So let us remove all of the Germans who only fought because they were conscripted, and zero in on those who offered up their lives for what we both agree, I think , was a false patriarchal ideology.
This subgroup would have been, presumably been like the early Christians, who were non conscripted believers in another ideology.
My first point is that there is no incentive for such devotees to reinvent a party line that they would be willing to die for, according to our agreed upon definition. As such, it makes no sense to me that you can suggest that these martyrs would be willing to cover up the existence of a presumed Wife of God or Children of God. If their purpose was to propagate and, if necessary, die for the "truth" narrative, of the Messiahs life, they surely would have mentioned such things, and all concerned parties, keenly attentive followers, would have known if Jesus was married and had children. Conversely, such devoted personalities would not have tolerated any fictional reinventions of their Master's life.
Now to my second thought. You seem to be saying that you believe that the gospels are 'false patriarchal' narratives, in making this comparison. Yet I understand you to be Unitarian Christian. How do you reconcile this apparent paradox? What do you believe, Eddie!?