Nazi Germany

[Papewaio]

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.

[Redleg]

LOL

[Byzantine Prince]

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.
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.

[GoreBag]

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]

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]

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]

Who care's? Weep in either case, all the worse was that their sacrific was for such a terrible cause.

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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..

[Redleg]

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

[Lemur]

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 ...

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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]

Taliban were the ruling party in Afghanistan...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Taliban were the ruling party in Afghanistan...

Thats like saying in the 30s and 40s the Mafia was the ruling party in the US.

[Redleg]

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]

However the Taliban were the ackownledge ruling party in Afganstan.

Ackowledged by who?

[Papewaio]

The US when they sent delegations to get an oil pipeline put through Afghanistan...

[Redleg]

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/arti...175372,00.html

[Franconicus]

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.

P.S.: Do you have a problems with Nazis or with Germans?

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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.