The Iron Cross & the Medal of Honor

 

Hans-Ulrich Rudelwas a ground attack fighter credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, 70 landing craft and 150 artillery emplacements. He was awarded the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves by Hitler himself.

Not for saving people, but for destroying his 100th tank. His was the second highest award ever granted to a German soldier. Only Hermann Goering was granted a higher award — for his role as commander of the Luftwaffe in the fall of France.

Contrast that with the first man to win the Medal of Honor in World War II. His name was Richard N. Antrim and he won the medal for intervening when a fellow POW was being brutally beaten by a Japanese guard. At great risk to himself, he saved his fellow soldier. Afterwards, he did something even more incredible – something that saved even more lives. Ask me about it if you’re curious.

 

I share these two examples because they so beautifully differentiate between two kinds of societies. Societies driven by hate, honor and conquest and societies that, for all their failings, aim for something greater.

 

The Torah readers we are reading now show us, perhaps, the very archetype followed by Richard N. Antrim. That archetype was Moshe – a man whose early life was defined by a successful attempt to stop the beating of a slave. Later, when the Egyptians are suffering under the plagues, Moshe does not gloat, encourage or cheer the suffering of Egypt. Instead, he tries to make Pharoah bend to G-d’s command — to free the people — so that the plagues may end. And then he cries out to G-d, again and again, to bring an end to the plagues that are decimating Egypt.

As much as Moshe might recognize the evils of Egypt, he does not embrace the suffering of the Egyptians.

What we have appears to be a perfect archetype. The ideal of a man who stands up for the weak and who, while willing to inflict violence, does not see it as a goal in and of itself. Despite the temptation to see him this way, Moshe is not that ultimate archetype.

After all, everything in Egypt — especially the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart — is part of G-d’s plan and G-d’s destruction far exceeds that which is necessary to free the people.

At the Sneh (burning bush), before a single plague is brought, Hashem says:

וַאֲנִי אֲחַזֵּק אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְלֹא יְשַׁלַּח אֶת-הָעָם
I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go.

If G-d is the ultimate good, then what archetype are we to follow? Are we supposed to revive our prisoners so we can beat them more? Are we supposed to torture those who have already surrendered?

On the surface of it, G-d seems to be saying that might makes right.

After all, the first seven plagues rise from the river below to the heavens above. They demonstrate G-d’s power in space. The last three plagues, from a Ruach Kedima (early wind) that destroys that which was planted in the past, to the experience of death in the present, to the destruction of the future with the death of the first born, demonstrate His power in time.

So, perhaps, that is the goal of the plagues — to demonstrate Hashem’s mastery of space and time. And perhaps the entire cycle must be completed to show G-d’s full power, even though Pharoah has surrendered.

 

So, is this the goal: simply to show the power of G-d?

If this were the answer, then G-d would never have stopped delivering his miracles and wonders. We would not have to seek G-d – or wonder whether He is there. G-d’s might would be a constant in our lives. Our chayalim (soldiers) in Gaza would demonstrate the power of G-d’s people and none would fall.

But this is not our reality. The plagues stop and G-d withdraws.

 

So, what did the plagues accomplish? Why did they have to be completed?

The answer comes with the very last plague. With it, the Jewish people take the small action of offering the Pascal Lamb. Yes, they are commanded to do so but they still take action. That action is what saves them from the plague, it is what defined their families.

With this action, the Jewish people were freed from the Egyptians. And while, some Egyptians brought their animals in upon G-d’s command with the plague of hail, the Egyptian people remain passive, as a whole, until the last plague:

וַתֶּחֱזַק מִצְרַיִם עַל-הָעָם, לְמַהֵר לְשַׁלְּחָם מִן-הָאָרֶץ
And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste;

It is easy to forget, but Yosef enslaved the Egyptians almost as completely as Pharoah enslaved the Jews. With this action, the Egyptian people were freed from Pharaoh.

In a way, they recognize the source of their freedom:

וַיקוָק נָתַן אֶת-חֵן הָעָם, בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרַיִם
And the LORD gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians

When we see the plagues through this lens we recognize something fantastic. The purpose of the plagues is for humankind to take action. It is for us to take responsibility.

G-d uses his power – to make space for ours. These are our archetypes.

We do not celebrate the suffering of our enemies. We do not celebrate their deaths. No, even when we apply violence there must be a higher purpose. Today, if we were following in the footsteps of Moshe, our goal would simply be our security. But we, ideally, follow in the footsteps of Hashem. Because of this we know that we have a far, far, higher goal.

Our greatest hope is that our violence, like the violence of Hashem in this Parshah, will ultimately free our enemies from the hateful shackles their own society has placed upon them. Our greatest hope is that our violence will lead them to honor men like Richard Antrim, and not men like Hans Ulrich Rudel. And perhaps, just as with the Bnei Yisrael in Egypt, our own suffering can free us from the shackles that have turned so many of us against our brethren.

