View Full Version : Nazi Germany
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 04:24
Was there any honour in fighting for the Nazi Germany warmachine? Consider that over 50 million people died in WWII.
Were the German soldiers more heroic then the Allies? How? Consider that they fought both for the Nazis and the Losing side.
Does that make Germans in WWII the modern equivalent to the Taliban and the Nazis AQ?
Do you think that giving out 3 million Iron Crosses reduces to them to the value of eye candy? Considering that means one out of six WWII Germans who fought for the Nazi warmachine had an Iron Cross.
That 8000 Knight Crosses were handed out to Germans (and a couple of foreigners in WWII) that they are more valuable then Congressional Medals of Honour of which 400 were handed out in WWII?
While these Knights were fighting for the motherland they extended the defence of the Death Camps? So their actions extended the war and allowed more people to die in ovens and being made into soap and human lampshades... true or false?
Let the pissing contest begin. ~:handball:
Byzantine Prince
09-20-2005, 04:31
Was there any honour in fighting for the Nazi Germany warmachine?
Not if they knew what they were really helping create.
Were the German soldiers more heroic then the Allies?
Both sides were fighting their buns off. To say one is not heroic or more heroic is to demean the trmendous risk that people from both sides were facing to end that conflict.
Does that make Germans in WWII the modern equivalent to the Taliban and the Nazis AQ?
Yes! Exactly the same, even in ideology. :yes: :wall:
Damn that's the smartest thing that's been uttered in weeks at the org.
While these Knights were fighting for the motherland they extended the defence of the Death Camps? So their actions extended the war and allowed more people to die in ovens and being made into soap and human lampshades... true or false?
So what? Everyone was dying, whether by battle, starvation, direct or indirect execution, what's the difference? There are two sides in a war, one has to win.
Also Germany is a fatherland.
I think there is heroism to be found in fighting for the Third Reich. After all, not all German went to war willingly. There are also quite a few issues that are usually buried in order to demean the Nazis, such as the "Jews were converting all their money into gold and therefore hurt the economy by removing their money from circulation". Is there any truth to that one?
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2005, 04:50
Anytime your false assumptions about the German military are questioned in the monestary, you turn the discussion into a political one. Cheap..
Was there any honour in fighting for the Nazi Germany warmachine? Consider that over 50 million people died in WWII.
Yes, there is honor in fighting for your nation. The average honorable German soldier was not fighting for any abstract political goals, but to help his country and his fellow Germans.
Honor is an individual thing. If you choose to impart the actions of a government on its individual soldiers, we must also question the honor of allied troops as they fought for nations that killed millions of innocent civilians purposely aswell.
Were the German soldiers more heroic then the Allies? How? Consider that they fought both for the Nazis and the Losing side.
No, but there were more heroic German soldiers simply because Germans had many more infantry engagements than the allies. Consider the fighting conditions of the average German soldier in Russia to that of the Tommy in France.. who had more bravery facing the enemy?
Does that make Germans in WWII the modern equivalent to the Taliban and the Nazis AQ?
Just as much as it makes any group of soldiers equivolent to the taliban.
Do you think that giving out 3 million Iron Crosses reduces to them to the value of eye candy? Considering that means one out of six WWII Germans who fought for the Nazi warmachine had an Iron Cross.
It means that 3 million Germans met the qualifications for the Iron Cross.
That 8000 Knight Crosses were handed out to Germans (and a couple of foreigners in WWII) that they are more valuable then Congressional Medals of Honour of which 400 were handed out in WWII?
Are you suggesting that there were equal numbers of brave soldiers on both sides? Where are your facts to back this up?
8000 Germans performed exceedingly bravely and 400 Americans did.
The next logical step to your implication is that the Knights Cross could only be as high an award if only 400 Germans got it. That defies intelligence.
While these Knights were fighting for the motherland they extended the defence of the Death Camps? So their actions extended the war and allowed more people to die in ovens and being made into soap and human lampshades... true or false?
Are we talking about combat bravery and awards, or are you just trying to prop up a poor position by dragging politics into a discussion about individual combat bravery?
German soldiers can take pride in the fact that they stood up against incredible odds and fought for their nation, just like the soldiers of every country in WW2. To expect a young farm boy from Bavaria to stand up and defy his nation, his family and his friends disregards any historical perspective, and is nothing more than an attempt to use politics to downplay German bravery on your part Pap.
Don Corleone
09-20-2005, 04:52
I would argue a lot of my view of the Germans fighting for the Nazi regime depends on the mindset of the individual. I have always meant to get around to researching what life in Germany, Austria Czech Republic et. al was like at that time. How much information did the average German have? Did he know that his government was pursuing aggresive action against weaker neighbors, or did he buy the spin? Did he know what was going on in Dachau? Did he know why? Was Krystalnacht a widespread phenomenon, or was it spun differently inside the Reich?
There is honor in fighting to defend one's homeland. Leibenstraum (sp?) should have been a bit of a yellow flag, but again, I have no idea how bad conditions in Germany in 1936 really were. I think the Germans fought bravely, and admirably but for a horribly depraved cause. Had they known what they were fighting for, it would taint any personal honor they could have gained. But then again, it is not the soldier's job to ask the Chancellor why he must go fight. He does as his nation asks, and hopes his nation has elected wise leaders.
discovery1
09-20-2005, 05:07
Who care's? Weep in either case, all the worse was that their sacrific was for such a terrible cause.
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2005, 05:29
Do you think that giving out 3 million Iron Crosses reduces to them to the value of eye candy?
I knew that didnt sound right. 2.3 million Second Class Iron Crosses were given out. 300k First Class were given.
That doesnt even add up to the original claim, not to mention the original claim is very misleading.
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 05:54
Anytime your false assumptions about the German military are questioned in the monestary, you turn the discussion into a political one. Cheap..
You asked for another thread, and I felt that as we are showing biases that it has become political. :charge:
Yes, there is honor in fighting for your nation. The average honorable German soldier was not fighting for any abstract political goals, but to help his country and his fellow Germans.
Honor is an individual thing. If you choose to impart the actions of a government on its individual soldiers, we must also question the honor of allied troops as they fought for nations that killed millions of innocent civilians purposely aswell.
So the Taliban and AQ are honourable?
Considering war is a political tool, it is disingenuous to separate who you fight for and their political ideals.
No, but there were more heroic German soldiers simply because Germans had many more infantry engagements than the allies. Consider the fighting conditions of the average German soldier in Russia to that of the Tommy in France.. who had more bravery facing the enemy?
The ones with less equipment? Like loaves against tanks...
Just as much as it makes any group of soldiers equivolent to the taliban.
Nope, only those who fight for tyrants who believe in a medieval monoculture.
It means that 3 million Germans met the qualifications for the Iron Cross.
Mathematically correct. It does also show the passmark was rather low if it was supposed to be at one time the highest point.
