Gentlemen of war
Discussion
hugo a gogo said:
except it's not a game is it
the bomber crew don't get back to have another crack at goal, they come back with more bombs and incendiaries to drop on families like your own in towns like your own, the people you are supposedly defending
no soldier would stop and say "it's OK, I can see you're having trouble reloading, I'll wait"
(note: this applies in both directions obviously, lets not have some idiot check my profile, see 'germany' and call me a nazi)
Indeed, but we are human, and maintaining human decency, even in war, is vital if there is ever to be peace. Stories like this, the football match between the trenches at Christmas, and so on are examples of that decency and humanity, which the Geneva convention seeks to protect.the bomber crew don't get back to have another crack at goal, they come back with more bombs and incendiaries to drop on families like your own in towns like your own, the people you are supposedly defending
no soldier would stop and say "it's OK, I can see you're having trouble reloading, I'll wait"
(note: this applies in both directions obviously, lets not have some idiot check my profile, see 'germany' and call me a nazi)
Cheers,
FT.
Fume troll said:
hugo a gogo said:
except it's not a game is it
the bomber crew don't get back to have another crack at goal, they come back with more bombs and incendiaries to drop on families like your own in towns like your own, the people you are supposedly defending
no soldier would stop and say "it's OK, I can see you're having trouble reloading, I'll wait"
(note: this applies in both directions obviously, lets not have some idiot check my profile, see 'germany' and call me a nazi)
Indeed, but we are human, and maintaining human decency, even in war, is vital if there is ever to be peace. Stories like this, the football match between the trenches at Christmas, and so on are examples of that decency and humanity, which the Geneva convention seeks to protect.the bomber crew don't get back to have another crack at goal, they come back with more bombs and incendiaries to drop on families like your own in towns like your own, the people you are supposedly defending
no soldier would stop and say "it's OK, I can see you're having trouble reloading, I'll wait"
(note: this applies in both directions obviously, lets not have some idiot check my profile, see 'germany' and call me a nazi)
Cheers,
FT.
Its war, its s
tty, but you have to try to win. Its not nice killing the baddies, but its better than the baddies killing you or your gran. If you kill or capture as many baddies as you can (capturing whenever possible) then you stand a better chance of being able to sleep for the rest of your life than if you let a baddie go, and then spend the rest of your life wondering how many of your buddies they went on to kill. Mental breakdown follows close behind.Do you remember the plot device in Saving Private Ryan where the Americans take pity on a lone German prisoner and release him, only for that same German solier to kill one of the Americans later in the film?
Spielberg used that rather contrived situation to show how the gallant and merciful Americans get stitched up by the dishonest hun, but in spite of the disadvantage of being the ones who play fair, go on to win victory in the end.
Well that was Hollywood bulls
t. All that plot device showed was poor soldiering on the part of the Americans in returning a dangerous enemy to the field. An allied soldier died for no good reason in a completely avoidable situation they brought on themselves. Romantic and heartwarming just isn't the point. BarnatosGhost said:
So would you have applauded if our airmen had all taken the same 'arm around the shoulder' approach and for us to have lost the war?
Its war, its stty, but you have to try to win. Its not nice killing the baddies, but its better than the baddies killing you or your gran. If you kill or capture as many baddies as you can (capturing whenever possible) then you stand a better chance of being able to sleep for the rest of your life than if you let a baddie go, and then spend the rest of your life wondering how many of your buddies they went on to kill. Mental breakdown follows close behind.
Do you remember the plot device in Saving Private Ryan where the Americans take pity on a lone German prisoner and release him, only for that same German solier to kill one of the Americans later in the film?
Spielberg used that rather contrived situation to show how the gallant and merciful Americans get stitched up by the dishonest hun, but in spite of the disadvantage of being the ones who play fair, go on to win victory in the end.
Well that was Hollywood bullst. All that plot device showed was poor soldiering on the part of the Americans in returning a dangerous enemy to the field. An allied soldier died for no good reason in a completely avoidable situation they brought on themselves. Romantic and heartwarming just isn't the point.