 

This week, Dan Weidenbaum was killed in Gaza.

My wife texted his mother just before Shabbat, about a mundane matter, only to learn of her shocking loss.

In a brief obituary, Naftali Bennet wrote:

אני מאחל לכל אדם שיכיר דן משלו, אדם שאפשר לספר לו הכל ושידע לתת את המילה הנכונה בלי לשפוט, שיידע לתמרץ אותך ולדחוף אותך למצוינות עם חיוך מדהים ולב רחב שפשוט מעורר
I wish for every person to know their own Dan, a person to whom you can tell everything and who knows how to give the right word without judging, who knows how to excite you and push you towards excellence with an amazing smile and a big heart that is simply inspiring.

We do not celebrate his achievements in battle.

Instead, we celebrate how he walked in the path of G-d, seeking to uplift all those around him.

May we carry on, and build upon, his legacy.

Shabbat Shalom

Dan Weiderman – IDF Spokesman’s Office

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Beautiful, thank you.

    • #1
  2. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    At the beginning of  your post you maintain that the Nazi Iron Cross was given for being a successful soldier in destroying tanks, and seem critical of that.

    Now, I don’t like Nazis, and all Germans had a moral duty to not fight for Hitler and to join us in overthrowing him.  I have no sympathy whatsoever for the German people that suffered so much in the war and its aftermath.

    That being said, you are cherry picking two instances of high awards and making a conclusion based on that.

    The medal of honor is often given for saving people, but it’s also quite often given for killing the enemy.  Americans do value those that kill the enemy, as well they should.  I think your premise is way off, and I find it pretty insulting that you think that being a successful combatant is not to be as valued in comparison with “saving” people.

    • #2
  3. JosephCox Coolidge
    JosephCox
    @JosephCox

    Skyler (View Comment):

    At the beginning of your post you maintain that the Nazi Iron Cross was given for being a successful soldier in destroying tanks, and seem critical of that.

    Now, I don’t like Nazis, and all Germans had a moral duty to not fight for Hitler and to join us in overthrowing him. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the German people that suffered so much in the war and its aftermath.

    That being said, you are cherry picking two instances of high awards and making a conclusion based on that.

    The German award wasn’t a cherry pick. It stood completely alone at the very pinnacle. Thousands weren’t given out – just his and the award for Goering (one level above his).

    The medal of honor is often given for saving people, but it’s also quite often given for killing the enemy. Americans do value those that kill the enemy, as well they should. I think your premise is way off, and I find it pretty insulting that you think that being a successful combatant is not to be as valued in comparison with “saving” people.

    A great number of American Medals of Honor are given for saving lives in combat. But yes, many others are given for *bravery*. I don’t think they are often given just for killing a lot of the enemy or overseeing the killing of a lot of the enemy (for which the German ones were certainly given).

    Here are the first 5 ‘A’s from WWII.

    • Richard Anderson hurled himself on a grenade to save his comrades.
    • Antolak won for charging 200 yards over empty terrain to destroy a machine gun nest and break the Anzio beachhead.
    • Agerholm for single-handedly evacuating 45 casualties under heavy fire.
    • Adams for bravery in the Mortagne forest in which he took three machine gun nests, killed 9 Germans and reopened supply lines.
    • Atkins remained in his foxhole repelling the enemy and maintaining his position under intense fire
    • Anderson risked his life to save fellow soldiers and repel an enemy attack

    It turns out my Antrim was just the first ‘A’… I didn’t realize that in my search. But I’m glad I found him because his was such a beautiful parallel with Moshe.

    The first two recipients of the Nazi Knights Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (one step down from Rudal, a lifelong Nazi even after the war) were awarded for shooting down an enemy aircraft and commanding the air cover for Operation Cerebus.  A lot of very high-ranking officers won.

     

    • #3
  4. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    Moderator Note:

    You should be able to debate the issues without the accusations against your fellow Ricochet members.

    So, have any israeli pilots been awarded the Iron Pretzel with Grape Leaves for killing their 100th Palestinian kid yet ?

    “….Societies driven by hate, honor and conquest…” Hmm, well Israelis are definitely driven by hate and conquest. As to the third, the correct ( as opposed to American ) spelling, is “honour”, although it doesn’t really matter since you people have no concept of what it means.

    [redacted]

    • #4
  5. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    [Redacted for decorum]

    [Redacted for decorum too]

    • #5
  6. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Wow. 

    • #6
  7. JosephCox Coolidge
    JosephCox
    @JosephCox

    I realize this will fall on particular deaf ears, so I won’t bother referencing them.

     

    Conquest:

    We conquered Beirut, but withdrew. We took the Suez but withdrew (from all of Sinai). We conquered Gaza but withdrew. We could conquer Jordan in an afternoon, but don’t.