Are you suggesting that there were equal numbers of brave soldiers on both sides? Where are your facts to back this up?
Proportional I would not expect any differences in bravery, idealogies and training would make a difference. But I don't hold to any ideas of genetic superiority.
8000 Germans performed exceedingly bravely and 400 Americans did.
I still think that many awards is more of a dilution then an indicator of equivalence.
The next logical step to your implication is that the Knights Cross could only be as high an award if only 400 Germans got it. That defies intelligence.
USA and Germany had similar levels of serving and technology and belief in their country. So an equvialent award would expect equivalent results, not an order of magnitude different.
Are we talking about combat bravery and awards, or are you just trying to prop up a poor position by dragging politics into a discussion about individual combat bravery?
German soldiers can take pride in the fact that they stood up against incredible odds and fought for their nation, just like the soldiers of every country in WW2. To expect a young farm boy from Bavaria to stand up and defy his nation, his family and his friends disregards any historical perspective, and is nothing more than an attempt to use politics to downplay German bravery on your part Pap.
Because the amount of awards handed out was part of the Nazi propaganda machine.
Also the people of Germany were quite happy to eat at the trough of conquest. They were not unwitting accomplaces to a violent regieme. They fought for the Nazis and benefited from the conquests and turned a blind eye to the atrocities that they did.
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 06:11
Pape you need to take a step waaaaay back and think about what your saying for a second. If those KC's had done your "right thing" they wold have been shot or thrown in a concentration camp, with their families right behind them. Not to mention that they were German citizens doing their duty to their country. Just as our ancestors were doing their duty to their country by shooting at them. Your post was insulting and hurtfull to all German war vets. They have to deal with enough crap without you dropping trow and adding to it.
What like soldiers in Hamas are doing their duty for their country?
Or the Taliban, or the Mongols, or the Japanese Imperial Army in WWII?
Just remember the trials at the end of WWII clearly came out stating that doing your duty is not an excuse in doing crimes or in aiding them.
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2005, 06:28
You asked for another thread, and I felt that as we are showing biases that it has become political.
I am showing no biases, only fighting against them.
Considering war is a political tool, it is disingenuous to separate who you fight for and their political ideals.
Were the majority of Germans fighting for Hitler or Germany?
Nope, only those who fight for tyrants who believe in a medieval monoculture.
Opinion.
Mathematically correct. It does also show the passmark was rather low if it was supposed to be at one time the highest point.
See my correction of your grossly overstated numbers. Did 300k German soldiers perform above and beyond, from what ive read thats very likely. Above and beyond for an allied soldier was a normal day for many Germans.
Proportional I would not expect any differences in bravery, idealogies and training would make a difference. But I don't hold to any ideas of genetic superiority.
So your saying you have nothing to back up your assertion there should be the same amount of brave .. or excellent.. soldiers from all nations involved? Ok. Didnt think so..
Note: Thats the largest fallacy of the argument. Saying that a specific allied award was greater than a specific German award simply because it was given out less draws on a relativity that does not exist between the different militaries.
Again, more crosses were given out because more Germans earned them. Read a little about the Eastern front, and maybe you'll understand why. Most allied soldiers never saw action that intense.
Because the amount of awards handed out was part of the Nazi propaganda machine.
Untrue. Awards for service were very much based on merit even to the end of the war.
Also the people of Germany were quite happy to eat at the trough of conquest. They were not unwitting accomplaces to a violent regieme. They fought for the Nazis and benefited from the conquests and turned a blind eye to the atrocities that they did.
And the allied populations turned a blind eye to firebombing and the killing of countless civilians. War is hell, nobody played nice..
I knew that didnt sound right. 2.3 million Second Class Iron Crosses were given out. 300k First Class were given.
THe correct figure is somewhere between 300,000 to 500,000+ Iron Cross First Class were given out.
That doesnt even add up to the original claim, not to mention the original claim is very misleading.
1 out of 6 awarded a Iron Cross is indeed like candy - shall I give you the statastics that show many of the Iron Cross awards were not given for valor - but were given out.
The Iron Cross was awarded not only for bravery in the face of the enemy, but also for successful war planing and general merit. In addition, it was awarded for outstanding leadership skills and many officers received the award for the achievements of the men under their command. It was presented to all branches of the German Wehrmacht and their Axis allies, and though originally meant only for bravery in combat action, it was also bestowed on uniformed civilian organizations such as police, firemen, railway employees and Hitler Youth. The non-combatant ribbon to the Iron Cross was omitted from this reinstitution with the creation of the War Merit Cross compensating for this loss. Actually, the ribbon on the War Merit Cross had the colors of the Iron Cross reversed, as was the tradition of the non-combatant version of the Iron Cross.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/ww2/ironcross1939.html
Papaweio, soldiers are generally told exactly what they need to know. No more, no less. If a German squad was ordered to take out a gun emplacement, their officer would probably not say, "And by the way, lads, we're committing genocide in Poland. Huzzah!"
So let's hypothesize we have Private Gunther, and he does something terribly heroic in Russia. Let's pretend he saves his squad from instant death when the enemy unleashes their dog mines.* Private Gunther has now behaved like a hero, and deserves a medal. He has saved his buddies, kept his squad functioning, etc. It's doubtful that Gunther, Hans, Friedrich or any of his other mates know a single thing about what's happening on the home front.
I assume you're not talking about the Police Battalions or the concentration camp guards, or any of the other flat-out criminals. I'm getting your question as more along the lines of, "Did normal soldiers pursuing their legal duty deserve to be honored?" And the answer would have to be yes.
As for this comparison to the Taliban, well, I don't think it washes. The Talibs controlled their entire population with an iron fist, and their footsoldiers were expected to participate. Wednesday, fight the Northern Alliance; Thursday, shoot a man for playing music. I doubt that there were any straight-up soldiers in the bunch.
*Just so you know I'm not making up the Russian dog mine ...
http://www.ostfront.com/images_german/dogmine1.jpg
I am showing no biases, only fighting against them.
You might want to research how many of Iron Crosses were handed out for Valor and how many were merit awards.[/quote]
Were the majority of Germans fighting for Hitler or Germany?
They were fighting for the country who was under the leadership of Hilter. However there were several division that fought soley for Hilter.
See my correction of your grossly overstated numbers. Did 300k German soldiers perform above and beyond, from what ive read thats very likely. Above and beyond for an allied soldier was a normal day for many Germans.
You might want to check the actual number of awards for valor verus merit awards. You will be greatly surprised I think
So your saying you have nothing to back up your assertion there should be the same amount of brave .. or excellent.. soldiers from all nations involved? Ok. Didnt think so..
Inflated medal awards - do not equate to number of brave and excellent soldiers.
Note: Thats the largest fallacy of the argument. Saying that a specific allied award was greater than a specific German award simply because it was given out less draws on a relativity that does not exist between the different militaries.