Too black and white. You have to remember what the Americans in your example were fighting for, the point wasn't to kill as many baddies as possible. That soldier didn't die for no good reason, he died for the values, ethics and standards that he was fighting to protect. It's not easy being the good guys.Its war, its s
tty, but you have to try to win. Its not nice killing the baddies, but its better than the baddies killing you or your gran. If you kill or capture as many baddies as you can (capturing whenever possible) then you stand a better chance of being able to sleep for the rest of your life than if you let a baddie go, and then spend the rest of your life wondering how many of your buddies they went on to kill. Mental breakdown follows close behind.Do you remember the plot device in Saving Private Ryan where the Americans take pity on a lone German prisoner and release him, only for that same German solier to kill one of the Americans later in the film?
Spielberg used that rather contrived situation to show how the gallant and merciful Americans get stitched up by the dishonest hun, but in spite of the disadvantage of being the ones who play fair, go on to win victory in the end.
Well that was Hollywood bulls
t. All that plot device showed was poor soldiering on the part of the Americans in returning a dangerous enemy to the field. An allied soldier died for no good reason in a completely avoidable situation they brought on themselves. Romantic and heartwarming just isn't the point. What are the rules of engagement? Do you let the others shoot first? Do you shoot first as soon as you see a gun, or just a uniform? What if your opponent is 12, or a woman, any difference? Do you shoot someone you think (but can't prove) might be a spotter for the hidden mortar team that's hammering your position? Would you strafe a column of retreating, obviously beaten soldiers who are walking back to the homeland? Or a man hanging in the harness of his 'chute, over your land, or over his?
There is a need for flexibility, never more so than in the modern theatres of combat we find ourselves in such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd argue that we are the ones who play fair there, we don't set roadside bombs, hide behind civilans, and generally wait to be engaged before engaging. If you want to be the good guys, you have to walk the walk.
Cheers,
FT.
Battenburg Bob said:
So do we sink hospital ships, bomb hospitals and massacre the wounded. After all, they might recover and come back to fight again.
The Japanese did that in WW2. They are rightly vilified for it.
That really wasn't the direction I'm heading down - those examples are non-combatant. A bomber heading home to repair and re-load is not non-combatant.The Japanese did that in WW2. They are rightly vilified for it.
Lets face it - if the chummy approach had worked then there wouldn't have been a war to worry about. Once the war is a reality, its time to bloody win it. If everyone tries their best for their own country, and keeps within the agreed 'rules of war', then nobody has to worry about doing the 'right' thing, they just have to worry about staying alive and helping their side.
There's a good reason you don't win medals for 'going easy' on enemy machine-gun nests.
If the British airmen had surrendered and landed behind enemy lines, and given themselves up, then all the rules on prisoners of war are there to be obeyed, and good rules they are too. But these British airmen hadn't surrendered - they were bugging out to get home, get a new plane, and be back again tomorrow - thats why they *should* have been shot down.
It is the only dutiful, responsible action available to the German pilot. He knows that - otherwise, why did he keep schtum for 50 years?
BarnatosGhost said:
Battenburg Bob said:
So do we sink hospital ships, bomb hospitals and massacre the wounded. After all, they might recover and come back to fight again.
The Japanese did that in WW2. They are rightly vilified for it.
That really wasn't the direction I'm heading down - those examples are non-combatant. A bomber heading home to repair and re-load is not non-combatant.The Japanese did that in WW2. They are rightly vilified for it.
Lets face it - if the chummy approach had worked then there wouldn't have been a war to worry about. Once the war is a reality, its time to bloody win it. If everyone tries their best for their own country, and keeps within the agreed 'rules of war', then nobody has to worry about doing the 'right' thing, they just have to worry about staying alive and helping their side.
There's a good reason you don't win medals for 'going easy' on enemy machine-gun nests.
If the British airmen had surrendered and landed behind enemy lines, and given themselves up, then all the rules on prisoners of war are there to be obeyed, and good rules they are too. But these British airmen hadn't surrendered - they were bugging out to get home, get a new plane, and be back again tomorrow - thats why they *should* have been shot down.
It is the only dutiful, responsible action available to the German pilot. He knows that - otherwise, why did he keep schtum for 50 years?
Cheers,
FT.
Both if the stories mentioned in this thread are thought provoking and humane.
In a current combat climate, I think that those actions would be accepted, after all, I think nation states in general have moved away from carpet bombing entire city's etc.
