, while Civil War historical reenactment is extremely popular and widespread, many other expressions of reenactment share near equal popularity today. Among these are reenactments of World War Two battles and engagements that often strive for absolute authenticity in both gear and strategies. In this last sense, makers of Hollywood war films often benefit tremendously from the enthusiasm shown by many of the reenactors, since they provide a pre-equipped and pre-trained body of capable extras that add can immeasurably to film production efforts.

A study in social stereotyping?

With regard to the historical impression most ‘average’ people above 50 years of age presently have of the character of the German nation throughout its most recent ‘world’ war, that impression is frequently based (to a substantial degree) on a plethora of superficial, sensationalistic, cheap and racy media exploitations (films, books, and television)that came out in the post-war 50s and 60s, often luridly focused exclusively on the most perverse and heinous aspects of the Third Reich’s National Socialism. In the collective mind of that ‘older’ public, all Germans and ‘Nazis’ are rather casually lumped together into one more or less  all-inclusive group of behaviorally aberrant sociopaths. Contributing to this distorted stereotype is the fact that a great number of people of the Jewish faith settled in the United States after the war, many or most of whom either had themselves survived the worst of the Nazi atrocities or had relatives who had escaped the SS death camps; most had relatives who had been killed in the camps. This body of existing antipathy has been additionally fueled by the extremely outspoken and continual public outcry of Jewish Americans who profoundly believe that unless they continually reemphasise the past persecution of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, history will repeat itself (ref: American philosopher George Santayana’s famous quote to that effect). Of course they are correct in that assumption, since experience has demonstrated unequivocally exactly how short human social recollections are, and in fact the entire history of human civilization may be somewhat handily characterised by repetitions of the same scenarios over and over, in perpetuity.

Further adding to the existing bias against any effort to calmly and rationally ‘explore’ recent German history in the United States is the powerful influence not just exerted by people of the Jewish faith in this country, but by the strong political, social and defense-related ties America has with the State of Israel. In the face of this massive bloc of ‘never forget’ proponents, any reasoned consideration of recent German history will only be continue to be tainted with fresh reminders of Germany’s worst excesses of the last World War.

Counterbalanced against this still extremely strong body of sentiment is another equally large group, consisting in the main of those who were born well after the war and for whom the atrocities of German National Socialism constitute only a remote and highly impersonal recollection of some rather distracted afternoons studying  modern European history in school. Within this latter group may be found two further sub groups, consisting (in the first part) of generally lower class and poorly educated young (white) people who ignorantly seize upon Nazism as a powerful attractive symbol of the racist white supremacy movement, and (in the last part) of those older individuals who are (perhaps superficially) captivated by or enamored with the glamorous symbolisms that bespoke a supremely confident and arrogant war era Germany. There’s certainly no denying that certain superficial aspects of the Nazi German regime, such as its striking uniforms, Teutonic mythology, martial regalia, material paraphernalia and sartorial accoutrements, etc., exert a powerfully attractive influence upon some individuals in today’s highly diverse, ethnically complex and anomie-ridden society (many of whom may feel socially disempowered, alienated or somehow threatened by cultures that differ substantially from their own). A third group may be vaguely identified as those who (perhaps disproportionately) romantisise the chivalrous customs of ancient Middle Age Europe (i.e.  those wistful idealists of a largely fanciful and bygone era). One final group may turn to the image of a powerful Germany out of a near-subliminal personal need for order, uniformity, security and social solidarity that may be missing in today’s modern America (in this last context, it is not surprising that one finds few social anarchists or leftist libertarians in historical reenactment groups, but does find a surprisingly large number of individuals with law enforcement careers). [It helps to remember that the Nazi movement rose up in the midst of one of the most severe depressions Europe ever experienced and just as many thousands of Germans found self-affirmation and personal indemnification in the allure of National Socialism, so do many disenchanted members of our modern society seek an identity in Nazism’s powerful symbolic persona in much the same manner. ]

What social psychologists are saying about ‘living history’ reenactment

Perhaps not surprisingly, in the most recent decade, with the remarkable rise in groups who ‘reenact’ historical events or otherwise attempt to interpret the events of other eras, there has been a growing body of professional literature dedicated to analysis of this high-profile trend by sociologists and social-psychologists. The major part of professional comment seems to bear on what is called the ‘affective’ interpretation of history. Vanessa Agnew, in her paper ‘History’s affective turn: Historical reenactment and its work in the present’ (pub. Rethinking History, Vol. 11, Issue 3, Sept 2007) sums it up succinctly in the opening paragraph of her paper’s abstract: “This article argues that contemporary reenactment is indicative of history’s recent affective turn, i.e. of historical representation characterised by conjectural interpretations of the past, the collapsing of temporalities and an emphasis upon affect, individual experience and daily life, rather than historical events, structures and processes.”