And its also your fallacy.
Again, more crosses were given out because more Germans earned them. Read a little about the Eastern front, and maybe you'll understand why. Most allied soldiers never saw action that intense.
SO the Russians were not allied soldiers - oh boy. And again how many Iron Crosses were merit awards.
By the way the United States awarded 464 Medal of Honor - and somewhere around 60,000 Silver Star Medals for Valor - all of these were individual valor awards - unable to be diluted by merit awards such as the Iron Cross was done by Germany.
Untrue. Awards for service were very much based on merit even to the end of the war.
Sure given to all kinds of people see source in previous post - not all Iron Crosses were given out for Valor.
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 06:39
I suggest you read the biography of Sir Weary Dunlop... he and others was quite aware of what kind of depraved government the Nazis was before WWII.
It was quite well known how racist they were, to pretend ignorance of what they were about is not a factual account. Nor after the many cleansings in Russia could the German soldiers be naive of whom they were fighting for.
Revisionist history in this manner is not a good thing.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-20-2005, 06:42
Yes, there is honor in fighting for your nation. The average honorable German soldier was not fighting for any abstract political goals, but to help his country and his fellow Germans.
Honor is an individual thing. If you choose to impart the actions of a government on its individual soldiers, we must also question the honor of allied troops as they fought for nations that killed millions of innocent civilians purposely aswell.
So the Taliban and AQ are honourable?
.
Exactly what nation is the Taliban and AQ fighting for?
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 06:48
Taliban were the ruling party in Afghanistan...
Gawain of Orkeny
09-20-2005, 06:50
Taliban were the ruling party in Afghanistan...
Thats like saying in the 30s and 40s the Mafia was the ruling party in the US.
Thats like saying in the 30s and 40s the Mafia was the ruling party in the US.
However the Taliban were the ackownledge ruling party in Afganstan.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-20-2005, 06:58
However the Taliban were the ackownledge ruling party in Afganstan.
Ackowledged by who?
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 07:04
The US when they sent delegations to get an oil pipeline put through Afghanistan...
Ackowledged by who?
Well considering President Bush asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden - it seems by implied negotation that the United States accepted them as the power in Afganstan.
However from a Times Article in 2001
Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html
Franconicus
09-20-2005, 07:09
Pape, I am a bit surprised about the acrimony of your post. Although I do not want to justify the crimes during NS period I try to answer your questions:
Was there any honour in fighting for the Nazi Germany warmachine? Consider that over 50 million people died in WWII.
In fact who cares about honor? This is a word that Prussian militarists and Nazis abused a lot. Yes, people were told that it was a honor to fight and die for their country.
However there were also some good reasons for them:
1. Think of the bad situation before the war. Germany was put down and marauded.
2. People only could get the Nazi propaganda. There was not even a free discussion with neighbors possible. Most did not doubt that Germany fought because the other nations forced them to.
3. What was the alternative for Germany. A civil war? Surrender? You know that the allies were demanding unconditional surrender. After the experience of WW1 do you extect the German to put their future in the hands of the allies.
4. The fear. Many Germans fought to protect the lives of their families. Luftwaffe kept on fighting against the flying fortresses although they knew that they could not stop them. But no soldier could give up the fight without even trying to shot a single bomber and so save lifes of civilists. Same with the submarines. When the losses were to high Dönitz stopped the fighting. Then there was the attack on Hamburg. They found out that many bombers had naval equipment. They attacked German towns now that they did not have to fight German subs any more. So the submarines started to fight again, knowing they had no chance.
5. What would have been the personal alternative? Surrender? Riot? The soldiers were controled and punished heavily. If you gave up without a fight your family was arrested.
Were the German soldiers more heroic then the Allies? How? Consider that they fought both for the Nazis and the Losing side.
Yes. They had less support and were desperate in the end. Although the Soviets were not less brave.
Does that make Germans in WWII the modern equivalent to the Taliban and the Nazis AQ?
That is rediculous. Most German soldiers were no Nazis. And they were no volunteers.
An different story is the Waffen-SS
Do you think that giving out 3 million Iron Crosses reduces to them to the value of eye candy? Considering that means one out of six WWII Germans who fought for the Nazi warmachine had an Iron Cross.
Of course there was an inflation of Eisernes Kreuz. At least 2nd class. But the higher ones were tough to get.
That 8000 Knight Crosses were handed out to Germans (and a couple of foreigners in WWII) that they are more valuable then Congressional Medals of Honour of which 400 were handed out in WWII?
You know how many planes some German fighters shot down. You know the success of Rudel. I know the conditions were not the same and an American fighter had no chance to shoot 200 planes. Nevertheless those deeds were outstanding in deed.
While these Knights were fighting for the motherland they extended the defence of the Death Camps? So their actions extended the war and allowed more people to die in ovens and being made into soap and human lampshades... true or false?
They did. I tried to explain some of the reasons.
Let the pissing contest begin. ~:confused:
P.S.: Do you have a problems with Nazis or with Germans?
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2005, 07:14
You might want to research how many of Iron Crosses were handed out for Valor and how many were merit awards.[/QUOTE]
What, may I ask, is wrong with merit? If a commander saves a division with superior planning, should he not be given a the highest award?
Inflated medal awards - do not equate to number of brave and excellent soldiers.
Wheres your proof of inflation?
SO the Russians were not allied soldiers - oh boy.
Quit putting words in people's mouths, its annoying. Where did i say or even imply that.
By the way the United States awarded 464 Medal of Honor - and somewhere around 60,000 Silver Star Medals for Valor - all of these were individual valor awards - unable to be diluted by merit awards such as the Iron Cross was done by Germany.
Diluted? Lol thats rich. Read what those medals were given for and then come back and act as if they were undeserved. A HJ saving children from a house the allies blew up is just as corageous as any soldier.
Sure given to all kinds of people see source in previous post - not all Iron Crosses were given out for Valor.
What does that have to do with the claim that they were given out like candy? Bravery and excellence in a wartime situation comes in more than one form.
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 07:17
The pissing contest has evolved out of a Monastery thread with this post in particular:
Unlike the situation with the Soviets, German decorations were awarded without regard to rank. And in contrast to the Western Allies, they were never awarded for single acts of conspicuous bravery, but rather for a consistent record of personal gallantry and success in combat.
15 Jan 42: Knight's Cross
Equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Britain's Victoria Cross.
14 Apr 43: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves
Higher level of above, awarded rarely.
25 Nov 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves & Swords
Won by those who had performed the most extreme acts of personal gallantry on a daily basis. Awarded very rarely: most often posthumously.
29 Mar 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Extraordinarily prestigious award... like winning four Congressional Medals of Honor or Victoria Crosses. Back-dated to the time of his escape across the Dnjester when conferred on 25 Nov.