    In over 70 years of ‘conquest’ Israel has expanded (including the territories we don’t control) to be about the two and half times the size of LA County.  

    Not much for conquest.

    We haven’t withdrawn from the post-1967 territories for the same reason we took this: they are such a strategically important area that not having them led Jordan – even weak Jordan – to participate in multiple wars of extermination with a very reasonable expectation of success.

     

    Hate:

    20% of Israel’s population is Arab. Just as with Blacks in America, there are challenges. But, just as with Blacks in America, they have the exact same rights under the law and are in the Knesset and Supreme Court and run companies and ….. 

    Not much for hate.

     

    Honor:

    You know well that I am referring to a specific kind of honor. Not behaving honorably, but being violent purely in order to establish your honor. You know, honor killings cause your sister has a boyfriend. Raping and murdering thousands so you can have the honor of ‘killing the Jews’. etc…. Every society suffers from this. It is when this becomes the primary motivator of a society that society turns evil. Israel has lot of problems, but the low rate of murders by Jews is just one example of honor not running amuck. 

    • #7
  8. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification. 

    • #8
  9. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    I realize this will fall on particular deaf ears, so I won’t bother referencing them.

     

    Conquest:

    We conquered Beirut, but withdrew. We took the Suez but withdrew (from all of Sinai). We conquered Gaza but withdrew. We could conquer Jordan in an afternoon, but don’t.

    In over 70 years of ‘conquest’ Israel has expanded (including the territories we don’t control) to be about the two and half times the size of LA County.

    Not much for conquest.

    We haven’t withdrawn from the post-1967 territories for the same reason we took this: they are such a strategically important area that not having them led Jordan – even weak Jordan – to participate in multiple wars of extermination with a very reasonable expectation of success.

     

    Hate:

    20% of Israel’s population is Arab. Just as with Blacks in America, there are challenges. But, just as with Blacks in America, they have the exact same rights under the law and are in the Knesset and Supreme Court and run companies and …..

    Not much for hate.

     

    Honor:

    You know well that I am referring to a specific kind of honor. Not behaving honorably, but being violent purely in order to establish your honor. You know, honor killings cause your sister has a boyfriend. Raping and murdering thousands so you can have the honor of ‘killing the Jews’. etc…. Every society suffers from this. It is when this becomes the primary motivator of a society that society turns evil. Israel has lot of problems, but the low rate of murders by Jews is just one example of honor not running amuck.

    That’s a typically distorted view of history, which is what I’d expect from you people. Your country was founded by terrorists like Begin and Shamir  ( who were born in what is now Belarus ! ) Netanyahu recently made a speech in Hebrew yakking on about “controlling” everything from “the river to the sea”. You withdrew from various bits of territory because you had to, mostly to placate your sugar daddy uncle sam.

    As to “hate” – well if a white guy said that about blacks,  a gazillion Jewish organisationso would pounce on him and destroy his life.

    I’ll get back to the honour question when I finish my beer.

    • #9
  10. JosephCox Coolidge
    JosephCox
    @JosephCox

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification.

    I’ll respond publicly. I’m flattered you think so highly of what I write that you’d think I was a pro working for a foreign government.

    I’m not. I’m not a pro and I’m not working for any government.

    Even if I were, though, that would have 0 effect on the validity of what I am sharing.

    • #10
  11. JosephCox Coolidge
    JosephCox
    @JosephCox

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification.

    My wife points out that if my content is good enough to trigger this kind of suspicion then I’m obviously not working for the Israeli government. They are pretty incompetent at ‘hasbara’.

    Heck, a bunch of medieval, anti-woman, rapist, anti-queer, authoritarian, theocratic, murdering terrorists who throw their domestic opposition from rooftops somehow look better in the eyes of all who are good and proper in the world. 

    • #11
  12. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification.

    I’ll respond publicly. I’m flattered you think so highly of what I write that you’d think I was a pro working for a foreign government.

    I’m not. I’m not a pro and I’m not working for any government.

    Even if I were, though, that would have 0 effect on the validity of what I am sharing.

     

    You’re just shameless in your believing and repeating lies.

    • #12
  13. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):
    your sugar daddy uncle sam.

    The United States supports Israel because the United States supports the rule of international law as voted upon by the United Nations General Assembly. In 1948 the United Nations voted to recognize the sovereignty of Israel. By supporting the United Nations in enforcing its recognition of Israel, we are keeping world peace.  

    On September 12, 2002, six months before the March 20, 2003, U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush addressed the United Nations. This excerpt lays out the world’s hopes for international law:

    The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war — the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

    . . . 

    Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    . . . 

    To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

    He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge — by his deceptions, and by his cruelties — Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

    In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

    . . . 

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General’s high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

    . . . 

    The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

    The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

    The United States supports the sovereignty of Israel because doing so supports the United Nations. 

    In return, we get the day-to-day certainty that world peace affords. 