Whereas academicians have traditionally investigated the past in a manner that delineated and portrayed individual events and circumstances strictly within the distinct economic, political, cultural and social backdrop of the focus nation, the modern ‘living history’ and ‘historical reenactment’ efforts of today more often tend to place a very different and highly subjective emphasis on erstwhile ‘factual’ historical events. Much free rein is given to individual reenactors, in the development of their chosen personae, to incorporate intuitive insight into the portrayal. This dynamic has been pointed out as a potentially significant and distracting mechanism that may actually result in the syntheses of a character (or historical ‘flavor’) that actually bears very little real similarity to an actual historical figure (or period).

Of further note here is the fact that modern reenactment is becoming a highly complex area of human activity, with a broad range of differing opinion among participants as to what the ‘correct’ nature of the effort to ‘interpret’ history ought to be. The rise of specific nomenclature within the mainstream of historical reenacting bears testimony to fractious doctrinal contentions that have developed. A term, for example, such as ‘Farbs’, describes those who are not much concerned with absolute authenticity in their portrayals, and several explanations of the word as an acronym range from ‘far be it from authentic’ and ‘far be it for me to question’, to ‘fast and researchless buying’. These individuals make little effort to refrain from using non period authentic items, foodstuffs, footwear and small personal items (such as wristwatches, cigarettes, etc.) and often employ costumes that are only authentic to some modest extent externally, while bearing no regard for authenticity internally (as in stitching, use of zippers, undergarments, et al).

‘Mainstream’ is another term that is generally employed to describe a reenactor who makes a conscientious effort to achieve authenticity in most aspects of a portrayal (including mannerisms, accents, costume, etc. These reenactors maintain a period-authentic affect in the presence of a viewing public, but may lapse into modern behavioral affect, eat modern foods, etc., when out of the public view. The operative perception tends to be that putting on a convincing display is important, but only when in the direct public purview. 

A third group are often described by the term ‘progressives’ or ‘hardcore’. These reenactors invest tremendous time, energy and money in maintaining absolute authenticity in their portrayals. This so-called ‘total immersion experience’ finds reenactors going to extremes rarely considered by ordinary ‘recreational’ reenactors and tend to form small and very concentrated sub-groups within and apart from the greater milieu.

In between these several extremes lay all sort of intermediate compromise schools that vary according to a number of factors. In some living history reenactments, the cost of acquiring personal items of costume, gear and/or equipment can be quite daunting, particularly because the original and authentic period articles themselves may have considerable value to militaria collectors, thus the cost of acquitting and using authentic original artifacts can be considerable. Although the widespread interest that has developed in historical reenactment and living history activities has resulted in a thriving business supplying replica items, manufacturing and providing reproduced clothing and gear specifically for reenactment use, even these replications can be and frequently are quite costly in their own right (this is particularly true of the so-called ‘modern era’ reproductions, ranging from 1935 through the present). Either way, participating in some forms of historical reenactment can be quite costly.

With regard to historical reenactment groups existing for the purpose of recreating the German Luftwaffe experience in World War Two, there are generally only two worth referencing. These are the UK-based ‘Luftwaffe Airfield Reenactment Group’ (or LARG) and the US-based ‘Luftwaffe Aircrew Reenactment Association’.  Both maintain an active slate of activities and encourage participation by those interested in the traditions and customs of the German Air Forces in World war Two. Other groups exist that relate to the Luftwaffe affiliated paratroops branch (fallshirmjaeger) but they tend to organize around reenactment groups closely aligned with the German land forces (Army, or Heer) and are not distinctly associated with aircraft (either originals or replicas). Since there are very few replica or original German aircraft of WW2 vintage in the United States around which to galvanise, the dampening effect on participation of individuals desiring to participate in groups portraying the flying personnel of the German Air Forces is understandable.