1 Jan 45: Knight's Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Note that the Golden Oakleaves were awarded once during the entire war, the decoration being instituted in answer to Rudel's continuing feats of unprecedented heroism.
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2005, 07:27
P.S.: Do you have a problems with Nazis or with Germans?
Pap does not allow any discussion of anything positive about the German military in WW2 to occur without adding the typical "Nazi! Evil! Bad! Hitler! Genocide!!!!!!!!11".
This is admirable of course, we should never get too involved in the specifics without recognizing the overall effect of the Nazis, but it does get tiring to those of us who have moved past the 40s and try and look at things from on objective point of view.
However, more and more enthusiasts are coming to the conclusion that admiring the German military does not equate to admiring German policy of the time.
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 07:28
What does that have to do with the claim that they were given out like candy? Bravery and excellence in a wartime situation comes in more than one form.
Actually the exchange went something along the following who can piss higher:
Germans spun out awards as fast as Russians made tanks.
You're kidding right? ~:eek:
No I'm not kidding. I don't think Russia had 1 tank for every 6 soldiers now did it?
Then
If you want to check out the number of Iron Crosses awarded to say the Bronze Star medal - you might indeed find out that the Germans handed out medals like Candy during the war. Germany used several different levels in awarding the Knights Cross - so to compare to only one level for the Congressional Medal of Honor and if I remember it correctly there is only one level for the Victoria Cross also, is indeed a weak comparsion.
You are basing that on the assumption that both sides had relatively equal numbers of heroic soldiers. Thats the falacy of your claim.
Germany handed out more medals because more Germans earned them. Your attempt to find some relativity between the number of brave German soldiers and the number of brave Americans does not hold water.
etc :charge:
What, may I ask, is wrong with merit? If a commander saves a division with superior planning, should he not be given a the highest award?
Nothing at all - but when your attempting to make an arguement about German soldiers earning the awards based upon valor - the merit arguement shows that not all Iron Crosses were awarded based upon valor.
Wheres your proof of inflation?
Well you asked for it and it was already given. You claimed in an earlier post
It means that 3 million Germans met the qualifications for the Iron Cross.
Now what was the purpose of the Iron Cross being awarded to an individual -
A single act of outstanding combat bravery above and beyond the call of duty
http://www.feldgrau.com/ekii.html
In some cases, entire units were awarded the EK2 enmasse, as was the case of the Kriegsmarine Admiral Scheer on April 1st, 1941 when all 1,300 members of the crew were awarded the EK2
An entire unit of men fitting the describtion of the requirment of the award. Yeah right.
Quit putting words in people's mouths, its annoying. Where did i say or even imply that.
Again you asked for it - here it is
Read a little about the Eastern front, and maybe you'll understand why. Most allied soldiers never saw action that intense.
No Germans faced the United States on our second front either. Considering that the Soviet Union had about double the United States presence in Europe on the Eastern front your statement in itself is false. Most Allied Troops - ie the Russians fought on the Eastern Front.
Diluted? Lol thats rich. Read what those medals were given for and then come back and act as if they were undeserved. A HJ saving children from a house the allies blew up is just as corageous as any soldier.
Again you might want to read why some of the Iron Crosses were given out, and what the requirements for the award is. Giving the award to a whole unit - especially a ship - is definelty dilluting the award.
What does that have to do with the claim that they were given out like candy? Bravery and excellence in a wartime situation comes in more than one form.
Just like I stated in an earlier thread - in response to your attempt at painting a false picture about bravery in combat and the awarding of medals.
Here is part of what you quoted in the initial response in the thread in the Monstery.
Unlike the situation with the Soviets, German decorations were awarded without regard to rank. And in contrast to the Western Allies, they were never awarded for single acts of conspicuous bravery, but rather for a consistent record of personal gallantry and success in combat.
The evidence shows that this statement by the author is indeed baised his many Iron Crosses were handed out and some were for a single act of bravery.
Then you tried to be witty to Papewaio in a response about Allied Bravery - primarily that of the Commonwealth forces with this little statement
Yea Pap, there were so many more extraordinary German soldiers than commonwealth ones.
Giving military awards to civilians no matter how brave they might be is dilluting the battlefield bravery that the award is meant to be honoring - and this is from the German requirments for the award not mine. Then giving a personal bravery award for to every member of a unit - dillutes the award since we all know that the statistics of everyone going above and beyond the requirments of duty in a 1300 man unit are.
and then this little bit of fallacy on your part
You are basing that on the assumption that both sides had relatively equal numbers of heroic soldiers. Thats the falacy of your claim.
Your basing your attempts here on a false assumption that all Iron Crosses were awarded based upon the orginial intent of the award. Several instance and circumstance have been shown already that shows that the Iron Cross was not always award in accordance with the requirments of the award.
Franconicus
09-20-2005, 08:00
Does that make Germans in WWII the modern equivalent to the Taliban and the Nazis AQ?
Pape,
I am sure you know that millions of Germans were arrested, tortured and killed by the Nazis, too. And that many others had to leave their country. So I cannot understand your question!
Ja'chyra
09-20-2005, 09:43
Will you two get a room?
Was there any honour in fighting for the Nazi Germany warmachine? Consider that over 50 million people died in WWII.
Most of them didn't fight for the Nazi's but for their country, their family and their friends and there must be honour in fighting for those things otherwise there can be no honour in any self-sacrifice.
Were the German soldiers more heroic then the Allies? How? Consider that they fought both for the Nazis and the Losing side.
What has this got to do with heroism? By your measure there would be no heroes unless there side won and you agreed with their cause.
No, but there were more heroic German soldiers simply because Germans had many more infantry engagements than the allies. Consider the fighting conditions of the average German soldier in Russia to that of the Tommy in France.. who had more bravery facing the enemy?
Lol, there's a sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one. If the Germans had more infantry engagements than the Allies who were they fighting?
As for the medals I would say that they did water down the selection procedure and this inevitably cheapens the medals that were earned by pure merit, but this does not mean that the one's who actually earned them are less brave than allied soldiers.
Are you suggesting that there were equal numbers of brave soldiers on both sides? Where are your facts to back this up?
8000 Germans performed exceedingly bravely and 400 Americans did.
The next logical step to your implication is that the Knights Cross could only be as high an award if only 400 Germans got it. That defies intelligence.
Here I am forgetting that the US won the war all by themselves.
The idea that one side is inherently braver than the other is ridiculous as is the implication that the losing, or "wrong", side has no honour or bravery. Maybe you should both take the blinkers off and see that both sides carried out great, and terrible, deeds and both showed bravery and honour at times, either that or take it to PM's.
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 10:33
I have taken the piss for long enough ~D
Example of Brave and Honourable (http://www.acepilots.com/misc_hartmann.html) :balloon2:
Was there any honour in fighting for the Nazi Germany warmachine? Consider that over 50 million people died in WWII.