Now there are Rules of Engagement (ROE), that clearly define what can and cannot be done in any given situation, I think the ROE for today would possibly show the german pilot did right. The bomber or it's crew were no longer a threat. As for the hitler incident, then the ROE would dictate that hitler should have been captured, if he was still armed he could have been shot.
But then, when interpretting the ROE, do you assess that the bomber is still armed, even if it's dropped it's load it still has guns.
Either way, the decision's were taken to take the side of the humane rather than the combat/war view. WHich is very gallant, but, as with the hitler case proved to be the wrong decision.
It can be discussed and analysed to death, but until any of us are in that situation, who know's how any of us would react.
I've served in the RN but have never been involved in such "close" combat, so who know's how I would react.
In a current combat climate, I think that those actions would be accepted, after all, I think nation states in general have moved away from carpet bombing entire city's etc.
Now there are Rules of Engagement (ROE), that clearly define what can and cannot be done in any given situation, I think the ROE for today would possibly show the german pilot did right. The bomber or it's crew were no longer a threat. As for the hitler incident, then the ROE would dictate that hitler should have been captured, if he was still armed he could have been shot.
But then, when interpretting the ROE, do you assess that the bomber is still armed, even if it's dropped it's load it still has guns.
Either way, the decision's were taken to take the side of the humane rather than the combat/war view. WHich is very gallant, but, as with the hitler case proved to be the wrong decision.
It can be discussed and analysed to death, but until any of us are in that situation, who know's how any of us would react.
I've served in the RN but have never been involved in such "close" combat, so who know's how I would react.
hugo a gogo said:
Pigeon said:
never heard that tale beforehttp://www.firstworldwar.com/features/tandey.htm
interestingly (or not) wikipedia, (first google result) doesn't mention it
Personally, I find the sparing of a disarmed aircraft to be an honorable act of compassion and humanity, as said a rare occurrence in War.
I also think it is wrong to compare Tandy's zemblanitous encounter. If Hitler had been any other man, he would have seen that act as a reason to show sympathy to his fellow man, rather than as a vindication for the desire to strengthen his homeland. If that were the case his leadership would have been considerably different if it had existed at all.
But of course he was a nutter, and there are and have been plenty more nutter world leaders about that have been stopped on the basis of the experiences of the 2nd World War, particularly with regards to Hitler himself. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else, god forbid it would have been someone else a few years further down the line with more technology and access to Nuclear Weapons. Perhaps such a nutter will come along eventually, but that will only underline the pointlessness of criticising Tandy's act.
In the same way if those pilots had been dead, then there would likely have been another crew to fulfil their role, but regardless to compare their death to those that they might go on to harm is, in my opinion, a flawed idea. The effects of his decision and the inspiration it creates could easily save as many lives in the future than they took after being spared. Perhaps you could equate it to the fact that everyone dies, but our race needs humanity to continue its existence. As soon as the desire to preserve life is completely lost, whatever the circumstances, we're all screwed anyway.
To kill to save others is a catch 22 situation in terms of morality, and when you start thinking about numbers, you're rationalising killing people and the essence of compassion is lost. When you're thinking about numbers and who's on what side then you're clearly completely off the page when it comes to right and wrong.
Granted it's a bit of a philosophical point of view and it wont make any members of the resulting victims' families feel any better, but coarsely put, I guess my point is that there's no guarantee that they would have survived for the entirety of their natural lives, or even the rest of the war. That and there's no point surviving a war to live among animals and murderers.
I also think it is wrong to compare Tandy's zemblanitous encounter. If Hitler had been any other man, he would have seen that act as a reason to show sympathy to his fellow man, rather than as a vindication for the desire to strengthen his homeland. If that were the case his leadership would have been considerably different if it had existed at all.
But of course he was a nutter, and there are and have been plenty more nutter world leaders about that have been stopped on the basis of the experiences of the 2nd World War, particularly with regards to Hitler himself. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else, god forbid it would have been someone else a few years further down the line with more technology and access to Nuclear Weapons. Perhaps such a nutter will come along eventually, but that will only underline the pointlessness of criticising Tandy's act.