     

    • #13
  14. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Skyler (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification.

    I’ll respond publicly. I’m flattered you think so highly of what I write that you’d think I was a pro working for a foreign government.

    I’m not. I’m not a pro and I’m not working for any government.

    Even if I were, though, that would have 0 effect on the validity of what I am sharing.

     

    You’re just shameless in your believing and repeating lies.

     

    Assuming you are angry at Israel for its response to Hamas’s attacks on October 7 and you are expressing all that anger at Jospeh Cox who has neither said nor done anything to deserve it, then I suppose you think we should have turned the other cheek after Japan attacked our navy at Pearl Harbor. 

    • #14
  15. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    MarciN (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):
    your sugar daddy uncle sam.

    The United States supports Israel because the United States supports the rule of international law as voted upon by the United Nations General Assembly. In 1948 the United Nations voted to recognize the sovereignty of Israel. By supporting the United Nations in enforcing its recognition of Israel, we are keeping world peace.

    On September 12, 2002, six months before the March 20, 2003, U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush addressed the United Nations. This excerpt lays out the world’s hopes for international law:

    The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war — the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

    . . .

    Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    . . .

    To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

    He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge — by his deceptions, and by his cruelties — Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

    In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

    . . .

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General’s high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

    . . .

    The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

    The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

    The United States supports the sovereignty of Israel because doing so supports the United Nations.

    In return, we get the day-to-day certainty that world peace affords.

     

    There are plenty of UN resolutions which require Israel to recognise the Palestinian “right of return”, just for one example. If you want to make the UN the final arbiter of world affairs, you can’t just pick and choose which rulings you want to accept or not.   

    • #15
  16. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    Honor:

    You know well that I am referring to a specific kind of honor. Not behaving honorably, but being violent purely in order to establish your honor. You know, honor killings cause your sister has a boyfriend. Raping and murdering thousands so you can have the honor of ‘killing the Jews’. etc…. Every society suffers from this. It is when this becomes the primary motivator of a society that society turns evil. Israel has lot of problems, but the low rate of murders by Jews is just one example of honor not running amuck.

    Your initial post was specifically about German/Nazi vs American criteria for awarding medals. Now you’re bringing in muslim customs about family honour, which isn’t exactly relevant, whatever you think about the krauts in the 1930’s.

    And then you have the nerve to say that jews have a low murder rate. Well yeah, they probably don’t murder each other very often, but if you start counting the jewish bolsheviks mass murders, like the holodomor for example, or the current israeli genocide of palestinians, the per capita murder rate doesn’t look very favourable to you lot, does it ?

    • #16
  17. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):
    your sugar daddy uncle sam.

    The United States supports Israel because the United States supports the rule of international law as voted upon by the United Nations General Assembly. In 1948 the United Nations voted to recognize the sovereignty of Israel. By supporting the United Nations in enforcing its recognition of Israel, we are keeping world peace.

    On September 12, 2002, six months before the March 20, 2003, U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush addressed the United Nations. This excerpt lays out the world’s hopes for international law:

     

     

    There are plenty of UN resolutions which require Israel to recognise the Palestinian “right of return”, just for one example. If you want to make the UN the final arbiter of world affairs, you can’t just pick and choose which rulings you want to accept or not.

    Irrelevant to the point: Are you European? You’re using British punctuation (“right of return”,) and spelling (“recognise”). 

    There’s a lengthy reply to you about the “right of return” which I don’t have time today to research. (As a matter of fact, Israel has tried to make it possible over the years.) 

    But I don’t have to. I don’t pick and choose which rulings I support that the United Nations has issued any more than I support all of the rulings made in my own country by the courts. 

    But if Massachusetts invaded Connecticut, yeah, state sovereignty would be an issue that would get the attention of the U.S. military, with my blessing, and I am in Massachusetts. :) 

    The point GW was making was that in order for any verbal agreements to stand firm, there must be force to support them. 

     

    • #17
  18. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    MarciN (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):
    your sugar daddy uncle sam.

    The United States supports Israel because the United States supports the rule of international law as voted upon by the United Nations General Assembly. In 1948 the United Nations voted to recognize the sovereignty of Israel. By supporting the United Nations in enforcing its recognition of Israel, we are keeping world peace.

    On September 12, 2002, six months before the March 20, 2003, U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush addressed the United Nations. This excerpt lays out the world’s hopes for international law:

     

     

    There are plenty of UN resolutions which require Israel to recognise the Palestinian “right of return”, just for one example. If you want to make the UN the final arbiter of world affairs, you can’t just pick and choose which rulings you want to accept or not.

    Irrelevant to the point: Are you European? You’re using British punctuation (“right of return”,) and spelling (“recognise”).

    There’s a lengthy reply to you about the “right of return” which I don’t have time today to research. (As a matter of fact, Israel has tried to make it possible over the years.)