Although much emphasis is levied upon the need to comply fully with period requirements in terms of gear, apparel and equipment, some latitude is again accorded to individual interpretation by those who wish to create impressions of certain well-identified Luftwaffe fliers. Impressionists are actively encouraged to do as much research as possible about the specific characters they have chosen to portray and many achieve a commendable level of dramatic portrayal therein.

Motivations of reenactors

Much speculation has been made about the motivational factors underlying the decision of individuals who wish to specifically portray Word War Two German military personnel as might be imagined, given the ever-present overtones of ‘Nazism’ that often surface in this context. Perhaps the biggest concern for World War Two Wehrmacht reenactors (regardless of the branch of service they choose) is the desire to avoid any overt expression of personal identification with the political aspects of the Third Reich regime. Admittedly a very delicate subject at best, all World War Two German reenactment groups make a strenuous effort to disengage and distance themselves from these aspersions by declaring a firm policy of banning all open discussion of the political or ideological aspects of the Third Reich regime. Most will reject members who transgress those rules outright and a number of them will not accept applicants with known or openly expressed Third Reich sympathies. This does not insure that some members do not maintain overt or hidden sentiments of this sort, but on the surface of things a strenuous effort is made to eschew all such associations.

As mentioned earlier, many who are drawn to military historical reenactment groups in general have military or law enforcement backgrounds. There is perhaps in part an unconscious attempt by these individuals to recapture that sense of fraternity, peer support, group identification and the camaraderie of bonding that military service typifies, but it may also be a mechanism for self-identity affirmation.  There are of course as many differing motivations for engaging in historical reenactment as there are individual personalities involved in the activity, and as previous mentioned  (with regard to the US Civil War’s forces of the Confederacy and the World War Two German Wehrmacht), there may also be strong emotional sentiments extant, either subliminally or overtly, despite efforts to discourage this.

As Vanessa Agnew notes in her writing on historical reenactment, postwar historical assessment and analysis of wartime (e.g. Second World War era) experiences, actions and events in the form of books, articles and related writing formerly tended to be uniformly adherent to mainstream ethical and political bodies of opinion, replete with strong moral overtones. In more recent times, this highly moralistic interpretation of history has increasingly yielded to a conjectural approach that often focuses exclusively on non temporal, experiential considerations. Arguments have been advanced that this new school of ‘interpretative’ history deviates considerably from fact-based traditional academic approaches and function as a sort of historical reconciliation of factors upon which moralistic interpretations formerly imposed strict interpretative sanctions.

With regard to the two more contentious historical periods that typically provoke the most reactive attention (US Civil War and WW2 Germany), and as noted previously, the modern day reenactment scene deliberately attempts to distance itself from the underlying political and ideological considerations extant. While this conveniently ignores any moralistic concerns associated (slavery and the treatment of Jews, for example), it also allows greater(perhaps ‘looser’ would be a better term) individual interpretation of history. In the case of wartime Germany, reenactors may elect to represent characters or participants from elements of the German armed forces that were and are almost impossible to ‘sanitise’, given their direct affiliation with state-sponsored (SS) programs undertaken on Hitler’s orders to eliminate the Jewish people (read: genocide and recognised crimes against humanity). By standards maintained less than 50 years ago this would have been impossible and yet now SS soldiers and entire SS units are fairly popular impressions characterised by reenactors. The standard caveats of ‘Discussion of political and ideological subjects NOT allowed’ and ‘We do not support or subscribe to the political/ideological philosophies of the Third Reich/Nazism (etc.)’ serve as a nominally efficacious ‘shield’ against most criticisms, but they also further the so-called ‘affective’ drift away from traditionally moral and ethics based interpretations of history. In the sense that institutions that arise within a society are ‘created’ or brought to life by forces active within that society, it is futile to completely eschew the ideological and political elements in reference.

Viewed objectively, this is neither good nor bad in an absolute sense, although many individuals with a more direct associative experience with genocidal elements will nevertheless strongly disagree.

A history of the Luftwaffe in World War Two?