In the same way if those pilots had been dead, then there would likely have been another crew to fulfil their role, but regardless to compare their death to those that they might go on to harm is, in my opinion, a flawed idea. The effects of his decision and the inspiration it creates could easily save as many lives in the future than they took after being spared. Perhaps you could equate it to the fact that everyone dies, but our race needs humanity to continue its existence. As soon as the desire to preserve life is completely lost, whatever the circumstances, we're all screwed anyway.
To kill to save others is a catch 22 situation in terms of morality, and when you start thinking about numbers, you're rationalising killing people and the essence of compassion is lost. When you're thinking about numbers and who's on what side then you're clearly completely off the page when it comes to right and wrong.
Granted it's a bit of a philosophical point of view and it wont make any members of the resulting victims' families feel any better, but coarsely put, I guess my point is that there's no guarantee that they would have survived for the entirety of their natural lives, or even the rest of the war. That and there's no point surviving a war to live among animals and murderers.
Thread resurrection time (since it was linked from a recent PH thread http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...)
Some good points made here.
To those who feel that Stigler failed in his duty by not attacking the wounded B17, how do you think this differs from a pilot shooting at an airman haning from his parachute? Said airman could well escape and return to active service pretty quickly...
Some good points made here.
To those who feel that Stigler failed in his duty by not attacking the wounded B17, how do you think this differs from a pilot shooting at an airman haning from his parachute? Said airman could well escape and return to active service pretty quickly...
Lefty said:
Thread resurrection time (since it was linked from a recent PH thread http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...)
Some good points made here.
To those who feel that Stigler failed in his duty by not attacking the wounded B17, how do you think this differs from a pilot shooting at an airman haning from his parachute? Said airman could well escape and return to active service pretty quickly...
Or what about the chaps who played football in no mans land on christmas day ww1? I think what this german chap did proved that not all agreed with the war. I don't think I could have shot them down either but it would have been a hard choice to make.Some good points made here.
To those who feel that Stigler failed in his duty by not attacking the wounded B17, how do you think this differs from a pilot shooting at an airman haning from his parachute? Said airman could well escape and return to active service pretty quickly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
Lefty said:
Thread resurrection time (since it was linked from a recent PH thread http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...)
Some good points made here.
To those who feel that Stigler failed in his duty by not attacking the wounded B17, how do you think this differs from a pilot shooting at an airman haning from his parachute? Said airman could well escape and return to active service pretty quickly...
IIRC Adolf Galland was asked by Goering what he thought about killing British pilots on parachutes during the Battle of Britain, and Galland said words to the effect that he thought it amounted to murder (presumably because they were defenceless). Some good points made here.
To those who feel that Stigler failed in his duty by not attacking the wounded B17, how do you think this differs from a pilot shooting at an airman haning from his parachute? Said airman could well escape and return to active service pretty quickly...
I guess Stigler effectively rejected "murder" on this occasion. Would anyone say that Galland also therefore failed in his "duty" ? I expect that many of the British fighter pilots Galland refused to kill were almost certainly back in the air within days or weeks and in turn killing Luftwaffe aircrew.
Obviously the views on this subject are polarised massively by which side won the conflict. Maybe there are untold stories of Britsh airmen sparing Luftwaffe aircraft, but these stories would obviously never surface?
My personal opinion is that Stigler did the right thing in this case, irrespective of "duty".
Bedazzled said:
Maybe the B17 crew would have returned to bomb other civilians
Yes they would, but had Stigler shot them down, they would instantly have been replaced by a new aircraft and crew - so gaining nothing. The airplane had already dropped its bombs so there were no 'civilian lives' to be saved by gained by shooting it down. So Stigler saved lived by his action.As for Hitler, he galvanised the nationalist movement but there would still have been war, just led by somebody else. It's naive to think that if Hitler had been killed in WW1 the rest of the 20th century would have been peace and flowers; there were massive pressures building up and it was going to go bang eventually.
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 19th November 18:09
tank slapper said:
dr_gn said:
My personal opinion is that Stigler did the right thing in this case, irrespective of "duty".
I agree. Was he a worse soldier because of it? Perhaps, but he was an infinitely better human being.mrmaggit said:
Similar in some ways to Hans Langsdorff, scuttled the Graf Spee rather than take on the Navy. As was said in the film, "many a life has been saved today".
