In their book, A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II, Adam Makos, and Larry Alexander discuss the story of Charlie Brown, the American Lieutenant, and Franz Stigler, the German Lieutenant, who had to face a lot of risks while fighting to win in World War II. A risk can be defined as the choice influenced by the uncertainty, which can have both negative and positive results and as the threat of negative consequences. Makos and Alexander describe many risky and dramatic situations connected with the book’s characters, and they should be analyzed in detail.
(1) The main risk faced by Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler is associated with the situation when the German pilot avoided destroying the American bomber in December of 1943. Stigler chose the technique of accepting the risk while reducing the minor secondary effects. On December 20, 1943, Brown piloted the bomber in the skies of Germany. The members of Brown’s crew were wounded, and the bomber was partially destroyed because of the fight’s effects.
The pilot had no resources to combat in the skies of Germany, and he was responsible for the crew. Thus, “Charlie knew that when he pulled back on the yoke, the lives of nine men would be in his hands” (Makos and Alexander 171). From this point, during the first stage of the fight, Brown followed the strategy of avoiding the risk in order to save the lives of the crew members, but then he accepted the risk.
Franz Stigler, the German Lieutenant, was the ace in flying, and his task was to destroy the bomber of the enemy. Observing the American bomber and making decisions about further actions, Stigler had to make a decision about fighting the enemy’s bomber as the officer of the German army. However, Stigler focused on accepting the risk of being punished by the Gestapo, and he chose not to destroy the enemy’s forces (Makos and Alexander 171). Furthermore, Stigler chose to reduce the possible risks for the American pilot, and he flew with the American bomber to the North Sea coast. Thus, Stigler’s techniques in handling the risk are based on accepting all the positive and negative consequences of the situation without avoiding it.
(2) Lieutenant Roedel faced a risk of inflating the victories in Africa because of Voegl and Bendert’s false claims. The spread of information about the aspects of the “Voegl Flight” became threatening for the reputation of Roedel. To handle the risk, Roedel chose the technique of transferring the risk and its consequences to Voegl and Bendert while confronting them privately. The authors provide the cues that Roedel understood the controversy of the situation, and he took action while using the camera-equipped planes in order to verify Voegl and Bender’s words about the victories.
To transfer the necessity of risk handling, Roedel chose to confront Voegl and Bendert in order to state the need for repairing the caused damage. It is also stated in the book that “as punishment, Roedel kept both men in the desert as long as he could” (Makos and Alexander 101). Thus, Roedel coped with the risk for his reputation while focusing on the technique of transferring the risk to the persons responsible for its consequences.
(3) The next important risk situation discussed in the book is associated with the mission of Roedel, Neumann, Luetzow, Steinhoff, and Hannes Trautloft, who had to meet Goering and inform him about the seriousness of their actions in relation to his removal. Makos and Alexander state that the men “had all gathered for the most dangerous mission of their lives” (Makos and Alexander 273). The men understood the risk of being punished for their mission, and they handled the risk while accepting its consequences.
The men are described as understanding all the negative consequences, but they could not ignore the risk because of the necessity to change the situation. The authors of the book note that “they knew there was no turning back” (Makos and Alexander 273). This statement supports the idea that the risk of meeting with Goering was handled by accepting it instead of avoiding the situation.
(4) One more important risk to be discussed was the situation when Franz Stigler risked the other person’s life while supporting Pirchan in relation to the idea about his final flight. Pirchan planned to leave the unit, and Stigler persuaded the young man to fly because he discussed the German skies as safer than usual. However, the young man’s plane crashed. From this point, it is possible to conclude that Stigler chose the approach of ignoring the risk because of focusing on his personal considerations. The next stage was to take an emotional risk of meeting with Pirchan’s family in order to inform them about Pirchan’s death and to say ‘good-buy’ (Makos and Alexander 336-337). At this stage, Stigler can be discussed as handling the risk while accepting the situation and its consequences.
The risk as the situation based on the principle of the uncertainty about the further consequences can be handled with the focus on different approaches. In the book, A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II written by Adam Makos and Larry Alexander, the characters demonstrate different approaches to handling the risk while making a choice.
Works Cited
Makos, Adam, and Larry Alexander. A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II. USA: Penguin, 2012. Print.