Harry R. Fletcher, writing in the Air University Review (‘A History of the Luftwaffe’, November-December 1969), makes a cogent argument that the subject of German Luftwaffe operations during the Second World War has never been fully, adequately and authoritatively addressed, despite decades of books, report, articles, biographies and opinions written on that subject since 1945.

The information that does exist on Luftwaffe history spans a rather broad spectrum, ranging from the previously alluded to Hollywood ‘B’ films of the 50s and 60s through the most recent biographical histories and memoirs of prominent Luftwaffe figures. Of special note are attempts by Hollywood to deal with Nazism in a humorous manner (specifically the television series ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ and Mel Brooks’ ‘The Producers’), both of which did not provoke a huge outcry by critics. On the serious side of the matter, Fletcher cites a number of rather good works dealing with the Luftwaffe, as well as several official histories written under the aegis of  US (Air University) and UK (Air Ministry) military historians, but he notes that a truly adequate and (more importantly) comprehensive historical assessment has yet to be completed.

Given the never-ending public fascination with the evil nature of ‘Nazi’ stereotypes, it is nearly impossible for most writers who are not trained academics to remain entirely objective and impartial in any assessment of Germany’s wartime military services. Biographies (such as those written by and/or about German’s most famed wartime aces) themselves necessarily convey a limited, highly personalised and incomplete impression of the greater range of activities engaged in by the Luftwaffe. Scholarly studies normally circulate exclusively among a rather small a select group of academicians, frequently not having wide circulation among the public.

Only until fairly recently have the German participants( in what the Germans refer to as ‘Der Zweite Welkrieg’) produced notable memoirs of their experiences, perhaps evidence that time and space has permitted greater candor in expression and interpretation that still seething post-wartime emotions may have permitted in the first decade or two following the cessation of hostilities in 1945.

Today, it has become popular to regard the German Luftwaffe as the least politicized of the three major branches of the wartime Wehrmacht, a supposition popularly evidenced by the fact that there was no Luftwaffe participation in the famed Wehrmacht bomb plot to assassinate Hitler (20 July 1943). In fact, the Luftwaffe was perhaps one of the services most influenced by National Socialism in that prior to 1935, the Luftwaffe did not exist as a discrete branch of service and was begun under intensely political influences.

Contrary to a sometimes popular notion that Luftwaffe were ‘hapless fliers who intensely disliked the Nazis and yet felt unable to redress the political regime’s excesses’, it should be noted that pilots and aircrew who flew for the newly established Luftwaffe at the outbreak of war had been trained under the highly doctrinaire and strenuously political programs administered by the various National Socialist glider (soaring) organisations (esp. the NSFK, or National Socialist Flieger Korps and the DLV, or Deutscher Luftsport  Verband). Owing to the extreme secrecy mandated by Germany’s covert buildup of aviation and rearmament technology, the influence of National Socialism was everywhere strongly present in those training programs. Many participants, being quite young and impressionally caught up in the sweeping idealism that the National Socialist movement personified, were active and enthusiastic members of the Hitler Youth, as well. That said, it is generally accepted that many wartime Luftwaffe aircrew (notably fighter pilots) were somewhat contemptuous of the political leadership they suffered under as the war progressed, but it is hard to not understand how the brutal, grinding pressures of prolonged warfare predictably took its toll in terms of attitudes and idealism at all levels of the war effort. Of collateral note in passing is a popular saying of the era suggesting that “Germany has an Imperial navy, a Royal Prussian Army and a National Socialist Air Force”.

Another often overlooked fact is that it was the Luftwaffe (under Goering’s emphatic urging) that spurred Germany into participating in the Spanish Civil War (1936). The traditionalist Prussian Army (Heer) solidly opposed that involvement, as did the German Navy (Kriegsmarine). That would be understandable in view of the long and conservative traditions maintained by both the senior services. Since most of the highest commanders of the new Luftwaffe were closely associated with the National Socialist movement, it would be hard to imagine that Nazism was not particularly strong at the uppermost levels of the newly instituted branch of the service and the influence of Goering (practically unfettered) upon Hitler would have been tremendous in that early period of National Socialism.