And then he shot himself.Lucky for us that Francis Drake decided to have a go at a vastly superior force in 1588, and Nelson after him in 1805 - but they were directly defending their country. 'It's the size of the fight in the dog' etc. as Mr Churchill said.
If saving lives is the key, we'd have saved countless British lives by not declaring war on Germany in 1939! Did we do wrong?
Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 20th November 09:43
Stigler should have been Court Marshalled. The USAAF should have informed the Germans what Stigler did without delay. The Germans would have probably Court Marshalled him. If they took him off flying duties it would be one less experienced German pilot to threaten our aircrew.
The B17 was off course and heading deeper into German territory. If Stigler’s conscience rendered him unable to shoot it down then taking no action would have sufficed. The B17 would have eventually succumbed to battle damage or run out of fuel; either way the B17 would have come down over German territory and the surviving crew would become POW’s.
Stigler’s treasonable act was to aid the enemy by signalling them to change course, compounded by wilful disobedience of an order in the face of the enemy. In addition he falsified records by claiming an enemy aircraft destroyed. This not only inflates his personal score but misleads the Luftwaffe intelligence reports estimating Allied strength.
It was also a cruel act since the B17 could well have ditched over water and the crew been lost at sea.
The best chance of survival for the B17 crew was to bail out or crash land over occupied Europe to become POW’s or evaders. However, this would have resulted in the survivors being debriefed. At this point there was a strong possibility that Stigler’s actions would be discovered.
We should consider the possibility that Stigler thought it through, decided he couldn’t shoot and hoped they would ditch. That would be crueller than forcing them to bail out over occupied Europe and could have been motivated by self-interest to avoid discovery of his actions.
It sounds as if the B17 was no longer capable of mounting a defence because the gunners were dead or wounded. In that condition it wouldn’t have been capable of evasive action. The painting shows one engine stopped. Stigler could have easily targeted another engine and forced it down. Had he done so then his superiors could hardly criticise his actions.
That could have been the kindest act. The crew were fortunate to survive the war. Many didn’t and the odds were terrible. The best chance of survival for them would have been as a POW.
The fact Stigler remained silent for years until it was revealed by the B17 crew suggests he knew his guilt. He probably believed the B17 ditched with the loss of the crew and hoped his secret was safe.
The B17 was off course and heading deeper into German territory. If Stigler’s conscience rendered him unable to shoot it down then taking no action would have sufficed. The B17 would have eventually succumbed to battle damage or run out of fuel; either way the B17 would have come down over German territory and the surviving crew would become POW’s.
Stigler’s treasonable act was to aid the enemy by signalling them to change course, compounded by wilful disobedience of an order in the face of the enemy. In addition he falsified records by claiming an enemy aircraft destroyed. This not only inflates his personal score but misleads the Luftwaffe intelligence reports estimating Allied strength.
It was also a cruel act since the B17 could well have ditched over water and the crew been lost at sea.
The best chance of survival for the B17 crew was to bail out or crash land over occupied Europe to become POW’s or evaders. However, this would have resulted in the survivors being debriefed. At this point there was a strong possibility that Stigler’s actions would be discovered.
We should consider the possibility that Stigler thought it through, decided he couldn’t shoot and hoped they would ditch. That would be crueller than forcing them to bail out over occupied Europe and could have been motivated by self-interest to avoid discovery of his actions.
It sounds as if the B17 was no longer capable of mounting a defence because the gunners were dead or wounded. In that condition it wouldn’t have been capable of evasive action. The painting shows one engine stopped. Stigler could have easily targeted another engine and forced it down. Had he done so then his superiors could hardly criticise his actions.
That could have been the kindest act. The crew were fortunate to survive the war. Many didn’t and the odds were terrible. The best chance of survival for them would have been as a POW.
The fact Stigler remained silent for years until it was revealed by the B17 crew suggests he knew his guilt. He probably believed the B17 ditched with the loss of the crew and hoped his secret was safe.
Uncle Fester said:
Stigler should have been Court Marshalled. The USAAF should have informed the Germans what Stigler did without delay. The Germans would have probably Court Marshalled him. If they took him off flying duties it would be one less experienced German pilot to threaten our aircrew.