    But I don’t have to. I don’t pick and choose which rulings I support that the United Nations has issued any more than I support all of the rulings made in my own country by the courts.

    But if Massachusetts invaded Connecticut, yeah, state sovereignty would be an issue that would get the attention of the U.S. military, with my blessing, and I am in Massachusetts. :)

    The point GW was making was that in order for any verbal agreements to stand firm, there must be force to support them.

     

    So if the UN for example, or the international court currently deciding on whether Israel is committing genocide was to rule against Israel, would you support the use of force to support those rulings ?

    Easier said than done when it’s an entity like Israel with nuclear weapons, but surely the principle should apply to anyone ? 

    • #18
  19. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    So if the UN for example, or the international court currently deciding on whether Israel is committing genocide was to rule against Israel, would you support the use of force to support those rulings ?

    Easier said than done when it’s an entity like Israel with nuclear weapons, but surely the principle should apply to anyone ? 

     

    First of all, I have complete confidence in Israel as a civilized nation to (a) not be conducting genocide against the Gazans (the Israelis have been careful to alert Gazans before they move their military into specific regions within Gaza all the while the Gazans have not released the 132 Israeli hostages and (b) to respect the United Nations’ opinion on whatever of their military actions would be considered genocidal in nature. I’m sure they will change them if the United Nations considers certain actions to be too broad. 

    But second, the United Nations’ support for Ukraine tells me that they do care about upholding sovereignty. I’m sure they respect Israel’s rights in this situation. 

    Do I think the United Nations’ rulings and resolutions are sacrosanct? Not by a long shot. They are largely responsible for this crisis in the Middle East. 

    The situation is exactly the same as we face in the United States every single day. The U.S. government is out and out wrong many times and often exceeds its authority. 

    Nevertheless, our government as organized around a legitimate Constitution is better than a civil war. 

    That’s all the United Nations is trying to be: better than war. 

     

     

    • #19
  20. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Irrelevant to the point: Are you European? You’re using British punctuation (“right of return”,) and spelling (“recognise”).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    I’m not European, I’m British. Very British. And I’m fed up with being governed by jewish-owned poodles who do whatever the long line of idiot american governments tell them to do. 

    • #20
  21. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    MarciN (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    So if the UN for example, or the international court currently deciding on whether Israel is committing genocide was to rule against Israel, would you support the use of force to support those rulings ?

    Easier said than done when it’s an entity like Israel with nuclear weapons, but surely the principle should apply to anyone ?

     

    First of all, I have complete confidence in Israel as a civilized nation to (a) not be conducting genocide against the Gazans (the Israelis have been careful to alert Gazans before they move their military into specific regions within Gaza all the while the Gazans have not released the 132 Israeli hostages and (b) to respect the United Nations’ opinion on whatever of their military actions would be considered genocidal in nature. I’m sure they will change them if the United Nations considers certain actions to be too broad.

    But second, the United Nations’ support for Ukraine tells me that they do care about upholding sovereignty. I’m sure they respect Israel’s rights in this situation.

    Do I think the United Nations’ rulings and resolutions are sacrosanct? Not by a long shot. They are largely responsible for this crisis in the Middle East.

    The situation is exactly the same as we face in the United States every single day. The U.S. government is out and out wrong many times and often exceeds its authority.

    Nevertheless, our government as organized around a legitimate Constitution is better than a civil war.

    That’s all the United Nations is trying to be: better than war.

     

     

    Where do you get your news from ? Senior members of the Israeli government are talking openly about wiping out the Palestinians. They’ve ignored any UN resolutions which were unfavourable to them for decades, what makes you think they will start respecting them now ?

    Try looking at somewhere like unz.com for a different perspective. Or go on youtube and watch Douglas MacGregor or Scott Ritter. I’m not really taking sides in a dispute which neither Britain or the USA should be getting entangled in, but you have this very typically American rose-tinted view of Israel. The Israelis are NOT your friends.

    • #21
  22. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):
    I’ll get back to the honour question when I finish my beer.

    I’ll be on pins and needles ’til then.

    • #22
  23. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification.

    I’ll respond publicly. I’m flattered you think so highly of what I write that you’d think I was a pro working for a foreign government.

    I’m not. I’m not a pro and I’m not working for any government.

    Even if I were, though, that would have 0 effect on the validity of what I am sharing.

     

    You’re just shameless in your believing and repeating lies.

     

    Assuming you are angry at Israel for its response to Hamas’s attacks on October 7 and you are expressing all that anger at Jospeh Cox who has not said nor done anything to deserve it, then I suppose you think we should have turned the other cheek after Japan attacked our navy at Pearl Harbor.

    I apologize.  I read this backwards.  I should just ignore threads with idiotic arguments.  Gets me spun up.  I have never been a blind supporter of Israel (they have often been questionable “friends” to us), but in this instance there can’t be any mistake in who the bad guys are.

    • #23
  24. TomRoberts57 Coolidge
    TomRoberts57
    @TomRoberts57

    Skyler (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):

    An earlier comment I made was partially redacted by a moderator.

    I asked whether the person who wrote this post was a “hasbara” guy.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether someone who posts regularly on a website like this is working for a foreign ( and in my view hostile ) government. If the moderator would care to send me a direct message to explain I’d appreciate a clarification.

    I’ll respond publicly. I’m flattered you think so highly of what I write that you’d think I was a pro working for a foreign government.

    I’m not. I’m not a pro and I’m not working for any government.

    Even if I were, though, that would have 0 effect on the validity of what I am sharing.

     

    You’re just shameless in your believing and repeating lies.

     

    Assuming you are angry at Israel for its response to Hamas’s attacks on October 7 and you are expressing all that anger at Jospeh Cox who has not said nor done anything to deserve it, then I suppose you think we should have turned the other cheek after Japan attacked our navy at Pearl Harbor.

    I apologize. I read this backwards. I should just ignore threads with idiotic arguments. Gets me spun up. I have never been a blind supporter of Israel (they have often been questionable “friends” to us), but in this instance there can’t be any mistake in who the bad guys are.

    It’s a bit difficult sometimes on this website to edit the comment you’re replying to, but yes, I agree, there’s no doubt that the Israelis are the bad guys in this particular third world conflict. 

    • #24
  25. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    TomRoberts57 (View Comment):
    I agree, there’s no doubt that the Israelis are the bad guys in this particular third world conflict. 

    You DO know that Israel is not a third world country, right?

    • #25
  26. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    JosephCox: I share these two examples because they so beautifully differentiate between two kinds of societies. Societies driven by hate, honor and conquest and societies that, for all their failings, aim for something greater.

    I disagree with your comparison here.  The Medal of Honor is a medal of valor, but the Iron Cross was not.  It was a medal created to recognize distinguished service and originally one had to be a Prussian Chevalier to even be awarded one.  By WWII, the Iron Cross was awarded to members of the various German armed forces for bravery OR for excellence in commanding troops.  The US awarded 450 MOH in WWII, which would put the rarity on par with the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves which had just over 800 awarded in WWII and another 189 of higher ranks (160 of Knight Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords, 27 of the Knight Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds, and the two you mentions for Hans Urlich Rudel and Hermann Göring).  One reason that the Germans in WWII had to keep creating new levels of the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross was that as the war progressed, they needed to keep coming up with new decorations for people who were still fighting and commanding troops, or, in the case of Rudel, continuing to destroy Soviet tanks.  In all more than 4.5 million Iron Crosses were awarded and there really wasn’t an equivalent award to the MOH, or even the Bronze Star that the US awarded.  

    Is there something to be said that the US (and Great Britain)  have as their highest military decoration one that can only be awarded through valor in combat that shows a disregard for personal safety? Maybe, but maybe not.  As one example, here is the citation for Lucien Adams who won the MOH in France in 1945.

    Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, 30th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division. Place and date: Near St. Die, France, 28 October 1944. Entered service at: Port Arthur, Tex. Birth: Port Arthur, Tex. G.O. No.: 20, 29 March 1945. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 28 October 1944, near St. Die, France. When his company was stopped in its effort to drive through the Mortagne Forest to reopen the supply line to the isolated third battalion, S/Sergeant. Adams braved the concentrated fire of machineguns in a lone assault on a force of German troops. Although his company had progressed less than 10 yards and had lost 3 killed and 6 wounded, S/Sergeant. Adams charged forward dodging from tree to tree firing a borrowed BAR from the hip. Despite intense machinegun fire which the enemy directed at him and rifle grenades which struck the trees over his head showering him with broken twigs and branches, S/Sergeant. Adams made his way to within 10 yards of the closest machinegun and killed the gunner with a hand grenade. An enemy soldier threw hand grenades at him from a position only 10 yards distant; however, S/Sergeant. Adams dispatched him with a single burst of BAR fire. Charging into the vortex of the enemy fire, he killed another machinegunner at 15 yards range with a hand grenade and forced the surrender of 2 supporting infantrymen. Although the remainder of the German group concentrated the full force of its automatic weapons fire in a desperate effort to knock him out, he proceeded through the woods to find and exterminate 5 more of the enemy. Finally, when the third German machinegun opened up on him at a range of 20 yards, S/Sergeant. Adams killed the gunner with BAR fire. In the course of the action, he personally killed 9 Germans, eliminated 3 enemy machineguns, vanquished a specialized force which was armed with automatic weapons and grenade launchers, cleared the woods of hostile elements, and reopened the severed supply lines to the assault companies of his battalion.