Adding a level of complexity to any inquiry of this sort is the fact that pragmatism is a strongly ingrained Germanic trait and Luftwaffe fliers during the war were certainly highly pragmatic in both the approach and the carrying out of their duties. The conclusion might therefore be reached that although there were general traits and sentiments characteristic of the larger German culture to be found in all of Germany’s fighting men, as well as an ever-present, high-profile social emphasis on National Socialist politics, any attempt to make valid sweeping assumptions about the motivation, sentiment, and/or ideological leanings of Luftwaffe flying personnel as a whole is inherently fraught with difficulty.

Any study of the extent to which political ideology played a role in Luftwaffe operations  in World War Two would be sophomoric in not immediately recognizing and acknowledging the prominent (and most would agree deleterious) role played by Reichmarshall Herman Goering (the supreme commander of the Luftwaffe, but also a most highly placed and politically favored ideologue member of Hitler’s inner circle) in influencing the entire scope of the Luftwaffe’s organisation, logistics, operations and force effectiveness as the aviation arm of the German Wehrmacht. Goering’s personal vanities, many shortcomings as a strategist and the fact that he habitually conferred the highest leadership roles in his Luftwaffe to somewhat less than fully competent individuals have all been pointed to as playing primary roles in the eventual defeat of the German Air Forces.

For all of these reasons and far more, it is much easier to focus segmentally and/or compartmentally  on aspects of Luftwaffe history, rather than undertake a totally integrated and comprehensive assessment of the Luftwaffe. To date, with a few notable exceptions (see notes at end of paper), we have seen highly individualized historical analyses of the Luftwaffe in World War Two. Most Luftwaffe history ‘experten’ would likely further agree that the long sought after and eagerly awaited ‘ultimate history of the German Luftwaffe in World War Two’ is a work that still remains to be written.

Living history impressions of the Luftwaffe today

One of the most notable effects of modern ‘affective interpretation’ of the wartime Luftwaffe is the tendency to characterise aircrew in certain prominent ways.  The attempt to ennoble and/or romantisise the nature of German pilots and aircrew is a commonly encountered thread in narratives, and also frequently encountered in historical reenactment impressions today. Comparative allusions have often been made regarding chivalrous traits of German pilots relating back to the ancient Teutonic Knights of the Middle Ages, but any genuine associations of that sort are more properly placed within the First World War era. By the time World War Two had begun in earnest, with the first smashing successes of blitzkrieg war that conferred a (false) sense of omnipotent invulnerability lessening considerably, most notions of knight-like fairness and chivalry began fading away to a dim remnant. As mentioned previously, if any single characteristic could be ascribed to German fighter pilots, that trait would have to be that they were highly pragmatic, but certainly if conditions and circumstances afforded the luxury of mercy and fairness in aerial combat (in the early years of the war), acts described as noble certainly could be experienced. One of them is well described in an interesting biographic article (‘German Knight on the Russian Front’, by Don Holloway, Aviation History, September 2012) dealing with the life of Germany’s second highest scoring ace (and the second highest scoring ace of all time, as well), Gerhard Barkhorn. Barkhorn had disabled an enemy (Russian) aircraft and then flew level with it alongside, holding his fire while indicating to its pilot that he should jump, thus sparing his life. Upon being questioned about this by staffelmates afterwards, Barkhorn stated (to wingman Erich Hartmann) that “Bubi, you must remember that that man is the baby son of a beautiful Russian girl; he has his right to live and love as we do.” That said, Barkhorn was by nature a romantic and highly sentimental individual, while many others were exactly the opposite.

Despite this reflective vignette, as the war progressed and as the air war heated up, it quickly became apparent that the principal aim of any successful pilot, other than scoring against the enemy, was to stay alive. The often violent and brutal demands of aerial combat thus precluded any efforts to romantisise things as was often the case in the earlier war. Pilots on both sides thus quickly became pragmatists who knew that only the quick, the skillful and the merciless survived modern air combat.

Biographies written after the war allow for more sentimentalized biographic recollections, as one will many times note being the case with regard to older individuals who looking back, but as Fletcher notes in his article, German pilots were not ‘supermen’, nor were they ‘aerial knights who rode their steeds of the air into the lists’; they were simply ordinary men caught up in the violence of war exactly as all fighting men are and responded accordingly, from second to second and from day to day.

