Germany re-introduces bravery medal, Also, a discussion of the 'war on terror' Options

[MARS]

Yesterday, four soldiers of the German army were awarded the Ehrenkreuz für Tapferkeit. The ceremony was conducted by chancellor Merkel and MoD Franz-Josef Jung. During their tour of duty in Kundus, Afghanistan, the four soldiers had shown great bravery by saving the lives of their comrades and several civilians in the aftermath of a suicide attack. The ceremony has caused a certain controversy as it was the first time in the history of the Federal Republic that Bundeswehr soldiers were awarded a special medal for heroism. Critics claim that this is a step back to the days of the Iron Cross which fell from grace during the Second World War when Hitler gave it to German child soldiers during the battle of Berlin. The medal was created as an extension to an existing badge after a a petition from 2007 in which an army ensign suggested the introduction of a new medal for outstanding bravery as opposed to the existing badges which merely require a certain service length.

What do you think of this? Do you think the controversy is justified? Personally, I disagree with the critics. While I'm not saying that a shiny badge is enough to commemorate such deeds, it sure holds a symbolical value. The Iron Cross, for a bit of historical background information, was created in 1813, more than seven decades before Hitler was even born and just because he corrupted the concept of symbolically honouring soldiers for his own twisted purposes does not mean that we can't pick up this old tradition which is used by pretty much EVERY other nation on the planet without question. Contrary to what the critics say, the Ehrenkreuz does NOT pick up the heritage of the Iron Cross. The only similarity is the shape of the cross - which in itself has it's origin in the symbol of the German military - and unlike the old cross which represented the two last incarnations of the German Empire, this one uses the colours of German liberty, black, red and gold which dates back to the Napoleonic Wars and was used for the flag of both the Weimar Republic and the FRG. So what's better then: Abandoning the idea of bravery badges forever because that fascist bastard dragged it through the mud OR re-defining the identity of these badges for the present day? Personally, I agree with the latter. Just because something was used by Hitler does not mean it's historically ruined forever. With THAT kind of attitude, people will still hold grudges against each other around the time man has landed on friggin' Pluto.

[Vidar]

I appreciate that move, we should give them imo far more then just this medal, but you are right its symbolic value is very high. And i can only say that i totaly share your opinion mate.

[Pickysaurus]

If you were looking for someone to argue with, you won't find them in me

[Jester]

I think it is a good thing that the soldiers where awarded something by there country as in our country our war veterns have to be awarded by another country France for example because of our queen

This post has been edited by Jester: 7 Jul 2009, 23:29

[Comr4de]

Even if the badge was corrupted and a evil stigma stayed with the badge, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be a Nazi symbol, it was a badge representing of righteous and heroic deeds. I see nothing wrong with this at all, but rather a rebirth of such honors.

[Chyros]

I think any fear or bad emotion that anyone would have regarding a medal such as this is a clear symptom of OTW, Over-mentioning The War, a disease that lets those affected constantly babble on about things long past that everybody else would rather just forget about and move on.

I think it is a good thing that the soldiers where awarded something by there country as in our country our war veterns have to be awarded by another country France for example because of our queen

Wait, I thought your queen was constantly throwing medals around at everyone?

[Jester]

I think any fear or bad emotion that anyone would have regarding a medal such as this is a clear symptom of OTW, Over-mentioning The War, a disease that lets those affected constantly babble on about things long past that everybody else would rather just forget about and move on.

Wait, I thought your queen was constantly throwing medals around at everyone?

2 of our veterans from WW1 were not honoured by the queen but instead honoured by france it seems our queen would rather reconigise footballers and popstars rather than the people who made what life is today.

[Shiro]

I have no problem with this medal either, it is only our dumb politicians talking the war away. There IS war, but most people do not want to hear about war, so they either do not talk about it or talk in non-sensial words, best examples are 'deadly hurt' instead of killed or 'Marschflugkörper' (I have no idea how to translate it properly but it sounds a damn load friendlier than what is meant - a Cruise Missile). As it has been said, this medal represents honor, but not only honor but also hope that there are people out in foreign countries fighting for us while risking their very own lives.