And they'd have replaced him with a pilot who wouldn't have had Stigler's compassion, so there would have been more dead US aircrew. If the enemy has a weakness, don't tell him!Uncle Fester said:
Stigler should have been Court Marshalled. The USAAF should have informed the Germans what Stigler did without delay. The Germans would have probably Court Marshalled him. If they took him off flying duties it would be one less experienced German pilot to threaten our aircrew.
The B17 was off course and heading deeper into German territory. If Stigler’s conscience rendered him unable to shoot it down then taking no action would have sufficed. The B17 would have eventually succumbed to battle damage or run out of fuel; either way the B17 would have come down over German territory and the surviving crew would become POW’s.
Stigler’s treasonable act was to aid the enemy by signalling them to change course, compounded by wilful disobedience of an order in the face of the enemy. In addition he falsified records by claiming an enemy aircraft destroyed. This not only inflates his personal score but misleads the Luftwaffe intelligence reports estimating Allied strength.
It was also a cruel act since the B17 could well have ditched over water and the crew been lost at sea.
The best chance of survival for the B17 crew was to bail out or crash land over occupied Europe to become POW’s or evaders. However, this would have resulted in the survivors being debriefed. At this point there was a strong possibility that Stigler’s actions would be discovered.
We should consider the possibility that Stigler thought it through, decided he couldn’t shoot and hoped they would ditch. That would be crueller than forcing them to bail out over occupied Europe and could have been motivated by self-interest to avoid discovery of his actions.
It sounds as if the B17 was no longer capable of mounting a defence because the gunners were dead or wounded. In that condition it wouldn’t have been capable of evasive action. The painting shows one engine stopped. Stigler could have easily targeted another engine and forced it down. Had he done so then his superiors could hardly criticise his actions.
That could have been the kindest act. The crew were fortunate to survive the war. Many didn’t and the odds were terrible. The best chance of survival for them would have been as a POW.
The fact Stigler remained silent for years until it was revealed by the B17 crew suggests he knew his guilt. He probably believed the B17 ditched with the loss of the crew and hoped his secret was safe.
Try reading Bob Tuck's book Fly for your Life, Chap 16, if you want to go on about "conscience" Unc fester.The B17 was off course and heading deeper into German territory. If Stigler’s conscience rendered him unable to shoot it down then taking no action would have sufficed. The B17 would have eventually succumbed to battle damage or run out of fuel; either way the B17 would have come down over German territory and the surviving crew would become POW’s.
Stigler’s treasonable act was to aid the enemy by signalling them to change course, compounded by wilful disobedience of an order in the face of the enemy. In addition he falsified records by claiming an enemy aircraft destroyed. This not only inflates his personal score but misleads the Luftwaffe intelligence reports estimating Allied strength.
It was also a cruel act since the B17 could well have ditched over water and the crew been lost at sea.
The best chance of survival for the B17 crew was to bail out or crash land over occupied Europe to become POW’s or evaders. However, this would have resulted in the survivors being debriefed. At this point there was a strong possibility that Stigler’s actions would be discovered.
We should consider the possibility that Stigler thought it through, decided he couldn’t shoot and hoped they would ditch. That would be crueller than forcing them to bail out over occupied Europe and could have been motivated by self-interest to avoid discovery of his actions.
It sounds as if the B17 was no longer capable of mounting a defence because the gunners were dead or wounded. In that condition it wouldn’t have been capable of evasive action. The painting shows one engine stopped. Stigler could have easily targeted another engine and forced it down. Had he done so then his superiors could hardly criticise his actions.
That could have been the kindest act. The crew were fortunate to survive the war. Many didn’t and the odds were terrible. The best chance of survival for them would have been as a POW.
The fact Stigler remained silent for years until it was revealed by the B17 crew suggests he knew his guilt. He probably believed the B17 ditched with the loss of the crew and hoped his secret was safe.
Touching story in hindsight, but at the time he should have finished the bomber off.
In return for being spared, did the bomber pilot and crew desist from further attacks on Germany?
One of the ultimate 'war crimes' in chivalric times was to accept mercy from an enemy, and then later resume hostilities.
In return for being spared, did the bomber pilot and crew desist from further attacks on Germany?
One of the ultimate 'war crimes' in chivalric times was to accept mercy from an enemy, and then later resume hostilities.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff