It is puzzling that the answer to Did German soldiers receive pay after the Allied invasion? was judged so negatively, also on its own, but especially compared to the two 'competing' answers.
The referenced post answers both aspects from the question, and an improvement suggestion from one of the comments below the question. The other two answers leave out the "deeper" part; entirely. It is well researched and amply referenced. The other two are both ephemeral, largely theoretical, and include one link each with dubious relevance to the question or the answers.
Delivering a comprehensive answer on both parts of the question seems unwanted by some. One commentator criticised the question as better to rephrase it into the direction of not D-Day but "right to the end of the war". The referenced answer even covered that, despite the OP not editing his question to react to this suggestion.
Then the referenced answer was criticised as following an agenda: "It's a simple yes/no question. But no occasion can be missed to push one's own agenda about Germans" – Is there an anti-German bias? From what the author wrote or from what he quotes?
Then it was deemed at "denouncing" policies of two states. What is "denouncing" in describing these policies; with agreeing references from reputable sources?
An explicit offer to edit the question was taken up on and primarily concerned with removing referenced evidence for – yes, some calls them as such – scandals quite central to the "deeper" part of answering the question.
Admittedly, it might have been less than ideal how the author handled the translation of bureaucratic German into readable English at first. That was attempted to be addressed with increased precision, yet the quibbles that followed about Ersatzzeit were no longer about accuracy for the occasion but making a stance that might be appropriate for a meta-discussion about a dictionary – but certainly not applicable to the quote in question and especially not if related back to the actual question.
Finally the characterisation of the goals and circumstances when introducing the long standing German pension system was criticised: "dismisses the whole pension system". It might indeed be read as dismissing, but it was just a paraphrasing summary from the words of the inventor of that system and reinforced by citing researchers on that topic who – in the author's understanding at least – support the cynical interpretation of the whole construction. Loving the current pension system and its history so much that the thoughts of the first chancellor, and many that followed him, or researchers on that topic are perceived as so hurtful to justify dismissing this answer seems quite understandable in its illogical furor.
To top it off, the author was personally criticised for taking a "defensive posture in comments" while trying to address justified criticism (which the first comment was certainly not), to explain inapplicable or unjustified criticism, and even explicitly inviting more "criticise to improve comments".
The author fails to see any valid criticism left, towards the current shape of the answer, to not answering the question, to use either offensive or opinionated language on his own. The author also fails to see that the sources might be questionable, the explanations, or the conclusions.
These observations leave largely two possible conclusions. Either there is still something validly described as content-wise 'wrong' with the answer. That would be quite nice to know. Or, the voting on this answer shows a certain irrational behaviour, perhaps even an agenda on its own. If it is the latter, it would be beneficial to hear some opinions on how this pure popularity voting effect might be addressed.
Other than resorting to popular banalities that are prime time TV compatible, currently it seems that "don't mention the war" is the best way around these controversial issues around and about "Germany". Given the site's aim, scope and title, that is not ideal.