I do not think it is possible to generalize to each and every soldier, but as long as they knew they were fighting for a racist and criminal regime, which was the case, and by using democratic standards, then no, there was no honour in fighting in the Nazis army.
Were the German soldiers more heroic then the Allies? How? Consider that they fought both for the Nazis and the Losing side.
Hitler’s army slaughtered Europe during six years, mainly eastern Europe so yes I think more of them had the possibility to reveal their potential aggressiveness – if this is what you mean by heroism.
Does that make Germans in WWII the modern equivalent to the Taliban and the Nazis AQ?
The Taliban regime promoted a medieval theocracy, based upon religious written law, that replaced a bloody chaos in Afghanistan – something positive if you compare it to what was the warlord’s Afghanistan before them. They have their own übermensh - all male sunis- half the humanity being inferior – women – the rest –heretics – remaining to be killed or converted. I suppose this lets the possibility of one half of humanity – males – to be superior in the brain of a very positive Taliban dreamer.
The nazi regime promoted force above law, mythology over reason and pre-feudalism traditions to replace democracy. Their übermench were a few hundred millions at the very best, all the rest being definitively inferior.
As talibans were claiming fighting for their country just like germans did so, I think the germans were far worse than the afghans.
Do you think that giving out 3 million Iron Crosses reduces to them to the value of eye candy? Considering that means one out of six WWII Germans who fought for the Nazi warmachine had an Iron Cross.
Not necessary but it is clear that the value of such a toy is greatly reduced by this proportion.
That 8000 Knight Crosses were handed out to Germans (and a couple of foreigners in WWII) that they are more valuable then Congressional Medals of Honour of which 400 were handed out in WWII?
Comparing their respective values does not seem reasonable, but as I said the Nazis killed during six years on a very large scale and the east front battles can explain such a number without totally reducing those crosses to a candy.
While these Knights were fighting for the motherland they extended the defence of the Death Camps? So their actions extended the war and allowed more people to die in ovens and being made into soap and human lampshades... true or false?
True, of course, but although it is ridiculous to claim that german soldiers were unaware of the criminal nature of the nazi regime, It is not honest to claim they knew about the death camps and the different genocides perpetrated by their fellow übermensh.
Adrian II
09-20-2005, 13:29
LOL. Just looked into this thread. What is this nonsense about German war heroes and their silly medals? And why do some people have to return to their own vomit all the time?
A true war hero died today, Simon Wiesenthal, who deserved to be admired for the mere fact that he survived five death camps, and who went on to track down many nazi's after the war which was not devoid of risks to his person either. He was Austrian, sure. You want Germans who fought for their nation? Think of the Prussian officers against Hitler, Willy Brandt, Max Schmeling, Lilli Marlene, the list is huge. They represented their nation of Dichter und Denker, not the scum that fought on the Eastern front. Get real. ~;)
The Stranger
09-20-2005, 14:01
YIHAA...not all soldiers fought for their beliefs some just sought adventure...
What like soldiers in Hamas are doing their duty for their country?
Or the Taliban, or the Mongols, or the Japanese Imperial Army in WWII?
Hamas doesn't have a country. They are more like the German SA's (stormtroopers) same as the Taliban. Hamas and the Taliban are/were revolutionary armies. The Taliban were one faction in a civil war. Granted they were winning, they have more in common with say the red army in Russia in 1919 or the union army in the ACW. Hamas is a rebel/revolutionary army fighting for a nation that doesn't really exist yet. They have more in common with the IRA or the US continental army.
The Japanese were like the Germans doing what there devine all knowing emperor commanded them to do. And the Mongol's don't count at all, you shouldn't even have brought them up.
Just remember the trials at the end of WWII clearly came out stating that doing your duty is not an excuse in doing crimes or in aiding them.
Which is the single most stupid thing that the allies did after the war. Georing was right about Nuermburg it was a kangaroo court of the victors to punish the vanquised.
Which is the single most stupid thing that the allies did after the war. Georing was right about Nuermburg it was a kangaroo court of the victors to punish the vanquised.
So Nazi leaders should not have been tried and if found guilty punished for their murdering of millions of Jews and others in the concentration camps?
Is this what you are trying to say?
Anything coming out of Georing's fat mouth should be taken with a grain of salt considering the role he had to play in WW2.
Punishing the Germans for actions on the Battlefield might have been a kangaroo court or for starting a war.
However punishing those responsible for the murdering of innocent civilians who were rounded up but he state and then executed just because of thier race or religion is more then justified.
King Ragnar
09-20-2005, 16:05
The thing that annoys me is when people call all the German soldiers Nazi's, when they were conscripted and probably didnt even know what they were trying to create. The situation with death camps and stuff, is simply that they were following orders.
So Nazi leaders should not have been tried and if found guilty punished for their murdering of millions of Jews and others in the concentration camps?
Is this what you are trying to say?
No i'm saying the allies should have cut the crap and lined all the too dirty Nazi leaders up against a wall and shot them. Same net result, non of the BS. Or they should have been put into a concentration camp and worked to death or gassed. I prefer poetic justice to moral justice.
Anything coming out of Georing's fat mouth should be taken with a grain of salt considering the role he had to play in WW2.
True, but he wanted to be stood up against a wall and shot. He lost and he wanted to get what he had coming, IE a bullet in the head.
Punishing the Germans for actions on the Battlefield might have been a kangaroo court or for starting a war.
However punishing those responsible for the murdering of innocent civilians who were rounded up but he state and then executed just because of thier race or religion is more then justified.
I'm going to answer these together. The problem i have is that while Germans were reviled and put through years of trials. Russians who did the exact same things. Like soviet divisional commanders ordering their troops to rape German women burn German villages and kill civilians. Also soviet subs sank German hospital/refugee ships fleeing from the red amries advance into east Prussia. Killed about 30000 wounded men and German women and children. Then these same Russians stood in judgement over the Germans at Neuremburg. Basically the Russians practiced and eye for an eye and get away with it while the Germans are going to have to live with it for another generation or two. To me Neuermburg is tained and a kangaroo court because the soviets were involved.
I'm going to answer these together. The problem i have is that while Germans were reviled and put through years of trials. Russians who did the exact same things. Like soviet divisional commanders ordering their troops to rape German women burn German villages and kill civilians. Also soviet subs sank German hospital/refugee ships fleeing from the red amries advance into east Prussia. Killed about 30000 wounded men and German women and children. Then these same Russians stood in judgement over the Germans at Neuremburg. Basically the Russians practiced and eye for an eye and get away with it while the Germans are going to have to live with it for another generation or two. To me Neuermburg is tained and a kangaroo court because the soviets were involved.
