I have not made that argument in any way so have no intention of defending it. I do however question your assumption that the above was a critical factor in German military performance as a whole, which is the point I have been making from the start and continue to do - one that you consistently fail to address.Your point would seem to be that the physical conditioning and discipline provided by pre-military HJ and RAD service and a longer military training period are not advantageous (presumably in the latter case after a certain point you are not able to specify).
The fact is that the string of German victories in the early part of the war was the product of a huge number of factors and since we have no way of separating them out to test their individual contribution, we cannot know what their relative contribution was, if any, and this applies to the longer conscription service introduced in 1937 as much as anything else. In the absence of any valid evidence, we can only have opinions and you are entitled to yours, just as I am entitled to disagree with it. And unless you can bring some such evidence this isa where the conversation will remain going round in circles. However, i would point out that the assumption that more training or even any training at all must be advantageous is a fallacy and this has been shown many times.
Beyond that, I don't see the point of pursuing a further course down this particular rabbit hole.
Objective considerations of what? It is probably equally worth pointing out that Poland had similar measures long before the communist youth movement (and the Nazis) in its Scouting movement and others while, the same measures (heavy premilitary conditioning in youth movements and society in general and a 2-year conscription service) in the Soviet Union, which the Germans copied not the other way around, notoriously failed to produce efficient, well trained and effective soldiers let alone an effective army, in many instances. This may be implausible to you, but nevertheless did happen.This seems to me inherently implausible, based on objective considerations. It certainly was to the French, who instead followed the Germans in introducing similar measures. (It should also be pointed out that under the Communist youth movement, so did Poland ultimately adopt a similar pre-military model.)
This would be the case if both men in our analogy were on foot but they were not. The reality is that compared to the Polish infantryman the German one may as well have been on a motorcycle. So are you saying that if the man in a tank or truck with around 4 months more training beats the man on foot proves 4 months extra training is important? If so, please forgive me if I find that implausible as an argument."man on foot with several years training beats other men on foot who haven't had the same preparation, thereby proving that training is important."