Nazi Germany

**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.

**Redleg** · 09-20-2005, 06:52

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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...

**Redleg** · 09-20-2005, 07:07

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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** · 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.

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

**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, 07:14

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.

**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

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Germans spun out awards as fast as Russians made tanks.

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

You're kidding right?

Originally Posted by Papewaio

No I'm not kidding. I don't think Russia had 1 tank for every 6 soldiers now did it?

Then

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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** · 09-20-2005, 07:59

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.