[NergiZed]

The Iron Cross is like the most badass medal ever. Just because Hitler handed them out to some Nazi soldiers doesn't mean that they should shun it. Besides, the German military is kinda in need of something to boost their morale. Perhaps the fact that their own country will recognize their bravery and sacrifice might help.

[MARS]

Giving them a mission that actually serves a PURPOSE would be a good start. The whole idea that 'Germany's defence happens at the Hindu Kush' which was coined by our previous MoD Peter Struck is rubbish. These soldiers AREN'T fighting for Germany, they're fighting for Afghans who caved in to the scare tactics of the radicals long ago. If they WERE fighting for Germany (or Europe in general for that matter) they WOULD be motivated! At this point, one has to wonder what's easier: Taking down EVERY SINGLE pro-fundamentalist dictatorship on Earth and replacing them ALL with functioning democracies OR making a combined effort within the entire Western world to make sure that these radical nutjobs don't get close to us. I think it's time to drop the starry-eyed idealism and face the facts of reality. Democracy cannot be forced from the outside and some countries simply aren't ready for this kind of system yet.

[Shiro]

The Iron Cross is like the most badass medal ever. Just because Hitler handed them out to some Nazi soldiers doesn't mean that they should shun it. Besides, the German military is kinda in need of something to boost their morale. Perhaps the fact that their own country will recognize their bravery and sacrifice might help.

Just to mention, the 'Bild' has been recited in this article, the probably most easy-to-read-but-useless-to-remember newspaper in Germany.

[Vidar]

Giving them a mission that actually serves a PURPOSE would be a good start. The whole idea that 'Germany's defence happens at the Hindu Kush' which was coined by our previous MoD Peter Struck is rubbish. These soldiers AREN'T fighting for Germany, they're fighting for Afghans who caved in to the scare tactics of the radicals long ago. If they WERE fighting for Germany (or Europe in general for that matter) they WOULD be motivated! At this point, one has to wonder what's easier: Taking down EVERY SINGLE pro-fundamentalist dictatorship on Earth and replacing them ALL with functioning democracies OR making a combined effort within the entire Western world to make sure that these radical nutjobs don't get close to us. I think it's time to drop the starry-eyed idealism and face the facts of reality. Democracy cannot be forced from the outside and some countries simply aren't ready for this kind of system yet.

AMEN brother!

[Wi-Ta]

Giving them a mission that actually serves a PURPOSE would be a good start. The whole idea that 'Germany's defence happens at the Hindu Kush' which was coined by our previous MoD Peter Struck is rubbish. These soldiers AREN'T fighting for Germany, they're fighting for Afghans who caved in to the scare tactics of the radicals long ago. If they WERE fighting for Germany (or Europe in general for that matter) they WOULD be motivated! At this point, one has to wonder what's easier: Taking down EVERY SINGLE pro-fundamentalist dictatorship on Earth and replacing them ALL with functioning democracies OR making a combined effort within the entire Western world to make sure that these radical nutjobs don't get close to us. I think it's time to drop the starry-eyed idealism and face the facts of reality. Democracy cannot be forced from the outside and some countries simply aren't ready for this kind of system yet.

You hit the nail on the head brother

[beefJeRKy]

Giving them a mission that actually serves a PURPOSE would be a good start. The whole idea that 'Germany's defence happens at the Hindu Kush' which was coined by our previous MoD Peter Struck is rubbish. These soldiers AREN'T fighting for Germany, they're fighting for Afghans who caved in to the scare tactics of the radicals long ago. If they WERE fighting for Germany (or Europe in general for that matter) they WOULD be motivated! At this point, one has to wonder what's easier: Taking down EVERY SINGLE pro-fundamentalist dictatorship on Earth and replacing them ALL with functioning democracies OR making a combined effort within the entire Western world to make sure that these radical nutjobs don't get close to us. I think it's time to drop the starry-eyed idealism and face the facts of reality. Democracy cannot be forced from the outside and some countries simply aren't ready for this kind of system yet.

I'm not German but even I can identify with this message.