    As a comparison, here is the summary of Rudel’s military career that won him the highest Knights Cross:

    Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions on the Eastern Front of World War II. The majority of these were undertaken while flying the Junkers Ju 87, although 430 were flown in ground-attack variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. He was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, severely damaging the battleship Marat, as well as sinking a cruiser (incomplete and heavily damaged Petropavlovsk), a destroyer (the Leningrad-class destroyer Minsk) and 70 landing craft. Rudel also claimed to have destroyed more than 800 vehicles of all types, over 150 artillery, anti-tank or anti-aircraft positions, 4 armored trains, as well as numerous bridges and supply lines. Rudel was also credited with 9 aerial victories, 7 of which were fighter aircraft and 2 Ilyushin Il-2s. He was shot down or forced to land 30 times due to anti-aircraft artillery, was wounded five times and rescued six stranded aircrew from enemy-held territory.

    Rudel was not a nice man and after the war continued to support Nazism, though if one wants to be charitable, he was more anti-Communist than anything else (though from his memoirs he held a strong belief in many of the ubermensch beliefs of the Nazis as well).  

    Does it say anything that Rudel was an ardent Nazi and Adams, by all accounts, was a good man who on two separate occasions achieved success in combat?  I am not sure.  Rudel was certainly more important a figure in the war while Adams exemplifies the everyman concept that the US military used in WWII (and afterward) to great success.  Napoleon gave awards to soldiers to encourage them to greater effort in battle recognizing that some colored ribbons appeared to motivate the soldiers. The highest 3 levels of US medals are all for valor but one need only look at the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley who has A Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with two oak leaf clusters), the Army Distinguished Service Medal (with four oak leaf clusters), the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal (with two oak leaf clusters), the Army Commendation Medal (with four oak leaf clusters), the Army Achievement Medal (with oak leaf cluster), the National Defense Service Medal (with service star), the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (with two service stars), The Afghanistan Campaign Medal (with three campaign stars), the Iraq Campaign Medal (with two campaign stars), the Global War on TGerrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Overseas Service Risson (with award numeral 5), NATO Meadl for service with ISAF (with service star), Multinational Force and Observers Medal, the French National Order of Merit (Commander).  Whew, that is a ton of medals none of which denote bravery, but rather that he was there and didn’t disgrace himself.  This must have been an accomplishment for General Milley who exemplifies (IMO) exactly what is wrong with our military, especially at the highest levels.  He has ZERO awards for valor and yet was our highest-ranking military leader.

    None of this should be considered as a judgment of the rest of your post with which I agree. Given a choice between Lucien Adams and Hans Rudel, I would want Adams as my neighbor (he sort of was since he lived in San Antonio, TX for his post-war life.  Given the choice between having Rudel fight for me against an implacable foe or Mark Milley, I am not sure I would want Milley (unless I was OK with him calling the enemy and telling them of my plans).  That isn’t your point though…perhaps it should be its own post, but I doubt that I could do as good a job as Col Tom Kratman did in his book Watch on the Rhine (part of a Sci-Fi series where the Earth faces an invasion by an alien species that sees humans as food and the Earth as a place to conquer and exploit.  His novel asks the question, if the fate of the human race lies in the balance, what type of warrior would you want to defend you?  It is a good book and a good read where the German Chancellor faces that very question and has to choose if he will use the high tech that the “good” aliens bring that can return elderly Nazis to youth and vigor if it saves his people.

    • #26
  27. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    @Dbroussa, are you familiar with Maynard Harrison “Snuffy” Smith?

    Smith was born to well-off parents in Caro, Michigan. From his earliest days, Snuffy was a discipline problem and a general-purpose pest. Hauled into court for failure to pay child support, the judge gave Snuffy the option of joining the Army, or jail. 

    After completing basic training, Snuffy volunteered for aerial gunnery school. His motive was that by completing the training, he would be promoted to staff sergeant with a significant increase in pay.

    Snuffy’s first mission was one to remember.

    CITATION

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action above and beyond the call of duty. The aircraft of which Sgt. Smith was a gunner was subjected to intense enemy antiaircraft fire and determined fighter airplane attacks while returning from a mission over enemy-occupied continental Europe on 1 May 1943. The airplane was hit several times by antiaircraft fire and cannon shells of the fighter airplanes, two of the crew were seriously wounded, the aircraft’s oxygen system shot out, and several vital control cables severed when intense fires were ignited simultaneously in the radio compartment and waist sections. The situation became so acute that three of the crew bailed out into the comparative safety of the sea. Sgt. Smith, then on his first combat mission, elected to fight the fire by himself, administered first aid to the wounded tail gunner, manned the waist guns, and fought the intense flames alternately. The escaping oxygen fanned the fire to such intense heat that the ammunition in the radio compartment began to explode, the radio, gun mount, and camera were melted, and the compartment completely gutted. Sgt. Smith threw the exploding ammunition overboard, fought the fire until all the firefighting aids were exhausted, manned the workable guns until the enemy fighter were driven away, further administered first aid to his wounded comrade, and then by wrapping himself in protecting cloth, completely extinguished the fire by hand. This soldier’s gallantry in action, undaunted bravery, and loyalty to his aircraft and fellow crewmembers, without regard for his own personal safety, is an inspiration to the U.S Armed Forces.