That is not to say that pilots on both sides were not subject to the occasional flare of extreme emotion that might trigger an act that would be considered barbaric or inhumane (such as straffing an enemy pilot who had just parachuted), but such is the nature of warfare and the human psyche under severe duress and second-guessing is a favorite game of the armchair amateur….not those immediately involved in ferocious battle.

That said, in this last context modern ‘affective’ efforts to impersonate non-specific German Luftwaffe aircrew are in some ways closer to wartime reality than post war histories might imply, since all men are vastly different from one another and war typically involves all men. Only when it comes to impressions of specific (well-known) individuals (such as Galland, Rudel, Marsailles, Hartmann, et al) are the applicable constraints far more restrictive in terms of allowable affective interpretation.

Some final reflections on historical reenacting

As should be very apparent that when it comes to modern living history representations of past events, it is extremely difficult to authentically portray the personalities of participants with totally factual coherence and complete confidence. The same may be said for the gear and apparel used by living history participants portraying World War Two German combatants, given the often overlooked fact that disruption of materiel supplies resulting from wartime destruction (notably from bombing raids on German manufacturing infrastructure as the war progressed) frequently resulted in much improvisation and eclectic variation. This may be noted in some items of flying apparel worn by German aircrews, which reflected a considerable variation at times, when supplies of some standard issue items became difficult to obtain and therefore brought about the substitution of both materials and componentry. Despite regulations, fliers sometimes adopted non-standard  items of kit that were more functionally suited to their needs than issue items. A good example of this is found in the standard rough wool, blue-gray combat pants issued to Luftwaffe enlisted ground troops, which fliers occasionally preferred to wear instead of fitted riding breeches or channel pants. Leather jackets are another item manifesting considerable circumstantial variation.

The more one studies the events and circumstances of wartime Germany, the more one gathers the impression that there were fewer and fewer hard and fast rules applicable concerning kit towards the end of the war. Units and personnel did what they had to do in order to carry out their missions (and survive). Thus a fairly broad range of variability in materiel would appear to be more of a standard than an exception, and a primary consideration for any reenactor seeking reasonable authenticity, regardless of the expressed opinions of those who obsess over the tiniest details of kit, apparel and appearance.

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

[Note:  The emblem shown at top of page is that for the AESCaLEP (Aeromedical Evacuation Staffel, California Luftwaffe Enactment Personae) historical reenactment staffel, a new local group based in Sacramento, CA, dedicated to the history of the German Luftwaffe Medical Services of the Second World War period.]

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

References:

Anonymous, ‘Historical Reenactment’ (Wikipedia, last modified 14 Oct 12).

Agnew, Vanessa, ‘History’s Affective Turn: Historical Reenactment and its Work in the Present’, Rethinking History, Vol 11, Issue 3, 3 Sep 2007.

Bloom, Sandra L., MD, ‘Every Time History Repeats Itself the Price Goes Up: The Social Reenactment of Trauma’, (The Journal of) Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 3(3),: 161-194, 1996.

Fletcher, Harry R., ‘A History of the Luftwaffe?’, Air University Review, November-December 1969.

Hollway, Don, ‘German Knight on the Russian Front’, Aviation History, Sept 2012.

Williamson, Maj. Murray, 'Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe, 1933-1945', Air University Press, Jan 1983

Steubner, Karen R., ‘The Psychological Basis of Historical Explanation: Reenactment, Simulation, and the Fusion of Horizons’, History and Theory 41, Feb 2002 (Wesleyan University)

 ---

Additional References:

Der Adler, Volume 21, Official Publication of LARA (Luftwaffe Aircrew Reenactment Association), USA, 2012

AESCaLEP Beobachter, bulletin of the Aeromedical Evacuation Staffel, California Luftwaffe Enactment Personae, Sacramento CA (2012)

 ---

Organisational Contacts:

LARA (Luftwaffe Aircrew Renactors Association), USA
 http://luftwaffereenactors.com/index.htm

LARG (Luftwaffe Airfield Reenactment Group), UK
 http://www.luftwaffeairfieldre-enactmentgroup.org.uk/index.html

AESCaLEP  (Aeromedical Evacuation Staffel, California Luftwaffe Enactment Personae)
(contact author of this article)