Far be it from me to condone what the Sovs did, but remember these factors. The Soviets were not the aggressors on the Eastern Front (unless you want to include the Polish land-grab). IIRC, the Soviets lost 25 million people in the war, soldiers and civilians. The Reich economical adminstration targeted civilians in occupied territory for death through starvation. The Holocaust gets most of the press, but the Soviets death toll was over 4 times that of the Holocaust. If I remember my Shirer correctly, the Soviets had not signed the Geneva convention, so the Germans felt the protections given did not apply in the East (and the German POWs also paid in kind). It was essentially a war of extermination, so the Soviets felt payback was necessary. As Chris Rock says, I don't condone it, but I do understand it.
As for the medal controversy, what are the numbers for medals given out by the UK/Commonwealth (Victoria Crosses???), Soviets (Orders of Lenin???), Italians (no clue), and Japanese (did they even have medals?). Naval and air combat don't really lend themselves to situations where CMoHs are awarded, and the US infantry didn't really get rolling against the Germans until Italy. The German infantry was fighting from 1939 on, the time scale heavily favors them. It would be interesting to see the medal count for SS vs regular German forces. My guess is that the count would be skewed towards the SS, with discrepancies in the valour/merit awards.
The Stranger
09-20-2005, 17:45
So Nazi leaders should not have been tried and if found guilty punished for their murdering of millions of Jews and others in the concentration camps?
Is this what you are trying to say?
Anything coming out of Georing's fat mouth should be taken with a grain of salt considering the role he had to play in WW2.
Punishing the Germans for actions on the Battlefield might have been a kangaroo court or for starting a war.
However punishing those responsible for the murdering of innocent civilians who were rounded up but he state and then executed just because of thier race or religion is more then justified.
and i more than agree ~:cheers:
Oh boy.
Both sides had their heroes, and both sides had their zeroes.
I would not dare to doubt the (general) courage of all sides soldiers. Poor saps, who had usually no choice in the matter.
Whatever happened, happened. It's 60 years in the past. The blame game and the mine's bigger than yours talks are pittyful. Might as well debate heroism during the various sides during the civil war, or the vietnam war, the zulu wars or the Falkland war.
And what is the meaning of this compairison with the Taliban or AQ? Any country that ever had a civil war had people like AQ or the taliban. They either won or lost... but they did not all magically disappear after the struggle was over. So, who do you descend from?
Far be it from me to condone what the Sovs did, but remember these factors. The Soviets were not the aggressors on the Eastern Front (unless you want to include the Polish land-grab). IIRC, the Soviets lost 25 million people in the war, soldiers and civilians. The Reich economical adminstration targeted civilians in occupied territory for death through starvation. The Holocaust gets most of the press, but the Soviets death toll was over 4 times that of the Holocaust. If I remember my Shirer correctly, the Soviets had not signed the Geneva convention, so the Germans felt the protections given did not apply in the East (and the German POWs also paid in kind). It was essentially a war of extermination, so the Soviets felt payback was necessary. As Chris Rock says, I don't condone it, but I do understand it.
My problem is that in the total victims scale Stalin's Russia killed more than Hitlers Germany. Coupled with that the world at large is far more willing to let Russia off the hook for Stalin's crimes against humanity than they are to let the the Germans off the hook for Hitler's.
The Stranger
09-20-2005, 19:24
so stalin was a bitch too...but stalin won the war....thats the difference my friend...
Kaiser of Arabia
09-20-2005, 20:06
The vast majority of them were fighting for their nation, which is a noble enough cause for any man to fight and die for.
The one's that commited the crimes, like the Holocost, of course, are a differant matter of course. But they were the vast minority, most German soldiers simply enlisted to fight for their country.
Oh, and with the Iron Cross, realize there are about 40000000 ranks of Iron Cross:
Iron Cross 2nd Class
Iron Cross 1st Class
Knights Cross of the Iron Cross
Knights Cross w/ Oakleaves
Knights Cross w/ Oakleaves and Swords
Knights Cross w/ Oakleaves, Swords, and Diamonds
Knights Cross w/ Gold Oakleaves, Swords, and Diamonds
There was also the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross.
In total, 7,313 awards of the Knight's Cross were made, but only 883 received Oak Leaves and 159 received Oak Leaves and Swords. Only 27 men were ever awarded the Diamonds grade of the Knight's Cross, and Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the only recipient of the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds.-Wikipedia
So while the 2nd and 1st Class Iron Crosses weren't as presitigious as the US Medal of Honor, the higher tiers of the award were equal, if not even more prestigious.
Its facinating how everyone is stuck in a nationalistic way of thinking. Just couse your fighting for you country doesnt make you a hero. A german could be a hero in the second world war couse he might have saved his mates lifes or maybe couse he killed lots of 'commisars' in the soviet army.
A true hero is one that looks beyond nationalism and fights for a good Idea. The Germans, no matter how you twist and turn, fought of the idea of National-Socialism.
Same goes for soviet soldiers, they fought for Stalins twisted corupt-communism.
One could then argue that they had no choice, and I agree with that, most people fought against they will in ww2. And that is the only argument that works; that they fought against their will and no choice.
The real heroes in history are people like the volunteers of the spanish civil-war whom fought the facists, and soldiers of the democratic countries in the second world war. The spies that helped win the war against the nazis.
But what I wanted to say is that people need to brake free from nationalistic ways of thinking, I would never fight for Sweden as an Idea, for Sweden as a nation, I would only fight for my family, friends and democracy. And the idea of democracy and family spread beyond nation-borders.
Anyway, I hope you all understand what I mean.
King Ragnar
09-20-2005, 22:30
Im afraid i only think nationlist, for Queen and Country, i would love to give my life for Great Britian, i wouldnt think about it twice.
Adrian II
09-20-2005, 22:30
I would never fight for Sweden as an Idea, for Sweden as a nation, I would only fight for my family, friends and democracy. And the idea of democracy and family spread beyond nation-borders.
Anyway, I hope you all understand what I mean.Well put, Lazul. Fighting for ideas but not for love is as meaningless as fighting for love but not for ideas. Fighting for people you love as well as for ideas that support and nourish them is worthwhile.
:bow:
Kaiser of Arabia
09-20-2005, 22:56
Its facinating how everyone is stuck in a nationalistic way of thinking. Just couse your fighting for you country doesnt make you a hero. A german could be a hero in the second world war couse he might have saved his mates lifes or maybe couse he killed lots of 'commisars' in the soviet army.
A true hero is one that looks beyond nationalism and fights for a good Idea. The Germans, no matter how you twist and turn, fought of the idea of National-Socialism.
Same goes for soviet soldiers, they fought for Stalins twisted corupt-communism.
One could then argue that they had no choice, and I agree with that, most people fought against they will in ww2. And that is the only argument that works; that they fought against their will and no choice.
The real heroes in history are people like the volunteers of the spanish civil-war whom fought the facists, and soldiers of the democratic countries in the second world war. The spies that helped win the war against the nazis.
But what I wanted to say is that people need to brake free from nationalistic ways of thinking, I would never fight for Sweden as an Idea, for Sweden as a nation, I would only fight for my family, friends and democracy. And the idea of democracy and family spread beyond nation-borders.
Anyway, I hope you all understand what I mean.
A man only has three things in this world that cannot be taken away.
God, pride, and Country.
AntiochusIII
09-20-2005, 23:20
A man only has three things in this world that cannot be taken away.
God, pride, and Country.Go ahead. Take my pride, it's just a destructive emotion of arrogance. I don't have a "God" for you to take but I will allow you to take away if I have one. Just don't replace Him. Country? Well, I don't own a country to be "taken away."
I see that in extremism lies the very large garbage of discarded outdated utterly foolish "ideas."
sharrukin
09-20-2005, 23:21
Bravery and courage have nothing to do with politics. The Waffen-SS had some very courageous men in their organizations as did the Taliban, the Red Army, the Japanese, American, French and any other army you care to name. Did Red Army soldiers not deserve recognition for their gallant acts because of the evil of Stalins regime? Do southerners deserve the name of coward because of slavery? Are the Spartans who died at Thermopylae unworthy because of their treatment of the Helots?
The problem with historical revisionism is that almost no one can meet the modern standards we hold dear that didn't exist in their day. We will in time be condemned in the same way.
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2005, 23:29
They represented their nation of Dichter und Denker, not the scum that fought on the Eastern front. Get real.
You first.
And to help you, I would suggest reading some accounts of the men who actually fought on the eastern front before making such broad and idiotic statements. :no:
Papewaio
09-20-2005, 23:43
So while the 2nd and 1st Class Iron Crosses weren't as presitigious as the US Medal of Honor, the higher tiers of the award were equal, if not even more prestigious.
Which is what I disagree with.
It is showing a direct bias when you state that the highest award for one military outranks another.
It is about as accurate as saying Gold medals won by Germans in the Olympics are more valuable then Gold medals won by the Americans...
Tribesman
09-21-2005, 00:27
How many Iron Crosses were awarded for the heroic feat of sinking the Ark Royal , before the Axis actually managed to sink the ship ? ~D ~D ~D
Oh yeah , Germany was Hitler and Hitler was Germany , if the soldiers didn't know what they were fighting for then they should have listened to all their governments propoganda in the 6 years before the war ~;)
Its the evil Jews , the sub human Slavs , the corrupt Capitalists and intellectuals, they must be erradicated and the world brought under the dominance of the Aryan Master Race .
Now put on this nice uniform and pledge alliegence to the Furher . :dizzy2:
P.S.: Do you have a problems with Nazis or with Germans?
Ummmm ..... thats a hard one ...how could anyone with even half a brain not have a problem with the Nazis ?
It is about as accurate as saying Gold medals won by Germans in the Olympics are more valuable then Gold medals won by the Americans...
Well German olympic Gold medals are more valuable , as they are rarer ~D ~D ~D
Kaiser of Arabia
09-21-2005, 00:59
H
It is about as accurate as saying Gold medals won by Germans in the Olympics are more valuable then Gold medals won by the Americans...
Well German olympic Gold medals are more valuable , as they are rarer ~D ~D ~D
Lol exactly!
Anyway, people, why should it work in reverse, that the MoH is worth more than the IC then? Hypocracy at it's best.
Papewaio
09-21-2005, 01:01
Kaiser do you mean KC (8000 awarded) or IC (2 to 3 million awarded) in WWII?
Compared to MOH 400 and VC 181 + 1 Bar?
How can there be any honour in fighting for a country that has industrialized the extermination of millions of innocent people?
It’s like the Iraqi Republican Guardsmen who fought to defend a country where the Al- Mukhabarat could freely stuff people into acid baths.
Tribesman
09-21-2005, 01:11
How can there be any honour in fighting for a country that has industrialized the extermination of millions of innocent people?
Hey thats just the Superhuman efficiency of the Master race .
Seamus Fermanagh
09-21-2005, 02:07
How can there be any honour in fighting for a country that has industrialized the extermination of millions of innocent people?
It’s like the Iraqi Republican Guardsmen who fought to defend a country where the Al- Mukhabarat could freely stuff people into acid baths.
You ask an excellent question. It is simple, well-phrased, and connected to a brief real-world example that highlights your theme. I will have to think about this before answering properly. The answer will, necessarily, be less pithy than this question, since a simple yes or no would be an answer but would illuminate nothing.
MODERATOR: Could this be sliced off as its own question? This stands alone very well.
Seamus
Kaiser of Arabia
09-21-2005, 04:30
http://exordio.com/1939-1945/photos/lutjens.jpg
He fought for the fatherland, and no one can say he was not a true hero, in every sense of the word. If you can, speak up now.
Many German soldiers knew about the persecution of Jews. Look at Beevor's Stalingrad
"...a 'Jurisdiction Order' deprived Russian civilians of any right of appeal, and effectively exonerated soldiers from crimes committed against them, whether murder, rape or looting," (14)
"Sixth Army Headquarters, for example, cooperated with SS Sonderkommando 4a, which followed in its tracks almost all the way from the western frontier of the Ukraine to Stalingrad. Not only were staff officers well aware of its activities, they even provided troops to assist in the round up of Jews in Kiev and transport them to the ravine of Babi Yar," (15)
Manstein issued an order to Eleventh Army that read "The jewish-bolshevik system must be rooted out once and for all" he also justified 'harsh measures against Jewry" (17)
"there have been cases of off-duty soldiers volunteering to the the SD with the executions [of Jews and Communists], or acting as spectators and taking photographs..." (55).
The Iron Cross for the most part meant something, some were awarded for show and propaganda (Paulus was awarded one for instance), a pissing contest about which is better Medal of Honor or Iron Cross is pointless, the highest military award is the Combat Infantry Badge or its equivalent.
Strike For The South
09-21-2005, 05:29
Go ahead. Take my pride, it's just a destructive emotion of arrogance. I don't have a "God" for you to take but I will allow you to take away if I have one. Just don't replace Him. Country? Well, I don't own a country to be "taken away."
I see that in extremism lies the very large garbage of discarded outdated utterly foolish "ideas."
Really?
A man only has three things in this world that cannot be taken away.
God, pride, and Country.
Country, yeah sure, but do mean State and Nation at the same time?
As for god, you cant take him away from me, since I never had him. Pride, yes, pride in myself, not in my country/state/nation.
Franconicus
09-21-2005, 12:16
How can there be any honour in fighting for a country that has industrialized the extermination of millions of innocent people?
How can there be any honor to fight for any country? All this nationalism is so silly. Most soldiers found themselves in a situation were they had to kill to survive. Just as simple as that. Most of them did not choose this. When your in combat everything is chaos and misery. What you tell the people at home - that is a different story!
Does anybody think it was a honour to serve in the RAF. To attack Hamburg and burn civilists? To attack the dams to flood the cities?