[Ascendancy]

Giving them a mission that actually serves a PURPOSE would be a good start. The whole idea that 'Germany's defence happens at the Hindu Kush' which was coined by our previous MoD Peter Struck is rubbish. These soldiers AREN'T fighting for Germany, they're fighting for Afghans who caved in to the scare tactics of the radicals long ago. If they WERE fighting for Germany (or Europe in general for that matter) they WOULD be motivated! At this point, one has to wonder what's easier: Taking down EVERY SINGLE pro-fundamentalist dictatorship on Earth and replacing them ALL with functioning democracies OR making a combined effort within the entire Western world to make sure that these radical nutjobs don't get close to us. I think it's time to drop the starry-eyed idealism and face the facts of reality. Democracy cannot be forced from the outside and some countries simply aren't ready for this kind of system yet.

Even I will agree with this. You cannot force democracy to happen within a set period of time. It's already cost my country thousands of soldiers and nothing's really changed, the bombings still occur, and people still die. Idealism is a logic that only leads to people suffering unneeded deaths.

[Cobretti]

Gotta agree with the original post...it's kind of a shame that a lot of traditional German culture got tainted by association to the NSDAP and now certain people are too afraid to bring it up. The Iron Cross existed long before Hitler's time and I see no reason why the German Armed Forces should not award soldiers with it.

You cannot force democracy to happen within a set period of time. It's already cost my country thousands of soldiers and nothing's really changed, the bombings still occur, and people still die.

I don't expect Iraq or Afghanistan to be perfect examples of political stability and freedom, but with most of the Islamist nutjobs dead, things really are looking a bit better. But that's beside the point...the primary goal for Iraq and Afghanistan was to suppress terrorist supporting regimes, with turning those nations into friendly allies a secondary long term goal.

[MARS]

``the primary goal for Iraq and Afghanistan was to suppress terrorist supporting regimes, with turning those nations into friendly allies a secondary long term goal.´´

Yeah but as I said earlier, you'd have to do that with EVERY pro-fundamentalist regime/failed state on the planet. The problem with terrorists is that they aren't really 'based' anywhere. You take down the government of country A that supports them, they move on to country B. They're not bound to countries and borders. All they need is a place where their activity is being tolerated and personally, I have the feeling that replacing all these regimes in Africa, the Middle East and South-East Asia with functioning, publically accepted, Western-style democracies with secular governmental systems is hardly possible.

[Cobretti]

No, you wouldn't have to take out all such regimes...just enough so that the thugs get the message. Look at Libya for example...Qaddafi came clean about his nuclear program and stopped funding terrorists once Saddam got dragged out of a hole in Iraq. Groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas can't operate without funds from rogue states.

Plus the fact that there is now a significant US military presence in the region should make pro-Islamist dictators think twice about causing trouble.

[MARS]

``No, you wouldn't have to take out all such regimes...just enough so that the thugs get the message´´

You'd still have to maintain a long-lasting military presence in the region. Otherwise, the democracies you've established will be taken down quickly and replaced by a new tyranny. Let's face it: Iraq has become a total quagmire of civil war and indiscriminate Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence and the democratic government of Afghanistan is ineffectual and corrupt. As soon as there are no more Western soldiers maintaining at least a semblance of an order, the entire country will devolve into a long, mindless civil war with whatever group that comes out on top becoming the new rulers. To prevent this, you'd have to babysit these countries for several generations and change huge parts of their world view because they simply collide with the ideals of democracy. And while you're right that the capture of Saddam may have been enough to scare Qaddafi into line, there'll ALWAYS be those who think they can outsmart us and as long as they aren't shown the opposite, they WILL be able to cause trouble, directly or indirectly. It MIGHT work eventually...after several decades, perhaps even centuries, countless fallen soldiers and even more civilians. Cynical as it sounds, I think we should just leave these people alone, let them fight each other if that's really the only thing they can do with their lives and focus on our own internal security.