    Nobody told Snuffy to do any of that. Given his issues with authority figures, nobody could have.  He received the Medal of Honor the same week he was put on KP duty for being late to a briefing.

    • #27
  28. JosephCox Coolidge
    JosephCox
    @JosephCox

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):
    His novel asks the question, if the fate of the human race lies in the balance, what type of warrior would you want to defend you?  It is a good book and a good read where the German Chancellor faces that very question and has to choose if he will use the high tech that the “good” aliens bring that can return elderly Nazis to youth and vigor if it saves his people.

    I can answer this question. I do feel like the fate of the Jewish people hangs in the balance. Our current enemies have completely driven us out of places we lived for thousands of years and have announced their intention to finish the job. Rather than being weak, their sponsor Iran is close to getting the bomb and has repeatedly expressed his expectation that the Israeli cancer will be wiped off the Earth.

    Hezbollah has repeatedly said they intend to make the project global.

    One wrong step and we’re done.

    What about Jews outside of Israel? The world isn’t exactly warming to them either – and in many places they are assimilating into non-existence.

    So what kind of warrior do I want?

    I want a warrior who always has the bigger picture in mind. Who always applies violence with a purpose – not for its own sake. This doesn’t mean they aren’t violent. But they are to be celebrated for what they save – even if they have to destroy to do it.

    After all, just as not all Gazans are bad and none are subhuman, not all aliens who think we’re food are bad and I have no idea whether they are subhuman. We just have very different value systems and  if one of them is to survive, I’ll pick mine.

    • #28
  29. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Percival (View Comment):

    Nobody told Snuffy to do any of that. Given his issues with authority figures, nobody could have. He received the Medal of Honor the same week he was put on KP duty for being late to a briefing.

    Some of the best stories of heroism are by people like Snuffy Smith. I like reading the citations for Medals of Honor recipients and the Victoria Cross as well.  They are often excellent reading, especially if one has the imagination to see what they were doing in one’s mind.  The citations are often…I’m not sure understated is the right term, but they do have a specific verbiage that is used.  I’m told that most MOH recipients are humble about their award and I can believe it.  It is a good thing ™ that we recognize valor, but they aren’t always the best soldiers or sailors.  In fact, the “best” soldiers are the ones that get lots of “I was there” ribbons, and “attaboy” awards, but don’t seem to get the ones that matter the most in wartime.

    • #29
  30. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    At the beginning of your post you maintain that the Nazi Iron Cross was given for being a successful soldier in destroying tanks, and seem critical of that.

    Now, I don’t like Nazis, and all Germans had a moral duty to not fight for Hitler and to join us in overthrowing him. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the German people that suffered so much in the war and its aftermath.

    That being said, you are cherry picking two instances of high awards and making a conclusion based on that.

    The German award wasn’t a cherry pick. It stood completely alone at the very pinnacle. Thousands weren’t given out – just his and the award for Goering (one level above his).

    The medal of honor is often given for saving people, but it’s also quite often given for killing the enemy. Americans do value those that kill the enemy, as well they should. I think your premise is way off, and I find it pretty insulting that you think that being a successful combatant is not to be as valued in comparison with “saving” people.

    A great number of American Medals of Honor are given for saving lives in combat. But yes, many others are given for *bravery*. I don’t think they are often given just for killing a lot of the enemy or overseeing the killing of a lot of the enemy (for which the German ones were certainly given).

    Here are the first 5 ‘A’s from WWII.

    • Richard Anderson hurled himself on a grenade to save his comrades.
    • Antolak won for charging 200 yards over empty terrain to destroy a machine gun nest and break the Anzio beachhead.
    • Agerholm for single-handedly evacuating 45 casualties under heavy fire.
    • Adams for bravery in the Mortagne forest in which he took three machine gun nests, killed 9 Germans and reopened supply lines.
    • Atkins remained in his foxhole repelling the enemy and maintaining his position under intense fire
    • Anderson risked his life to save fellow soldiers and repel an enemy attack

    It turns out my Antrim was just the first ‘A’… I didn’t realize that in my search. But I’m glad I found him because his was such a beautiful parallel with Moshe.

    The first two recipients of the Nazi Knights Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (one step down from Rudal, a lifelong Nazi even after the war) were awarded for shooting down an enemy aircraft and commanding the air cover for Operation Cerebus. A lot of very high-ranking officers won.

     

    Antrim engineered the digging of slit trenches, APPROVED BY HIS JAPANESE CAPTORS, by POWs into the shape of “U.S.”, so they could be identified from the air.  He received a Bronze Star for this action.  Sorry to do the research and post it, but it was too hard for me to resist looking it up!

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.