All this admiration for soldiers here. What a contemptible point of view.
All this admiration for soldiers here. What a contemptible point of view.
My old man was a tank commander with the Canadian Army in WWII and helped drive the Nazis out of Italy.
I admire his dedication and find nothing contemptible in either his action nor the admiration I hold for his efforts.
Papewaio
09-21-2005, 12:24
My Grandfather couldn't join the British army in WWII because of his feet... so he joined the Airforce... was a tail end charlie in Lancaster bombers and served in both Europe and Asia (Burma star) from 39 to 45.
One great uncle served in the Infantry in both Dunkirk and Normandy.
Another died in the sacking of Singapore. Wounded and hence bayoneted in hospital by the Imperial Japanese forces.
Another great uncle served as a Judge in The Nuremburg Trials.
The list goes on.
Franconicus
09-21-2005, 12:35
My old man was a tank commander with the Canadian Army in WWII and helped drive the Nazis out of Italy.
I admire his dedication and find nothing contemptible in either his action nor the admiration I hold for his efforts.
Beirut,
I cannot judge what he did. There were soldiers who did great things and others who did increadible crimes. All I was trying to say is that I cannot not understand that gloryfication of soldiers in general or the soldiers of on nation in general.
I saw interviews of RAF pilots and crews. They fought for their country and against Nazi terror. But most of them were not proud of what they did.
Pape, it is amazing but it seems that only one near relative of mine fought in WW2. In 1945 he was 15 and was forced to serve for a few months as flakhelfer.
Adrian II
09-21-2005, 13:02
They fought for their country and against Nazi terror. But most of them were not proud of what they did.They were not the only ones. Just talk to veterans of any war; they are usually the first to stress the relativity of heroic tales. It is usually their offspring that brags about such things because it helps them make a splash in conversations. Most of them grow out of it.
Considering that the forums are "Total War.com"'s (the name's a giveaway) it's interesting how many people here object to other peoples opinion that there is a certain honor or pride involved in fighting for... whichever side.
It's also interesting that some people here have no problem in recreating some of the worst genocides, cultural absorption and acts of bloodshed (often more brutal then in real history; as in "I just raze' em, see, no squalor"), but try to take the moral highground concerning more recent historic events. Even if they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yes it's a game. And yes the violence is not real, but instead based (loosely, sigh) on real events. However some of you still revel in the slaughter of their oponents.
PanzerJaeger
09-21-2005, 16:55
Considering that the forums are "Total War.com"'s (the name's a giveaway) it's interesting how many people here object to other peoples opinion that there is a certain honor or pride involved in fighting for... whichever side.
It's also interesting that some people here have no problem in recreating some of the worst genocides, cultural absorption and acts of bloodshed (often more brutal then in real history; as in "I just raze' em, see, no squalor"), but try to take the moral highground concerning more recent historic events. Even if they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yes it's a game. And yes the violence is not real, but instead based (loosely, sigh) on real events. However some of you still revel in the slaughter of their oponents.
You answered your own question. Virtual reality is not reality.
As for being proud of military service.. War brings out the worst and best in people. If you've got a relative that was a good soldier, thats something to be proud of.
Meneldil
09-21-2005, 21:43
Heh, I hear/read many testimonies of german soldiers who weren't really proud of what they were doing.
In fact, it appears that a lot of german soldiers were ashamed by the things they had to do.
One should remember that most soldiers fought not for country, not for party and not for some leader. They fought for each other. The general soldier would give his life for his buddies, he would do crazy and brave things to save them.
One VC recipient I heard about from D-Day said, when asked why he charged two bunkers by himself: "I couldn't stand seeing my boys die." THAT is honourable, and it is honourable to all!!! He damn deserved that VC in my mind. When you go down to such basic levels the politics vanish and it is fight to survive.
There are two reasons why the green troops die first. Firstly they want to get accepted by the old guys, it is cold and scary on the outside. But they are also the ones with the most recent indoctrination and with no knowledge of the truth in war. They might indeed for a while fight for the party, then country, then perhaps the leader before finally settling to fighting for the guys.
Notice how Paps page mention how proud Hartmann was that he never lost a wingman. He cared more about his wingmen than he did for his own valour, he would have given it all to save a guy, and I'm pretty sure also his life.
Then there is the case of Rudel, the Stuka ace. When he lost his rear gunner he was devastated and he never really recovered, his battlerecord shows a sharp decline in efficiency after that.
I honestly doubt that many Lancaster bombercrews, in case they got a medal for outstanding service over Dresden would have liked it very much. They would have taken it, but inside it would have tasted bad. I'm pretty sure the Germans had similar cases (not that I say medals were handed out as a result of the Dresden bombings).
And about the Admiral Sheer and the entire crew getting the Iron Cross 2nd Class on 1st of April 41. Take notice that the ship had just returned from a raider cruise that lasted from 27th of October to that very date. A very successful one might I add. One that had carried it far into the Indian Ocean. When you think that the ship could not hide, was easily visible and had half the RN on its tail, I think that some sort of award was called for.
And who on board was braver than the rest? The captain, the gunners or perhaps teh lookouts? All their fates were intervined in case they failed. What happened to one would ultimately happen to the rest. And all their jobs were important in keeping the ship in working order, especially on such a long and hasardous cruise.
I was actually going to argue something about the subs then I saw this. That an entire units can't have performed the act. Well... Then you have obviously not served in the Navy. Today it would perhaps be too much as many positions are rather superfluous to a warship, but back then it was much more labourintensive. Even the captain's stevar was important that he had to make sure the captain got rested and was relaxed when not at the bridge. So if the ship did much more than ordered to and faced dangerous perils on its way, then a full citation would be in order.
It is usually their offspring that brags about such things because it helps them make a splash in conversations. Most of them grow out of it.
And some never do. :bow:
They were not the only ones. Just talk to veterans of any war; they are usually the first to stress the relativity of heroic tales. It is usually their offspring that brags about such things because it helps them make a splash in conversations. Most of them grow out of it.
Until now I left my grandfather out of it, but this...why this is almost an invitation.
During the war he was directly responsible for the death of literally hundreds of enemy combatants (not dozens, hundreds). He has been inderectly responsible for hundreds more.
But he was never proud of that.
He was proud, however, not to resort to canibalism. And he was proud to survive 3 years of gulag.
I've grown up seeing my granddad brake down and cry for hours on every major holiday. Sometimes because of the things that happened to him. Most of the time because of things he was forced to do (by circumstance or otherwise). On all other days of the year he carried himself with dignity and purpose.
I began this response with numbers of kills. But it is not meant as braging. It serves as an introduction to a situation that non of us nowadays can comprehend.
Incidentally my other grandfather used his connections to escape military duty - even in 45. Which says a lot. Though he never killed anyone during the war (or after) ,his actions were, IMO, no less "heroic". But why explain that in a thread like this?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.