[Vidar]

``No, you wouldn't have to take out all such regimes...just enough so that the thugs get the message´´

You'd still have to maintain a long-lasting military presence in the region. Otherwise, the democracies you've established will be taken down quickly and replaced by a new tyranny. Let's face it: Iraq has become a total quagmire of civil war and indiscriminate Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence and the democratic government of Afghanistan is ineffectual and corrupt. As soon as there are no more Western soldiers maintaining at least a semblance of an order, the entire country will devolve into a long, mindless civil war with whatever group comes out on top becoming the new rulers. To prevent this, you'd have to babysit these countries for several generations and change huge parts of their world view because they simply collide with the ideals of democracy. And while you're right that the capture of Saddam may have been enough to scare Qaddafi into line, there'll ALWAYS be those who think they can outsmart us and as long as they aren't shown the opposite, they WILL be able to cause trouble, directly or indirectly. It MIGHT work eventually...after several decades, perhaps even centuries, countless fallen soldiers and even more civilians. Cynical as it sounds, I think we should just leave these people alone, let them fight each other if that's really the only thing they can do with their lives and focus on our own internal security.

Quoted for great justice.

Well to say that in a polite tone is prett hard, tho lets face the facts. A bunch of cultures envolved from a local history, with totaly different values and believes that did not develope a democratic order by itself in all those years, cannot be forced into a system that needs specific pillars of commonsense to work at all. They dont got those pillars, most of them i believe are still dwelling somewhere between the darkages and a rising rennesaince. As Rayburn said, simply leave them alone...build a nice big line of defence around all democratic countrys and let those simpleminded guys for themselves. There is no way to force someone into his own luck.

This post has been edited by Vidar: 11 Jul 2009, 11:48

[Cobretti]

I'm not sure you understood me...I never said that Iraq or Afghanistan would ever be free Western nations. I agree strongly that a Muslim Arab or Pashtun nation has cultural issues that Western Judeo-Christian nations do not. You must realize that global warfare is not always in response to a direct threat. In this league of operating, you sometimes need to take softer targets to accomplish strategic ends. I am aware that not many people, particularly young ones, can grasp this concept.

Remember, Arabs respect strength and courage above all other things. A strong show of force shows them that the West is not to be messed with. Recall, if you will, after 9/11 bin Laden gloating over the cowardice and effeteness of the west...after all, the US did retreat from Somalia after losing 18 soldiers. The Muslim world saw that as a sign that the US was weak. We proved the middle eastern nations with armies that were weaker than Iraq's army that we can kick any of their asses, and that the US remains the leading exporter of death-on-a-stick to those who oppose us, even if WE originally give power and gifts in the form of money to keep their shithole pumping. Kicking the bully's ass kinda keeps the rest mindful. Saddam had THE most powerful Muslim military. We made it our bitch in two weeks, dragged him out of a hole and had his peasants hang him. A warning to others. Not to mention that Al-Qaeda has been wiped out in Iraq due to the 2007 surge and the placing of General Petraeus in charge of strategy there.

If things go bad in Iraq...it's due to the Iraqi people. We let them have democracy, so if they revert to tribalism, then so be it. Next time we have to invade some Islamist shithole, we burn the whole nation to the ground.

[MARS]

Cynical as it sounds, I agree that this whole shock-approach is probably the only military way to change ANYthing about this. An invasion, as Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us, may topple the oppressive governments but it only leads to years of occupation with Western soldiers standing right in the middle of a mindless shit-storm of a civil war. If anything, an occasional power demonstration should be considered but if that really IS the only thing that works, the West should just admit it rather than sugar-coating the whole thing as 'democratisation and reconstructional work'.

[ultimentra]

I agree with the re-issuing of the medal. It is not supposed to symbolized Nazi tyranny but bravery as it is called. This is just another case of politicians twisting the meaning of words and symbols and trying to confuse the people. As for the War on Terror, I have two cousins who I know very well who both served. One is a tank commander who currently lives in Germany the at US army base with his wife, and the other stationed in Hawaii. They have both served tours in "the sandbox" In Fallujah, Baghdad, and other cities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its different when your family that you know and love tell you stories of the people they have seen die, be killed, or that they have killed. I will simply say one thing, I am not for the war nor against it, but we need to bring our boys home.